The Common Ills


Monday, August 13, 2007
Iraq snapshot

Iraq snapshot

 
Monday, August 13, 2007.  Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, Operation Happy Talk makes a splash and thank the left and 'left' voices there, US withdrawal fights a strong push-back via spin while one of Bully Boy's nearest and dearest withdraws from the White House, John Howard flaps his gum yet again -- this time in a letter to the puppet of the illegal occupation, the puppet doesn't have time for mail as he faces stinging criticism, and more.
 
 
Starting with war resistance, Agustin Aguayo is the focus of Mary Wiltenburg's "When a US soldier in Iraq won't soldier" (Christian Science Monitor) which traces Aguayo's involvement in the US military, working two and three jobs to support his family, Aguayo thought of joining the Army Reserves but was persuaded the Army was the better choice, went to basic training and was distrubed by the chants ("Left, right, kill!," "We are not men. We are beasts,"  etc.), realized on the eve of deployment to Iraq that he couldn't kill anyone.  Helga Aguayo searched online and discovered conscientious objector, a term that applied to her husband and one they had never heard of.  That's why it's shameful when publications such as The Nation (the 'leading magazine of the left') refuse to cover war resisters in print or reduce Camilio Mejia (as they did in their overly praised article last month) to a 'deserter' while never noting that his 8-year-contract was up, had been up, and that as a noncitizen the US military could not extend Mejia's contract.  Mejia applied for CO status and was rejected.  But by all means, let's applaud The Nation for it's repeated cowardice and it's repeated silence.  The AP has done a better job covering the war resistance than the laughable Nation magazine.  (Community members remember, check in on Labor Day.)  In fairness, voices who didn't use the platform to note Ehren Watada but were happy to use their platforms to note a reporter should share the shame of The Nation.
 
 
Like Mejia, Agustin's CO application was rejected.  Wiltenburg notes, "The decision was divided: Aguayo's company commander and investigating officer called him 'absolutely sincere' and said he had a 'legitimate concern with being a soldier.' The next four levels of command recommended rejection; one called Aguayo's application 'an attempt to remedy [the] anxiety all soldiers face during an extended deployment in a combat theater'."  Perspective.  "The investigating officer said that it was in the best interest of the military to discharge him and that he believed that Agustin was sincere. However, higher ups in the chain of command -- that never met with my husband -- decided that he wasn't sincere and just didn't really give a reason, just said that he didn't qualify as a conscientious objector," Helga Aguayo speaking to Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) Arpil 20, 2007.  Mary Wiltenburg's "When a US soldier in Iraq won't soldier" (Christian Science Monitor) is the first of multi-part story on Aguayo The Christian Science Monitor is doing.  So those wanting to be informed can look to that paper and ignored the useless Nation magazine..
 
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Zamesha Dominique, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Carla Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee,  Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell,  Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, forty-one US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.        


Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. IVAW and others will be joining Veterans For Peace's conference in St. Louis, Missouri August 15th to 19th.
 
 
 
Over the weekend, the US military made a number of announcements including Saturday when the US military announced: "A Task Force Lightning Soldier died Friday in a non-combat related incident, which is currently under investigation." And, on Sunday, the US military announced: "A Task Force Marne Soldier was killed by small arms fire while conducting a dismounted patrol southeast of Baghdad August 11." and they announced: "Four Task Force Marne Soldiers were killed and four others were wounded by an explosion during combat operations south of Baghdad Aug. 11."  Today, they announced: "A Multi-National Division-Baghdad Soldier was attacked during combat operations in a western section of the Iraqi capital Aug. 13."  The deaths bring the total number of US service members killed in the illegal war ever closer to 3700.  The cakewalk that had Bully Boy declaring "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended" beneath the banner declaring "Mission Accompished" in May 1, 2003 over four years ago  When that lie was told at a photo op to sell the illegal war, Jesse Alan Givens  was the 140th US service member to die in the illegal war.  ICCC's current total is 3690.  3,550 US service members have died in Bully Boy's illegal war since he strutted around on the USS Abraham Lincoln beneath the manner crowing, "In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."  Repeating that, 3,550 have died since Bully Boy's photo op.  The 3700 mark looms and, so far this month, 32 US service members have lost their lives in Bully Boy's illegal war.
 
The five deaths announced Sunday indicate a new strategy in attacks on US service members.  Megan Greenwell (Washington Post) reports the first soldier was shot dead to draw "the others to a house rigged to explode."  It was a set up.  And nothing in the US military press releases notes that.
 
 
As the 'cakewalk' had dragged on (and on and on . . .) some of the world leaders who supported it (the few) have been replaced.  France has a new prime minister. Nicolas Sarkozy met with Bully Boy Saturday for a "casual lunch."  Bruce Crumley (Time magazine) notes Sarkozy showed up Saturday for "the kennebunkport weenie roast" late, "45 minutes late," at a time when a new poll in France found 40% of the citizens want no improvement in the strained relationship between France and the United States that cratered over the illegal war and 26% of those responding expressed the desire for even greater distance between France and the United States.  That's 66% of the country not wanting a big hug from the Bully Boy so, to no one's surprise, the two leaders, as Crumley characterizes it, agreed to disagree.
 
There remains a great deal of 'disagreement' between Bully Boy and the rest of the world and you don't need to look at the international polling and note how great the drop in favorable opinions of the US since Bully Boy began his illegal war to be aware of that.  You can look at England's new prime minister, Gordon Brown, who has replaced "The Poodle" Tony Blair and isn't as pliable as Blair causing alarm in the US administration.  Sean Rayment and Philip Sherwell (Telegraph of London) report: "America is preparing to pour thousands of extra troops into southern Iraq amid fears that Gordon Brown is committed to withdrawing British troops from the region early next year." While England plans to turn over southern Iraq to the Iraqis, the US prepares to station US troops there.
 
They can do that thanks to Bully Boy's escalation, which has led to approximately 160,000 service members stationed in Iraq (the highest number since Janutary 2005).  Over the desires of the US public and the 'symoblic' resistance of the US Congress, Bully Boy began increasing the number of troops in Iraq at the start of this year.  Tim Reid (Times of London) reports the Bully Boy thinks he can continue the escalation "well into next year" and cites a "a string of positive reports" on Iraq that Reid maintains have "left Democrats increasinly powerless to end the war."
 
The "positive reports" do not refer to any progress in Iraq or even official presentations.  They refer to the waves of Operation Happy Talk that began in mid-July.  An illegal war the White House refused to end and the US Congress played dumb about -- what to do?  Grab a box of "Iraq War Helper!"  Which is exactly what the administration began doing in July.  Which is why and how you got nonsense such as US General Walter E. Gaskin declaring "we have turned the corner, we truly turned the corner" while for some reason referring to Iraqi soldiers's "hard".  No one questioned it because the waves of Operation Happy Talk were splashing and isn't homoerotic subtext what we all expect from generals in the US military?
 
As Reuters' Kristen Roberts noted, one of the few, General Gaskin's briefing was very "optimistic." And strange and divorced from reality.  But Gaskin was a piker compared to Lt. General Ray Odierno, Commander Mulitnation Corps-Iraq, who declared that a "bit more time" was needed for the illegal war and that General David Petraues's September report really wasn't going to tell anyone anything worth knowing because it would be November before anything could be known.  In that press conference, Odierno immediately clarified,
 
In that, he was successful.  In the same press briefing, he also attempted to sell the unproven link between the Iranian government and resistance fighters in Iraq.  He was less succsessful there because reporters pressed him forcing him to admit that there was "no specific intelligence" and, still in the same press conference,  "We don't see any evidence -- significant evidence".  That didn't prevent the New York Times' Michael Gordon from repeatedly citing the false link in July or August or utilizing Odierno as his source (including last week).  What a few others questioned, Michael Gordon ran with.  No surprise since Judith Miller's former co-writer was there to sell the illegal war from the start.  Of course, it helps that 'star' 'reporter' Gordo has to answer to few and that the Baghdad chief for the New York Times is John F. Burns who could, and did, start off the month publicly opining, "I think there's no doubt that those extra 30,000 American troops are making a difference." He did so not in print because reporters aren't allowed to opine on the pages of the New York Times, that's a no-no.  So he took his cheerleading on over to right-winger Hugh Hewitt's radio show where he also opined that the US withdrawing from Iraq will
 
The waves of Operation Happy Talk also saw sporting events presented as indicators of 'progress.'  All the little boys of the press who never got to play sports in their pimply, geeky, sunken chest schools days grabbed their jock straps and pounded furiously at their key boards over soccer matches and what it 'means'?  If it meant anything, and it didn't, the alarm should have sounded when the Iraqi soccer team defeated the one from Vietnam.  That should have sent a shudder through the jock-boys' spines since, of course, Vietnam was a defeat for the US not all that long ago.  So those wanting to read the tea cups (or the sweat stains on the jock cups) should have pondered if that means that, in Iraq, the US has an even stronger resistance?
 
