Choosing to go to war is both a government's decision and one made by individual enlistees. But changing your mind once you're in the army is a risky decision with serious consequences. On Friday, August 24 (checkyour local listings), we talk to two soldiers who went AWOL and eventually left the Army, but who took very different paths. NOW captures the moment when one man turns himself in, and when another applies for refugee status in Canada, becoming one of the 20,000 soldiers who have deserted the army since the War in Iraq began. Each describes what drove him to follow his conscience over his call to duty, and what penalties and criticism were endured as a result.
"I see things differently having lived through the experience," former army medic Agustin Aguayo tells NOW. "When I returned from Iraq, after much reflection I knew deep within me I could never go back."
The NOW website at www.pbs.org/now will offer more insight into the case made by conscientious objectors, as well as more stories of desertion in the ranks.

The above is for this week's NOW with David Brancaccio which airs on PBS and begins airing tomorrow night in most markets. I'll try to note it in entries tomorrow as well. In addition a preview of the show is posted at YouTube. War resistance is very important. It's important to ending the illegal war and it's important in terms of the people who make the decision to resist an illegal war (the people include Brandi Key, Jill Hart, Hegla Aguayo, Monica Benderman and many others whose lives are effected by the decisions as well because of their relationships with war resisters -- all listed are the spouses of a war resister -- Joshua Key, Patrick Hart, Agustin Aguayo and Kevin Benderman -- that is not a complete listing). And when they tell their truths it does have an impact. Truth telling, period, has a big impact on ending the illegal war. Sherry noted to Rebecca who passes on to me Robert Parry's "Bush's Bogus Vietnam History Kills" (Consortium News):


It is often said that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. But a much worse fate may await countries whose leaders distort and falsify history. Such countries are doomed to experience even bloodier miscalculations.
That was the case with Germany after World War I when Adolf Hitler’s Nazis built a political movement based in part on the myth that weak politicians in Berlin had stabbed brave German troops in the back when they were on the verge of victory.
And it appears to be the case again today as President George W. Bush presents the history of the Vietnam War as a Rambo movie with the heroic narrative that if only the U.S. military had stuck it out, the war would have been won.
Or, more likely, the black wall of the Vietnam War Veterans Memorial would stretch most of the way to the U.S. Capitol.
After hearing his selective historical rendition of the Vietnam experience in his Aug. 22 address to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, one is tempted to ask Bush what he would have done as President in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Presumably, Bush would have prolonged or escalated the Vietnam War, although it’s doubtful he would have called up the Texas Air National Guard where he was safely ensconced, while skipping his flight physical and seeking an early discharge.

Calling Bully Boy out for his lies is important. And credit to news outlets who took (made) the time to cover the reaction in Vietnam to Bully Boy's lies:

The only way to restore order in Iraq is for the United States to leave, said Trinh Xuan Thang, a university student.
"Bush sent troops to invade Iraq and created all the problems there," Thang said.
If the U.S. withdrew, he said, the violence might escalate in the short term but the situation would eventually stabilize.
"Let the Iraqis determine their fate by themselves," Thang said. "They don't need American troops there."

That's a pretty obvious (and true) evaluation. But the administration is far too busy spinning to deal with truth. If you missed it, today White House flack Gordon Johndroe declared (in Crawford, TX) that "we know that there are significant challenges ahead, especially in the political area. I would say that the strategy laid out by the President on January 10th was a strategy that provided for security first, so that there would be space for political reconciliation. The surge did not get fully operational until mid-summer. It is not surprising -- it is frustrating, but it's not surprising that the political reconciliation is lagging behind the security improvements. I think that is the way the strategy was laid out." There are no security improvements. And what's really shocking about that is the so many in the press corps were happy to take the US government's word on it (after all the lies they've told about this illegal war).

One more time, Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reporting earlier this month that the US military claims of 'progress' were based on numbers they would not release and that McClatchy Newspapers' figures do not track with the findings the US military has trumpeted: "U.S. officials say the number of civilian casualties in the Iraqi capital is down 50 percent. But U.S. officials declined to provide specific numbers, and statistics gathered by McClatchy Newspapers don't support the claim." They "declined to provide specific numbers" but didn'tf we didn't all get that false claim shoved down our throats as fact? What does that say about the press? That they haven't learned a damn thing? That they're still taking stenography as opposed to reporting? That the same administration that lied to start an illegal war can still get away with lying becuse the majority of the press will not challenge it, will not call it out, but will gladly repeat it. And in doing so, they prolong the illegal war.


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 3702. Tonight? 3724 with 66 for the month. Just Foreign Policy's current total for the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the illegal war stands at 1,018,263.

Maybe thirty years from now President Jenna Bush or President Chelsea Clinton can distort the reality of this illegal war to justify another one?

Today James Glanz and Stephen Farrell (New York Times) reported: "Armed groups increasingly control the antiquated switching stations that channel electricity around Iraq, the electricity minister said Wednesday." They tell you that was revealed in an official press conference but wasn't on the agenda (it came up due to questions asked of an Iraqi ministry official, Karim Wahid). If true (I'm not doubting the reporter's abilities but various ministries have a habit of finding excuses for services not provided), it goes to the fact (since this has reportedly been ongoing since 2003) that there is not now and has not been security in Baghdad. If it's true, the administration has certainly known about it for sometime (US administration) and it hasn't been an issue or a priority. That's partly due to the fact that the whole point was to 'schock' the Iraqis while destroying their economic system in place and imposing a neocon wetdream. If true, the US has allowed basic services to be denied. And Reuters reports that in Syria a water treaty is being asked for regarding the Tigris and Euphrates rivers:

"The problem is growing and we need an agreement. There is speculation that the next regional war will be about water, but more conflict does not achieve anything," Water Resources Minister Abdul Latif Rasheed told Reuters in the Syrian capital.

The next regional war? What is Abdul Latif Rasshed implying about the current one? And what has the US done (while the occupying power for over four years) to esnure not only potable water but access to any water? It would appear nothing because this 'crisis' did not just emerge overnight.

