But for most people, the primary source of their information is the mainstream. It is mainly television. Even the internet for all its subversiveness has still a very large component of the mainstream. And that means we’re getting still either its this singular message about wars, about the economy, about all those things that touch our lives. All we are getting is what I would call is a contrived silence, a censorship by a mission. I think this is almost the principal issue of today because without information, we cannot possibly begin to influence government. We cannot possibly begin to end the wars.
All of this, it seams to me, has come together in the presidency of Barack Obama who is almost a creation of this media world. He promised some things, although most of them were more for us, and has delivered virtually the opposite. He started his own war in Pakistan. We see the events in Iran and Honduras in quiet subtlety, but very directly influenced in the time-honored way by the Obama administration. And yet the Obama administration is still given this extraordinary benefit of the doubt by people, who in my view are influenced by the mainstream media. It is a time when I think, where either we are going to begin to understand how the media really works, or we’re going to let that opportunity pass. Its almost a historic opportunity the we understand that the perception of our world is utterly distorted, most of the time through what are seen as credible sources of information.

That's John Pilger on today's Democracy Now!, "John Pilger on Honduras, Iran, Gaza, the Corporate Media, Obama’s Wars and Resisting the American Empire." We're noting Pilger in both entries to signify the importance. Also of importance is Bryan Bender's "More female veterans are winding up homeless" (Boston Globe) notes that the figures have "nearly doubled" this decade while, "unlike their male counterparts, many have the added burden of being single parents." Can someone explain why, in an article on female veterans, only one female veteran is spoken to? Can someone explain why a man is yammering on and on about what it's like for a female veteran? Would it not have been smarter for the man to have said, "Let me put you in touch with ____. She's a member of our organization and can speak to this." Did Bender know of no women who were experts on this issue? Strange because a number of them have appeared before Congress in the last two years. If you're not grasping the problem, a male reporter is allegedly covering homeless female veterans and he does that by speaking to one and then by getting non-stop background from a male VA official and a male with a veterans organization. Neither, for the record, are experts on homeless female veterans. And this is done while the whole reason for the problem is that the VA has not anticipated or grasped the needs of female veterans. Do you not get how this article contributes to that problem by who is sought out to offer 'expertise'?


From the June 3rd snapshot, when US House Rep Bob Finer chaired the House Committee on Veterans Affairs committee for the hearing entitled "A National Commitment to End Veterans' Homelessness:"

The number of women veterans who are homeless is rising. [Vietnam Veterans of America's Marsha] Four observed, "There certainly is a question of course on the actual number of homeless veterans -- it's been flucuating dramatically in the last few years. When it was reported at 250,000 level, two percent were considered females. This was rougly about 5,000. Today, even if we use the very low number VA is supplying us with -- 131,000 -- the number, the percentage, of women in that population has risen up to four to five percent, and in some areas, it's larger. So that even a conservative method of determinng this has left the number as high as [6,550]. And the VA actually is reporting that they are seeing that this is as high as eleven percent for the new homeless women veterans. This is a very vulnerable population, high incidents of past sexual trauma, rape and domestic violence. They have been used, abused and raped. They trust no one. Some of these women have sold themselves for money, been sold for sex as children, they have given away their own children. And they are encased in this total humiliation and guilt the rest of their lives." About half of her testimony was reading and about half just speaking to the committee directly. Click here for her prepared remarks. We'll come back to the issue of homeless women veterans in a moment.
[. . .]
Marsha Four: I believe, sir, that there are very few programs in the country that are set up and designed specifically for homeless women veterans that are seperate. One of the problems that we're run into in a mixed gender setting is sort of two-fold. One the women veterans do not have the opportunity to actually be in a seperate group therapy environment because there are many issues that they simply will not divulge in mixed gender populations so those issues are never attended to. The other is that we believe, in a program, you need to focus on yourself and this is the time and place to do your issue, your deal. In a mixed gender setting, let's say, interfering factors. Relationships are one of them. Many of the veterans too come from the streets so there's a lot of street behavior going on. Some of the women -- and men -- but some of the women have participated in prostitution and so there's a difficult setting for any of them to actually focus on themselves without having all these other stressors come into play. So we feel that's an important issue.

US Senator Patty Murray's office issued the following today, "FT. LEWIS: Murray Includes $2 Million to Build First-of-its-Kind Women and Children's Facility at Madigan Army Medical Center in Critical Spending Bill:"

Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), a member of the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Committee, announced that she has included $2 million to begin planning and design of a Women and Children’s Center at Madigan Army Medical Center. The Women and Children’s Center is necessary to provide health care and services to Fort Lewis’ large and growing population of women and newborns. The facility would be the Army’s first Women and Children’s Center. The funding was included in the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Bill which passed the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee today.
“We owe it to our soldiers and their families to ensure that Madigan keeps up with the changing needs of the Fort Lewis community,” said Senator Murray. “And with the number of women and newborns on base growing, it’s time for an expanded facility that meets their unique needs. This funding will begin the process of building a facility that not only provides top-notch maternity and health care to those on base, but also serves as a valuable resource to the surrounding community. This project recognizes that the health and well being of our soldiers is directly connected to the health of their families.”
“Pierce County greatly values its relationship with the military, and I am very pleased to support the creation of a Women and Children’s Center at Madigan Army Hospital,” said Pat McCarthy, Pierce County Executive. “Once completed, this facility will offer greater access to quality healthcare for our soldiers and their families.”
The project will expand access to quality healthcare to the female soldiers and Army families who are stationed at these bases as well as members of the Army National Guard and Reserve and their families in the greater Washington State area. It will serve soldiers through pre- and post- deployment and their families during deployments. Establishing a women and children’s care facility at Madigan Army Medical Center will fulfill the Army’s commitment to families and address the healthcare needs outlined in the Army Family Covenant. The project will also bring 35 to 40 new, full-time, long-term, healthcare related jobs to Piece County.
Facts About Madigan and Fort Lewis Regarding a Women and Children’s Facility
By 2013 the Madigan Army Medical Center will serve the third largest troop population in the country as Fort Lewis and McChord Air Force Base complete the base merger required by the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment.
Fort Lewis enrolls over 126, 000 soldiers and family members and projects over 2,700 births annually.
Fort Lewis has the largest troop population at a base with a teaching medical center.
Fort Lewis is ranked third in the nation among Army Medical Centers in births.
Maternal-fetal medicine, urogynecology, GYN oncology, pediatric surgery, medical genetics, and pediatric subspecialties have an existing and long-term presence at Madigan.
Madigan is home to the only Department of Defense fellowships in developmental pediatrics and maternal-fetal medicine.
The Military Construction Appropriations Bill will be considered by the full Appropriations Committee tomorrow and will then be sent to the full Senate for consideration.

Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Mosul car bombing which injured fourteen and a Baquba roadside bombing which left two police officers injured.

Shootings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a traffic police officer was injured in a Mosul shooting, 1 person was shot dead "inside a medical center" (also in Mosul) and assailants attacked two police officers at a Mosul checkpoint (stabbing them to death) and then shot up another Mosul checkpoint.



Beau notes Robert Taylor's "Out of Iraq? Don't Bet On It" (Examiner):


This is part of Obama’s new “grand strategy” to “pull out” from Iraq by December 31, 2011, and until then U.S. forces will remain as night watchmen and have permission to enter cities only when the Iraqi government asks them to. U.S. puppet Prime Minister Malaki is hailing this as a “victory” for the Iraqi people, though there are still going to be 130,000 troops waiting for his call to crush anyone him and his Army can’t handle on their own.
This partial pull-out is nothing more than a metaphorical passing of the emperor-torch to Malaki, who now has the “sole” authority to request American troops. Obama’s new “grand strategy” (the perfect name for a plan coming from the Egomaniac-in-Chief) in Iraq is a way of making it seem like U.S. troops are being taken out of harm’s way so that he can justify keeping them there as long as possible.
The point of the invasion of Iraq was never to declare “victory” and go home. Empires don’t go home, and the U.S. invaded Iraq to continue its expansion of bases and Vatican-size embassies, expand its hegemonic influence in the region, and take out one of Israel’s biggest threats. Sen. George Casey, who used to be in charge of all forces in Iraq, has suggested U.S. forces will have to stay in the region for at least ten years. Well, ten more years isn’t really that long of a time compared to the sixty-four years (and counting) that the U.S. has occupied Germany and South Korea.

