 |
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Barack The Magnificent"
Posted at 11:01 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
And the war drags on . . .
It was October 2007. A fellow soldier, Kenneth Eastridge, 24, watched it all from the passenger seat.
At that moment, he said, it was clear that however messed up some of the soldiers in the unit had been after their first Iraq deployment, it was about to get much worse.
"I have no problem with killing," said Eastridge, a two-tour infantryman with almost 80 confirmed kills. "But I won’t just murder someone for no reason. He had gone crazy."
Hear the prison interviews with Kenneth Eastridge.All three soldiers belonged to the 2nd Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment, part of Fort Carson’s 4th Brigade Combat Team. The 500-soldier infantry battalion nicknamed itself the "Lethal Warriors."
They fought in the deadliest places in the war twice -- first in the Sunni Triangle, then in downtown Baghdad. Since their return late in 2007, eight infantry soldiers have been arrested and accused of murder, attempted murder or manslaughter. Another two soldiers from the brigade were arrested and accused of murder and attempted murder after the first tour. Others have committed other violent crimes. Others have committed suicide.
Many of the soldiers behind bars and their family members say the violence at home is a consequence of the violence in Iraq. They came home angry, confused, paranoid and depressed. They had trouble getting effective mental heath care. Most buried their symptoms in drugs and alcohol until they exploded.The above is from Dave Phillips' " Lethal warriors day 2" ( Colorado Springs Gazette) and it's part of a package following an investigation by the Gazette, part one is Phillips' " The hell of war comes home" and there's also Tom Roeder's " Fort Carson report: Combat stress contributed to soldiers' crimes back home" and " EDITOR'S NOTE: A note of caution about the Lethal Warriors package." The series addresses what happened after they returned to the US and what happened while serving in Iraq where Iraqi drivers were randomly shot at, where those who didn't stop would be run "over with the Bradley," where Iraqis post-interrogation were dumped from bridges and more. Returning home? No concerns from the command except go-away, left to fend for themselves, some afraid to get help, some targeted for trying. Parents who attempted to get help for the children? Commanding officers mocked the soldiers whose parents called, ridiculed them. It's a complete breakdown in policies and procedures and the Gazette did a wonderful investigation but what's needed is a Congressional one. 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 tearsThat 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 4327 and tonight? 4328. Violence continued in Iraq today. Bombings? Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a bomber killed himself Khaldiyah and claimed the lives of 2 police officers while wounding thirteen bystanders. Reuters notes a Mosul roadside bombing which injured one police officer and a Mosul grenade attack which wounded one police officer. Reuters also notes a bomber just outside Falluja who took their own life and the lives of 4 other people while injuing nine. As noted yesterday, " BBC (link has text and video) reports on the bombing of the party offices of Iraq's Sunni vice president Tareq Hashemi in Falluja which resulted in multiple deaths and wounded. Citing the Interior Ministry, Reuters counts 5 dead and twenty-one injured." KUNA reports that as a result of Saturday's bombing, a curfew was put in place. Shootings? Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 people shot dead outside Baquba. Reuters notes a Baghdad attack in which 3 police officers and 1 bystander were shot dead, a Baghdad attack "on a money exchange office" in which 3 police officers were killed and five more injured and 1 Christian shot dead in Mosul. Turning to the KRG where elections ended yesterday. No results are known. No surprise, the US-backed "Change" party is claiming they won and that there is cheating. Yes, it is the CIA-Iran operation all over again. Maybe hopeless saps can take to Twitter? Egged on by the actions of CIA agents, assets and dupes. And let's wonder which a certain reporter is? A Socialist from a family of Socialists and Communitsts. Working for an English language European daily, he's been doing the CIA work for them a lot lately, hasn't he? Long before the "Change" party. But he's back on the "Change" beat and he's telling you they had a "suprisingly strong showing". He knows that because? Votes haven't been counted. Real reporters (Liz Sly, Adam Ashton, etc.) were able to tell you how difficult it was to get Kurds to tell you how they planned to vote. But Euro Trash just knows "Change" did well. Oh look, the CIA-backed Institute for War and Peace Reporting. Euro Trash is quoting them as well. And failing to alert his readers about the organization's backing. And look, there's Euro Trash speaking to the 'founder' (frontman) for "Change, Nawshirwan Mustafa. He quotes Mustafa stating that most exist "on government salaries.' Mustafa does. His big 'media empire' in Kurdistan? Euro Trash forgets to tell the world that the US government funded it -- a detail even the Committee for the Protection of Journalists has covered. But Euro Trash missed it? At some point Euro Trash no longer comes off stupid -- it's impossible to be that stupid -- and comes off more like a CIA asset. Well it wouldn't be the first time the Agency's recruited form a cess pool. Let's talk Mustafa. Mustafa worked with the US (and was a favorite of Dick Cheney's) post-invasion. He was supposed to be representing the Kurds and their interests in Baghdad as a new post-war government was assembled. And he certainly made a lot of fiery, strong statements to the press. But while working with the US CPA, he didn't talk that way. In fact, as the lead-figure on the negotiations, it needs to be noted that he sold out Kurdish intrests and, despite his public criticism, he pushed the selling out of Kurdish interests. But he played along with the Americans and, as a result, he got funding for his radio station which is another US propaganda outlet, another Voice of America (telling called "Voice of Change"), despite the fact that it's presented as something else by the press -- "independent" and, goodness how brave, it critizes the two dominant Kurdish parties. People need to wonder why Euro Trash can't cover that and they need to wonder tomorrow morning when Euro Trash's garbage pops up at his brother's American outlet -- they need to wonder just how far the ties to the CIA go? Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) covers the allegations of voter fraud during Saturday's elections and she's actually reporting. Al Jazeera reports that despite the claims of "Change" winning Sulaimaniya, "[t]he ballots are still being counted" and that while "Change" is crying fraud, "[e]lection officials in the region hailed the vote as transparent". Hey Euro Trash forgets the Socialist Party and there are estimates that it did rather well. But, when you're churning out CIA talking points passed off as reporting, when you're attempting to help secure an American foothold in an oil and gas rich region, you probably don't have time to remember the Socialist Party that everyone would expect you to note? Iran's Press TV notes, "The official vote counting is due to take place in Baghdad and final results will be known in three days." Tim Cocks, Shamal Aqrawi, Muhanad Mohammed and Mohammed Abbas (Reuters) report: Iraq's Independent High Electoral Commission (IHEC) said it would investigate officially submitted complaints of election violations, but told reporters late on Saturday the vote had been largely violation-free.
However, it did say Barzani had broken a campaign deadline rule by speaking to reporters after voting.
"This is not important, it was a very simple matter and has no effect on the elections," said IHEC's Qasim al-Sachet.We'll note Anthony Shadid (Washington Post) tomorrow, it's late and his article runs in Monday's paper. (It's reporting, not propaganda.) We will note right now that while some insist "Change" is the reason for the huge turnout, that's not only impossible to back up, it also fails to note -- because the bulk of them ignored Kurdistan in the lead up to the elections -- the fact that Kirkuk's status became a very big part of the KRG elections. Not just on election day with Barzani's remarks. Not just last Sunday with a very public speech. For weeks, it has been the driving force behind the elections with candidates from all parties attempting to make the most convincing argument that they would bring Kirkuk under the Kurdistan umbrella. Do not mistakenly think that this campaign talk did not impact voter turnout. The Kurds have long seen Kirkuk as their property and have a historical grievance over the region since Saddam Hussein ran them out of the area. It would be the same as political groups campaigning for Palestinian votes with the assertion that they would regain Palestinian lands. That talk was very important to this election and it resonated with voters. Much more so than the airy "change" slogans that Kurds who did go on record during the lead up -- with various outlets -- repeatedly questioned and mocked. We'll note this from Karen DeYoung's " Iraqi Officer Was 'Out of Line,' Maliki Says" ( Washington Post): An Iraqi officer who ordered the detention of U.S. soldiers last week after they killed three Iraqis while pursuing insurgents acted in error and was "out of line," Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday.
The officer "did not understand the agreement" governing U.S. military activities since American combat troops withdrew from Iraqi cities last month, Maliki said in an interview, adding that it "clearly states that American forces have the right to defend themselves, and that's what they did." Four Iraqis, including two children, also were wounded when U.S. forces returned fire and raided nearby houses after insurgents attacked their convoy.
Maliki, at the end of a week-long U.S. visit, said he had telephoned Baghdad and "made clear that they understand that this demand of handing over the people who killed the Iraqis was wrong." For more on that Tuesday incident, you can see Saturday's report from Ernesto Londono (Washington Post). New content at Third: Truest statement of the weekA note to our readersEditorial: Repackaging the illegal warTV: Goody LiarComic-ConBought and paid for by the US militaryRoundtableTalking with Ann of Ann's Mega DubJim's WorldThe drama of Queen Al GiordanoMore foolishness from Liz SmithGroups Oppose US Training of Indoensia's KopassusImpunity at the Freeport Gold & Copper MineHighlightsIsaiah's latest goes up after this. Pru notes Tom Walker's " Vestas occupation is part of struggle for the future" (Great Britain's Socialist Worker): Workers at the Vestas wind turbine factory on the Isle of Wight have joined the fight against ordinary people being made to suffer for the recession.
They occupied their factory, which faces closure, on Monday evening. Around 30 workers were inside the plant as Socialist Worker went to press, while supporters picketed outside.
Ian, one of the occupying workers, spoke to Socialist Worker from the management offices, where the occupation is based. He said, “We’re standing up for the future. I think it’s essential not to close places like this down.”
There are few jobs available on the Isle of Wight, with 60 applicants for every vacancy.
Ian said, “We would all struggle to get another job on the island. The recession’s hit everyone, but here we’ve had hundreds apply for one bar job.”
Workers are angry that management promised to expand the factory, only to announce that they were going to close it.
“We’ve worked like dogs and we’re getting nothing,” he said. “I’ve worked here for two years but I’m only getting three weeks’ pay for my redundancy.
“And we’re not just fighting for ourselves. This is a fight for everyone. The environment should be everyone’s concern. We need the government to start investing in wind farms and keep us open.”
The workers are organising inside the factory. “We’re having regular meetings,” said Ian. “Everyone’s playing their part.”
After the site was occupied, managers locked down the
factory and turned away workers who were coming in to do their last few days. Many of them joined the support rally outside.
Luke, another occupying worker, said, “There are a lot of people outside the factory. They’ve been cheering us on, keeping our spirits high.
“When I first heard about the closure I was in shock. But when we got organised I saw hope.
“I’m here for the long haul.”
Police in riot gear blockaded the doors in an attempt to stop supporters from getting food to those in the occupation.
“There are police at every door,” added Ian. “But we’ve brought the factory to a standstill. Support us in our fight to save Vestas. We’re standing up and saying—if the government can nationalise the banks it can nationalise Vestas.”
The workers need a hurricane of solidarity from trade unionists and campaigners to back up their fight for jobs and the planet.
The following should be read alongside this article: » Vestas workers occupy: 'A fight for jobs and the planet'» Profits come first for bosses» Ford-Visteon workers back the fight for justice» Workers’ action can save the planet» How you can help the Vestas occupation» Don't let them starve Vestas occupiers out» Supporters of Vestas workers get food to the occupation» Solidarity and the siege of Vestas» Protest at the Department of Energy and Climate Change» Vestas occupation still going strong» Photos of Vestas occupation» Support grows for Vestas occupation» Workers occupying Vestas face court on Wednesday 29 July© 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 versionThe e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqand the war drags ondonovanliz slythe los angeles timeskaren deyoungthe washington posternesto londonomcclatchy newspaperslaith hammoudithe socialist workerthe third estate sunday reviewthe world today just nuts
Posted at 10:59 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Kurdish voters on Saturday packed polling places in Iraq's second election this year, weighing the promises of a new party that pledged to shake up the status quo by exposing corruption in the incumbent regional government.
The election appeared to take place smoothly without serious complaints from parties or voters, though two opposition parties raised questions late Saturday about whether soldiers tried to cast multiple ballots and whether greeters at polling places showed too much support for incumbents.
Those questions could lead to unrest in coming days when Iraq's Independent Electoral Commission discloses results, party leaders suggested.