Along with the obligations an occupying power (the legal obligations), the US government especially should have paid attention to the issue of the water because of the history involved.
Lauren notes Thomas J. Nagy's "The Secret Behind the Sanctions: How the U.S. Intentionally Destroyed Iraq's Water Supply" (The Progressive, September 2001 issue -- part of the archives the magazine is now putting up online):

Over the last two years, I've discovered documents of the Defense Intelligence Agency proving beyond a doubt that, contrary to the Geneva Convention, the U.S. government intentionally used sanctions against Iraq to degrade the country's water supply after the Gulf War. The United States knew the cost that civilian Iraqis, mostly children, would pay, and it went ahead anyway.
The primary document, "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities," is dated January 22, 1991. It spells out how sanctions will prevent Iraq from supplying clean water to its citizens.
"Iraq depends on importing specialized equipment and some chemicals to purify its water supply, most of which is heavily mineralized and frequently brackish to saline," the document states. "With no domestic sources of both water treatment replacement parts and some essential chemicals, Iraq will continue attempts to circumvent United Nations Sanctions to import these vital commodities. Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease."
The document goes into great technical detail about the sources and quality of Iraq's water supply. The quality of untreated water "generally is poor," and drinking such water "could result in diarrhea," the document says. It notes that Iraq's rivers "contain biological materials, pollutants, and are laden with bacteria. Unless the water is purified with chlorine, epidemics of such diseases as cholera, hepatitis, and typhoid could occur."
The document notes that the importation of chlorine "has been embargoed" by sanctions. "Recent reports indicate the chlorine supply is critically low."
Food and medicine will also be affected, the document states. "Food processing, electronic, and, particularly, pharmaceutical plants require extremely pure water that is free from biological contaminants," it says.

In the face of that, the mass kidnapping, the continued chaos and violence, the White House wants to say that, with the escalation, the focus was on 'security.' No one's been made secure in Iraq. What region? The southern region where Iraqi governors are assassinated (the same region that the British will soon pull out of)? The northern section where over 500 people died as a result of multiple bombings last week (on Tuesday)? Even the Green Zone is under attack these days.

"Security" with regards to Iraq appears to be used the same manner in which the White House applies it to America. A lot of money tossed to cronies and the average citizens see their services cut. Iraq: The New United States.

As Naomi Klein has pointed out [Klein's "Baghdad Year Zero," Harper's magazine ], Iraq was supposed to be the free enterprise lab. Not because the US government was attempting to win a science fair but because the hope was to take the 'success' in Iraq and impose on other areas. It was a toy for the administration. They could trash it because the plan was never about 'helping' Iraqis.

Or about listening to them. Which is why when the inhabitants of the country the White House maintains they are 'liberating' want US troops out of Iraq, they can (and are) ignored. Which brings us back to the points the Vietnamese college student, Trinh Xuan Thang, was making, let the Iraqis determine their own fate. "They don't need US troops there." Four years after the illegal war started, malnutrition on the rise, the refugee crisis continuing, electricity and potable water remain (at best) iffy. It's time for the foreign forces to leave Iraq. More 'helping' means more deaths.

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

iraq
and the war drags on
donovan

We're dropping back to Carolyn Tyler's report for KGO to note that Buddhist Quang Son Ta buys into Bully Boy's deliberate lies (Quang Son Ta bought into the lies during Vietnam which is why he elected to work for the US military) and declares, "If we pull out of Iraq, OK the sacrifice of 5,000 men already die and 100,000 soldiers wounded, is wasted." That's really appalling. That someone whose own country was invaded wants to list the dead from the current illegal war and isn't able to note the over one million dead Iraqis.

He worries about the "sacrifice" and the "lives wasted" but the US is in Iraq for? Depending upon the time of the day and Bully Boy's most current lie, it's to help/assist/liberate. But War Hawk Quang Son Ta's not concerned with those deaths, at least not concerned enough to note them.

The Iraq War is an illegal war. As Iraq Veterans Against the War, Tina Richards and Military Families Speak Out are, Fuding the war is killing the troops. It's not saving them, it's not saving Iraqis.

Reuters reports 25 dead from "a battle between Sunni Arab militants and al Qaeda" outside Baquba, a drive-by shooting in Mosul claimed 1 life, mortar attacks in Kut claimed 2 lives,
a Baghdad roadside bombing claimed 1 life, a Baghdad mortar attack claimed 2 lives, 15 corpses were discovered in Baghdad and 2 in Mosul. That's 48 deaths reported (and the US forces killed one 'insurgent' today so that's 49).


Yesterday, a US helicopter was "downed" (the military's term) and Martha notes this from Joshua Partlow's "Maliki Scolds His American Critics" (Washington Post):

Two UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters were flying back to base over rural terrain in northern Iraq early Wednesday, after a night mission, when one suffered what appeared to be a mechanical failure and went down, said Lt. Col. Michael Donnelly, a U.S. military spokesman in northern Iraq.
"The helicopter was not shot down; it was a mechanical malfunction, and that is based on a number of different facts and observations that we have to this point," Donnelly said. "For us, the most important thing is taking care of the families and the soldiers of the unit who are affected by this. We're all feeling a deep loss here."
Killed were the 14 troops aboard -- four crew members and 10 passengers, who were not identified Wednesday. Another U.S. soldier died, and three were wounded, in fighting Wednesday around villages between Baghdad and Fallujah. The 15 American fatalities represented the highest daily toll since January.

Joan notes this from The Honolulu Advertiser's "Army's worst day:"

Ten Hawai'i soldiers were among those killed when a Army Black Hawk helicopter crashed today in northern Iraq, a statement from Schofield Barracks said tonight.
The four crew members were from Fort Lewis, Wash., and the 10 passengers were based out of Schofield Barracks, according to the Army. All aboard the helicopter died.
The soldiers were assigned to Task Force Lightning, which includes units from Schofield and other bases across the nation.

Bill Moyers Journal latest broadcast (aired Friday on most PBS stations, possibly later on other PBS stations) included his "Farewell to Karl Rove:"

It's so easy, as Karl knew, to scapegoat people you outnumber, and if God is love, as rumor has it, Rove knew that, in politics, you better bet on fear and loathing. Never mind that in stroking the basest bigotry of true believers you coarsen both politics and religion.
At the same time he was recruiting an army of the lord for the born-again Bush, Rove was also shaking down corporations for campaign cash. Crony capitalism became a biblical injunction. Greed and God won four elections in a row - twice in the lone star state and twice again in the nation at large. But the result has been to leave Texas under the thumb of big money with huge holes ripped in its social contract, and the U.S. government in shambles - paralyzed, polarized, and mired in war, debt and corruption.
Rove himself is deeply enmeshed in some of the scandals being investigated as we speak, including those missing emails that could tell us who turned the attorney general of the United States into a partisan sock puppet. Rove is riding out of Dodge city as the posse rides in. At his press conference this week he asked God to bless the president and the country, even as reports were circulating that he himself had confessed to friends his own agnosticism; he wished he could believe, but he cannot. That kind of intellectual honesty is to be admired, but you have to wonder how all those folks on the Christian right must feel discovering they were used for partisan reasons by a skeptic, a secular manipulator. On his last play of the game all Karl Rove had to offer them was a hail mary pass, while telling himself there's no one there to catch it.

On Sunday, Karl Rove reported to the mother ship (Fox "News") and Moyers' response can be found here. If you're missing the obvious tie-in, Moyers isn't waiting to respond or being silent (the way so many did yesterday while Bully Boy pushed lies).