Where there are no sane comparisons to be made there is John Howard.  Howard is not just (for now) the prime minister of Australia, he is the last of the Bully Boy defenders who got on board with the illegal war and (for now) still holds his official title.  Now Howard didn't get way on board with actual troops.  In fact, his loud mouth and hyperbole appear to be a desperate attempt to compensate for that and prove he can waddle with 'the big boys.'  While he talks big, he sends very few troops.  (Australians would not put up with him increasing the troop levels and they may not be putting up with him much longer as the election looms.)  But Howard loves to shoot the mouth and this year decided the thing to do was to interject himself in US politics as he went on attack against US Senator and 2008 Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama.and the Democratic Party claiming their victories in 2008 would be a winfall for terrorists and terrorism.  "Barack Obama: Warmonger" (Glen Ford, Black Agenda Report) has made embarrassing steps repeatedly though the Sammy Power crowd tries so hard to prop him up.  In this instance, dropping Chicken Sop for the Soul and leaving aside the I Talk Tough rhetoric, Obama actually scored points -- against a world leader.  (It should have been a tip off to his chaotic campaign, but they're all so lost.)  Noting that the loud mouth John Howard liked to talk big but has only provided approximately 1,000 troops to Iraq (that would be approximately 159,000 troops less than the US), Obama declared Howard should put up or shut up, send 20,000 more troops into Iraq, because
"[o}therwise, it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric."  Howard sulked off and tried to keep his head down. But there's a wave of Operation Happy Talk to ride (actually it's over but Howard's timing has always been poor) and damned if Howard's going to miss jock talk!  Australia's ABC reports Howard has dashed off a letter to puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki declaring that "Iraqis should follow the example of their nation's Asian Cup-winning soccer team".  How so?  By only some returning (briefly) to Iraq following the win?  That is what happened.  The ones he returned got a secluded, within the heavily guarded Green Zone, muted celebration.  Somehow that didn't get splashed across the front pages of the New York Times, et al. 
 
al-Maliki doesn't really have time for pen pals these days.  He's just returned from trips to Turkey and Iran.  Prior to leaving, he saw walk outs in the Iraqi Parliament and his own cabinet.  al-Maliki's manner of dealing with it was to term those protesting obstructionists and began speaking publicly (yet again) about conspiracies to oust him.  The whole country of Iraq was against him!  The travel apparently did him well and he returned to Iraq, as Megan Greenwell (Washington Post) notes in a more peaceful and moderately sane (for him) mood declaring that he was committed to resolving "the growing political crisis" and that "[h]is primary goal will be to reconcile with nearly half of his cabinet members, who have stopped attending meetings in three separate protests against his leadership."
 
For some Iraqi leaders, the response was, "It's not that easy."  Reuters reports that Adnan al-Dulaimi ("a senior figure in the main Sunni Arab political bloc in Baghdad") has declared (in an open statement to al-Maliki), "Your brothers in Baghdad are suffering in genocide carried out by militias and the death squads with Iranian planning, instructions and weapons. If you think what is happening to us will end at Baghdad then you are wrong. By God, this war that started in Baghdad will not stop here. It will extend to every Arab spot where the Arabic tongue is spoken. It is a war of history."  Others joined al-Dulaimi in condemning the puppet.  Suleiman al-Khalidi (Reuters) reports Sheikh Harith al-Dari ("the top Sunni cleric") stated, "If the Americans remain with this policy and rely on the same men who proved their failure again and again then they will leave Iraq in failure. . . . The U.S. administration should rectify its position in Iraq and stop depending on puppets . . . who have proven their failure."
CBS and AP focus on al-Dulaim, and ignored al-Dari, noting that al-Dulami had spoken out against the Shia militias "unprecedented genocide campign".
 
As the waves of Operation Happy Talk started, 'war critics' showed up to say it was winnable and few bothered to note the 'critics' had argued for the illegal war to begin with.  As July drew to a close and August began, the left and the 'left' largely made themselves useless as they accepted talking points (such as 'only 72 Americans died in Iraq in July!' -- a lie when they wrote their pieces) to move to 'bigger' points.  Here's reality, the push-back was obvious in July.  Save your bigger points until after you address the lies that are being told right then.
They didn't, because they know best.  Obviously.  After all they stopped the illegal war from even starting, didn't they?  Oh, no, they didn't.  And if anyone needing to see how that effort failed in real time need only review those end of July start of August critiques.  "Wait!  We had the MSM to go up against before the illegal war started!  They were all selling it!"  Yes, and they were all selling it again last month and this month and where the hell were you?  Which is why CBS can report a new poll that finds a 10% bump in support for the escalation that Bully Boy calls the 'surge.'  Attitudes against the illegal war have hardened and that remains true as the same poll indicates -- 30% want a timetable for withdrawal, 30% want US troops home now.  But via a hard-sell by the MSM and a lot of crap from left and 'left' voices, he did get a 10% bump in approval for his escalation.  The bump didn't translate into a bump for the Bully Boy himself (he stands at 29% approval rating in the latest poll) but it wasn't about Bully Boy.  He has no election to win.  He's over.  The war drags on.  And what the p.r. stunt proved was that (a) the MSM would run with it, (b) the voices with platforms would largely take the spin and say, "True, but . . " instead of calling it lies out right, and (c) new 'techniques' could be seen as worth exploring if a hard sell took place.  The lesson for the administration (and War Hawks) was that they might be able, if the press real hard, to string the illegal war along by tri-mesters.
 
The War Hawks can laugh at portions of the left who make themselves useless, who will accept the same spin the MSM does, and who will be so dense and stupid that they will applaud crap and encourage people to view it.  "No End In Sight when the peace movement gets behind crap"  addressed that nonsense at various left and 'left' voices began praising a 'documentary' by a Council for Foreign Relations flunky which ignored the entire issue of the illegal war to instead sell the lie that the US screwed up on the ground.  No End In Sight exists for one reason only, to sell the concept of wars of choice, wars based on lies, and get us to all agree that the real problem is with the planning, not the illegalities themselves. "Blood on the scarecrow, blood on the plow," as John Mellencamp once sang.

 
CBS and AP note, "At least 37 people were killed or found dead in sectarian violence nationwide. Nearly half of that number, 17, were tortured bodies discovered in Baghdad, officials said." In some of today's reported violence . . .
 
 
Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad mortar attack claimed 1 life (three wounded),
 
Shootings?
 
Reuters notes an Iraqi soldier was shot dead in Hilla.
 
Kidnappings?
 
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Laylan kidnapping today where a truck driver was seized "on Gargcha bridge". Reuters notes that "the mayor of town of Dijla" was kidnapped today.
 
Corpses?
 
 
Over the weekend, some realities emerged in the press.  Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times)
reported that all was not as upbeat as the waves of Operation Happy Talk maintained such as in the Amil section of the capital where checkpoints are set up everywhere but that hasn't stopped Amil and the Bayaa section from accounting for being the site of 160 discovered corpses since May.  Meanwhile, in the foreign press, reports emerged of a US helicopter killing 8 Iraqi electrical workers when a rocket was fired on them.  Richard A. Oppel Jr. (New York Times) was pretty much alone in the MSM in picking up the story and was told by the US military that, on Thursday, in that area, a US helicopter had killed "six men" but they were 'insurgents' who were "in the back of a truck."  After speaking with Oppel, the US military would issue a statement and in the military press release on the helicopter firing they would note "eight insurgents" were killed, up two by their original figure -- and consistent with the reports of the US military killing 8 electrical workers last Thursday.
 
 
In other news, the US military is trumpeting their recent war games (click here for Nancy A. Youssef's report) which predicts chaos will come to Iraq when the US withdraws.  Chaos came in March 2003.  The war game is a game and as useless to reality as holding the Monopoly deed to Park Place when you have no place to live.  In the real world, Robert Hutton (Bloomberg News) reports that the United Kingdom's Parliament is predicting the Bully Boy's escalation will fail and that "[t]he cross-party panel of lawmakers called on Prime Minister Gordon Brown to set out a policy to promote reconciliation between rival political factions in Iraq."  The escalation is a failure and the US military pulled back and slowed the announcements of the deaths of US service members in an attempt to trick -- fortunately many were willing to be tricked.  There has been no progress.  All this time later, potable water, electricity and security remain impossible.  The point being made in the British Parliament are similar to the ones made by US Senator and 2008 presidential hopeful Joe Biden on PBS' The Charlie Rose Show Thursday -- there is no diplomtic 'surge,' there is no progress in basic needs, the focus has been on the privatization of Iraqi oil at the expense of what is good for Iraqis and there is no way to claim that the escalation of US troops into Iraq has resulted in progress.
 
 
In news of withdrawals, Karl Rove will leave the White HouseAmy Goodman (Democracy Now!) reports, Rove will leave Aug. 31st and this "comes while he is at the center of several Congressional investigations. Last month Senate Judiciary Chair Patrick Leahy subpoenaed Rove to testify about his role in the politicization of the Justice Department and the firing of nine U.S. attorneys. So far Rove has ignored the subpoena and has refused to testify, citing executive privilege. In addition, two weeks ago Rove skipped a Congressional hearing on the allegedly improper use by White House aides of Republican National Committee email accounts. Rove told the Wall Street Journal that he is resigning in order to spend more time with his family. For the past 19 years Rove worked as George W. Bush's closest political advisor, first in Texas, then in Washington. During that time he earned the nickname of Bush's Brain."  Goodman explored the topic in depth today with News Dissector Danny Schechter who noted, "Well, with his brain gone, what's left? I mean, this is rats deserting a ship. You know, the ship is sinking, clearly. His comment --- President Bush's comment the other day --- he doesn't speak English --- is indicative of an administration that doesn't know what it's doing or where it's going. Bush's top adviser leaving is certainly not going to make it any easier for him. We're going to see more and more crises.
 
 
 

Posted at 06:57 pm by thecommonills
 

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Karl Rove Leaves the Administration"

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Karl Rove Leaves the Administration"

karlroveleaves


Isaiah's latest The World Today Just Nuts "Karl Rove Leaves the Administration." Karl Rove is wobbling off while a man cries, "But it's his brain!" Condi replies, "Nonsense. Our Bully Boy will be just fine. It'll be a cakewalk. Another cakewalk." Bully Boy, seated on the floor in his diaper, says, "Condi, I made pooh-pooh in my pants."








Posted at 06:55 pm by thecommonills
 

Other Items

Other Items

*Sean Penn, for replying, when asked if he wants the United States to win the war in Iraq, "I think we’re past that point in human evolution where there’s such a thing as winning wars."



The above is from Paul Krassner's "Ass----- of the Week" (CounterPunch). On the title, we can say "ass" but the other word would cause problems for some members accessing at work computers. I'll note that right off because there's an e-mail about Rebecca's comment at The Third Estate Sunday Review that uses "*" instead of letters and says I've taken "your puritan ways" over to The Third Estate Sunday Review. I type "-" (dashes). So I clearly did not type up that piece. In terms of the language they use their, it can be whatever is wanted. But I have to be given time to do a mass e-mail to members who would get in trouble for using work computers to access sites with certain language so that they have a heads up. I'm not a puritan and my own language is far worse than even Rebecca's. The Common Ills is a work safe environment in terms of language. It's been that way since it started. There are a limited number of words we can use when it comes to foul language. Which is probably a good thing or most entries (and titles) here would repeatedly include the f-word (although, truth be told the word I use most often is the s-word).