Beau points out Taylor is a Liberatarian. We do highlight them from time to time on Iraq but we are a site for the left. The above was worth noting regadless of party i.d.

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


iraq
john pilger
democracy now
bryan bender
boston globe
laith hammoudi
mcclatchy newspapers
robert taylor

So what we will see as Obama has said, we will see American ground troops gradually withdrawn. But as they do so, the use of electronic weaponry and bombing will increase. Unless there is an understanding of this in this country, unless people stopped taking the pronouncements of governments at their word. When Obama went to Annapolis and said we’re getting out of Iraq and appeared to be giving a timetable, within a matter of weeks, I believe, General Casey contradicted him and said -- we will probably be there for another 10 years. And other Pentagon generals put it even higher, 15 years.

John Pilger on today's Democracy Now!, "John Pilger on Honduras, Iran, Gaza, the Corporate Media, Obama’s Wars and Resisting the American Empire." In today's New York Times, Alissa J. Rubin contributes "America's New Role in Iraq Prompts a Search for Means of Influence" which is billed as "NEWS ANALYSIS." Rubin offers her take (with help from Sheryl Gay Stolberg) on where things stand now on the ground in Iraq. She offers:

Many Iraqis say that since the Obama administration took office, America's policy towards Iraq has seemed unfocused and distant. In interviews, more than a dozen Iraqi policy makers felt that Iraq had been displaced by concerns about Afghanistan and Pakistan and that the administration had not given much thought to Iraq beyond its resolve to get the troops out.

Rubin states US officials require "a new tone" due to their "reputation for being heavy-handed". She also notes that "the Americans helped most leading Iraqi politicians, including Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, come to power -- and stay there -- they can no longer expect the Iraqis to acknowledge the help, because being close to the Americans risks alienating average Iraqis." The first half of the sentence is remarkable for the New York Times. The second half really should have led to an exploration of US troops but it doesn't. This is where the point needs to be made that when Iraqi leaders are attacking US troops in their public remarks (as Nouri has), they are creating a climate that is very dangerous. I'm not talking about the degredation for the US military on the international stage (that is taking place but someone else can explore that), I'm talking about a country where the US is (rightly) seen as occupiers and foreigners and the people do not trust them or want them present and then you add in a national figure who regularly degrades them with his remarks?

Here's what could happen, underscore "could." As Nouri tries to achieve popularity in Iraq (ahead of the January elections), he moves from degrading US troops to degrading Barack Obama. At that point you damn well better believe the White House will object. Now they didn't object earlier this year when Nouri trashed Joe Biden. They had no problem with it and Barack even joked about it publicly.

The White House has sent a message to Nouri and the world by 'okaying' the mockery of Biden and their continued refusal to call out Nouri's verbal attacks on the US military send a message at well.

And it sends a message within the US as well but that wouldn't fall under Rubin's scope.

On the New York Times. Last night, I typed, "The New York Times. Which is honestly why I'm doing this so late. I was not in the mood to take the paper out of it's blue plastic baggie." A number of e-mails to the public account indicate I need to clear that up. I have no problem making fun of the paper, I have no problem calling it out, I have no problem raging against it. (It's also praised here when it has earned it.) But that statement wasn't intended as an attack on the paper. If I were attacking, I would have offered more than aside. The dread of pulling the paper out of the bag it's delivered in wasn't about the paper, it was about having to go online. That's what yesterday's comment meant; however, a number of drive-by e-mails offer praise for my 'calling out' the paper. We've called it out frequently (we've called Rubin out frequently, we've praised her as well). Last night's comment was about five years in November and no day off. For those late to the party, the plan (announced in the summer 2005) was for this site to go dark after the 2008 election. That didn't happen for a variety of reasons (including Stan wanting to start a site but not wanting to do it when everyone else was shutting down). Some people are having the times of their lives and great for them. But Elaine, Ava and I are ready to shut down shop. For Stan and other reasons, I agreed to six months more and that's all I'm agreeing to this point, six month installments. I've agreed to a second six months which will take us through November 2009. It'll be five years, there's never been a day off and, for drive-bys who don't know, the weekend's are not 'off' time or 'down' time (I guess it's the latter since we still post entries here on the weekends). The weekends are working on Third Estate Sunday Review. I'm thrilled with the community -- members with their own websites and those without, members who do community newsletters, and everyone -- but on holidays especially, and especially now, my attitude is more and more, "I'm just not in the mood."

And to use that to leap to the e-mails. Before we get to not in the mood e-mails, a number of community members are noting that "Editorial: Taking sexism seriously" from Third is reposted at The New Agenda. I asked Ava and Jess if they knew and they didn't but we're more than fine with it. TNA gave credit so it's not a problem and good for them because, honestly, every time something like that editorial is posted, my phone won't stop ringing with feminist friends calling (Ava's phone doesn't stop ringing either) but while they applaud it, they can't 'touch it' because it would 'backfire' on them -- but they're really, really glad we're covering it. Really. Really really. So good for TNA. What they've done by reposting it is underscoring that their mission is improving the status of women, not in improving their own personal status and, more and more, it's very hard to look at the established organizations and not feel that they've become more about the leaders' personal status and less and less about actually improving women's lives.

Okay, now to the not-in-the-mood e-mails. Ava ripped apart a woman early in 2008 when she sent us her bad and sexist 'parody' of Hillary in bed. You'd think when Ava sends you a blistering e-mail (and it was blistering), you'd know that we're not interested in your writing. But Palin's announcement Friday (Sarah Palin) means the same woman has shown up with a new 'parody' of . . . you guessed it, Sarah Palin in bed. (To clarify that, both the Hillary 'parody' and the Palin 'parody' are not of the two women sleeping, they are of the women attempting to have sex.) We're not interested, we're never going to be interested, I don't know why you continue to send us your crap. Considering that you hopped on board the USS Barack and that you supposedly care about ending the Iraq War, it would appear that it's long passed the point where you should be turning your bad writing to a parody of Barack in bed. Here's a suggestion for you: He promises he'll pull out and then doesn't. You know, just like with Iraq.

I'm not interested in your "What Jesus would do" columns. I'm a grown woman with kids. Would Jesus have done natural child birth? I don't know and I don't care. I certainly don't ask myself, when climbing into bed with a man, "What would Jesus do? Would Jesus go down?" Do you think Jesus would do that? I don't. Guess what, I don't have Christ complex or any desire to sit around sifting through simplistic columns wondering what ANY ONE would do. Like most people today, I'm living my life and making a thousand mistakes as I go along. You worry where Jesus would stand on the various political issues of today, I'm not a religious figure come back to life. I'm not Jesus, I'm not the Budda, I'm not Mohammed, I'm not Hera. I am a highly flawed human being and I'm really not basing my political decisions on what some religious figure might or might not do according to some half-baked crackpot who thought they stumbled upon a writing device but really just demonstrated the thin-to-non-existent connection between actual thought and writing.

To be clear, a philosophical dialogue on an issue (using any historical figure) would be of potential interest. (Philosophy was one of my fields of study in grad school.) That sort of exploration won't be breezily written in less than eight minutes. Nor will it be so devoid of any indication that an issue was actually grappled with.

Still on the e-mails. If you're sending something you've written that's been published somewhere else, please include a link so we can provide that link. Generally speaking, unless it's an action, we excerpt here.