Today, Camilo Mejia has a reading from his book Road from Ar Ramaid: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia at Different Drummer (near Fort Drum -- 12 Paddock Arcade, 1 Public Square, Watertown, NY 13601) at 6:30 pm. Marcia notes he is a guest on today's Democracy Now! Brandon notes this from Tony Pecinovsky's "Vets pledge fight for 'record-breaking peace'" (People's Weekly World):

Conscientious objector Camilo Mejia, who served six months in Iraq with the Florida National Guard, told the World, “There is no greater argument against war than the experience of war itself.” Mejia added, “In the military you’re not free to decide for yourself what is right and wrong. The fog of war is very real. Your main concern is staying alive.”
After returning home, Mejia refused to return to combat. He was charged with desertion and sentenced to a one-year term.
"I couldn't return," he said, "knowing that we are committing war crimes. This war is criminal. But I’m no longer a prisoner of fear. I have hope that we can end this war."
Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich told the convention, "Those who serve today, serve with honor. Those who sent them, have no honor. The Bush administration accepts war as a instrument of policy, but it is obvious who is paying the price. Their right-wing dogma has made us less safe." Kucinich added, "They initiated this war without a plan for leaving, because they don’t intend to leave."
"The surge isn't working. It's contributing to the future of the insurgency," Col. Janis Karpinski told an Aug. 15 kick-off press conference." Karpinski, who served over 28 years in the U.S. Army, was given command of the 800th Military Police Brigade in 2003 and supervised 15 detention centers.
"Anybody defined as a terrorist, associate of a terrorist, or who has information related to terrorists" is held "without trial, as long as the military wants, without any rights," she said, adding that military intelligence officers encourage torture and humiliation of detainees.

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


camilo mejia
democracy now
bill moyers journal
the washington post
iraq veterans against the war
tina richards
military families speak out

You know, people say, "Well you keep going back, why are you going back to Vietnam?" We keep going back to Vietnam because I'll tell you what, the other side does. They're always going back. And they have to go back -- the Hawks, you know, the patriarchs. They have to go back because, and they have to revise the going back, because they can't allow us to know what the back there really was.

That's Jane Fonda explaining reality in the brilliant documentary Sir! No Sir! -- a reality missed by some of our voices on the left and 'left' yesterday. They were off on other topics and, if they touched Bully Boy's speech at all, they decided the way to go was Korea. Because? It's safer. Certainly not because it's what people were interested in. Four different student groups yesterday, not one of them asked, "What's this Korea analogy Bully Boy's making?" Vietnam, Vietnam, Vietnam. That's what they wanted to know about.

Now you knew the MSM wasn't going to do a good job it. They can (and did) applaud their work of their own when they pass away -- work done exposing the lies of Vietnam -- but it's funny kind of appreciation, one that requires they head to the right and centrists to discuss Bully Boy's
analogies. So when time's wasted yammering on about Korea, time is just wasted.

Bruce Cain tells Carolyn Tyler (KGO News) that what Bully Boy is "trying to do is use a conservative argument to rally the conservative base because what he fears is not that Nancy Pelosi and the democrats are going to vote for withdrawal. What he fears is members of his own party are going to join in." That's exactly what's going on but most other MSM reporting misses that point. Bully Boy's selling fear again and he can't sell it with Korea and he can't sell it with Japan.

He can try to sell it with Vietnam and he may win because you've got a revisionary history going on and a lazy portion of the left that has consistently refused to call out the right wing's lies about Vietnam as they have repeatedly taken hold since US forces pulled out.

Lazy and Stupid, we should say and include the idiot who fancies themselves left and never knows what they're talking about (we're being kind here) so felt the need to prop up centrists this week and get off a little jibe at Jane Fonda for working to end Vietnam in the "60s." Does it hurt to be that stupid? Or does that come with (hint) "day pass"?

I'm sick of the lazy and the stupid and the cowards who consistently avoid the topic of Vietnam. They've done untold damage over the years and they continue to do damage. Had they done any of the work required over the last years, Bully Boy's distortions would have been greeted with howls of laughter. Instead, he moves his p.r. battle foward an inch. And wasting everyone's time on Korea isn't preventing that.

In the New York Times, Jim Rutenberg, Sheryl Gay Stolber, Mark Mazzetti, Damien Cave and Erich Schmitt observe:


With his comments Mr. Bush was doing something few major politicians of either party have done in a generation: rearguing a conflict that ended more than three decades ago but has remained an emotional touch point.

[Those are the end credits, not the byline. John Kerry is quoted saying, "Invoking the tragedy of Vietnam to defend the failed policy in Iraq is as irresponsible as it is ignorant of the realities of both of those wars."]

Even the Times grasps what the speech was about and, no, it wasn't Korea.

Now Nixon only called those of us who called for US forces out of Vietnam "bums." Bully Boy has called those arguing OUT OF IRAQ terrorist enablers. (And, check the polls, that's a huge number of the American population Bully Boy's wagging his finger at.) From Jason Easley's "Bush reinterprets history at VFW National Convention speech" (Blogger News Network):

He then said that if the U.S. leaves Iraq, the terrorists win. "If we were to abandon the Iraqi people, the terrorists would be emboldened, and use their victory to gain new recruits. As we saw on September the 11th, a terrorist safe haven on the other side of the world can bring death and destruction to the streets of our own cities. Unlike Vietnam, if we withdraw before the job is done, the enemy will follow us home. And that is why, for the security of the United States
of America, we must defeat them overseas so we do not face them in the United States of America."

The illegal war in Iraq has attracted some elements of al Qaeda into Iraq. It has allowed some Iraqis to see that element as the lesser of two evils. Even the nonsense of the 'success' of the Al Anbar 'model' -- as promoted by the US military flacks -- accepts that premise. But the Iraq War is a breeding ground for hostilities and terrorism. Those Bully Boy's scaring with his nonsense quoted prior should drop the fantasies and grasp that the illegal war has made the US far less safe and, well beyond the borders of Iraq, bred huge hostilities towards the US.

He's arguing that 'terrorists' must be defeated in Iraq to keep them from US shores. The reality is that what many would call 'terrorists' (rightly or wrongly) include those Iraqis who (connected to al Qaeda or not) killed US service members. And yet the US military is now working with many of those same people, bringing them into the fold. That's defeat? They're now getting trained and armed by the US. That's defeated?

Bully Boy wants to have his illegal war and his 'terrorism' on the same plate and his faithful herd will "moo" along behind him. That's the approximately 30% (a little under actually) that refuses to face reality to this day. They're with him to the end. A sex scandal, a same sex scandal, probably wouldn't turn that crowd against him. Where the battle he declared publicly yesterday is going to be fought will be to win the immediate circle after the willfully stupid, that's who he is hoping to influence.

