The Common Ills


Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Iraq snapshot

Iraq snapshot

Wednesday, July 1, 2009.  Chaos and violence continue, Kenneth Pollack Laments, Patrick Murphy tackles Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and more.
 
Today US House Rep Patrick Murphy spoke about the need to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The Clinton era compromise came about when Colin Powell and others flaunted their homophobia and refused to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, a pledge Bill Clinton campaigned upon.  The compromise was that you couldn't be asked about your sexuality and you couldn't talk about it.  Unless you were straight.  It was a compromise and, for that time period, a step forward.  Today is out of date and out of step.  Josh Drobnyk (Pennslyvania Ave. Blog) reports that with Ellen Tauscher's departure from Congress (she's now Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security), Murphy will now take the lead on the Military Readiness Enhancement Act which would not only repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, it would also allow everyone to serve regardless of their sexuality and with no requirement that they hide who they are.  Iraq War veteran Murphy states, "This is going to take months and months, but change is going to happen."  Yesterday Lt Dan Choi learned that a US Army board was recommending he be discharged because he is gay and refuses to hide in a closet.  Martin Wisckol (Orange County Register) quotes Choi, "I'm a leader.  A setback is an opportunity to keep fighting, and I'm going to do that through my actions."  Yesterday Jasmyn Belcher (WRVO -- audio and text) spoke with Choi who explained, "My job is to be here and to continue being an officer everything I was trained to do regardless of the discomfort, regardless of the emotions that are going on, you still do your duty.  I believe this is my duty to stand up and to fight to stay in."  Choi is not done fighting and hopefully he will be successful at a higher level but if he's not he will be, as Stan noted last night, the 266th US service member to be discharged for being gay since Barack Obama was sworn in as president.  If Barack wanted to, all he need do is issue an executive order for a stop-loss on discharges under Don't Ask, Don't Tell. That would stop it right away. Congress could then address it but all the people (over 200 under Obama already) being discharged would no longer be drummed out of the military as a result of that executive order.  CNN notes this citing Knights Out's Sue Fulton: "Fulton said that while Obama can't change the law himself, he could sign an executive order halting discharges while the policy is under review." Barry O likes to play helpless but he's not. One executive order is all it would take.  The Syracuse Post-Standard editorializes for the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy to be eliminated and observes that "enforcing the policy has cost taxpayers more than $400 million since 1994."
 
Joe Garofoli (San Francisco Chronicle) adds, "Still, some analysts say Choi's case is another example of how Washington leaders aren't showing much urgency -- or leadership -- in overturning 'don't ask, don't tell.'  Obama has said he wants Congress to overturn the law; congressional laders say they are waiting for the president to take the lead; and military leaders say they won't change the policy unless directed by Congress."  Mike McAndrew and Mark Weiner (Syracuse Post-Standard) report Choi "said he refuses to lie about being involved in a relationship with another man.  Choi said the relationship has made him a better person, a better Christian and a better officer."  Alexa James (Times Herald-Record) quotes Choi explaining, "All I did was tell the truth.  I refused to lie about my boyfriend.  His name is Matthew, not Martha."
 
 
Sahar Issa: National Sovereignty Day, of course, is a day that is celebrated by the hearts of all Iraqis, you must know that Iraqi's pride -- is a proud country -- Iraqis are proud people.  It is difficult for them not to be happy at the action of foreign troops leaving their cities and streets.  At the same time that they are happy to gain control over their streets and cities there is doubt in their hearts whether the Iraqi security forces are actually adequate to the task that is in front of them in the coming days and weeks and months of keeping the peace and keeping the population secure.  This is as the bottom of the doubts that you see: Is the Iraqi force actually adequate to the task?  Are the Iraqi forces infiltrated by many? The Iraqi force has been formed upon somewhat sectarian lines.  The Iraqi force also because of the administrative corruption -- has many people who have brought in their relatives, their friends, their neighbors, people who are not professional. And after six years, perhaps it would be a legitimate question to ask and to forward to the American forces: after six years of training they have understaken to present Iraq with a new force after dismantling the old one, why isn't the Iraqi force actually adequate to the task?  The people of Iraq ask this question.  It is the first question they ask.  They are still not confident that the Iraqi forces are capable.
 
Those observations jibe with those of Alissa J. Rubin's (New York Times), "The excitement however, has run hollow for many Iraqis, who fear that their country's security forces are not ready to stand alone and who see the government's claims of independence as overblown."   Back to the Democracy Now! segment:
 
 
JUAN GONZALEZ: And, Sahar Issa, what about the ability of the Iraqi government to provide basic services to the population? There's obviously many reports of corruption within the government and continued infighting among the various factions. How has the public seen the ability of the government to administer the society?

 
SAHAR ISSA: To tell you the truth, if you look back a little bit, you will find that with the height of violence that only started coming down in the beginning of 2008, and while human life was at stake, violence was like a blanket, cutting off a cross-section of what is really happening inside the Iraqi government, because everything was so clouded, people were hurt, they couldn't look further than their lot. 
But when the violence ebbed after the beginning of 2008, people started picking up the reins of their lives, looking around to see what was going on. And they found, horrendously, that the government is totally riddled with corruption. It is totally built on tribal and sectarian bases, where people have their relatives in very sensitive places simply to make the profit. And the confidence in Iraqis that they had at first when they went to elect their government, they lost this confidence. They said, "Then what is the difference, if it is going to be tribal again? What is the difference between this government and the past, even if it is elected, if it is going to use the same lines?" 
And that is, of course, part of the problem, is that it is not a matter of just putting the government out there. The problem is this government needs to gain the confidence of the people. It needs to give them something that they can hold onto. It needs to look at their very difficult lives. They didn't have electricity when the -- you know, outside this building, if I walk out now, it is so hot, toys will melt in cars. To just to give you an idea, toys will melt in cars. That is the heat. And people don't have electricity. After six years, they don't have water in their homes. 
I spoke to a person yesterday in Beya'a neighborhood, when we were touring the city for reactions. And she said, "How can I be happy with sovereignty, if sovereignty has not brought me enough water to bathe, I can't wash my clothes, if I don't have electricity so I can sleep at night? What kind of sovereignty is this?"
We are struggling, my dear friend. We are struggling so hard to reach square one. And so far, we haven't achieved it yet.

                
AMY GOODMAN: Sahar Issa, are you afraid of having your image known, of being identified as a reporter?                

 
SAHAR ISSA: Oh, certainly, certainly, certainly. Working for a foreign -- never mind a US, American -- news agency will have me very clearly titled as the pastor's pie or working for the occupation. People -- the simpler people, let us say -- can't differentiate between a person who is picking up information and lighting things and making things public for -- to, how do you say, to extend a hand to other people to know what is actually going on inside our country. They can't tell the difference between this person and the person who's gathering information perhaps for intelligence preferences. And therefore, yes, of course, I am afraid. No one knows. Only my parents and my children and the people working with me know. And even the people who are working with me, not all of them know where I live. That's how bad it is.   
 
Jeremy Scahill was also a guest on the segment.
 
JEREMY SCAHILL: Right. I mean, this is a very contrived sort of Hallmark holiday here. I doubt that decades from now many Iraqis are going to be, you know, telling their grandchildren where they were on National Sovereignty Day. I mean, remember the whole stumbling of President Bush: when he declared Iraqi sovereignty, he talked about the definition of sovereignty as a sovereign entity. Paul Bremer already officially handed over sovereignty to the Iraqis five years ago, and yet we have 130,000 US troops that remain in the country. This really is George Bush's Iraq plan that Barack Obama is now implementing and taking the political risk of implementing, because if the violence blows up, then of course it looks very much like Barack Obama has been a failure in Iraq, and not George Bush. So Obama, in many ways, has played into the Bush administration's hand.             
But we can see the clearest endgame of the US occupation in the fact that the Iraqi government, on a day when they declare their own sovereignty and you have the US military commander handing over the keys to the Defense Ministry, the Iraqi Oil Ministry opens up the country for bidding now on its oil resources, and you had eight of the ten top oil companies in the world that are not part of a nationalized state apparatus. In other words, eight of the ten most powerful private oil corporations in the world are now bidding for large shares of the Iraqi oil supply. I mean, to me, this is a grotesque symbol of what exactly is happening in Iraq.
And let me just say, Juan, that while we're seeing the sort of contrived celebrations, where ordinary Iraqis, for the most part, are not permitted to go into these big celebrations -- it's largely off-duty police officers, Iraqi soldiers and dignitaries -- the reality is that US soldiers are simply going to the outskirts of the cities and could easily go in to strike at them. General Ray Odierno, the top US military commander there, would not be clear on how many US soldiers are going to remain in the region. At the end of the day, the US has a massive eighty-football-field-size embassy. They have thousands upon thousands of contractors, 130,000 troops still in the country. And they're going to keep a force of 35,000 to 50,000 residual US forces when Obama is officially done withdrawing from Iraq.
So, in reality, we see Barack Obama implementing, almost to the letter, George Bush's and the neocons' plan for Iraq, while putting a Democratic stamp on it and essentially downsizing and rebranding what remains a US occupation. So, no, this is Hallmark holiday stuff. And I think it's clear for anyone who's been following this that this is the same situation as when Bush tried to declare Iraqi sovereignty, when Paul Bremer snuck out of Baghdad in June of 2004.
 
 
While a lot of the media hype today focuses on the U.S. "withdrawal," that is hardly the reality. As previously reported, U.S. military commanders have said they are preparing for an Iraq presence for another 15-20 years, the U.S. embassy is the size of Vatican City, there is no official plan for the withdrawal of contractors and new corporate mercenary contracts are being awarded. The Status of Forces Agreement (SoFA) between the U.S. and Iraq gives the U.S. the right to extend the occupation indefinitely and to continue intervening militarily in Iraq ad infinitum. Article 27 of the SoFA allows the U.S. to undertake military action, "or any other measure," inside Iraq's borders "In the event of any external or internal threat or aggression against Iraq."                  
As the airwaves and internet are flooded with reports of this new Iraqi sovereignty and U.S. withdrawal, it is important to remember a bit of history. Five years ago -- almost to the day -- President Bush put on an almost identical show. His proconsul L. Paul Bremer "handed over sovereignty" to the Iraqi government just before he skulked out of Baghdad on a secret flight (right after he issued an order banning Iraq from prosecuting contractors). Despite the pronouncements and proclamations and media hype, the occupation continued and real sovereignty was non-existent.
 
Meanwhile CNN reports that Moqtada al-Sadr has released a call for all US forces to leave Iraq and stated their presence "shows that the (Iraqi) government and the occupation are not serious about the withdrawal".  Noting the silence on Iraq in the US,  Dan Baltz asks "Have We Forgotten Iraq?" (Washington Post) in which he wonders, "If they [the White House] are wrong [about Iraq being able to stand up], there may be questions about what kind of country Americans are preparing to leave behind.  Obama could find himself under pressure to adjust the withdrawal timetable."  Or he could realize that it was a mistake to delay withdrawal because there is nothing else the US military can do (even the war hawks should agree with that) and allowing them to remain in the country as babysitters really turns them into sitting ducks of the continued occupation.  And let's stop pretending the White House doesn't have plans.  As we noted in Third's "Editorial: Save us from the panty sniffers" Sunday, US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill gave a press conference in the US June 18th:
 
What should have bothered Americans was Hill's refusal to discuss "contingency plans" for Iraq should the (partial) pull-back from cities (June 30th) result in increased violence. "Well, again," he repeated, "I don't want to discuss contingency plans." Why not?     
And why aren't these contingency plans known to the American public?
 
While Thomas E. Ricks (Foreign Policy) ignored Hill's press conference, he feels something important is missed from the press conference Gen Ray Odierno held yesterday in Baghdad: "We'll be operating in the belts around Baghdad."  Ricks takes that to mean "that the U.S. strategy in the coming months will be to try to protect Baghdad by cutting off insurgents and militias operating in the fields, towns and palm groves that surround much of the capital.  And that was where some of the heaviest fighting took place during the spring and summer of 2007, as 'the surge' began."  So that may be, that may be, as Cass Elliot once sang ("California Earthquake") but equally true, and reporters know this, when a person loses it at a scheduled press conference, that's also known as "very telling."  Translation, Reuters shouldn't have been the only outlet to report on Odierno Earthquake yesterday.  And, no, Ricks hasn't written of that.
 
Here's some of the exchange from the DoD transcript:

Q General, it's Andrew Gray from Reuters. You talked about a small number of U.S. forces remaining in the cities to train and advise. Can you put a figure? How many U.S. forces will remain?


GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah, people have been trying to get me to say a figure now for about a month. And the reason I won't do it is because it's going to be different every single day, and it'll be based on how much training, how much advising, how much coordination is required. That will change each and every day. So I won't put a number on it.  It is a smaller number, a significantly smaller number than what we've had in the cities now. But it has very specific missions: train the Iraqi security forces, advise them as we continue to move forward, enable them in order to -- potentially if they need some help with aviation, logistics, et cetera. But more -- almost as important, coordinate and help us to continue our situational awareness of all situations within Iraq. And that will help us to better support the Iraqi security forces.
 
Q General, just to follow up briefly, I am disappointed you didn't give us the scoop after a month of holding out, but I wonder if you could at least give us a -- you know, is it an -- a few thousand? If you could give us a kind of ballpark -- are we talking about several thousand? Would that be a reasonable ballpark to use?



GEN. ODIERNO: Again -- again, there's hundreds of cities around, and we have hundreds of -- you know, and I've let the local commanders work this out. So for me to give a number would frankly be inaccurate, and I just don't want to do it. There'll be trainers, advisers, helping throughout all of the Iraqi cities where we continue to support and advise Iraqi security forces.


Q Whatever the number is, how are you going to convince them basically, the U.S. forces remaining, not to jump in and be helpful, where perhaps you would prefer that the Iraqis take the lead? What will be different about what they're told to do, in a situation where they might think, their first instinct is, gosh, we can do that better.
 
GEN. ODIERNO: Well, again this is -- I call it -- we are working on changing our mindsets in the city. And I equate it to when we first started the surge, where we had to change our mindset.  So pushing our soldiers back out, getting back into the communities, really partnering with the Iraqi security forces and today, it's the same kind of thing. We have to change our mindset.  When we're in the cities, there's very specific things that we'll do. Actually we've been out of the cities, a large majority of the cities now, for the last eight months. So it's really only Mosul and the last remnants that we've had, in Baghdad, that have pulled out over the last few weeks.  So we've actually been implementing this in many parts of Baghdad for a long time. And they understand what their mission is. They understand what we expect them to do. And you know, we have worked this very closely with all of the leaders in Iraq.  We've worked -- I've worked very closely with the minister of defense, the minister of interior, the operations commanders, the operational commanders in order to work this out. And I feel very comfortable with where we're at.
 
Q General, it's Tom Bowman with NPR.   I mean, you're reluctant to talk about how many trainers and mentors are in the cities. And it raises a question about whether or not this is just a show or not whether, you know, this is just semantics.  There are essentially U.S. soldiers with guns in the cities. You can call them trainers or mentors. But how different is it from what we saw maybe two-three weeks ago? And if you have U.S. soldiers just outside the cities, I mean, what is this? Is this just a show for the American people?
 
GEN. ODIERNO: Well, I would say, you probably didn't listen to what I just said. Because what I just said was, having battalions and brigades inside a city is significantly different than having trainers, advisers and MiTT teams. And I said, we'll be operating in the belts around Baghdad. I've been very clear about this, just like we did in the surge. We had -- the reason we had to surge forces is, we had to get people in the cities. And then we had to eliminate safe havens and sanctuaries in the belts around Baghdad.  It's the same thing, except the Iraqis will take responsibility for security in the cities. We will continue to do full-spectrum operations, outside of the cities, to work the safe havens and sanctuaries around the cities. And we will continue to do that. And it's legitimate, legitimate operations that we'll continue to conduct outside of the cities.  If you're here in Baghdad, you would know. There is a significant change inside of the cities.  There are thousands among thousands of soldiers that have pulled out of Baghdad. There -- and there hasn't been any soldiers in the cities in southern Iraq, there hasn't been any soldiers in the cities in Ramadi, there hasn't been any soldiers in the cities in Fallujah for months now. And we've been executing this very well.  So again, if you're here in Iraq, you would see it for yourself there is a significant change.
 
As we noted yesterday, he apologized for his outburst (and referred to it as his "temper").  But that's a key moment of the press conference and not just because some reporters are now talking of starting a pool to see how quickly they can get Odierno to explode in the next press briefing, but also because that's not normal behavior from him.  He's under huge pressure from the White House to walk their line and stick to their script and his feelings are rather well known about that at this late date.  The troops haven't left Mosul and are not leaving Baghdad and no one knows what else and no one knows how many.  Except Ray Odierno.  He knows exactly what is going on with US troops in Iraq.  And he's not allowed to reveal that.  That's where his frustration comes in.  He felt like the biggest idiot in the world because he couldn't answer the question that he knew the answer to but which the White House won't let him speak on.  That, Thomas E. Ricks, is an important detail.
 