Both the f-word and the s-word have popped up in the TV pieces Ava and I write for The Third Estate Sunday Review. When they have gone up in full, it's been because I was already going to have to do a mass e-mailing about another feature that would be going up so we figured, what the hell? While I certainly have input at that site, I have no input at Rebecca's site. The visitor thinks Rebecca's "cleaned up her act" for me. Were I to ever call Rebecca about her language, she would laugh in my face. She is now using "*" and so is Mike. I would assume that's because people have e-mailed them saying they enjoy the sites but can't read if the language is in there. Not because they are puritans but because they'll get written up at work. When that issue was first raised here, in the early days of this site, I understood completely because I had a friend who'd already been written up for going to a site with the f-word. The site? Washington Post. Their story on Dick Cheney's use of the word. I couldn't believe it (that it would happen, a write up for a news site) but it does happen. I have no idea what word I used here (that was so long ago -- it wasn't the f-word or the s-word) but it did raise concerns/worries for some members and as a result we worked on a policy based on various members work place guidelines.



It's a small number of words that are allowed (or, to someone with my cursing vocabulary, it is a small number) and we operate under it due to the fact that I don't want anyone to get written up for the 'crime' of reading. I didn't even realize Rebecca was doing that, I read it without noticing it, I did notice on Mike's because he was using "crap" all the time lately (he uses the s-word as much as I do in conversations -- and previously used it at his site freely). I may owe Rebecca an apology because I don't know how the long policy has been in place but right after she had her baby, I did a guest post at her site and may have used some foul language (I may not have, that was a last minute thing). (And I didn't promote it here or link to it or say, "Check out my post!")



But no one's trying to be a prude at any site. As to why something goes up there, if it's not The Common Ills, I'm not responsible. If it's not The Third Estate Sunday Review, I'm not responsible even in part.



Lyle noted Sean Penn's quote last night and e-mailed this morning to note where he'd seen it, Krassner is 'awarding' 'honors' to various people and at the end of the piece, note some people who really do deserve credit for last week, among them Penn. The quote is from the Esquire cover story on sale this month. Here's the magazine's website but they don't have the Penn article up currently (they've still got last month's issue up with the John Edwards cover).



Martha notes Megan Greenwell's "Maliki Aims To Reconcile With Cabinet" (Washington Post):



Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Sunday expressed optimism about the chances of reconciliation within Iraq's fractured government, even as a political rival accused him of protecting militias with ties to Iran.
Meanwhile, the U.S. military announced that five soldiers were killed Saturday when a sniper shot one, then lured the others to a house rigged to explode. It was the single deadliest attack against American forces this month.

[. . .]
Maliki announced Sunday that a meeting of Iraq's leaders would begin this week, possibly on Monday, in an attempt to resolve the growing political crisis. His primary goal will be to reconcile with nearly half of his cabinet members, who have stopped attending meetings in three separate protests against his leadership.



For those who are still waking up, al-Maliki most recently referred to those opponents as obstructionists. It's a sure sign of how shaky the ground he stands on is that now he wants to make public overtures after his repeated public snit-fits and talk of the conspiracies (within the Iraqi Parliament) to destroy him. Reuters reports that Adnan al-Dulaimi ("a senior figure in the main Sunni Arab political bloc in Baghdad") has declared (in an open statement to al-Maliki), "Your brothers in Baghdad are suffering in genocide carried out by militias and the death squads with Iranian planning, instructions and weapons. If you think what is happening to us will end at Baghdad then you are wrong. By God, this war that started in Baghdad will not stop here. It will extend to every Arab spot where the Arabic tongue is spoken. It is a war of history."

He is not the only Sunni sounding alarms. Suleiman al-Khalidi (Reuters) reports Sheikh Harith al-Dari ("the top Sunni cleric") stated, "If the Americans remain with this policy and rely on the same men who proved their failure again and again then they will leave Iraq in failure. . . . The U.S. administration should rectify its position in Iraq and stop depending on puppets . . . who have proven their failure."

Tim Reid (Times of London) reports the Bully Boy thinks he can continue the escalation "well into next year" and cites a "a string of positive reports" on Iraq that Reid maintains have "left Democrats increasinly powerless to end the war." String of reports? Congress receives no reports until next month (they're currently on vacation). Reid's referring to the waves of Operation Happy Talk. So if you're one of the ones who engaged in that ('from the left') and repeated lies at the start of this month instead of challenging them, Congratulation! Consider the blood on your hands as well. If you used your position (big or small) to repeat talking points that quickly imploded, you've earned the blood. Now maybe you conceeded the lies because you had a bigger point to get to. Well when you don't call out the lies, they spread and spread. So next time, hold your big point until after you address reality.

Or wallow in the blood of the dead because it's yours now, it's all yours.

It was never a surprise that they'd push the rollout to August. Bully Boy needs this month while Congress vacations to sell the illegal war. He can't do it in the midst of reports coming in (and the independent report is thought to be more damning than what Patreaus will deliver, although Joe Biden has stated he will be very clear in his questioning of Patreaus).

Also planned is stationing US troops in southern Iraq. Sean Rayment and Philip Sherwell (Telegraph of London) report: "America is preparing to pour thousands of extra troops into southern Iraq amid fears that Gordon Brown is committed to withdrawing British troops from the region early next year." And they note:

The Sunday Telegraph has also learnt that neither the British nor the Americans have a "Plan B" for sending troops back into Iraq if the country descends into chaos when the coalition finally withdraws. One senior source said: "Whether or not we go back in if it all goes horribly wrong is the strategic question to which neither the US nor the British government has an answer.

That "senior source" is apparently US and they go continue to quote him. Of interest, his first concern is the oil ("the world's second-largest oil reserve") before getting to the talking point of chaos! Chaos!

Chaos came knocking at Iraq's door in March of 2003 when the illegal war started.

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







Posted at 06:50 pm by thecommonills
 

Kyle Snyder, NYT tries to create another wave of Operation Happy Talk

Kyle Snyder, NYT tries to create another wave of Operation Happy Talk

Abbotsford Police are heading up an investigation into a series of complaints against the Nelson City Police Department and its chief, but some complainants are skeptical about a process that sees police investigating police.
Nelson Police Chief Dan Maluta asked Abbotsford Police to do an external investigation into complaints filed around the arrest of military deserter Kyle Snyder.
Snyder -- who fled to Canada after deserting his Army unit on mid-tour while on leave from Iraq in 2005 -- was arrested without a warrant by Nelson Police in February.
He was released when Immigration Canada informed police they had no legal basis for arresting him.
It's still unclear as to why and under what authority Snyder was arrested. Maluta has refused to reveal the source of the allegations against Snyder which led to his arrest.
Snyder has alleged the US Army initiated the arrest.


The above, noted by Vic, is from Rochelle Baker's "APD investigates Nelson deserter issue" (The Abbotsford News). Kyle Snyder has alleged that? I believe that charge came from Citizenship and Immigration Canada. If we're going to talk allegations, we might talk about all the allegations Dan Maluta has made which have been exposed as lies such as when he claimed the order came from the Canada Border Service Agency and that agency made very clear that not only did they not give any such order, Maluta called them (after Snyder had been arrested).

They had no right to arrest him. The orders came from somewhere. Snyder turned himself in October of 2006 and the US military went back on their agreement. Snyder checked himself back out. He then went around the US publicly speaking (and doing some volunteer construction work in New Orleans. He spoke out at Fort Benning and you know that really ticked the military off. As he continued speaking out, the military began phoning in tips to local police. Snyder went back to Canada when he was done speaking in the US. The police show up to arrest him when he's about to marry Maleah Friesen, a Canadian citizen. You can be sure the 'tipsters' were especially troubled by that since, once married to Friesen, Snyder didn't need the (non-existant) refugee status from the Canadian government.

They were probably high fiving over that. Thrilled that the US military has issued orders to the Canadian police and that the Canadian police had obeyed despite the fact that there was no jurisdicition and despite the fact that it is not a crime in Canada to leave the US military.

The US military would follow their Snyder 'sweep' by sending two members into Canada to pose as Canadian police and look for war resister Joshua Key. They would be accompanied on their rounds by a Canadian police officer. They would LIE to Winnie Ng that they were all Canadian police and they would ask of Key's where abouts. The Canadian police officer in question stayed silent when Ng was called a liar. He stayed silent for a reason, he had no reason to accompany two US military members on a search for Joshua Key. In fact, the real question, if anyone wants to dig too deep, is whether or not he was on duty or not. If he was on duty, then he had orders from high up. Winnie Ng told the truth and eventually the Canadian police was forced to admit that one of their officers did take two US military members to her house. They want to insist that there was no effort to pass the two off as Canadian police.

Winnie Ng has consistently maintained otherwise. While the Canadian police has altered their story at least three times, Ng has remained consistent. Ng is telling the truth.

This is a big issue in Canada (and should be in the US as well) because it goes to issues of borders and to issues of who is in charge in Canada.

Over at the New York Times this morning, they're in happy mode because they've got an
illegal war to sell (the whole point of the domestic story that ran on the front page of yesterday's paper). Stephen Farrell offers Operation Happy Talk, if not reporting, in "Troops Shelter an Unlikely Survivor in Baghdad:"

Nine months old, underweight, malnourished, fatherless and half Sunni, half Shiite, she already had enough deadly handicaps growing up in Saydia, a battlefield suburb that has become one of the worst sectarian killing zones in Baghdad.
On July 25, a death squad shot her mother and uncle -- each three times in the head -- in their dilapidated half-finished squat. E.J.K.'s, in American military shorthand: extrajudicial killings.
Fatima’s 7-year-old brother fled and flagged down a joint patrol of the Iraqi National Police and American soldiers. The Iraqis found the bodies and collected up Fatima’s siblings from neighboring houses. But the 7-year-old kept asking, "What about my sister?"


First off, there's no point in the "E.J.K." being in the article except to show that Farrell can hang with the US military. Second of all the death squads didn't exist until after the illegal war. The Salvadoran option as the US administration termed it. Third of all, who armed them? Credit to the US, cries Farrell, forgetting that's a bit like congratulating an arsonist who rescues one victim of a burning building.