And when his lies do not get called out or when a lengthy piece is written on Korea, the attitude is not, "Thank you for informing us!" Because the reality is you wasted your own time and everyone else's. He's attempting to harness the Ghosts of Vietnam. That's where the battle is now because too many let the right wing get away with their lies and their revisions to the point that many born after have no idea how hugely unpopular that illegal war was. For many born after, it's a murky period and Bully Boy's trying to ride the ignorance (and probably the assumption that so many on the left will not enter the discussion because they have spent decades absenting themselves from it) to bump up support for is own illegal war.

From Michael Tackett (Chicago Tribune):

It struck some historians as odd that the president would try to use Vietnam -- arguably the most divisive issue of the last 40 years -- to rally the nation behind his policy in Iraq.
"If we get into a Vietnam argument, the country is divided, but if you are going to try to sell this concept that the blood is on the American people's hands because we left and were weak-kneed in Asia, that is a very tenuous and inane historical argument," said historian Douglas Brinkley of Rice University.
Brinkley, who wrote both a flattering book on John Kerry during the 2004 presidential campaign and edited the private diaries of President Ronald Reagan, said Reagan was careful to rarely talk about Vietnam because of the passions it inspired.

Reagan shouldn't have worried. Judging by the reaction yesterday, when the right was on the ground and moving to shore up Bully Boy's lies while so many on the left avoided the issue, it would have been an easy move for him. But Reagan was the governor of California during Vietnam so he was probably haunted by the passion of that period and thought it would carry over. As we saw yesterday that really isn't the case and too many allegedly independent voices copied Reagan yesterday by avoiding calling it out. Apparently some in journalism see their roles as politicians. It's especially cute when they want to cite a truth teller (I.F. Stone) while avoiding tackling the thrust of Bully Boy's argument (his lies about Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia).

Politicans? We noted John Kerry above. Harry Reid was useless (no surprise). Bill Richardson's campaign released the following statement:


Governor Bill Richardson, campaigning in Nevada, today released a statement in response to a speech by President Bush comparing a withdrawing of U.S. forces from Iraq to America's withdrawal at the end of the Vietnam War.
"The correct conclusion to draw from our experience in Vietnam," said Governor Richardson, "is that dragging out the process of withdrawal will be tragically worse in terms of U.S. lives lost and worse for the Iraqi's themselves in terms of the ultimate instability we will create by staying longer."
In 1968 Nixon ran on a platform of ending the war with honor. It took 7 years to get the last American soldier out of Vietnam. In the meantime, tens of thousands more Americans died. The costs in terms of tragedy in Southeast Asia itself are a matter of historical record. Millions of civilians ultimately died in Vietnam, in Cambodia and the killing fields and millions more ultimately had to flee their homes.
"We have now been in Iraq longer than it took to win World War II," Governor Richardson continued. "My plan for Iraq is designed to end this war with the least possible number of U.S. casualties and with the least damaging effects of Iraqi's reconciliation process. This means getting all of our troops out as quickly and safely as possible. Leaving residual troops in Iraq as Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have suggested will only drag out the process to the detriment of all involved. Reconciliation can only occur when the U.S. has completely withdrawn. Everyday, more and more experts are coming to the same conclusion I drew seven months ago. My position has been consistent and unwavering. A fast, safe withdrawal with no residual troops."
In addition, Governor Richardson reiterated his belief that the so-called "surge" in U.S. forces in Iraq has been a failure, and responded to Senator Clinton's change of heart regarding the lack of progress in the war.
"I am pleased that Senator Clinton, today, recognizes that the surge has produced no progress of any long term significance to the Iraq debacle. That is different from what she said yesterday to the Veterans of Foreign Wars. But, it is that audience, who has sacrificed more than any of us, who deserves to hear a clear statement that our sons and daughters and mothers and fathers are not going to be sacrificed because of an irrational commitment to a failed strategy.
The President is asking the country to wait for next month's progress report from General Petraeus. The chances are that report will be just another White House spin job and attempt to justify this war. This has been the bloodiest summer yet -- our troops have done an admirable job at trying to make a bad idea work, but the surge has failed, the war has failed, Bush has failed. It is time to end this war and bring all of our troops home as soon as possible. I'm glad Hillary Clinton has retracted her comments yesterday and has declared the surge a failure today -- but I still haven't gotten an answer to my question -- a peace in Iraq will fail as long as we leave troops behind -- how many would you leave behind? Every other major candidate would leave thousands of US troops in Iraq for an indefinite. I will leave no U.S. forces there. Zero.
The only way out of the Iraq mess is to remove all U.S. troops, and to use that leverage to get the warring parties to resolve their differences, and surrounding Muslim nations to help stabilize the country. Any residual U.S. force reduces the chances for success, and exposes our troops as targets. Our brave troops, and the American people, deserve better."

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

the new york times
sheryl gay stolberg
jim rutenberg
bill richardson
sir! no sir!
jane fonda

So the good news is that the New York Times leaves out the error/lie in the print version of their story "Obama Sees a 'Complete Failure' in Iraq" which runs on A11. The bad news? The version that went online yesterday evening still contains the error/lie "Obama Tells Veterans Iraq Plan Is Failing:"

One of the biggest applause lines of his speech came when he pledged that during an Obama administration, veterans would not have to wait months -- or years -- for services at veterans hospitals. He also said it was wrong for anti-war activists to protest at military funerals, declaring: "It needs to stop."

What needs to stop is reporters working in their attacks on the peace movement and editors not knowing the basics. What needs to stop is the paper, that is referenced in student papers and by other news organizations, refusing to correct their mistakes.

As Cedric's "New York Times lies again!" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! NEW YORK TIMES LIES ABOUT PEACE MOVEMENT!" noted yesterday (cross-posted here), Obama didn't say "anti-war activists" in his speech. The speech is available online. Obama would have killed his campaign had he because it is the Fred Phelps' homophobic crew that shows up at those funerals. They are not "anti-war activists" or peace activists. If Obama made the mistake, he'd be having Dan Quayle press all week and probably be announcing he was dropping out because it is such a HUGE mistake -- confusing right wingers protesting against gays and lesbians with peace activists -- but what happens to Jeff Zeleny (credited for both the print and online story) and the editor? Anything?

They are WRONG. They are hugely WRONG. And there's no correction to the story. We honestly expected the online version would be 'disappeared.' That didn't happen. It's still up online with no correction.

Elsewhere in the Times, Damien Cave and James Glanz look at the bombings in northern Iraq from last week (Tuesday) for "Toll Rises Above 500 in Iraq Bombings:"

One week after a series of truck bombs hit a poor rural area near the Syrian border, the known casualty toll has soared to more than 500 dead and 1,500 wounded, according to the Iraqi Red Crescent Society, making it the bloodiest coordinated attack since the American-led invasion in 2003.
Dr. Said Hakki, the director of the society, said Tuesday that local Red Crescent workers registering families for aid after the explosions near the town of Sinjar had compiled the new numbers, which dwarf the earlier estimates of at least 250 dead.
The toll, Dr. Hakki said, may yet rise. Emergency workers continued to drag body parts from the site's dusty rubble.

