The following is an excerpt from Stephen Dohnberg's interview with Matthis Chiroux, "Matthis Chiroux Interviewed: Rise up, People!" (Digital Journal via World Can't Wait):

SD: Your initial court date was changed - why?

Chiroux: My former JAG attorney volunteered for Iraq service and was deployed a number of weeks ago. Thus, I had to get a new lawyer and a new court date. I think the Army may have been hoping I'd already bought tickets for people to be in attendance and it would have wiped out my finances. Lucky for me, I'm a last minute kinda guy. My replacement is a JAG attorney. Thomas M. Roughneen

SD: It's not on a military base - is there a meaning to that?

Chiroux: No. No meaning, I don't think. This is the home of the U.S. Army's Individual Ready Reserve, though, so any other Army IRRers who refuse to deploy and demand hearings will have them in the same place. We're going to try to demonstrate to the military how foolish prosecuting folks and bringing activists to their doorstep over and over again would be.

SD: What is the official charge you face?

Chiroux: "Misconduct." They're trying to throw me out of the Army for it. I'm happy to be discharged from the Army, but will not submit to my refusal to deploy being characterized as misconduct.

SD: Are you confident about your prospects?

Chiroux: I'm pretty confident I won't go to jail, as they'd have to upgrade this hearing from administrative to judicial, but I highly doubt the military will tell me I'm right and send me home to celebrate. That's why GI Resistance is so important to ending U.S. Imperialism. The forces that be refuse to do what's right, so we need to make them do right by leaving them no other choice.

SD: What kind of punishment do you face ? What is the maximum and minimum?

Chiroux: Well, this isn't a court-martial, so the worst thing I face right now is something other than an honorable discharge. That could change though if the Army get's a bug up their ass and decides to Court Martial me.

More information is in "Resistance to an Abhorrent Occupation: Press Release of Matthis Chiroux" (World Can't Wait):

(ST. LOUIS, MO) The U.S. Army will hear the case of Sgt. Matthis Chiroux, an Individual Ready Reservist who last summer publicly refused activation and deployment orders to Iraq, on April 21 at 1 Reserve Way in Overland, St. Louis, MO, at 9 a.m.
Chiroux, a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, refused to participate in what he described as "an illegal and immoral occupation" May 15th, 2008, in Washington D.C., after nine other veterans testified to Members of the U.S. Congress about atrocities they experienced during deployments to Iraq. Chiroux also vowed to remain public in the U.S. to defend himself from any charges brought against him by the military. (see matthisresists.us for a record of that speech and others by Chiroux)
"My resistance as a noncommissioned officer to this abhorrent occupation is just as legitimate now as it was last year," said Chiroux, adding, "Soldiers have a duty to adhere to the international laws of war described as supreme in Art. 6 Para. 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which we swear to abide by before the orders of any superior, including our former or current president."
Following Chiroux's refusal to deploy, the military did not contact him until after he and 10 other IVAW members marched on the final presidential debate Oct. 15, 2008, in Hempstead, N.Y. demanding to question then Senators Obama and McCain regarding their war policies and plans to care for returning veterans. After the veterans were brutalized and arrested by police, (one suffered a fractured skull and is currently suing the police for damages) the Army charged Chiroux with "misconduct" for refusing to deploy, announcing their intentions to discharge him from the reserves as a result.
"I go now to St. Louis to honor my promises and convictions," said Chiroux. "Obama or No-Bama, the military must cease prosecuting Soldiers of conscience, and we will demonstrate to them why."
Following the hearing, Chiroux and other IVAW members will testify about their military experiences which led them all to resist in different capacities the U.S.'s Overseas Contingency Operation (formerly the Global War on Terror).
For more information, see matthisresists.us and ivaw.org.

That'll be next week. In England, two call out the Guardian of Manchester's 'reporting:


President, National Gulf War Veterans and Families Association, and chief scientific adviser to UK Gulf war veterans
Iraq did not lose an opportunity to capitalise on high oil prices in 2008 as your reporters claim (Basra's failed oil bonanza, 16 April). Except for the contentious initialisation of a Shell gas deal, the people have so far marshalled enough opposition to ward off multinational oil vultures' attempts to stake out 25-year rights to Iraq's resources on the back of shock and awe.
Your reporters derive some of their wisdom from one Andy Bearpark, who was private secretary to Thatcher, then "diplomat" in charge of the "reconstruction" of Iraq in 2003, and now director general of the British Association of Private Security Companies.
The convergence of gunboat diplomacy, neoliberal debris, mercenaries acting under the mantra of "security companies", and voracious resource-hungry multinationals is the last blend to benefit Iraq.
Iraq's reconstruction will get under way in earnest when the mercenaries and the American troops follow the British out.
Kamil Mahdi Sami Ramadani
Exeter


The letter is paired with garbage. Malcolm Hooper wants to piggy back his pet cause onto the current war. That's really disgusting. In England, an inquiry of some sort has been promised by Gordon Brown's government into the Iraq War and it will not begin prior to the end of July (and Brown and company will probably attempt to delay it even after British troops leave Iraq -- all but approximately 400 are set to leave by the end of July). Hooper wants to hop onto that inquiry and make it all about his pet cause, the first Gulf War. Grow the hell up, you pathetic piece of trash. The inquiry is into the lies that led up to the illegal war. You want to deal with the injuries and other issues from the first Gulf War, you do that, but not at the expense of the current and ongoing illegal war. It really is disgusting when people attempt to utilize an ongoing, illegal war to advance their own pet causes.

In the US we saw the Democratic Party and their mouthpieces (John Nichols, Katrina vanden Heuvel, et al) push Iraq War as if it mattered but really just trying to create a rage that would allow the Democratic Party to notch up some election wins. The Iraq War is an illegal war, it's past time people stopped treating it as a boat for them to cross the river with, dragging their cause a long the way.


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 4266. Tonight? 4273.