If it's Iraq, it has a good chance of being up here. If it's not Iraq? Don't e-mail, "You need to . . ." I don't need to do anything online. I don't need to do a thing. And we're not interested in Barack's garbage health care non-plan. What's the faux left argument there, "We'll get it passed (whatever it is) and then hold his feet to the fire to fix it!"? I'm still remembering them (Tom Hayden, Laura Flanders and all the other liars) swearing during the primaries that he had to get the nomination and then they'd hold his feet to the fire. He got the nomination. Well they'd hold his feet to the fire when he won the election. It was so important, apparently, that 'feminist' Katha Pollitt even announced she had decided to stop calling out sexism to do her part to elect Barack. What a proud moment for Katha. He won the election. And still we wait for those people to hold his feet to the fire. Still we wait.

Not only do I not "need to" cover Barack's health care but you really don't want to piss me off on this issue because I did study and advocate for the Clinton plan back in the 90s and you really don't want me critiquing Barack's nonsense, you really don't want me to expose all the holes in it, all the problems and how ridiculous it is. So consider yourself fortunate that I'm ignoring it. And stop e-mailing or you may end up with a detailed critique of the non-plan. Also stop calling the president's fan base (his e-mail data base) a grassroots organization. When a group takes their marching orders from the president of the United States (regardless of whom the president is), they are not, in fact, a grassroots organization. They are servants to the powerful.

But to end the negativity, there was some good news, Robert McNamara is dead. Now we just have to wait for Hank Kissinger and all the big Vietnam War Criminals will be dead and gone. The big ones.


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


iraq
john pilger
democracy now
the new york times
alissa j. rubin
the new agenda

the third estate sunday review

Kat: I was born at night but it wasn't last night, how stupid does Amazon think I am? That was my question as I checked out the pricing for Regina Spektor's Far. The standard album was $9.99 to download. The "deluxe" was $13.99. $13.99? Uh, why didn't I just breeze through Best Buy and pick up a CD?

I do two screens so I can go back and forth and see what the big difference is? You know, what justifies them charging $13.99 for a download? The standard version is $9.99 and has 13 tracks. If you go "deluxe," you download two extra tracks for $13.99.

So you're paying $4.99 for two bonus tracks that weren't judged good enough to make the standard album?

So you're paying approximately $2.44 for each of the two songs?


Forget that. The songs are $.99 a piece. Here's what you do: Download the standard album at $9.99 and then pick up the two bonus tracks fo $.99 a piece and you've paid $11.97 and not $13.99.

And then what have you got?

God can be funny
When told he'll give you money if you just pray the right way
And when presented like a genie
Who does magic like Houdini
Or grants wishes like Jiminy Cricket and Santa Clause

That's from "Laughing With" and the beat's jaunty and Regina's in her upper range on it and it might be the first part of the song (it's the chorus) that really stands out for you. But then you may notice the slower musical walk of the verses and the starker vocal during that. You may notice what she's captured in the verses:

No one laughs at God in a hospital
No one laughs at God in a war
No one's laughing at God when they're starving or freezing or so very poor
No one laughs at God when the doctor calls after some routine tests
No one's laughing at God when it's gotten real late and their kid's not back from that party yet
No one laughs at God when their airplane starts to uncontrollably shake
No one's laughing at God when they see the one they love hand in hand with someone else and they hope that they're mistaken
No one laughs at God when the cops knock on their door and they say "We've got some bad new, sir"
No one's laughing at God when there's a famine, fire or flood

It's an ambitious song and it's not like rock or pop is often known for any ambition other than, "How many units did we move?" But Regina Spektor's going for art. She's following in the footsteps of Joni Mitchell, John Lennon and others. And, bit by bit, she's steadily proven she's got the chops to do so.

Which is not to suggest that Regina's as confessional as either of the two or as confessional as Carly Simon for that matter. I have no idea if she's confessing a damn thing. She's writing songs filled with characters and incidents which may have something to do with her own life and inner demons. Then again maybe not.

Her skill as a lyrical writer appears to be in the observational as evidenced by her work in "Dance Anthem of the 80s" and especially "Genius Next Door." It's true also of the bonus track "Time Is All Around" which, if you caught her live in 2007, you probably already know ("Leaves become most beautiful when they're about to die . . .") "The Sword & The Pen" is okay but nothing to make me rush over to iTunes to download a third 'bonus' track ("Riot Gear").

That's in part because I always thought "bonus" meant free. "You bought the album? Oh, great and here's a free poster as a bonus." It's also because I've heard too many horror stories since April of people being repeatedly charged for the same download at iTunes -- in one instance, someone was charged 24 times in the same day -- and I've heard how iTunes ignores you, sends you an e-mail and tells you the problem must be your bank, then refuses to reply to repeated e-mails where you outline that your bank has told you, "No, the problem is iTunes chaged for this over and over."

Besides, it's not like you need the bonus tracks. I would've agued that "Time Is All Around" should be on the album if I'd been asked. I would've pointed out what a crowd pleaser it was in concert and how it fit with the rest of the album. But you can understand why the thirteen tracks made the album. It's a photo album with each song being a page crammed with photos.

And maybe "dreaming that the antidote was orgasm" ("Genius Next Door") will be you take away or maybe "it's been a long time since before I've been touched, now I'm getting touched all the time" ("Dance Anthem of the 80s") or maybe it will be the melody of "The Calculation"? Or it may be something that hasn't even stood out to me yet because this is a vey rich and textured album.

And it should be the soundtrack of the summer. Download a copy or pick it up in stores.


regina spektor
far
joni mitchell
john lennon
carly simon
kats korner
the common ills

That same storm still hovers over the capital. It coats parked cars in a tan frosting. It seeps under windowsills and doorways. It grits the teeth and stings the eyes. It clogs rifles and etches scrimshaw across sniper scopes.
And it kills people.
Three in Diyala Province this week, where 800 others were hospitalized with breathing and related ailments. Dr. Jeleel al Shammeri, head of the health department in Karkh in west Baghdad, said 13 major hospitals and 84 clinics had received several thousand patients over the last two days, many of them children. Dr. Ali Bustan, head of the health department in Rusafa in eastern Baghdad, said ERs had taken in 800 to 900 patients since Saturday night. "Thank God, we have not run out of medication," he said.
Sandstorms pose diplomatic as well as medical and weather problems. Baghdad negotiators are locked in a battle with Istanbul over how much water from the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers -- which start in Turkey -- its neighbor is willing to release to the southwest for Iraqi farms and factories. A lack of irrigation water has caused thousands of acres of agricultural land to dry up. Just this week, the government signed an agreement with an Iranian delegation to limit such "desertification."

The above is from Mike Tharp's "Sandstorms plague Iraq and are getting worse" (McClatchy Newspapers) and Muhanad Mohammed, Hadi Abbas, Michael Christie and Tim Pearce (Reuters) cover the topic noting that the sandstoms are sending Iraqis to hospitals with 300 admitted to Ibn al-Nafees in Baghdad for "breathing difficulties on Sunday." Kadhm al-Attabi (DPA) describes, "Great walls of sand, driven by scorching hot winds". You know what might have made a difference? If at any time during this six-year-plus illegal war, the water problems had been addressed. But they never were.


They're just there to try and make the people free,
But the way that they're doing it, it don't seem like that to me.
Just more blood-letting and misery and tears
That this poor country's known for the last twenty years,
And the war drags on.
-- words and lyrics by Mick Softly (available on Donovan's Fairytale)

Last Sunday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4316 and tonight? 4321.



Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Baghdad car bombing which left thee people wounded, a Baghdad hand bombing (bomb thrown by hand) which claimed the life of 1 police officer, a second Baghdad hand bombing which injured two police officers, a third Baghdad hand bombing which claimed the life of 1 police officer and left six people wounded, a Diyala Povince sticky bombing which claimed 1 life and left two people injured, a Baquba store bombing ("sells entertainment CDs) which wounded six people "and completely destroyed the shop" and a
Diyala Province roadside bombing which injured three members of the Iraqi army. Reuters notes 5 grenade attacks in Mosul which resulted in the death of 1 police officer and at least sixteen people being injured.

