The total number of foreign (non-Iraqi) military who have died in the illegal war now stands at 3,999. That's US, British and "Other" (i.e. Poland, Italy . . .). This the number of military members ordered to fight in the illegal war who have died in it. One away from the 4,000 mark. And scratch everything I just said, ICCC's reporting that the 4,000 mark has now been passed.

Today the US military announced: "Thursday, a MNC-I Soldier died of non-battle related cause in Baghdad. An investigation into the cause of death will be conducted." And they announced: "A Task Force Lightning Soldier died of wounds sustained from enemy gunfire in Baghdad Province, Thursday." ICCC's total for the number of US service members who've died in the illegal war thus far this month is 46 and the total number who have died since the start of the illegal war stands at 3704. The two deaths bring the total number of all foreign military service members (official, we're not counting mercenaries) who have died in the illegal war since it started to 4001.

As the deaths mount, US opposition (public, not government) remains strong. Zachary Coile's
"California voters want troops to begin pulling out of Iraq in spring, poll says Most California voters want to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq, Field Poll shows" (San Francisco Chronicle) notes a new survey by Field Poll which finds that six out of every ten registered voters in California want the US Congress to impose a deadline for troop withdrawal from Iraq. Coile reports:


Voter anger over Iraq is the main reason Bush's approval ratings in the state have stayed at rock bottom: 26 percent of voters approve of his job performance, compared with 65 percent who disapprove. Only President Richard Nixon dipped to lower levels -- a 24 percent approval rating -- and that was at the height of the Watergate scandal.
Bush's approval rating also was 26 percent in March, the last time the Field Poll conducted its survey.

Mike's father, who would also be Trina's husband, notes this from AP about Alicia Birchett who was from Massachusetts (and the second woman from the state to die in the illegal war):

She was an engineer mechanic who joined the military immediately after graduating from Falmouth High School in 1995. She also served tours of duty in Germany and Korea.

And we'll also note this from Ryan Haggerty and Megan Tench's "Franklin Soldier is slain in Iraq" (Boston Globe):

News of Staff Sergeant Robert Pirelli's death in Iraq spread quickly through town yesterday, touching Franklin officials who never knew the 29-yearold Green Beret.
"It's a terrible tragedy," said Jeffrey D. Nutting, Franklin's town administrator, as he and other town employees answered calls from residents about Pirelli's death, including one from a local church member asking whether it was proper to lower the church's US flag to half-staff in the soldier's honor. Nutting said it was.
"You never think it's going to hit home" Nutting said. "You see it on TV and in the papers, but it's always somebody else."

Turning to the topic of sucides among active duty service members, Pauline Jelinek (AP) notes
this on the US army's study:

Announcing a new report on suicides, officials said nearly a third of 99 committed in 2006 were among soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan at the time of their deaths. Iraq accounted for the overwhelming number of those _ 27 of the 30.
About half the Army suicides last year, the most since the first Iraq war, in 1991, were soldiers who hadn't reached their 25th birthdays.

On most PBS stations, Bill Moyers Journal begins airing tonight (check local listings). Tonight Moyers addresses the impending departure (August 31st) of Karl Rove. The commentary has also been posted on YouTube. Also in most PBS markets, NOW with David Brancaccio begins airing tonight:

In the fall of 2003, one of the largest recorded wildfires in California's history destroyed over 2,200 houses and killed fifteen people. Soon after, many who'd lost their homes had a rude awakening: their insurance did not nearly cover their losses as expected. The insurance industry, which claims to cover "more property, more lives, more liability-related risks than any time at history," is busy fighting allegations that customers are receiving smaller payouts than what they were promised. On Friday, August 17 (check your local listings), NOW collaborates with Bloomberg Markets magazine to investigate tactics some insurance companies may be using to reduce, avoid, or stall homeowners' claims in an effort to boost their own earnings.
"The insurance industry...is purposely misleading customers," California Lieutenant Governor and former Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi tells NOW. "The first commandment of the insurance industry is, 'Thou shalt pay as little, as late, as possible.'...You go to financial heaven if you can carry out that commandment."
The insurance industry is enjoying record-breaking profits, but who's paying the price? Next time on NOW
The NOW website at www.pbs.org/now will offer more insight into these claims of impropriety and reaction from insurance companies


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


bill moyers
bill moyers journal
now with david branccacio
pbs
mikey likes it
trinas kitchen

In this morning's New York Times, Damien Cave contributes "While Kurds Count Bodies, Iraqi Leaders Try to Bridge Their Divide" and there is so much that goes unstated that to qualify it as merely 'bad' is an understatement. It's so bad that it's difficult to pick a starting point in noting the lows. Cave, of course, was the paper's filer on the Tuesday bombings in northern Iraq that were the deadliest since the start of the illegal war. So let's start with the victims since he's made it a point do a poor job there already.

Cave informs readers, "Security officials near Qahtaniya, where the explosions killed at least 250 people Tuesday night, said plans were being made for the Iraqi government to pay 2 million Iraqi dinars, about $1,600, to the family of each person killed in the blasts. " Now that the figure is insulting should be rather obvious.

The US equivalent of $1600 is an insulting figure even before context is included but, Cave being Cave, context never gets included.

So before the impression sets in that the puppet Nouri al-Maliki doesn't have the dough to toss around let's look at the cash he was tossing around last year. In July of 2006, al-Maliki visited the US and addressed Congress with a speech that ignored the victims of the chaos and the violence in Iraq but one in which he did not his concern for victims in another country (Lebanon) and the figure (US figure) he pledged to send that region was?

$35 million dollars. Dropping back to July 27, 2006:

Okay, he's committed to sending $35 million to Hizbollah (which might be off now judging by yesterday's remarks by Iraq's foreign minister). Where does Iraq find $35 million to donate to anyone? Forget the fact that US citiziens are footing a $300 billion bill currently on Iraq alone, he doesn't have $35 million in aid to share -- a point Zernike could have made if her only interest wasn't corpses. For those who've missed it, the UN has highlighted the humanitarian crisis in Iraq, they've noted the vast increase in malnutrition. Charity may start at home and stays there when your kids are starving. When you're kids are starving, you don't cough up the big bucks to hand over to someone else.
So here's what happened, al-Maliki came to the Congress and gave a speech where he slammed the so-called 'cut and run' option -- despite the fact that cut-and-run is what saved his own butt. If he hadn't 'cut and run,' he'd be dead by now. So it's okay for him, it's just not okay for American women and men. He went on to criticize the US for not doing enough in his mind during 1991's invasion of Iraq, despite the fact that he wasn't in Iraq. If it mattered so damn much to him, maybe he shouldn't have been living in Iran and Syria? If fighting was so important to him, maybe he should have stayed in Iraq? Since he didn't, maybe the last thing he's entitled to is to lecture about the 1991 invasion not doing 'enough'?
And maybe it's not a good idea to hit up another country for money while you're prepared to give $35 million in aid?