Samad Mohamed, a candidate from the incumbent Kurdistani List, told Iraqi television that 80 percent of the region's 2.4 million eligible voters participated in the election. The Charge Party, which emerged as the leading opposition group, estimated the turnout at 55 percent.The above is from Adam Ashton's " Heavy turnout in Iraq's Kurdistan for contest of new vs. old" ( McClatchy Newspapers) and Ashton's back in Iraq and covering the KRG elections. January 31st, 14 of Iraq's eighteen provinces held elections. The KRG's three provinces did not nor was Kirkuk allowed to. Thursday early elections began for the KRG. These are provincial elections and also the election of a president -- incumbent Massud Barzani is running for re-election and facing challengers. Fu Yiming and Gao Shan (Xinhua) cover the conflict between the KRG and the central government in Baghdad and how "Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is already not on speaking terms with Massud Barzani. . . . . On August 10 last year, the central government deployed army forces to northern Diyala and ordered the Kurdish Peshmerga militia to withdraw within 24 hours. They even forced KRG staff out of their government buildings a week later, and triggered a final crossfire between the two sides in late September." Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) reports, "Long lines snaked out of polling stations Saturday" which "attests to the enthusiasm generated by the appearance for the first time, of a viable challenge to the 18-year monopoly of the two ruling parties, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and the Kurdish Democratic Party." Tim Cocks and Shamal Aqrawi (Reuters) explain voting was extended for one hour today and that the Electoral Commission estimates a turnout of 78.5%. They note the counting of ballots may take three days and spend a great deal of time covering the US-backed "Change" Party. Most reporters and outlets have either avoided "Change" or taken a skeptical approach. Despite the money spent (US tax dollars), no credible observer expects them to be swept into a position of influence. For the US, that was never the point. This was more of a learning experience for them, a way to test various theories and figure out how to best influence a future election should they feel the 'need' to in the future. "Change" tried to present itself as homegrown but failed at that and, early on, the US scaled back plans of major gains for the 'party' and instead focused on utilizing a variety of techniques in different regions in order to gauge Kurdish reactions. Some 'reporters' (not Cocks and Aqrawi) were encouraged by officers and assets to tie "Change" into some sort of global revolution and did so. If you saw those stories you know who the gullible and/or assets are. (Don't scroll through the last two weeks here. When friends at the State Dept passed on that news last month, I made the decision anyone who pimped the line would not be worth highlighting. We ignored them. Even while others -- hopefully mistakenly -- promoted them.) Back to Liz Sly who notes: Kurdish President Massoud Barzani touched on an issue dear to all Kurds when he cast his ballot in his mountain stronghold of Salahuddin. "I will never compromise on Kirkuk," he said.The status of the oil-rich northern city of Kirkuk, which the Kurds regard as their capital, is at the heart of heightened tensions between the central government in Baghdad and Kurdistan that U.S. officials have said pose the most serious threat to the future stability of Iraq.The election was fought mostly over domestic issues, and is not expected to herald a change in the region's long-standing demand for a swath of bordering territory, including Kirkuk, to be incorporated into Kurdistan.All the candidates sought to portray themselves as fierce defenders of Kurdish claims to those territories. But once the election is over, some of the fiery rhetoric may subside, making possible a greater effort toward serious negotiations with Baghdad.Violence continued in Iraq today. BBC (link has text and video) reports on the bombing of the party offices of Iraq's Sunni vice president Tareq Hashemi in Falluja which resulted in multiple deaths and wounded. Citing the Interior Ministry, Reuters counts 5 dead and twenty-one injured. Al Jazeera adds, "On Tuesday, Iraqi officials declared a rare vehicle ban across Anbar after two bomb attacks killed three people in the Ramadi, the provincial capital. The previous day, an explosion had killed two police officers in the city." In addition, Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad sticky bombing which claimed 1 life, Qahtan Ahmed, and left his son wounded, a Kirkuk roadside bombing which wounded four police officers in the latest targeting of the police. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqmcclatchy newspapersadam ashtonliz slythe los angeles timesfu yiminggao shantim cocksshamal aqrawi
Posted at 07:57 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Yesterday the press [see Nada Bakri (Washington Post) and Sam Dagher (New York Times)] that the central government in Baghdad states it is "demanding explanations] reported on the angry response of the puppet government in Baghdad to the news (which emerged weeks ago in the Arab world) that the US was negotiating with leaders of Iraqi groups opposed to the puppet government the US installed. Elise Labott (CNN) reports US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated yesterday she had been unaware of the negotiations until "recently." Labott explains: Iraqi officials said Friday they were investigating reports of the meetings, calling them a violation of Iraqi sovereignty. The reports, which detail a supposed signed agreement between the Americans and insurgents, have angered Iraqis as they seek to establish their authority in the wake of the withdrawal of American troops from Iraqi cities.
Al-Maliki said he was "satisfied" with what he heard from Clinton, who assured him the United States would not negotiate with any extremists who killed Iraqi or American troops.She goes not to note that officials confirmed to CNN such a protocol was signed. But notice Nouri's latest lies. He's pleased? That the US won't "negotiate with any extremists who killed Iraqi or American troops"? Are we all so stupid we forget the two brothers responsible for the worst attack on a US based which resulted in the deaths of 5 US soldiers? Or that they were just released weeks ago? Hillary met with Nouri at two-thirty yesterday for a bilateral meeting, at 3:15 (EST) they began a coorodinating committe meeting and at 4:30 they spoke to the press and we'll note this portion: SECRETARY CLINTON: Good afternoon. It is a pleasure to have this opportunity to meet with Prime Minister Maliki. We are continuing our work together to meet our goal of building a stable, sovereign and self-reliant Iraq. Our countries are on a long journey together, and obstacles, of course, remain, but we are making significant progress.
Today's meeting was the second of the Strategic Framework Agreement Higher Coordinating Committee. This agreement establishes the terms of our relationship beyond security cooperation. We are working to promote economic growth and human development and diplomatic efforts so that Iraq can play a very constructive role not only at home, but throughout the region.
We have had six months of work together, so today, we reported on that work. And I'd like to thank Deputy Secretary Jim Steinberg and Ambassador Christopher Hill for their ongoing leadership of our Iraqi policy. Implementing the strategic framework agreement will be the focus of our work here at the State Department for months ahead.
I very much appreciate the positive contributions that the prime minister and his team made today. We will partner with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to host the U.S.-Iraq Business and Investment Summit in October. And we're going to work to make sure that the investment and business climate is very attractive. There are many important issues, but let me just highlight our education exchange. I want to commend Iraq for the $2.5 million it has recently put into the Fulbright student exchange program. We're also working on justice issues to enhance law enforcement and strengthen the judicial and corrections systems. And we are also working to assist the Iraqi Government with the return of Iraqis who left their country but now wish to return home and be part of a new Iraq.
I am pleased to announce that the United States is contributing more than $100 million in new assistance this year to support the return and reintegration of displaced Iraqis. Again, thank you, Mr. Prime Minister, for your leadership.
PRIME MINISTER MALIKI: (Via interpreter) Thank you very much. I would like – in the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate, I would like to express my gratitude and thanks to you, Secretary Clinton, for your interest and your commitment to convene the second meeting for the Higher Coordination Committee as a part of the strategic framework agreement between us. And I thank you very much for managing this meeting and convening this meeting. There were so many ideas, commitments, principles, joint work ahead of us. All of us gives – all of that gives us the hope to look forward to a future that is bright for both.
The meeting that was convened today was a very strong launching to broaden the relationship under the strategic framework agreement that was signed between the two nations. Through the review and through the briefings that we heard during the meetings, there is tangible progress that actually happened and took place. But we also said that this is not enough. We still have to work more for more success and more achievements and cooperation throughout the various spheres that are covered in the bilateral relationship.
Madame Secretary, today's meeting, it was a declaration in itself that we're going into a new phase, from a previous phase of cooperation that focused on security and confronting terror and various groups into a phase where we expand our cooperation and relationship to economics, to trade, to higher education, to tourism, to every other sphere.
And I here would like to express my gratitude and thanks for the $100 million from the United States to support the efforts of the return of the Iraqis who left their places. And I am delighted by the level of seriousness and our agreement that the next meeting will be convened in Baghdad. And at the meantime, between now and the next meeting, all the various subgroups will continue their meetings in order to accelerate, in order to activate the various lines of cooperation.
And today's meeting with the Chamber of Commerce, where a number of American businessmen and corporations came, I believe that was a very strong prelude to the upcoming conference that will be convened in October here in the United States, which will be the launching pad for a massive work in order to reconstruct Iraq, in order to invite investments, and in order to rebuild the country.
And tomorrow, also, we will be signing an educational initiative agreement which would allow us to send the first group of Iraqi students to the United States. We hope that we will be able, through that program, to send 10,000 Iraqi students to receive their education here. And I would like to express our thanks and gratitude to your cooperation, Madame Secretary, in allowing that American visas will be issued out of the American Embassy in Baghdad.
Thank you so much.
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, first, have you provided the prime minister with any clarification regarding the meeting that been held in Istanbul between American officials and Iraqi insurgents? And have you signed any protocol with the insurgents during that meeting? (Speaking in Arabic.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, let me say that I –
INTERPRETER: Can I say to the prime minister in Arabic? Can I give him the question?
SECRETARY CLINTON: He was asked a question in Arabic.
INTERPRETER: Please.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, okay.
INTERPRETER: (Speaking Arabic.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I have discussed this matter, which was only recently brought to my attention, with our Ambassador and with other officials. And we intend to make sure that the Iraqi Government is fully informed of any such activities, whether they are sponsored by another party or come from any other source. So we want to be sure that we have a very close working relationship and we have a very clear line of communication, and that's what we intend to do going forward.
PRIME MINISTER MALIKI: (Speaking Arabic.)
QUESTION: Have you signed any (inaudible), Madame Secretary?
SECRETARY CLINTON: No, we have not authorized any to be signed.
STAFF: Elise.
INTERPRETER: One – just one second.
PRIME MINISTER MALIKI: (Via interpreter) In the spirit of bilateral cooperation and when the relationship between two parties who are equal and sovereign, I believe that constant dialogue – it's very important in order to achieve the desirable outcome. I am quite satisfied on terms of what I heard on this issue. And I have been given a commitment that the Administration will not negotiate or reach any agreements with those who killed American soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, and Iraqi people.Today the Boston Globe editorialized on Nouri's ongoing DC trip: But if Maliki is worried about Washington backing or opposing him in Iraqi elections early next year, Obama must make it clear America will do neither. The US role from now on is to support Iraqi efforts to resolve their disputes over who will award oil contracts and whether regional autonomy is preferable to a strong central government. Obama needs to transform the occupation of Iraq into a respectful friendship.With that in mind, we'll return to the State Dept release: QUESTION: Mr. Prime Minister, you came to Washington asking the Obama Administration for more political support in terms of helping Iraqis mediate over issues such as Kirkuk, between Arabs and Kurds, playing more of a mediative role on political reconciliation. Did you receive that political support? And are you satisfied that as the Obama Administration takes a military disengagement, that it will not undertake a political disengagement?
And Madame Secretary, if I might, on Honduras, President Zelaya is just feet from the Honduran border with Nicaragua. He seems to have a lot of cell phones in his hand, talking on the cell phone. Wondering if you had spoken to him and what you're urging him in terms of his planned return into Honduras. Thank you.
PRIME MINISTER MALIKI: (Via interpreter) First of all, I am very satisfied, because what happened between Iraq and the United States is that we achieved an agreement regarding security arrangements and not disengaging. And if what was intended here is the withdrawal of forces from cities and towns, I see this as a manifestation of success, where their work would not be needed.
My visit here to the United States came in order to meet with the leadership here and strengthening the relationship with them, and also to activate the strategic framework agreement through a relationship of mutual cooperation, covering all other issues on the economic front, commercial front, education front, tourism, and so on.
And of course, within the spirit of friendship and cooperation, a number of critical issues were discussed. One of them is Iraq's, under Chapter 7 and the various sanctions that were imposed on Iraq over the years, in addition to other bilateral issues. But we did not come specifically for any issues such as Kirkuk or anything else. And the issue of Kirkuk is an Iraqi issue. It will be settled among the Iraqis through the constitutions, through negotiations, through contacts, through dialogue, and it's inevitable that we will reach an Iraqi solution to it.An Iraqi solution? Like banning books? Khalid al-Ansary (Reuters) reports the Ministry of Culture is censoring books in 'free' Iraq and quotes the ministry Taher al-Humoud explaining that all publishers now must "submit lists of titles for approval". That's the 'freedom' millions of Iraqis died for, 4328 US service members, 179 British service members and 139 'other' troops have died for. They died so . . . Iraq could return to censorship. The following community sites have updated: Cedric's Big MixAsshole means never having to say you're sorry53 minutes ago The Daily JotTHIS JUST IN! ASSHOLES NEVER SAY 'I'M SORRY'!53 minutes ago Thomas Friedman is a Great ManFriday wrap up23 hours ago Mikey Likes It!FSRN, Hawaii23 hours ago Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitudeit's his party, he'll cry if he wants to, cry if he wants to23 hours ago SICKOFITRADLZGlen Ford, Iraq23 hours ago Trina's KitchenTeriyaki Potatoes in the Kitchen23 hours ago Ruth's ReportMoyers and Winship on health care23 hours ago Oh Boy It Never EndsJuniorGate23 hours ago Like Maria Said PazThe UN and Kirkuk23 hours ago Ann's Mega DubAngelina Jolie23 hours ago Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)Kurds find out it sucks to be the good child23 hours ago The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqcnnelise labottthe washington postnada bakrithe new york timessam dagherthe boston globeanns mega dublike maria said pazkats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudethomas friedman is a great mantrinas kitchenthe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes itruths reportsickofitradlzoh boy it never ends
Posted at 07:54 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Friday, July 24, 2009
Friday,
July 24, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces
another death, Nouri makes a public statement the press treats like his
little secret, the KRG gears up for the vote, Angelina Jolie visits
Iraq, 7 US soldiers wounded on July 12th and that news comes from a
regional US paper and not M-NF or a big news outlet, and more. Today the US military announced:
"BAGHDAD – A Multi-National Division–Baghdad Soldier died, July 24, of
non-combat related injuries in eastern Baghdad. 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 4328 the number of US service members killed in the Iraq War. That
number is not a complete count. Trejo Rivas just passed away and he was
a veteran of the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War. It was in Iraq that
a mortart attack October 12, 2006. As Sig Christenson (San Antonio-Express) explained
Tuesday, "Retired Army Reserve Lt. Col. Raymond Trejo Rivas died
Wednesday in San Antonio after battling to recover from head injuries
suffered nearly three years ago. He was 53." Meanwhile John Hacker (Carthage Press) speaks
with Isaac "Jerry" Conway who explains "his grandson, U.S. Army Spec.
David Conway II, was injured in the Iraqi city of Sharqat when an
improvised explosive device exploded near him while he was leaving a
meeting with local officials. Also injured were six other American
soldiers and two Iraqi civilians working with the soldiers." Conway
says the incident took place July 12th. I'm not doubting Conway, but I
am noting M-NF never noted it. They did have time, however, the day after, to issue a release
about "Facebook, [and] other social media." Priorities. Yesterday
Nouri al-Maliki announced US forces might stay in Iraq past 2011. And
who noted it? Margaret Talev's " Iraq's Maliki raises possibility of asking U.S. to stay on" ( McClatchy Newspapers)
may shock some readers since McClatchy is the only newspaper outlet
covering it. It's not because it just emerged or emerged late. The
comments are noted in yesterday's snapshot.
It's not ignored because it's not newsworthy. Three outlets rushed to
print articles yesterday morning on the topic . . . when they claimed
all US troops would be out in 2011. (See yesterday's entry.) It's only not news when it doesn't agree with their outlets spin purposes. To
recap, when you can pimp the lie that all US troops will be out of Iraq
in 2011 (and, apparently, pimp yourself as a psychic who can tell the
future), you run with it and call it news. When Nouri al-Maliki
publicly, in front of a crowd, declares not-so-fast, you duck your head
and pretend it didn't happen. Anne Gearan covers al-Maliki's remarks for AP. Though
most of the broadcast media ignores the Iraq War (and much of the print
media), there are many news items related to and coming out of Iraq.