And here's the thing. Fatima, the child, is not a dog. She's a human being. She is not a pet for the US military. Farrell's so kind that he repeats the claim by the US military that in the past, when 'insurgents' (Major Andy Yerkes uses that term) were turned over to the hospitals, they were killed. How he, Yerkes, knows that isn't in the story or why, if he knows people are being killed, no one was brought up on charges, isn't in the story. What is in the story is Yerkes' claim that 'insurgents' turned over to Iraqi hospitals have been killed.

Are we supposed to believe 9-month-old Fatima would be seen as 'insurgent' by Iraqi hospital workers? It's as though the Times decided today to print the racist lyrics to Disney's Pocahontes (FYI, Disney has increased the insult and offense by allowing "Savages" to be made available as a "ring tone").

There are aid agenices within Iraq and outside of Iraq. There are also probably members of Fatima's family who could step forward were an illegal war not going on. A child is not a pet and a home is not a military base in the midst of a war zone. It shows a tremendous breakdown in leadership that the US military has been allowed to 'keep' a child as a pet.

This isn't a 'happy' story and only a foolish scribe would attempt to sell it as such. The US will be leaving. Do those serving on the base intend to take Fatima with them and raise her under some extended, multi-partied, joint custody agreement?

Fatima is a child, not a pet. She's not there to look cute or to play with. The chain of command has completely broken down and, it needs to be noted, in many outfits they wouldn't even be allowed to have a dog. That the superiors are fine with denying a child a life goes to either their own stupidity or their desire to get another wave of Operation Happy Talk going.

If the US leaves in two years or five, Fatima "pet of the US military base" is not going to be welcomed in Iraq. The longer they are allowed to 'keep' her, the more damage they do to her life. Relief agencies exist and should have been contacted some time ago. It's not a cute story, it is a story of the willful pride and arrogance of the US military. And the stupidity of leadership. You could add in, it's also the tale of really bad reporting since none of these issues were raised by Farrell though he did have time to toss around some military lingo. Macho head butt for Farrell, all the way home . . . from his extended childhood. Are there no American adults in the Green Zone?


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




Posted at 06:47 pm by thecommonills
 

Sunday, August 12, 2007
And the war drags on . . .

And the war drags on . . .

WÜRZBURG, GERMANY - No one looked comfortable at the sentencing hearing. Not family and friends who packed the US military courtroom's straight-backed benches. Not the rookie Army prosecutor in stiff dress greens who flushed with every "Your Honor." Not Judge R. Peter Masterton, whose usually animated face was now grave.
And not the convicted deserter -- Army medic Agustín Aguayo -- on the stand in a US military court in central Germany last March, pleading for understanding.
"I'm sorry for the trouble my conscience has caused my unit," Private 1st Class Aguayo said, his voice thick with emotion. "I tried to obey the rules, but in the end [the problem] was at the very core of my being."
Colonel Masterton, a veteran military judge, stared down at his bench. The defense wanted him to free this man of conscience. The prosecution asked that he put the coward away for two years to show other soldiers that "they are not fools for fulfilling their obligation."
Aguayo craned to face the judge. "When I hear my sergeants talking about slashing people's throats," he said, crying openly, "if I'm not a conscientious objector, what am I when I'm feeling all this pain when people talk about violence?"
Next door in the press room, where reporters crowded to watch the proceedings on bleached, closed-circuit TVs, a soldier guarding the door wiped tears from his face.


The above is from Mary Wiltenburg's "When a US soldier in Iraq won't soldier" (Christian Science Monitor). Despite the 30 day guideline, Agustin Aguayo (Aguayo was gone from September 2nd through September 26th), and despite turning himself in, the US military made the decision to prosecute Aguayo as a deserter. Aguayo repeatedly attempted to receive CO status (even taking his case to the civilian courts and he will be making a decision shortly as to whether or not to appeal to the Supreme Court). His family includes his twin daughters and his wife Helga who deserves special note for repeatedly speaking out when the military would have preferred that the whole thing vanish from memory. "The investigating officer said that it was in the best interest of the military to discharge him and that he believed that Agustin was sincere. However, higher ups in the chain of command -- that never met with my husband -- decided that he wasn't sincere and just didn't really give a reason, just said that he didn't qualify as a conscientious objector," Helga Aguayo speaking to Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) Arpil 20, 2007. Aidan Delgado, who was designated a CO, tells his story in The Sutras Of Abu Ghraib: Notes From A Conscientious Objector In Iraq and recounts the pressures placed on him to withdraw his CO application. Camilo Mejia, who was denied CO status, tells his story in
Road from Ar Ramaid: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia. Robert Zabala was granted CO status, but by the federal courts last spring, not by the US military. You can read about the early part of his story in Peter Laufer's Mission Rejected: U.S. Soldiers Who Say No to Iraq -- and that link also provides you with audio samples of the interviews Laufer did with Zabala and other war resisters. Another war resister, Joshua Key, has told his story in Joshua Key's The Deserter's Tale. In light of false claims that the peace movement is a "White" movement, it should probably be noted that only Key qualifies as Anglo. And that, as Mejia, Delgado and Pablo Paredes have often noted, there is significant opposition among Latinos and Latinas to the illegal war. (We'll also note that Fernando Suarez del Solar, whose son was killed in Iraq, has been a very integral part of the movement to end the illegal war.) Carl Webb and Terri Johnson are among the war resisters who are African-American -- Terri Johnson, a brave young woman, who got no where the attention her actions deserved. Kimberly Rivera, Ehren Watada, Carla Gomez, Abdullah Webster . . . If you're only seeing one skin color shade, you aren't looking very closely. And if you're repeating the myth that movement to end the illegal war is all one skin color shade, you're not only repeating a falsehood, you're also disrespecting a huge number of people. Maybe you're suffering MSM damage but if, at this late date, you're expecting the New York Times to cover the peace movement you're either self-delusional or one of the optimistic people to walk the face of the planet. We've listed book titles, with links. Which of the above books has been reviewed in the New York Times? Or to shift to 'big' little media, which got reviewed in The Nation? (Answer: Zero.)

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

-- words and lyrics by Mick Softly (available on Donovan's Fairytale)

Last Sunday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 3669. Tonight? They've announced 3689. The dying's not stopping. The dying's not stopping. Join Iraq Veterans Against the War, Tina Richards and Military Families Speak Out in speaking the truth: Fuding the war is killing the troops. It's not saving them, it's not saving Iraqis. We may or may not highlight an article about this month's war games. The military has 'found' that leaving Iraq will cause chaos.

Oh, cause chaos? As opposed to what's on the ground now? War games are not predictors of the future. They are games. You may win everytime you play Monopoly but that's not going to help you pay the bills in the real world. The reality is that what happens when the US troops leave is not known. (We won't get Rummy on that term.) What is known is that the illegal war and occupation has caused and bred the violence, the chaos and the hostility.

For some of today's reported violence, we turn to Mohammed Al Dulaimy(McClatchy Newspapers) who reports 17 corpses discovered in Baghdad, two Baghdad roadside bombings that left seven wounded,Hussein Aziz shot dead outside Al Samaka Al Ulia on Saturday, Hiwa Hweiz, Mahmoud Sabir and Muhsin Ali (all police officers) shot dead outside Arif Koie with Lelia Ali killing herself after she learned of her husband's death, an Iraqi soldier shot dead in Hawija, 2 corpses discovered outside Koza Raqa.

That's it for the violence. We usually go into greater depth. But a number of members are complaining (rightly) about a piece. Abhilasha complains very rarely so even if Marcia hadn't noted the same bit of nonsense (and that "that screwball has chapped my radical lesbian ass for the last time), Joan, Susan, Amanda, Kayla and Bonnie hadn't also complained, we'd be addressing it. It is a big issue in the e-mails (and those are only a few of the people who've complained) and it does go to how the useless prolong the illegal war by ignoring it but love to use their platforms to play Professional Suckup.

Over at The Nation, Katha Pollitt scribbles in the useless way that's become her hallmark for this century. Pollitt, who in 2006, took the time to call out CODEPINK when she could have been writing about Abeer (a story that feminists especially should have been writing about), enlists in the "Cindy Don't Run" campaign. In fairness to Pollitt, it should be noted that she finally wrote about Abeer late this year, after Alexander Cockburn's column had finally gotten the name "Abeer" into print at The Nation. Pollitt did a shout out in one sentence while drooling, prolonged adolesecent she now writes as, over Romeo & Juliet possibilities. Let's be real clear on that damn story, a couple gets married from two tribes, the wife is stoned to death. Save your drama about the great love story because the man didn't sacrifice s__. This wasn't Romeo & Juliet and many believe this wasn't a marriage of choice. But the MSM put out the spin and damned if all the saps didn't buy into it even though the tribe in question was repeatedly under assault and women from it were being kidnapped and "married" into forced marriages. Pollitt wrote like a fool singing the score to Seven Brides For Seven Brothers who stares at you blankly when you bring up the rape of the Sabine women.

Pollitt declares that she has "a lot of respect for Sheehan" but, strangely, that never translated into "coverage." She's bored the world with her babbles and her annual "column" that's nothing but a "donate here, donate there" list (neither Sheehan nor any Iraq related issue made Pollott's last list) and now she shows up to do what she does best, write like an idiot. "Should impeachment really be a litmus test?" ponders Pollitt. Should knowledge be a requirement for writing, Pollitt?

Cindy Sheehan made clear in May her disgust with the Democrats in Congress who refused to use their power to end the illegal war. Were you watching reruns of Sex in the City again and thinking that was your life before your marriage? Pollitt's not for impeachment due to the "numbers" which again goes to the decay of a once sharp mind (overly praised, but she did have talent once). As has been repeatedly noted by people who lived through it, there weren't thought to be votes against Nixon. The hearings changed the way a large number of the public and a large number of the Senate looked at the issue. So for Pollitt to declare that there are not the numbers there for impeachment (removal of office comes from the Senate and the reserved body is not going to signal before they conduct a trial) would be the height of stupidity were we discussing another columnist.