From the same period, you can also see Arianna Huffington's "Maliki's Testy Visit: Is This What Our Troops Are Dying For?" (The Huffington Post). So the Iraqis who died from Tuesday's bombings will each be worth the US equivalent of $1600 to their families but in the summer of 2006 he could proudly announce he was sending the US equivalent of $35 million dollars to another country. That's a detail that can really enhance readers' understanding so, no surprise, it's not one you'll find in Cave's article.

al-Maliki can send $35 million dollars out of the country but thinks $1600 is an acceptable amount to pay the families for each loved one they lost.

When the country's own leader signals their lives are cheap, is it any wonder that the chaos and violence continues?

And when Cave can't include any perspective for readers on that subject, what good is he?

He's 'good' at repeating the US government spin. Which he does with regards to the alliance al-Maliki's formed which shuts out the Sunnis. Cave could note that this violates the White House endorsed, Congressionally mandate 'benchmarks' two and sixteen. With Petreaus set to deliver some form of a 'report' to Congress on September 15th, Cave could note the realities of the benchmarks. But he doesn't. He could attempt to get analysis on the situation from independent voices, but he doesn't. He mentions "Western" and then runs with an unnamed US official to comment on al-Maliki's alliance and, wouldn't you know, it's too soon to tell. The talking point that was all over the place yesterday is in Cave's report today. From Nermeen Al-Mufti's "Al-Maliki's days are numbered" (Al Ahram):

A source close to Al-Maliki said that the prime minister may have to appoint Sunni ministers in order to keep the government going. His other option would be to form a government of parliamentary majority, which would include the Unified Iraqi Alliance, the Kurdistan Alliance, and independent parliamentarians.
Political analyst Alaa Al-Hodeithi voiced fears that a government of parliamentary majority may give Kurdish leaders a chance to impose their conditions on Al-Maliki. The Kurds want a referendum on Kirkuk before the end of the year, something that other Iraqis, especially the Turkmen, oppose.

So the article's of no use to anyone outside the US government. (He has served them valiently -- even while failing as a journalist.) Lloyd highlights Joshua Partlow's "Iraqi Shiites, Kurds Announce New Political Alliance" (Washington Post) and we'll note the following from the article:

For weeks, politicians have discussed an alliance among the four leading Shiite and Kurdish parties, with the hope that marginalized Sunni factions would join the coalition. But politicians from the largest Sunni bloc in parliament said they would remain apart from the new group, asserting that the ruling Shiites still have not met their demands for greater participation. The Sunnis' stance effectively undermines the coalition's chances of breaking the political gridlock that has frustrated U.S. and Iraqi officials.
[. . .]
Some Iraqi officials interpreted the new alliance as an attempt to manufacture a majority in parliament to help push through several pieces of stalled legislation. But with the Shiites and the Kurds already in close alignment, the announcement struck several observers as little real progress. The agreement also does not replace the current political blocs in parliament, but adds another layer of alliances to them.
"This is not the solution for Iraq's problems," said Hachim al-Hassani, a secular Sunni lawmaker, who said he planned to join the alliance despite his criticism of it. "The solution for Iraq's problems is for the real parties to get together and agree on an agenda to fix Iraq's problems."

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



the new york times
damien cave
arianna huffington
the washington postjoshua partlow
 

It seemed like a good idea when Timothy Richard joined the U.S. Army in November 1999.
But weeks prior to his scheduled discharge he found himself training in the infantry, readying for deployment to Iraq, with his contract in the army unilaterally extended.
He fled to Canada.
"It was something I wouldn’t have minded doing, defending America," Richard said, from his home in Ontario. "After Sept. 11, we were all very behind the president."
Richard joined the National Guard at Sioux City, Iowa in 1999. He was placed in the cavalry, performing maintenance work on machines. He understood that being in the inactive reserve meant that he would be stationed at home, putting in his one weekend a month, two weeks per year, in case of attack on the U.S.
In August 2005, just three months before his six-year contract expired, he was called up and moved from cavalry to infantry, and began training at Camp Shelby, Miss., for deployment to Iraq.
"I initially went along with the whole thing," Richard said.
His contract was extended to 2031 without his permission, due to a clause that allows the U.S. government to extend military contracts at their discretion, said Richard.

The above, noted by Vince, is from Melissa Fryer's "War resister returns support" (The Nanmio News Bulletin). And before anyone late to the party questions Timothy Richard's stop-loss, that was not an isolated incident. It happened to many others. It happened to Camilo Mejia who has talked about it and it is noted in the afterword to his book Road from Ar Ramaid: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia. Timothy Richard is one of many war resisters who have gone to Canada (including Kyle Snyder, Johsua Key, Patrick Hart, Ryan Johnson, Ross Spears, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Corey Glass, Christian Kjar . . . The War Resisters Support Campaign is an organization created to assist war resisters in Canada, to raise awareness of the issue, to mobilize the public and more. It's a Canadian organization and their information is available online in both French and English. War resisters take a very strong stand and know there will likely be no amnesty because there wasn't after the US left Vietnam.


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 Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 3684. Tonight? 3702. Funding the war is killing the troops -- Tina Richards, Iraq Veterans Against the War and Military Families Speak Out.

The 3700 mark was passed. Who headlined it?

Who mentioned it as anything but an aside?

We're talking media outlets. The Ottawa Recorder offered it in a headline "U.S. military deaths in Iraq at 3,700." They used the AP count. All who did should have (as The Ottawa Recorder did) have run their stories already. Their brief identifies Army Staff Sgt. Alicia A. Birchett as the last name released (story ran Wednesday) by the military (By the AP count or ICCC, she was not the 3700. She was just the most recently identified when The Ottawa Recorder ran the story. Noting that before an urban legend starts.) The Defense Department says she died August 8th at the age of 29, was from Mashpee, Mass., assigned to Fort Campbell, and her death resulted from "injuries suffered from a non-combat related accident" in the capital. ICCC doesn't have the 3700 yet either (the name hasn't been released yet by the Defense Department). The last name released is actually five. All died in the helicopter crash Tuesday. There names were Christopher C. Johnson who was 31 and from Michigan, Jackie L. McFarlane Jr. who was 30 and from Virginia Beach, Va., Sean P. Fisher who was 29 and from Santee, Calif., Stanley B. Reynolds who was 37 and from Rock, West Virginia and Steven R. Jewell who was 26 and from Bridgeton, North Carolina.