Now let's sit down at the piano, it's time for "Miss Kenneth Laments" -- the lost Cole Porter song.  "Sure, well, first, of course," hemmed and hawed War Hawk and Cheerleader Kenny Pollack, "as listeners of your show are aware, 'cause I've been on the show any number of times to talk about, this, I did believe that an, uh, invasion would be necessary but not the invasion that we got.  Not in the time that we did it, not in the way that we did it, not how we did it or with whom we did it.  As for what have we accomplished?  I think the jury is still out."  Brookings Boy Kenny sure was nervous and, please note, his 'answer' was to a question about whether or not the Iraq War was worth it.  Monday on NPR's The Diane Rehm Show, Diane explained, "And here's a question for you, Ken Pollack, you were among those who favored US invasion of Iraq.  What do you believe we have gained if anything?"  The question wasn't did he support the illegal war before it started.
 
And yet, he nervously stated, before getting to the question he'd been asked, ""Sure, well, first, of course, as listeners of your show are aware, 'cause I've been on the show any number of times to talk about, this, I did believe that an, uh, invasion would be necessary but not the invasion that we got.  Not in the time that we did it, not in the way that we did it, not how we did it or with whom we did it."  First, let's again note, this is the talking point and War Hawks pushed it after Vietnam as well.  It goes like this: "The problem wasn't the war and its illegality, the problem was the way it was fought."  No, the problem was the war.  As for what he advocated for?  His 2002 book Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq made it pretty clear in the title but in it he argues for the US "to mount a full-scale invasion of Iraq to smash the Iraqi armed forces, depose Saddam's regime, and rid the country of weapons of mass destruction."   Saddam had no WMDs.  Kenny boy forgot to include that on NPR Monday.  He forgot to admit that or own any of his mistakes.  Instead, he wanted to complain that the war he dreamed of arrived in the wrong size and color. 
 
The Wall St. Journal's Gina Chon appears briefly at the start of the program, reporting from Iraq, but technical difficulties sideline her. 
 
Diane Rehm: Okay, let's talk about what the Iraqi people can and cannot do.
 
Paul Pillar: As part of the bargaining that Prime Minister Maliki had to get agreement with his cabinet and Parliament for the security agreement, he agreed that there would be a referendum to approve or disapprove the agreement.  Your caller is correct that July 30th was the date that had  been previously set but it appears that it is most likely going to be delayed until January to coincide with the Parliamentary election.  So that will be an important outcome -- whether or not the Iraqi people approve it.  If they disapprove it, then what -- as I understand the agreement -- what comes into play is the withdrawal clause which basically says 'either party has a year to terminate the agreement' which means that would move up the deadline for all US forces to -- to get out by almost a year -- to 2010 rather than 2011. But, again, that does not preclude some new agreement being negotiated between the governments of the day in Baghdad and Washington.
 
Kenneth Pollack: This is a really important point because what you're seeing now is the Iraqis using the politics to deal with the security situation in potentially very difficult ways, dangerous ways.  We talked a lot about how the Iraqis, the Iraqi people, are ambivalent about the agreement.  We haven't talked about Prime Minister Maliki and his own ambivalence.  At one level, he knows that he can't allow the country to fall apart and he's nervous that his own security forces can't hold it together.  By the same token though, he sees the United States as an impediment to his consolidation of power and I think that there's a lot of evidence to suggest that he's moving it to January in hope that it will either discredit all of his political adversaries or cause a termination of the agreement prematurely exactly as Paul was suggesting.
 
[. . .]
 
Diane Rehm: Just before the break, one of our callers, Lily in Syracuse, New York, had asked about the referendum that's going to take place -- the decision of the Iraqi [. . .]  [people] to stay or not to stay.  That's a really important point, Paul.
 
Paul: It's very important and I'm glad we got the call, that raised the issue but I would simply agree with what we heard from Ken before the break.  It's partly Maliki continuing to play a political game.  But if -- if the referendum, it's voted down, uh, in January, uh, there are going to be extremely difficult decisions for the Obama administration to make about its policy and posture in Iraq over the course of the next year.  To some extent, it might be seen as a political blessing for much of his constituency, it means getting out earlier, but he is going to have to sit down with his commanders, with General Petraeus, General Odeireno, or who ever is occupying their jobs at that time and have some very hard talk about the security situation in Iraq as of the end, not of 2011, but of 2010.
 
Diane: Elise?
 
Elise Labott: And let's not forget that President Obama won, in part, the presidency on his campaign to withdraw US forces from Iraq.  He said that the war in Afghanistan was the more important war, the war that was the greater threat  to US national security with the emergent -- the reemergence of the Taliban and al Qaeda and he wanted to pay more attention to that war and by all accounts you can't do that with 130,000 troops in Iraq.  But the question is if the sectarian violence gets worse, if Iraq continues to spiral, the question is: Does Barack Obama have blood on his hands if -- if he withdraws all of his troops from Iraq and a lot of people -- it's a moral dilemma for him.
 
Diane Rehm: Ken Pollack?
 
Kenneth Pollack: Well I think that there's also a strategic consideration which is that the truth is that Iraq is ultimately of far greater strategic consequence to the United States than Afghanistan.  Afghanistan is a problem because of the terrorism problem and because of relationship to Pakistan but you can't solve the problem of Afghanistan through Pakistan.  
 
That last Pollack 'gem' is included to dissuade his cult from e-mailing and saying, "His 2002 book said!" Don't give me that crap.  Don't spit out the Slate book review claiming Kenny's 2002 book said Afghanistan was more important.  Kenny's all over the map, always has been, there's never been a cohesive argument from him.  Only baseless charges followed by meaningless laments.  The full hour was devoted to Iraq (here for that segment itself) for those who missed it.  (I did.  An NPR friend passed it on.)  The guests were (very briefly) Gina Chon, CNN's Elise Labott, Brookings Kenneth Pollack and Georgetown's Paul Pilar.
 
Earlier mid-June US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill claimed that fatalies were down in the month of June.  Silly Chris and silly reporters who fell for that garbage.  Reuters reports that there was a spike and that the official numbers from the Iraqi Health Ministry is 373 for the month of June. Those are the Iraqi government figures.  The actual figures are likely far higher. In some of today's violence, Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Iraqi forces shot dead a man in Mosul (a 'suspect') and that a Mosul roadside bombing injured a police officer.
 
Sir! No Sir! Exposing and Debunking Military Lies from Vietnam to Iraq notes a national anti-war conference put on by National Assembly to End the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pittsburg End The War to be held at La Roche College in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  Veterans for Peace's Michael T. McPherson, Arab American Union's Marily Levin, Black Voices for Peace's Gail Austin, Arab American Union's Monadel Herzallah and Iraqi poet-activist Zaineb Alani are among those participating. Cindy Sheehan will be participating as well and we'll note her in just a moment.  Diane Rejman is also with Veterans for Peace and she tackles recruitment at CounterPunch noting:
 
The recruiting system leaves out the second part of this.  Recruiters talk about travel, adventure, skill-training, and getting your college education paid for.  They don't mention that the travel and adventure may involve being in 110 degree+ temperatures, loaded up with gear, sleeping in tents, having your life threatened on a daily basis, and maybe not even having enough clean water to drink.  They don't mention that the skill-training is usually not transferable to a civilian job, or that some of the skills taught include how to be a prejudiced, hate-filled, bigot, who can be capable of killing another human being without feeling.  They don't explain that the military will teach a person to hate when he or she enlists, but doesn't teach love when the soldier returns.  And they certainly don't mention that only 14 percent of soldiers who sign up for the GI Bill use the benefit. 
The lies of omission often go further.  A recruiter may promise a job as a pilot, knowing the soldier won't qualify and will possibly end up as a truck driver in Iraq – one of the most dangerous jobs.  A prospective Navy medic may not understand that he or she may end up in a combat zone since they are the ones who take care of Marines.  Or the biggest lie of all – they convince the soldier he or she is signing up for three years, and don't point out that these days, with the stop-loss program in place, the enlistment agreement (note I don't use the word "contract") currently commits the soldier potentially to a life sentence.
But you know what, these are only a few of the lies involved in keeping a war machine going.  The bigger ones come from society itself.  That war is a good thing.  That movies and video games represent reality.  You get killed in a video game, press a button, and start over.  You don't lose a friend, body parts, or your mind.
 
 
As noted in yesterday's snapshot, US presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney and others on The Spirty of Humanity being detained by the Israeli government and prevented from delivering humanitarian supplies to Gaza.  Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan is calling out the detention:
 
Nobel Peace Prize Nominee, Human Rights' Activist and Gold Star Mother, Cindy Sheehan, calls on the Israeli government to immediately release the members and crew of the boat The Spirit of Humanity that was attempting to deliver humanitarian aid to the devastated peoples of Gaza.
Speaking from Newton, Mass, Ms. Sheehan commented: "The detention of the crew and human rights' workers on The Spirit of Humanity is a clear violation of international law, as the blockade of Gaza is a clear violation of not only international law but the human rights of the people of Gaza. Not only must the Israeli government immediately release and recompense the captives, but it must allow the humanitarian aid to penetrate the blockade."               
She continued: "I not only call on the Israeli government to do the right thing, but I call on our own President, who has claimed that he is an advocate for human rights, to condemn this act of international piracy by the rogue state of Israel and also demand the release of the kidnapped aid workers. This condemnation must be as strong and clear as the condemnation for the Somali 'pirates' was. A very courageous and dear friend of mine, Cynthia McKinney, was on that boat and the captives must all be treated with dignity and respect and speedily released."              

 
Cindy Sheehan's Myth America Tour continues this month.  The dates for the start of the month include:
 
July 8th Wednesday 2 to 4 p.m. Cleveland Book Signing
Mac Bac's Books            
1820 Coventry Road     
Cleveland Hts. OH
 
Akron Main Public Library
July 8th   7 to 9 p.m.
60 S. High St.
Akron, OH 44326
 
Cleveland Community pot luck with Cindy
July 9th four to six p.m.
10220 Clifton Ave.
Lakewood, OH
 
St. Coleman's Parish Hall
July 9th seven to nine p.m.
West 65th and Madison
 
Drum Circle
July 10th noon to two p.m.
 
National Assembly to End the War
July 11th to 12th
Pittsburgh
 
 
Al Franken in a US Senator.  See, the US can do recounts and can be patient.  Al Franken and Norm Coleman (his Republican opponent who lost) proved (probably not intentionally on Coleman's part) that the Supreme Court did not need to stop the process in Bush v. Gore.  The votes could have been counted.  And would have been easily before Christmas 2000.  Al Franken is interviewed by former US Senator Fred Thompson here.  The only one put out by the long drawn out process was Senator Amy Klobuchar and even she and her staff managed.  The US can do recounts, no matter what the Supreme Court thinks.
 

Posted at 03:12 pm by thecommonills
 

The for-show play-day

The for-show play-day

While a lot of the media hype today focuses on the U.S. "withdrawal," that is hardly the reality. As previously reported, U.S. military commanders have said they are preparing for an Iraq presence for another 15-20 years, the U.S. embassy is the size of Vatican City, there is no official plan for the withdrawal of contractors and new corporate mercenary contracts are being awarded. The Status of Forces Agreement (SoFA) between the U.S. and Iraq gives the U.S. the right to extend the occupation indefinitely and to continue intervening militarily in Iraq ad infinitum. Article 27 of the SoFA allows the U.S. to undertake military action, "or any other measure," inside Iraq's borders "In the event of any external or internal threat or aggression against Iraq."
As the airwaves and internet are flooded with reports of this new Iraqi sovereignty and U.S. withdrawal, it is important to remember a bit of history. Five years ago -- almost to the day -- President Bush put on an almost identical show. His proconsul L. Paul Bremer "handed over sovereignty" to the Iraqi government just before he skulked out of Baghdad on a secret flight (right after he issued an order banning Iraq from prosecuting contractors). Despite the pronouncements and proclamations and media hype, the occupation continued and real sovereignty was non-existent.
It is very doubtful that -- decades from now -- Iraqis will tell their grandchildren about where they were on June 30, 2009, "National Sovereignty Day." At the end of the day, this is U.S.-style Hallmark hype and will remain so until every last occupation soldier leaves Iraqi soil.

The above is from Jeremy Scahill's "Iraq's 'National Sovereignty Day' is U.S.-Style Hallmark Hype" (Information Clearing House). Dan Baltz asks "Have We Forgotten Iraq?" (Washington Post):


The fact that yesterday's deadline passed with so little public comment does not negate the fact that it represents the first big test for Obama's policy. In the days leading up to the deadline, there were a series of bombings and attacks, leaving more than 250 people dead. And yesterday, a car bomb in Kirkuk killed more than two dozen people. On Monday, four American soldiers were killed in combat. Iraq is not fully secure.
Administration officials have insisted, and the president reiterated yesterday, that the spike in violence was expected as the handoff took place and insurgents attempted to exploit the transition. Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has publicly expressed his confidence that Iraqi forces can keep their cities secure. Other military leaders have done the same in private to the White House. If they are wrong, there may be questions about what kind of country Americans are preparing to leave behind. Obama could find himself under pressure to adjust the withdrawal timetable.

It's an article that accepts too many conventional wisdoms and fails to ask the key question: What happens next? Not what is George W. Bush's plan (the Status Of Forces Agreement is Bush's plan) but if violence spikes, what does the adminstration plan to do? US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill publicly declared that contingency plans were not for public consumption. Amazingly the press refused to call him out or even note that.

Alissa J. Rubin's "Iraq Celebrates U.S. Withdrawal From Its Cities" runs on the front page of the New York Times (and, drive-bys, that's the headline in the print edition, don't e-mail to 'correct' me) which is a pretty in-depth article and a strong one by Rubin.

The excitement, however, has rung hollow for many Iraqis, who fear that their country's security forces are not ready to stand alone and who see the government’s claims of independence as overblown.
From Basra in the south to Mosul in the north, Iraqis expressed skepticism about the proclamation of "independence."
"They will not withdraw to their homes; they will stay here and there so that they can return in emergencies," said Samir Alwan, 28, the owner of a mini-market in Basra. "So it is not sovereignty, according to my point of view, and I think that the Iraqi Army is only able to secure the south of the country and unable to secure Baghdad and Mosul."

Balz and Rubin both avoid mentioning Odierno's news worthy moment. From yesterday's snapshot:

So if it was a historic day, let's go to the numbers, let's go to the stats. Woops. Reporters tried to do that during a Baghdad briefining with top US commander in Iraq General Ray Odierno and it wasn't not pretty. Reuters quotes him exclaiming, "Because it would be inaccurate! Because I don't know exactly how many [US service members] are in the cities. It varies day-to-day based on the mission. [. . . .] How many times you want me to say that? I don't know." They note he apologized for his outburst ("temper" was his term) and it must be stressful to be the one who has attempted to avoid the spin but have it shoved off on you.

Here's some of the exchange from the DoD transcript:

Q General, it's Andrew Gray from Reuters. You talked about a small number of U.S. forces remaining in the cities to train and advise. Can you put a figure? How many U.S. forces will remain?


GEN. ODIERNO: Yeah, people have been trying to get me to say a figure now for about a month. And the reason I won't do it is because it's going to be different every single day, and it'll be based on how much training, how much advising, how much coordination is required. That will change each and every day. So I won't put a number on it.
It is a smaller number, a significantly smaller number than what we've had in the cities now. But it has very specific missions: train the Iraqi security forces, advise them as we continue to move forward, enable them in order to -- potentially if they need some help with aviation, logistics, et cetera. But more -- almost as important, coordinate and help us to continue our situational awareness of all situations within Iraq. And that will help us to better support the Iraqi security forces.



Q General, just to follow up briefly, I am disappointed you didn't give us the scoop after a month of holding out, but I wonder if you could at least give us a -- you know, is it an -- a few thousand? If you could give us a kind of ballpark -- are we talking about several thousand? Would that be a reasonable ballpark to use?



GEN. ODIERNO: Again -- again, there's hundreds of cities around, and we have hundreds of -- you know, and I've let the local commanders work this out. So for me to give a number would frankly be inaccurate, and I just don't want to do it. There'll be trainers, advisers, helping throughout all of the Iraqi cities where we continue to support and advise Iraqi security forces.


Q Whatever the number is, how are you going to convince them basically, the U.S. forces remaining, not to jump in and be helpful, where perhaps you would prefer that the Iraqis take the lead?
What will be different about what they're told to do, in a situation where they might think, their first instinct is, gosh, we can do that better.