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

iraq
i hate the war
the ballet

Thursday, April 16, 2009.  Chaos and violence continue, Iraq tries to firm up a deal with Total oil, the LGBT community remains targeted, New York Times runs state propaganda passed off as 'reporting,' Deborah Haynes exposes state propaganda (demonstrating what actual reporting is), and much more.      Today a bombing attack on a US and Iraqi military base in Al Anbar Province took place and the results are in disputes. BBC maintains that there were no deaths but twenty-six people were wounded. Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) explains Iraqi Maj Gen Mrdhi Mishhen Al Mahalawi and others are insisting that no one died.  Aseel Kami (Reuters) states 16 are dead with at least fifty injured, that a suicide bomber in Iraqi military garb took his own life and the lives of others by detonating "at the base's cafeteria". At the New York Times website, Steven Lee Myers reports the confusion, offers reports of  "at least 15 Iraqi soldiers" dead and identifies the location as Tamouz Air Base while noting that all journalists have been banned from the base and from the hospital where the wounded and/or dead were taken.  As stated several times already this month, Nouri al-Maliki has no respect for the press, has no interest in a free press and the idea that 'democracy' will ever come to Iraq while US puppet Nouri sits in the catbird seat is laughable.  AP spoke to two Iraqi officers and allowed them to remain nameless, one confirmed deaths but would not give a number, the other told AP 16 Iraqi soldiers had died.  Iran's Press TV also states 16 killed and says fifty were wounded.   While the puppet government attempts to control the reporting on today's bombing, Kim Sengupta (Indpendent of London) reports on a new study by Iraqi Body Count which finds that "[a]ir strikes and artillery barrages have taken a heavy toll among the most vulnerable of the Iraqi people, with children and women forming a disproportionate number of the dead."  The report, entitled "The Weapons That Kill Civilians -- Deaths of Children and Noncombatants in Iraq, 2003-2008," is co-authored by Iraqi Body Count and King's College London and Royal Holloway, University of London in the UK and it is published in the New England Journal of Medicine.  IBC notes:   For Iraqi females, and children, events involving air attacks and mortar fire were the most dangerous. In air attacks causing civilian deaths, 46% of victims of known gender were female, and 39% of victims of known age were children. Mortar attacks claimed similarly high proportions of victims in these two demographic groups (44% and 42%). By comparison, 11% of victims across all weapons types were Iraqi females, and 9% were children. The authors argue that their findings showing that air attacks (whether involving bombs or missiles) and mortars killed relatively high proportions of females and children is further evidence that these weapons should not be directed at civilian areas by parties to conflict because of their indiscriminate nature. As co-author Professor John Sloboda of Royal Holloway, University of London, who is also a co-founder of IBC, notes, "Our weapon-specific findings have implications for a wide range of conflicts, because the patterns found in this study are likely to be replicated for these weapons whenever they are used."   Alsumaria notes the report finds that for all Iraqis, "abudctions of people who are later executed" results in the bulk of deaths.  "Relatives of the dead, most of them women and some quietly wiping away tears, sit in a room trying to spot the missing among the photos of men and boys, many mutilated or severely decayed, cycled on a bank of screens," reports Mohammed Abbas (Reuters) on the unclaimed and unidentied corpses that continue, year after year, at Baghdad's central morgue.   Meanwhile Martin Chulov (Guardian of Manchester) plays 'ignore the violence there, look over here!'  Chulov is all giddy about a reconstructed shrine in Samarra which will allegedly soon re-open.  It's more garbage from a piece of trash outlet and if you're wondering where little Chulov got his 'idea,' Dallas Morning News religious reporter Bruce Tomaso noted Monday an article in the Smithosian (by Joshua Hammer with photos by Max Becherer) which explores the rebuilding of the shrine.  Chulov buries the lede which is that Sunnis and Shi'ites were working on the rebuilding together -- the only point of interest to the story that took beyond the Smithsonian for most people.  Chulov 'forgets' to mention the brief by Tomaso or the article in the Smithsonian and wants you to believe he's reporting on something he witnessed (he's reporting from Baghdad, he didn't go to Samarra) -- that actually is funny.  But the Guardian's nothing but a laugh these days anyway as it attempts to battle Google and whine about profits -- for those not in the know, the Guardian is set up in the non-profit mode.  In reality, it's nothing but a party organ (and therefore apologist) for the neo-liberal New Labour Party.  Any article not pushing/pimping/excusing neo-liberal policies exists in the hope that it will attract readers it might otherwise miss and hopefully bring them over to neo-liberalism during their stop-over.  Joshua Hammer opens his article with:   I'm standing on a street corner in the center of Samarra--a strife-scarred Sunni city of 120,000 people on the Tigris River in Iraq--surrounded by a squad of American troops. The crackle of two-way radios and boots crunching shards of glass are the only sounds in this deserted neighborhood, once the center of public life, now a rubble-filled wasteland. I pass the ruins of police headquarters, blown up by an Al Qaeda in Iraq suicide truck bomber in May 2007, and enter a corridor lined by eight-foot-high slabs of concrete--"Texas barriers" or "T-walls," in U.S. military parlance. A heavily guarded checkpoint controls access to the most sensitive edifice in the country: the Askariya Shrine, or Mosque of the Golden Dome, one of the holiest sites in Shia Islam. Here, in February 2006, Al Qaeda militants blew up the delicate gold-tile dome atop the thousand-year-old Shiite shrine, igniting a spasm of sectarian killing that brought the country to the edge of civil war. For the past year and a half, a committee led by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has been working with United Nations consultants to clear debris from the site and to begin rebuilding the Golden Dome--a $16 million project that aims to restore the shrine sufficiently to receive Shiite pilgrims by this summer. I've been trying for three days to get close to the shrine, stymied by an order from al-Maliki's office barring journalists from the site--an indication of how sensitive the bombing remains in this country. U.S. military officers in Samarra have pulled strings on my behalf with the mayor, Iraqi police officials and the Ministry of Planning in Baghdad. This time, after I reach the checkpoint, a friendly commander of the Askariya Brigade, a predominantly Shiite police force dispatched from Baghdad last year to guard the site, makes a call to his superiors in the Iraqi capital, then escorts me through.   Joshua Hammer wrote a very good article, we don't, however, buy into the belief that it was the moment that changed everything.  The bombing provided photos and the press ran with those.  The bombing was only one of a long series of incidents that cemented the sectarian conflict.   On the political front, Iraq remains in disarray.  Yesterday Corinne Reilly and Ali Abbas offer "Kurdish-Arab tensions continue to grow in northern Iraq" (McClatchy Newspapers) and Liz Sly and Caesar Ahmed's "Establishment of Iraq provincial councils drags" (Los Angeles Times) documented many of the problems and today Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) reports:   Two and a half months after the elections, the 14 provinces that voted have only now begun forming provincial councils, the equivalent of state legislatures in the United States. Five provinces, including Babil, Najaf and Basra, still have no functioning governments, despite a deadline that passed last week, as party leaders squabble over the selection of governors, council chairmen and their deputies.           Elections that were supposed to strengthen Iraq's democracy, unite its ethnic and sectarian factions, and begin to improve sorely needed basic services -- water, electricity, roads -- have instead exposed the fault lines that still threaten the country's stability.   In an update, Alsumaria reports a president and a vice president for Najaf's provincial council has been elected today. Myers refers to the economic 'problems' of Iraq -- other countries have economic problems, the puppet government in Baghdad is rolling in the cash.  Provincial governments should not be effected by the decrease in price per barrel of oil unless there has been major theft within a province. The reason for that is none of them spent all their previous yearly budgets. They stockpiled that money. So were their budgets slashed, they'd still have the excess from previous years which they didn't spend. If they don't have that money, it's because someone or somones stole it.  We'll return to the issue of the money 'troubles' shortly.   This morning the Daily Coverup (aka New York Times), found Alissa J. Rubin joining with Rod Nordland for more please-love-us-and-don't-kick-us-out-of-the-country efforts. This follows yesterday's  garbage (Rubin's "Iraq Tries to Prove Autonomy, and Makes Inroads") made it into print for anyone who didn't grasp what was what yesterday. Today's article never goes deeper than the headline ("U.S. Military Expresses Concern About Perception of an Iraqi Crackdown on Sunnis"). It's not an article, it's a damn press release and your first clue is the fact that the headline expresses a point of view which Rubin and Nordland carry through in their article.  Reporters do not do that. If one person has a point of view and they present that point of view in their article, they also present other points of view. So X is saying there is no problem. A reporter then goes to Z, goes to Y, etc. to find out whether or not the claim is true. Various points of view are presented -- especially when a claim cannot be independently verified. Rubin and Nordland don't do that. They're not interested in evaluating the claim, they're only interested in making sure they were good little stenographers who dotted every "i" and crossed every "t" in what the US military told them to write down. It's shameful and it's embarrassing. The New York Times is never supposed to be part of the US military's counter-insurgency operations but that's what they do this morning and it's shameful and it needs to be called out. There is no excuse for it at all. For the record, the press didn't create the tensions between Sahwa and Nouri. Those tensions were always present and you can go back to 2007 reports and find that. In terms of the Baghdad armed conflict which took place last month, BBC and Reuters were the only ones filing early reports (when the conflict had just started) and those were innocuous reports nothing like what would come out by the end of the day about US forces joining with Iraqi forces to battle Sahwa in the Fadhil section of Baghdad. The press didn't create that armed struggle, didn't encourage it and, honestly, was caught by surprise when those tensions flared up so dramatically.   