It's Friday, so smart news consumers knew there was a good chance The Diane Rehm Show
would cover the Iraq War -- the only program to do so regularly.
Diane's on vacation. Steve Roberts filled in for her today. The
panelists for the second (international news) hour were: The Financial Times' Daniel Dombey, Washington Post's David Hoffman and CNN's Elise Labott. Steve
Roberts: Let's talk about a neighboring country, Iraq, and, David
Hoffman, Prime Minister Maliki in Washington this week. Interestingly,
not only in talks with President Obama but also talking a lot about the
economy of Iraq -- an issue we don't hear a lot about, but trying to
drum up interest among American investors and entrepreneurs. Give us
your take on his visit. David
Hoffman: Well I actually thought the most interesting thing was the
president pledged to help get rid of these UN sanctions. You know,
Iraq still has to pay billions of dollars to Kuwait in reparations. If
they get some of that money back, that will help them and, you know, I
think when Mal-Maliki goes home from Washington, it's going to look
grimmer on the ground there. There's a big election coming in
Kurdistan, it's very important. The parties that have led Kurdistan
are being challenged by an upstart party. I think Kurdistan is the
real new frontline, the real flashpoint, in potential sectarian
tensions in Iraq so Maliki's country's not all together yet. Steve
Roberts: Uh, well you mentioned, there are several issue here
including, in his conversation with President Obama, the whole issue of
the deadline of withdrawal of American troops. What did we learn? David
Hoffman: Well, I think, you know, we're committed to the deadline but
what's going to happen is the deadline is going to be tested and it was
just tested this morning. There's going be firefights and there are
going to be military conflicts involving all these rules and deadlines
and those things, you know, they're very, very sensitive and volatile. Steve
Roberts: Uh, talk Daniel, about this sense of national unity. David
raises this issue of Kurdistan. Over weeks now, there's been
increasing assertions of independence on the part of Kurdistan leaders,
there's a huge fight over the status of Kirkuk, an oil-rich area. Is
Iraq holding together? Is-is there a real threat to its national unity
hear. Daniel
Dombey: I think both are true. Iraqi is holding-holding together to
the moment but the Kirkuk is-is the biggest unsolved problem of-of Iraq
-- not least because of the oil revenue but also because of Kurds who
have come in and Turkmens who were there before. But I think just to
look at Maliki's visit, I think that you need to bear two things in
mind. This is a cold relationship rather like the relationship with
[Hamid] Karzai and if you looked at some of President Obama's comments
where he talked about wanting an Iraq where everyone could thrive --
Shia, Sunni and Kurds -- it didn't take a genius, it didn't take a
Sherlock Holmes, to see that the US worries that Maliki could be a bit
more of a narrow sectarian than it would like. There's that tension
there. There's also a little bit of tension about how much freedom of
maneuver the US military has following the June the 30th pull-out. And
I wonder Iraq's economic situation is hard. There biggest thing is
oil. They had a big auction to-to sell out rights to eight big oil
fields uh in, near Basra. Only one of those went through that seems to
be renegotiated -- it still -- the British are kind of less keen than
they were. They're not getting the investors they need at a time that
the oil price is going down. They need oil and money to grease
the wheels to make Iraq a more coherent place. Elise
Labot: Part of the issue has been that there hasn't been enough
national reconciliation in the country and the issue is part of the
reason for the surge was not just -- in 2007 -- was not just to improve
security but it was to give the political space for more reconciliation
and that never happened. And the kind of grand constitutional bargain
and the concessions that were necessary to make that were never
completed. So what President Obama was saying to Maliki: "You need to
do this, you need to not only include Sunnis into the political process
but you need to, uhm, settle some of these issues with the Kurds." And
Maliki said to him: "We need your help on doing this. We understand
that there will be a military disengagement but it can't be a political
disengagement because Iraq has a lot more challenges that not only are
of sectarian nature but go to the whole future of the country. Is the
power going to be in the central government? Is it going to be in the
provinces? Who's going to be in control over the oil and the natural
resources? I mean, these are major issues that the Iraqis are going to
have to resolve and they are looking for the United States in many ways
to help mediate these. Steve
Roberts: Well there were stories this week about this pact or protocol
that was apparently signed with Sunnis in Turkey, what was that all
about? David
Hoffman: It's not really clear. But there were two meetings between
Americans and representatives of the Sunni insurgency that were held in
Turkey. It's really -- the third meeting is the mystery. Why didn't it
happen? It was scheduled. The Americans didn't come. There's some
signs of some disenchantment maybe, that this wasn't really a very good
channel or it wasn't working. But I do think it's at least an indicator
that reconciliation's got to be the goal. During listener feedback, a panelist completely blew it. He had no idea what he was speaking of. Steve
Roberts: Let me read some e-mails from some of our listeners. This is
Randall in Cincinatti: "With the death toll rising in Afghanistan, I
want to know where the anti-war groups that were protesting during the
Bush administration -- the anti-war movement was seen and heard daily
during the few years but they seem to have disappeared in mainstream
media since Obama was elected. Could it be these were just anti-Bush
groups posing as anti-war groups?" What do you think? David
Hoffman: Well I think, also, you know Obama did endorse deadlines,
troops have pulled back, violence has gone down in Iraq, that may play
a big part. When we noted the Iraq
portion of The Diane Rehm Show on Fridays, there are things said by
panelists I disagree with. If it's not called out by another guest,
the issue is, can the person's remarks be seen? Could someone look at
the facts and conclude as the panelist did? If it's an opinion, it can
go in. But if someone is just factually wrong, we need to call it
out. So we will. David didn't know what the hell he was talking
about. Obama endorsed deadlines? You mean the June 30th 'pull-out'?
You mean the draw down? You mean the supposed 2011 departure? If
that's what you mean, you mean Obama "endrosed" Bush's "deadlines"
because those 'deadlines' are Bush's. Those are from the treaty
masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement which replaced the UN
mandate (that Bush didn't want to renew) and which required a full-on
push from the US government to pass through Parliament (with a huge
number of Iraqi MPs skipping the vote) on Thanksgivng day in 2008. What
was being asked was a fair question. More than fair.
And
the honest answer, which Randall wasn't given, was that a large number
of the 'anti-war' groups were nothing but anti-Bush groups -- and, more
importantly, anti-Bush groups who existed to put Democrats into
office. They weren't about ending the Iraq War. Look at MoveOn, for
example. These were not real peace groups -- which is why they
preferred the title "anti-war." These were not groups concerned with
ending the illegal war. Their answer, over and over, check those
stupid MoveOn e-mails from that time period, were: Stop the Iraq War by
voting Democrats into office! That was all they had to offer. That
and a few pathetic 'candle light vigils.' Randall asked a fair
question and he didn't get a fair answer.
That
got me wondering: would those folks (say the mainstream Bob Woodward or
Tom Ricks, let alone other people in the nuttier fringes of the
Bush-bashing chorus) who established a cottage industry lambasting Bush
Administration rhetoric as "happy talk" rise up and start calling a
foul on President Obama? President Bush regularly caveated his
statements of progress with reminders that there were "tough days
ahead" and, if memory serves, Rumsfeld was the guy who coined "long,
hard slog." In their coverage of Bush, sometimes the reporters would
include mention of the caveats and qualify their lede accordingly;
sometimes the reporters would include mention of the caveats and yet
stick to a "happy talk" lede; and sometimes the reporters would simply
omit any mention of the caveats, perhaps the better to advance the
"happy talk" lede. Regardless of how many times President Bush
presented carefully caveated assessments, the Bush-bashers could always
rest their indictment on one or two off-the-cuff uncaveated remarks.
They could have also steered Randall to independent journalist John Pilger who holds both administrations accountable and was on KPFA's Flashpoints
yesterday delivering a speech media and empire and covering for Obama,
"The Rise of Barack Obama and the Silencing of Much of the Left." For
the record, Elise Labott stuck to Afghanistan and stuck to her opinion
based on facts. (This isn't the Afghanistan snapshot so we're not
excerpting.) Daniel Dombey stuck to Afghanistan. (And was grossly
wrong -- protests continue in England against the Afghanistan War
including last week and it's damn stupid to use the pre-Iraq War global
protest, if that's what Dombey wants to argue, as a measure. That was
the largest global protest. And it was against the impending Iraq War
-- not the Afghanistan War.) Adil E. Shamoo and Bonnie Bricker (Foreign Policy In Focus) explain,
"Parliament members are afraid to attend meetings. Iraq's nascent
economy is deteriorating. Hundreds of armed militias are ready to
fight for their own interests. This is Iraq today." They also address
the SOFA: The current deterioration in
Iraq has made advisors and pundits (many of whom supported the initial
invasion) fearful of pulling out U.S. troops. The misleading terms of
the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) means U.S. troops are more
involved than expected. The terms of the SOFA called for withdrawal of
troops from the cities, for example, but the city limit lines were
drawn within previous borders of the cities, allowing troops to be
positioned in what was once considered part of the city. David was completely wrong. It's a shame that a peace activist wasn't able to call in. Well, it's shame that a peace activist with a brain wasn't able to call in and know what she was talking about.
Ann: Oh, yes. Uhm . . . Steve Roberts: You're on the air, please go ahead. Ann:
Thank you. I'm a member and have worked for the A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition
which is anti-war colation for the last seven years. It isn't a
question of who is in the White House. I personally support President
Obama except when it comes to Afghanistan and whatever support he still
gives to Israeli initiatives, um. I think you will be seeing more
anti-war, um, protests as time goes on because the money we're spending
in Iraq and the money we give to Israel could be better spent at home
for jobs and health care and education. What
a load of garbage. "I personally support President Obama"? If you
support him on Iraq -- which you are saying you do -- then you support
2008 George W. Bush on Iraq because Barack -- pay attention -- isn't
doing what he supposedly promised while campaigning, he's instead
embraced and is following Bush's Iraq timetable and SOFA. The same
SOFA, you grasp this, stupid idiot, that Barack was calling out while
campaigning for the nomination and then the presidency. Yeah, Barack
called it out, said it was wrong, said it shouldn't go through and he
wouldn't let it. But what's he doing? He's doing just what Bush did.
But you "personally support" him. If that's typical A.N.S.W.E.R.
membership, the peace movement's in a lot more trouble than any of us
realize. We're going to move right into an excerpt from from Debra
Sweet's " A Proposal for Actions Against (Obama's) War and Torture" (World Can't Wait) because the peace movement is in disarray: We've put out a proposal for actions
in early October, including Monday October 5 in Washington DC for
actions at the White House & Congress, and a national day of
resisting the recruiters in high schools Tuesday, October 6.
After
networking and consulting with other organizations and leaders, the
World Can't Wait Steering Committee will meet on August 1 to finalize
fall plans. We want your input. Please take the survey here by July 31. Or write me about the questions below...or what is on your mind.
1.
Do you feel the controversy over the Obama administration not
prosecuting anyone involved in torture has changed the political
climate in this country? If so, how so? If not, why not? 2.
What do you think of Obama's expansion of the war in Afghanistan? Why?
Do others you know agree or disagree? How much has that war been
successfully re-branded as the "good war"? 3.
In the past few months has your opinion of Obama changed? Favorably or
unfavorably? Why? How about people you know? 4.
After reading the October 5/6th proposal what do you think is possible
for these days of resistance? What do you think is necessary? What is
your vision of protest for those days?
Your input is needed! Please complete this survey by July 31 to feed into our discussions on August 1. To make all this possible, send along a donation, or become a sustainer 4RealChange. Adil E. Shamoo and Bonnie Bricker (Foreign Policy In Focus) explain,
"Parliament members are afraid to attend meetings. Iraq's nascent
economy is deteriorating. Hundreds of armed militias are ready to
fight for their own interests. This is Iraq today." Joe Piasecki (Pasadena Weekly) points out that Tuesday was "day 2,313 of the war in Iraq". While A.N.S.W.E.R.'s Ann isn't at all worried about the Iraq War, Angelina Jolie declared
yesterday, "There are still three million people displaced, innocent
families," she added. "We have still many young men and women from our
country who are fighting every day, there are men and women from all
countries who have lost their lives, and this is a time to try to make
some positive change." Angelina is the UNHCR's Goodwill Ambassador and made her third trip to Iraq yesterday. The above statement by her appears in CNN's coverage. The San Francisco Chronicle quotes
her stating, "There are some changes. There are returns of displaced
people, not a big number, but there is progress. This is a moment where
things seem to be improving on the ground, but Iraqis need a lot of
support and help to rebuild their lives." As
Angelina noted, the returnees are "not a big number." The displaced is
composed of targeted populations. A large number of Iraq's external
refugees are Iraqi Christians. Deutsche Welle reports
Baghdad's "Archbishop Jean Benjamin Sleiman told Deutsche Welle that
his country is slipping into a state of anarchy, and that the
government has no control of the violence within its borders. In
Germany he has spoken out against attacks on seven churches in Iraq,
which killed four people and injured some 30 others." AINA reports
Congressional Religous Minorities co-chairs, US House Reps Anna Eshoo
and Frank Wolf have written the following letter to Nouri al-Maliki on
the continued attacks on Iraq's Christian community: It
was with great sadness that we read recent accounts of targeted church
bombings in Iraq. Reuters reported on July 12 that, "Bombs exploded
outside five Christian churches in Baghdad on Sunday, in apparently
coordinated attacks that killed four people and wounded more than 30."
The New York Times reported that the bombings "appeared to be one of
the largest single coordinated assaults against churches and Christians
in Baghdad." As co-chairs
of the Congressional Religious Minorities in the Middle East Caucus, we
have long been concerned about the plight ofIraq's ethno-religious
communities including the ancient Chaldo-Assyrian Christian community.