But this is Katha Pollitt. The White woman who knows better than the NAACP what the NAACP should focus on. It takes a lot of nerve (and a lot of ignorance) to tell the NAACP what the real problems for African-Americans are but Pollitt infamously did that. New Yorker Pollitt says it is "futile" for Sheehan to run in the San Francisco district (the eight Congressional distric). It's always cute when an outsider attempts to interject themselves into a local race, isn't it?

New Yorker Pollitt then brings up Ned Lamont's Senate run and notes that wasn't frivolous because "first he won the primary." Cindy Sheehan's not lost any primary, Pollitt. It was the fall of 2006 when Lamont won the primary, not 2005. (A fact New Yorker Pollitt should be very familiar with because she bragged of carpet bagging into Conn. to vote for Lamont.) What the 2008 race looks like in 2007 has no bearing on 2008.

Pollitt then brings up Stanley Aronowitz because she always hated Ellen Willis (though she pretended different at obit time, but it all evens out because Willis hated, HATED Pollitt).

Then Our Lady of Useless Gab wants to offer up some advice to Sheehan, she "already has a cruical role in our politics: an an activist. More than any other single person, she changed the discourse about the war." Well, she certainly changed it more than Pollitt who writes at an alleged political weekly but appears to require a globe and presentation to stumble across Iraq judging by her useless columns since the illegal war began. (And if Sheehan was, to Pollitt, such a "crucial" part of the movement, might Pollitt have needed to write about her?)

Polllitt babbles on endlessly -- as only a racist can and, yes, telling the NAACP what they need to focus on, dismissing their very real criticism is racism -- and stumbles across this, "Maybe Sheehan got tired of being a symbol, a catalyst. I didn't really understand the somewhat murky blog post she wrote in May, announcing her resignation from the antiwar movement, but her frustration and impatience was clear enough." You sort of picture Pollitt scarfing down Sara Lee in front of her computer and remarking, "What's this?" as she comes across Sheehan's two columns (one on the Democratic Party, one on the movement). After a few seconds, she realizes one of her 'stories' is on BBC America, shuts off the computer and goes back to her daze.

Sheehan was very clear in both columns that Memorial Day weekend. The Democrats were not trying to end the illegal war. That was the point of the first one. The second column was about several things including the fact that if you say Bully Boy is prolonging the illegal war, you get cheers. If you point out the very obvious fact that the Democrats aren't ending it, you get boos. "Play dumb, Cindy, and we'll egg you on to go after Bully Boy because all we really care about is that there be enough blood in the water for Dems to win big in 2008!" In addition, the column was clearly about those in the movement who are selling out the war -- the war they beg for donations to help end -- in order to get cozy with politicians.

I think Pollitt's dishonest throughout her column (and chuckled when she went after Stanley because it was such an obvious move on her part) but I do believe that she honestly didn't get the columns, if I really think about it. (And it was "columns," Cindy Sheehan wrote two.) She's not tried to end the illegal war. She's not covered the peace movement. She's bored readers with boring columns. She probably wishes there was another sex scandal for her to crack semi-wise about as she did in the 90s when she first began to wallow and burrow into the clouds of fluff. So she isn't playing stupid, she truly is that stupid.

 

No feminist, no real feminist, would ever tell any woman campaigning for an office to 'sit it out.' But Pollitt's not really a feminist. A feminist does not tell a woman 'know your place, you are an activist.' A feminist does not make it her point to be the hit woman for Sheehan's campaign (just declared last week though Pollitt already can tell the world it is doomed).

When Pollitt attacked CODEPINK, she was defending Hillary Clinton. Now she says "Don't Run Cindy!" while defending (with heavy heart, you understand) Nancy Pelosi. Feminism is about equality it is not about bowing to those in power. But that's what Pollitt does. She's the eternal hand maiden of the court, protecting her mistress' interest by tearing down other women. It's as though Pollitt's plugging a new book, Our Betters Ourselves.

Here's a feminism breakdown for poser Pollitt: women should run for any office they want. Voters having the choice between more than one woman candidate is not a liability, it is a testament to the power of feminism and the accomplishments the movement has made.

Here's a not feminism breakdown for poser Pollitt: Telling a woman she shouldn't run for office is not feminism.

Pollitt wants you to believe she really, really likes Sheehan. Yeah, those of us old enough to remember that LYING CROWD in the 90s remember that same garbage being used in the "Don't Run Liz!" campaign. Elizabeth Holtzman thought she had a right to run. Another crowd didn't thinks so. They thought the seat belonged to Gerri. Our beloved Gerri who had been useless since her failed 1984 run as vice president and who has, of course, been useless while the country was engaged in an illegal war. "For sisterhood," they counseled, Elizabeth Holtzman should drop out of the race. They spent so much time tearing her down (with 'kindness') that they destroyed the only real candidate in the race. Ferrarro lost, to no one's surprise. Of course she lost, true or false, the rumors of mafia connections were known. They were known in 1984. To get behind her in the 90s while attacking Holtzman was stupidity. Whether they were valid rumors or smears, they had nearly a decade to take hold and Ferraro honestly did little to dispel them. Had she been elected, she would have been one more weak Democrat because she couldn't even defend her family vocally from those rumors.

I'm really tired of these 'feminists' who make a buck off feminism but never give back. What they do is take up the space (the very rare space) that a true feminist could occupy and, as many note of Pollitt, end up sullying the movement. The point of reference for Sheehan's race is not what some man did or didn't do. The point of reference is the primary where Ferraro got cheerleading and Holtzman got spat upon. Pollitt's not going to go there because it's exactly the tactic she's deploying today.

And, for the record, the men she names? She never wrote that they shouldn't run. She never said they were better as activists than as politicians. It's only out of 'sisterhood,' you understand, that she counsels Sheehan. She who's done nothing with her monthly space to end the illegal war now is Sheehan's biggest fan and wants Sheehan to continue working to end the illegal war!

I'm sick to death of these backstabbers who make a buck on feminism and then use their tiny names (and Pollitt's is a tiny name) to tell any woman she shouldn't go for what she wants. Feminism is not about elevating a select few, it is about an equal playing field. It is not about applauding Queen Bees while attacking regular women. Pollitt clings to those in power because she has nothing to else offer. She's the Queen Bee at the mag, the token 'feminist,' wasting everyone's time and sending out the message that feminism is 'frivolous.' Instead of worrying about how Cindy Sheehan's going to live her life, Pollitt might try some sorely needed adult education classes.

Pru's on vacation. If someone else sees something to highlight from The Socialist Worker, we'll note it later this week. Lyle, the quote from Sean Penn appears in the Esquire cover story on sale now. Mention the article you saw in it and we'll give it link.

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

















Posted at 11:22 pm by thecommonills
 

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Casual Lunch"

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Casual Lunch"

thecasuallunch

Isaiah's latest The World Today Just Nuts "The Casual Lunch." Bully Boy says to French Prime Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, "Sarkozy-rosey, quit arguing with me. Rocky IV was your best film." Sarkozy responds, "Fine. Fine. And you were magnificent in all those Chucky movies. It's like talking to an imbecile."




nicolas sarkozy

Posted at 11:20 pm by thecommonills
 

5 US service members announced dead and the military tries to explain a helicopter attack

5 US service members announced dead and the military tries to explain a helicopter attack

Today the US military announced: "A Task Force Marne Soldier was killed by small arms fire while conducting a dismounted patrol southeast of Baghdad August 11." And they announced: "Four Task Force Marne Soldiers were killed and four others were wounded by an explosion during combat operations south of Baghdad Aug. 11." ICCC's total for the month thus far of US service members killed in Iraq is 31.

The Los Angeles Times offers a strong article by Tina Susman, "Sectarian 'cleansing' in Baghdad:"

The expressway skirting the Amil neighborhood in Baghdad is only a couple of miles from Mahmoud Mekki's home, but it might as well be a hundred.
To reach it, Mekki must pass checkpoints guarded by Iraqi police commandos who he says are really Shiite Muslim militiamen trying to drive Sunni Muslims out of Amil.
So Mekki, a Sunni, remains holed up in his home, dependent on sympathetic Shiite neighbors to pick up his groceries and run other errands.
"I ask you to help us!" Mekki sobbed on the phone late one hot July night. "I don't want democracy! I just want security."
Iraqi and American military officials say incidents of sectarian "cleansing" in Baghdad have decreased since a U.S. military clampdown began in February, but what is happening in Amil and neighboring Bayaa belies the claim.
Since May, Iraqi police say, more than 160 bodies have been found in Amil and Bayaa -- men without identification, usually shot and bearing signs of torture, hallmarks of sectarian death squads.

Meanwhile Richard A. Oppel Jr. has roundup duties at the New York Times and is left with making sense of the US military's claim that they did kill "six men" "within the vicinity" of where 8 electric workers were killed when a US helicopter fired a rocket last week, but the six weren't any of the eight because they were killing 'insurgents' who do what 'insurgents' do -- hang out "in the back of a truck". We noted it as an attack that took place on Saturday but Oppel reports that it took place Thursday. The only military press release on a helicopter firing is about a Thursday incident (press release went out today) and notes August 9th (Thursday) "eight insurgents" were killed. Eight is the number of electrical workers reported killed from the rocket fired by a US helicopter. This would appear to be the same incident. (And for the record, the press release was sent out after Oppel filed. He was told it was six -- by the military -- and later they released that it was eight.) Oppel also explores the death of Khalil Jalil Hamza and police chief Khalid Hassan (as well as three of their body guards) yesterday. Khalil Jalil Hamza had been the governor of the Qadisiya Province. He'd also been the target of "rage" leading to various graffiti throughout the area (such as "Death to the Traitor Governor!").


New content at The Third Estate Sunday Review:


Truest statement of the week
A Note to Our Readers
Editorial: The way it was/is
TV: P(ure)BS
2 Books, 20 minutes
Roundtable
She's a celebrity, get her out of here!
Weeks load of crap in one morning
Iraq
David Bacon's "Living Under Trees" now showing
Highlights

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








 

Posted at 10:18 pm by thecommonills
 

Saturday, August 11, 2007
Iraq: more deaths, more air attacks, more discovered corpses

Iraq: more deaths, more air attacks, more discovered corpses

Today the US military announced: "A Task Force Lightning Soldier died Friday in a non-combat related incident, which is currently under investigation."