Yesterday Rubin served up propaganda that rivaled the garbage Eason Jordan attoned for in a Times' column (he admitted CNN regularly covered up stories of abuse in Iraq to curry favor with Saddam Hussein). Today, Rubin and Nordland enlist in the US military in order to pull a fast one on the public in the US and in Iraq. Today they set journalism aside because they've been told they need to serve a 'higher purpose.' Any journalist who has so little pride in their field that they'd do this sort of stenography needs to take a good hard look at themselves and whether they belong in journalism. What Rubin and Nordland have written is an embarrassment and it's an embarrassment for their paper which indicates just how awful their article is. Check "Rudith Miller" for how the paper works. It always cowtows to what the US government wants. But even Judith, even Judith Miller, knew you just bury the contrary opinions when presenting government assertions as fact. Rubin and Nordland present US government assertions as fact but they're worse than Judith Miller. Take a moment to grasp that. While Miller would wait until paragraph 13 to briefly note a voice that called into question a government claim, Rubin and Nordland just eliminate those voices, they refuse to cover them, they refuse to include them.  The US military is doing cartwheels this morning because they dictated an article to the Times and the Times ran it without any efforts to verify it and without any efforts to include any other opinions. This is propaganda pure and simple and, no, that is not how an allegedly free press works.  And for those who wish to play as dumb as Rubin and Nordland, among the people real reporters could have interviewed to round out and evaluate a claim were: Iraqi police officers, Sahwa, academics who follow the situation (especially academics in Baghdad and Dubai) and NGOs. By refusing to do so, by printing 18 paragraphs that's nothing but an attempt at perception management on the part of the US military, the reporters disgrace themselves and their profession. And we return to the  money issue by noting one of the most laughable US military assertions that made it into print this morning, that Sahwa's not being paid due to money shortages. Nouri's got money problems because of falling oil prices, the US military insists and Rubin and Nordland spit back at American readers without question. From yesterday's snapshot, "AFP reports reality, 'Iraq has signed a contract with British engineering and construction company Foster Wheeler to build the country's largest-ever oil refinery, an Iraqi official said on Wednesday'." The cost of the plant? $128,000,000. That deal was announced yesterday. And Rubin and Nordland want to repeat (without question) US military tales of Nouri having to count and watch his pennies.  Remember Nouri always says "only boys who save their pennies make my rainy day."  Alsumaria reports Iraq's Shi'ite vice president Adel Abdul Mehdi met with French president Nicolas Sarkozy today and delcared that oil conglomerate Total was very likely to win a contract in Iraq -- that would mean, pay attention, more money forked over to Iraq.  Meanwhile Simon Webb and Amena Bakr (Reuters) interview Iraqi MP Jabir Khalifa who states that the Parliament is seeking to revoke the contract Royal Dutch Shell made with the country's Oil Ministry because it is "unconstitutional and detrimental to Iraq's economic interests".   While Rubin and Nordland serve up propaganda, independent journalist Dahr Jamail offers some reality at ZNet:      While the US military maintains 138,000 soldiers in Iraq, and there are over 200,000 private contractors enabling the occupation, and the president intends on keeping at least 50,000 US troops in Iraq indefinitely, Obama managed to keep a straight face whilst pressuring the Iraqi government to "take responsibility for their country" and adding that the United States has "no claim on Iraqi territory and resources."           All of this nice talk from President Obama, which he articulated just hours after a spate of bombings across Baghdad killed 15 Iraqis and wounded 27, was complimented by his and Bush's Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who claimed that al-Qaeda in Iraq appeared to be making a "last gasp" attempt to foment sectarian violence in Baghdad. Those who have been following the news about the US occupation of Iraq closely over the last six years know all too well how many "last gasps" and "turning the corners" there have been - of which there are too many to count. This one is no different, and the fallacy of the statement was punctuated on April 10 in Mosul, when a suicide car bomb attack killed five US soldiers, along with two Iraqi troops.                Taking another page out of the Bush playbook for the occupation of Iraq, while speaking at Baghdad's airport, Obama also said the next 18 months are "going to be a critical period." Again, there have been more "critical periods" in Iraq throughout the occupation than I care to remember.               Two days after Obama's visit to Baghdad's airport, Gen. Ray Odierno told The Times that US combat troops may remain in Iraq's cities beyond the June 30 deadline mandated by the Status of Forces Agreement.            Of course, throughout all of this rhetoric, the glaring omission is any discussion about the massive "enduring" US military bases in Iraq and the US "embassy" that is the size of the Vatican City.             Meanwhile, the bloodletting and destruction of Iraq continues.   Surprisingly, Dahr Jamail isn't the only one taking on propaganda.  Peter Baker (New York Times) observes, "For all the perception of a major course correction, Mr. Obama so far appears to be presiding over a foreign policy that may seem more different than it really is.  As Mr. Obama heads to Mexico on Thursday for his second foreign trip of the month, he is bringing with him many of the same American interests as his predecessor, even if they are wrapped in a different package."  On Iraq, Baker explains, "Mr. Obama's decision to withdraw from Iraq is not as sharp a change as it once seemed during the presidential campaign.  Mr. Obama deferred to military commanders in agreeing to leave the vast bulk of American forces in place until next year, when a phased pullout would begin, leaving 50,000 troops in place after August 2010."  The third term of George W. Bush is more than underway as is obvious by this headline at CBS News "CIA Off The Hook For Past Waterboarding"-- no punishment for those crimes against humanity.  Barack prefers to instead just walk on by, don't stop, just walk on by.  How very Bully Boy Bush of him.  The policies of the previous administration also continue when it comes to the silence on the targeting of Iraq's LGBT community as Doug Ireland reports at GayCityNews noting State Dept staffer Felming (who spent a year in Iraq under Bully Boy Bush) dismissing concerns for LGBT Iraqis recently.  Ireland reports:     Hili told this reporter, "There is an intensive media campaign against homosexuals in Iraq at this time which we believe is inspired by the Ministry of the Interior, both in the daily newspapers and on nearly all the television stations. Their reports brand all gays as 'perverts' and try to portray us as terrorists who are undermining the moral fiber of Iraqi youth." Hili said the current homo-hating media campaign appears to have been sparked as an unfortunate reaction to an April 4 Reuters dispatch that reported: "Two gay men were killed in Baghdad's Sadr City slum, a local official said, and police said they had found the bodies of four more after clerics urged a crackdown on a perceived spread of homosexuality... The police source said the bodies of four gay men were unearthed in Sadr City on March 25, each bearing a sign reading 'pervert' in Arabic on their chests." Amnesty International has called out the targeting -- publicly called out the targeting which puts them way ahead of the United Nations, the US White House and the US State Department.  We'll note this section of Ireland's report:   Dalia Hashad of Amnesty International told Gay City News, "Amnesty has been unable to get from the Iraqi government any confirmation that the men are in custody or that they are facing execution, but from what we have heard from individuals in Iraq, they were sentenced to die for belonging to a 'banned group.' We are protesting to the Iraqi government and are continuing to try to investigate, but it is very difficult to get any information about such prisoners in Iraq."   Dalia Hashad is an attorney and, along with Michael Ratner, Heidi Boghosian and Michael Smith, she co-hosts WBAI's Law and Disorder.  Rex Wockner (PrideSource) adds that there is a lack of clarity over whether or not Iraq re-instated (in 2003) a law making same-sex relations illegal.  He quotes  Iraqi LGBT's Ali Hili explaining, "That's what they have been told by a judge in a brief court hearing. I don't think this is in the Iraqi constitution as a death penalty (crime). The court is ... kangaroo-style. It was brief and people weren't able to present legal representation or defend themselves in that kind of court. Our information is that these five members have been convicted to death for running activities of a forbidden organization on Iraqi soil."   In the most shocking refusal to report propaganda, Deborah Haynes (Times of London) takes a train ride in Baghdad and quickly grasps that it is proganada and -- pay attention Alissa J. Rubin and Rod Nordland -- reports examples of that.  An alleged commuter train, supposedly to transport workers, "leaves at 8am -- rather late in the morning for Baghdad's only commuter service" and that's far from the only puzzling moment.  She asks a 'commuter' where he is going and he gets the destination wrong.  And then there is this:   The picture-perfect scene looks too good to be true. There is also the mystery of why commuters are so eagerly commuting in reverse, from the centre of the city to the outskirts. Further fuelling our suspicion, a local television crew is conveniently on hand to film the hustle and bustle.    A press officer at the station tells us upon arrival that the train has been laid on especially for the media. He then changes his story, after seeing our crestfallen expressions, to explain it is a later service that sometimes follows the earlier train at 6.30am. This is really an amazing report and praise for Deborah Haynes for reporting it. Meanwhile Alsumaria reports, "Iraq Army units supported by US air forces launched a wide scale operation in southern Kirkuk after a suicide bombing killed 10 policemen and wounded around 20 others. Second Brigade Commander Abdul Amir Al Zaidi affirmed that two senior officials of Ansar Al Sunna were killed and two others were wounded in the operation after Iraq Army received intelligence about their involvement in yesterday's bombing." They report it and only they report it, why is that?  A major operation, an assault, and where is the press coverage from US outlets?     In some of today's reported violence . . .   Bombings?   Laith Hammoudi and Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Mosul grenade attack which left three injured, a Mosul car bombing which injured three prison guards and a Baquba sticky bombing which claimed the life of 1 Sahwa leader.   Shootings?   Laith Hammoudi and Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 police officer shot dead in Mosul and another injured.  KUNA reports a border clash between the Turkish military and the PKK resulted in 1 Turkish soldier being killed.   Yesteday's snapshot noted the conviction of US Master Sgt John E. Hatley in Germany. In today's New York Times, Paul von Zielbauer quotes James D. Culp ("former Army trial defense lawyer"), "When the first sergeant of a company snaps, taking a sergeant first class and a senior medic with him, it's a sign that they've just had too much." AP reminds, "Military cases go through an automatic appeal process, and his sentence also could be reduced in a clemency proceeding."      iraq the new york times steven lee myers alissa j. rubin rod nordland mcclatchy newspapers corinne reilly ali abbas the los angeles times caesar ahmed liz sly aseel kami paul von zielbauer kim sengupta laith hammoudi mcclatchy newspapers leila fadel hussein kadhim peter baker mohammed abbas dahr jamail doug ireland law and disorder michael ratner michael smith dalia hashad heidi boghosian deborah haynes