We have written numerous letters to our own government urging that
there be a comprehensive policy to address the unique needs of these
vulnerable minorities. U.S. Ambassador Chris Hill has indicated that
the security ofthe Christian community is one of his paramount
concerns, and we hope his attitude signals a willingness to develop a
programmatic approach to dealing with this matter. When the new deputy
assistant secretary for Near Eastern Affairs assumes this post at the
end ofthe month, we will meet to discuss solutions to the problems
faced by ethno-religious minorities in Iraq. Our
ongoing commitment to alleviating this situation is shared by many of
our colleagues in the United States Congress. Two weeks ago, the House
of Representatives approved $20 million in funding dedicated toward
religious minorities in Iraq. This funding is intended to support a
range of programs such as security, economic development, health care
enhancement and democratization programs primarily in the Nineveh Plain
region. Bipartisan congressional support for these minority faith
communities remains strong. We understand
that it is your desire to see Iraqi refugees return to the land of
their birth. We share this hope. But news analysis following the
bombings indicates that Christians who were contemplating returning
will understandably reconsider given the fear gripping their community
in the wake of the attacks. As
the U.S. presence in Iraq draws down, the burden for protecting these
ancient faith communities rests increasingly with Iraqi forces.
Increased security at Christian places of worship and an investigation
into who is behind these most recent attacks will send a powerful
signal that your government is committed to preserving and protecting
Iraq's ethno-religious minorities. For those late the July 12 bombings, The Catholic Leader recaps
and quotes Chaldean Auxiliary Bishop Shlemon Warduni stating: "We cry:
Why? Why? What is our fault? That we are Christians?" In June 2006,
shortly after Nouri al-Maliki was installed by the US as prime
minister, the Green Zone was almost breached and it was a frightening
time for al-Maliki and American leadership. In the frenzy following
that, al-Maliki was advocating (as were some lower in the US military
brass) that trenches be dug around Baghdad, that the answer for Baghdad
was "moats." Those late to the party can see Edward Wong's " Iraqis Plan to Ring Baghdad With Trenches" ( New York Times, September 16, 2006). We bring that up for a reason. The waterless moats are back as a proposal. International Christian Concern advises
that they have "learned that Iraqi Security forces are building
trenches to protect Christians from further attacks following recent
church bombings that killed four people and wounded several others.
Iraqi officials are stepping up protective measures for Christians in
the largely Christian towns of Tilkaif and Hamdaniya, in the northern
province of Nineveh. The trenches come in the wake of a spate of bomb
attacks against seven Iraqi churches on July 11 and 12 in the cities of
Baghdad and Mosul." They quote Project Director of the Iraq
Sustainable Democracy Project Michael Youash stating, "These trenches
will require people to enter towns through 4 or 5 secure checkpoints
making it far more difficult to smuggle in weapons and bombs. The
construction of the trenches is a sad but necessary reminder of just
how desperate the situation of the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac Christians
is becoming." UPI quotes
Abdul Raheem al-Shimari (the province's security head) stating that
"the trenches are roughtly 1.5 feet deep and are intended to prevent
potential car bombers from getting through without the necessary
security checks." Hazem al-Aisawi (Azzaman) adds, "It is not clear when the moat will be completed and who will be financing the dig." IRIN notes, " According to some reports, it is estimated that as many as half the Christian population has left Iraq since 2003." It
is clear that Iraq's Kurdistn Regional Government is holding provincial
and presidential elections. Early voting began Thursday. Voting ends
tomorrow. BBC News presents
the viewpoints of five voters: Mateen Dooski, Alan Ali, Savina Dawood,
Hassan Jalal and Ako Omer. Savina Rafaeel Dawood explains she's
Assyrian, not Kurdish and states she's voting for "the 'Mesopotamia'
list which will give me my rights." Hassan Jalal doesn't think the KRG
will ever be able to increase their region due to resistance from the
central government in Baghdad. Alan Ali is skeptical of the "Change"
party ("we don't know where their change would take us") and states,
"On Kirkuk - I think it should be part of Kurdistan. I'm not just being
selfish because I am Kurdish and want the oil money - Kirkuk is
connected to the region. Most of the people there are Kurdish, despite
the Arabs brought in by previous governments. And Kirkuk is just one of
many cities like this." And Mateen Dooski, who explains he's voting
for incumbent President Massud Barzani, declares, "The biggest task
facing the KRG is the implementation of Article 140 of the Iraqi
constitution (a referendum on whether Kurdish areas of Diyala, Kirkuk,
Salah ad Din and Ninawa provinces should become part of Iraqi
Kurdistan). This would bring the 60% of purely Kurdish areas not run by
the KRG: Kirkuk, Mosul, Diyala, under its control." Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) reports
on the elections with an emphasis on the "Change" party, "Though
Change's leaders deny any conscious similarity to President Obama's
campaign, it is evident in the slate's movement's official campaign
slogan, 'Yes, We Can Change It.'" Adam Ashton (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
on the "Change" Party and also notes these basics, "The Kurdish
parliament has 111 seats, 80 of which are held by the alliance of the
KDP and the PUK. Eleven seats are reserved for minorities, such as
Christians and Turkomen." Salman Ansari Javid (Tehran Times) observes
that the political parties "Change, the KDP, and the PUK have the same
goals for Kirkuk". Kirkuk is the oil rich disputed region which is
claimed by both the KRG and the central government in Baghdad. Timothy Williams (New York Times) reports
that the Turkmen in Kirkuk Province are threatening to boycott a census
currently scheduled for October. That'll teach 'em, seems to be the
concept. The census, which was Constitutionally mandated to have been
conducted in 2007, will survey the contested region. Turkmen are
claiming Kurds are beefing up their population with transplants. They
are. They have been doing it for years. If you don't like it, you
probably should have demanded a census long ago. The shipping in of
Kurds? That was a concern in 2006. It's too late to whine about
something long on reported on. In 2005, some groups (largely Sunni)
felt they would be shut out of the electoral process. A decision was
made to boycott the elections. Some stood by that decision after the
elections, some felt it was a mistake. In the January 31st elections
this year, the real story was that the ones who had boycotted last time
turned out in large numbers (while the drop off came from the Shi'ites
who had participated in 2005). Now an election (or all elections) you
might or might not want to boycott. You can certainly say, "Don't blame
me, I didn't vote." But this isn't an election. This is a census. And
if you feel you are already going to be under-represented because of an
influx of Kurds, then your decision not to participate in the census
makes little sense. Unless you're attempting to stop the census, which
may be the point. In other news, the US has continued talks with Iraqi leaders living in exile. Nada Bakri (Washington Post) reports
on continued negotiations the US is having with former Ba'athists and
other groups currently excluded from political life in Iraq. Bakri
reports "two meetings this spring" held in Turkey and that the State
Dept's P.J. Crowley would only say that they met to address "a wide
range of Iraqi contacts with the purpose of promoting reconciliation
and national unity." Sam Dagher (New York Times) adds
that the central government in Baghdad states it is "demanding
explanations" on the meeting and declares the meetings (known for weeks
before they took place and covered in Arab media though the New York Times
seems unaware of that fact) were "an interference in Iraq's internal
political affairs". Dagher notes an Aljazeera interview aired on July
15th where Ali al-Juboouri (Political Council of the Iraqi Resistance)
"revealed that his council, which represents Sunni insurgent groups,
met in March with representatives of the American government in
Istanbul. He said a protocol was signed then to govern future
negotiations between the two sides. He said that a second meeting took
place in May" but ended over differences including that the US agree to
compensation and a public apology for the illegal war. Maliki's out of the country and Iraq has no violence? No, it's just Friday, when reports trickle out slowly. Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) does note a Baghdad car bombing which injured six people. Meanwhile Missy Ryan (Reuters) reports
on the drought effecting Iraq as the Tigris and Euphrates run dry,
"Tensions intensified earlier in the month when Turkey announced that
it would resume work on its controversial plan to build a hydroelectric
dam on the Tigris in its southeast." Dr. Nimrod Raphaeli explores the
issue in " Water Crisis in Iraq: The Growing Danger of Desertification" (Middle East Media Research Institute). Turning to the US, July 12th, Topeka, Kansas was in the news as a veteran had a standoff with police at the Colmery-O'Neil VA Medical Center. India's Thaindian reported, "An unknown gunman stormed a Topeka, Kansas hospital on Sunday afternoon, officials told BNO News." Taylor Atkins and Ann Marie Bush (The Topeka Capital-Journal) explained: Jim
Gleisberg, public affairs officer for the medical center, said no one
was injured when a veteran, whose name and hometown won't be released,
walked into the emergency room with a handgun at 12:10 p.m. and asked
to talk to a VA police officer. "The
veteran showed the officer he had a gun and threatened his own life,"
Gleisberg said. "The police officer acted very professionally. He got
the veteran to leave the emergency room area, and other staff members
on duty called the Topeka police."KTKA quoted
the VA's Jim Gleisberg stating the man is an Iraq War and Afghanistan
War veteran and, "Veterans are being stressed. The soldiers over there
now that are in the conflict that are coming back with issues just
because they've been deployed either once or twice at 12 or 15 months
at a time it's a very stressful situation and so they are going to have
issues." Michigan's WHMI reports
"a suicidal veteran" -- Iraq War veteran -- holed up at the Homoetown
Trailr Park and "held Howell Police at bay for more than nine hours". Jon Gunnells (Daily Press & Argus) reports
that the "veteran is undergoing psychiatric treatment" and quotes
police chief George Bassar stating, "He made statemens about suicide to
his mother who calle dthe sister to check on him. He threatened his
sister and she fled te home . . . He has some pretty good battle
injuires and post traumatic stress syndrome. This apparently was
something bubbling up." Steve Pardo (Detroit News) states
the veteran is thirty-four-years-old and that after hours of attempted
negotiations, "around 3:30 a.m., police threw tear gas into the house
and the man was taken without further incident. He remains in St.
Joseph Mercy Livingston hospital." TV notes. This week on NOW on PBS: The Obama Administration recently released its proposal for financial regulatory reform, but before change comes to Wall Street, a reform plan has to get through Congress with its teeth intact.This
week, David Brancaccio sits with Zanny Minton Beddoes, economics editor
for The Economist magazine, to review the proposal and its
ramifications for America. Beddoes encourages streamlining the
regulatory system, leaving fewer but more efficient overseers. But
where powerful interests are at stake, nothing is a sure bet."There
is some good stuff in [the reform plan]. But it's a relatively modest
rearranging of the financial supervisory structure ... I think it's
more interior design than a whole new foundation." On Bill Moyers Journal, health care is addressed with CJR's Trudy Lieberman (who has a strong article in the current CJR) and by Marcia Angell. My goodness, Bill found two women. Mark the calendars! As noted in Third's " Editorial: Taking sexism seriously," " In the first six months of this year Washington Week had 33 female guests and twice that number (66) of male guests while Bill Moyers featured 43 men and only 13 women."
And, for the record, I'm only noting that segment. In another Bill
floats his attacks on free speech. Free speech is something you support
or you don't. Believing in it doesn't mean you can't decry statements,
that you can't call them out, that you can't say they're offensive or
that they crossed a line. But it does mean that you support free speech
and grasp the difference between words and action and grasp that the
Constitution supports free speech for an important reason. Now did we just note Washington Week?
Usually four guests a week sit down with Gwen but as of the last week
of June, she'd spent the year with 66 men and only 33 women on her
program? How does it happen? By weeks like this one where she sits down
with three men and one woman: New York Times' Peter Baker, Washington Post's Michael Fletcher, National Journal's Marilyn Werber Serafini and Wall St. Journal's
David Wessel. Now how do you book that show and not notice that you
have three men and only one woman? You know it. You know it and you do
it on purpose. You don't accidentally end up with twice as many men as
women. PBS' Editorial Standards & Policies states:
"The goal of diversity also requires continuing efforts to assure that
PBS content fully reflects the pluralism of our society, including, for
example, appropriate representation of women and minorities. The
diversity of public television producers and funders helps to assure
that content distributed by PBS is not dominated by any single point of
view." Repeating, "Appropriate representation of women and minorities."
Why have a policy if PBS doesn't ensure that their programs follow it?
There's no excuse for Bill or Gwen to get away with the crap that they
continue to get away with. They are in direct violation of PBS' own
Standards & Policies and they need to get their shows in order and
PBS needs to provide the supervision to ensure that they do. Bonnie Erbe sits down with Eleanor Holmes Norton, Melinda Henneberger, Kathleen Parker and Tara Setmayer on PBS' To The Contrary. Check local listings, all four PBS shows begin airing tonight on many PBS stations. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers: Gun Rush
Americans
are snapping up guns and ammunition at an increasingly higher rate
despite the economic downturn. But as Lesley Stahl reports, the
economic downturn, as well as the election of Barack Obama, may be the
reason for the run on guns. | Watch Video
Poisoned
The
African lion, already down as much as 85 percent in numbers from just
20 years ago, is now in danger of becoming extinct because people are
poisoning them with a cheap American pesticide to protect their cattle
herds. Bob Simon reports. | Watch Video
Steve Wynn
The
casino mogul most responsible for taking Las Vegas to new heights of
gaming and glitter talks to Charlie Rose about his spectacular success
and the eye disease that's slowly robbing him of his ability to see the
fruits of his labor. | Watch Video
60 Minutes Sunday, July 26, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
Posted at 03:33 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
US military announces another death
Today the US military announced:
"BAGHDAD – A Multi-National Division–Baghdad Soldier died, July 24, of
non-combat related injuries in eastern Baghdad. 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 4328 the number of US service members killed in the Iraq War. That
number is not a complete count. Trejo Rivas just passed away and he was
a veteran of the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War. It was in Iraq that
a mortart attack October 12, 2006. As Sig Christenson (San Antonio-Express) explained
Tuesday, "Retired Army Reserve Lt. Col. Raymond Trejo Rivas died
Wednesday in San Antonio after battling to recover from head injuries
suffered nearly three years ago. He was 53." Nada Bakri (Washington Post) reports
on continued negotiations the US is having with former Ba'athists and
other groups currently excluded from political life in Iraq. Bakri
reports "two meetings this spring" held in Turkey: U.S.
officials declined to provide details of the meetings, which they said
took place in March and April. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley
said Thursday that military and diplomatic officials "meet with a wide
range of Iraqi contacts with the purpose of promoting reconciliation
and fostering national unity" and that "the meetings in question
occurred some months ago and with the knowledge of officials within the
Iraqi government." Sam Dagher (New York Times) adds
that the central government in Baghdad states it is "demanding
explanations" on the meeting and declares the meetings (known for weeks
before they took place and covered in Arab media though the New York
Times seems unaware of that fact) were "an interference in Iraq's
internal political affairs". Dagher notes an Aljazeera interview aired
on July 15th where Ali al-Juboouri (Political Council of the Iraqi
Resistance) "revealed that his council, which represents Sunni
insurgent groups, met in March with representatives of the American
government in Istanbul. He said a protocol was signed then to govern
future negotiations between the two sides. He said that a second
meeting took place in May" but ended over differences including that
the US agree to compensation and a public apology for the illegal war. Early
voting has begun but regular voting takes place Saturday in the KRG
which is holding provincial elections as well as electing a president.