GEN. ODIERNO: Well, again this is -- I call it -- we are working on changing our mindsets in the city. And I equate it to when we first started the surge, where we had to change our mindset.
So pushing our soldiers back out, getting back into the communities, really partnering with the Iraqi security forces and today, it's the same kind of thing. We have to change our mindset.
When we're in the cities, there's very specific things that we'll do. Actually we've been out of the cities, a large majority of the cities now, for the last eight months. So it's really only Mosul and the last remnants that we've had, in Baghdad, that have pulled out over the last few weeks.
So we've actually been implementing this in many parts of Baghdad for a long time. And they understand what their mission is. They understand what we expect them to do. And you know, we have worked this very closely with all of the leaders in Iraq.
We've worked -- I've worked very closely with the minister of defense, the minister of interior, the operations commanders, the operational commanders in order to work this out. And I feel very comfortable with where we're at.



Q General, it's Tom Bowman with NPR.
I mean, you're reluctant to talk about how many trainers and mentors are in the cities. And it raises a question about whether or not this is just a show or not whether, you know, this is just semantics.
There are essentially U.S. soldiers with guns in the cities. You can call them trainers or mentors. But how different is it from what we saw maybe two-three weeks ago? And if you have U.S. soldiers just outside the cities, I mean, what is this?
Is this just a show for the American people?


GEN. ODIERNO: Well, I would say, you probably didn't listen to what I just said. Because what I just said was, having battalions and brigades inside a city is significantly different than having trainers, advisers and MiTT teams. And I said, we'll be operating in the belts around Baghdad.
I've been very clear about this, just like we did in the surge. We had -- the reason we had to surge forces is, we had to get people in the cities. And then we had to eliminate safe havens and sanctuaries in the belts around Baghdad.
It's the same thing, except the Iraqis will take responsibility for security in the cities. We will continue to do full-spectrum operations, outside of the cities, to work the safe havens and sanctuaries around the cities. And we will continue to do that. And it's legitimate, legitimate operations that we'll continue to conduct outside of the cities.
If you're here in Baghdad, you would know. There is a significant change inside of the cities.
There are thousands among thousands of soldiers that have pulled out of Baghdad. There -- and there hasn't been any soldiers in the cities in southern Iraq, there hasn't been any soldiers in the cities in Ramadi, there hasn't been any soldiers in the cities in Fallujah for months now. And we've been executing this very well.
So again, if you're here in Iraq, you would see it for yourself there is a significant change.



Q (Off mike) -- to be transparent, if you're going to be so transparent, why can't you tell us how many trainers and mentors are in the cities?



GEN. ODIERNO: Because it would be inaccurate. Because I don't know exactly how many are in the cities. We -- it varies day to day, based on the mission.



Q You must have a ballpark.



GEN. ODIERNO: I don't know how many times you want -- how many times you want me to say that? I don't know. What I'm telling you is, it's training and advising teams that remain in Baghdad. And it'll be different every single day, and we've worked very closely locally with the commanders to figure this out. And it'll be different tomorrow than it is today. And that's why I don't want to say a number, because it'll be inaccurate. (Off mike) -- get to second-guess what I say. If I say a number today, it'll be different tomorrow, and it'll be different the next day. What I'm telling you is, it's significantly lower than it has been so far.

What he was telling was nothing concrete. His outburst is not the end the world, it is, however, news, and should be treated as such. He was asked a basic question about a point he raised and he flew off the handle.

Jeremy Scahill's on Democracy Now! today as is McClatchy Newspapers' Sahar Issa.


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





the new york times





Posted at 06:14 am by thecommonills
 

Dan Choi's 'crime'

Dan Choi's crime

Lt. Dan Choi vowed Tuesday evening to fight to stay in the military after an Army board in Syracuse recommended he be the first person discharged from the New York National Guard for violating the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
A four-officer panel meeting at Hancock Air Base notified Choi at about 5 p.m. that it would recommend he be discharged because he has publicly said he is gay.
The recommendation now goes to Lt. Gen. Thomas Miller of the First Army Division, and Gen. Craig McKinley, the chief of the National Guard Bureau, who will make the final decision.
"Today was a setback for me," Choi said at a 6:10 p.m. news conference. "I got in trouble for saying three words. 'I am gay.'"
But he said he refuses to lie about being involved in a relationship with another man. Choi said the relationship has made him a better person, a better Christian and a better officer.

The above is from Mike McAndrew and Mark Weiner's "Military board in Syracuse recommends discharge for Lt. Dan Choi" (Syracuse Post-Standard). Iraq War veteran Dan Choi's 'crime' was being unwilling to lie. The Syracuse Post-Standard offers "'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy must be changed:"

If, as is likely, he loses his appeals, he'll join more than 12,500 service members who have met the same fate since 1994, including at least 59 Arabic linguists discharged over the past five years. This is occurring at a time when the military desperately needs to maintain and recruit troops.
There are some 65,000 gay and lesbian service members active today, according to a letter written to President Barack Obama last week by 77 members of Congress, who called for a swift end to Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Countless more are discouraged from entering the military because of the discriminatory policy.
On top of all that, enforcing the policy has cost taxpayers more than $400 million since 1994.

The New York Times ignores the story. Even on the op-ed pages where Thomas Friedman offers a column of garbage that wouldn't make it in a high school newspaper ("Just Do It") and Maureen Dowd offers her usual smut -- this time the never-married Dowd has taken to advising married women about their husbands. Well, nuns taught MoDo about sex. The editorials are the usual jokes with "Firefighters and Race" being the most embarrassing. The Times really needs to improve their writing skills, no question, but they also need to start offering a little brains as well. It has been appalling to read one editorial after another attempting to turn the census into a partisan issue. Just as appalling is "Firefighters and Race." Not because of their opinion of the verdict but because they think they understand so much more than do. "Judicial activist" and "judicial restraint" refer to charges of either creating new law or observing existing law. They're terms we're not really interested in because the truth is most judges veer back and forth between both. But the paper's interested enough to toss the terms around in an editorial . . . while demonstrating that it has no idea what they mean. The editorial argues that Sotomayor practiced "judicial restraint." For her to have done that, she would have cited law. (I'm not arguing that she did, I'm not arguing that she didn't. Other than her heritage, which I've said is a moment for pride, I've offered no endorsement or slam of her.) The editorial instead argues that she practiced "judicial restraint" because she sided with an elected body. That isn't "judicial restraint." Following established law, not an elected body, is what proponents of "judicial restraint" believe in. The paper doesn't know what the hell it's talking about and should probably hire a tutor before writing another editorial. (Repeating, I'm not making a judgment on Sotomayor and I haven't read the Court's opinions so I'm also not making any statement on the decision. I'm referring solely to the paper's inability to grasp theories that they want to toss around to make themselves sound more learned.)

Juan Gonzalez is too kind on Democracy Now! today, Change to Win is dead. It's dead because it sold out labor and it's been dead for some time. The SEIU is a joke and existed solely for Barry O. In the real world, the economy's gotten worse and labor's getting leaner and leaner on a diet of pretty words. Sidebar: Stop the Presses! k.d. lange impersonator and professional jerk Brooks Barnes remains immensely unpopular. I didn't watch or hear DN! yesterday. If it was as awful as everyone says, Ava and I will grab it Sunday at Third.

Dan Choi and the ridiculous efforts to force him out of the military is the topic of Joe Garofloi's "Panel wants openly gay guardsman discharged" (San Francisco Chronicle):

Still, some analysts say Choi's case is another example of how Washington leaders aren't showing much urgency - or leadership - in overturning "don't ask, don't tell."
Obama has said he wants Congress to overturn the law; congressional leaders have said that they are waiting for the president to take the lead; and military leaders say they won't change the policy unless directed by Congress.
"It's a hot-potato party," said Nathaniel Frank, a research fellow at the Palm Center, a UC Santa Barbara think tank. "Democrats have the mistaken impression that if they lead on something that smells like a culture war issue - or if they go against the military - they will get pounded. But that's not true. Public opinion is with them."

If Barack wanted to, all he need do is issue an executive order for a stop-loss on discharges under Don't Ask, Don't Tell. That would stop it right away. Congress could then address it but all the people (over 200 under Obama already) being discharged would no longer be drummed out of the military as a result of that executive order. Alexa James (Times Herald-Record) offers:

Choi, 28, of New York City, graduated from the U.S. Military Academy in 2003 and joined the 10th mountain Division at Fort Drum. He spent 15 months in Iraq as an Arabic interpreter and joined the Guard in June 2007.
This spring, Choi came out as a gay man and helped found a West Point alumni group called Knights Out (West Point's mascot is the Black Knight) to advocate for equal rights among strait, homosexual and transgender troops.
After Tuesday's hearing, he defended his military career. "I understand the Army values," Choi said. "A soldier must have integrity. I learned that from day one at West Point."
"All I did was tell the truth," he said. "I refused to lie about my boyfriend. His name is Matthew, not Martha."
The panel's decision heads next to the commanding general of the First U.S. Army, then on to the chief of the National Guard Bureau. If all agree with the board, the chief will decide the terms of Choi's discharge. That process could take weeks or years.

Again, Barack just has to issue an executive order. But refuses to do so. CNN notes this citing Knights Out's Sue Fulton: "Fulton said that while Obama can't change the law himself, he could sign an executive order halting discharges while the policy is under review." Barry O likes to play helpless but he's not. One executive order is all it would take.


The following community sites updated last night:



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










thomas friedman is a great man






oh boy it never ends

Posted at 06:11 am by thecommonills
 

Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Iraq snapshot

Iraq snapshot

Tuesday, June 30, 2009.  Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces mulitple deaths, Lt. Dan Choi fights for his career, bombings grip Iraq, Barack Obama has another routine day while Ralph Nader speaks out and Cynthia McKinney gets active, and more.
 
 
Today the US military announced: "BAGHDAD -- Four Multi-National Division–Baghdad Soldiers died June 29 as the result of combat related injuries. The Soldiers' names are being withheld pending notification of next of kin. The names of service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense Official Website at http://www.defenselink.mil/ . The announcements are made on the Website no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. MND-B will not release any additional details prior to notification of next of kin and official release by the DoD. The incident is currently under investigation."  The announcement today took the number of US service members killed in the Iraq War to 4321, with 15 for the month upsetting Operation Happy Talk plans for billing June as the second lowest month for US service member deaths since the start of the illegal war. 
 
June 30th.  The for-show play-day of pretend 'pull-out'.  Mike Tharp (McClatchy Newspapers) observes, "The American and Iraqi militaries had different notions of when the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from major cities would start. The Americans thought that "after June 30," as written in the status of forces agreement, meant 12:01 a.m. Wednesday, July 1. The Iraqis -- whose timeline ultimately prevailed -- interpreted the dawn of their new authority as when the clock ticked past midnight to Tuesday, June 30. That's one reason that so many Iraqis celebrated the handoff of authority Monday night with singing, dancing and parties in their streets and parks. In the end, once both sides realized the communications breakdown, the Americans simply told their forces to start abiding by the new rules 23 hours and 59 minutes earlier than they'd planned."  So if it was a historic day, let's go to the numbers, let's go to the stats.  Woops.  Reporters tried to do that during a Baghdad briefining with top US commander in Iraq General Ray Odierno and it wasn't not pretty.  Reuters quotes him exclaiming, "Because it would be inaccurate! Because I don't know exactly how many [US service members] are in the cities.  It varies day-to-day based on the mission. [. . . .]  How many times you want me to say that?  I don't know."   They note he apologized for his outburst ("temper" was his term) and it must be stressful to be the one who has attempted to avoid the spin but have it shoved off on you.   CBS and AP cite CBS News' Lara Loogan quoting al-Maliki declaring, "Those who think Iraqis are unable to defend their country are committing a fatal mistake" and making that declaration from "a makeshift stand -- as much due to security concerns as by designs."  Free Speech Radio News interviewed Iraqi Baswa Alkhateeb, an Iraqi mother of two in Baghdad (here for the segment).  Manuel Rueda noted, "She says that nothing will change on a daily basis because US soldiers have already decreased their presence in Baghdad." 
 
Baswa Alkhateeb: We don't see them around much like before so they've already shrinked their activites in the cities. They've already done that for the past four or five months.  [. . . . On why she's not celebrating today.]  We have a lawless state The alligance of the security forces that  are taking over is not for the country or for the state it's for the Islamic groups for the clerics who are in the Parliament who ruling now so it's not really a blessing or something to be happy about.  Add to that the whole institutions were dismantled.  So the way that it was rearranged after 2003,  2004, it's not about the state, it's about allegiance to their sects, to the cultural, political cultural, that put them there. [. . .]  What's happening now is no employment, no educational system, no health care, nothing. IDPs [Internally Displaced Persons] all over.  We have graduates from university who do not have a place to be employed unless they're part of this political culture which is following the clerics and the Islamic extreme parties ruling the country. It's something new and deformed actually. Our elites are outside, they've all left.  We need experts, we need professional people here.   So it will take time I don't know and all these political groups, the extremist Islamists have militias.  And more were enrolled in the armies -- in the security forces.
 
But don't believe her, Marc Santora (New York Times) stuck his big toe out of the Green Zone and declares, "Schools are open, including one where a teacher had been strung up by her feet and her face cut off by extremists."  Santora whores it so well he probably forgets that most readers of the paper may be thinking, "Why the hell didn't we ever hear about that story?"  You didn't hear it because they didn't want you to.  They looked the other way during the slaughter on Haditha Street, they looked the other way as thugs were installed, they looked the other way as Nouri and his thugs threatened the press (though they did pull the reporter whom Iraqi forces 'jokingly' shot at), they ignored so very much and now you're left with the choice of believeing Marc Santora who is paid by the paper that sold the illegal war or an Iraqi mother in Baghdad with children who damn well knows what the situation on the ground in her city is.  While Santora worked himself into a frenzy trying to make it appear today was historic, the US government was less busy.  At the State Dept's press briefing today, Iraq wasn't a topic Ian Kelly or the press bothered to bring up.  At the White House, on this 'historic' day, tubby Robert Gibbs opened the press briefing laughing about his foul mouth being caught on (and edited from) video tape.  Forced to address Barry O's lackadaisical attitude towards Iraq, Gibbs began insisting that wasn't the case and then dropped back to making jokes about the previous administration because when you have no plans yourself, let alone accomplishments, better to keep pointing the previous screw-up.
 
The 'pull-out' is not the 'drawn-down' or, heaven forbid, a withdrawal.  Though he repeatedly lied to voters during the primary and presidential campaigns, Barack Obama's not done a damn thing he promised and BBC News explains that "131,000 US troops remain in Iraq, including 12 combat brigades, and the total is not expected tro drop below 128,000 until after the Iraqi national election in January." Even then we wouldn't see withdrawal and the January elections were supposed to take place in December.  Violence or other options might push them back again.
 
Violence? Kirkuk was the site of mass deaths from a car bombing.  Tim Cocks and Muhanad Mohammed (Reuters) count at least 32 dead with over one hundred injured Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) notes that the bombing also destroyed 30 shops in a market.  Ali Windawi and Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) explain, "The attack came barely a week after nearly 80 people were killed in a suicide truck bomb in Taza Khurmatu, a Shiite Turkmen town just south of the city.  Both blasts pointed to a deliberate effort to fan the ethnic tensions in an oil-rich area that Kurds with to claim as part of their self-governing region in northern Iraq and Arabas want tied to the central government in Baghdad.  The blast marred a day that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki had hailed as a historic victory".  Daniel Williams (Bloomberg News) notes the death toll has risen to "at least 41 people and wounded 120 others."
 
Kirkuk was the subject of the Christian Science Monitor's editorial "Iraq's next milestone: the Kurdish question" this morning -- excerpt:

Tension between Mr. Maliki – an Arab – and the semiautonomous Kurdistan Regional Government in the north has escalated significantly in the last year. It touches issues of fundamental importance -- national unity, oil wealth, and the balance of power between the central government and the regions. Left unaddressed -- or worse, provoked -- the Kurd-Arab divide could split the Iraqi state.                                          
A wide swath of disputed territory lies at the heart of the problem. Last August, only direct negotiation between Kurdish President Masoud Barzani and Maliki was able to head off a military showdown between Iraqi and Kurdish forces in the Kurdish-administered town of Khanaqin.                     
Nothing is more central to the territorial tug of war than the province of Kirkuk, which lies next to an oil field that contains 20 percent of the country's proven oil reserves. The Kurds consider Kirkuk historically theirs, but it is now populated by a mix of Kurds, Turkmens, Christians, and Arabs -- the latter group was sent by Saddam Hussein to flood the area. The 2005 Iraqi Constitution calls for Kirkuk's status to be set by referendum, but the vote keeps being delayed.                

In other reported violence today . . .
 
Bombings?
 
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 Baghdad roadside bombings which left four people injured
 
Shootings?
 
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an armed clash in Mosul with 1 death.
 
Corpses?
 
Reuters notes 3 corpses ("alcohol dealers" remember fundamentalists thugs rule in Iraq) were discovered in Tikrit.
 
While the for-show 'pull-out' captures the bulk of the attention today, many other telling moments took place.  In Iraq?
 