Today there's been an an attack on a US and Iraqi military base in Al Anbar Province. BBC maintains that there were no deaths but twenty-six people were wounded. Aseel Kami (Reuters) states 16 are dead with at least fifty injured, that a suicide bomber in Iraqi military garb took his own life and the lives of others by detonating "at the base's cafeteria". At the New York Times website, Steven Lee Myers reports "at least 15 Iraqi soldiers" dead and identifies the location as Tamouz Air Base.



In today's New York Times, Steven Lee Myers offers "Iraq Provinces Try to Overcome Political Disarray" which can be paired with Corinne Reilly and Ali Abbas offer "Kurdish-Arab tensions continue to grow in northern Iraq" (McClatchy Newspapers) and Liz Sly and Caesar Ahmed's "Establishment of Iraq provincial councils drags" (Los Angeles Times). Myers notes this morning:

Two and a half months after the elections, the 14 provinces that voted have only now begun forming provincial councils, the equivalent of state legislatures in the United States. Five provinces, including Babil, Najaf and Basra, still have no functioning governments, despite a deadline that passed last week, as party leaders squabble over the selection of governors, council chairmen and their deputies.
Elections that were supposed to strengthen Iraq’s democracy, unite its ethnic and sectarian factions, and begin to improve sorely needed basic services -- water, electricity, roads -- have instead exposed the fault lines that still threaten the country's stability.

The only thing I would strongly disagree with in the article is Myers notes the economic 'problems' of Iraq -- other countries have economic problems, the puppet government in Baghdad is rolling in the cash -- because the reality is the provincial governments aren't effected by that unless there has been major theft. The reason for that is none of them spent all their previous yearly budgets. They stockpiled that money. So were their budgets slashed, they'd still have the excess from previous years which they didn't spend. If they don't have that money, it's because someone or somones stole it.