Shootings?

Reuters notes 1 police officer shot dead in Mosul. Dropping back to Saturday, AFP reports 4 people were shot dead in Kirkuk yesterday.

Corpses?

Reuters notes 1 corpse discovered in Kirkuk on Saturday.

In the face of the continued deaths, Colin Powell made a fool of himself -- as is to be expected. On CNN's State of the Union today, Collie The Blot Powell, who lied to the United Nations in an attempt to make the case for illegal war, declared the mistake about the Iraq War was . . . not doing an escalation ("surge") sooner.

Colin Powell is so full of crap. I know that Barry O fanatics rejoiced and embraced him when he endorsed their fellow but he's full of s**t and he always has been. His military career is a joke and disgusting going as far back to Vietnam when he was covering up realities there. He lied the nation into illegal war and he's never apologized for it. He did fret a bit over his blot for a little while. Now instead of hanging his head in shame, fueled by the Cult of St. Barack, he's attempting a comeback. Someone needs to explain to the liar that no one gives a damn what he says out of the beltway and that the American people no longer trust his lying ass. If he had any sense of honor, he'd lock himself in a hotel room and swallow a huge number of pills hoping that his own death could somehow atone for the deaths of Iraqis and US service members -- all brought by his damn lies.


The New York Times. Which is honestly why I'm doing this so late. I was not in the mood to take the paper out of it's blue plastic baggie. Sheryl Gay Stolberg has an article in it that we noted yesterday ["Online at the New York Times, Sheryl Gay Stolberg covers some of today's events . . . "] so we'll note instead that, online at the paper's Caucus, she writes today about Biden's trip to Iraq:

Mr. Biden, who has taken on the new role of unofficial envoy to Iraq, arrived in Baghdad Thursday night and spent Friday and Saturday there meeting with American and Iraqi officials, including the country's two vice presidents, the speaker of the Iraqi parliament and Prime Minister Kamal al-Maliki. He has said this will be the first of several trips intended to strengthen ties between Washington and Baghdad.
The vice president said the Iraqis' worries surprised him; going in to the trip, he said, "I didn't believe there was a concern that they thought that maybe they would not be on the front burner." He said they were "pleased that the president took this inside the White House" and asked him to "sort of honcho this."

Marc Santora offers "An Iraqi Reaps Profits From the War" in the paper today about Araz M. Mohsin who cleaned up pretty in the illegal war and just threw a $50,000 party at Baghdad's "exclusive Hunting Club". Santora notes "no suggestion that he did anything illegal" but even if he won those overpriced contracts legitimately (one example: the US paid him, a translator, $80,000 to haul gravel to a US base), let's not pretend he didn't have to 'grease wheels' to do business in Iraq and I'm not referring to foreigners, I'm talking about paying off militias, etc. He was also a collaborator who snitched out other Iraqis to get in good with the US.

At the BBC, Kim Ghattas examines the state of Iraq and Greg Jaffe (Washington Post) does the same. An e-mail to the public account maintains Jaffee is attempting to sell the Iraq War. As Tom Petty once sang, "You believe what you want to believe." I think both are describing realities and while those realities can be used to argue for a stronger US presence, those realities can also be used to argue for an immediate and full withdrawal and it's the collapse of the peace movement that's prevented that from being addressed. US troops are at greater risk now than they ever were and that will be true in a slow trickle out of Iraq. If Iraq's in charge, let it be in charge and pull US troops out because they really are sitting ducks and as al-Maliki shows them continued public disdain, he only encourages that same attitude. (That's not my arguing that US troops were beloved by Iraqis. They weren't. But there's a difference in disliking or hating them and having the puppet heading you government show visible disdain and contempt for them.) And "collapse of the peace movment" is, of course, the fact that fakes and frauds rode in as 'leaders' when they never wanted to end a war, they just wanted to elect a Democrat.

Zach notes Cindy Sheehan's "Happy Co-Dependence Day" (Information Clearing House):

I just returned home from a 28 day, 18-city (multiple event) trip from California to New Hampshire and back where I talked about the need for us to recognize the fact that we cannot, must not, place false hopes in any politician. Yet, even people who know that the Dalai Bama is not what the gurus on Madison Avenue sold to us don’t think that they have any power.
"We need a leader, we need a leader," a Russian woman cried to me during a talk I gave in Philly last week. We "consumers" (remember when we used to be “citizens?”) here in America have been sold another bill of goods: that one person cannot make a difference so why should we even try? We want "leaders" to do all the work and take all of the heat so we don’t have to. That is an absolute myth. If you can fog a mirror, you can make a relevant and profound difference. If you sit around waiting for a politician to lead you to a better life, you will sit around forever.
I just had a heartbreaking conversation with a veteran who struggles on a daily basis with suicide issues. He wants to hang on so he can tell his story of betrayal and to try to stop what happened to him from happening to others. He has been so thoroughly traumatized by this Empire that he must make a daily choice to either work to make things better or to physically or mentally check out. Unfortunately, this story is not rare, so I ask myself, why are people so mesmerized by a system that is so harmful to 98% of the people of this country, and by extension, the world?
We are Co-Dependent with a Robber Class that expects us to keep it in the style to which it has been accustomed and unfortunately we are accustomed to doing so. When AIG needs billions of dollars in bailouts, it gets all the money that is asks for with no strings attached. Does that money ever trickle down to us in the steroidal capitalism of Obamanomics? Heck no…my state needs a bailout of 24 billion to save tens of thousands of jobs and public services. When the Governator asks DC for the money, he is told: “No, if we bailed out your state, we would have to bail out all the states!” So what? Bailout all the states; save jobs and services and fix the economy from the ground up, instead of supporting a cancerous capitalism that sucks the life out of the Robbed Class.

Zach writes that he enjoyed Cindy's column but found what she was "describing across America to be really depressing and sad." It is and it's why those of us who don't confine our 'mingling' to a Nation cruise have been outraged for some time at the lies and hype from the likes of Naomi Klein and others. And let's repeat one damn more time, Naomi just didn't lie for Barry O, she lied to The Progressive after, inventing this scene she supposedly observed. All that invented scene was about was Naomi's own guilt. So in other words, Afghans and Iraqis suffer because Naomi's plauged by White guilt? Well, Naomi, do our country a favor and get to work on Canada, your home country. Stay the hell out of America's domestic politics because you have revealed yourself to be a liar of epic proportions and we don't need you, in fact, we don't have the luxury of listening to your garbage because we're too busy repairing the damage you and your ilk caused. (And that includes Naomi's ridiculous performance in Chicago.) It doesn't depress me, it makes me very angry.

And look how little Naomi's done for the war resisters in Canada. If people had done so little for her own father, the spoiled brat wouldn't have the life she has today. She never would have had the luxury of being a mall rat. When your own father self-checked out of the military and went to Canada (during Vietnam) and was granted citizenship, you owe it to the current generation to be out in front leading on the issue. But Naomi has her 'performance art' pieces to do. She has so much to do. None of it's had a damn thing to do with the Iraq War (or that Afghanistan one and Canada has troops in Afghanistan) for some time. The general thinking is that Naomi's embarrassed of her father. Is she? I don't know. I don't care. I just know she's ineffectual and she's someone who benefitted from the work of a lot of people yet today can't do a damn thing but self-promote and lie.

Pay it forward is obviously a foreign concept to Naomi Klein but what else would you expect from a mall rat except "gimmie, gimmie"?