The tag-sale on Iraqi oil had a . . .  Well, Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) calls it a disappointment: "Iraq was seeking bids from firms to develop eight of its existing oil and gas fields, but only one contract was awarded to work one oil field at a public auction televised live from Baghdad's Rashid Hotel inside the heavily fortified Green Zone." But it wasn't disappointing for everyone.  This morning Keith Bradsher (New York Times) reported on what he saw as a surprise move on the part of Chinese oil companies to enter into the bidding.  Surprising or not, a partnership between China National Petroleum Corporation and British Petroleum proved to be a winning combo.  Robin Pagnamenta (Times of London) reports they won "access to Iraq's biggest oilfield" in the auction.  It needs to be noted that there were other winners, they just didn't like what they wong.  Pagnamenta reports that "all other foreign companies involved in bidding for a total of eight fields, including Royal Dutch Shell, rejected what were considered to be punitive terms on offer fromt he Iraqi Government.  In total, nearly 30 overseas companies withdrew."
 
 
In the US?
 
Yesterday, as Marcia and Stan noted, Barack Obama invited LGBT 'leaders' to the White House and tried to use his oily charm and pretty words to pretend he might someday -- not any time soon, understand -- do something.  Someday.  Maybe.  In the real world, Lt. Daniel Choic fights for his career and does it with no help from the alleged 'fierce advocate' for the LGBT community.  Alexa James (Times Herald-Record) reports that closed-door deliberations continue by a US Army board over what to do about the New York National Guard member who's 'crime' was being honest about who he was. James notes, "Choi graduated from West Point in 2003 as an Arabic major and served as an interpreter in Iraq in 2006 and 2007.  He left active duty and joined the Guard last June."  Daniel Nasaw (Brisbane Times) explains, "In one of the last instances of government-sanctioned discrimination, the military allows gay men and lesbians to serve in the military only if they keep quiet about their sexuality.  For more than a year after meeting his boyfriend and falling in love, Lieutenant Choi was forced to lie or risk joining a list of almost 13,000 gay and lesbian personnel discarged in the past 16 years under the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy'."  Mike McAndrew (Syracuse Post-Standard) notes the hearing began this morning at eight o'clock.  Scott Horsley (NPR's All Things Considered) files a report featuring noted homophobe and hag Elaine Donnelly, apparently taking a break from writing for the National Review and taking ugly lessons, who weighs in against any changes to Don't Ask, Don't Tell declaring, "We don't make policy based on popular culture or marching in the streets or party favors."  Party favors?  The last time Donnelly was invited to a party, Howdy Doody was still on the airwaves, thereby explaining her bitter bitchiness.  Bitchy?  Oh, we're back to Barack who wanted to talk about how he was committed to changing people's minds when all the lazy ass needs to do is sign an executive order putting a stop-loss on discharges under Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  That's all it takes.  If he'd do that, Dan Choi would not be fighting for his career, no one would be at risk.  It would cost him nothing and he wouldn't even have to go through Congress.  Barry O loves to mingle with his fellow celebrities posing as 'leaders'.  But Barry just doesn't like to do anything.  June 19th on Democracy Now!, it was explained how simple it was for Don't Ask, Don't Tell to be stopped immediately:
 
AMY GOODMAN: And what is the significance of it being passed by Congress, rather than just a policy of the Pentagon?                 

NATHANIEL FRANK: Well, a couple things. First of all, because it's now a matter of federal law for the first time, because before that it was just a Pentagon policy and regulation, it's now that much more difficult for the policy to be repealed, because as a law passed by Congress, Congress would need to repeal it.
I do want to correct one thing that Secretary Alexander said, that President Obama does have the power to stop the firings. He can act unilaterally to use his powers of stop-loss through a statute, 12305 from 1983, in which Congress itself gives the President the power to stop separations in the military for a variety of reasons. And so, he has said that he wants to stop the firings, and he actually has the power to stop the firings. And so, it's really been very unclear to many of us why he's unwilling to take that step. The White House has been --          

AMY GOODMAN: You mean it would be an executive order?      

NATHANIEL FRANK: It would be an executive order halting all separations while we are under a national emergency, which the statute defines as being -- having the National Guard mobilized, as it currently is. And then he could go to Congress some months down the line and say, "Look, we've had openly gay service officially" -- incidentally, we already have openly gay service; thousands of people are serving openly, notwithstanding the policy. But he could turn to this situation officially and say, "We have openly gay service because of this executive order. The sky hasn't fallen. Now, Congress, let's move to get this off the books permanently." So it would be a one-two punch. And that is an option that Obama has. And he's been asked about it, the White House has been asked about it, and they haven't given a good reason why, given what he said about wanting to stop the firings, he's continuing to let the firings go, when he has the power to do otherwise.
 
But he chooses not to do a damn thing.  And the board has reached a decision to recommend that Lt Dan Choi be discharged.  For the 'crime' of being gay and being honest about it.  Mike McAnder (Syracuse Post-Standard) reports Choi was informed of the decision at five this evening and that "he plans to appeal to higher ranking officers" because, "I refuse to lie about my love relationship."
 
 
The reality is that Barack could have stepped in at any point and put a stop to this witch hunt but he chose not to.  And eality is that Barry O will be judged him not by his pretty words and empty promises but by his actions.  Related, Chris Hedges' "The Truth Alone Will Not Set You Free" (Information Clearing House):         

All periods of profound change occur in a crisis. It was a crisis that brought us the New Deal, now largely dismantled by the corporate state. It was also a crisis that gave the world Adolf Hitler and Slobodan Milosevic. We can go in either direction. Events move at the speed of light when societies and cultural assumptions break down. There are powerful forces, which have no commitment to the open society, ready to seize the moment to snuff out the last vestiges of democratic egalitarianism. Our bankrupt liberalism, which naively believes that Barack Obama is the antidote to our permanent war economy and Wall Street fraud, will either rise from its coma or be rolled over by an organized corporate elite and their right-wing lap dogs. The corporate domination of the airwaves, of most print publications and an increasing number of Internet sites means we will have to search, and search quickly, for alternative forms of communication to thwart the rise of totalitarian capitalism.

Hedges supported Ralph Nader in 2008 and Ralph Nader's sent out an e-mail today entitled "Obama Betrayal Syndrome" which opens with:
 
"I want my money back, President Obama!"             
That's the title of Marie Marchand's column in Common Dreams this week.        
Marie Marchand says she gave $20 a week for seven months to the Obama campaign -- plus $60 every once in a while for a t-shirt and sticker.                          
"I gave of my modest purse joyfully," she writes. "I thought I was supporting change I could believe in, not more of the same bloodshed and war!"                     She now feels betrayed.                     
Millions of Americans are feeling betrayed.                        
They thought Obama as President meant change we can believe in.         
They thought Obama as President meant withdrawal from Iraq.
 
 
"Well they were wrong then, weren't they?" as Marty Feldman says in Mel Brooks' Young Frankenstein. Nader's e-mail is promoting Single Payer Action TV, so check that out. Cynthia McKinney also ran for the US presidency in 2008.  And Kimberly Wilder (On The Wilder Side) passes on this news release:
 
ISRAEL ATTACKS JUSTICE BOAT; KIDNAPS HUMAN RIGHTS WORKERS; CONFISCATES MEDICINE, TOYS AND OLIVE TREES      

For more information contact:         
Greta Berlin (English)        
tel: +357 99 081 767 / friends@freegaza.org  

Caoimhe Butterly (Arabic/English/Spanish):      
tel: +357 99 077 820 / sahara78@hotmail.co.uk         
www.FreeGaza.org          

[23 miles off the coast of Gaza , 15:30pm] - Today Israeli Occupation Forces  attacked and boarded the Free Gaza Movement boat, the SPIRIT OF 
HUMANITY, abducting 21 human rights workers from 11 countries, including Noble laureate Mairead Maguire and former U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (see below for a complete list of passengers). The passengers
and crew are being forcibly dragged toward Israel .

"This is an outrageous violation of international law against us. Our boat was not in Israeli waters, and we were on a human rights mission to the Gaza
Strip," said Cynthia McKinney, a former U.S. Congresswoman and presidential candidate. "President Obama just told Israel to let in humanitarian and reconstruction supplies, and that's exactly what we tried to do. We're
asking the international community to demand our release so we can resume our journey."      

According to an International Committee of the Red Cross report released yesterday, the Palestinians living in Gaza are "trapped in despair." Thousands
of Gazans whose homes were destroyed earlier during Israel 's December/January massacre are still without shelter despite pledges of
almost $4.5 billion in aid, because Israel refuses to allow cement and other building material into the Gaza Strip. The report also notes that hospitals are struggling to meet the needs of their patients due to Israel 's disruption of medical supplies.              

"The aid we were carrying is a symbol of hope for the people of Gaza , hope
that the sea route would open for them, and they would be able to
transport their own materials to begin to reconstruct the schools, hospitals
and thousands of homes destroyed during the onslaught of "Cast Lead". Our mission is a gesture to the people of Gaza that we stand by them and that
they are not alone" said fellow passenger Mairead Maguire, winner of a Noble Peace Prize for her work in Northern Ireland .         

Just before being kidnapped by Israel , Huwaida Arraf, Free Gaza Movement chairperson and delegation co-coordinator on this voyage, stated that: "No
one could possibly believe that our small boat constitutes any sort of threat
to Israel . We carry  medical and reconstruction supplies, and children's toys. Our passengers include a Nobel peace prize laureate and a former U.S. congressperson. Our boat was searched and received a security clearance
by Cypriot Port Authorities before we departed, and at no time did we ever approach Israeli waters."                  

Arraf continued, " Israel 's deliberate and premeditated attack on our unarmed boat is a clear violation of international law and we demand our immediate and unconditional release."            

One of the last labor reporters left in the United States is independent journalist David Bacon -- whose latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press).  At Immigration Prof Blog, Bacon's photos of a
Mixtec migrant Margarito Salvador's family who work in the strwaberry fields of Watsonville, Calif. 

Posted at 06:05 pm by thecommonills
 

US military announces 4 more deaths

US military announces 4 more deaths

Today the US military announced: "BAGHDAD -- Four Multi-National Division–Baghdad Soldiers died June 29 as the result of combat related injuries. The Soldiers’ names are being withheld pending notification of next of kin. The names of service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense Official Website at http://www.defenselink.mil/ . The announcements are made on the Website no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member’s primary next of kin. MND-B will not release any additional details prior to notification of next of kin and official release by the DoD. The incident is currently under investigation."

It all seemed so easy for the 'press' last week. They were prepping (and being fed) their "Lowest month since the start of the war for US military deaths in Iraq." Flacks had already begun issuing statements for those end-of-the-month pieces which would be published July 1st and trumpet the 'pull-out'. They'd open something like:

As the US military honored the SOFA and returned soveriegnty to Iraq, the death toll for US forces reached an all time low -- the lowest since the start of the war. Asked of the death toll, Col Gen Maj military spokesperson (because you need a lot of bars on your shoulders to be a glorified press flack) declared, "The lowered death toll is an indication that we have turned a corner and that the Iraqi people are embracing the lower profile for US forces."

It wasn't all going to be pretty, mind you. They still had to deal with the increased violence targeting Iraqis. They'd put out data before the half-way point of the month insisting that violence -- in June! -- was down. Chris Hill jetted over to the States and bungled it in his presentation. Appearing on CNN and Fox, Sunday, Gen Ray Odierno finessed it so well most watching probably didn't grasp what exactly he was saying and just heard 'violence down.' But violence wasn't down and you can't claim 'If you leave out the last two weeks of the month, June wasn't a violenct month' and be taken seriously.

But they had their low death toll for US forces to pimp. And they were pretty sure they could maintain it. The need for the low death toll was what prompted the orders for the night time moves. Like thieves in the night, the US military was supposed to move their equipment, rushing back and forth while other people hopefully slept. Not since the British were run off the base in 2006 had a more embarrassing order taken place.

But despite all the brass planning, didn't work out quite the way they planned. It never does. You'd think they'd have learned that by now.

The announcement today took the number of US service members killed in the Iraq War to 4321, with 15 for the month. So far. So far because the month's not over. So far because M-NF has a tendency to hold back a death or two until after the start of the next month.

Some of the more dense and foolish among the press are being targeted with a campaign pimping "second lowest death toll of the year thus far." You'll see shortly who are the ones who'll swallow (and spit back) anything.

Today the Christian Science Monitor offers the editorial "Iraq's next milestone: the Kurdish question" -- excerpt:

Tension between Mr. Maliki – an Arab – and the semiautonomous Kurdistan Regional Government in the north has escalated significantly in the last year. It touches issues of fundamental importance -- national unity, oil wealth, and the balance of power between the central government and the regions. Left unaddressed -- or worse, provoked -- the Kurd-Arab divide could split the Iraqi state.
A wide swath of disputed territory lies at the heart of the problem. Last August, only direct negotiation between Kurdish President Masoud Barzani and Maliki was able to head off a military showdown between Iraqi and Kurdish forces in the Kurdish-administered town of Khanaqin.
Nothing is more central to the territorial tug of war than the province of Kirkuk, which lies next to an oil field that contains 20 percent of the country's proven oil reserves. The Kurds consider Kirkuk historically theirs, but it is now populated by a mix of Kurds, Turkmens, Christians, and Arabs -- the latter group was sent by Saddam Hussein to flood the area. The 2005 Iraqi Constitution calls for Kirkuk's status to be set by referendum, but the vote keeps being delayed.


Turning to the 'pull-out,' in this morning's New York Times, Marc Santora offers "In Baghdad, A U.S. Exit Where Anger Still Lingers." It's a bunch of happy talk about decreased violence and blah and blah. And blah. BBC News offers:

BBC defence and security correspondent Rob Watson says that while the pullback is significant, the actual withdrawal of US combat troops in 2010 will pose a greater challenge.
The success of that depends on Iraq's political leaders and their ability to tackle the country's many outstanding problems and tensions, he says.
Some 131,000 US troops remain in Iraq, including 12 combat brigades, and the total is not expected to drop below 128,000 until after the Iraqi national election in January.

We'll add more to the 'pull-out' in the snapshot today (which may run later than usual) but that's all I can stomach this morning. As an antidote, we'll close with this from Chris Hedges' "The Truth Alone Will Not Set You Free" (Information Clearing House):

All periods of profound change occur in a crisis. It was a crisis that brought us the New Deal, now largely dismantled by the corporate state. It was also a crisis that gave the world Adolf Hitler and Slobodan Milosevic. We can go in either direction. Events move at the speed of light when societies and cultural assumptions break down. There are powerful forces, which have no commitment to the open society, ready to seize the moment to snuff out the last vestiges of democratic egalitarianism. Our bankrupt liberalism, which naively believes that Barack Obama is the antidote to our permanent war economy and Wall Street fraud, will either rise from its coma or be rolled over by an organized corporate elite and their right-wing lap dogs. The corporate domination of the airwaves, of most print publications and an increasing number of Internet sites means we will have to search, and search quickly, for alternative forms of communication to thwart the rise of totalitarian capitalism.
Stuart Ewen, whose books "Captains of Consciousness: Advertising and the Social Roots of the Consumer Culture" and "PR: A Social History of Spin" chronicle how corporate propaganda deformed American culture and pushed populism to the margins of American society, argues that we have a fleeting chance to save the country. I fervently hope he is right. He attacks the ideology of "objectivity and balance" that has corrupted news, saying that it falsely evokes the scales of justice. He describes the curriculum at most journalism schools as "poison."
"'Balance and objectivity' creates an idea where both sides are balanced," he said when I spoke to him by phone. "In certain ways it mirrors the two-party system, the notion that if you are going to have a Democrat speak you need to have a Republican speak. It offers the phantom of objectivity. It creates the notion that the universe of discourse is limited to two positions. Issues become black or white. They are not seen as complex with a multitude of factors."


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






Posted at 06:35 am by thecommonills
 

Abu Ghraib and Lynndie are back in the news

Abu Ghraib and Lynndie are back in the newsAbu Ghraib and Lynndie are back in the news

"The Central Intelligence Agency crucified a prisoner in Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, according to a report published in The New Yorker magazine.
"A forensic examiner found that he (the prisoner) had essentially been crucified; he died from asphyxiation after having been hung by his arms, in a hood, and suffering broken ribs," the magazine's Jane Mayer writes in the magazine's June 22nd issue. "Military pathologists classified the case a homicide." The date of the murder was not given.
"No criminal charges have ever been brought against any C.I.A. officer involved in the torture program, despite the fact that at least three prisoners interrogated by agency personnel died as a result of mistreatment," Mayer notes.
An earlier report, by John Hendren in The Los Angeles Times indicted other torture killings. And Human Rights First says nearly 100 detainees have died in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Hendren reported that one Manadel Jamadi died "of blunt-force injuries" complicated by "compromised respiration" at Abu Ghraib prison "while he was with Navy SEALs and other special operations troops." Another victim, Abdul Jaleel, "died while gagged and shackled to a cell door with his hands over his head." Yet another prisoner, Maj. Gen. Abid Mowhosh, former commander of Iraq’s air defenses, "died of asphyxiation due to smothering and chest compression" in Qaim, Iraq.
"There is no question that U.S. interrogations have resulted in deaths," says Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU. "High-ranking officials who knew about the torture and sat on their hands and those who created and endorsed these policies must be held accountable. America must stop putting its head in the sand and deal with the torture scandal." At least scores of detainees in U.S. custody have died and homicide is suspected. As far back as May, 2004, the Pentagon conceded at least 37 deaths of prisoners in its custody in Iraq and Afghanistan had prompted investigations.