Their deaths directly effected friends and family and all the 3700 have had those. Another mark's approaching. 3999 is ICCC's current count of the total number of foreign service members killed in Iraq. That's one away from 4,000 lives. That's 299 deaths that have been non-US citizens. As long as the illegal war continues, the numbers will get higher and higher. Funding the illegal war is killing the troops.

It's also killing the Iraqis and the Just Foreign Policy counter currently reads 1,009,516 Iraqis killed since the start of the illegal war. That number builds on The Lancet study and the reported deaths since the study. Many Iraqi deaths go unreported. Some bodies aren't found, some don't make it to a morgue or a hospital but are buried by family and friends right away.

Most people in the US seem to grasp that the illegal war is not worth the cost of the US lives. (CNN's poll out today found that only 33% of respondents support the illegal war.) There were many lies that sold the illegal war and one of them was the idea that the Iraqi people would be 'helped'. Over a million dead is helping? Is liberation? Is democracy?

4 million Iraqis are displaced either internally or externally. Combine it with the death toll and over 5 million Iraqis are paying for Bully Boy's 'cakewalk' of choice. That's a fifth of the CIA's estimate for the Iraqi population. And let's not pretend other Iraqis aren't suffering (outside the Green Zone) where potable water remains a dream, where electricty has become a novelty as it is not only below pre-war levels, not only out more hours than it is on . . .

Today, CNN reports on the Iraqi women who have been forced to turn to prostitution and the report is on Baghdad. It's 'cute' the way so many US reporters pretended prostitution didn't exist there while frequenting the women. But no one's supposed to talk about that. When prostitution finally began to get coverage from the mainstream media, Iraqi women turning to prostitution, they rushed to focus on what was happening to Iraqi women whom the illegal war turned into refugees outside of the country. That was especially cute coming from one paper whose correspondents have lived it up in the Green Zone while doing very little reporting. And of course, they were one of the first outlets to finally discover Iraqi women engaged in prostitution . . . outside of Iraq.

The CNN report talks about how the Iraqi women, in Iraq, often end up trying to commit suicide. It's doubtful that's a mental picture any of our Big Boys of the press will bring home with them or have brought home with them.

This was never unknown. It just wasn't talked about.

Maybe to cover their own asses, maybe because it fit the whole narrative they were selling? For whatever reason, the prostitution in Iraq was largely ignored by mainstream media coverage even if it wasn't ignored by US mainstream media reporters.

Possibly someone should write a book entitled You'll Never Make Love In The Green Zone Again?

Women and children have been especially hard hit by the illegal war. The US hasn't produced democracy but it has created orphans. It has allowed the malnutrition rates to soar.

Also targeted have been gay men and lesbians because, yes, they did exist in Iraq as well. Again, that might not fit with the narrative of 'simple children who need the "super-power" to save them.' But they did exist. They still do. In smaller numbers. Because the US government backed the religious extremists. They backed them and they looked the other way while segments of the population were targeted. They were the 'friends' and so it mattered less if they targeted other Iraqis because, after all, how much is an Iraqi life worth?

That's been the attitude from day one. The US government has disregarded Iraqi life. It's disregarded the public opinion of Iraqis that ALL foreign fighters need to withdraw. It's disregarded the history of one of the first advanced civilizations in the world. What did it matter if antiquities were destroyed? Didn't Rumsfled say it was just one vase shown over and over on a video loop?

The greed for oil and markets made Iraqis an inconvenince to get around. That's how you install a puppet government and tell the world (including the US) that it's the 'democratic' voice of the Iraqi people.

And to keep everyone off guard and living in fear, you explore funding and backing 'the other side'.

Those are some of the realities of this illegal war. The children trying to grow up in the war zone that the Bully Boy has turned the country of Iraq into will all pay a huge cost. If they're lucky their families will remain somewhat intact. Some are already orphans on the street attempting to support themselves. But all live in the chaos and fear imposed by the daily illegal war.


On the subject of Grassroots for America (Tina Richards' group), In Dallas fowarded a wonderful e-mail. We'll rerun it in the newsletters (it'll be in the gina & krista round-robin tomorrow, etc.) but it's not up at the site so we'll consider it a private e-mail. You can sing up for the alerts and actions and more at the website. From the e-mail, we'll note this (I don't think that's private):