A6 of this morning's New York Times contains Daniel B. Schneider and Damien Cave's "Security Council Approves a Broader U.N. Mandate in Iraq to Seek Reconciliation" and Cave's covering Iraq violence from yesterday:

9 corpses discovered in Diyala, 11 in Mosul and 6 in Baghdad
3 police officers kidnapped in Mosul and executed

On the UN aspect, skip the Times (or the International Herald Tribune where a version of the story credited to Schneider with an end credit to Cave also runs) and check out Matthew Rothschild 's "The U.N. Mirage in Iraq" (The Progressive) on how you're looking at, best case, 30 UN workers going to Iraq:


The Secretary-General is supposed to involve himself in regional dialogue, as well, though it’s difficult to imagine how he’ll be able to succeed there, as Bush and Cheney are threatening to attack Iran virtually every day now.
It's also difficult to imagine how the U.N. will be able to help the security situation any. The response by Britain's U.N. ambassador, Emyr Jones Parry, was laughable. He said he hopes "the U.N. will soon be able to redeploy a contingent to Basra, where its expertise would be helpful in delivering capacity building in Iraq's southeast."

In today's violence, Hamid Ahmed's "Iraq Militants Target Sunni Sheik's Home" (AP) notes the following:

Militants bombed the house of a prominent anti-al-Qaida Sunni cleric, seriously wounding him and killing three of his relatives in what appeared to be an increased campaign against Sunnis who have turned against the terror network.
The attack, which was followed by a fierce firefight, came after Sheik Wathiq al-Obeidi called on residents in the northern Baghdad neighborhood of Azamiyah to rise up against foreign fighters, a reference to al-Qaida in Iraq, which recently has seen a surge in opposition from fellow Sunnis.


Ahmed also notes 4 corpses "found chopped into pieces in Dujail" and a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed one life.

Also in violence today, Middle East News (via Monsters & Critics) reports a US air attack has killed 8 electricity workers with two more wounded -- "the workers were installing electricity wires and cables in a power station when their vehicle was hit by a US rocket."

On the issue of those serving in the US who are non-citizens or have family members who are non-citizens, we'll note this from Juliana Barbassa's "Troops Worry Relatives Could Be Deported" (AP):

About 35,000 legal immigrants without citizenship are now serving in the military, and nearly 34,000 other service members have taken the citizenship oath since 2001. That means when immigrant soldiers ship off to Iraq, they may carry with them a worry their American-born counterparts are less likely to share: that their family members might be deported while they are away.
"Every base has immigration problems," said Margaret Stock, an Army reservist and immigration attorney teaching at United States Military Academy at West Point. "The government they're fighting for is the same government that's trying to deport their families."
Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Eduardo Gonzalez is a citizen whose wife entered the country illegally from Guatemala when she was 5 years old. Now a young adult, she is in deportation proceedings.
"If I'm willing to die for the United States, why can't I just be allowed to be with my family?" Gonzalez asked.


Those wondering about the lack of Iraq stories in various papers -- Baghdad was placed under curfew (that's just been lifted). That explains some of the dip in quantity. (With regards to the New York Times, people are especially paying attention due to the paper's size reduction.)

Carl notes Margaret Kimberley's "'Terror War' Terrorizes Spineless Democrats" (Black Agenda Report):

When a cowardly congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 last fall, many were quick say that in the House of Representatives at least, Democrats never had any realistic hope of stopping it. This anti-constitutional atrocity rolled the cause of human rights back some 800 years, legalizing secret imprisonment, torture, and evidence obtained by torture. It made possible life imprisonment with neither accusation nor trial, and absolved from prosecution all the recently active kidnappers and torturers on US government payrolls and contracts along with those who gave them orders.
But last fall's good news, supposedly, was that the Republican congress was certain to be replaced in a matter of weeks by clear Democratic majorities in the House and Senate who'd stand up to the president, end the war, indict even impeach some of the malefactors, and begin to undo some of the damage inflicted by the most lawless presidential administration in the nation's history. It hasn't happened that way.
Instead, Democratic leaders of the House and Senate have ruled impeachment of Bush, Cheney or Gonzalez off the table. Congressional Democrats have increased the Pentagon's budget by $100 billion over Bush's request. They continued construction of an 80 acre embassy and the largest military bases in the world in Iraq. The end of 2007, a full year of Democratic control of the nation's purse will see more US forces and mercenaries in Iraq than at the beginning of the year. Only last week Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama declared himself
ready to take up the "White Man's Burden" and invade Pakistan. Democrats are scrambling to re-brand the fictitious "global war on terror" as their own, and to outdo Republicans at threatening the peace abroad and scaring citizens at home.
Last week both houses of Congress, including dozens of Democrats approved legislation granting the feds the absolute power to intercept phone, fax and email traffic of anyone, anywhere in the world without the bother of explanations to any judge or competent authority whatsoever. House Democratic leaders denounced it, but didn't stop it. Senate Democratic leaders, including presidential candidates Clinton, Obama, Dodd and Biden if they mentioned it at all, decried the bill. But true to form, none stepped forward to lead a filibuster that might have stopped it.
With Congressional poll numbers nearly as low and the president's the gap between Democratic office holders and Democratic voters has never been wider. At the same time, corporate donations to Democratic candidates are higher than ever. These are two sides of the same coin. The Democratic establishment's uncritical embrace of the so-called "global war on terror" is exposing for all to see the widening fissure between the two Democratic parties --- the Democratic party of voters who are called out once every year or two, and the permanent Democratic party of consultants, pundits, lobbyists and wealthy campaign contributors.


The following community sites have updated since yesterday morning:

Rebecca's Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Cedric's Cedric's Big Mix;
Kat's Kat's Korner;
Betty's Thomas Friedman is a Great Man;
Mike's Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine's Like Maria Said Paz;
Wally's The Daily Jot;
and Trina's Trina's Kitchen

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












Posted at 06:56 am by thecommonills
 

Somet on East Timor, David Bacon

Somet on East Timor, David Bacon

Opening with a press release sent to the public account. This is from SOMET.

SOMET Calls for End to Violence and Instability in Timor-Leste
Contacts:
New York: John M. Miller (ETAN), +1-718-596-7668; +1-917-690-4391; email:
etan@igc.org
Philippines: Gus Miclat (IID/APSOC), +63-82-2992574 & 75; email:
gus@iidnet.org
Netherlands: Endie van Binsbergen (VOT), +31-30-294-5599, +31-6-2320-8594; email:
eurobservers@yahoo.com

August 9 - The Solidarity Observer Mission for East Timor (SOMET) is deeply worried about continued instability in Timor-Leste, despite recent credible elections. Although media reports and past traumas have exaggerated the implications of the limited, sporadic violence of the last few days, we remain concerned that prolonged unrest and allegations of government illegitimacy could undermine Timor-Leste’s fragile democracy.

We urge people to express their views peacefully and legally, without violence. Supporters of all sides should be free to voice their opinions but not to impose them through violence or intimidation. We agree with leaders from across Timor-Leste’s political spectrum who have spoken out against violence, and we hope they will persuade their partisans to remain calm.

Timor-Leste needs a stable government and a peaceful environment to allow it to overcome both long-standing and short-term problems, including those of poverty, security, unemployment, health, justice, infrastructure, and education. Some of these and other critical issues underlie Timor's current insecurity.

SOMET believes that the newly-elected Parliament and President represent the will of the voters, and SOMET reiterates our praise for Timor-Leste’s electorate and electoral officials in conducting three largely free, fair and peaceful elections this year. We continue to believe that legal, constitutional processes are the only way for Timor-Leste to move from its current post-independence adolescence to become a mature, democratic nation.

The four parties which make up the Alliance for Parliamentary Majority include more than half of the members of Parliament. The new Government headed by Prime Minister Xanana Gusmão appears to be the most likely to survive constitutional hurdles, providing essential stability.

Any parties that disagree can use the process provided for in the Constitution by introducing a parliamentary motion of no confidence. If it passes, they will have the opportunity to form their own Government. However, if Parliament affirms its confidence in Xanana Gusmão’s Government, FRETILIN and other parties should accept its legitimacy and serve as a responsible, vigorous and constructive parliamentary opposition. A cycle of repeated Government dissolution and creation and will only add to Timor-Leste's political uncertainty.

We encourage all political parties not in the Government to be strong watchdogs, proposing and advocating alternative policies and legislation. We also expect the Government to respect the opposition and to respond to its views, as well as to those of civil society. Everyone should learn from the policies and attitudes over the past several years and work to restore the confidence of the people in democratic institutions. Timor-Leste needs more cooperative relationships among politicians from all parties, as well as between the government and the people.

SOMET will soon issue its detailed report of its observations of the June 30 election and its recommendations for future electoral processes. Previous SOMET reports are available online at http://www.etan.org/etan/obproject/.

Solidarity Observer Mission for East Timor (SOMET) is a nonpartisan observer mission including both international and domestic non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to monitor the 2007 Presidential and parliamentary elections in Timor-Leste.

SOMET was created by the US-based East Timor and Indonesia Action Network (ETAN), in cooperation with Stichting Vrij Oost Timor (VOT) of the Netherlands, Initiatives for International Dialogue (IID) and the Asia Pacific Solidarity Coalition (APSOC) based in the Philippines, and the World Forum for Democratization in Asia (WFDA), in response to requests from several civil society organizations in Timor-Leste. In Timor-Leste, SOMET cooperates with Asosiasaun HAK, Timor-Leste NGO Forum, La'o Hamutuk, FOKUPERS, Bibi Bulak and the Kadalak Sulimutuk Institute.


We're a little more casual on the weekends (look at the morning entry I do on any Sunday) so we can fit that in even though the focus is Iraq. (And we've noted them before.)