The above is from Sherwood Ross' "CIA Crucified Captive in Abu Ghraib Prison" (Information Clearing House). What? You thought we were going to open with the play-day, for-show 'pull-out'? That's actually the place to open since AP published a piece of nonsense interview with Charles in Charge look-alike Lynndie England. It's garbage but, hey, when you're profiling garbage they may be all you can come up with. P.J. Dickersched and Vicki Smith wrote the article (Smith also took photos).

Lynndie, for those who forgot, was featured in several torture photos at Abu Ghraib. She's minimizing her actions so that she declares, "People don't realize I was just in a photo for a split second in time." A photo? A photo?

Lynddie's the criminal who didn't just torture, she thought you went to Iraq to sleep around. That's how she got pregnant. She wasn't 18. She wasn't under 18. She was an adult who knew what she was doing. She knew the man and she knew his wife. The man of course was the ringleader of the abuse. Yes, orders came from higher up and yes, Charles Graner was selected because of his past history.

The guilt doesn't end with Lynndie and Charles. It goes all the way up. But that doesn't absolve them of guilt either.

And I don't have any sympathy for liars.

Lynndie wants the world to believe she's harmed by her involvement in torture.

Really?

She's tortued by what she did?

No.

She can't escape her infamy. Boo-hoo. She tells you she tried dying her hair (she did) and that she tried gaining weight (false, she gained it because she ate too much and she was no longer living a physically active life). It's so awful, she insists, because she's recognized.

But she didn't try to change her name.

She claims her face is so famous that it wouldn't make any difference. Lynndie's confusing scandal with fame.

And if she really wanted to start over, she'd have changed her name and then gone on to reply, "I get that a lot," if anyone did say, "You look like that criminal."

Lynndie didn't change her name because she wants the shame she mistakes for fame.

That's why she's doing the interview now and prepping for, yes, her book tour.

AP tells you that Lynnide "said she's paid her dues and repeatedly apologized." Did you hear that apology? Not only is it not in the article but anyone who's followed her press (including while she was in prison) is damn well aware that she never apologized and always pushed responsibility for her own actions off on others.

There is no question in my mind that the torture publicly revealed in 2004 was authorized by the White House. Even believeing that doesn't allow me to excuse the involvement of Lynndie and her co-workers. They made a decision to participate and Lynndie -- as the photos demonstrate -- gleefully demonstrated.

She has never, NEVER, apologized for the shame, humiliation and pain (mental and physical) she and the others brought to Iraqis that they were supposed to be protecting. Protecting. They were prison guards not to toture, but to ensure the safety of those prisoners.

Lynndie didn't give a damn about her job, that's why she was able to get pregnant. She was sleeping around with Charles while she was on duty. She was sleeping with the married Charles Graner while the US tax payers were paying her to do some work. (Charles was sleeping around on the tax payer dime as well. He's not absolved. But he's also not the one giving an interview to AP. When he shows his ass in public, we'll call him out too.)

"We were just pawns," whines Lynndie. "People were just playing us." No, the pawns were the Iraqis. You went along with it. You damn well knew better and you chose to go along with torture. You could be a whistle blower, you could have said no. You chose to go along and those were War Crimes. Are others guilty as well? Absolutely. But don't think you can whine and play poor little victim after what you put Iraqi prisoners too or, for that matter, after the shame you brought to your own country.

Her shamelessness is appalling, her desperation to make a buck disgusting. Her inability to take accountability proof that she's learned nothing from her experience.

The following community sites updated last night:


Thomas Friedman is a Great Man
We need to grow the hell up
9 hours ago

Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude
gordo the wounded shark
9 hours ago

SICKOFITRADLZ
Barack is full of s**t
9 hours ago

Trina's Kitchen
Grilled cheese in the Kitchen
9 hours ago

Ruth's Report
Summer cold
9 hours ago

Oh Boy It Never Ends
Barry tries to pretty-word his way out of it
9 hours ago

Like Maria Said Paz
Isaiah, Murat Kurnaz, Ava and C.I.
9 hours ago

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

Mikey Likes It!
Isaiah, Michael Ratner, Third
10 hours ago

Cedric's Big Mix
False gods and idols? Better check yourself.
13 hours ago

The Daily Jot
THIS JUST IN! IDOLATRY IS NOT CHRISTIANITY!
13 hours ago

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










thomas friedman is a great man






oh boy it never ends

Posted at 06:33 am by thecommonills
 

Monday, June 29, 2009
Iraq snapshot

Iraq snapshot

Monday, June 29, 2009.  Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, one media outlet prepares to offer indepth coverage of the targeting of Iraq's LGBT community, June 30th play day frenzy builds, uh-oh-Gordo, he's in trouble again, and more.
 
In a week when Iraq 'dates' will be discussed non-stop, we'll start with an important one: July 5th.  That's when BBC Radio 5 airs Gay Life After Saddam (7 to 8 p.m. in England -- that will be eleven to noon PST). Ashley Byrne and Gail Champion produce the special for Made in Manchester.  James Chaperlard (Crain's Manchester Business) reports:
 
In Gay Life After Saddam, presenter Aasmah Mir finds out how life for the country's gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community (LGBT), has got worse since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003.                      
Human rights campaigners claim hundreds of LGBT people have been killed or tortured while others have fled the country fearing for their safety since Saddam was toppled from power six years ago.                     
 
Not noted in the article but among the people interviewed for the special is Nouri al-Maliki, puppet of the occupation, and his remarks should be of especial interest since he's done nothing to prevent the continued assault on Iraq's LGBT community.  Note that this special is being commissioned and aired by the BBC.  Did Joan Kroc's McMillions to NPR come with a codicil barring NPR from reporting on the gay community?  NPR has never covered the ongoing assault on Iraq's LGBT community.  June 1st, the assault was addressed on  KPFK's Connect the Dots with Lila Garrett between Garrett and LA City Council member Bill Rosendahl and that's day's snapshot included the following rundown -- and this is a partial rundown:
 
As noted May 15th, "Ruben Vives (Los Angeles Times) reports that the Los Angeles City Council unanimously voted Wednesday to approve Council Rep Bill Rosendahl's 'resolution calling for federal legislation urging the Iraqi government to prevent the persecution of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people'."  Lila noted that the segment was taped ahead of time so, for perspective, the resolution passed May 15th.  This year, the targeting's been noted here first in more on the issue, you can see this snapshot, this entry and the roundtable Friday night ["Roundtable on Iraq," "Roundtabling Iraq," "the roundtable," "Iraq," "Iraq in the Kitchen," "Roundtable on Iraq," "Talking Iraq," "Iraq," "Talking Iraq roundtable" and "Iraq roundtable"] That's going back to the start of April and it is not true that the MSM has ignored it.  They could do a lot more but they have covered it and where there has been no amplification is in Panhandle Media which appears to feel it's a 'niche' story to be left to the LGBT media.  In April, Wisam Mohammed and Khalid al-Ansary (Reuters) and Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN), the Dallas Morning News, UPI and AFP reported on it.   Michael Riley (Denver Post) covered the story and covered US House Rep Jared Polis' work on the issue (which included visiting Iraq), PDF format warning, click here for his letter to Patricia A. Butenis. Polis is quoted at his website stating, "The United States should not tolerate human rights violations of nay kind, especially by a government that Americans spend billions of taxpayer dollars each year supporting.  Hopefully my trip and letters to US and Iraqi officials will help bring international attention and investigation to this terrible situation and bring an end to any such offenses."   For the New York Times, Timothy Williams and Tareq Maher's "Iraq's Newly Open Gays Face Scorn and Murder" covered the topic.  BBC News offered "Fears over Iraq gay killing spate."  The Denver Post offered an editorial entitled  "Killing of gay Iraqis shouldn't be ignored: We applaud Rep. Jared Polis for his efforts last week to shine the spotlight on the killings of homosexuals in Iraq,"  Nigel Morris offered "Iraqi leaders attacked over spate of homophobic murders" (Independent of London), the Telegraph of London covers the issue here. Neal Broverman (The Advocate), Jessica Green (UK's Pink News), and Doug Ireland
covered it (here's one report by Ireland at GayCityNews -- he's filed more than one report), AFP reported on it again when signs went up throughout Sadr City with statements such as "We will punish you, perverts" and "We will get you, puppies" (puppies is slang for gay men in Iraq) and Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) reported on that as well. Chris Johnson offered "Polis seeks to aid Iraqis: Says gays 'fear for their life and limb' after fact-finding trip to Baghdad" (Washington Blade), Killian Melloy (The Edge -- this is the April 2nd story that contains the State Dept stating it's not happening -- the denial) and [PDF formart warning] the April 15th  "Iraq Status Report" by the US State Dept notes the killings.  Amnesty International weighed in as did the  International Gay and lesiban Human Rights Campaign.  Jim Muir (BBC News -- text and video) reported on the targeting and the attacks. UK Gay News covered it, last week ABC News offered Mazin Faiq's "Tortured and Killed in Iraq for Being Gay" Chicago Pride and UPI covered the latest deaths last week.  And AFP and Jessica Green (UK's Pink News) covered the public statement from Moqtada al-Sadr about how they needed to be "eradicated" for "depravity" and he thinks they can be 'taught' not to be gay. As for the technique, Bill Rosendahl didn't want to discuss on air  Doug Ireland (ZNet) reported on that in May[.]
 
Though it's a partial list, NPR's not omitted.  No major outlet is.  ABC News, BBC, CNN, Denver Post, Dallas Morning News (a news roundup), the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, UPI and AFP are major outlets.  So is NPR but it had other things to do.  Now BBC's commissioned and will be airing (July 5th -- and it will stream live online) and NPR's still playing Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
 
Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Matthew S. Bajko (The Edge) notes that this is being termed the "Summer of Obummer" and reviews Barack Obama's stumbles and fumbles on LGBT issues including:  "In court papers the Obama administration has defended the policy, and it has also refused to issue an executive order ending discharges of LGBT service members as it determines what course of action to take."  Jean Stanula (Examiner) points out that hideous policy creates many victims, including the service members' partners: "There is another group of people who are devastatingly affected by this policy as well, a group of people who are not even members of the military -- the partners of these LGBT soldiers who struggle with the same trials as military spouses, yet receive none of the support from the government, who must, in fact, remain invisible for the protection of their military partners. The husbands and wives of American soldiers receive special benefits from the government, in addition to the love and support they recieve from their communities. Some of these benefits include: receiving compensation if their husband or wife is injured or killed in the line of duty, disabled veterans who are married receive extra compensation to support their spouse, veteran's pensions, military support networks, next-of-kin notifications and more. Partners of LGBT service members  are denied these benefits, even the simple benefit of expressing pride openly of their love ones."  Last week, 77 members of the US House of Representatives wrote Barack about ending the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy:
 

Although we are confident that you will remain true to your campaign promise to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell, our LGBT service members and our country's national security will continue to suffer if initial action is delayed until 2010 or 2011.  We urge you to exercise the maximum discretion legally possible in administering Don't Ask, Don't Tell until Congress repeals the law.  To this end, we ask that you direct the Armed Services not to initiate any investigation of service personnel to determine their sexual orientation, and that you instruct them to disregard third party accusations that do not allege violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  That is, we request that you impose that no one is asked and that you ignore, as the law requires, third parties who tell.  Under your leadership, Congress must then repeal and replace Don't Ask, Don't Tell with a policy of inclusion and non-discrimination.  This bilateral strategy would allow our openly gay and lesbian service members to continue serving our country and demonstrate our nation's lasting commitment to justice and equality for all.

As the United States continues to work towards responsibly ending the War in Iraq and refocus on the threat from al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, our LGBT service members offer invaluable skills that enhance our country's military competence and readiness.  Despite the great strain on our military's human resources, the Armed Forces have discharged almost 800 mission-critical troops and at least 59 Arabic and nine Farsi linguists under Don't Ask, Don't Tell in the last five years.  This is indefensible.  The financial cost alone of implementing Don't Ask, Don't Tell from Fiscal Year 1994-2003 was more than $363.8 million.  Our nation's military has always held itself to the highest standards, and we must recruit and retain the greatest number of our best and brightest.  To do anything less only hurts our country's military readiness and our service members.            

We also want to bring to your attention the most recent examples of the failed Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy in action.  New York National Guard First Lieutenant Dan Choi and Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Victor Fehrenbach are two exceptional servicemen who have dedicated their lives to defending our country and protecting the American people.  Their bravery and abilities have been tested in combat, and now they face impending discharge under Don't Ask, Don't Tell.                           

First Lieutenant Choi, a current National Guardsman with the 1st Battalion of the 69th Infantry in Manhattan, is a West Point graduate, Arabic language specialist, and Iraq War veteran who is under investigation for refusing to lie about his identity.       

Lieutenant Colonel Fehrenbach, Assistant Director of Operations for the 366th Operations Support Squadron at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho, has honorably served his country for 18 years as an F-15E pilot.  He has received nine air medals, including a Medal for Heroism during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and was hand-picked to protect the airspace over Washington, D.C. after the Pentagon was attacked on September 11, 2001.  Lieutenant Colonel Fehrenbach, who has flown combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan against the Taliban and al Qaeda, continues to serve while the recommendation for his honorable discharge moves forward to a review board, and eventually to the Secretary of the Air Force.  Just two years away from his 20-year retirement, he stands to lose $46,000 a year in retirement and medical benefits for the rest of his life if discharged.                

The American people and service members of the Armed Forces overwhelmingly support the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  According to a national Gallup poll conducted in May 2009, 69 percent of Americans, including 58 percent of Republicans, favor allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve in the military.  Furthermore, a 2006 poll of 545 troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan by Zogby International and the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara revealed that 73 percent are personally comfortable with gay men and lesbian women.  John Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Clinton administration, and more than 100 retired admirals and generals support this repeal, in addition to the Human Rights Campaign, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, and Knights Out, an organization of LGBT West Point alumni co-founded by First Lieutenant Choi. 

 
That's an excerpt.  The letter (in full) can be found at US House Rep Alcee L. Hasting's website and "was authored by Hastings and signed by Representatives Barney Frank (D-MA), John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Fortney "Pete" Stark (D-CA), Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Gary Ackerman (D-NY), Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Eliot Engel (D-NY), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), José Serrano (D-NY), James Moran (D-VA), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Ed Pastor (D-AZ), James Clyburn (D-SC), Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Bob Filner (D-CA), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Robert "Bobby" Scott (D-VA), Bennie Thompson (D-MS), Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), Melvin Watt (D-NC), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Jane Harman (D-CA), Lois Capps (D-CA), Donna M. Christensen (D-VI), Diana DeGette (D-CO), Bill Delahunt (D-MA), Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-MI), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Barbara Lee (D-CA), James McGovern (D-MA), Brad Sherman (D-CA), Robert Wexler (D-FL), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Shelley Berkley (D-NV), Michael Capuano (D-MA), Joseph Crowley (D-NY), Rush Holt (D-NJ), John Larson (D-CT), Grace Napolitano (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Anthony Weiner (D-NY), David Wu (D-OR), William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Mike Honda (D-CA), James Langevin (D-RI), Betty McCollum (D-MN), Diane Watson (D-CA), Tim Bishop (D-NY), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Linda Sánchez (D-CA), Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), Doris Matsui (D-CA), Gwen Moore (D-WI), Debbie Wasserman Schulz (D-FL), André Carson (D-IN), Kathy Castor (D-FL), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Donna F. Edwards (D-MD), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Marcia L. Fudge (D-OH), Phil Hare (D-IL), Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI), Laura Richardson (D-CA), Joe Sestak (D-PA), Niki Tsongas (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Alan Grayson (D-FL), Jared Polis (D-CO), Mike Quigley (D-IL), and Gregorio Sablan (D-MP)."
 