Meanwhile Bully Boy is attempting to put some distance between himself and the US puppet Nouri al-Maliki that he has long stood by publicly. Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Jim Rutenberg (New York Times) report on the:

striking attempt by the White House to distance itself from the Maliki government before September, when the president's troop buildup faces an intense review on Capitol Hill.
That timing is no coincidence. Mr. Bush is already facing skepticism within his own party over the troop buildup, and will almost certainly confront repeated attempts by Democrats to force an end to the war. So he seems to be laying the groundwork for a new message, one that says, "We're doing our job in Iraq; don't blame us if the Iraqis aren't doing theirs."

Martha notes this from Michael A. Fletcher and Megan Greenwell's "Bush Turns Up Heat on Maliki" (Washington Post):


White House aides said later that Bush's comments did not mean he was withdrawing support from Maliki but were simply a statement of reality -- that Iraqis were growing frustrated and that under the country's new democratic system, the people could decide to replace the current government with a more capable one. But the president's tough words -- together with similar strong statements from the top U.S. diplomat in Baghdad -- suggested that the administration's patience with the current leadership is wearing thin.
Still, Bush intends to use a speech Wednesday to continue making the case for remaining in Iraq, despite the frustrations.
Support for Maliki also appears to be eroding on Capitol Hill. On Monday, Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, urged the Iraqi parliament to oust Maliki's government and replace it with one that is more unifying, if Maliki cannot forge a political accommodation with rival factions soon.

Bully Boy propped him up. The most laughable aspect may be his revisionary 'history' re: Cambodia. Do any but the devoted trust Bully Boy for knowledge at this point? Samantha notes "Bush to Blame U.S. Exit from Vietnam for Terrorism" (The UnCapitalist Journal):

President Bush is planning to give a speech on why he's going to keep the U.S. mired in Iraq, and he will claim he's doing so because of the "lessons" of Vietnam (as if he and his fellow chickenhawk neo-cons were ever there).
In an altogether stunning expression of broader, radical historical revisionism long held by neo-conservatives, Bush will assert that our exit from Vietnam "emboldened" today's terrorists. Incapable of admitting utter catastrophe in waging a 21st Century war of aggression that has left the U.S. armed forces debilitated and incapable of effectively fighting even a single theater war against a real enemy, and unable to face up to the wreck visited upon the fiscal house of the nation by irresponsible tax cuts for the rich coupled with unending, uncontrolled costs of vaporous war against a stateless band of criminal maniacs, the President of the United States of America is about to go all the way back and blame Richard Milhouse Nixon for this miserable failure of a Presidency.

On the helicopter crash today in Iraq, CBS and AP note:

The UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter was part of a pair on a nighttime operation when the crash occurred. The four crew members and 10 passengers who were killed, according to the U.S. military, were assigned to Task Force Lightning. It was the deadliest helicopter crash since Jan. 20, when a Black Hawk crashed in Diyala province northeast of Baghdad, killing 12 soldiers aboard. The military said that helicopter might have been shot down by a shoulder-fired weapon.

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

the new york timesjeff zelenythe daily jotcedrics big mix
damien cave
the washington postmegan greenwell

[Repost of Cedric's "New York Times lies again!" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! NEW YORK TIMES LIES ABOUT PEACE MOVEMENT!" from this evening.]

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIX MIX -- KANSAS CITY, MO.

TOSSING OUT MORE CHICKEN SOP FOR THE SOUL BARACK OBAMA DECLARED TODAY, IN HIS SPEECH TO THE V.F.W., MANY PROMISES.

INSTEAD OF EXAMINING THEM OR ASKING WHERE HIS PLAN, FOR INSTANCE, TO IMPROVE THE WAIT TIME FOR VETERANS SEEKING HEALTH CARE, THE IDIOT AT THE NEW YORK TIMES, JEFF ZELENY DECIDES TO SLIME THE PEACE MOVEMENT.

ZELENY HEARS THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT BY OBAMA:

THE GRAVES OF OUR VETERANS ARE HALLOWED GROUND. WHEN MEN AND WOMEN WHO DIE IN SERVICE TO THIS COUNTRY ARE LAID TO REST, THERE MUST BE NO PROTESTS NEAR THE FUNERALS. IT'S WRONG AND IT NEEDS TO STOP.

AND WRITES UP: "HE ALSO SAID IT WAS WRONG FOR ANTI-WAR ACTIVISTS TO PROTEST AT MILITARY FUNERALS, DECLARING: 'IT NEEDS TO STOP'."

THE ONLY PROTESTS AT MILITARY FUNERALS HAS BEEN FROM FRED PHELPS' ANTI-GAY CROWD. THAT'S WHAT HAS UPSET CONGRESS.

JEFF ZELENY DOESN'T KNOW THE TRUTH FROM HIS IMPACTED COLON AND HE SMEARS THE PEACE MOVEMENT WITH A LIE WHICH WILL PROBABLY RESULT IN A RAISE AT THE PAPER THAT SOLD THE ILLEGAL WAR.

[BEFORE IT CHANGES, ZELENY: One of the biggest applause lines of his speech came when he pledged that during an Obama administration, veterans would not have to wait months -- or years -- for services at veterans hospitals. He also said it was wrong for anti-war activists to protest at military funerals, declaring: "It needs to stop."]





FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Starting with war resisters. Camilo Mejia served in Iraq, served in Iraq well after his contract ran out and, as a non-US citizen, the military couldn't extend his contract but they chose to pretend like they could. They also denied him CO status. He tells his story Road from Ar Ramaid: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia in which was released in May. One story not in the book, because it just happened, is that he's just been elected the chair of Iraq Veterans Against the War board of directors.

Aaron Glantz (One World) reports that IVAW held their elections during the St. Louis Veterans for Peace conference and elected Mejia with Garrett Reppenhagen explaining that IVAW "decided to make support of war resisters a major part of what we do." Glantz reports on IVAW's big success in Fort Drum where the local chapter is up and running and now claims 20 members and, of course, has the first GI coffeehouse in the nation (for this illegal war) with Different Drummer as well as that September 17th IVAW will kick off Truth in Recruiting.
Mejia will be at Different Drummer this Thursday for a reading (starts at 6:30 pm) from Road from Ar Ramaid: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia and the GI Coffee House is located in Watertown, NY (12 Paddock Arcade, 1 Public Square, 13601).

Mejia tells Glanz, "There's a sort of revolution taking place in the streets. It's not being reported by the mainstream media, but we in the antiwar movement know what's going on. There is a rebellion going on in the ranks of the military that is not being reported."

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Timothy Richard, 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.