The northern region of Iraq did not participate in the January 31st
provincial elections -- it was three of the four provinces not
participating. Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) covers the attempts of one party to take Barry O's empty brand and use it in the KRG:
At
night, the streets of Sulaymaniya, Kurdistan's second city, come alive
with the honking of horns as cars and motorcycles trailing Change's
blue flag, emblazoned with a candle, hurtle through the streets. In the
city center, people gather and light candles on the sidewalks.
Though
Change's leaders deny any conscious similarity to President Obama's
campaign, it is evident in the slate movement's official campaign
slogan: "Yes, We Can Change It."
"We must have change because the
Kurdish people have suffered from corruption for the last 18 years,"
said Kamal Abdullah, 34, a private contractor who says he is out of
work because he cannot afford to pay the bribes needed to obtain
business.
"This government took all the money and sent it outside to
Swiss bank accounts, and they give all the jobs to their own children,"
he said.Change, as with Barry O, goes undefined. That's
what's so great about the slogan: Vapid people don't think past, "Yeah,
change!" Change to what? That's too much thought. Which is our transition to Timothy Williams ( New York Times). Williams reports
that the Turkmen in Kirkuk Province are threatening to boycott a census
currently scheduled for October. That'll teach 'em, seems to be the
concept. The census, which was Constitutionally mandated to have been
conducted in 2007, will survey the contested region. Turkmen are
claiming Kurds are beefing up their population with transplants. They
are. They have been doing it for years. If you don't like it, you
probably should have demanded a census long ago. The shipping in of
Kurds? That was a concern in 2006. It's too late to whine about
something long on reported on. Williams isn't much on thought
this morning so he can't provide an obvious comparison/contrast. In
2005, some groups (largely Sunni) felt they would be shut out of the
electoral process. A decision was made to boycott the elections. Some
stood by that decision after the elections, some felt it was a mistake.
In the January 31st elections this year, the real story was that the
ones who had boycotted last time turned out in large numbers (while the
drop off came from the Shi'ites who had participated in 2005). Now an
election (or all elections) you might or might not want to boycott. You
can certainly say, "Don't blame me, I didn't vote." But this isn't an
election. This is a census. And if you feel you are already
going to be under-represented because of an influx of Kurds, then your
decision not to participate in the census makes little sense. Unless
you're attempting to stop the census, which may be the point. But the census needs to take place, it's years late as it is. And reducing your official numbers in the census to zero isn't going to help you. If
you decide not to participate in a census, that doesn't make it
questionable. You have made a decision not to participate. You've made
that decision. You weren't blocked from participating, you weren't
prevented. You took yourself out. So there's really nothing you have to
complain about. I can understand boycotting a vote. This isn't a vote.
This is a census. And groups who threaten to boycott should be informed
that they're hurting their own interests and that the census will take
place with or without them. TV notes. This week on NOW on PBS: The Obama Administration recently released its proposal for financial regulatory reform, but before change comes to Wall Street, a reform plan has to get through Congress with its teeth intact.This
week, David Brancaccio sits with Zanny Minton Beddoes, economics editor
for The Economist magazine, to review the proposal and its
ramifications for America. Beddoes encourages streamlining the
regulatory system, leaving fewer but more efficient overseers. But
where powerful interests are at stake, nothing is a sure bet."There
is some good stuff in [the reform plan]. But it's a relatively modest
rearranging of the financial supervisory structure ... I think it's
more interior design than a whole new foundation."On Bill Moyers Journal, health care is addressed with CJR's Trudy Lieberman (who has a strong article in the current CJR) and by Marcia Angell. My goodness, Bill found two women. Mark the calendars! As noted in Third's " Editorial: Taking sexism seriously," " In the first six months of this year Washington Week had 33 female guests and twice that number (66) of male guests while Bill Moyers featured 43 men and only 13 women."
And, for the record, I'm only noting that segment. In another Bill
floats his attacks on free speech. Free speech is something you support
or you don't. Believing in it doesn't mean you can't decry statements,
that you can't call them out, that you can't say they're offensive or
that they crossed a line. But it does mean that you support free speech
and grasp the difference between words and action and grasp that the
Constitution supports free speech for an important reason. Now did we just note Washington Week?
Usually four guests a week sit down with Gwen but as of the last week
of June, she'd spent the year with 66 men and only 33 women on her
program? How does it happen? By weeks like this one where she sits down
with three men and one woman: New York Times' Peter Baker, Washington Post's Michael Fletcher, National Journal's Marilyn Werber Serafini and Wall St. Journal's
David Wessel. Now how do you book that show and not notice that you
have three men and only one woman? You know it. You know it and you do
it on purpose. You don't accidentally end up with twice as many men as
women. PBS' Editorial Standards & Policies states:
"The goal of diversity also requires continuing efforts to assure that
PBS content fully reflects the pluralism of our society, including, for
example, appropriate representation of women and minorities. The
diversity of public television producers and funders helps to assure
that content distributed by PBS is not dominated by any single point of
view." Repeating, "Appropriate representation of women and minorities."
Why have a policy if PBS doesn't ensure that their programs follow it?
There's no excuse for Bill or Gwen to get away with the crap that they
continue to get away with. They are in direct violation of PBS' own
Standards & Policies and they need to get their shows in order and
PBS needs to provide the supervision to ensure that they do. Bonnie Erbe sits down with Eleanor Holmes Norton, Melinda Henneberger, Kathleen Parker and Tara Setmayer on PBS' To The Contrary. Check local listings, all four PBS shows begin airing tonight on many PBS stations. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers: -
Coming Up On 60 Minutes Gun Rush
Americans are snapping up guns and ammunition at an increasingly higher rate despite the economic downturn. But as Lesley Stahl reports, the economic downturn, as well as the election of Barack Obama, may be the reason for the run on guns. | Watch Video
Poisoned
The
African lion, already down as much as 85 percent in numbers from just
20 years ago, is now in danger of becoming extinct because people are
poisoning them with a cheap American pesticide to protect their cattle
herds. Bob Simon reports. | Watch Video
Steve Wynn
The casino mogul most responsible for taking Las Vegas to new heights of gaming and glitter talks to Charlie Rose about his spectacular success and the eye disease that's slowly robbing him of his ability to see the fruits of his labor. | Watch Video
60 Minutes Sunday, July 26, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
If
you're rubbing your eyes, that was the lineup for last Sunday, however,
they used the first hour of prime time to air a tribute to CBS Evening News' former anchor and managing editor Walter Cronkite who passed away last Friday at the age of 92. Diane Rehm is on vacation but The Diane Rehm Show
continues with new broadcasts. Steve Roberts fills in for Diane this
morning. The first hour is devoted to domestic news and the panelists
scheduled are The Economist's Greg Ip, Wall St. Journal's Laura Meckler and NPR's David Welna. The second hour is the international hour and the scheduled panelists are The Financial Times' Daniel Dombey, Washington Post's David Hoffman and CNN's Elise Labott. The Diane Rehm Show begins airing on most NPR stations at 10:00 a.m. EST (and streaming online). We'll close with this from Debra Sweet's " A Proposal for Actions Against (Obama’s) War and Torture" (World Can't Wait): We've put out a proposal for actions
in early October, including Monday October 5 in Washington DC for
actions at the White House & Congress, and a national day of
resisting the recruiters in high schools Tuesday, October 6.
After
networking and consulting with other organizations and leaders, the
World Can't Wait Steering Committee will meet on August 1 to finalize
fall plans. We want your input. Please take the survey here by July 31. Or write me about the questions below...or what is on your mind.
1.
Do you feel the controversy over the Obama administration not
prosecuting anyone involved in torture has changed the political
climate in this country? If so, how so? If not, why not? 2.
What do you think of Obama's expansion of the war in Afghanistan? Why?
Do others you know agree or disagree? How much has that war been
successfully re-branded as the "good war"?3. In the past few months has your opinion of Obama changed? Favorably or unfavorably? Why? How about people you know?4.
After reading the October 5/6th proposal what do you think is possible
for these days of resistance? What do you think is necessary? What is
your vision of protest for those days?
Your input is needed! Please complete this survey by July 31 to feed into our discussions on August 1. To make all this possible, send along a donation, or become a sustainer 4RealChange. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqsig christensonthe washington postnada bakrithe new york timessam daghertimothy williamsliz slythe los angeles timesdebra sweetworld cant waitbill moyers journalwashington week60 minutescbs news
Posted at 06:15 am by thecommonills
Permalink
al-Maliki says US may stay in Iraq past 2011 and . . . silence
A
day after President Barack Obama said that the U.S. was on track to
pull its troops out of Iraq by 2011, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al
Maliki said Thursday that that timeline could change "if the Iraqi
forces required further training and support."That's the opening to Margaret Talev's " Iraq's Maliki raises possibility of asking U.S. to stay on" ( McClatchy Newspapers)
and some readers may need to give it a second look since McClatchy is
the only newspaper outlet covering it. It's not because it just emerged
or emerged late. The comments are noted in yesterday's snapshot.
It's not ignored because it's not newsworthy. Three outlets rushed to
print articles yesterday morning on the topic . . . when they claimed
all US troops would be out in 2011. (See yesterday's entry.) It's only not news when it doesn't agree with their outlets spin purposes. To
recap, when you can pimp the lie that all US troops will be out of Iraq
in 2011 (and, apparently, pimp yourself as a psychic who can tell the
future), you run with it and call it news. When Nouri al-Maliki
publicly, in front of a crowd, declares not-so-fast, you duck your head
and pretend it didn't happen.
Anne Gearan covers al-Maliki's remarks for AP. Speaking of AP:
"As the Obama administration struggles to handle the conflicts in
Afghanistan and Iraq, a majority of Americans are against the
long-fought wars, a new poll says. The AP-GfK Poll released on Thursday
showed that 63% of respondents oppose the war in Iraq and 53% oppose
the war in Afghanistan." You can learn about that poll from AP and it's
noted in Wednesday and Thursday's snapshots. But other than that? The quote's from Iran's Press TV. It's easier to learn of the poll of Americans from Press TV out of Iran than from the New York Times. Again, it's only news when it fits their latest wave of Operation Happy Talk. On that topic, Peter Feaver (Foreign Policy) examines
Barry O's Rose Garden remarks with Nouri by his side and wonders why so
many are so quick and eager to just go along with the words from
Barack's mouth -- whether they're factual or not: That
got me wondering: would those folks (say the mainstream Bob Woodward or
Tom Ricks, let alone other people in the nuttier fringes of the
Bush-bashing chorus) who established a cottage industry lambasting Bush
Administration rhetoric as "happy talk" rise up and start calling a
foul on President Obama? President Bush regularly caveated his
statements of progress with reminders that there were "tough days
ahead" and, if memory serves, Rumsfeld was the guy who coined "long,
hard slog." In their coverage of Bush, sometimes the reporters would
include mention of the caveats and qualify their lede accordingly;
sometimes the reporters would include mention of the caveats and yet
stick to a "happy talk" lede; and sometimes the reporters would simply
omit any mention of the caveats, perhaps the better to advance the
"happy talk" lede. Regardless of how many times President Bush
presented carefully caveated assessments, the Bush-bashers could always
rest their indictment on one or two off-the-cuff uncaveated remarks.In
this community, we held Bully Boy Bush accountable and we hold Bully
Boy Barack accountable. They're both War Hawks. Neither saw fit to
serve in the military but are really comfortable allowing Americans to
die in far away countries. Independent journalist John Pilger also holds both administrations accountable. KPFA's Flashpoints
yesterday broadcast a speech by Pilger about media and empire and
covering Obama, "The Rise of Barack Obama and the Silencing of Much of
the Left." Paul Walsh (Minneapolis Star-Tribune) notes funerals have been scheduled for Daniel Drevnick, James Wertish and Carlos Wilcox who died serving Iraq: On
Friday at 9:30 a.m. in Cottage Grove, a "Hero's Escort" for Wilcox will
start at Kok Funeral Home and end at Light the Way Church. Services
begin at 11 a.m., with visitation one hour prior at the church. Burial
is scheduled for Tuesday at New Albany (Ind.) National Cemetery, where
his father, Charles Wilcox Jr., is buried.Drevnick's
funeral is scheduled for 10 a.m. Saturday at King of Kings Lutheran
Church in Woodbury, with burial at Fort Snelling National Cemetery at 1
p.m. A wake will be held Friday at the funeral home from 3 to 8 p.m.Funeral
services for Wertish will be held at 11 a.m. Monday at St. Mary's
Catholic Church in Bird Island, with burial to follow at St. Aloysius
Cemetery in Olivia. Visitation is at St. Mary's from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Sunday.Tim Pawlenty is the governor of Minnesota and My Fox 9 notes,
"The governor says the loss and pain that the families of the three
slain soldiers are feeling is 'unimaginable,' but he wanted to share
the state's gratitude for the soldiers' 'incredible courage'." Meanwhile Alex Dalenberg (Arizona Republic) reports,
"The Phoenix-based 3,666th Support Maintenance Company" is deploying to
Iraq. The illegal war is not ending and Douglas Cohn and Eleanor Clift
see that as a good thing. The two doofus pen " Recruitment of the possible in the U.S. Army"
which is a mish-mash of bad writing, even setting aside the argument
they're making which is 'Boom Time for US military! Let's get to
recruiting!' The following sentence is so confusing it took two bad
writers to pen, "If the Obama administration is serious about growing
the Army — and we believe it is — Gates would have gone for a much
larger number." Do you catch that they failed logic? If . . . then. If
Obama's serious than he would have done this and he didn't so . . .