While there has been action in the US House of Representatives calling for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell this month, the only US Senator publicly raising the issue is Roland Burris.  As his office notes:
 
Last week, Senator Burris met with Equality Illinois and a number of GLBT leaders in Chicago to discuss the current military policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."  Burris, a member of both the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs voiced his strong opposition to the current discriminatory policy.  During a June 22nd press conference at Equality Illinois, Senator Burris vowed to work alongside Senator Ted Kennedy to bring an end to the military's ban on gay servicemen and women, and to make the United States Armed Services more inclusive and accepting of all the brave individuals who wear our nation's uniform.             
"When we dismiss the sacrifices made by those with a different sexual orientation, we undermind the strength of our fighting forces.  When we fail to recognize the brave contributions that gay and lesbian service members continue to make every single day, we diminish ourselves as much as we diminish their service," Senator Burris said.  "We should end this offensive and discriminatory policy, so they can be the best soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines they can be, while living their lives openly and honestly."             
This Sunday, Senator Burris will march alongside members of the GLBT community in Chicago's Pride Parade.
 
Charlotte Starck and KOMO-TV Staff (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) note that Burris, Illinois Govenor Pat Quinn and the state's Attorney General Lisa Madigan joined "the festivicites that have attracted hundreds of thousands in recent years" yesterday.  Yesterday's events were part of the activism around the 40th anniversary of Stonewall and, for more on that, you can refer to Amy Goodman's "Stonewall Riots 40th Anniversary: A Look Back at the Uprising that Launched the Modern Gay Rights Movement," "Trans Day of Action: 'The Rebellion Is Not Over'" and "A Look at the Gay Rights Movement Beyond Marriage and the Military" (Democracy Now!).
 
Turning to England where Rupert Hamer (Daily Mirror) informs, "A secret report by Army bosses to be presented to the Iraq war inquiry blames Tony Blair and Gordon Brown for the botched occupation of the country.  The dossier -- prepared for ex-military chief General Sir Mike Jackson -- criticize then Chancellor Mr Brown for withholding fuds to rebuild Basra for FIVE months after our troops went in.  And the 100-page document attacks Mr Blair for 'uncritically' accepting flawed US plans for the March 2003 invasion, which led to tens of thousands of deaths, including those of 179 British troops." Daniel Martin (Daily Mail) adds, "In a memo to the Iraq war inquiry, they say Mr Brown's refusal as Chancellor to release vital funds for the Army played into the hands of insurgents.  Its criticisms are the latest in a line of attacks from senior Army figures on Mr Brown, who was Chancellor when U.S. and British troops attacked Iraq in March 2003." Nicholas Watt (Mail & Guardian) reminds that last week was when a debate in the House of Commons forced Gordon Brown and his cabinet to back off of the inquiry being held completely in private and notes that the chance "that Blair and Brown will be cross-examined on their roles in the Iraq war during the build-up to the general election that is expected to take place next year." The debate also forced Brown and his cabinet to back off the claim that the inquiry would not apportion blame.  Scottish National Party leader Angus Robertson states, "This leaked document would appear to be a damning critique of the two most senior members of the Labour government at the time -- Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.  It also suggests that there may be great unease about Gordon Brown's decision to allow the inquiry to be held in secret when it wished.  The whole point of this inquiry was to get to the truth about the Iraq war.  People wanted an open and honest inquiry, not some establishment stich-up.  This leak would appear to support the fact that by every measurement the Iraq war has been the biggest foreign policy disaster in modern times, and those responsible for it have never answered the most fundamental questions about why we were led into this mess."  Meanwhile the Yorkshire Post reports, "Families of soldiers killed by roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan are suing the Ministry of Defence, claiming that the lightly-armoured Snatch Land Rovers in which they died should never have been used on the frontline.  Over the past four years, dozens of our troops have been killed in this way."
 
Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division-Baghdad Soldier died June 28 as the result of combat related injuries.  The Soldier's name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin.  The names of the service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense Official Website at http://www.defenselink.mil/ . The announcements are made on the Website no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. MND-B will not release any additional details prior to notification of next of kin and official release by the DoD.  The incident is currently under investigation."  The announcement brings to 4317 the number of US service members killed since the start of the illegal war.
 
In other reported violence . . .
 
Bombings?
 
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Mosul bombing today which claimed the lives of 2 police officers and a Mosul car bombing claimed the lives of 9 police officers and left eleven people injured.  Reuters notes a Kirkuk roadside bombing left one person injured and, dropping back to Sunday, Ramadi roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 "member of the Sunni Iraqi Islamic Party and wounded his son".
 
Shootings?
 
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 police officer was shot dead in Diyala Province. 
 
Corpses?

Reuters notes 4 corpses were discovered in Mosul today.
 
 
Turning to the issue of the June 30th 'pull-out' and starting with this from Alice Fordham (Times of London), "The June 30 deadline was made in a status of forces agreement between the US and Iraq at the start of the year. A national holiday has been declared for that day, although a curfew may be imposed." That's noted in Thursday's snapshot and we're noting it again because on Friday an outlet (NYT) reported on the holiday for the first time and has since gotten credit (unearned) for being the outlet to break that news. Alice Fordahm had already reported it. Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) quotes wary Iraqi Jbory stating, "I will celebrate when I see my country living in peace. I will celebrate when there is electricity and clean water, when people go to the park and feel safe. I'll celebrate when kids on the street look clean and are wearing new clothes. I will celebrate when people can earn a living."  Hala Jaber, Ali Rifat Amman and Tony Allen-Mills (Times of London) quoted Sheiak Harith al-Dhari stating, "The resistance will not subside. I expect the insurgency to increase in both strength and ferocity, at least until the total withdrawal of the occupiers. Logic dictates that as long as there is fire under the pot, then the pot will continue to boil." Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reported, "The guys with the guns and bombs and best-laid plans may think the U.S. withdrawal of combat troops from major Iraqi cities will work.  But some ordinary Iraqis habor another idea."  Meanwhile Thomas E. Ricks debates himself.  First he argues, "Will the Iraqi be able to keep the population relatively secure?  To be honest, I don't know, and no one else does."  Less than 20 minutes later he offers, "Iraq is probably going to be violent for many years to come, and likely will be a closer ally of Iran than of the United States".  While I would personally guess that his second argument is the likely outcome for the foreseeable future, I can say 100%, I don't know.  What is known?  Mike Tharp (McClatchy Newspapers) offers some reality on the pull-out: "But the Status of Forces Agreement setting the June 30 deadline leaves a lot of discretionary decisions to the Americans. Lieut. Col. Drake Johnson, 39, a liaison officer with the Iraqi police, could have termed the patrol a 'force protection' mission, not a 'combined patrol.' In that case, only Americans would've been walking the route.  That's one reason on Tuesday, when Iraqis wake up, they will still see U.S. soldiers and Marines on patrol and in convoys. That's why some Iraqis -- like the one who yelled at the patrol, 'Hey, it's too bad you guys will be leaving soon!' -- may be disappointed with the profile, the footprint, that the Americans will still display in Iraq."  Alice Fordham (Times of London) describes the current scene in Baghdad: "Lurid artificial flowers and tinsel decorated the police cars and balloons and streamers adorned the concrete security checkpoints of South Baghdad".  Derrick Henry (New York Times) reports that Iraqi MP ("and a former national security adviser") Qassim Daoud is calling for the Status Of Forces Agreement to "be extended to 2020 or 2025."
 
On the 'pull-out' of US forces from some cities, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) explained this morning, "In most cases, they'll be shifted to areas encircling the places they leave.  American forces will also remain in the town of Mosul for an indefinite time."  And they will remain in Baghdad where their bases sprawl in and out of the city.  On the encircling, we'll fall back to Friday's snapshot:


As for the pull-out from Iraqi cities, Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) reveals, that instead of being in the cities, US forces will "encircle them," "put in place in the belts around those cities and in areas that are potential flashpoints of Kurdish-Arab tension. . . . The plan keeps US advisers within the cities, and in Mosul redeploys battalions that had been within the city to the surrounding areas." Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) reports that while "[t]housands of U.S. combat troops will remain at a handful of bases in Baghdad and on the outskirts of other restive cities, such as Mosul and Kirkuk, in nothern Iraq, past the June 30 deadline" and that this has US military officials worried that US service members as well as Iraqis will be put at risk in the new holding pattern Barack's created. Stop the holding pattern, just bring the troops home.
 
 
 
The illegal war hasn't ended. Elizabeth Baier (Minnesota Public Radio) reports, "More than 550 troops from the Minnesota Army National Guard will head to Iraq next month, where they will serve a one-year deployment as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom." Bob Von Sternberg (Minneapolis Star-Tribune) adds, "They are scheduled to return to Minnesota next April."  Lindsay Wise (Houston Chronicle) reports on the Texas Army National Guard's 72 Brigade will be shipping to Iraq for a nine month tour of duty.
 
Turning to Iraqi oil, Tamsin Carlisle (The National) observes of the "live auction of oil contracts," "What is certain is that billions of dollar will be put on the table to develop some of the country's biggest oilfields.  But little else is assured." Including the when as there has been a one day postponement.  The postponing, Robert Tuttle and Anthony DiPaola (Bloomberg News) explain, is due to a sandstorm.
 
 

Posted at 02:35 pm by thecommonills
 

Iraq snapshot

Iraq snapshot

Monday, June 29, 2009.  Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, one media outlet prepares to offer indepth coverage of the targeting of Iraq's LGBT community, June 30th play day frenzy builds, uh-oh-Gordo, he's in trouble again, and more.
 
In a week when Iraq 'dates' will be discussed non-stop, we'll start with an important one: July 5th.  That's when BBC Radio 5 airs Gay Life After Saddam (7 to 8 p.m. in England -- that will be eleven to noon PST). Ashley Byrne and Gail Champion produce the special for Made in Manchester.  James Chaperlard (Crain's Manchester Business) reports:
 
In Gay Life After Saddam, presenter Aasmah Mir finds out how life for the country's gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community (LGBT), has got worse since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003.                      
Human rights campaigners claim hundreds of LGBT people have been killed or tortured while others have fled the country fearing for their safety since Saddam was toppled from power six years ago.                     
 
Not noted in the article but among the people interviewed for the special is Nouri al-Maliki, puppet of the occupation, and his remarks should be of especial interest since he's done nothing to prevent the continued assault on Iraq's LGBT community.  Note that this special is being commissioned and aired by the BBC.  Did Joan Kroc's McMillions to NPR come with a codicil barring NPR from reporting on the gay community?  NPR has never covered the ongoing assault on Iraq's LGBT community.  June 1st, the assault was addressed on  KPFK's Connect the Dots with Lila Garrett between Garrett and LA City Council member Bill Rosendahl and that's day's snapshot included the following rundown -- and this is a partial rundown:
 
As noted May 15th, "Ruben Vives (Los Angeles Times) reports that the Los Angeles City Council unanimously voted Wednesday to approve Council Rep Bill Rosendahl's 'resolution calling for federal legislation urging the Iraqi government to prevent the persecution of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people'."  Lila noted that the segment was taped ahead of time so, for perspective, the resolution passed May 15th.  This year, the targeting's been noted here first in more on the issue, you can see this snapshot, this entry and the roundtable Friday night ["Roundtable on Iraq," "Roundtabling Iraq," "the roundtable," "Iraq," "Iraq in the Kitchen," "Roundtable on Iraq," "Talking Iraq," "Iraq," "Talking Iraq roundtable" and "Iraq roundtable"] That's going back to the start of April and it is not true that the MSM has ignored it.  They could do a lot more but they have covered it and where there has been no amplification is in Panhandle Media which appears to feel it's a 'niche' story to be left to the LGBT media.  In April, Wisam Mohammed and Khalid al-Ansary (Reuters) and Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN), the Dallas Morning News, UPI and AFP reported on it.   Michael Riley (Denver Post) covered the story and covered US House Rep Jared Polis' work on the issue (which included visiting Iraq), PDF format warning, click here for his letter to Patricia A. Butenis. Polis is quoted at his website stating, "The United States should not tolerate human rights violations of nay kind, especially by a government that Americans spend billions of taxpayer dollars each year supporting.  Hopefully my trip and letters to US and Iraqi officials will help bring international attention and investigation to this terrible situation and bring an end to any such offenses."   For the New York Times, Timothy Williams and Tareq Maher's "Iraq's Newly Open Gays Face Scorn and Murder" covered the topic.  BBC News offered "Fears over Iraq gay killing spate."  The Denver Post offered an editorial entitled  "Killing of gay Iraqis shouldn't be ignored: We applaud Rep. Jared Polis for his efforts last week to shine the spotlight on the killings of homosexuals in Iraq,"  Nigel Morris offered "Iraqi leaders attacked over spate of homophobic murders" (Independent of London), the Telegraph of London covers the issue here. Neal Broverman (The Advocate), Jessica Green (UK's Pink News), and Doug Ireland
covered it (here's one report by Ireland at GayCityNews -- he's filed more than one report), AFP reported on it again when signs went up throughout Sadr City with statements such as "We will punish you, perverts" and "We will get you, puppies" (puppies is slang for gay men in Iraq) and Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) reported on that as well. Chris Johnson offered "Polis seeks to aid Iraqis: Says gays 'fear for their life and limb' after fact-finding trip to Baghdad" (Washington Blade), Killian Melloy (The Edge -- this is the April 2nd story that contains the State Dept stating it's not happening -- the denial) and [PDF formart warning] the April 15th  "Iraq Status Report" by the US State Dept notes the killings.  Amnesty International weighed in as did the  International Gay and lesiban Human Rights Campaign.  Jim Muir (BBC News -- text and video) reported on the targeting and the attacks. UK Gay News covered it, last week ABC News offered Mazin Faiq's "Tortured and Killed in Iraq for Being Gay" Chicago Pride and UPI covered the latest deaths last week.  And AFP and Jessica Green (UK's Pink News) covered the public statement from Moqtada al-Sadr about how they needed to be "eradicated" for "depravity" and he thinks they can be 'taught' not to be gay. As for the technique, Bill Rosendahl didn't want to discuss on air  Doug Ireland (ZNet) reported on that in May[.]
 
Though it's a partial list, NPR's not omitted.  No major outlet is.  ABC News, BBC, CNN, Denver Post, Dallas Morning News (a news roundup), the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, UPI and AFP are major outlets.  So is NPR but it had other things to do.  Now BBC's commissioned and will be airing (July 5th -- and it will stream live online) and NPR's still playing Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
 
Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Matthew S. Bajko (The Edge) notes that this is being termed the "Summer of Obummer" and reviews Barack Obama's stumbles and fumbles on LGBT issues including:  "In court papers the Obama administration has defended the policy, and it has also refused to issue an executive order ending discharges of LGBT service members as it determines what course of action to take."  Jean Stanula (Examiner) points out that hideous policy creates many victims, including the service members' partners: "There is another group of people who are devastatingly affected by this policy as well, a group of people who are not even members of the military -- the partners of these LGBT soldiers who struggle with the same trials as military spouses, yet receive none of the support from the government, who must, in fact, remain invisible for the protection of their military partners. The husbands and wives of American soldiers receive special benefits from the government, in addition to the love and support they recieve from their communities. Some of these benefits include: receiving compensation if their husband or wife is injured or killed in the line of duty, disabled veterans who are married receive extra compensation to support their spouse, veteran's pensions, military support networks, next-of-kin notifications and more. Partners of LGBT service members  are denied these benefits, even the simple benefit of expressing pride openly of their love ones."  Last week, 77 members of the US House of Representatives wrote Barack about ending the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy:
 

Although we are confident that you will remain true to your campaign promise to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell, our LGBT service members and our country's national security will continue to suffer if initial action is delayed until 2010 or 2011.  We urge you to exercise the maximum discretion legally possible in administering Don't Ask, Don't Tell until Congress repeals the law.  To this end, we ask that you direct the Armed Services not to initiate any investigation of service personnel to determine their sexual orientation, and that you instruct them to disregard third party accusations that do not allege violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  That is, we request that you impose that no one is asked and that you ignore, as the law requires, third parties who tell.  Under your leadership, Congress must then repeal and replace Don't Ask, Don't Tell with a policy of inclusion and non-discrimination.  This bilateral strategy would allow our openly gay and lesbian service members to continue serving our country and demonstrate our nation's lasting commitment to justice and equality for all.

As the United States continues to work towards responsibly ending the War in Iraq and refocus on the threat from al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, our LGBT service members offer invaluable skills that enhance our country's military competence and readiness.  Despite the great strain on our military's human resources, the Armed Forces have discharged almost 800 mission-critical troops and at least 59 Arabic and nine Farsi linguists under Don't Ask, Don't Tell in the last five years.  This is indefensible.  The financial cost alone of implementing Don't Ask, Don't Tell from Fiscal Year 1994-2003 was more than $363.8 million.  Our nation's military has always held itself to the highest standards, and we must recruit and retain the greatest number of our best and brightest.  To do anything less only hurts our country's military readiness and our service members.            

We also want to bring to your attention the most recent examples of the failed Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy in action.  New York National Guard First Lieutenant Dan Choi and Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Victor Fehrenbach are two exceptional servicemen who have dedicated their lives to defending our country and protecting the American people.  Their bravery and abilities have been tested in combat, and now they face impending discharge under Don't Ask, Don't Tell.                           