CALL TO ACTION: March of the People Need Your Help
http://marchofthepeople.org/route.php
Mario, Elliot, and Gordy started a march from Chicago to DC. It wasn't a march with rides in between nor was it a march funded with stays in plush hotels; it was a march started with a dream and a belief in the People of our Country. Right now that dream is struggling. Places that they reached out to have not responded. Their car to carry their gear is gone. Their resources are low.
As our youth speak out to us for help, we must be there.
Below is a list of places needed for hosts. If you know of someone near those areas, please reach out to them. Register as a host on their website as soon as possible so they know they will not be left on the streets. A warm place to sleep and a hot meal is all they ask. People to walk beside them.
Grassroots America is not just an organization, but an idea. An idea with a belief in the people across our nation that support peace, denounce prejudice and torture, and above all, places the power in the people, not our government. If not you, then who?
I will be joining them in Baltimore MD, Laurel MD and on to College Park in their walk. Everyone that is planning on coming in for all the events starting September 11, will you come join in their walk on September 8th to help them reach DC?
"We do not march out of hate. We do not march out of abandonment. We march out of hope, provoked out of sadness for the Nation we love. It is a Nation that our forefathers, and with them, our own soldiers, died to protect. It is a Nation degenerated into a prison of fear and silence that is the current administration. It is a prison of deceit and half-truths, and a trail of unaccountability that is so long it pales the very length of this march. We march to Washington in the name of the Constitution, in the name of the Soul of the People that inspired it, both of which are hijacked by the conspiracies and unilateralisms that History will infamously know as the Bush regime." Mario, Eliot and Gordy
59 Greensburg, PA
60 St Vincent College
61 Ligionier, PA
62 Jennerstown, PA
63 Stonystown, PA
64 Schellsburg, PA
65 Bedord, PA
66 Everett, PA
67 Graceville, PA
68 McConnellsburg
69 Mercersburg, PA
70 Hagerstown, MD
71 Smithsburg, MD
72 Thurmont, MD
73 [reststop-Frederick Cnty], MD
74 Frederick, MD
75 Ridgeville, MD
76 Lisbon, MD
77 West Friendship, MD
78 Ellicott City, MD
79 U of Maryland, MD
80 Elkridge, MD
81 Waterloo, MD
82 Laurel, MD
83 Howard U (Beltsville)
84 U OF Maryland, MD
85B Washington Monument, DC
85A John P. Sousa Brdg: Capital March
85C Lincoln Memorial: Captial Rally
Where will you be September 15?
I'll be standing with the Iraq Veterans Against the War, National Council of Arab Americans, Muslim America Society Freedom Foundation, Veterans for Peace, and military family members, like myself, as we confront Gen. Petreaus when he delivers his report to George W. Bush and congress on September 15.
Those that sacrifice the most for this war realize the importance of September 15. We live with this occupation everyday. When we turn off our televisions, our radios, close our papers or books, the war rages on for ourselves, friends and family.
Every politician in Washington DC has said wait until September 15. Wait for the report. As they waited, more of our sons and daughters died. Iraqis saw their country ever more devastated while tens of thousands more became displaced in their own country.
The wait is over. The Gathering of Eagles is mobilizing on September 15 to try to intimidate us. The Department of Interior is threatening $10,000 and more in fines for lawfully advertising for this day. The forces are mobilizing to try to silence us as General Petreaus gives his report. As he calls for years more of war. The streets of DC cannot be silent on September 15.
The streets of DC cannot be filled with warmongers as they spread their hate. September 15 is our day, the day of the peace makers, to denounce their policies of war, denounce their occupation and denounce their hate as we strive for justice in our streets.



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

and the war drags on
donovan
iraq
timothy richard
camilo mejia
melissa fryer
tina richards
military families speak out
iraq veterans against the war

The blast surpassed the previous deadliest attack when 215 people were killed by mortar fire and five car bombs in Baghdad's Shia Muslim enclave of Sadr City on 23 November 2006.

The above is from Tim Butcher's "Iraq bombs: 250 die in worst terror attack" (Telegraph of London) on the rising death toll for Tuesday's bombings in northern Iraq. Reminder, yesterday the US military insisted to CBS News that the death toll was only 30. Of coures, they didn't have to insist too hard to one outlet which offered the most embarrassing reporting of any outlet, the New York Times. Yesterday that paper allegedly covered the worst bombings of the illegal war that the US wasn't responsible for by avoiding the victims. Instead it was a lot of quote officials and ignore the victims. Today, the paper runs James Glanz' "Iraq Toll at 250 in the Deadliest Attack of the War" and we'll note the following from it:

A farmer who survived one of the explosions, Hasson Dalali, 59, said in a hospital in Tal Afar, a town 40 miles northeast of the explosions, that he had lost eight members of his family. "I saw a flash in the sky; I never saw anything like this before," Mr. Dalali said.
He said that after two huge explosions threw him to the ground where he was working his fields, he rushed to his house to check on his family. "The house was completely flattened to the ground," he said. "I was looking for any survivor from my family in the rubble. I found only my 12-year-old nephew."
The nephew had broken ribs and legs and severe wounds to his head, Mr. Dalali said.

The worst attack and the New York Times spent yesterday ignoring the victims. Carol J. Williams' "Death toll in bombing of sect rises" (Los Angeles Times) notes:

As the scope of the slaughter became apparent amid the desperate rescue operations, Ziryan Othman, health minister from the neighboring Kurdistan region, said the number killed exceeded 250 and could grow higher as the collapsed houses and shops probably had entombed many inhabitants. The death toll surpassed the 215 killed in November by suicide bombings in the Sadr City area of Baghdad, the previous high-water mark of wartime horror.
Iraqi and U.S. officials immediately blamed Al Qaeda- affiliated insurgents for the devastation Tuesday near the Syrian border, saying the scale and sophistication of the coordinated detonations of gas tankers bore the hallmarks of the militant group's followers.
Survivors described scenes of panic after the blasts in Qahtaniya, Tal Uzair and Jazeera leveled the villages' warrens of crude earthen homes and shops.
"The roofs fell on our heads," said Murad Samku, a 30-year-old farmer being treated for contusions at a hospital in nearby Sinjar but desperate to get back to the disaster scene to search for his family.
"What I saw last night in the darkness was a horrible image of my beloved village. The land is deserted now. There's nothing left."

Today the US military announced: "Two Multi-National Division-Baghdad Soldiers were killed during combat operations in an area north of the Iraqi capital Aug. 15. Six other Soldiers were wounded in the attack. ICCC's current totals are 43 US service members killed so far this month with 3701 US service members killed since the start of the illegal war. The 3700 mark has been passed. Let's see how much attention it gets (or, more likely, how little).


Meanwhile, AP reports that puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki has announced he's got a new alliance . . . with Kurds and Shi'ites. The Sunnis have been left out. Not a surprise when you consider the Baath party members or former members have still not been embraced in the political process. The announcement will give a few seconds of happy spin and the appearance that something has changed. Nothing has. al-Maliki has done what he's always done.

In a sign of how little has changed, Reuters reports at least 9 dead and at least 17 injured by a car bombing today in Baghdad. And as the media runs with the chatter that Petreaus may suggest a decrease of US forces in the September 15th report to Congress, the Congressionally mandated report, Peter Graff (Reuters) reports that, "U.S. forces launched an airborne assault on a desert compound south of Baghdad on Thursday, the first air strike in a major new offensive." As Norman Solomon has long pointed out, this tactic (reduce ground troops, increase the air assault) was used during Vietnam in an attempt to weaken the public cry for withdrawal.

Reminder, the snapshot will post later this evening.