Logic dictates that the construction ends with Barack not being
serious. But they "believe" he is. It makes no sense and maybe when
people reach a certain age that they find it exciting for others to
sign up, maybe that's when they need to stop putting their bad gas
baggery into text form? Hmm? Maybe? Journalist Rebecca Lipkin has passed away from breast cancer at the age of 48. Matt Schudel (Washington Post) covers Lipkin's accomplished career which included ABC News (World News Tonight and Nightline)
and Aljazeera: "Survivors include her mother, Gladys Lipkin of
Hollywood, Fla.; a sister, Harriet Lipkin of Washington; and a brother,
Dr. Alan Lipkin of Englewood, Colo." The following community sites updated last night: The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqmargaret talevmcclatchy newspapersanne gearanpeter feavermatt schudelthe washington postjohn pilgerflashpointskpfaanns mega dubthe world today just nutskats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudethomas friedman is a great mantrinas kitchenthe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes itruths reportsickofitradlzoh boy it never ends
Posted at 06:12 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Thursday, July 23, 2009
"There are still three million people displaced, innocent families," she added. "We have still many young men and women from our country who are fighting every day, there are men and women from all countries who have lost their lives, and this is a time to try to make some positive change."That's Angelina Jolie, no surprise, she's a smart woman and much smarter than TV readers playing at journalism.  Angelina is the UNHCR's Goodwill Ambassador and made her third trip to Iraq today. The above statement by her appears in CNN's coverage. The San Francisco Chronicle quotes her stating, "There are some changes. There are returns of displaced people, not a big number, but there is progress. This is a moment where things seem to be improving on the ground, but Iraqis need a lot of support and help to rebuild their lives." Wow. She puts everyone to shame. The Docker Boys of the New York Times take pot shots at her but she shows more awareness in interviews today than the paper publishes when it comes to Iraq -- whether the story was filed in DC or Iraq. Maybe her thoughts are on Iraqi refugees and the New York Times, a paper who helped sell the illegal war to begin with, does double-time as it attempts to re-sell the illegal war, re-brand it and add a sugary topping to make it go down so much easier. We'll stay with the topic of refugees for this entry. Richard Hall's " Fearful of returning to Iraq, refugees opt to remain in prison" ( The Daily Star) covers life for some Iraqi refugees in Lebanon: BEIRUT: "Rot Here or Die There" reads the title of a 2007 Human Rights Watch report on the predicament of Iraqi refugees in Lebanon. It’s a pertinent description of the limited choices that Iraqis have, and even more so when applied to those who are currently residing in Lebanese prisons.
Situated atop a jagged mountain-face 18 kilometers northeast of Beirut, Roumieh Prison holds approximately 3,700 prisoners, of whom 52 are Iraqis, while the vast majority are Lebanese.
The total number of Iraqis detained in Lebanon is estimated to be around 120, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Most are detained in Roumieh, although some are held in other facilities around the country. That's Lebanon. AFP reports this on Iraqi refugees in Jordan, " The United Nations said on Tuesday a budget shortfall has forced it to suspend medical aid to hundreds of chronically ill Iraqi refugees in Jordan." Every day conditions continue that create more Iraqi refugees. Women leave because they and their families are trouble and because their rights have been destroyed since the start of the illegal war. Women and men leave because they're Christians and Iraqi Christians are always only a month or two away from the latest wave of attacks on them. Sunnis leave because their neighborhoods were 'ethincially cleansed,' even Shi'ites leave. And there is the ongoing assault on Iraq's LGBT community. They are targeted for who they are. And some targeted aren't even gay. But someone decides they 'must' be (out of ignorance or to protect themselves -- easiest way to hide in a closet is to point to others) and they get targeted as well. And when has Nouri ever called it out? Iraq Christians? If the Pope is publicly speaking out, Nouri will find time to toss out a few words. Otherwise? He's as silent on the attacks on Iraqi Christians as he is about the attacks on Iraqi gays. Nouri was supposed to be paying monies to neighboring countries like Jordan, Syria and Lebanon -- supplying them with money to cover for schooling and other expenses the refugee populations create. But that really didn't happen. Just like Nouri's efforts to improve life for Iraqis didn't really happen but he talked so pretty in the lead up to the January 31st elections (in 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces) this year. How long does someone get to lead before their refusal to aid their own people is noted regularly? Nouri's been prime minister for over three years now. It's over, I'm done writing songs about loveThere's a war going onSo I'm holding my gun with a strap and a gloveAnd I'm writing a song about warAnd it goesNa na na na na na naI hate the warNa na na na na na naI hate the warNa na na na na na naI hate the warOh oh oh oh-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!) Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4323. Tonight? 4327.The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqi hate the warthe balletangelina jolie
Posted at 09:58 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Thursday, July 23, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US Ambassador in Iraq doesn't appear to stay at his post very much (" Is he here? I look in the pool hall . . ."),
Nouri admits US troops may stay in Iraq past 2011, the House Veterans
Committee holds a hearing on the needs of disabled veterans and their
families (though some witnesses seem unclear on that topic), and more. This
morning the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs
of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs held a hearing entitled
Examining the Ancillary Benefits and Veterans Quality of Life Issues. "This
Subcommittee has actively tackled many complex and complicated issues
that have been encumbering the Veterans Benefits Administration and and
it's ability to properly compensate veterans who file disability
claims," explained US House Rep John Hall who is the Chair of the
Subcommittee. "These issues have majorly centered on VA business
processes and operations. Today's hearing will focus on the actual
appropriateness of available benefits in meeting the needs of disabled
veterans and their families." Chair
John Hall: Mr. Zampieri, as you noted in your testimony, eye and ear
injuries have been associated with TBI, with explosions of roadside
bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan among other battlefields and theaters of
combat. Do you feel that VA has done a sufficient job evaluating all
the face and head trauma completely and accurately to compensate
veterans and provide them with all necessary ancillary-ancillary
benefits? Thomas
Zampieri: Thank you for the question. I think it's actually a concern
of ours and probably safe to say many of the other VSOs that
individuals with Traumatic Brain Injuries that have sensory associated
symptoms have a very difficult time in getting their ratings because so
many of those are subjective kind of complaints. You know we
frequently hear a a lot about the problems with tinnitus, for example.
Frequently TBI patients complain of photophobia which is extreme
sensitivity to light. And those are very difficult to rate. But those
things can have quite an impact on the individual's ability to function
and also their relationship socially, employment wise. And so we're
concerned about the way TBI assessments are done in regards to sensory
losses. I know that the VA has put a lot of effort towards looking at
new assessment methods and congratulate them for-for recognizing this
is a serious problem. Chair Hall then
asked him whether there were any devices currently are in the works
that hoped to address sight issues and he pointed to the Brainport
Vision Device which was a topic of the May 13th House Veterans Affairs
Committee hearing. From that day's snapshot: Robert
Beckman [Brainport Technologies] spoke of a portable device, the
Brainport Vision Device, where a small camera ("with zoom
capability") is hooked to other neurochannels ("such as the tongue").
Beckman stated, "One blind user with two glass eyes was able to
successfully shoot a basketball and another used the Brainport Vision
Device at an indoor rock climbing gym to see the next rock holds and at
home with his daughter to play Tic-Tac-Toe." "The
Brainport Vision Device will not replace the cane or the sight dog," he
continued. "But it will become an important, additional tool to
improve the safety, mobility and quality of life for blind users. Some
examples. Finding the open seat on a crowded bus or train. Identifying
the direction to the target building in a confusing parking lot.
Finding the handle in order to remove a hot pot from the stove. Wicab
recently sponsored clinical testing of the Brainport Vision Device at
the Atlanta VA. Dr. Michael Williams, the PI concluded, 'Bottom line,
the device performs remarkably well for the tasks that we looked at in
phase one'. To optimize the device we need feedback from a much larger
pool of users who are blind. We would welcome the opportunity to
further test the Brainport Vision Device at VA sites. Perhaps those
willing soldiers who are blind as a result of a blast injury should be
first in line to test this new technology?" Zampieri
noted the device was still in the early stages of research and stated
those who have tested it would declare "it holds some hope, but it's
not going to replace natural vision." Under questioning from Hall,
Abrams explained that he had a relative in residential care "and it
cost over $90,000 to $100,000 to put somebody in a home and homecare,
if you need twenty-four hour care, is hugely expensive." "First
observation," declared Glazer on the second panel noting an ongoing
program -- Army Wounded Warrior Career Demonstration Project
-- the National Organization on Disability is conducting with the army,
"a fundamental mismatch many of the supports for veterans are
constrained to an active service model placing the burden on veterans
and their families to find and approach agencies But we find that the
most seriously injured soldiers, especially with cognitive injuries are
not really able to effectively access these services. [. . .] Second
observation, the need to deal with both a veteran and the family
member. As others have stated, the process of recovering from injury
and coming home and coming to terms with disability is a very complex
process that impacts the entire family. Ancillary benefits in our
belief must be available to veterans and family members." Glazer
would go on to note issues such as criminal charges for veterans
suffering from PTSD or TBI, training in the management of personal
finances. Glazer, and her organization, are a little too Republican
for me (Tom Ridge chairs the organization) and it's a little too "smile
and pull up those bootstraps." But Glazer was one of the few who knew
how to speak. Globbidy-gook? No one gives a damn. Don't reference a
model, for example, in another country, without explaining it. If
that's the root of your response to Hall's question, you're wasting
everyone's time including your own. I don't usually note "I like this
organization, I don't like that one" but on this panel, Glazer's being
noted because she knows how to speak and because two others will be
ignored, I want to be really clear that no one reads this as I'm
endorsing Glazer's organization. And let's also note that when all you
do is toss out a bunch of numbers, no one's really impressed. In fact,
it's assumed you actually don't know what you're talking about --
including your numbers -- or you'd be offering testimony that people
could actually follow. I've never seen as many blank stares in a
hearing before (true of the first panel to a lessor degree). Those not
doing blank stares? A man to the right of us repeatedly put his hand
over his face during the second panel, at a loss as to what was being
said. At the end of the hearing, he stated he felt as if it had been
conducted in a foreign language. Glazer knew how to speak and so did
Kimberly Munoz. Munoz was asked to estimate
the amount spent by veterans and their families for assistance and
stated she didn't know that answer but that it varies due to the fact
"that some families have the assistance they need to get the benefits
they need from VA and they have to use less out of pocket to get the
services their veteran needs. Other families who may have not had the
guidance from perhaps a VSO or who don't have the education in our
country -- maybe they've moved here from another country -- and they
don't speak our language, it's hard for them to run through all the
rules and regulations and applications and so they have a
difficult time accessing the benefits that they need. There was a
study that was released by the Center for Naval Analysis that estimated
19 months of lost income of around $2,000 some odd dollars for a total
of $36,000 average loss per family of a catastrophically injured
service member. That's their income loss which isn't necessarily
answering your question of how much do they spend out of pocket to get
the services but it is -- it is a figure that's been widely reported." Chair
John Hall: Thank you and what additional factors do you think VA should
specifically consider when it adjudicates aid and attendance or
housebound rates? Kimberly
Munoz: I think they need to consider the -- one of the key questions
is: Can the veteran keep themselves safe from the hazards of daily
living? There's many other questions related to a body part function
or a loss of a body part but buried deep in there is can the veteran
keep himself safe from the hazards of daily living? For those who have
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and stand-alone TBI I believe that that
is a key to determining whether or not that veteran needs aid and
attendance. The aid and attendance can also vary in terms of do you
need physical aid and attendance or do you need oversight? So one
package of aid and attendance does not meet the needs of every single
veteran. Chair
John Hall: That seems to me that that judgment about the safety of the
veteran living independently is similar to a judgment that one would
have to make about an Alzheimer-Alzheimer's patient, for instance. In
many families they go through that difficult time when they realize
that a stove or an electric socket is no longer a safe thing for this
adult family member to be handling alone. Kimberly
Munoz: Some of the family members have suggested specially adapted
equipment be included in the grants available for home modifications --
like stoves that automatically turn off after a certain amount of time.
Or other appliances that consider short term memory loss for some of
the Traumatic Brain Injury patients. Chair
John Hall: And what else do you think Ms. -- Ms. Munoz what else could
the VA do to improve the quality of life of disabled veterans and their
families. Kimberly
Munoz: It sounds simple but I know it's very difficult and that is:
Make it easier for families to get what they need. Anytime you look at
the Title 38 and try to determine, "Well what am I -- what is this
veteran eligible -- or how do I go about it?" It's so hard to know who
is eligible for what. One family care giver told me the story of, you
know, "We thought we were eligible for respite care and then when we
called my son's rating wasn't, wasn't high enough." Or the SMC [Special
Monthly Compensation] code wasn't the right code. So they work very
hard then to find out, "Well how to I get that code?" And that's a
backwards way to work a system. You need to find out what does that
veteran need, much like you [George Kettner] suggested, what is the
need of that veteran and what is the need of that family so that they
can live safely and live independently -- not how do we get you pigeon
holed into the right code so that you get the services that that code
offers. Can you follow that? Yes, you
can. And an organization that sends a speaker like that. or Glazer,
into a hearing is way ahead of others. You need to know the topic of
the hearing -- a problem for one person on the first panel who
repeatedly answered questions with a variation of "I don't know" -- and
you need to be able to speak clearly on the topic. Glazer advocated
for less benefits -- I'm not joking -- and whether anyone agreed with
her or not, everyone could follow what she was saying. (She was saying
that benefits can prevent work. And that's as much as I'm doing to
circulate her nonsense argument.) Also
in yesterday's snapshot was Nouri al-Maliki, puppet of the occupation,
and US President Barack Obama's performace at the Rose Garden.
Apparently journalists also wanted to play a role -- something other
than reporter -- judging from the articles filed on the nonsense. For
perspective, we drop back to Whit Stillman's Barcelona. Specifically,
a party where American Fred (Chris Eigeman) is discussing his home
country. Female Party Goer: You can't say Americans are not more violent than other people?
Fred: No.