David Bacon is someone we've also noted before (many times). He is one of the few labor reporters left in this country. He is also an artist with an exhibit entitled "Living Under Trees" focusing on the indigenous Mexican farmworkers in the state of California that is being shown now through August 23rd, at the Arte Americas at 1630 Van Ness Avenue in Fresno (93721 zip for anyone attempting to use Yahoo or Google maps). The cost is $3 per person ($2 if you are a student or a senior citizen) and hours are 11:00 am until 5:00 pm Tuesdays through Saturday (closed on Sunday and Monday -- open until 8:00 pm on Thursdays).

Margaret Slaby examines the the showing in "Visual Eloquence: Photo exhibit at Arte Americas reveals a rich community among poor farmworkers" (The Fresno Bee):

A reality check is the way David Bacon describes his collection of photographs and text narratives of indigenous Mexican farmworkers in California on display at Arte Americas in downtown Fresno.
"It shows the realities of their lives," says Bacon, a photojournalist and writer who lives in Berkeley.
The exhibit, "Living Under the Trees," features 42 color photographs (including six measuring 3 by 4 1/2 feet) and six text narratives (in both English and Spanish). The photos show faces that are sun-bronzed from long hours in the fields and the dirt-covered hands of a worker who spent the day picking olives. They show the wooden shacks and tents many workers call home -- and the sagging mattresses inside. The exhibit also depicts a rich culture, including dancers in brightly colored costumes and a Sunday mass in a ravine near Del Mar.

I think we're at the fair use limit on that article. It will have other showings in California as well and I've got them marked in my date book so (hopefully), I'll remember to note that when those dates come up. Those interested in seeing the exhibit but not able to make it to Fresno can consult the article which does include later dates and locations as well as some photographs.
You can also click here to see some of the photos (Political Affairs). I assume everyone knows that photos in a paper or magazine (or film) are never captured to the degree that they are in person (that's a warning to anyone able to check out the exhibit who tells themselves, "Oh, I saw two online.").

Cedric's "The Black Commentator has been delinked" went up this morning and gets special mention because these days Cedric and Wally do their joint-posts (and they'll have one of those up shortly this morning). This is a solo post by him and, to add to it, Gina was also a leader on this issue and, in fact, made that the topic for the roundtable (conducted Thursday night, ran in Friday's gina & krista round-robin).

This isn't the main entry for the morning, by the way. This is me going through the e-mails and typing with one hand while drying my hair with the other.

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





Posted at 06:54 am by thecommonills
 

Friday, August 10, 2007
Iraq snapshot

Iraq snapshot

Friday, August 10, 2007.  Chaos and violence continue, the US military starts another whisper campaign about al-Sadr, a US helicopter goes down, Joe Biden comes out against the privatization of Iraqi oil, and the draft is in the (US) air again.
 
 
Starting with war resisters.  Agustin Aguayo served as a medic in Iraq and refused to load his weapon.  He had applied for CO status but was told he'd have to wait until after deploying to Iraq to find out the status.  His CO status was denied and he took the issue to the civilian courts.  After serving one tour in Iraq and while his case was working through the courts, the military expected him to deploy a second time.  Aguayo self-checked out and was gone for less than thirty days before turning himself in.  Despite being gone less than thirty days (September 2nd through September 26th) and turning himself in, the US military prosecuted Aguayo for desertion (the general rule is that you have to be gone 30 or more days for desertion). Aguayo and his wife Helga Aguayo are now telling his story and how it effected their family.  Rosalino Munoz (People's Weekly World) reports that Agustin and Helga are attempting to decide what to do with regards to the civilian case and must decide by September 5th whether or not to appeal to the Supreme court.  Munoz notes, " At issue is whether a soldier's conscienctious objection to war can develop after enlistment and outside of an organized religion, as well as whether the Army can deny a soldier's claim to conscientious objection without a response to the soldier's arguments."
 
Were the military to follow their own stated policies, there would be no questions as to what qualifies for a CO but they don't, as Aguayo, John A. Rogowsky Jr. and many others have discovered.  From the US military's  "Selective Service System: Fast Facts:"  "Beliefs which qualify a registrant for CO status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be."  Despite that basic reality, Aguayo, Rogowsky and others have been told that they're not religious enough, that their religion is not recognized, when religion really is NOT required for CO status.  In Aguayo's case, the military refused to recognize that time in Iraq deepened Aguayo's faith (already present when he enlisted).
 
Munoz notes that Aguayo's attorneys believe he has a strong case but Aguayo wants to review the strengths with them before going further with the case due to a concern that a loss in the Supreme Court could reverse the gains that service members had made during Vietnam.  Aguayo is a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War and another IVAW member, provides an update on war resister Marc Train. Adamo Kokesh (Sgt. Kokesh Goes to Washington) reports that Train has been charged "under Article 15 of the UCMJ for being AWOL for 114 days . . . They are now in the process of kicking him out under Chapter 12-14. . . . So a little soft time at Fort Stewart and he should be home free."  Train self-checked out after taking part in the DC actions to end the illegal war in March of this year.  Kokesh also reposts Eli Israel (the first service member to publicy refuse to continue serving in the illegal war while stationed in Iraq) story, told in Israel's own words.  Sarah Olson (Political Affairs) reported on Train in June and quoted him stating, "Just because we volunteered, doesn't mean we volunteered to throw our lives away for nothing.  You can only push human beings so far.  Soldiers are going to Iraq multiple times.  The reasons we're there are obviously lies.  We're reaching a breaking point, and I believe you're going to see a lot more resistance inside the military."  Tran is a member of IVAW (and was on his way to being discharged from the military -- by mutual agreement between him and the brass -- until he signed on to Appeal for Redress) and, like other IVAW members, has posted about his experiences and observations there.  At the end of April, he wrote, "This Administartion has been emboldened by the lack of effective mass outrage.  Now, what I mean by that is that our country as a whole has not effectively demonstrated its outrage about the policies of this Administration; the workers are still going to their jobs, the traffic is still flowing; products are still being consumed.  As long as this is all functioning and every measure of control is in place, and as long as Congress continues to nervously shift about and take no determined action, the Administration does not feel threatened by the anger of its opposition."
 
 

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Zamesha Dominique, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Carla Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee,  Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell,  Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, forty-one US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.        


Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. IVAW and others will be joining Veterans For Peace's conference in St. Louis, Missouri August 15th to 19th.
 
Meanwhile, the US military is trumpeting the news that the Army met its targeted recruitment goals for the month of July . . . while hoping no reporters note that the target was brought down some time ago both in terms of numbers and qualifications. And hoping no one notices how much money is being spent on a still non-existant draft in the US.  In an indication of things being explored and floated, if not yet on the way,  Bully Boy's assistant and deptuty National Security Director on Iraq and Afghanistan Lt. General Douglas Lute spoke with Michelle Norris on NPR's All Things Considered today where he pushed the draft
("a national policy decision point that we have not yet reached, Michelle" -- note, "not yet reached") and declared of the draft, "I think it makes sense to certainly consider it and I can tell you, this has always been an option on the table, but ultimately, this is a policy matter between meeting the demands for the nation's security by one means or another."  While "one means or another" may be a nicer way of saying "by all means necessary," there's no denying that draft boards have been set up, that tax payer monies are being spent on them and that Bully Boy's assistant is now floating the option which -- pay attention, Nancy Pelosi -- unlike impeachment is not 'off the table.'   Returning to the issue of the qualifications waived to meet the targets, Stephen D. Green, fingered as the ring leader by others who participated in the war crimes against 14-year-old Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi and her family (Abeer was gang-raped while her parents and five-year-old sister were murdered in the next room, then she was murdered and her body set on fire to destroy any evidence) is an example of the lowering standards since he went from jail to the military via a 'moral waiver' that overlooked not only his most recent arrest but his prior arrests. In other military crime news, Feminist Wire Daily reports that Cassandra Hernandez' rape by "three of her malecounterparts" in the US Air Force has led not to punishment for the alleged rapists, but instead to charges against Hernandez with the three alleged rapists being "granted immunity from the sexual assault charges" for agreeing to testify against Hernandez.   This assault on Cassandra Hernandez is only a surprise to those who have looked the other way while the US military brass has regularly and repeatedly excused and ignored the assualts on women serving in the military. The assault by the brass on Suzanne Swift is only one of the more recent public disgraces.  The US military brass has repeatedly and consistently refused to address the assaults on women (and on gay male victims of assualt) and Congress has repeatedly and consistently refused to excercise their oversight obligations.
 
On a related crime note, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted today: "In other news on Iraq, the U.S. military has dropped all charges against two Marines connected to the shooting deaths of 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha. Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt had been charged with three counts of premeditated murder and Capt. Randy Stone with dereliction of duty for failing to properly report the civilian deaths. Five Marines still face charges for shooting dead two dozen unarmed men, women and children in Haditha on November 19, 2005."
 
Goodman also notes Joe Biden's nosies with regards to punishments for the Bully Boy (we'll get back to that) but that's not really the big news regarding US Senator and 2008 Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden.  Appearing yesterday on PBS' The Charlie Rose Show, Biden discussed the upcoming September 'progress' reports to Congress and noted that there has been no military progress in Iraq though he understood why Gen. David Petraeus would attempt to finesse that bit of reality.  Biden then went on to offer his take on the administration's political attempts (which have failed, as Biden noted) in Iraq and identified Dick Cheney as the one blocking progress.  (I'm not endorsing that, or endorsing Biden's kind words for US Secretary of State and Anger Condi Rice, et al.)  Rose questioned whether Cheney could really be against progress and Biden utilized the oil revenue sharing 'benchmark'.  We've heard that utilized before by all Dem candidates for president except Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich in a manner that lumps the oil revenue sharing and the theft of Iraqi oil into one provision.  Biden didn't lump them together -- a possible sign that other candidates may also join Kucinich and Gravel in calling out the theft of Iraqi oil.  Biden delcared, "Look at what we keept trying to write into the law: privatization.  Who are we to tell them to privatize?"
 
Biden's comments come as growing resistance mounts in the US (led by United Steel Workers) to the theft of Iraqi oil and as news of a poll gains traction.  Aaron Glantz (OneWorld via Common Dreams) reports on the  Oil Change International poll of Iraqis that "found nearly two thirds od Iraqis oppose plans to open the country's oilfields to foreign companies.  The poll found a majority of every Iraqi ethnic and religious group believe their oil should remain nationalized.  Some 66 percent of Shi'ites and 62 percent of Sunnis support government control of the oil sector, along with 52 percent of Kurds."  Glantz quotes Antonia Juhasz (author of The BU$H Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time) explaining, "We're talking about opening up the second largest oil reserves in the entire world to foreign investment.  It costs about $75 a barrel -- and about 60 cents to get it out of the ground.  Do the math."
 