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


james glanz
the new york times
the los angeles times
carol j. williams

Senior congressional aides said yesterday that the White House has proposed limiting the much-anticipated appearance on Capitol Hill next month of Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker to a private congressional briefing, suggesting instead that the Bush administration's progress report on the Iraq war should be delivered to Congress by the secretaries of state and defense.
White House officials did not deny making the proposal in informal talks with Congress, but they said yesterday that they will not shield the commanding general in Iraq and the senior U.S. diplomat there from public congressional testimony required by the war-funding legislation President Bush signed in May. "The administration plans to follow the requirements of the legislation," National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said in response to questions yesterday.

The above, noted by Martha, is from Jonathan Weisman and Karen DeYoung's "An Early Clash Over Iraq Report: Specifics at Issue as September Nears" (Washington Post). As they attempt to cut off access, it may be forgotten because the push-back on lowering expectations on the report has been ongoing by the White House. But the reality was they sold this report on Petreaus. Not on Ryan Crocker. They claimed Petraus needed until September, David had to have until September, in September David could provide a picture of what was happening, it wasn't fair to David for Congress to consider any decision until David got to talk them in September . . .

Now as September 15th looms, after they've already started the push-back saying the report's not that important or complete, saying they need until November (and as November gets closer, they'll say they need until February), they now want to limit access and instead send cabinet members to talk to Congress.

Cabinet members? After Gonzales' "I don't know -- I don't recall" testimonies that came only after the Democrats took control of Congress and earlier testimony appears to be repeated lies, they want to try to sell that the cabinet is the one to address Congress?

As for Congress, if you've forgotten, the Congressionally mandated reports were all they did. They certainly didn't end the illegal war. Bully Boy didn't decide to 'give' them a few hours of Petreaus' time, this report to Congress is Congressionally mandated.

Turning to another problem, CNN reports that suicide rates are up in the US Army and we'll note this in comparison with the total population in the US:

In 2006, the overall suicide rate for the United States was 13.4 per 100,000 people. It was 21.1 per 100,000 people for all men aged 17 to 45, compared to a rate of 17.8 for men in the Army.
And it was 5.46 per 100,000 for all women, compared to an Army rate of 11.3 women soldiers per 100,000.

AP reports this is a 26 year high for active duty members of the Army and that:

One out of four soldiers who committed suicide did so while serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, according to a report scheduled to be released Thursday. Iraq was the most common deployment location for U.S. soldiers who either attempted suicide or committed suicide.

And the Los Angeles Times notes, "About twice as many women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan committed suicide as did women not sent to war, the report said."

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


the washington post
karen deyoung
jonthan weisman

Wednesday, August 15, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, over 200 Iraqis dead from yesterday's bombing with the death toll climbing, Cindy Sheehan highlights the Iraqi refugee situation, PR Watch shines a spotlight so it's the Peace Resister to the rescue, and more.

Starting with war resistance. Jeremy Hinzman is the first war resister to self-check, go to Canada and do so publicly. Hinzman, his wife Nga Nguyen and their son Liam went to Canada in January 2004. He hoped to be granted asylum in Canada and began the process to be granted refugee status. In December of 2004, his case was heard. December 13, 2005, he spoke with Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) and explained, "Well, before the hearing even commenced, we had our hands tied a bit. As you have stated, the solicitor general of the Canadian government intervened in our case, and that's only done in about 5% of cases. Anyway, they raised the issue that they felt that the legality of the war in Iraq was irrelevant to our refugee claims. So, we were unable to argue that in any way. . . . Well, basically, they said whether war is legal or whether it's illegal, it's irrelevant to what you are trying to do here. Which, I mean, I would argue is pretty ludicrous, because that was almost my entire rationale for coming here in the first place." Although the hearing was technically held by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada the reality is the 'board' for each case is one person.

Before self-checking out, Hinzman had attempted to be granted CO status but, like many, he was turned down. In March 2005, Hinzman's claim for refugee status was rejected by the 'board' (Brian Goodman, in this case). Amnesty International declared (May 2005): "Amnesty International considers Mr. Jeremy Hinzman to have a genuine conscientious objection to serving as a combatant in the US forces in Iraq. Amnesty International further considers that the took reasonable steps to register his conscientious objection through seeking non-combatant status in 2002, an application which was rejected. Accordingly, should he be imprisoned upon his return to the United States, Amnesty International would consider him to be a prisoner of conscience."

"I object to the Iraqi war because it is an act of agression with no defensive basis. It has been supported by pretenses that cannot withstand even elementary scrutiny. First, before the U.S. dropped the first bomb, it was quite evident that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Second, the Bush administration had the gall to exploit the American public's fear of terrorists by making the absurd assertion that a secular Baathist government was working with a fundamentalist terrorist group. There was never any intelligence to substantiate this. Third, the notion that the U.S. wants to export democracy to Iraq is laughable. Democracy is by the people, not an appointed puppet theater," Peter Laufer's Mission Rejected: U.S. Soldiers Who Say No to Iraq quotes Hinzman explaining.

Gerry Condon (ZNet) explained of Hinzman, "He had converted to Catholicism in high school. While in Army training, he was reading about the Buddhist philosophy of living. On Sundays Hinzman and his wife attended the Quaker meetings in Fayetteville, North Carolina, next to Fort Bragg, the 'Home of the Airborne.' They enjoyed the weekly group mediations and were inspired by the Quakers' pacifist message. Hinzman came to realize that he could not in good conscience carry a weapon or kill another human being." Condon, a war resister during Vietnam, has been one of the ones giving back to today's war resisters as has attorney Jeffry House and they have been there for every step of the appeals process for Hinzman and war resister Brandon Hughey. In April of 2006, the Federal Court ruled against Hinzman and Hughey so they carried their cases on up the chain.

May 5, 2007, Jack Lakey (Toronto Star) reported the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that Hinzman and Hughey "are not entitled to refugee status" and that "The latest ruling noted neither made full use of steps open to them in the U.S. to win conscientious objector status, before fleeing here." The next move is Canada's Supreme Court and, as Cindy Chan (Epoch Times) noted earlier this month, that body will announce "late September or early October" whether or not they will hear the cases of Hinzman and Hughey. If the body refuses to hear the appeal, that is not the end of the story.

As Gerry Condon noted in 2004, "If Hinzman and Hughey are ultimately denied refugee status in Canada, they will not have exhausted their legal bids to remain in Canada. They may still petition the government to remain in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. By this time they may be well established in Canada, one of the criteria for granting this residency. Or they could ask for permission to apply from within Canada for immigrant status, due to special circumstances (if they were to apply from the U.S., they could be arrested and imprisoned for desertion)."