Female Party Goer: All those people killed in shootings in America? Fred: Oh. Shootings, yes. But that doesn't mean Americans are more violent than other people. We're just better shots. America's not more violent, insists Fred, they're just better shots. Apparently some similar defense was on the minds of Karen DeYoung (Washington Post), Jeff Zeleny (New York Times) and Mark Silva (Los Angeles Times
and other Tribune properties). None of the three challenges Barack's
laughable assertion that "Violence continues to be down". No, it
doesn't. As we explained yesterday, the trend in lower violence ended
with the month of January. Starting with February, you see an uptick in
violence. That trend has held each passing month. We also cited Al Jazeera which was explaining,
"An estimated 437 Iraqis were killed in June, the highest death toll in
11 months, and the near daily attacks have continued in July." June,
the most recent month with data, saw "the highest death toll in 11
months," but Barack wants to claim violence is down? Apparently Iraq
isn't more violent currently, it's just seen better shots and better
bomb builders? DeYoung has the strongest article, then Zeleny and then
Silva. One compliment to all three is they covered it. Strongly or
badly, they covered it. Nouri al-Maliki met with Barack Obama
yesterday. The Iraq War is six years old and counting. Where was the
coverage? Amy Goodman's pathetic two sentences in headlines? That's
something to be proud of? How pathetic. What do you get instead? You
get the crap Bob Somerby's calling out today
(the mind readers who 'just know' something but don't know a thing --
which didn't stop Amy Goodman from doing yet another segment on it
today). You really need to ask how the media -- Big and Small -- is
serving you because in this round of Liar's Poker, seems to be a lot of
Liz Smiths sitting down at the table wanting to be dealt in. Back
to this morning's articles: Where are Americans? The leader of a
country the US remains at war with visits and where are the voices of
Americans? We do grasp that the Iraq War continues, right? Check yesterday's snapshot
and then read the articles again. A poll was released yesterday. It
addressed Iraq. Where's any citation of the results? From yesterday's
snapshot: A new AP-GfK Roper
poll finds a decrease in the number of respondents who believe Barack
will remove troops from Iraq -- 15% lower than the last poll. [PDF
format warning, click here
for the data breakdown.] 62% of respondents ranked "The Situation in
Iraq" as either "Extremely important" or "Very important." The poll
found an increase of five percent on the number of respondents who
disapprove of Barack's handling of the Iraq War. Is this increase a
result of angry right-wingers upset over Barack's so-called plan?
Maybe. But the respondents were asked if they believed Barack would
"remove most troops from Iraq?" In January, 83% of respondents said it
was likely and 15% said it was unlikely. The 83% who thought it was
coming has fallen to 68%. The number who believe it is not happening
has risen to 26%.
Nouri and
Barack meet up at the White House yesterday as a poll is released which
finds the number of people who believe Barack will "remove most troops
from Iraq" has fallen from 83% in January to 68% presently -- a 15%
drop. Where's that in any of the articles? The articles
repeatedly (and falsely) claim the US will be out of Iraq in 2011.
That's not what's happening. It's not even claimed to be happening.
Does no one listen to Adm Mike Mullen, Gen Ray Odierno or even
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates? Reading the articles today, it
doesn't appear that anyone does. Uh-oh. Reality slaps them in the
face. Aljazeera reports,
"The Iraqi prime minister has admitted US troops could stay in the
country beyond 2011." Yeah, he did it today and it's only a surprise
if you've never grasped what the Status Of Forces Agrement does and
does not do. The Washington Post, for example, has one
person on staff who understands the SOFA completely. That's one more
than the New York Times has. Drop back to real time coverage
(Thanksgiving 2008) and you'll see the Washington Post could explain
what it did and didn't do and get it right. No other US outlet can
make that claim. (The Los Angeles Times hedged their bets but did
appear to grasp it in an article co-written by Tina Susman.) McClatchy Newspapers?
Oh goodness, Leila Fadel made an idiot of herself over the SOFA. Even
more so than the New York Times (Elisabeth Bumiller -- in December and
January -- offered some realities but they were lost on the other
reporters at the paper). The Times just got it wrong. Fadel got it
wrong and sang praises of it. It wasn't reporting, it was column
writing passed off as such. Today, Nouri declared, "Nevertheless, if
the Iraqis require further training and support we shall examine this
at the time, based on the needs of Iraq." Sound familiar? It should.
This month you should have heard Adm Mike Mullen make the same
statement, you should have heard General Ray Odierno make it over and
over beginning in May and US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has made
it many times -- generally he's asked when he's visiting a foreign
country because US reporters don't really seem to care. One exception
would certainly be Dahr Jamail who was on KPFA's Flashpoints
yesterday and explained, "We still have over 130,000 troops in Iraq.
Troops are not being withdrawn from Iraq. They are being relocated to
different bases, some of the bases still within cities, but they are
not being withdrawn thus far." Dahr's latest book The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan has just been released this month. IPA provides
this context from Global Policy Forum's James Paul: "For all the talk
of 'U.S. withdrawal' from Iraq, the reality on the ground is starkly
different. U.S. troops still patrol the cities, in flagrant violation
of the U.S.-Iraqi security agreement, while Washington remains hugely
influential in the politics of the country. The gigantic U.S. embassy
looms large in Baghdad, U.S. forces still hold thousands of Iraqi
prisoners in the vast U.S. prison camp in the southern desert, dozens
of U.S. military bases remain in place including the sprawling 'Camp
Victory' complex in Baghdad and Washington continues to press towards
its ultimate goal -- the de facto privatization of Iraq's vast oil
resources." You
wouldn't know all that from al-Maliki's performance at a Rose Garden
press conference on July 22. Standing alongside Obama, the Iraqi Prime
Minister was the picture of self-confidence. He talked about broadening
Iraq's relationship with the U.S. and cooperation in the area of
economics, culture and education as well as a conference in October for
potential investors in Iraq. "All of this comes as a natural
consequence of [Iraq's] stability," he said. (See pictures of the U.S. troops' six years in Iraq.) But
in private, Iraqi officials concede that the stability is, well,
unstable. Before any meaningful economic and cultural cooperation takes
place, they say, the U.S. must shepherd Iraq through to the elections,
scheduled for January 2010. They worry that the Obama Administration,
eager to move on to more pressing problems at home and abroad, may not
realize just how fragile Iraq is. The Obama Administration "must not
lose its focus" in Iraq, Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari told
journalists on July 21. Spencer Ackerman (Washington Independent) examined
the speech by Nouri today and contrasted it with remarks by
Afghanistan's Ambassador to the US (Said Jawad) where Jawad noted, at
length, US military fatalities. Ackerman observes, "By contrast, in
his speech today to the U.S. Institute of Peace, here's the closest
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki came to recognizing the fact that
over 4,300 U.S. troops have died in Iraq: "He extended his thanks to
'the international community and all the countries that have cooperated
and helped Iraq,' saying Iraq would enjoy a 'solid relationship with a
great and strong country like the United States'." Chris
Hill is the US Ambassador to Iraq. He's in the US (we'll get to it)
and today he was interviewed by Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports (link offers video options -- Hill is "Iraq, what next?"): Andrea
Mitchell: You're here obviously because Prime Minister Maliki's here
and met with the president. There are still tensions over the terms of
disengagement if you will. What do we know now as a result of the
meetings? About the way Iraq is stepping up to the plate and taking on
its own governance? Chris
Hill: Well, first of all, this is pretty complex withdrawal. We have
130,000 troops in country, we just brought them out of the remaining
cities. This is a, you know, major undertaking. And for the Iraqis,
it was a major development, a major political development for them. So
they're very pleased at how it went. Now it's a complex business. You
have the world's greatest fighting force, the United States military,
turning it over to the IRaqis who aspire to being better than they are
but, you know, this is going to be a work in progress. Certainly the
world's greatest fighting force has also become the world's greatest
training force. That is, we have done a lot of work for the Iraqis.
We've really tried to prepare them for this but, you know, they'll be
some glitches through this but we will work through them. And I think,
so far, so good. Andrea
Mitchell: The Pentagon has said that things are working with the fact
that there are new rules of the road, the US is not in the cities. Yet
commanders in the field are still complaining that there are time lags
and intelligence lags, that you have to get permission from the Iraqis
before you can engage. That doesn't work in a fighting
field. Chris
Hill: Well, first of all, I think overall, it's going very well. You
know there's a joint-operation center where the Iraqis and the US
military sit together. They get the information at the same time, they
make the decisions about what to do. So overall, it's going well but
are there incidents where it hasn't gone well, are there incidents
where the Iraqi say we want to do X and the American military guys say
we want to do Y? Of course there are, and there will probably continue
to be. But I think what is important is to stand back and look at
where we are -- "But
I'm in there fighting every day because I got a few more dreams in me."
A male friend at MSNBC asked us Friday night why we never mentioned Andrea Mitchell Reports?
We honestly weren't aware of it. He pointed out that Mitchell, a
reporter, is actually anchoring a daily hour long show (airs Monday
through Friday, one p.m. to two p.m. EST). He pointed out that Women's
Media Center and other "women-centric" (his term) outlets had
tongue-bathed non-journalist Rachel Maddow for her on air musings and
abusings but no one's giving Andrea Mitchell credit for holding down a
solid hour of news.
That may be due to the fact
that MSNBC hasn't created a site for her. We looked and couldn't find
it. We could find other MSNBC programs (even Al Roker Reporting: Marijuana Inc.),
but no page for Andrea Mitchell's show. But, yes, it is disturbing that
the "women-centric" outlets can repeatedly note the
factually-challenged Rachel Maddow, the non-journalist on a news
channel, but they can't give even a mild shout-out to Andrea.
"But I'm in there fighting every day because I got a few more
dreams in me." Though we frequently disagree with Andrea, we wouldn't
ever claim that she's not out "there fighting every day because I got a
few more dreams in me." And when we might lose faith in all, it's good
to find someone who is. Her fights aren't usually our fights, but she
keeps fighting. And for those who doubt the power of doing that, Katie
Couric. The same friend advised about the Hill interview today and that MSNBC (finally) has a webpage for Andrea Mitchell Reports.
Ava and I will note that on Sunday but this is the first I've heard
that they finally gave her program a webpage. So we'll note it and
underscore it and make sure everyone grasps that. (I'm not being
sarcastic about community readers or even drive-bys. I am underscoring
the fact that MSNBC had a one hour program driven by an actual
journalist -- not a sports commentator or drive-time hijinks radio
reject or any of the others -- and they refused to promote the show or
even give it a webpage.) In terms of Hill. Why
is he in the US? Andrea says on air that it's because of al-Maliki
being in the US. Hill's not supposed to hold Nouri's hand when Nouri
travels. More importantly, early voting has started in the KRG. What
is Hill doing back? This is his second trip to the US since going to
Iraq and, for those who've forgotten, despite telling John Kerry he
would leave immediately upon confirmation for Iraq, when his nomination
was confirmed, he waited days before leaving. And that was at the end
of April. It's July and Chris Hill, so eager to be confirmed, is now
out of Iraq for his second trip to the US. And he's out at a time when
you would think the ambassador would want to be present, to monitor
reports on the elections. As for his comments to Andrea Mitchell about
what's going on in Iraq, we'll drop back to Liz Sly and Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) interview Hill:
The
Times asked whether the embassy will have enough information to judge
what is happening in Iraqi cities now that U.S. forces will be
restricted in their movements and based outside of cities.
Hill:
We have embassies operating in scores of countries, and developing good
information about what is going on is always a challenge anywhere in
the world. I think our contacts in Iraq are better than in most
countries. Our ability to reach senior ministers, our ability to talk
to people, get their views and get information from them is pretty good
in Iraq compared to many countries we operate in. I personally don't
feel we have a problem there. If you are comparing it to a time when we
ran all the security ourselves, that is obviously a different era. It
was a different era that was not sustainable for the rest of history.
Clearly there is a point where you return security to the host country
security forces.
What's
going on Iraq? Chris Hill depends on stringers to tell him, not unlike
many a US outlet. The KRG holds provincial and presidential elections
Saturday, early voting has begun. Heath Druzin (Stars and Stripes) explains
that despite "a canopy of colorful campaign banners and a stream of
breathless programs on party-run television channels, there's an eerie
quiet on the streets of this regional capital just days before
elections in Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region." He quotes "Change"
candidate Dara Saeed stating that people are "afraid of the police and
security forces, of being fired from their jobs" and don't want to say
who they'll vote for. Change is one party competing with the KRG's two
long dominat political parties: Jalal Talabani (president of Iraq)
represents the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, Masoud Barzani (president
of the KRG) represents the Kurdish Democratic Party. Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) reports
"Change" is former PUK members who are "fed up with the party's
leadership" and "who are attracting voters who are frustrated with what
they say has been corruption, curbs on democracy and the neglect of
basic services in recent years." NPR's Quil Lawrence (Morning Edition) follows
that theme for his report and notes the so-called Change Party.
Lawrence offers his opinions and those of others. It's an overview and
one that is cheapened by the snarky intro Linda Wertheimer offers. Ranj Alaaldin (Guardian) offers
the opinion (he's doing a column, not a report) that "the status quo is
likely to continue for a while" and, on the power-sharing/horse-trading
of the past, "The PUK and KDP, as a coalition government, have a number
of agreements to divide key governmental positions equally between
them. The Kurdistan region presidency, for example, is held by the KDP
in return for its support for a Talabani presidency in Baghdad. Most
important of all is the KRG premiership which carries a host of
decision-making powers. A KDP official, Nechirvan Barzani, also holds
this position. He should have relinquished the role to the PUK in 2008
but, with Talabani's consent and against the will of PUK politburo
members, is to carry on until after the elections; the understanding
was that he would then make way for leading PUK candidate Barham
Salih." AFP explains early voting has begun for the Kurdish military, the "police, prisoners and the sick." Violence continued today in Iraq with multiple bombings. Reuters reports
a Kirkuk roadside bombing which claimed 1 life and left three injured,
a Ghazaliya bombing that injured three members of one family, a
Yusufiya roadside bombing (targeting the US military) which claimed the
life of 1 Iraqi bystander and left two more injured, a Kirkuk grenade
attack which left three US soldiers and one Iraqi interpreter and one
Iraqi bystander injured. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
a Baquba roadside bombing which wounded 1 Iraqi soldier and notes of
the three family members wounded in the bombing that they were "a
returning displaced family." We'll close with Cindy Sheehan. First, her radio program Cindy's Soapbox airs each Sunday and this Sunday the scheduled guest is Gore Vidal. And we'll note this from her latest column, " George W. Bush, Part III" ( Cindy's Soapbox). Okay,
so the United States of America has had a new puppet regime for six
months now. I was never so much into giving Obama a "chance" and I
think it's way past time to call Obama and his supporters out, like we
called Bush and his supporters out. Our Presidents are merely puppets
for the Robber Class and Obama is no exception.