John Stauber (CounterPunch) notes: "IVAW was founded in 2004 and today it is a rapidly growing grassroots, independent anti-war group with members active in 43 states and deployed on bases in Iraq. These rank and file soldiers are not partisans; they are Americans who have seen first hand the greatest political betrayal of our lifetime, the US attack on Iraq and the long occupation. Iraq Veterans Against the War are not the concoction of a liberal think tank or PR firm; they have very little funding; they are not avoiding criticism of Democrats; and they are not playing political games trying to bank-shot Democratic candidates into the White House and Congress in 2008. They are in open non-violent revolt against US foreign policy, criticizing politicians of all stripes who would exploit the war for political gain." If only the media -- big and small -- could do the same.

Yesterday, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted the Project for Excellence in Journalism "study shows corporate news coverage of the Iraq war has dropped sharply in the last four months. According to the Project for Excellence in Journalism, the Iraq war accounted for just fifteen percent of news coverage, down from twenty-two percent earlier this year. Network evening news coverage of the war went from forty-percent to nineteen percent. The Democratic and Republican presidential campaign emerged as the most-covered issue over the same period." The report, entitled "Campaign For President Takes Center Stage In Coverage," notes that during "the period from April through June of 2007 was that press coverage of the war in Iraq declined markedly. Together the three major storylines of the war -- the policy debate, events on the ground, and the impact on the U.S. homefront -- filled 15% of the total newshole in the quarter, a drop of roughly a third from the first three months of the year, when it filled 22%." And the report zooms in one period: "Attention to the Iraq war fell across all five media sectors in the second quarter. The bulk of the decline occurred after May 24, when Congress approved funding without including troop withdrawal timetables, a move widely viewed as a White House victory." So when the Democrats in Congress caved, the media followed the lead?
The report doesn't cover independent or public broadcast media (and focuses on TV) but to focus on that period (April through June), a few broadcasts deserve noting. Bill Moyers Journal (PBS) utilized the May 25th hour to examine Maxine Hong-Kingston and veterans efforts to explore war and peace (click here to watch/listen, here to read) and on May 11th, Moyers spent the third segment with Marilyn D. Young, editor with Lloyd C. Gardner of Iraq and the Lessons of Vietnam (audio/video and transcript) with Young addressing the lies that the illegal war was built upon. May 28th, Free Speech Radio News presented a a special Memorial Day look at the some of the costs of the war in US anchored by Aaron Glantz where he spoke with veterans and their families (and drew on the knowledge and experience he has as a result of devoting so much time to covering all aspects of the illegal war). June 11th WBAI's Law and Disorder (Dalia Hashad, Michael Ratner, Michael Smith and Heidi Boghosian -- though I don't believe Boghosian was part of that discussion) explored the topic of resistance within the US military with Tod Ensign. Democracy Now! featured many segments during that period but we'll note three: June 6th Goodman discussed the efforts to steal/privatize Iraqi oil, the 'benchmarks' and the Democratically controlled Congress with Antonia Juhasz; the May 14 discussion with Yanar Mohammed about the realities of life for women in the 'liberated' Iraq; and the June 12 interview of Iraq Veterans Against the War Adam Kokesh discussing how the US military had targeted him for speaking out against the illegal war.

A few of the print media stories during this time worth noting would include Bay Fang's "The Talibanization of Iraq" (Ms. magazine, spring 2007 issue)and certainly CounterPunch and Matthew Rothschild (The Progressive) have seriously and repeatedly covered the illegal war during this period. And The Nation? They spent the first six months of this year offering more feature articles on the election than on the illegal war. They also were first out of the gate with the non-stop horse race gas bagging on the 2008 elections. In fact, their first article on the 2008 election appeard online November 3rd ("The Off-Year Primary" -- ran in the November 20th print edition) -- four days before the 2006 elections had taken place. Do we want to talk about the American Idol column that got disappeared? No? Didn't think so. (Though officially 'disappeared,' you can seeMike's "The Third Estate Sunday Review " and then Elaine's "Monday" and then Rebecca's "cynthia mckinney" -- each excerpted a section of the column after it had been 'disappeared' but before it was also gone from Google cache.)

At Truthdig (audio and transcript) James Harris and Josh Scheer speak with Matthew Rothschild about his new book You Have No Rights and Harris brings up the executive order the Bully Boy issued last month noting "it said, basically, that if you protest or threaten what he calls 'stabilization efforts in Iraq,' your property can be seized and you can be detained. Were you are aware of that?" Rothschild: "I have the order in my hand. I was just writing something on the computer to update our website with something on that. Yeah. If you are -- in the mind of the secretary of the Treasury -- posing a significant risk of committing an act of violence -- you don't have to have committed an act of violence. If he thinks you are at risk of committing an act of violence in order to protest the policies of the Iraqi government or the Bush administration's policies to promote what it calls 'economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq,' then the secretary of the Treasury can put a freeze on all your assets. This is unbelievable. What Bush is trying to achieve her, by executive order, are things that he can't achieve legislatively. Someone's got to put a stop to this. Congress has got to put a stop to it because he is seizing all sorts of authoritarian powers right now by executive decree."


RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Camilo Meija elected chair of IVAW's board of directors"
"Bully Boy calls it 'progress'"
"al-sadr claims british forced out of iraq & more"
"Dave Lindorff, etc"
"Isaiah, Joseph Gerson, Ramzy Baroud"
"James Carroll, Third"
"He meant it, he really meant it!"
"THIS JUST IN! OBAMA WAS SERIOUS!"

the new york times
jeff zeleny
the daily jot
cedrics big mix

Tuesday, August 21, 2007.  Chaos and violence continue, Camilo Mejia chairs a board, the puppet of the occupation isn't feeling the love, Matthew Rothschild explains the need for impeachment, and more.

Starting with war resisters.  Camilo Mejia served in Iraq, served in Iraq well after his contract ran out and, as a non-US citizen, the military couldn't extend his contract but they chose to pretend like they could.  They also denied him CO status.  He tells his story Road from Ar Ramaid: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia in which was released in May.  One story not in the book, because it just happened, is that he's just been elected the chair of  Iraq Veterans Against the War board of directors.

Aaron Glantz (One World) reports that IVAW held their elections during the St. Louis  Veterans for Peace conference and elected Mejia with Garrett Reppenhagen explaining that IVAW "decided to make support of war resisters a major part of what we do." Glantz  reports on IVAW's big success in Fort Drum where the local chapter is up and running and now claims 20 members and, of course, has the first GI coffeehouse in the nation (for this illegal war) with Different Drummer as well as that September 17th IVAW will kick off Truth in Recruiting.

Mejia will be at Different Drummer  this Thursday for a reading (starts at 6:30 pm)
from Road from Ar Ramaid: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia and the GI Coffee House is located in Watertown, NY (12 Paddock Arcade, 1 Public Square, 13601).