First Lieutenant Choi, a current National Guardsman with the 1st Battalion of the 69th Infantry in Manhattan, is a West Point graduate, Arabic language specialist, and Iraq War veteran who is under investigation for refusing to lie about his identity.       

Lieutenant Colonel Fehrenbach, Assistant Director of Operations for the 366th Operations Support Squadron at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho, has honorably served his country for 18 years as an F-15E pilot.  He has received nine air medals, including a Medal for Heroism during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and was hand-picked to protect the airspace over Washington, D.C. after the Pentagon was attacked on September 11, 2001.  Lieutenant Colonel Fehrenbach, who has flown combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan against the Taliban and al Qaeda, continues to serve while the recommendation for his honorable discharge moves forward to a review board, and eventually to the Secretary of the Air Force.  Just two years away from his 20-year retirement, he stands to lose $46,000 a year in retirement and medical benefits for the rest of his life if discharged.                

The American people and service members of the Armed Forces overwhelmingly support the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  According to a national Gallup poll conducted in May 2009, 69 percent of Americans, including 58 percent of Republicans, favor allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve in the military.  Furthermore, a 2006 poll of 545 troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan by Zogby International and the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara revealed that 73 percent are personally comfortable with gay men and lesbian women.  John Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Clinton administration, and more than 100 retired admirals and generals support this repeal, in addition to the Human Rights Campaign, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, and Knights Out, an organization of LGBT West Point alumni co-founded by First Lieutenant Choi. 

 
That's an excerpt.  The letter (in full) can be found at US House Rep Alcee L. Hasting's website and "was authored by Hastings and signed by Representatives Barney Frank (D-MA), John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Fortney "Pete" Stark (D-CA), Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Gary Ackerman (D-NY), Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Eliot Engel (D-NY), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), José Serrano (D-NY), James Moran (D-VA), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Ed Pastor (D-AZ), James Clyburn (D-SC), Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Bob Filner (D-CA), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Robert "Bobby" Scott (D-VA), Bennie Thompson (D-MS), Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), Melvin Watt (D-NC), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Jane Harman (D-CA), Lois Capps (D-CA), Donna M. Christensen (D-VI), Diana DeGette (D-CO), Bill Delahunt (D-MA), Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-MI), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Barbara Lee (D-CA), James McGovern (D-MA), Brad Sherman (D-CA), Robert Wexler (D-FL), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Shelley Berkley (D-NV), Michael Capuano (D-MA), Joseph Crowley (D-NY), Rush Holt (D-NJ), John Larson (D-CT), Grace Napolitano (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Anthony Weiner (D-NY), David Wu (D-OR), William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Mike Honda (D-CA), James Langevin (D-RI), Betty McCollum (D-MN), Diane Watson (D-CA), Tim Bishop (D-NY), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Linda Sánchez (D-CA), Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), Doris Matsui (D-CA), Gwen Moore (D-WI), Debbie Wasserman Schulz (D-FL), André Carson (D-IN), Kathy Castor (D-FL), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Donna F. Edwards (D-MD), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Marcia L. Fudge (D-OH), Phil Hare (D-IL), Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI), Laura Richardson (D-CA), Joe Sestak (D-PA), Niki Tsongas (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Alan Grayson (D-FL), Jared Polis (D-CO), Mike Quigley (D-IL), and Gregorio Sablan (D-MP)."
 
While there has been action in the US House of Representatives calling for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell this month, the only US Senator publicly raising the issue is Roland Burris.  As his office notes:
 
Last week, Senator Burris met with Equality Illinois and a number of GLBT leaders in Chicago to discuss the current military policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."  Burris, a member of both the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs voiced his strong opposition to the current discriminatory policy.  During a June 22nd press conference at Equality Illinois, Senator Burris vowed to work alongside Senator Ted Kennedy to bring an end to the military's ban on gay servicemen and women, and to make the United States Armed Services more inclusive and accepting of all the brave individuals who wear our nation's uniform.             
"When we dismiss the sacrifices made by those with a different sexual orientation, we undermind the strength of our fighting forces.  When we fail to recognize the brave contributions that gay and lesbian service members continue to make every single day, we diminish ourselves as much as we diminish their service," Senator Burris said.  "We should end this offensive and discriminatory policy, so they can be the best soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines they can be, while living their lives openly and honestly."             
This Sunday, Senator Burris will march alongside members of the GLBT community in Chicago's Pride Parade.
 
Charlotte Starck and KOMO-TV Staff (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) note that Burris, Illinois Govenor Pat Quinn and the state's Attorney General Lisa Madigan joined "the festivicites that have attracted hundreds of thousands in recent years" yesterday.  Yesterday's events were part of the activism around the 40th anniversary of Stonewall and, for more on that, you can refer to Amy Goodman's "Stonewall Riots 40th Anniversary: A Look Back at the Uprising that Launched the Modern Gay Rights Movement," "Trans Day of Action: 'The Rebellion Is Not Over'" and "A Look at the Gay Rights Movement Beyond Marriage and the Military" (Democracy Now!).
 
Turning to England where Rupert Hamer (Daily Mirror) informs, "A secret report by Army bosses to be presented to the Iraq war inquiry blames Tony Blair and Gordon Brown for the botched occupation of the country.  The dossier -- prepared for ex-military chief General Sir Mike Jackson -- criticize then Chancellor Mr Brown for withholding fuds to rebuild Basra for FIVE months after our troops went in.  And the 100-page document attacks Mr Blair for 'uncritically' accepting flawed US plans for the March 2003 invasion, which led to tens of thousands of deaths, including those of 179 British troops." Daniel Martin (Daily Mail) adds, "In a memo to the Iraq war inquiry, they say Mr Brown's refusal as Chancellor to release vital funds for the Army played into the hands of insurgents.  Its criticisms are the latest in a line of attacks from senior Army figures on Mr Brown, who was Chancellor when U.S. and British troops attacked Iraq in March 2003." Nicholas Watt (Mail & Guardian) reminds that last week was when a debate in the House of Commons forced Gordon Brown and his cabinet to back off of the inquiry being held completely in private and notes that the chance "that Blair and Brown will be cross-examined on their roles in the Iraq war during the build-up to the general election that is expected to take place next year." The debate also forced Brown and his cabinet to back off the claim that the inquiry would not apportion blame.  Scottish National Party leader Angus Robertson states, "This leaked document would appear to be a damning critique of the two most senior members of the Labour government at the time -- Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.  It also suggests that there may be great unease about Gordon Brown's decision to allow the inquiry to be held in secret when it wished.  The whole point of this inquiry was to get to the truth about the Iraq war.  People wanted an open and honest inquiry, not some establishment stich-up.  This leak would appear to support the fact that by every measurement the Iraq war has been the biggest foreign policy disaster in modern times, and those responsible for it have never answered the most fundamental questions about why we were led into this mess."  Meanwhile the Yorkshire Post reports, "Families of soldiers killed by roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan are suing the Ministry of Defence, claiming that the lightly-armoured Snatch Land Rovers in which they died should never have been used on the frontline.  Over the past four years, dozens of our troops have been killed in this way."
 
Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division-Baghdad Soldier died June 28 as the result of combat related injuries.  The Soldier's name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin.  The names of the service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense Official Website at http://www.defenselink.mil/ . The announcements are made on the Website no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. MND-B will not release any additional details prior to notification of next of kin and official release by the DoD.  The incident is currently under investigation."  The announcement brings to 4317 the number of US service members killed since the start of the illegal war.
 
In other reported violence . . .
 
Bombings?
 
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Mosul bombing today which claimed the lives of 2 police officers and a Mosul car bombing claimed the lives of 9 police officers and left eleven people injured.  Reuters notes a Kirkuk roadside bombing left one person injured and, dropping back to Sunday, Ramadi roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 "member of the Sunni Iraqi Islamic Party and wounded his son".
 
Shootings?
 
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 police officer was shot dead in Diyala Province. 
 
Corpses?

Reuters notes 4 corpses were discovered in Mosul today.
 
 
Turning to the issue of the June 30th 'pull-out' and starting with this from Alice Fordham (Times of London), "The June 30 deadline was made in a status of forces agreement between the US and Iraq at the start of the year. A national holiday has been declared for that day, although a curfew may be imposed." That's noted in Thursday's snapshot and we're noting it again because on Friday an outlet (NYT) reported on the holiday for the first time and has since gotten credit (unearned) for being the outlet to break that news. Alice Fordahm had already reported it. Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) quotes wary Iraqi Jbory stating, "I will celebrate when I see my country living in peace. I will celebrate when there is electricity and clean water, when people go to the park and feel safe. I'll celebrate when kids on the street look clean and are wearing new clothes. I will celebrate when people can earn a living."  Hala Jaber, Ali Rifat Amman and Tony Allen-Mills (Times of London) quoted Sheiak Harith al-Dhari stating, "The resistance will not subside. I expect the insurgency to increase in both strength and ferocity, at least until the total withdrawal of the occupiers. Logic dictates that as long as there is fire under the pot, then the pot will continue to boil." Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reported, "The guys with the guns and bombs and best-laid plans may think the U.S. withdrawal of combat troops from major Iraqi cities will work.  But some ordinary Iraqis habor another idea."  Meanwhile Thomas E. Ricks debates himself.  First he argues, "Will the Iraqi be able to keep the population relatively secure?  To be honest, I don't know, and no one else does."  Less than 20 minutes later he offers, "Iraq is probably going to be violent for many years to come, and likely will be a closer ally of Iran than of the United States".  While I would personally guess that his second argument is the likely outcome for the foreseeable future, I can say 100%, I don't know.  What is known?  Mike Tharp (McClatchy Newspapers) offers some reality on the pull-out: "But the Status of Forces Agreement setting the June 30 deadline leaves a lot of discretionary decisions to the Americans. Lieut. Col. Drake Johnson, 39, a liaison officer with the Iraqi police, could have termed the patrol a 'force protection' mission, not a 'combined patrol.' In that case, only Americans would've been walking the route.  That's one reason on Tuesday, when Iraqis wake up, they will still see U.S. soldiers and Marines on patrol and in convoys. That's why some Iraqis -- like the one who yelled at the patrol, 'Hey, it's too bad you guys will be leaving soon!' -- may be disappointed with the profile, the footprint, that the Americans will still display in Iraq."  Alice Fordham (Times of London) describes the current scene in Baghdad: "Lurid artificial flowers and tinsel decorated the police cars and balloons and streamers adorned the concrete security checkpoints of South Baghdad".  Derrick Henry (New York Times) reports that Iraqi MP ("and a former national security adviser") Qassim Daoud is calling for the Status Of Forces Agreement to "be extended to 2020 or 2025."
 
On the 'pull-out' of US forces from some cities, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) explained this morning, "In most cases, they'll be shifted to areas encircling the places they leave.  American forces will also remain in the town of Mosul for an indefinite time."  And they will remain in Baghdad where their bases sprawl in and out of the city.  On the encircling, we'll fall back to Friday's snapshot:


As for the pull-out from Iraqi cities, Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) reveals, that instead of being in the cities, US forces will "encircle them," "put in place in the belts around those cities and in areas that are potential flashpoints of Kurdish-Arab tension. . . . The plan keeps US advisers within the cities, and in Mosul redeploys battalions that had been within the city to the surrounding areas." Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) reports that while "[t]housands of U.S. combat troops will remain at a handful of bases in Baghdad and on the outskirts of other restive cities, such as Mosul and Kirkuk, in nothern Iraq, past the June 30 deadline" and that this has US military officials worried that US service members as well as Iraqis will be put at risk in the new holding pattern Barack's created. Stop the holding pattern, just bring the troops home.
 
 
 
The illegal war hasn't ended. Elizabeth Baier (Minnesota Public Radio) reports, "More than 550 troops from the Minnesota Army National Guard will head to Iraq next month, where they will serve a one-year deployment as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom." Bob Von Sternberg (Minneapolis Star-Tribune) adds, "They are scheduled to return to Minnesota next April."  Lindsay Wise (Houston Chronicle) reports on the Texas Army National Guard's 72 Brigade will be shipping to Iraq for a nine month tour of duty.
 
Turning to Iraqi oil, Tamsin Carlisle (The National) observes of the "live auction of oil contracts," "What is certain is that billions of dollar will be put on the table to develop some of the country's biggest oilfields.  But little else is assured." Including the when as there has been a one day postponement.  The postponing, Robert Tuttle and Anthony DiPaola (Bloomberg News) explain, is due to a sandstorm.
 
 

Posted at 02:32 pm by thecommonills
 

Ned Parker looks at Iraqi 'justice'

Ned Parker looks at Iraqi 'justice''

Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) has long carved out Iraqi justice has his territory. He's reported on it repeatedly and usually been the only one doing so. When others attempted to, they either embarrassed themselves (Michael Gordon) or were pale copies of what Parker was reporting. Today he offers "Corruption plays key role in Iraqi justice" and, as usual for a Ned Parker Iraqi justice report, it relies on leg work and not being spoon fed. Sunni Sheik Maher Sirhan is the article's entry point. The sheik was told he could remain in prison (which he's chosen to do, refusing to pay extortion money) and be tortured or he could pay US equivalent of $50,000. He was in prison supposedly for "terrorism." But charges are trumped up and once imprisoned, you wait and wait for hearings (forget justice) that never arrive. The sheik's account is not the only supporting evidence Parker provides of the corruption, rivalries and political disputes that determine who sits in jail and who is freed. Parker notes, "Questions of collusion between corrupt security forces and judges who issue warrants are so great that Iraq's Supreme Judiciary Council ordered an inquiry into the matter this month, the official and a Western advisor to the Iraqi government confirmed." He also reminds that 100 'off the books' prisoners were recently discovered in Mosul.

About the only known event not covered in the article is the assassination this month (June 12th) of Iraqi MP Harith al-Obeidi (also spelled Obaidi) outside his mosque. The day before he was assassinated, he had called for an independent investigation into reports of abuse and torture in Iraqi prisons. We'll again note the statement Amnesty International issued:


Iraq: Amnesty International calls for an independent investigation into the assassination of Dr Hareth al-'Ubaidi

In a letter sent to the Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamil al-Maliki, Amnesty International has expressed grave concern at the killing of Dr Hareth al-'Ubaidi, Vice-President of the Human Right Committee of the Iraqi parliament, and requested urgent clarification as to what steps the government has undertaken to investigate the murder. The organization has also called for an independent investigation into reports of torture of detainees in a prison in the city of al-Diwaniyah.

Dr al-'Ubaidi, who also headed the Sunni Accord Bloc in parliament, was shot dead at the end of Friday prayers on 12 June 2009 at al-Shawwaf Mosque in the Baghdad district of al-Yarmuk. After firing at Dr Hareth al-'Ubaidi with a pistol the killer is reported to have thrown a hand grenade at other prayer attendees, killing five people and injuring 12 others, before he was shot and killed by police.

A number of Iraqi parliamentarians have since denounced the killing and attributed Dr Hareth al-'Ubaidi's murder to his human rights work, especially his recent exposure of cases of torture, including rape, of detainees following a visit he undertook a few weeks ago to a women's prison in al-Kadhmiya in Baghdad. Dr al-'Ubaidi told the media that several women detained at the prison told him that they had been raped during interrogation.

Further evidence of torture of detainees is reported to have been brought to light by a human rights body affiliated to al-Diwaniyah Governorate, which has accused the security authorities of torturing detainees during interrogation in order to extract "confessions". Investigators from the Interior Ministry are reported to have identified bruising on 10 of the 170 prisoners in al-Diwaniyah Prison that may have been caused by torture or other ill-treatment.

In its letter, Amnesty International has requested prompt clarification of the steps being taken by the Iraqi authorities to investigate the attack on Dr al-'Ubaidi and other worshippers at al-Shawwaf Mosque, which it strongly condemns, and to establish whether it was perpetrated by a gunman acting alone or with the active assistance of others. Further, the organization has requested prompt clarification of the steps being taken by the Iraqi authorities to investigate the allegations of torture cited above and to bring to justice those responsible for such abuses. In accordance with Iraq's obligations under international human rights law, including the UN Torture Convention (CAT), such investigations should be independent, impartial and conducted and completed without delay. The outcome should be made public and anyone found responsible should be brought to justice through fair trial procedures and without recourse to the death penalty.