New content at Third:

Truest statement of the week
A note to our readers
Editorial: Taking sexism seriously
TV: Trash TV
Women actively challenging the spin
The Nation: Can't get it up, you won't get in prin...
Bill Moyers Journal: Find the girl!
Washington Week: Gwen must be belle of the ball
CounterSpin: Let the men talk
Matt Rothschild: twice as likely to speak to a man...
Harper's magazine: Only pencil neck males allowed
Queen Bees v. Quota Queens
Liz Smith: Women who hurt women and themselves
July 8th rally for Kimberly Rivera
Indonesia President SBY Covered Up Murder
Accountability in the Run-up to Indonesian Electio...
Highlights

Pru notes "Iraq occupation is not over" (Great Britain's Socialist Worker):

Iraqis greeted the withdrawal of US troops from their cities this week by dancing in the streets.
They hope that the “drawdown” of combat troops will mean an end to the violence that follows US patrols, and an end to the shootings at checkpoints.
But the withdrawal does not mark the end of the occupation.Under the Status of Forces Agreement signed by the Iraqi government last year, occupation forces will simply redeploy to large bases on the outskirts of urban areas.
US soldiers will still conduct raids, seize suspects and “support” Iraqi security forces – only now they will require Iraqi government permission first.
Under the agreement all US troops should leave the country by 2011. Yet US secretary of state Robert Gates admitted that he expects tens of thousands of troops to remain.
A provision in the agreement allows troops to re-enter the country if it is “threatened by insurrection”.
The US wants to stabilise Iraq in order to shift troops to Afghanistan. The military hope that by lowering the profile of the occupation it can claim that the country has regained its sovereignty.
But the move simply embeds the occupation.
© Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original.
Share this story on:Delicious Digg reddit Facebook StumbleUpon
If you found this article useful please help us maintain SW by » making a donation.
» comment on article
» email article
» printable version
top of page


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

iraq
and the war drags on
donovan
mcclatchy newspapers
mike tharp
sahar issa
cindy sheehan
cnn
state of the union
the new york times
marc santora
sheryl gay stolberg
bbc news
kim ghattas
the washington post
greg jaffe
the socialist worker
the third estate sunday review

Kimberly Rivera, mother of three, wife, and soldier of conscience is now living in Canada, but that could all change on July 8th. Join Courage to Resist at a support rally outside of the Canadian Consulate in San Francisco,
July 8, 12 noon - 1pm
580 California Street at Kearny, San Francisco
(4 blocks up Montgomery from Montgomery BART, left on Calif. St, right side of street just before Kearny)
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=580%20California%20Street%2C%2014th%20floor&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl%20)
We will bring signed petitions to the Consulate General, urging the Canadian politicians to respect the will of the Canadian people, the Canadian parliament, whom have twice voted recommendations to allow war resisters to stay and the basic moral imperative that does not separate children from their loving mother.

Kimberly has this to say:
"I want to stay in Canada, with my family, because the Iraq War is immoral, illegal and I couldn't in good conscience go back. The amount of support I’m getting from Canadians is amazing. The parents of my kids' friends, MPs and even strangers on the street keep telling me that they can't believe the votes in Parliament aren't being respected."

Kimberly Rivera is the first outspoken female Iraq War resister to publically and legally seek refuge in Canada. Kimberly, along with her partner Mario, son Christian (7 years old) and daughter Rebecca (4 years old), fled to Canada in January 2007 when Kimberly refused redeployment. In late November 2008 Kimberly gave birth to her Canadian daughter Katie (8 months old). She served in Iraq in 2006 and experienced, firsthand, the reality of this ongoing illegal war and occupation.

On July 8th, Kimberly is going to Canadian federal court, to appeal the decision in her Pre-Removal Risk Assessment. If her appeal fails, she will be asked to leave Canada, or forcibly removed -- and delivered into the custody and jurisdiction of the United States Army where Kimberly will face charges that will carry, at the very least, a 4 year sentence in a military stockade.

Four years or more away from her young children, away from her baby daughter, away from her husband -- she will be kept in an Army prison. She has served in Iraq, she has been to combat; now, because she has decided to exercise her conscience, she faces imprisonment, additional forced separation from her family and eviction from her new home.

Act to help Kimberly on July 8th! Join Courage to Resist in protesting the Canadian governments attempts to violate a loving mother’s human rights!
Sign the letter online & for more info:
http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/content/view/726/1/

David Solnit, co-author with Aimee Allison of Army Of None, notes the above. The rally is this Wednesday. Today violence continues in Baghdad . . .

Bomings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing which claimed 1 life and left fifteen wounded, two more Baghdad roadside bombings which wounded five people, a Mosul roadside bombing which left a civilian wounded and a second one which left a police officer wounded.

Shootings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 police officer shot dead in Kirkuk (also drops back to note Bilal and Shihab Ahmed were shot dead in Kirkuk yesterday) and 1 contractor shot dead in Mosul. Reuters notes 1 Peshmerga soldier was shot dead in Kirkuk.

Meanwhile Deborah Haynes (Times of London) offers some reality about this week's 'sovereignty day':


Iraq has celebrated a return to sovereignty three times since the invasion more than six years ago in a carefully choreographed attempt to put an Iraqi face on what has always been an American occupation.
The latest “day of national victory” on Tuesday was the most convincing moment of transition, with the majority of US forces out of Iraqi cities. A token presence remains, however, to train and mentor the Iraqi police and army.
Most Iraqis feel that sovereignty will not be fully restored until all foreign forces leave. At the same time, many fear the exit of American troops because of the ongoing potential for violence. June was the bloodiest month in Iraq in almost a year as a rash of bombings shattered the lives of hundreds of families.


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


iraq
aimeee allison
david solnit
mcclatchy newspapers
deborah haynes

Vice President Joe Biden arrived in Baghdad on Thursday. He continued his visit yesterday and continues it today. Above is a White House photo by David Lienemann.

Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) reports, "Vice President Joe Biden's mission to promote national reconciliation in Iraq was rebuffed Friday by Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, who told him that the issue was a domestic Iraqi affair and that U.S involvement wouldn't be welcome." US involvement wouldn't be welcome . . . but Nouri's happy to have the involvement of US forces on the ground in Iraq because otherwise he would be overthrown. That involvement he's all for. An Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy offers her take here. Sheryl Gay Stolberg's "Biden Warns Iraq Leaders Of Return to Ethnic Fights" (New York Times) notes:

But in private, officials said, Mr. Biden's tone was more direct. One official said the vice president made it clear that if Iraq returned to ethnic violence, the United States would be unlikely to remain engaged, "because one, the American people would have no interest in doing that, and as he put it, neither would he or the president."

Stolberg also notes Iraqi forces arriving with an arrest warrant at the wedding of a bodyguard for Sunni v.p. Tariq al-Hashimi and turning it into a blood bath with four dead. Mike Tharp (McClatchy Newspapers) focuses on the political:


Some Iraqis suggested that the vice president's message of reconciliation among political parties and religious factions was at odds with his call for "decentralization" in 2006.
As recently as the presidential campaign last September, Biden didn't back away from that position. "They may not want to call it what I was talking about," he told reporters in Montana. "But the end result is, there is a lot of autonomy in the Anbar province today. There is a lot of autonomy up in the Kurdish area today. And there is increasing autonomy in the Shia regions."
Haider al Mosawi, a political analyst, said that the vice president "was here to see whether Iraqis can reconcile in the absence of Americans or he can submit his old project again if it isn't useful to support reconciliation forever."

Online at the New York Times, Sheryl Gay Stolberg covers some of today's events:

Mr. Biden, along with President Obama, campaigned on a platform of ending the Iraq war. He said Saturday that the United States was "on track" to leave Iraq by the end of 2011, as Mr. Obama has promised. He made note of the cost of the war: 4,322 troops killed, more than 30,000 wounded, 17,000 critically injured. Yet despite the plans for withdrawal, the setting for the ceremony was a reminder of how much the United States remained an occupying force.
The swearing-in took place in the soaring rotunda of Al Faw Palace, one of Saddam Hussein's more glorious marble monuments to himself. Its crystal chandelier alone is a sight to behold -- a giant sparkling orb, surrounded by 16 smaller chandeliers, evoking the image of planets circling the sun. Sixteen dark stone columns reach toward the ornate painted ceiling. One of Mr. Hussein's thrones sits on the side of the room.