Whatever happens, one thing is known. Hinzman, Hughey and others have based their applications on the illegality of the war and their refusal to participate in it. This has been refuted repeatedly by Canadian bodies even when war resisters like Jimmy Massey testify before them as a witness. In the November 2006, Democrats in the US were swept into power and they campaigned on ending the illegal war. While US Speaker of the House may or may not be able to 'table' impeachment, the fact remains that the American people were promised serious Congressional probes of the illegal war. Those probes have not taken place. It's been no better than when the Republicans controlled Congress because no one was surprised that they would stall and bury reports on the intell that was embarrassing to the White House. Where are the Congressional hearings? As Congress has done very little, it has had effects, in this country and around the world.


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.

Yesterday in northern Iraq, bombings resulted in mass deaths. Kim Gamel (AP) reports the death toll has risen to 200 this morning and it is still rising. AFP notes "growing fears last night that more dead were trapped under the rubble." Megan Greenwell and Dlovan Brwari (Washington Post) quote survivor Khidr Farhan declaring, "I found myself flying through the air, and my face was burning. I felt my leg hurting, and I knew my head was bleeding. Then I couldn't feel anything. When I woke up, I was in the hospital" and Haji Sido declaring, "I ran past people screaming on the ground. I didn't care, because I had to get to my family. When I got home, my wife said: 'Calm down and thank God. We are safe'." Carol J. Williams (Los Angeles Times) quotes survivor Aydan Shikh declaring, "There is no justification for this. What crime have the Yazidis committed to deserve this?" and Subhee Abdullah declaring, "I saw people drowning in their own blood. More people are sure to die."

Paul Tait (Reuters) notes that digging through the rubble continues with many people "dazed and crying" as they attempt to locate missing family members and friends. In addition, Tait notes 330 people are classified as wounded. Sam Knight and Deborah Haynes (Times of London) list the number of dead at 250 (wounded at 350) and quote Dakhil Qassim ("mayor of the nearby town of Sinjar") declaring, "We are expecting to reach the final death toll tomorrow or day after tomorrow as we are getting only pieces of bodies." BBC, citing a Tal Afar official, notes the death toll is 257 (350 wounded) and that the attacks precede the upcoming vote on the fate of the area (it's own independent area -- "Correspondents say the planned referendum makes northern Iraq's Kurds a target for politically-motivated attacks." Tim Butcher and Sally Peck (Telegraph of London) note that the attacks have overwhelmed health care facilities resulting in survivors being "ferried to hospitals across northern Iraq" and they remind that US Gen. George Casy Jr.had recently declared "Our guys are seeing progress on the security front." Casey made those remarks to the National Press Club in DC only yesterday, August 14, 2007 where he made one baseless claim after another (and yes, he falsely linked it all to 9-11). He also stated that "The successes" remain unreported.

While Casey got caught by surprise, the US military appears unsure of what it's doing today at any given minutes. First Gen. David Petraues and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker issue a joint-statment decrying "the barbaric attacks on innocent Iraqi men, women and children in Ninawah Province yesterday." Then the US military insists to CBS News that the death toll was only 30. They also maintain it is the work of al Qaeda . . . no doubt too startled yet to try and create a link to Iran.

In some of the other violence reported today . . .

Today Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) reported, "The violence comes as U.S. forces have launched new crackdowns across Iraq. More than sixteen thousand U.S. and Iraqi troops are taking part in Operation Lightning Hammer around the Diyala River. In Baghdad, at least two people were killed in a U.S.-led raid on the Shiite neighborhood of Sadr City. The victims were reported to be a father and his three-year old daughter, asleep in the summer heat on the roof of their home. Nine others were arrested, including the three sons of local resident Umm Falah" and Falah was quoted explaining, "I used to bake breads and sell it to feed them and when they grew they started to work to help me. We though that we would be relieved when Saddam fell, we did not expect that he was replaced with the worst. Only God can beat them (the Americans)."

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two Mosul car bombings that claimed 10 lives. Reuters reports 5 lives ended by a Hilla bombing in an attack on "a judge's house".

Shootings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 people shot dead in Baghdad (one from "random fire by an American convoy") and three police officers were shot dead in Baghdad. Reuters reports one person shot dead in Madaen, "a member of a joint Iraqi and U.S. security coordination" was shot dead in Najaf, 3 "police commandos" shot dead in Doura and one person shot dead in Buhriz.


Corpses?

Kim Gamel (AP) reports that 24 corpses were discovered today "bullet-riddled bodies of apparent victimes of sectarian death squads usually run by Shiite militias."

In other violence, there are the displaced. Over four million Iraqis have been displaced (internally and externally) due to the illegal war. Cindy Sheehan (Common Dreams) notes that the bulk of the externally displaced have gone to Jordan and Syria: "The refugee catastrophe is going a long way to destabilize the countries to which the Iraqis . . . emergency CPR needs to flow to Jordan and Syria immediately to help the Iraqi people and the two mentioned countries. Significantly, both countries also have vast populations of Palestinian refugees that has now become a generational problem. Solving the problems in Israel will help the Palestinian refugees who want the right of return to their homes as well as help solving our own 'terrorism' problem at home. This is also an issue that needs to be pressed and exposed back in the states." This as IRIN notes the effects on Iraqi children being raised within Iraq "in a climate of fear and violence" And pregnant women in labor try to avoid going to hospitals after nightfall due to the violence. IRIN reports that in 1989, 117 Iraqi women "died during pregnancy or childbirth" but today the "figures has now gone up by 65 per cent." These results didn't happen by chance, they are the direct effects of an illegal war.

Turning to the political situations. At Inside Iraq (a blog run by McClatchy Newspapers Iraqi staff), a correspondent captures the endless repetition: "Did anyone hear about the meetings our great politician would start soon? OMG Here we are again, again and again and again, we are standing on the first square. new meetings but do these meetings have any solutions to the daily massacre that we live in? I'm sure the demands of the political blocs would be the same, each party and bloc will ask for sure for more power to control, more money to steal and more weapons to kill the people of the other sect. and guess what? Again the US Godfather will sponsor the great meetings. its the same old game, keep them busy, let them kill each other on the name of democracy."