Yesteday's snapshot noted the conviction of US Master Sgt John E. Hatley in Germany. In today's New York Times, Paul von Zielbauer covers the court-martial ("American Soldier Is Found Guilty In Iraqi Killings") and about the only thing I'm seeing of interest is this quote by James D. Culp ("former Army trial defense lawyer"), "When the first sergeant of a company snaps, taking a sergeant first class and a senior medic with him, it's a sign that they've just had too much." AP reminds, "Military cases go through an automatic appeal process, and his sentence also could be reduced in a clemency proceeding."

iraq
the new york times
steven lee myers
mcclatchy newspapers
corinne reilly
ali abbas
the los angeles times
caesar ahmed
liz sly
paul von zielbauer

In this morning's Daily Coverup (aka New York Times), Alissa J. Rubin joins with Rod Nordland for more please-love-us-and-don't-kick-us-out-of-the-country efforts. Today's propaganda is entitled "U.S. Military Expresses Concern About Perception of an Iraqi Crackdown on Sunnis" which goes a long way towards explaining how yesterday's garbage (Rubin's "Iraq Tries to Prove Autonomy, and Makes Inroads") made it into print for anyone who didn't grasp what was what yesterday.

Today's article never goes deeper than the headline. It's not an article, it's a damn press release and your first clue is the fact that the headline expresses a point of view which Rubin and Nordland carry through in their article.

Reporters do not do that. If one person has a point of view and they present that point of view in their article, they also present other points of view. So X is saying there is no problem. A reporter then goes to Z, goes to Y, etc. to find out whether or not the claim is true.  Various points of view are presented -- especially when a claim cannot be independently verified.

Rubin and Nordland don't do that. They're not interested in evaluating the claim, they're only interested in making sure they were good little stenographers who dotted every "i" and crossed every "t" in what the US military told them to write down.

It's shameful and it's embarrassing.

The New York Times is never supposed to be part of the US military's counter-insurgency operations but that's what they do this morning and it's shameful and it needs to be called out. There is no excuse for it at all.

For the record, the press didn't create the tensions between Sahwa and Nouri. Those tensions were always present and you can go back to 2007 reports and find that. In terms of the Baghdad armed conflict which took place last month, BBC and Reuters were the only ones filing early reports (when the conflict had just started) and those were innocuous reports nothing like what would come out by the end of the day about US forces joining with Iraqi forces to battle Sahwa in the Fadhil section of Baghdad. The press didn't create that armed struggle, didn't encourage it and, honestly, was caught by surprise when those tensions flared up so dramatically.

Yesterday Rubin served up propaganda that rivaled the garbage Eason Jordan attoned for in a Times' column (he admitted CNN regularly covered up stories of abuse in Iraq to curry favor with Saddam Hussein). Today, Rubin and Nordland enlist in the US military in order to pull a fast one on the public in the US and in Iraq. Today they set journalism aside because they've been told they need to serve a 'higher purpose.' Any journalist who has so little pride in their field that they'd do this sort of stenography needs to take a good hard look at themselves and whether they belong in journalism.

What Rubin and Nordland have written is an embarrassment and it's an embarrassment for their paper which indicates just how awful their article is. Check "Rudith Miller" for how the paper works. It always cowtows to what the US government wants. But even Judith, even Judith Miller, knew you just bury the contrary opinions when presenting government assertions as fact. Rubin and Nordland present US government assertions as fact but they're worse than Judith Miller. Take a moment to grasp that. While Miller would wait until paragraph 13 to briefly note a voice that called into question a government claim, Rubin and Nordland just eliminate those voices, they refuse to cover them, they refuse to include them.

The US military is doing cartwheels this morning because they dictated an article to the Times and the Times ran it without any efforts to verify it and without any efforts to include any other opinions. This is propaganda pure and simple and, no, that is not how an allegedly free press works.

And for those who wish to play as dumb as Rubin and Nordland, among the people real reporters could have interviewed to round out and evaluate a claim were: Iraqi police officers, Sahwa, academics who follow the situation (especially academics in Baghdad and Dubai) and NGOs. By refusing to do so, by printing 18 paragraphs that's nothing but an attempt at perception management on the part of the US military, the reporters disgrace themselves and their profession.

This can't be called out enough, this is shameful and it's disgusting. It's the sort of crap Dexy Filkins got away with it (but that prize will be taken back, you can't let the military vet your copy and win a prize and have it stand the test of time). There's a reporter Dexy hates, LOATHES and the reason is because that reporter (a male, not the female who first outed him as the US military's go-to-boy) refused to play the game of propaganda. That reporter was very clear to Dexy that it wasn't his job or Dexy's to ensure success or failure of US aims in Iraq, his job was to report the truth as best as he could determine it. Dexy, drunk as per usual in the Green Zone, mouthed a few weak ass remarks. Reality is that man has a career and Dexy's praying like hell he can turn Afghanistan into a legacy. He can't. He's a trash reporter who begs for scraps and does whatever the US military wants him to. (Insert joke about toss a Hersey candy bar into his tent and he drops to all fours.) Rubin and Nordland better grasp real quick that the Dexy road is not a noble one, is not a journalistic one and is one that will always haunt.

And we should note one of the most laughable US military assertions that made it into print this morning, that Sahwa's not being paid due to money shortages. Nouri's got money problems because of falling oil prices, the US military insists and Rubin and Nordland spit back at American readers without question. From yesterday's snapshot, "AFP reports reality, 'Iraq has signed a contract with British engineering and construction company Foster Wheeler to build the country's largest-ever oil refinery, an Iraqi official said on Wednesday'." The cost of the plant? $128,000,000. That deal was announced yesterday. And Rubin and Nordland want to repeat (without question) US military tales of Nouri having to count and watch his pennies.



The following community sites updated yesterday:



Thomas Friedman is a Great Man
Bob Somerby, etc.
9 hours ago

Mikey Likes It!
Dahr Jamail and other things
9 hours ago

Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude
who gets killed in iraq?
9 hours ago

SICKOFITRADLZ
Bob Somerby, Glen Ford
9 hours ago

Cedric's Big Mix
Well well well
9 hours ago

Ruth's Report
Margaret Kimberley, Tom Eley
9 hours ago

Oh Boy It Never Ends
The world laughs at David Corn
9 hours ago

Like Maria Said Paz
Matthew Rothschild is an ass
9 hours ago

Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)
Peace, internet access, etc.
9 hours ago

The Daily Jot
THIS JUST IN! LOOK WHO CLEANED UP!
9 hours ago

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

iraq
the new york times
alissa j. rubin
rod nordland
like maria said paz
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
thomas friedman is a great man
trinas kitchen
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
ruths report
sickofitradlz
oh boy it never ends