Mejia tells Glanz, "There's a sort of revolution taking place in the streets.  It's not being reported by the mainstream media, but we in the antiwar movement know what's going on.  There is a rebellion going on in the ranks of the military that is not being reported."


There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Timothy Richard, 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.

John Stauber (CounterPunch) notes: "IVAW was founded in 2004 and today it is a rapidly growing grassroots, independent anti-war group with members active in 43 states and deployed on bases in Iraq.  These rank and file soldiers are not partisans; they are Americans who have seen first hand the greatest political betrayal of our lifetime, the US attack on Iraq and the long occupation.  Iraq Veterans Against the War are not the concoction of a liberal think tank or PR firm; they have very little funding; they are not avoiding criticism of Democrats; and they are not playing political games trying to bank-shot Democratic candidates into the White House and Congress in 2008.  They are in open non-violent revolt against US foreign policy, criticizing politicians of all stripes who would exploit the war for political gain."  If only the media -- big and small -- could do the same.

Yesterday, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted the Project for Excellence in Journalism "study shows corporate news coverage of the Iraq war has dropped sharply in the last four months.  According to the Project for Excellence in Journalism, the Iraq war accounted for just fifteen percent of news coverage, down from twenty-two percent earlier this year. Network evening news coverage of the war went from forty-percent to nineteen percent. The Democratic and Republican presidential campaign emerged as the most-covered issue over the same period."
The report, entitled "Campaign For President Takes Center Stage In Coverage," notes that during "the period from April through June of 2007 was that press coverage of the war in Iraq declined markedly.  Together the three major storylines of the war -- the policy debate, events on the ground, and the impact on the U.S. homefront -- filled 15% of the total newshole in the quarter, a drop of roughly a third from the first three months of the year, when it filled 22%."  And the report zooms in one period: "Attention to the Iraq war fell across all five media sectors in the second quarter.  The bulk of the decline occurred after May 24, when Congress approved funding without including troop withdrawal timetables, a move widely viewed as a White House victory."  So when the Democrats in Congress caved, the media followed the lead?

The report doesn't cover independent or public broadcast media (and focuses on TV) but to focus on that period (April through June), a few broadcasts deserve noting.  Bill Moyers Journal (PBS) utilized the May 25th hour to examine Maxine Hong-Kingston and veterans efforts to explore war and peace (click here to watch/listen, here to read) and on May 11th, Moyers spent the third segment with Marilyn D. Young, editor with Lloyd C. Gardner of Iraq and the Lessons of Vietnam (audio/video and transcript) with Young addressing the lies that the illegal war was built upon.  May 28th, Free Speech Radio News presented a
a special Memorial Day look at the some of the costs of the war in US  anchored by Aaron Glantz where he spoke with veterans and their families (and drew on the knowledge and experience he has as a result of devoting so much time to covering all aspects of the illegal war).   June 11th  WBAI's Law and Disorder (Dalia Hashad, Michael Ratner, Michael Smith and Heidi Boghosian -- though I don't believe Boghosian was part of that discussion) explored the topic of resistance within the US military with Tod Ensign.  Democracy Now! featured many segments during that period but we'll note three: June 6th Goodman discussed the efforts to steal/privatize Iraqi oil, the 'benchmarks' and the Democratically controlled Congress with Antonia Juhasz; the May 14 discussion with Yanar Mohammed about the realities of life for women in the 'liberated' Iraq;
and the June 12 interview of  Iraq Veterans Against the War Adam Kokesh   discussing how the US military had targeted him for speaking out against the illegal war.
 
A few of the print media stories during this time worth noting would include
Bay Fang's "The Talibanization of Iraq" (Ms. magazine, spring 2007 issue)
and certainly CounterPunch and Matthew Rothschild (The Progressive) have seriously and repeatedly covered the illegal war during this period.  And The Nation?  They spent the first six months of this year offering more feature articles on the election than on the illegal war.  They also were first out of the gate with the non-stop horse race gas bagging on the 2008 elections.  In fact, their first article on the 2008 election appeard online November 3rd ("The Off-Year Primary" -- ran in the November 20th print edition) -- four days before the 2006 elections had taken place.  Do we want to talk about the American Idol column that got disappeared?  No?  Didn't think so.  (Though officially 'disappeared,' you can see
Mike's "The Third Estate Sunday Review " and then Elaine's "Monday" and then Rebecca's "cynthia mckinney"  -- each excerpted a section of the column after it had been 'disappeared' but before it was also gone from Google cache.)

At Truthdig (audio and transcript) James Harris and Josh Scheer speak with Matthew Rothschild about his new book You Have No Rights and Harris brings up the executive order the Bully Boy issued last month noting "it said, basically, that if you protest or threaten what he calls 'stabilization efforts in Iraq,' your property can be seized and you can be detained.  Were you are aware of that?"  Rothschild: "I have the order in my hand.  I was just writing something on the computer to update our website with something on that.  Yeah.  If you are -- in the mind of the secretary of the Treasury -- posing a significant risk of committing an act of violence -- you don't have to have committed an act of violence.  If he thinks you are at risk of committing an act of violence in order to protest the policies of the Iraqi government or the Bush administration's policies to promote what it calls 'economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq,' then the secretary of the Treasury can put a freeze on all your assets.  This is unbelievable.  What Bush is trying to achieve her, by executive order, are things that he can't achieve legislatively.  Someone's got to put a stop to this.  Congress has got to put a stop to it because he is seizing all sorts of authoritarian powers right now by executive decree."

Harris: But Matthew, let's be real for a second.  Here we are, year four of this war.  Given what you've seen so far from Congress, can they really make a change in this war?  Can they really change the mind of George Bush?

Rothschild: They're going to have to step up to the plate sometime, or we can kiss our Constitution goodbye, because Bush is trampling all over it.  Cheney's trampling all over it.  What we need to happen, in my mind, is impeachment proceedings of the House Judiciary Committee against Bush and against Cheney, to make them know that they are going to be held accountable or at least there's going to be a process to try to hold them accountable, that they can't get away scot-free with all this stuff, and to tell the next president or the one after that that they can't get away with this stuff.

They will keep getting away with it as long as the media refuses to inform the public. Perfect example . . .

On August 17th when Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno spoke with reporters via a video-link, he did not simply state that there would be likely be a decrease in the number of US troops in Iraq next year (as many MSM outlets reported).  He sold this as a testing 'strategy': "By conducting a deliberate reduction of our forces is what's necessary in the future whenever we determine to do that.  By conducting a deliberate reduction, phased with the increase in the capabilities of Iraqi security forces, I think it significantly reduces the risk of us then losing the areas that we've been able to secure so far.  That's why a deliberate plan over time I think will be most successful. "  He then went on to avoid "specifics on numbers, because I think I need to leave that to General Petraues" but made clear that the escalation will most likely be ending next year.  His 'strategy' is to use that as a 'test'.  Which would mean the numbers could just as easily go right back up. Was he spinning?  Most likely.  But that is what he stated in the press briefing, that it was a means of testing (and also gave the impression that he'd always understood that the escalation would end in April of 2008).