Meanwhile the Center for Media and Democracy's PR Watch.org notes that the partisan groups Vets for Freedom and VoteVets have been hailed by the AP as "valuable public relations tools" . . . for elected and those seeking elections and notes VoteVets (with a board of advisers that includes War Hawk Bob Kerrey) " is part of Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, the [WalkOn] and SEIU coalition that pressures pro-war Republicans but not Democrats." Too much reality for some and apparently that includes the Peace Resister who felt the need to team with a failed screenwriter (how did Rooster work out? Oh, that's right) to offer the usual sop that the Peace Resister is now known for. Does anyone else wonder why she only teams up with male co-writers or are we never supposed to notice that? That inability to work with women as co-writers may go a long way towards explaining why the magazine published nearly 4 men for every 1 woman in the first six months of this year. So Useless and Failed Screenwriter team up to offer that 'things are changing' (sadly, not at the magazine) and it's a turned corner for the movement thanks to the useless people of WalkOn.org and others and provide plenty of 'love' to Americans Against Escalation and a hell of a lot of cover.


The Nation wasn't always worthless and a few at the magazine (or distributed by it) still try to make a difference. Today, Democracy Now! featured 25 minutes of a recent speech Naomi Klein entitled "Another World Is Possible." From that speech:

We who say we believe in this other world need to know that we are not losers. We did not lose the battle of ideas. We were not outsmarted, and we were not out-argued. We lost because we were crushed. Sometimes we were crushed by army tanks, and sometimes we were crushed by think tanks. And by think tanks, I mean the people who are paid to think by the makers of tanks. Now, most effective we have seen is when the army tanks and the think tanks team up. The quest to impose a single world market has casualties now in the millions, from Chile then to Iraq today. These blueprints for another world were crushed and disappeared because they are popular and because, when tried, they work. They're popular because they have the power to give millions of people lives with dignity, with the basics guaranteed. They are dangerous because they put real limits on the rich, who respond accordingly. Understanding this history, understanding that we never lost the battle of ideas, that we only lost a series of dirty wars, is key to building the confidence that we lack, to igniting the passionate intensity that we need.


iraq
brandon hughey
jeremy hinzman
peter laufer
democracy now
amy goodman
naomi klein
cindy sheehan
megan greenwell
the washington post
leila fadel
mcclatchy newspapers
the los angeles times
carol j. williams
the world today just nuts
peace resister
Katrina vanden Heuvel

"I felt my leg hurting, and I knew my head was bleeding," he said. "Then I couldn't feel anything. When I woke up, I was in the hospital."
During an interview with a Washington Post special correspondent, Farhan began to cry. "Where is my family?" he said. "I left my wife and my four children at home. Did they die?"

The above is from an article noted by Martha and Lloyd by Megan Greenwell and Dlovan Brwari, "Truck Bombs Kill 175 In Iraq's North" (Washington Post). Over 175 people died (AP has an update on the number of people) and saying that number and moving on isn't reporting. Someone break the news to Damien Cave of the New York Times. Violence kills and it changes lives and doing a piece, as Cave has, where you go running to Iraqi officials and US officials isn't reporting on what happened. It's not even that he's more focused on the 9 US service members announced dead yesterday (including the 5 who died in the helicopter crash). He's not. He's focused on "Military officials" and "Military officials" and "Military officials" and "leader of the largest Sunni bloc" and "Another Iraqi official" and "the Iraqi authorites." Quoting a captain (actually paraphrasing) about how "socres of families were obliterated in the blast" is not giving voice to anything but what officials say. It's not demonstrating the very real destruction of people's lives.

People are dead and he's more comfortable tossing around a number and rushing off to get statements from officials than he is in conveying the tragedy that took place. No witness is quoted, no one who lost a family member. In fairness to him, the paper should have flooded the zone with this story (but they only flood on Iraq now when it's DC based coverage). And even if people were his strong suit (they aren't), the paper's approach is usually 'voice of officials.' They drop that when mass tragedies occur (the tsunami being one example). But his article tells you nothing about the very real destruction. It's removed and it's distant.

If they'd flooeded the zone, there would be a place for his article. As it is, the article's just a huge disappointment that's using mass destruction and death as an excuse to check in with officials. It conveys nothing of what took place yesterday.

The Post also quotes Haji Sido, "I ran past people screaming on the ground. I didn't care, because I had to get to my family. When I got home, my wife said: 'Calm down and thank God. We are safe.' " You get nothing like that in Cave's article.

Kim Gamel (AP) reports the death toll has risen to 200 and this is from that article:

"We are still digging with our hands and shovels because we can't use cranes because many of the houses were built of clay," Qassim said. "We are expecting to reach the final death toll tomorrow or day after tomorrow as we are getting only pieces of bodies."
The bombings came as extremists staged other bold attacks on Tuesday: leveling a key bridge outside Baghdad and abducting five officials from an Oil Ministry compound in the capital in a raid using gunmen dressed as security officers. Nine U.S. soldiers also were reported killed, including five in a helicopter crash.
The carnage dealt a serious blow to U.S. efforts to pacify the country with just weeks to go before the top U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker are to deliver a pivotal report to the U.S. Congress amid a fierce debate over whether to begin withdrawing American troops from Iraq.

Gamel quotes Khadir Shamu declaring, "My friend and I were thrown high in the air. I still don't know what happened to him."

The Los Angeles Times offers a listing of "Worst blasts" from Reuters. Carol J. Williams (Los Angeles Times) reports:

"There is no justification for this," said Aydan Shikh, a 33-year-old Yazidi activist surveying the devastation after the bombings, which left apartment buildings and stores ablaze. "What crime have the Yazidis committed to deserve this?"
Subhee Abdullah, a shop owner who was about to close up when the attacks occurred, described a scene of panic and chaos. Yazidis, maimed and bleeding, crouched in hiding, fearful that more blasts were coming."I saw people drowning in their own blood," the 50-year-old said. "More people are sure to die."

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


megan greenwell
the washington post
damien cave
the new york times
the los angeles times
carol j. williams

Zoltan Grossman has a new piece entitled "Speaking Different Languages" (ZNet) and we're linking to it and noting it in the first entry, the first sentence of the first entry, and we don't link to trash. I think it's worth reading, I think it's worth thinking about.

I don't think it is gospel.

It may end up being something we explore at The Third Estate Sunday Review so I'll use that as my out to just make a few comments. (I'm not summarizing it. If you want to read it, read it.)