Wednesday April 15, 2009.  Chaos and violence continue, the US taxpayer foots the bill for what exactly, provincial councils in disarray, and more.   Starting with costs, last week Barack asked for more money from Congress. On Saturday, Julian E. Barnes (Los Angeles Times) revealed that Barack's request "would mean the Iraq war will have cost taxpayers a total of about $694 billion.  By comparison, the Vietnam War cost $686 billion in inflated-adjusted dollars and World War II cost $4.1 trillion, according to a Congressional Research Service study completed last year."  Last night, Mike noted Kenneth Theisen (World Can't Wait) on how Barack's claiming that "Nearly 95 percent of these funds will be used to support our men and women in uniform as they help the people of Iraq to take responsibility for their own future". Citing AP, Philip Sherwell (Telegraph of London) offered the following breakdown of Barack's $83.4 billion request: "The request would fund an average force level in Iraq of 140,000 US troops, finance Mr Obama's initiatve to boost troop levels in Afghanistan to more than 60,000 from the current 39,000 and provide $2.2 billion to accelerate the Pentagon's plans to increase the overall size of the US military . . . Mr Obama also requested $350 million in new funding to upgrade security along the US-Mexico border and to combat narcoterrorists, along with another $400 million in counterinsurgency aid to Pakistan." Julian E. Barnes broke it down as inclduing "$75.8 billion for military operations.  An additional $7.1 billion will go to diplomatic efforts and foreign aid, including $1.6 billion for Afghanistan, $1.4 billion for Pakistan and $700 million for Iraq."  Mary Beth Sheridan and Scott Wilson (Washington Post) offer a breakdown here.  Deidre Walsh (CNN) observes, "About $75 billion of the latest request would pay for military operations, including $9.8 billion for body armor and protective vehicles and $11.6 billion to replace worn-out equipment.  The rest would go to diplomatic programs and development aid -- including $1.6 billion for Afghanistan, $1.4 billion for Pakistan and $700 million for Iraq." Walsh lists $800 million going "to support U.N. peacekeeping missions in Africa" and another $800 million to the Palestinian Authority.  And, by the way, Walsh cites 142,000 US service members on the ground in Iraq.  "By the way" because so many outlets have been following the request of the White House -- but not the Defense Dept -- when first rule of a free press is that you don't take orders from any governmental body.  But a free press doesn't reprint "nearly 95%" without pointing out that either Barack needs a math tutor or he's lying yet again.   A lot of money's being given away by the US to other countries and, thank goodness, the US economic crisis is over.  Oh, it's not?  No, it isn't.  Carolyn Lochhead (San Francisco Chronicle) quoted US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stating, "In the coming weeks, Congress will carefully review the president's request and will engage in a dialogue with the Administration on appropriate benchmarks to measure the success of our investments." Lochhead quoted US House Rep Lynn Woolsey explaining, "As proposed, this funding will do two things -- it will prolong our occupation of Iraq through at least the end of 2011 and it will deepend and expand our military presence in Afghanistan indefinitely.  I cannot support either of these scenarios.  Instead of attempting to find military solutions to the problems we face in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama must fundamentally change the mission in both countries to focus on promoting reconciliation, economic development, humanitarian aid, and regional diplomatic efforts."  Woolsey is correct.  And the Congress can refuse to fund the illegal war at any moment.  If they did, the troops would have to come home.  That's not, "The troops would have to come home after Congress funded the departure."  The money is already there at the Pentagon to cover the costs of withdrawing all US forces out of Iraq.  But Barack's Big Giveaway (which will work for him about like it did for Oprah in prime time, translation, no one wants to see it) is also highly revealing.   Yes, he's a War Hawk.  Anyone paying attention during the Democratic Party primaries should have known that.  Well, not "anyone."  Professional idiots like Tom Hayden, Crazed Johnny Nichols (remember how he just knew that Barack lying on NAFTA was a 'Hillary plot' and he went to Canada to prove that and bragged on air to Amy Goodman that he'd be writing about that . . . but never did because his crackpot theories didn't pan out even though he allowed them to poison the dialogue), Laura Flanders and all the beggar trash that can't get real jobs were fooled because they wanted to be.  But in the real world, most of us could figure it out.  For example, today Kenneth J. Moynihan (Worcester Telegram) reminds why US House Rep Jim McGovern supported Hillary Clinton:  "During the 2008 presidential election campaign it came as no surprise to observers of the Worcester political scene that U.S. Rep James P. McGovern should declare his support for Sen. Hillary Clinton.  The congressman is a friend of Hillary and Bill, and he supported Sen. Clinton for many reasons.  However, when asked about his choice, he usually began with the same words, 'She will end the war.' . . . The congressman never flinched from the position that people wanting to vote against the war should vote for Clinton."  And they damn well should have if they were voting in the Democratic Party primary because she would have.  I believe that, I know Hillary and have known her since 1992.  But those saying "your opinion" are right except for one thing: The 'anti-war' movement would never have laid down for Hillary.  Also true, as we pointed out repeatedly at Third beginning in 2007, Hillary couldn't give the imperialists and industrialists in this country the wars they wanted in Africa.  Barack was required for that.  So voting for Barack was always voting for war and for more war.  And it's become obvious that Bully Boy Bush was replaced by Bully Boy Barack and that Obama will provide the third Bush term.   But still there's this idiotic notion that Barack's 'smarter'.  Who knows what that's based on because it's certainly not based on academic proof -- he refused to release his college transcripts.  It's not based on his alleged speaking abilities -- he stumbles and stammers and uh-uh-uh-uh his way through everything sounding like a buffoon.  But he demonstrates that he is as stupid -- if not more -- than George W. Bush with his plans of how to spend the tax payers' monies.  Like Bush, he's not really able to conceptualize.   Iraq is sending ambassadors around the world.  Find the women.  You won't.  Pelosi says we need to measure the success.  Let's measure it.  Women are worse off and gays and lesbians are under constant assault.  And yet Iraq needs the US -- or rather, the puppet government the US installed needs the US in order to stay in control.  And Nouri does not want to touch the money he's stockpiled.  That is why the Iraqi people suffer economically.  This isn't Bangladesh or any other country dubbed "third world."  Iraq has huge oil reserves.  There's no reason in the world any Iraqi should ever go hungry.  But they do because puppet Nouri really doesn't give a damn about them.  Yesterday, NPR's Lourdes Garcia-Navarro (All Things Considered) reported, "Iraq is now cash-strapped due to the recent downturn in oil prices.  As a result of the drop in revenue, a government hiring freeze has been put in place, including with the country's largest employer: the Ministry of Interior.  The agency has recruited hundreds of thousands of police officers in recent years to help restore a measure of stability to the war-torn country.  As long as the price of oil stays low, the Interior Ministry simply cannot afford to hire more people." Garcia-Navarro notes that unemployment is said to be at 18% according to the United Nations.  [50% to 70% according to Dahr Jamail.] She also reported, "Despite America's own economic troubles, the US is spending $1.2 billion this year to supplement the Iraqi Interior Ministry budget." $1.2 billion?   