The organization has called on the Iraqi authorities to ensure that all detainees have access to regular medical care, families, lawyers of their own choosing and the right to challenge the legality of their detention. In addition, all persons in custody should either promptly charged with recognizable criminal offences and trial in accordance with international standards of fair trial, or released. Public Document

For more information please call Amnesty International's press office in London, UK, on +44 20 7413 5566 or email: press@amnesty.org

International Secretariat, Amnesty International, 1 Easton St., London WC1X 0DW, UK www.amnesty.org


Turning to the issue of the June 30th 'pull-out' and starting with this from Alice Fordham (Times of London), "The June 30 deadline was made in a status of forces agreement between the US and Iraq at the start of the year. A national holiday has been declared for that day, although a curfew may be imposed." That's noted in Thursday's snapshot and we're noting it again because on Friday an outlet (NYT) reported on the holiday for the first time and has since gotten credit (unearned) for being the outlet to break that news. Alice Fordahm had already reported it. Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) quotes wary Iraqi Jbory stating, "I will celebrate when I see my country living in peace. I will celebrate when there is electricity and clean water, when people go to the park and feel safe. I'll celebrate when kids on the street look clean and are wearing new clothes. I will celebrate when people can earn a living." Londono's report continues:

Violence has spiked in recent days as insurgents have sought to make calls for jubilation seem like hubris. A string of bombings last week, including powerful ones in Kirkuk and the eastern Baghdad district of Sadr City, killed more than 200 people.
"We are not happy now," said Abu Noor, a college student, standing outside a market in Ur, a neighborhood in northeastern Baghdad. "Why should we be happy? We know that things will turn upside down after maybe a week of the withdrawal. We all know that the militias are hiding because they know the Americans are inside the cities and are ready to be there at a moment's notice."

Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) notes in headlines today that the "pull-out" actually is just US forces encircling areas. For those who missed that fact, we'll drop back to Friday's snapshot:


As for the pull-out from Iraqi cities, Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) reveals, that instead of being in the cities, US forces will "encircle them," "put in place in the belts around those cities and in areas that are potential flashpoints of Kurdish-Arab tension. . . . The plan keeps US advisers within the cities, and in Mosul redeploys battalions that had been within the city to the surrounding areas." Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) reports that while "[t]housands of U.S. combat troops will remain at a handful of bases in Baghdad and on the outskirts of other restive cities, such as Mosul and Kirkuk, in nothern Iraq, past the June 30 deadline" and that this has US military officials worried that US service members as well as Iraqis will be put at risk in the new holding pattern Barack's created. Stop the holding pattern, just bring the troops home.

Jim Muir (BBC News -- podcast option as well as text) has a lengthy essay exploring the state of Iraq which concludes:

Do people really feel attached to the Iraqi nation, or, are they just waiting for the Americans to go, so they can get on with pursuing the interest of their own sect, clan or tribe?
The truth is, nobody really knows, but a lot more needs to be done in the meantime, if people are to feel confident.

Derrick Henry's "U.S. Commander Says Iraq Forces Ready" (New York Times) covers Gen Ray Odierno's appearances on Fox and CNN yesterday and buries what should be on the front page:


Meanwhile, Qassim Daoud, an independent Shiite legislator and a former national security adviser, said the Status of Forces Agreement between Iraq and the United States should be extended to 2020 or 2025. The agreement, which the Iraqi Parliament ratified in November, calls for American troops to pull out of most Iraqi cities by this summer and sets the end of 2011 as the date by which all American troops must leave the country.


Meanwhile June 30th is not the only thing getting attention. Tamsin Carlisle (The National) observes:

The world will be watching Iraq this week as it broadcasts a unique live auction of oil contracts.
What is certain is that billions of dollars will be put on the table to develop some of the country’s biggest oilfields. But little else is assured. Even nature intervened to delay the bidding, as a sandstorm engulfed Baghdad yesterday and shut down the city’s airport.
The two-day event, now postponed by one day to tomorrow and Wednesday, is bound to end with a cliffhanger. In the balance is the future of Iraq’s oil industry, which is expected to fuel the economic engine behind the country’s recovery after decades of war and sanctions.

The postponing, Robert Tuttle and Anthony DiPaola (Bloomberg News) explain, is due to a sandstorm.

Bonnie reminds that Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Barry & Bully" went up last night.
The e-mail for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.












democracy now
amy goodman

jane arraf

ernesto londono


Posted at 06:18 am by thecommonills
 

Gordon Brown and Tony Blair's latest problems

Gordon Brown and Tony Blair's latest problems

A secret report by Army bosses to be presented to the Iraq war inquiry blames Tony Blair and Gordon Brown for the botched occupation of the country.
The dossier -- prepared for ex-military chief General Sir Mike Jackson -- criticises then Chancellor Mr Brown for withholding funds to rebuild Basra for FIVE months after our troops went in. And the 100-page document attacks Mr Blair for "uncritically" accepting flawed US plans for the March 2003 invasion, which led to tens of thousands of deaths, including those of 179 British troops.
The report -- Stability Operations in Iraq -- will not be officially made public because the inquiry's head, Sir John Chilcot, ruled all documents will remain secret.

The above is from Rupert Hamer's "Tony Blair and Gordon Brown to blame over Iraq war, says Army report" (The Daily Mirror) from yesterday and it remains the big story in the UK news cycle today. Daniel Martin (Daily Mail) adds:

In a memo to the Iraq war inquiry, they say Mr Brown's refusal as Chancellor to release vital funds for the Army played into the hands of insurgents.
Its criticisms are the latest in a line of attacks from senior Army figures on Mr Brown, who was Chancellor when U.S. and British troops attacked Iraq in March 2003.
The report, written for former Army head Sir Mike Jackson, also attacks Mr Blair for 'uncritically' accepting flawed U.S. plans for the invasion when he was Prime Minister.
It reveals British forces were so overstretched they had to use mobile phones during battles because Army-issue radios did not work. The 100-page dossier, Stability Operations in Iraq, will not be made public - but its contents were leaked to a Sunday newspaper.

Nicholas Watt (Mail & Guardian) reminds that last week was when a debate in the House of Commons forced Gordon Brown and his cabinet to back off of the inquiry being held completely in private and notes that the chance "that Blair and Brown will be cross-examined on their roles in the Iraq war during the build-up to the general election that is expected to take place next year." The debate also forced Brown and his cabinet to back off the claim that the inquiry would not apportion blame.

The Scottish National Party issued the following release:

Commenting on an army report leaked to the Sunday Mirror which blames not only Tony Blair but Gordon Brown for the botched occupation of Iraq the SNP Westminster leader and Defence spokesperson, Angus Robertson MP, said it indicated unease at senior army levels about the inquiry being held in secret.
According to the secret report by senior Army officers whish was to be presented to the Iraq war inquiry it criticises the then Chancellor Gordon Brown for withholding funds to rebuild Basra for FIVE months after troops went in. The 100-page document also attacks Tony Blair for "uncritically" accepting the flawed US plans for the March 2003 invasion.
The report - Stability Operations in Iraq - is not meant not be officially made public because the inquiry's head, Sir John Chilcot, ruled all documents will remain secret.
Commenting Mr Robertson said:
"This leaked document would appear to be a damning critique of the two most senior members of the Labour government at the time - Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
"It also suggests that there may be great unease about Gordon Brown's decision to allow the inquiry to be held in secret when it wished.
"The whole point of this inquiry was to get to the truth about the Iraq war. People wanted an open and honest inquiry, not some establishment stitch-up.
"This leak would appear to support the fact that by every measurement the Iraq war has been the biggest foreign policy disaster in modern times, and those responsible for it have never answered the most fundamental questions about why we were led into this mess."

Representing the Conservative Party, David Brown misses the news cycle and instead focuses on public spending. The Socialist Party, Liberal Democrats and Respect have nothing new up. Respect's MP George Galloway did speak last week in the House of Commons Debate and World Press Network Net offers that and includes a link for audio:


Mr. George Galloway (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Respect): With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, 10 minutes of most Back Benchers is more than enough, but there are odd occasions when it is not enough. The speeches of the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) who has vast experience and of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) should have been extended. They were extremely important to this debate and this 10-minute rule should give you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the flexibility to allow a moment or two for important, decisive speeches in a debate. I have now given away 30 seconds of my time, but I thought that that was worth saying.

The Government just do not get it. That is evident again this evening from the languid complacency with which the Foreign Secretary spoke, which led the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) to say that he felt that the Foreign Secretary’s heart was not in it. It is evident from the period of time when there was not a single Government Member on the Front Bench and from the body language of the two Ministers who now are on it when the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood was speaking. They were sneering and nudging, utterly oblivious to the fact that her speech will be listened to and read by millions tomorrow and given real weight, while what they have to say will be treated, if they are lucky, with derision.

The Prime Minister’s initial prospectus for this inquiry proved that the Government just do not get it. When, in 2005, I was elected as the first left-of-Labour Member of Parliament in England for 60 years, I was elected because of Iraq. The Labour party’s membership has halved because of Iraq. Millions of Labour voters have left them and new parties—some of the left and some of the right—are proliferating and strengthening, in substantial part because of Iraq. That has happened not directly, but indirectly because of the poison that the Iraq question has caused to pulse around the British body politic. The lack of credibility of the British political class has also been the result of Iraq.

The Government still do not get it. If they did, they would have used this opportunity for a grand catharsis, to turn the page and finally leave Blairism behind and call for the kind of inquiry that has been repeatedly demanded in the House this evening.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Member also concede that it is not just British politics that has been changed and shaped by Iraq, as the issue has had an effect across Europe, all over the world in respect of the anti-war movement, but also particularly in the United States? For all his support for the war in Afghanistan, President Obama basically owes his position to his opposition to the Iraq war and his initial victories in the Democrat primaries because of that opposition. American politics has also been delineated by Iraq.

Mr. Galloway: Indeed. There has been a holding to account in the United States of America—there has been catharsis. Those responsible for the disaster have been cleansed away and there is the sense of a new beginning.

Of course, we do not have that option. Some of us recall only too vividly the iron-clad consensus between those on the two Front Benches in the run-up to the war. The then Leader of the Opposition differed from the Government only in that he wanted the war faster, and more brutal and overwhelming. We have no chance for that catharsis, because either Tweedledee or Tweedledum will rule the country when the general election comes. That is a disaster for us, and it makes the inquiry much more important than it might otherwise have been. That is why we ought to have a real inquiry.

I am a founder and the vice-president of the Stop the War coalition, which organised the demonstrations of millions that have been referred to this evening, so the House must forgive me if I am a little more rebarbative than some of the politesse we have heard today. I seek to speak for the millions who were on the streets of this country.

People have queued up to say they have nothing against the membership of the inquiry. Well, I do. The more the Foreign Secretary adumbrated their distinguished characteristics, the more I saw a parade of establishment flunkeys—Sir Humphrey This and Sir Humphrey That. Those who are not just grey blurs are in fact partisans. Freedman is one of the authors of the intellectual case for the war. He and his neo-con friends were the people who made the then Prime Minister’s bullets for the war. Gilbert hailed Bush and Blair—imagine, they are already two of the most discredited political figures in the world, and history has not even started on them yet—as akin to Roosevelt and Churchill. Yet both Freedman and Gilbert are among the very small group of people who will conduct the inquiry.

Why can we not have real politicians on the inquiry? Why cannot the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews)—forensic, learned, legal—be on the committee? Why cannot the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), with all his experience, skills and training, be on the inquiry? Why cannot the former Foreign Secretary Lord Hurd, with his vast knowledge of international affairs, be on the inquiry? Why should Parliament be represented by a woman I have never heard of? I have sat in this place for 23 years, and I doubt whether anybody here, other than those with the privilege of knowing the lady personally, could tell us anything that she has ever done. How can she represent Parliament in this great debate—this great inquiry? There are no military men, no men or women of legal eminence and no politicians except a non-political peeress of whom none of us has heard. This inquiry team has no credibility out there among the public.

Mr. Gordon Prentice rose—

Mr. Galloway: I cannot give way, because I shall lose the time—I have no extra time. I am sorry. The House must forgive me; I am one of those who is worth more than 10 minutes. I cannot give way—[HON. MEMBERS: “You can.”] In that case, I apologise. I give way.

Mr. Prentice: I think it is completely out of order for the hon. Gentleman to traduce Baroness Prashar from the other place. She was a distinguished civil service commissioner. Just because he has not heard of her does not mean that colleagues elsewhere have not.

Mr. Galloway: Quite so. A distinguished civil servant, just as Mr. or Lord Chilcot, Sir Chilcot or whatever he is called, is a distinguished former permanent secretary. That is the point. How very British. How very “Yes Minister”. How very Sir Humphrey. This has to be a real inquiry, of the kind the Americans would hold—with forensic experts on it who can root out the truth.

Some of the stuff we have heard this evening has been almost laughable. The Foreign Secretary said that he cannot put a percentage on which parts will be in public and which in private. Well, given how loth most people in the country are to believe anything the Government say, that ought to be a significant warning signal. They say that Chilcot can look at the scope for making people take oaths, but without oaths the whole thing is meaningless. Tony Blair is right that he answers questions on Iraq all the time. It is the truthfulness of the answers that is the problem, not the fact that he has the brass neck to answer. His problem is the punishment that he would have to face in this life if he answered questions untruthfully under oath. This is not worth the paper it is not written on unless there are legally enforceable powers to subpoena, to bring witnesses and documents, and to force people giving evidence to do so under oath.

The reality is that some of us smell a crime in this whole affair. That it was a blunder is now conventional wisdom, although one or two almost extinct volcanoes on the new Labour Benches are still prepared to chunter about how proud they are of an enterprise that killed a million people, that killed hundreds and maimed thousands of our own people, that radicalised and fanaticised hundreds of millions of Muslims throughout the world, and that caused fanaticism to come to our very own country and harm innocent people in London, including in my constituency. Although a few semi-extinct volcanoes are prepared to identify themselves with what they did, that this was a blunder is a conventional wisdom that is shared if not in this building, then among the vast majority of the population as a whole.

Some of us say, to reverse Talleyrand, that this was worse than a blunder; it was a crime. If the inquiry is to mean anything, it will need to be able not only to apportion blame but, if blame is apportioned, to signal what legal avenues should be pursued. I know that we do not like that sort of thing in this country—things are usually swept under the carpet and finessed—but this is new territory. Events such as the expenses scandal have left the country seeing our House with such odium, and this country’s political class so naked, that the old ways will not do. If the inquiry finds people guilty of misleading Parliament, the Queen, the armed forces and the public, they will have to be held accountable. There will have to be a trial, which will have to be held under oath, and that will lead to punishment if there are convictions at the end—nothing less will do.

We can faff about here in our parliamentary way, with fey exchanges between those on the two Front Benches, but that will not cut any mustard out there—[Interruption.] It will not cut any mustard with the people who were against the war in their overwhelming number in constituencies such as that of the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), who is speaking from a sedentary position. They will be looking to see whether she votes to continue the cover-up, or votes for the kind of candour that will be required to return credibility to the House and our political system. This does not cut any ice with the millions of people who used to vote Labour but can now hardly think of themselves doing so again, even when the alternative is the rancid hypocrisy of Conservative Front Benchers.

Polly notes David Carter's "'Stonewall gave me new gay role models'" (BBC News):

After World War II homosexual rights movements made progress in Western democracies. The homosexual rights movement began in an organized way in the United States after World War II during the Cold War when the Mattachine Society was founded.
While there was progress toward decriminalizing homosexuality in Canada and Europe, progress in the US was much slower. But in Europe, severe prejudice against homosexuality remained even in those societies where homosexual sex acts were not illegal.
It was the massive and sustained uprising against the police that erupted at the end of June 1969 when the New York City police raided a popular gay bar named the Stonewall that eventually changed the situation worldwide.
Because the riots broke out in the late 1960s after the successes of the US anti-Vietnam War movement and the black civil rights movement, the organizations that emerged immediately after Stonewall were cast in a New Left mould, which also meant a militant consciousness.
The most successful of these organizations, the Gay Activists Alliance, modelled its actions on guerrilla theatre and added camp humour to create "zaps", demonstrations that were highly creative, highly subversive, and designed to get media attention. The result was that gay people were seen over and over in the media acting from positions of power: challenging power and unafraid.
That changed the consciousness of gay people everywhere, including even someone like myself who was a high-school student who was trying very hard to deny his homosexuality.
Suddenly I had a new model: gay men as brave and creative and effective, not as sex perverts who were creeps and mentally ill. And this is why the movement at this historical juncture grew like mushrooms: this was just what gay men and lesbians, who had been so suppressed for so long needed. And because we had witnessed the revolt of all the other oppressed groups, we knew just what to do: all the other militant movements that had changed the consciousness of the masses in the 1960s -even when they had often failed to change particular government policies or pass specific laws - offered a template for ending discrimination and prejudiced thinking.

For more on the history of Stonewall and where things are today in the US, you can refer to the following Democracy Now! segments from Friday when Amy Goodman turned the focus of the show onto the struggle:

Stonewall Riots 40th Anniversary: A Look Back at the Uprising that Launched the Modern Gay Rights Movement
Trans Day of Action: "The Rebellion Is Not Over"
A Look at the Gay Rights Movement Beyond Marriage and the Military

(Today's focus, for any who are wondering, is the coup in Honduras and Latin America.)

Bonnie reminds that Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Barry & Bully" went up last night. The e-mail for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.







Posted at 06:15 am by thecommonills
 


Next Page




<< July 2009 >>
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
 01 02 03 04
05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31

Contact Me

If you want to be updated on this weblog Enter your email here:




rss feed