1) He names someone who doesn't feel he got enough support. I'll agree with that (and defended the person in a roundtable at The Third Estate Sunday Review). But let's be real here, when you piss people off, you don't get a lot of support. When you are seen to publicly sneer at family's losses, you don't get a lot of support. In one speech (posted online), the person's image cratered around the country. Was that fair? In the roundtable, I pointed out the person was in pain, dealing with a lot and finding their way. I stand by that, but I'm not unaware (believe me, I heard the complaints loudly, the first time on a high school campus in Florida) that when you're comments are seen as sneering (and he was saracastic and cracking jokes) about the very real losses of others, families who've lost loved ones in the illegal war, your problems in terms of support go beyond, "They don't support me!"

2) I don't ridicule the 9-11 truth movement. I say, I wasn't there, I don't know what happened. But when you align yourself with them, people are going to step back. That's not "they should."
That is knowing the reality. When you do that and videos of speeches you've given show up online and you're looking like you need a shave about a month ago and you are hopefully speaking passionately but it can be twisted into "He sounds insane!" -- you don't need to blame the peace movement.

3) The peace movement is not the "public relations movement." A lot of people have that confused. They think the peace movement's behind them so that means coverage. When the coverage isn't there, feelings can get hurt. In this instance, staying on the one example, you had the wife of the man taking to mainstream message boards trying to get coverage for her husband. It didn't happen. That's shameful but that has to do with the media, it doesn't have to do with the peace movement. In 2006 (and this year as well), The Nation magazine has refused to cover war resisters in print (if they're feeling generous they toss out an "online exclusive"). The Nation magazine is not the peace movement. They have not been a part of the peace movement. They have not covered the peace movement, they have not provided a roundtable of various people in the peace movement. When the peace movement has been mentioned by the magazine (online exclusives, of course, except for the "HOW DARE CODEPINK BIRDDOG HILLARY CLINTON!" nonsense of 2006), it's been to insult it. Do not confuse The Nation with the peace movement. They are not the peace movement. Matthew Rothschild, with a monthly magazine, has done a better job covering resistance and peace than has The Nation. The MSM has done a better job covering the peace movement and war resisters than has The Nation.

It would be wonderful if that's not the case. But the magazine has made it very clear, they don't give a damn about war resistance. (You only need look at their overly praised, bad article last month to see how they misportray Camilo Mejia to grasp how little they care.) Yeah, they do a firey editorial when everyone else is weighing in -- against the war -- and then they go back to doing nothing. They'd rather cover elections (even in an off year) than cover the illegal war. That's the reality.

It's not pretty. It's not noble. It's nothing to be proud of. But everyone should grasp that.

When Ehren Watada's name finally made it into print (January, 2007 issue), it was as a sidebar after he'd been called a coward in the main article. That's the reality of The Nation.

If you're doing a speaking tour, you need to be aware of that reality and you do not need to confuse the media with the peace movement.

4) Zoltan sees a split between the peace movement and veterans against the war. The split he's speaking of exists in the latter category as well. I've heard about that repeatedly from veterans who are committed to ending the illegal war. Zoltan sees it as happening between veterans and the peace movement -- it's also within those opposed to illegal war within veterans groups.

5) There's also the very real tension over the issue of "Who should be leading?" No one's handed leadership. Nor should they be. From any camp in the resistance to the illegal war. You carve out your role. New groups are emerging constantly and new leaders are emerging constantly. The monolythic nature that the article appears to present in needs further exploration. And it's true (and been noted here many times), this is nothing new. It happened during Vietnam as well and that's why new groups emerge. When they no longer speak to people, new groups will come about.

6) Dropping back to within the veterans opposing the illegal war because I will hear about that in phone calls from friends saying, "You really passed over that topic." They'll call because they are veterans resisting the illegal war and the problems Zoltan sees between them and the peace movement are actually, for them, problems they have with different veterans trying to end the illegal war. The sidelining Zoltan seems to be addressing is an issue within veterans groups where veterans -- in those groups -- feel they are sidelined. So let me be very clear that a very real feeling he is writing of exists not only between some vets and the peace movement but also between some (a lot in fact) vets and veterans organization.

I'm glad Zoltan Grossman has addressed so many issues. I think they need to discussed and not swept under the rug. I recommend his article (and applaud him for writing it) but he's seeing a split between A and B and the reality is there's a whole alphabet split going on.

I don't believe he's attacking anyone. I think he's trying to seriously get the discussion going. That is needed. And you'll note it comes from ZNet (and will probably reappear at CounterPunch). It's not coming from The Nation. They've shown no leadership, only cowardice.

I think everyone can benefit from reading Zoltan's article. Some parts may ring true for you, some parts might not. All parts may ring true for you, or none of them may. But he's addressing it seriously and reading it (and exploring it) will not be a waste of your time. He deserves a lot of credit for raising issues and trying to keep a dialogue going (one that very few have engaged in). I've sketched that out above, that's not "in full" or "end of story." Hopefully, we can address the article in a roundtable at The Third Estate Sunday Review. And hopefully, you'll address it yourself (whether you agree with it or disagree with it -- in part or whole) because it is a serious contribution that needed to be made and he deserves credit for doing so.

The above is not a summary of the article. It's not footnotes or additional points. I've raised the issues I know I will hear about to try to cut down on phone calls because I am on the road speaking and also because I know one group especially (those who are veterans and who have the issues he's writing about but with other veterans trying to end the illegal war) will call if I don't make certain points.

Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) is making a serious effort to report. Not a lot ever do. (That's our transition.) And this is from her "U.S. military leaders: Iraq security effort hampered by lack of political progress:"


Despite U.S. claims that violence is down in the Iraqi capital, U.S. military officers are offering a bleak picture of Iraq’s future, saying they’ve yet to see any signs of reconciliation between Sunni and Shiite Muslims despite the drop in violence.
Without reconciliation, the military officers say, any decline in violence will be temporary and bloodshed could return to previous levels as soon as the U.S. military cuts back its campaign against insurgent attacks.
That downbeat assessment comes despite a buildup of U.S. troops that began five months ago Wednesday and has seen U.S. casualties reach the highest sustained levels since the United States invaded Iraq nearly four and a half years ago.
Violence remains endemic, with truck bombs on Tuesday claiming as many as 175 lives in northern Iraq and destroying a key bridge near Baghdad, the first successful bridge attack since June.

We'll focus on that and save the waves of Operation Happy Talk meant to lull a nation (and the world) for the snapshot later today. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

zoltan grossman
leila fadel
mcclatchy newspapers