You can buy a lot of things with $1.2 billion and when your a country giving that amount to another country, you can buy a lot of freedoms.  The Iraq War has pushed Iraq closer to Iran and, no, that was never one of the anticipated 'wins' of the illegal war.  The two countries were pushed together in part because the US installed Shi'ite fundamentalist thugs so it's no surprise that they would be close with their counterparts in Iran.  (al-Maliki, of course, fled Iraq -- the US only installs exiled cowards -- and took up residence in Iran for many of his cowering years before the US invasion allowed him to return to Iraq.)  They have many, many things in common and they will strengthen their ties as al-Maliki and his thug underlings remake Iraq into the fundamentalist state they desire.  The US could have stopped that at any time as the occupying power.  They could have made it clear that human rights abuses will not take place by rounding up the killers of Iraqi gays and lesbians.  But that would have gone counter to the get-it-done-quick motives that led the US to install a strong-man as prime minister.    Maybe Lynn Woolsey will find other brave members of Congress to stand with her and reject even more money for illegal war.  But barring that, Pelosi needs to live up to what she most recently stated.  She needs to ensure that the Congress evaluate what is going on in Iraq and any more money given the puppet government for 'humanitarian' reasons needs to have real benchmarks such as, "X number of women will be ambassadors."  Not in a year, not in two years.  Nothing like Bush's benchmarks that were never reached.  Immediate results.  No results, the 'humanitarian' money is immediately cut off.  As US House Rep Jared Polis stated, "The United States should not tolerate human rights violations of any kind, especially by a government that Americans spend billions of taxpayer dollars each year supporting."  Why is the US funding the Ministry of the Interior -- a thug department -- which hires homophobes who go out and express their homophobia when they're supposed to be protecting ALL Iraqis?  That's not what 'humanitarian' money does.  Allegedly, the money is spent to improve lives.  So let's see some real effort by the Congress to ensure that this indeed happens.  Iraq was not Iran before the US invasion.  Bully Boy's actions pushed Iraq closer to Iran and, for all his alleged 'smartness,' there's no indication that Barack knows any better.   Iraq is a disaster, it is a US-made disaster.  No more money should be thrown to the puppet government but those foolish enough to continue tossing it should be ensuring that every dollar spent pulls Iraq away from the fundamentalist nation that al-Maliki's attempted to build.  At Foreign Policy, Marc Lynch noted, "The crackdown on the Awakenings has regional implications as well, particularly with the ever-skeptical Saudis who have generally supported the Awakenings movements.  The Arab press has taken careful note of their reversal of fortunes, which Adel al-Bayati in al-Quds al-Arabi calls Maliki's coup against the Awakenings.  Tareq al-Homayed, editor of the Saudi daily al-Sharq al-Awsat (which usually reflects official Saudi thinking), complains bitterly today that recent events have made his warnings from last August about the coming betrayal of the Awakenings come true.  The Awakenings were not bearing arms against the Iraqi state, argues Homayed, but rather were protecting the Iraqi state against al-Qaeda and assisting its stabilization ahead of the American withdrawal. But, he warns, narrow, sectarian perspectives in Baghdad are winning out over the Iraqi national interest with potentially devastating consequences."  Marc Lynch shouldn't be alone in pointing that out, the White House should have already figured that out.  (Figured it out?  They should have anticipated it.)  There's nothing to indicate that they have or that they've made adjustments.  Or demands and, again, when you're the country handing over $1.2 billion, you can make a lot of demands. While the puppet government attempts to appear cash-strapped, AFP reports reality, "Iraq has signed a contract with British engineering and construction company Foster Wheeler to build the country's largest-ever oil refinery, an Iraqi official said on Wednesday."  Meanwhile Pakistan's Daily Times reports "Iraqi authorities are currently holding about 26,200 people in detention, including 782 minors and 422 women, Human Rights Minister Wejdan Mikhail said on Wednesday." The paper notes US forces are currently holding 12,800 Iraqi prisoners.   Returning to the topic of Sahwa (also known as "Awakening" Councils and "Sons of Iraq"), Geoff Ziezulewicz (Stars and Strips) files a report today indicating the US is still paying some and focuses on Fadhil.  That's the neighborhood of Baghdad where Nouri's crackdown on Sahwa led to a stand off between Sahwa members on one side and Iraqi and US forces on the other.  Ziezulewicz reports, "The fact that Fadhil remains up for grabs makes continued support of the Iraqi government's efforts that much more critical, said Lt. Col. David Buckingham, commander of the cavalry regiment, part of the 82nd Airborne."  The fact that Nouri al-Maliki has not put more on the payroll, found jobs for more Sahwa goes to the fact that he's taking US dollars from US tax payers and getting to do with it whatever the heck he wants.  It's past time for real Congressional oversight.  Elsewhere in the article,  Ziezulewicz also notes, "While the U.S. military has trumpeted Iraqi forces taking the lead since the U.S.-Iraq security agreement went into effect Jan. 1, Iraqi troops were largely absent or showed up late to some missions last week."  Meanwhile Nouri's mouthpiece on the presidency council, Shi'ite vice president Adel Abdul Mehdi was in Paris today.  Alsumaria reports he insisted that Sahwas were "secretly plotting . . . terrorists attacks in Iraq."   Nouri's attacking the press.  The New York Times always knows how to kiss butt (what, you thought CNN was the only one just because Eason Jordan confessed to it?).  Which explains Alissa J. Rubin's report today which takes the work of the Foreign Ministry and attempts to call the puppet government a success as a result.  While the Foreign Ministry does deserve praise for some of their abilities to function, they are not representative of the puppet government nor of Iraq's population.  Rubin may note 40 other countries have ambassadors from Baghdad but she forgets to note how none are women.  This is just a kiss-their-ass piece to ensure that the Times remains on good terms with the puppet government.  (Nouri is highly upset with reports about his attacks on Sahwa.)   There is no functioning government.  For example, who is heading Iraq's Parliament? Answer: No one. They still have no speaker. So this is really an insult to the readers, this attempt to play, "Look at this functioning government!" As noted in the January 12th snapshot: Willam Brockman Bankhead was the Speaker of the US House of Representatives for over four years. He died unexpectably of a heart attack on September 15, 1940. (For those unfamiliar with Bankhead, he was the father of Tallulah Bankhead.) The following day, Sam Rayburn became Speaker of the House. The following day. December 23rd, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani was forced out of the Speakership of the Iraqi Parliament. The week prior he had stated he was resigning. He attempted to take that back but a large number wanted him gone as Speaker and had wanted him gone for some time with repeated public efforts to oust him. It is now January 12th and they have still not appointed a new Speaker. And they still have no speaker. It's April 15th. William Bankhead dies in office and he's replaced the next day. Iraq's Parliament runs off Mahmoud al-Mashhadani December 23rd and they still have no replacement, all this time later.  Or as Alsumaria noted Saturday, "Parliament Speaker issue awaits solution."  Further indications of the dysfunction and disarray comes from Liz Sly and Caesar Ahmed (Los Angeles Times) who report that the provincial councils still aren't moving along.  Januray 31st 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces held provincial elections.  The results were finally certified and officially announced in March.  And yet . . .  