As Great Britain's Socialist Worker reports, "The pro-US Iraqi government has outlawed the country's oil workers' union under a law passed during the regime of Saddam Hussein.  The order comes as opposition is mounting to a proposed oil law that would hand over the country's natural resource to foreign companies.  The Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions (IFOU) has spearheaded opposition to the proposed law."
 
On February 23, 2007,  Antonia Juhasz spoke with Kris Welch on KPFA's Living Room
about the oil law and explained the basics:.
 
Antonia Juhasz: It's really American, and let me clarify that as Bush administration, propaganda that this law is the path towards stability in Iraq.  It is absolutely propaganda.  This law is being sold as the mechanism for helping the Iraqis determine how they will distribute their oil revenue.  That is not what this law is about.  That is the bottom end of an enormous hammer that is this oil law.  This oil law is about foreign access to Iraq's oil and the terms by which that access will be determined.  It is also about the  distribution of decision making power between the central government and the region as to who has ultimate decision making power and the types of contracts that will be signed.  There are powers that be within Iraq that would very much like to see that power divvied up into the regions, between the Kurds and the Shia in particular, and then there are powers that would like to see Iraq retained as a central authority.  The Bush administration would like the central government of Iraq to have ultimate control over contracting decisions because it believes it has more allies in the central government than it would if it was split up into regions.  The Bush administration is most concerned with getting an oil law passed now and passed quickly to take advantage of the weakness of the Iraqi government.  The Iraqi government couldn't be in a weaker negotiating position and the law locks the government in to twenty to thirty-five year committments to granting the most extreme versions of exploration and production contracts to US companies or foreign companies.  Meaning that foreign companies would have access to the vast majorities of Iraq's oil fields and they would own the oil under the ground -- they would control the production and they would in contracts yet to be determined get a percentage of that profit but they'd be negotiating essentially when Iraq is at its weakest when Iraq is hardly a country.  And that's what this oil law is all about.  What Iraqis are saying very clearly and have said to Raed [Jarrar] and, in particular, to the loudest voices being the Iraqi oil unions is that the only people who want to see this law passed now are the Americans.  There's no other reason to push that law through."
 
 
Turning to some of the violence on the ground in Iraq . . .
 
CBS and AP report a US helicopter that went down in Kirkuk, wounding two Americans on board, cite the Iraqi military as the source for the news that the helicopter hit an electric pole and note that on July 31st and July 3rd US helicopters were brought down "after coming under fire".
 
Bombings?
Reuters reports a Kirkuk car bombing that claimed 11 lives (with at least 45 more people wounded). CBS and AP report a Baquba roadside bombing that claimed the lives of 2 bus passengers and left at least four others wounded.
 
Shootings?
 
Reuters reports Wisam al-Maliki (the son of sheikh over puppet Nouri al-Maliki's tribe) was shot dead in Garna.  CBS and AP report a man was shot dead in Baquba.
 
Corpses?
 
Reuters reports that three corpses were discovered in Rutba.
 
 
In other news, Reuters reports that the UN Security Counsel has backed a proposal for a slightly more visible United Nations role in Iraq and denies charges that the US strong-armed the proposal in order to shift the responsibilites off on the UN; however, they do note that Hoshiyar Zebari, Iraq's Foreign Minister, has stated the obvious via a letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon that "prior consent" for any authorization having to do with Iraq needs to have the "prior consent" from Iraq's government.  Iraqi's Parliament was rightly outraged when the US government got the UN to extend authorization for their role as 'peace keepers' in Iraq without either the US or the UN bothering to seek the input or authorization of the Iraqi government.
 
 
Meanwhile, as the government of US puppet Nouri al-Maliki is in disarray (while he visits Iran), Sue Pleming (Reuters) reports that the US administration continues to (publicly) stress their support for al-Maliki while Olga Oliker (Rand Corporation) notes that replacing the puppet now would "backfire" on the administration and states, "To be a colonial puppet master you need a much stronger understanding and subtle knowled of the culture and history than the U.S. has demonstrated over the past few years in Iraq."  In an apparent move to defocus attention from the US puppet government's many failures (security, electritcy, water, food, etc.), AFP reports that Col. John Castles is the point-person to restart the whisper campaign that Moqtada al-Sadr is in Iran.  Though the allegations earlier this year were never proven, they did serve to distract for a number of weeks.  No doubt that is again the hope with the latest whisper campaign.
 
In political news, Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan officially announced her candidacy for California's 8th Congressional District in the 2008 election yesterday in San Francisco.  Sheehan will be competing with other candidates including US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi who currently holds the seat. Among those present for the announcement was whistle blower Daniel Ellsberg who endorses the run. Sheehan will be running as independent candidate and for more on this see Rebecca's post from last night.
 
Sheehan declared last month that she would run for Congress if Pelosi refused to put impeachment back on the table by July 23rd after repeated (and rightful) anger over the Democratically controlled Congress' refusal to end the illegal war.  As legal scholar Francis A. Boyle (Dissident Voice) observes, ."Despite the massive, overwhelming repudiation of the Iraq war and the Bush Jr. administration by the American people in the November 2006 national elections conjoined with their consequent installation of a Congress controlled by the Democratic Party with a mandate to terminate the Iraq war, since its ascent to power in January 2007 the Democrats in Congress have taken no effective steps to stop, impede, or thwart the Bush Jr. administration's wars of aggression against Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, or anywhere else, including their long-standing threatened war against Iran. To the contrary, the new Democrat-controlled Congress decisively facilitated these serial Nuremberg crimes against peace on May 24, 2007 by enacting a $95 billion supplemental appropriation to fund war operations through September 30, 2007."  Or as veteran DC correspondent Helen Thomas (Seattle Post-Intelligencer via Common Dreams) points out, "President Bush has the Democrats' number on Capitol Hill. All he has to do is play the fear card and invoke the war on terror and they will cave.What's more, the president has found out that he can break the law and the rubber stamp. Democratic Congress will give him a pass every time."  Sheehan's announced candidacy comes as Matt Renner (Truthout) reports, "The Blue Dogs have apparently informed the Democratic leadership in the House that they support the ongoing occupation of Iraq. According to Mahoney, he met with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and told her 'The president should be free to maintain troops in Iraq, if the purpose is to thwart terrorism'."  The Blue Dogs are War Hawks (and include Loretta Sanchez whose greedy hands would rather grabs billions in pork than end the illegal war) and centrists who have repeatedly stabbed the Democrats base in the back.  The 2004 demise of Blue Doggie Martin Frost should have been a lesson -- a Republican-lite running against a Republican will lose every time.  That's what happened to Texas' Frost who shortly before his political demise was toying challenging Pelosi for the House leadership post.  Frost, like most Blue Dogs, runs from the Democratic Party while taking the national monies.  Frost's campaigns were noted by Texas community members for their use of yard signs and campaign materials that never mentioned Frost was a Democrat and for slurs and slams against other Democrats perceived as liberal (such as Pelosi) to assure voters he wasn't one of those 'crazy Democrats'.  Long term Congress member Frost went up against newbie incumbent Pete Sessions thanks to the illegal redistricting of Texas' congressional lines (assisted in the process by the US Homeland Security Dept. which spied on state Democrats).  Voters presented with wishy washy Frost and proud-to-be-a-Republican Sessions chose Sessions.  There's a moral in the story.   There's a moral in the story of St. John Conyers as well as in some outlets rush to claim that racism is involved in expecting a senior member of Congress who has repeatedly advocated impeachment of the Bully Boy, who has written a book about the necessity to impeach the Bully Boy, and who shows up at various gatherings (such as the large peace rally in DC this year) to state the people can fire Bully Boy.  St. Conyers wants all the applause and refuses to do anything.  For some reason, some outlets see themselves as defenders not of the people or the Constitution but as St. Conyers' personal fan club.  The reality is Conyers could move on impeachment and, by his public statements (which his office often later recants or distorts) but elects not to.  Disgusing those realities by suggesting a racist attack is going on against Conyers is really pathetic and, interesting to note, that many suggesting that lie were no where to be found when Cynthia McKinney was twice ousted from the House of Representatives via racial slurs.  As  Betty, Cedric and Ty have noted: "As we said last week, he's old, he's tired, it's past time he gave up his seat and let some new blood in. The only disgrace has been what he has done to his own image."  (Betty's seen the latest nonsense and notes that it will be addressed by her in Sunday's roundtable.)  The topic of impeachment wasn't avoided on PBS where Bill Moyers examined it seriously last month.  That one hour look (including guests such as John Nichols) at impeachment on Bill Moyers Journal  is repeating and can also be viewed, listened to or read online currently. As a weak alternative to impeachment, Senator Joe Biden is floating 'later actions.'  As Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted today: "Impeachment has been making headlines recently in the city of Kent, Ohio. Democratic Presidential candidate Senator Joe Biden has suggested criminal charges could someday be filed against members of the Bush administration. In a recent interview with Newsweek, Biden said there are alternatives to the impeachment of President Bush. Biden said: 'I think we should be acquiring and accumulating all the data that is appropriate for possibly bringing criminal charges against members of this administration at a later date'."  This 'later' nonsense has also been floated by St. Conyers is nothing but nonsense.  The 1992 elections gave Democrats the control of Congress and the White House and they unwisely decided to put Iran-Contra behind them.  The crimes of Reagan and Bush were swept under the rug and we're all paying for that today.  By the same token, in January 2009, after Bully Boy leaves office, the DC conventional wisdom (that so many elected Dems are held hostage by) would be, "He's out of office, leave it alone."  If impeachment does not take place, Bully Boy walks and anyone suggesting otherwise is taking an ahistorical view of the situation.
 

Posted at 07:18 pm by thecommonills
 


Next Page




<< August 2007 >>
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
 01 02 03 04
05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31


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




rss feed