Cedric's Big Mix
Colin gets a little bitchy
42 minutes ago

The Daily Jot
THIS JUST IN! WHEN BOY PALS ATTACK!
43 minutes ago

Ruth's Report
Iraq, Fort Worth
18 hours ago

Mikey Likes It!
Helen Thomas (yea!), Arianna (boo)
18 hours ago

SICKOFITRADLZ
The reset at Pacifica
19 hours ago

Oh Boy It Never Ends
Foul Play
19 hours ago

The World Today Just Nuts
An Injustice Is Born
19 hours ago

Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)
Real coup and faux coup
19 hours ago

Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude
the lady doth protest too much
20 hours ago

Thomas Friedman is a Great Man
KPFA, half-assed radio
20 hours ago

Trina's Kitchen
Banks failing
20 hours ago

Like Maria Said Paz
Sexist Melinda Henneberger embraces her own
20 hours ago

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


iraq
the new york times
sheryl gay stolberg
liz sly
the los angeles times
mcclatchy newspapers
mike tharp
the world today just nuts
like maria said paz
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
thomas friedman is a great man
trinas kitchen
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
ruths report
sickofitradlz
oh boy it never ends

Friday, July 3, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Joe Biden is in Iraq, so are land mines and the UN is drawing attention to the crisis, al-Sadr followers protest Biden, and more.   "Biden has come here to divide Iraq according to his plan." Vice President Joe Biden arrived in Iraq yesterday and among today's activities is a protest of his visit by supporters of Moqtada al-Sadr. Andrew Quinn and Sattar Rahim (Reuters) report al-Sadr supporters marched in Baghdad and remarks from al-Sadr (including "Biden has come here to divide Iraq according to his plan") were read aloud to the crowd.   The remark by al-Sadr refers to Biden's support for a federation of three autonomous areas in Iraq: Shia, Sunni and Kurd. That plan is among the reasons Biden has become the point-person for the administration on Iraq because the Kurds are increasingly unhappy with the US and increasingly vocal about what they see as US abandonment of their interests and needs.  Quinn and Rahim note that al-Sadr's supporters were vocal as well, chanting "down, down USA" while burning US flags during their protest.  Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) reports the Kurds aren't the only ones worrying that Iraq has been abandoned and she quotes Hoyshar Zebari, Iraq's Foreign Minister, stating, "My message to them [US] is . . . you lost Afghanistan in 2001, 2002, and 2003 because you turned your attention to Iraq from Afghanistan -- now you are redirecting your attentions of Afghanistan and if you disengage with Iraq, it could be another failure. The situation is not that solid."  Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Timothy Williams (New York Times) quote Biden declaring he is there to ask: "What is their plan to resolve the real differences that exist?"  Mark Silva (Chicago Tribune) quotes Biden stating, "The reason I came is the president wants focus within the White House on the implementation of our administration's plan to both draw down troops in Iraq and also to promote a political settlement on unresolved issues from boundary disputes to the oil law." Alsumaria notes it is is a three-day visit and that the vice president "arrived to Baghdad Airport amidst a sand storm which prevented him from conducting a scheduled visit to the US Embassy."  The White House offers three photos of the arrival and Biden being greeted by Zebari and the top US commander in Iraq Gen Ray Odierno.  Thomas M. Defrank (New York Daily News) reports Biden had breakfast with son Beau. Delware's WDEL has an audio report here.  Beau Biden is the Attorney General for the state of Delaware and serving in Iraq as a captain in Delaware's Army National Guard.  Biden's the first child of a president or vice president to serve in this decade's Iraq War.  (The 2008 Republican presidential ticket had two candidates with children serving in Iraq.  US Senator John McCain's son Jimmy served in Iraq.  Governor Sarah Palin's son Track is serving in Iraq.) Despite George W. Bush sending other people's children into harm's way, neither of his daughters served in his illegal war of choice.  Nor did Mary or Deferment Cheney, Dick Cheney's daughters, serve.     Taking a sidebar on Dick Cheney, for those who have forgotten, retired Ambassador Joe Wilson was sent by the CIA to Nigeria to vet accusations that Saddam Hussein (then president of Iraq) was attempting to obtain yellow-cake uranium from the country. Wilson found no evidence to support the claims. Despite that investigation, the false assertion began working its way into cases for the illegal war made by the Bush administration and Bully Boy Bush himself would say that they'd recently learned Saddam attempted to obtain yellow-cake uranium from Africa. Was that Nigeria? Wilson, at that point didn't know, and attempted to find out. Maybe Saddam had tried with another African country? Nope. It was Nigeria. The administration was lying. What do you do? Wilson began warning reporters and then began speaking out publicly. In retaliation, the administration that LIED and attacked. This was their pattern repeatedly. When former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill went public with issues, the administration attacked him and the press -- hey, David Gregory -- ran with the administration's lies and presented them as fact. In O'Neill's case, he was being accused of stealing government information on discs. Gregory stood on camera, for Today, waiving a copy of Ron Suskind's The Price of Loyalty and repeating the White House charges with a who-knows-what-really-happened spin. Apparently the only one who could know reality would be the non-idiots who knew to read the introduction of a book before repeating baseless charges because the discs are covered in the intro. (As was so often the case on Today, Katie Couric would have to grab the mop and clean up for her co-workers the following day.) Now they were going after Joe Wilson. And it wasn't enough to go after Joe Wilson because this was a petty, mafia-like administration. They didn't just go after Wilson, they went after his wife and began outing her to the press as a CIA agent until they found some one (Robert Novak) willing to print their tale. Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent and her cover was blown by the government she worked for. Thanks to the efforts of George H.W. Bush and his administration, what had just taken place was a crime. Not for reporters, but for government officials or workers involved in the outing. Dick Cheney's right-hand I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby ended up convicted from the investigation. Many thought and hoped others would be as well. That was not the case. It was hoped that with a new administration, Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson would have the support of the government on their side as they attempted to discover what had happened to them. That has not been the case. "Status quo you can believe in" is the Obama administration's slogan and they've done everything they can to prevent the truth from coming out. R. Jeffrey Smith's "New Evidence Cheney Swayed Reaction to Leak" (Washington Post) takes you through the latest that's emerged as Barry O's Justice Dept argues the truth must be buried. One of their claims is that to allow Cheney's testimony during the Plamegate investigation to be known would prevent other vice presidents from offering testimony to a criminal investigation. Uh, no, it wouldn't. And if testimony means anything, it means that it's not buried out of fear of what might happened some day. Barack's administration is not open, it's not trying to be open and is not attempting to put the US back on balance. It is attempting to continue all the abuses from the Bush administration. And it gets a lot of help from a cowardly Congress. (It's noted in the article that Congress once fought the Bush White House to make Cheney's testimony public. Not noted in the article is that any member of Congress could make Cheney's testimony public on the House or Senate floor.)   Back to Iraq, Biden is not the only official visiting Iraq.  Alsumaria reports that France's Prime Minister Francois Fillon met with Nouri al-Maliki and Jalal Talabani today with Fillon and Maliki doing a joint-press conference at Baghdad International Airport ". . . Fillon pointed out that Iraq is on the right track. No one should be worried over Iraq redress for it intends to cooperate with its neighbor and it constitutes an intergral part of the region's stability. France undertakes to help Iraq to reach stability as soon as possible, to resolve conflicts with its neighbor and to get fast result, Fillon said. He also added that France takes upon itself assisting Iraq to emancipate from international sanctions which hinder development process."  Xinhua reports the two "signed a cooperation agreement to promote bilateral economic, cultural and scientific relations.  According to the statement, the agreement stated that France comitted to support Iraq to join the World Trade Organization (WTO) and to conclude a partenership agreement with the European Union."  CCTV observes (link has text and video) that Fillon was heading a delegation of "30 high-level business executives" and quotes him stating, "It is high time now we look to the future.  The team accompanying me represents major French firms.  Currently we have firms working in Iraq in the field of transportation and airports."  At the start of the week, Jonas Gahr Storra met with Zebari.  Store is the Norewegian Foreign Affairs Minister.  