Sly and Ahmed explain there have been "walkouts, boycoots and street protests, highlighting continued sectarian divisions and the frictions that prevail even between those factions that are reconciled to the political process.  On Tuesday, all factions in Shiite Muslim-majority Wasit province boycotted the latest meeting called to choose a governor after street protests were held the previous day against the leading contender." Corinee Reilly and Ali Abbas (McClatchy Newspapers) report that a boycott is taking place in Nineveh Province as well where "Kurds vowed not to return until the Arabs hand over two of the council's top three leadership positions." Alsumaria explains that the Yazidi majority from the Sinjar District of Nineveh are calling for their district to become "an independent governorate that is part of Kurdistan, in protest to the fact that a Sunni list took all main administrative positions in the provincial council."   Meanwhile Caroline Alexander and Ryan Finn (Bloomberg News) report that a Kirkuk car bombing resulted in 10 dead and twenty-two wounded and that "[m]any of the casualties were police protecting an oil installation, President Jalal Talabani's Patriotic Union of Kurdistan said on its Arabic-language Web site." BBC notes 11 dead and that the death toll is expected to rise.  Mustapha Mahmoud and Sherko Raouf (Reuters) add, "The casualties were piled into a police truck, and police travelling with the dead and wounded fired into the air to clear traffic on the road ahead, a Reuters witness said." And they quote eye witness Othman Sharif asking, "What did I do to deserve this?  I was going home from work in a taxi . . . there was a huge blast and I fell unconscious.  I didn't wake up until I was in hospital covered in bandages." In other violence, Sahar Issa and Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) report a Baghdad sticky bombing left two people injured and a Baghdad roadside bombing left two people injured.   Yesterdy at Foreign Policy, Thomas E. Ricks noted one-time CIA asset Ahmed Chalabi has ben making the press rounds and is stating that George W. Bush is "[a] man with very little skill and knowledge" (the better to manipulate him, Wolf Chalabi?) and is claiming that Iran and the US had a deal to topple Iraq.  (In the interview he also cites "Israelis," use the link.)  Thomas E. Ricks is the author of the bestseller The Gamble.     Turning to Germany.  BBC reports that US Master Sgt John Hatley was found guilty today by a military jury ("eight officers and NCOs) in the murder of four Iraqi prisoners and BBC adds of Hatley and other US service members, "When they found four Iraqi men not far from a cache of weapons, including sniper rifles, just a week after one of their own sergeants had been shot and killed, they took the law into their own hands, says the BBC's Kevin Connolly in Washington.  With no real evidence against them the detainees should have been released, our correspondent says.  Instead they were bound, blindfolded and summarily killed.  It is thought their bodies were dumped in a canal but they have never been found."  Seth Robson (Stars and Stripes) explains, "Sgt. 1st Class Joseph P. Mayo, 27, was sentenced to 35 years' confinement after he admitted in court last month to shooting one of the detainees. At a court-martial in February, Sgt. Michael Leahy Jr., 28, was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole for shooting two of the detainees. Both Mayo and Leahy told the court this week that Hatley also shot detainees."   In other legal news, Robert Wilonsky (Dallas Observer) explains, "On September 14, 26-year-old Army Sgt. Wesley Durbin of Hurst was killed at a small patrol base south of Baghdad when he and another soldier, 24-year-old Staff Sgt. Darris Dawson of Florida, were gunned down by a fellow soldier. As The Dallas Morning News noted in September, Durbin was a former Marine who enlisted after graduating Dallas Lutheran School and fought in Iraq, only to enlist in the Army later -- because, said his wife, 'He was a soldier from the time he woke up to the time he went to bed'."  Wilonsky noted that US Army Sgt Joseph Bozicevich is accused of murdering Wesley Durbin and Darris Dawson.   UPI notes that "Durbin and Dawson allegedly were shot while counseling Bozicevich for what the squad leaders considered was his poor performance".  Frenchi Jones (Coastal Courier) reports that the court-martial heard more testimony today and that none of the witnesses had testimony similar to Staff Sgt John Dresel's Tuesday:   Bozicevich: Mother [expletive], I am going to kill you.     Darris Dawson: Why? Stop. Please don't shoot.     Jones adds, "According to Dresel, the person on the ground lay three or four feet from the figure.  At first, he said, he didn't know if the two figures were enemies or allied troops.  Suddenly, there was more fire.  The man with the gun discharged two shots into the body, the muzzle flash from the weapon lit up the night, revealing the shooter's identity."  Dresel.   In non-Iraq news, Women's Voices, Women's Votes announces:   Together with the other groups - in what WVWV has identified as the Rising American Electorate - African-Americans, Hispanics, non-whites, and young people (52% of the population)- unmarried women dramatically increased their voter participation and changed America's leadership and direction. Now, recently released statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau further explain why unmarried women are the decisive demographic in this country and the cutting-edge of the Rising American Electorate. Unmarried women are the largest fastest growing demographic group. At a time when voter participation slightly declined among all adult Americans, unmarried women registered and voted in significantly greater numbers than ever before. In fact, unmarried women's growing participation was essential to the increase in voting by young people, non-whites, African-Americans and Hispanics. They are the consistent outperformers of the 2008 turnout. Much remains to be done before unmarried women participate in our democracy in proportion to their growing numbers, and advance the issues that address their needs, including employment, fair pay, universal health coverage, and increased investments in child care, public education, college opportunity, and career training. But, together we have made great progress. These facts from the Census Population Survey analysis of the voting-eligible population show how much we have achieved - and how far we still have to go. (The Census Bureau statistics represent "real numbers" and are more accurate than last year's exit polls, which understated the voter participation of unmarried women.)     Finally, independent journalist David Bacon, whose latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press), covers the Employee Free Choice Act in "Why workers need the Employee Free Choice Act" (San Francisco Chronicle): Unions are good for workers. Today, median weekly pay for union members is $886, compared to $691 for nonunion workers. Moving cargo on the Oakland waterfront pays three times what stocking shelves does at Wal-Mart because longshore workers have had a union contract since 1934. In 1936, Congress recognized the value of unions and passed the National Labor Relations Act, setting up a legal system in which private sector, nonfarm workers could join unions and bargain. The preamble declares the law's purpose: "encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and ... protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing." Today, however, the law is virtually unable to fulfill its intended function. Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, has proposed commonsense measures to restore its effectiveness in the Employee Free Choice Act. Employers are mounting a hysterical campaign against it, even calling it "bolshevism," and claiming to be protectors of their workers' rights. We need a reality check about what really happens when workers try to organize.   iraq the los angeles times julian e. barnes deidra walsh carolyn lochhead the san francisco chronicle npr all things considered lourdes garcia-navarro thomas e. ricks mcclatchy newspapers corinne reilly ali abbas the los angeles times caesar ahmed liz sly the new york times alissa j. rubin david bacon