I
am observing very little "change" in actual policy, or even rhetoric
from an Obama regime. Granted, his style and delivery are more polished
than the last puppet, but especially in foreign policy, little has
changed. Evidently we elect Presidents based on empty rhetoric and if
we can find someone who can say as little as possible with using as
many words as he can, that's better. I knew a year ago when Obama and
his ilk were blathering on about "change" that they didn't mean
positive "change" for us, but it's a shame Obama's voters didn't ask
him to be a little more specific or demand some good "change."
Besides
foreign policy where he is a complete disaster, it appears Obama's jobs
program is little more than adding tens of thousands of troops to an
already bloated military, instead of bringing troops home from
anywhere. Billions will go to the money trap of the Pentagon to invest
in recruiting our innocent, young, jobless and hopeless youth, when the
budgets of peace groups who do counter recruitment are tanking. This is
the 3rd week in July and already it's the deadliest month for US and
coalition troops deaths in Af/Pak. Who would ever have thought when
violence is surged that deaths would surge, also? I think I've seen
this movie before. Oops. we'll note this from ETAN last: Groups Oppose U.S. Training of Indonesia's Notorious Kopassus Special Forces
Contact: John M. Miller, ETAN, +1-718-596-7668
July
23 - More than 50 U.S. organizations today urged the U.S. government to
"strictly prohibit any U.S. cooperation with or assistance to the Indonesian Special Forces
(Kopassus)' in a letter sent today to President Obama, Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton and members of Congress. The letter was
coordinated by the East Timor and Indonesia Action Network (ETAN).
"Restrictions on U.S. military assistance to Indonesia are needed to support democracy and human rights in Indonesia. Supporting Kopassus, which has <http://www.etan.org/news/2008/04brikop.htm>a
long history of terrorizing civilians, would send the worst possible
signal to those fighting for justice and accountability in Indonesia
and East Timor," said John M. Miller, National Coordinator of ETAN.
The letter, signed by human rights, religious, peace and other groups, states, "The history of Kopassus human rights violations,
its criminality and its unaccountability before Indonesian courts
extends back decades and includes human rights and other crimes in East
Timor, Aceh, West Papua and elsewhere."
A recent <http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/06/24/indonesia-abuses-special-forces-continue-papua>Human
Rights Watch report documents how Kopassus soldiers "arrest Papuans
without legal authority, and beat and mistreat those they take back to
their barracks."
In 2008, the Bush administration
proposed to restart U.S. training of Kopassus. the State Department
legal counsel reportedly ruled that the ban on training of military
units with a history of involvement in human rights violations, known
as the Leahy law, applies to Kopassus as a whole.
"The
previous administration was forced to conclude that training Kopassus
was both illegal and bad policy. The Obama administration should
maintain this restriction," said Miller.
The text of the letter is below. The letter with a complete list of signatures can be found at http://www.etan.org/news/2009/07kopassus.htm.
---
Text of Letter
We
the undersigned organizations call upon the U.S. government to strictly
prohibit any U.S. cooperation with or assistance to the Indonesian
Special Forces (Kopassus). This force, more than any other in the
Indonesian military, stands accused by the Indonesian people of some of
the most egregious human rights violations. The annual human rights
report of the U.S. Department of State, the East Timor's (Timor-Leste)
truth commission (CAVR), United Nations human rights monitors, and the full range of Indonesian and international human rights
have reported in detail the many crimes of Kopassus. Those responsible
for these violations continue to enjoy broad impunity for their
actions, even in a democratizing Indonesia.
The
history of Kopassus human rights violations, its criminality and its
unaccountability before Indonesian courts extends back decades and
includes human rights and other crimes in East Timor, Aceh, West Papua
and elsewhere. In 1998, a program -- organized and led by then Kopassus
commander (and recent vice- presidential candidate) General Prabowo Subianto
-- kidnapped, tortured and killed pro-democracy activists. Prabowo told
reporters he is unrepentant over these crimes saying, "we could say it
was preventative detention." Other well-documented Kopassus crimes
include organizing anti-Chinese rioting in Jakarta in 1998 and the 1984 massacre at Tanjung Priok in Java.
Throughout
24 years of brutal Indonesian occupation of East Timor, Kopassus
personnel, tortured and killed civilians in an attempt to intimidate
and terrorize the population. Kopassus personnel played a key role,
including organizing militia proxies, in the violence and destruction
during 1999, the occupation's final year.
The crimes of Kopassus are not only in the past. A recently published Human Rights Watch report details
ongoing Kopassus human right violations in West Papua. The report
documents how Kopassus soldiers "arrest Papuans without legal
authority, and beat and mistreat those they take back to their
barracks."
Those who favor engagement argue that U.S.
training could lead to reform of Kopassus. This argument is clearly
refuted by history. For decades, the U.S. trained and gave other
assistance to Kopassus personnel, including General Prabowo and other
leading officers. This relationship had no ameliorative affect, rather,
it provided the equipment and skills used for repression.
U.S.
law prohibits the training of military units with a history of
involvement in human rights violations. This provision has been long
been interpreted as narrowly as possible. However, in 2008, the State
Department ruled that the ban, known as the Leahy law, applies to
Kopassus as a whole. We believe that this ruling should apply and the
U.S. must continue to refuse to train Kopassus.
Posted at 04:03 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
"We still have over 130,000 troops in Iraq," explained independent journalist Dahr Jamail yesterday on KPFA's Flashpoints.
"Troops are not being withdrawn from Iraq. They are being relocated to
different bases, some of the bases still within cities, but they are
not being withdrawn thus far." Dahr's latest book The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan has just been released this month.  Yesterday,
Barack Obama and Nouri al-Maliki staged a dog and pony show at the
White House and, no, we didn't get the reality offered in Dahr's
statements, we really didn't get any awareness at all. Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) offers this: In
a brief news conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki after
the two met for more than an hour at the White House, Obama
acknowledged that there will be "some tough days ahead. There will be
attacks on Iraqi security forces and the American troops supporting
them. . . . There are still those who want to foment sectarian
conflict." Perspective would be: "My, Barack sounds so
much like Bush." That's because he does. That's because he is the third
term of George W. Bush. DeYoung also reports: A
senior administration official described Maliki's trip as a "working
visit," and the White House has not scheduled any formal social events
for the Iraqi leader. Instead, Maliki will spend four days in meetings
with U.S. economic, trade, defense and diplomatic officials. He will
meet with Cabinet members in those areas, as well as with senior
members of Congress and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and will deliver
a speech Thursday morning at the U.S. Institute of Peace. Uh,
what about Saturday? I actually have an invitation to that event. I
wasn't planning on attending but if it's some 'secret' moment, maybe I
will. As we noted here Tuesday morning,
"July 25th, three provinces in Iraq hold their provincial elections and
to steal attention (what little's been given) for the KRG, Nouri plans
to announce an education plan that would put 10,000 Iraqis in
Australia, Canada, the UK and the US for college study. Of course, that
10,000 wouldn't come anytime soon. He plans to do 500." That's
supposedly a major event. (I didn't think so which is why I wasn't
planning on halting my return home to attend.) After the White House
yesterday, Saturday's event is billed as the big Nouri event in this
country. They're trying to get a humanitarian ground swell going on the
event (lots of luck). Jeff Zeleny (New York Times) quotes
a tone-deaf Barack stating, "The United States and Iraq have known
difficult times together." What? The US invaded Iraq. What a stupid
statement to make. But so in keeping for continuing the illegal war. Karen
DeYoung's article isn't rah-rah, that would be Zeleny's. But, with
both, you can find strong moments worth reading -- however fleeting.
The same can't be said for Mark Silva's article ( Los Angeles Times
for the link but appearing at all the Tribune properties). Not only is
it dead on arrival (I'm fine with basics, no frills reporting -- I'm
not fine with plodding pieces), it's got nothing to offer but a bunch
of false claims that Silva can't back up. And none of the articles include anything of real importance or timeliness. Check yesterday's snapshot
and then read the articles again. A poll was released yesterday. It
addressed Iraq. Where's any citation of the results? From yesterday's
snapshot: A new AP-GfK Roper
poll finds a decrease in the number of respondents who believe Barack
will remove troops from Iraq -- 15% lower than the last poll. [PDF
format warning, click here
for the data breakdown.] 62% of respondents ranked "The Situation in
Iraq" as either "Extremely important" or "Very important." The poll
found an increase of five percent on the number of respondents who
disapprove of Barack's handling of the Iraq War. Is this increase a
result of angry right-wingers upset over Barack's so-called plan?
Maybe. But the respondents were asked if they believed Barack would
"remove most troops from Iraq?" In January, 83% of respondents said it
was likely and 15% said it was unlikely. The 83% who thought it was
coming has fallen to 68%. The number who believe it is not happening
has risen to 26%.
We were on our way out of
the House Veterans Subcommittee hearing yesterday and I was speaking to
a friend (press) who brought up the poll. Clearly some in the press
knew about it. Nouri and Barack meet up at the White House yesterday as
a poll is released which finds the number of people who believe Barack
will "remove most troops from Iraq" has fallen from 83% in January to
68% presently -- a 15% drop. Where's that in any of the articles? They
repeatedly (and falsely) claim the US will be out of Iraq in 2011.
That's not what's happening. It's not even claimed to be happening.
Does no one listen to Adm Mike Mullen, Gen Ray Odierno or even
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates? Reading the articles today, it doesn't appear that anyone does. Barack made silly, uninformed and embarrassing statements like this: Violence
continues to be down, and Iraqis are taking responsibility for their
future. This progress has been made possible by the resilence of the
Iraqi people and security forces and also because of the extraordinary
service of American troops and civilians in Iraq. Now we're in the
midst of a full transition to Iraqi responsibility and to a
comprehensive partnership between the United States and Iraq based on
mutual interests and mutual respect.But, as we
explained yesterday, the trend in lower violence ended with the month
of January. Starting with February, you see an uptick in violence. That
trend has held each passing month. We also cited Al Jazeera which was explaining,
"An estimated 437 Iraqis were killed in June, the highest death toll in
11 months, and the near daily attacks have continued in July." And
the press is just going to run with Barack's false claims? It's not
going to call them out? Why do we have a press? Why? If it's job is not
to provide oversight and be a watchdog, we don't need it. Just print up
the press releases issued each day, it'd be a lot cheaper.  They
don't provide a fact check on the claims made in the Rose Garden, they
don't cite the poll findings so Americans are rendered invisible as a
group, and they don't cite any voices of dissent. How is any of that
reporting? How is anything that's been written up actual journalism? IPA provides
this quote from Global Policy Forum's James Paul: "For all the talk of
'U.S. withdrawal' from Iraq, the reality on the ground is starkly
different. U.S. troops still patrol the cities, in flagrant violation
of the U.S.-Iraqi security agreement, while Washington remains hugely
influential in the politics of the country. The gigantic U.S. embassy
looms large in Baghdad, U.S. forces still hold thousands of Iraqi
prisoners in the vast U.S. prison camp in the southern desert, dozens
of U.S. military bases remain in place including the sprawling 'Camp
Victory' complex in Baghdad and Washington continues to press towards
its ultimate goal -- the de facto privatization of Iraq's vast oil
resources." The peace movement has its own problems (most damaging, allowing itself to be hijacked by a political party) but it is rebuilding.
Nothing in the reports indicates that the reporters are aware of the
existence of the peace movement or indicates that there is any
opposition to the ongoing Iraq War. At the top of her show, Cindy's Soapbox,
Cindy Sheehan declared Sunday, "I was at the National Assembly
Conference to End the Occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan in Pittsburgh
this past weekend and we really reconnected with a lot of peace groups
and individuals who know that true change comes from a bottom up
revolution -- not a trickle down effect like crumbs dropping on us from
the robber class." Note that Cindy's guest this coming Sunday will be
Gore Vidal. There are no voices of peace presented, there are no
voices of dissent presented, Barack claims violence is down when
violence is up and there's no correcting him, the military keeps
insisting that the US may well remain past 2011 and that's not in the
articles this morning, a poll founds 15% -- 15%! -- of Americans no
longer trust Barack will remove troops and that's not in the articles.
Does anything printed this morning qualify as journalism and, if so,
how? We'll close with this from Cindy Sheehan's " George W. Bush, Part III" ( Cindy's Soapbox). Okay,
so the United States of America has had a new puppet regime for six
months now. I was never so much into giving Obama a “chance” and I
think it’s way past time to call Obama and his supporters out, like we
called Bush and his supporters out. Our Presidents are merely puppets
for the Robber Class and Obama is no exception.
I am observing very
little “change” in actual policy, or even rhetoric from an Obama
regime. Granted, his style and delivery are more polished than the last
puppet, but especially in foreign policy, little has changed. Evidently
we elect Presidents based on empty rhetoric and if we can find someone
who can say as little as possible with using as many words as he can,
that’s better. I knew a year ago when Obama and his ilk were blathering
on about “change” that they didn’t mean positive “change” for us, but
it’s a shame Obama’s voters didn’t ask him to be a little more specific
or demand some good “change.”
Besides foreign policy where he is a
complete disaster, it appears Obama’s jobs program is little more than
adding tens of thousands of troops to an already bloated military,
instead of bringing troops home from anywhere. Billions will go to the
money trap of the Pentagon to invest in recruiting our innocent, young,
jobless and hopeless youth, when the budgets of peace groups who do
counter recruitment are tanking. This is the 3rd week in July and
already it’s the deadliest month for US and coalition troops deaths in
Af/Pak. Who would ever have thought when violence is surged that deaths
would surge, also? I think I’ve seen this movie before.The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqdahr jamailflashpointskpfakaren deyoungthe washington postthe new york times jeff zelenythe los angeles timesmark silvacindy sheehancindy sheehans soapboxgore vidalaljazeeraipajames paul
Posted at 06:45 am by thecommonills
Permalink
|
|
|
|
|
|