Among the topics discussed were assisting Iraq in clearing land mines. Yesterday Patrick Quinn (AP) explained that the United Nations sees Iraq as "one of the world's most contaminated countries" when it comes to land mines and quotes the UN"s Development Fund's Kent Paulusson stating, "The government needs to recognize the size of the problem and deal with it. [. . .] Some areas are so contaminated that people can't live there."  CNN notes that UNICEF joined the UN Development Fund in drawing attention to the land mine problem in Iraq and notes UNICEF's report: "The report says about 1 million Iraqi children are at risk of being injured or killed by mines and unexploded ordnance.  Some 2,000 children -- a quarter of all victims -- have been maimed or killed by cluster bomblets since 2003, the report said."  Aseel Kami (Reuters) adds Iraq's Environment Ministry estimates there are 25 million land mines in Iraq and that the border between Iraq and Iran "is particularly mine-infested."  David Morgan (Global Arab Network) observes, "Vast stretches of potentially highly productive agricultural land cannot be cultivated because of the potentially lethal hazards presented by explosive materials that still lie undetected. Hundreds of Iraqi people continue to suffer injuries and dozens have been killed." Today the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees notes a new "special residentail centre for Iraqi refugees in the southern Armenian village of Darbnik.  The building, a former agricultural college provided to UNHCR by the government last year, features 46 apartments and a social and recreation room.  It was rehabilitated by UNHCR implementing partner, YMCA/Shelter."  The Iraq War has resulted in a refugee crisis of both external and internal refugees. The refugees are a diverse group but a large number of them are Iraqi Christians.  The assault on Iraq's LGBT community has led to a number of them becoming refugees as well.  Sunday July 5th 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.   At CounterPunch today, Anthony DiMaggio offers a look at Iraq and it's a serious attempt so he gets a link. I don't agree with the bulk of anything he says and feel he's repeating points that were made some time ago and that many don't hold up today. The continued and illegal occupation does stabilize Iraq. It puts into power the US interest, their puppets, and it blocks any real representation of Iraqis. It is not a sovereign government. It's one that would not exist were the US not still occupying the country. The illegal war itself and the continued occupation breed violence but part of the breeding is not just resentment over the continued presence of the US, it's also resentment over the installation of the puppet government. The exiles placed in power (by the US) are not representative of Iraq. The US took sides, installed one faction, a fundamentalist faction, and backed them because they believed this faction was ruthless and unafraid to resort to violence (the US was correct on both counts) and that these thugs would intimidate Iraqis into silence. Violence has never gone away in Iraq since the start of the illegal war. But that doesn't mean the puppet regime doesn't 'stabilize' it to a point where the violence lowers slightly, just enough to lull people into looking the other way. The 'civil war' wasn't a civil war. It was a genocide where the thugs in power went about ethnically cleansing parts of Baghdad. They succeeded. They did that with the whole world watching and with most of us not even grasping what was going on. DiMaggio is taking on the continued presence of US forces and also disputing the idea that there's any level of 'stability' in Iraq currently. The resentment and rage goes beyond the presence of foreign fighters. It goes to the fact that the 'rulers' are exiles installed by the occupiers, not chosen by the people. And those 'rulers' do allow for a form of 'stability' but they do it by targeting the Iraqi civilians and by using terror tactics. DiMaggio's argument's great for 2003 but it's completely out of step today because the people still pushing for continued war on and occupation of Iraq are not being countered with any claims DiMaggio's making. Their argument is that when the US leaves, violence levels will soar. DiMaggoi insists that US forces on the ground cause resentment and violence. That was true in 2003 and remains true today; however, we know more today and what he's saying isn't enough. It's not just the military, it's what they prop up, it's the 'government' the US has created. The response to those who insist in 2009 that the illegal war must continue for stability is that no one knows what will happen when US forces leave but there's not a real government there now and claiming stability via a thug regime doesn't encourage democracy or allow US forces to ever leave. The government is not of the people and it doesn't represent them. It will always need force behind it to remain in power. Lastly, the referendum on the Status Of Forces Agreement is not happening this month. It can't. It requires planning. The US stepped in and al-Maliki was more than happy to go along with it. The claim is it will now be held in January when national elections are held.  Alsumaria explains, "Meanwhile, the government seeks to delay the referendum till January 2010, when the country also holds parliamentary elections as holding both at the same time will save money.  In this concern, lawmakers and electoral authorities say there is no way a referendum can be organized in just a month."  Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) reports, "Attention here is now shifting to national elections expected in January. The elections are seen as the best hope for addressing the grievances of Iraqi factions that feel they've been left out of a political system created by the US and dominated since 2003 by a Shiite-led government."     Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .   Bombings?   Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Mosul roadside bombing which injured three Iraqi soldiers and a Tikrit roadside bombing wounded one police officer.   Shootings?   Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 person was shot dead in Mosul and "an officer in the Iraqi army called Saddam Hussein" was shot ded in Kirkuk.  Reuters notes "three judges who were traveling together in a car in northern Hilla" were injured in a shooting by unknown assailants.   Corpses?   Reuters notes 1 male corpse was discovered in Mosul and 1 female corpse in Hilla -- both has "bullet wounds to . . . head and chest".   Yesterday the US Defense Dept identified the four soldiers killed in Baghdad June 29th: "They were assigned to the 120th Combined Arms Battalion, Wilmington, N.C. Killed were: Sgt. 1st Class Edward C. Kramer, 39, of Wilmington, N.C. [;] Sgt. Roger L. Adams Jr., 36, of Jacksonville, N.C. [;] Sgt. Juan C. Baldeosingh, 30, of Newport, N.C. [and] Spc. Robert L. Bittiker, 39, of Jacksonville, N.C."  Jennifer McLogan (WCBS) speaks with Baldeosingh's sisters Jennyfer and Diana Baldeosingh.  Jennyfer states, "At first it's anger.  Why did he go?  Why him?"  Diana states, "Some of them have done two or three tours, they have families and kids, they need to be with them -- not over there.  We did our time there.  It's time to come home, please."  John Valenti and Sophia Chang (Newsday -- link has text and video) also speak with the two sisters and they note: "He also leaves behind his wife, Rebecca, and three young daughters -- Emily, 2, and 5-year-old twins, Isabella and Kylie." ENCToday speaks with Brian Wheat, the stepfather of Robert Bittiker and explains, "Bittiker leaves behind his wife Tami, and two sons Cameron, 14, and Ronnie, 18, who just graduated from Southwest High School".  The Salisbury Post notes Edward Kramer's wife Vicki issued a statement explaining, "He loved us very much and he did this for his children [Erica, age nine, and Megan, age seven] so they wouldn't have to".  Catherine M. Welch (WHQR) reports a Sunday event to remember Kramer, "A memorial walk is planned for Sunday at 6:00 p.m. It will start at the Wilmington Fire Department Headquarters on Marketstreet in downtown Wilmington and end at the National Guard Armory."     World Can't Wait has several upcoming actions including:   Monday, July 13, The World Can't Wait and other organizations will protest the inclusion of military recruiters at the national NAACP Convention in New York City.          4:30-7:00pm New York Hilton Hotel 1335 6th Avenue (53/54 Streets) Also, on Thursday, July 16, when Barack Obama addresses the convention, we'll be there protesting the expanded war in Afghanistan, drone attacks on civilians in Pakistan, and Obama's refusal to release the torture photos and prosecute the Bush era war criminals. 9:30am until noon @ New York Hilton            Read letter sent by NYC High School student to Benjamin Jealous, CEO of the NAACP, asking him why recruiters are invited to the convention.               Sign on to letter to be sent to the officers and Board of the NAACP this week: To Benjamin Jealous, President & CEO, NAACP   iraq jane arraf the christian science monitor the new york times sheryl gay stolberg timothy williams mark silva the chicago tribune anthony dimaggio mcclatchy newspapers laith hammoudi aseel kami alsumaria the washington post r. jeffrey smith cnn

At CounterPunch today, Anthony DiMaggio offers a look at Iraq and it's a serious attempt so he gets a link. I don't agree with the bulk of anything he says and feel he's repeating points that were made some time ago and that many don't hold up today. The continued and illegal occupation does stabilize Iraq. It puts into power the US interest, their puppets, and it blocks any real representation of Iraqis. It is not a sovereign government. It's one that would not exist were the US not still occupying the country.