And of course he pushed the myth (still no evidence provided, just charges) that Iran is doing this, that and everything but helping the sun rise each morning.  So the news, reported by KUNA today, that a Syrian, not an Iranian, was arrested in Mosul must have led to some sobbing at Centcom.

As the British prepare to withdraw from southern Iraq, the BBC interviewed Mike Colbourne ("UK's chief police adviser") who stated of the Basra police, "The corruption that we are talking about does range from financial corruption through to serious offences such as murder, kidnap.  There are a number of Iraqi police service officers who are clearly aligned to militias.  I think it is fair to say that there is sectarian violence that is being committed by both police officers and other Iraqi security forces officers.  That is just the truth of the situation as it is at the moment."

Staying on the topic of departures, AFP reports that US Senators Carl Levin and John Warner have released a joint statment calling for Nouri al-Maliki's government to be given one last chance: "We believe that the recent high-level meetings among Iraqi political leaders could be the last chance for this government to solve the Iraqi political crisis. And should it fail, we believe, the Iraqi Council of Representatives and the Iraqi people need to judge the government of Iraq's record and determine what actions should be taken - consistent with the Iraqi constitution - to form a true unity government to meet those responsibilities."  Jonathan Weisman (Washington Post) quotes Levin declaring, "I hope the parliament will vote the Maliki government out of office and will have the wisdom to replace it with a less sectarian and more unifying prime minister and government."  Megan Greenwell (Washington Post) notes that prior to leaving for Syria, al-Maliki had another 'alliance' meeting but the Iraqi Parliament doesn't return from their vacation until September 4th (the same day the US Congress returns from their vacation) and, "That timeline leaves a narrow window for the politicians to solve major issues before the Sept. 15 report.

The report . . . Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) reports US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker has termed Iraq's 'progress' with regards to national reconciliation "extremely disappointing" (a more truthful term would be "non-existent") and that he repeated the lie about civilian deaths being down (apparently the Los Angeles Times doesn't read McClatchy Newspapers because that comment goes unchecked).  Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus are supposed to report to the US Congress Sept. 15th on the 'progress' in Iraq (in what many assume will be words written for them by the White House).  AP notes Crocker's stated "Washington's blueprint for reconciliation was insufficient to win back control of the country" but then he attempted to explain "Congressional benchmarks do not tell the whole story".  First, they are White House 'benchmarks' -- pushed by the White House, adopted by Congress.  Second, "insufficient to win back control of the country" pretty much says it all.

In some of today's violence . . .


Bombings? 

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad explosion that "targeted a US convoy" claimed the lives of 2 Iraqis and left four wounded.  Reuters notes that the number wounded rose to fourteen and that a bomber in vest killed themselves and left eight people wounded in Falluja

Shootings?

Reuters notes 7 family members were shot dead in a Latifiya home invasion ("included three women and a baby girl").

Corpses?

Reuters notes 12 corpses were discovered in Baghdad today.

Though the bombings in northern Iraq were only last week (last Tuesday in fact), many in the media have lost interest.  Lelia Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that the confirmed death toll now stands at 354 with "80 more are known to be missing" and the wounded toll is 600 while "[t]he pungent smell of the dead hangs low in this village, and not even the colorful headdresses the men have wrapped across their faces can keep it out."

The violence has created refugees -- externally and internally -- and today Jen Utz (Democracy Now!) filed a report from Damascus on refugees in Syria where she spoke with one Iraqi family and noted that "Iraqi refugees are forbidden from working in Syria, and the family's savings are running out.  Plus, they tell me that life in exile is emotionally criplling, and they have no hope they'll go home anytime soon" while Omar explains to her the problem: "What's happening in Iraq is because of your president.  He's the main reason.  Most of the Iraqis have been forced to leave their homes and their families.  They have had family members kidnapped or killed.  There is no house in Iraq that doesn't have a problem like this.  There must be a solution for the Iraqi people.  Why don't they find a solution?"

Okay, we're doing a transition here -- external refugees are immigrants.  Labor reporter David Bacon regularly covers the stories that usually don't get covered which includes immigration and he also addresses child labor such as children from the ages of 11-years-old to 17-years-old working the banana groves in the Philippines.



iraq
camilo mejia
iraq veterans against the war
democracy now
amy goodman
antonia juhasz
adam kokesh
bill moyers journal
maxine hong kingston
matthew rothschild
the washington post
megan greenwell
the los angeles times
leila fadel
mcclatchy newspapers
david bacon

Aaron Glantz' "Iraq War Resisters to Get Boost from Veterans Group" (One World) reports on some of the focus for Iraq Veterans Against the War at the Veterans for Peace conference in St. Louis that ran from last Wednesday through Sunday. Camilo Mejia (who tells his story in Road from Ar Ramaid: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia which the New Press published in May) is now the chair of IVAW's board of directors as a result of the elections held this weekend. Garrett Rappenhagen explains that IVAW "decided to make support of war resisters a major part of what we do." Mejia declares, "There's a sort of revolution taking place in the streets. It's not being reported by the mainstream media, but we in the antiwar movement know what's going on. There is a rebellion going on in the ranks of the military that is not being reported." Glantz also notes IVAW's big success in Fort Drum where the local chapter is up and running and now claims 20 members and, of course, has the first GI coffeehouse in the nation (for this illegal war) with Different Drummer. Glantz notes other actions as well including that September 17th IVAW will kick off Truth in Recruiting. And, of course, their "funding the war is killing the troops campaign" is ongoing as well.

And what of funding and backing the puppet? AFP reports that US Senators Carl Levin and John Warner have released a joint statment calling for Nouri al-Maliki's government to be given one last chance: "We believe that the recent high-level meetings among Iraqi political leaders could be the last chance for this government to solve the Iraqi political crisis. And should it fail, we believe, the Iraqi Council of Representatives and the Iraqi people need to judge the government of Iraq's record and determine what actions should be taken - consistent with the Iraqi constitution - to form a true unity government to meet those responsibilities."

al-Maliki is the US installed and supported puppet. He has not represented Iraqis and why he's being given yet another chance is anyone's guess? For an Iraqi point of view on the puppet, click here.

There's at least one non-Iraq related item that will go in the snapshot that was e-mailed to the public account. It will go in because I don't have time for it now. Members are encouraged to use the private e-mail accounts. I'm trying to make sure no one has to go through the continued filth (from guess who) that continues to pour into the public account. As such, I'm way behind this morning. There's at least three e-mails from Friday to the public account that need a reply and more over the weekend. If you're a visitor who e-mailed give it a day or two before reminding me.

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


camilo mejia
iraq veterans against the war
mcclatchy newspapers