The illegal war itself and the continued occupation breed violence but part of the breeding is not just resentment over the continued presence of the US, it's also resentment over the installation of the puppet government. The exiles placed in power (by the US) are not representative of Iraq.

The US took sides, installed one faction, a fundamentalist faction, and backed them because they believed this faction was ruthless and unafraid to resort to violence (the US was correct on both counts) and that these thugs would intimidate Iraqis into silence.

Violence has never gone away in Iraq since the start of the illegal war. But that doesn't mean the puppet regime doesn't 'stabilize' it to a point where the violence lowers slightly, just enough to lull people into looking the other way.

The 'civil war' wasn't a civil war. It was a genocide where the thugs in power went about ethnically cleansing parts of Baghdad. They succeeded. They did that with the whole world watching and with most of us not even grasping what was going on.

DiMaggio is taking on the continued presence of US forces and also disputing the idea that there's any level of 'stability' in Iraq currently. The resentment and rage goes beyond the presence of foreign fighters. It goes to the fact that the 'rulers' are exiles installed by the occupiers, not chosen by the people. And those 'rulers' do allow for a form of 'stability' but they do it by targeting the Iraqi civilians and by using terror tactics.

DiMaggio's argument's great for 2003 but it's completely out of step today because the people still pushing for continued war on and occupation of Iraq are not being countered with any claims DiMaggio's making. Their argument is that when the US leaves, violence levels will soar. DiMaggoi insists that US forces on the ground cause resentment and violence. That was true in 2003 and remains true today; however, we know more today and what he's saying isn't enough. It's not just the military, it's what they prop up, it's the 'government' the US has created.

The response to those who insist in 2009 that the illegal war must continue for stability is that no one knows what will happen when US forces leave but there's not a real government there now and claiming stability via a thug regime doesn't encourage democracy or allow US forces to ever leave. The government is not of the people and it doesn't represent them. It will always need force behind it to remain in power.

Lastly, the referendum on the Status Of Forces Agreement is not happening this month. It can't. It requires planning. The US stepped in and al-Maliki was more than happy to go along with it. The claim is it will now be held in January when national elections are held.

Which is a good time to note this from Jane Arraf's "Next big test for Iraq: January election" (Christian Science Monitor):

Attention here is now shifting to national elections expected in January. The elections are seen as the best hope for addressing the grievances of Iraqi factions that feel they've been left out of a political system created by the US and dominated since 2003 by a Shiite-led government.
"The next election will be the most crucial in the history of Iraq in my view," says Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoyshar Zebari in an interview. "Now the picture is much clearer -- neither one sect can rule by itself or one ethnic group or national group can run this country -- this is a cardinal rule that everyone has come to accept."

Meanwhile the Tallahassee Democrat explains, "Members of the Tallahassee-based National Guard unit are leaving within the next two weeks for Kuwait, where they’ll spend a few weeks training ahead of a nearly year-long deployment to Iraq, said Capt. Nick Amico, commander of 779th’s Headquarters Company."

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

iraq
anthony dimaggio
the tallahassee democrat
jane arraf

"Biden has come here to divide Iraq according to his plan." Vice President Joe Biden arrived in Iraq yesterday and among today's activities is a protest of his visit by supporters of Moqtada al-Sadr. Andrew Quinn and Sattar Rahim (Reuters) report al-Sadr supporters marched in Baghdad and remarks from al-Sadr (including "Biden has come here to divide Iraq according to his plan") were read aloud to the crowd.

The remark refers to Biden's support for a federation of three autonomous areas in Iraq: Shia, Sunni and Kurd. That plan is among the reasons Biden has become the point-person for the administration on Iraq because the Kurds are increasingly unhappy with the US and increasingly vocal about what they see as US abandonment of their interests and needs.

Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) reports the Kurds aren't the only ones worrying that Iraq has been abandoned and she quotes Hoyshar Zebari, Iraq's Foreign Minister, stating, "My message to them [US] is . . . you lost Afghanistan in 2001, 2002, and 2003 because you turned your attention to Iraq from Afghanistan -- now you are redirecting your attentions of Afghanistan and if you disengage with Iraq, it could be another failure. The situation is not that
solid."

Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Timothy Williams (New York Times) quote Biden declaring he is there to ask: "What is their plan to resolve the real differences that exist?"

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

iraq
jane arraf
iraq
the new york times
sheryl gay stolberg

For those who have forgotten, retired Ambassador Joe Wilson was sent by the CIA to Nigeria to vet accusations that Saddam Hussein (then president of Iraq) was attempting to obtain yellow-cake uranium from the country. Wilson found no evidence to support the claims. Despite that investigation, the false assertion began working its way into cases for the illegal war made by the Bush administration and Bully Boy Bush himself would say that they'd recently learned Saddam attempted to obtain yellow-cake uranium from Africa. Was that Nigeria?

Wilson, at that point didn't know, and attempted to find out. Maybe Saddam had tried with another African country? Nope. It was Nigeria. The administration was lying.

What do you do?

Wilson began warning reporters and then began speaking out publicly.

In retaliation, the administration that LIED and attacked. This was their pattern repeatedly. When former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neal went public with issues, the administration attacked him and the press -- hey, David Gregory -- ran with the administration's lies and presented them as fact. In O'Neal's case, he was being accused of stealing government information on discs. Gregory stood on camera, for Today, waiving a copy of Ron Suskind's The Price of Loyalty and repeating the White House charges with a who-knows-what-really-happened spin. Apparently the only one who could know reality would be the non-idiots who knew to read the introduction of a book before repeating baseless charges because the discs are covered in the intro. (As was so often the case on Today, Katie Couric would have to grab the mop and clean up for her co-workers the following day.)

Now they were going after Joe Wilson.

And it wasn't enough to go after Joe Wilson because this was a petty, mafia-like administration. They didn't just go after Wilson, they went after his wife and began outing her to the press as a CIA agent until they found some one (Robert Novak) willing to print their tale.

Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent and her cover was blown by the government she worked for.

Thanks to the efforts of George H.W. Bush and his administration, what had just taken place was a crime. Not for reporters, but for government officials or workers involved in the outing.

Dick Cheney's right-hand I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby ended up convicted from the investigation. Many thought and hoped others would be as well. That was not the case. It was hoped that with a new administration, Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson would have the support of the government on their side as they attempted to discover what had happened to them.

That has not been the case. "Status quo you can believe in" is the Obama administration's slogan and they've done everything they can to prevent the truth from coming out.

R. Jeffrey Smith's "New Evidence Cheney Swayed Reaction to Leak" (Washington Post) takes you through the latest that's emerged as Barry O's Justice Dept argues the truth must be buried. One of their claims is that to allow Cheney's testimony during the Plamegate investigation to be known would prevent other vice presidents from offering testimony to a criminal investigation. Uh, no, it wouldn't. And if testimony means anything, it means that it's not buried out of fear of what might happened some day.

Barack's administration is not open, it's not trying to be open and is not attempting to put the US back on balance. It is attempting to continue all the abuses from the Bush administration. And it gets a lot of help from a cowardly Congress. (It's noted in the article that Congress once fought the Bush White House to make Cheney's testimony public. Not noted in the article is that any member of Congress could make Cheney's testimony public on the House or Senate floor.)


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

Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4314. Tonight? 4321.


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


iraq
i hate the war
the ballet
the washington post
r. jeffrey smith