A police officer and a woman and young child died today in Samarra. Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) reports:

Sixty suspected al-Qaida in Iraq fighters hit national police facilities in a coordinated attack in Samarra, sparking two hours of fighting that saw three people killed and more than a dozen insurgents captured, police said Friday.
The masked attackers drove into the city at dusk Thursday in about 20 vehicles, including pickups with machine-guns, then split into small groups and assaulted four police checkpoints and a headquarters building, a Samarra police official said.

Meanwhile, Reuters reports that 3 "secularist ministers . . . will formally quit" the cabinet of Nour al-Maliki today and that three are from Iyad Allawi's party. As Democracy Now! noted yesterday, Allawyi is working with "Republican lobbying firm Barbour, Griffith, and Rogers" in an effort to become the new prime minister of Iraq (Allawi was previously interim prime minister). Allawi was (and maybe possibly still be) a CIA asset. Jim Lobe (writing at Foreign Policy in Focus on December 18, 2003, noted by Lynda) summarized the then current situation in Iraq:

While the neo-cons continue to try to bolster their favorites on the Iraqi Governing Council, primarily Ahmed Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), the "realists" are more inclined to work with others on the Council, notably Ayad Alawi, leader of the Iraqi National Accord (INA), long a CIA favorite.
During the 1990s, the two groups, both of which boasted high-ranking secret contacts within the Iraqi army and intelligence services, competed for influence in Washington, but, with the empowerment of the neo-conservatives after 9/11 and Bush's decision to give the Pentagon the lead in the war on terrorism, the INC became clearly dominant. The two groups fundamentally distrust and detest each other. The INC has always contended that the INA was heavily infiltrated by Iraq's intelligence services and that, in any case, many of its operatives were Ba'athists whose democratic credentials were questionable at best. The INA, on the other hand, that the INC was essentially a vehicle for Chalabi's personal ambitions as opposed to a movement that could mobilize significant sectors of the population.
Their major differences at the moment are over the CPA's "Iraqification" plans. Chalabi, who helped persuade the Pentagon neo-cons to summarily disband the army after the war, has long called for a thorough de-Ba'athification of Iraq, particularly in the military and police. INA, on the other hand, has long argued that purges should be kept to a minimum in order to ensure the cooperation and loyalty of competent officials and military officers in post-war Iraq.
In the run-up to the next June's scheduled transfer of sovereignty from the CPA to a provisional government, both parties are now pursuing their separate but largely contradictory agendas. While the Pentagon leadership continues to support Chalabi's efforts to launch a wide-ranging de-Ba'athification by, for example, blacklisting companies close to Saddam Hussein for new contracts or sponsoring laws that would enable tribunals to prosecute even mid-ranking Ba'athist officials, Alawi's INA is working with the CIA and U.S. military authorities in Baghdad to recruit former Ba'athist intelligence officials into a new service that is being deployed against the insurgents. INA has also lobbied hard for accelerating "Iraqification" of the army and security forces.
All of these incoherencies reflect the lack of an underlying strategy behind which the key factional interests back in Washington are united, a unity that has long eluded the Bush administration. And while Bush has clearly been tilting away from the hawks in favor of the realists over the past two months, incoherence is likely to persist so long as both forces retain the ability to undermine each other.

When Allawi was briefly in power after the US began the illegal war he was reported to have killed prisoners. From Paul McGeough's "Allawi Shot Inmates in Cold Blood, Say Witnesses" (Sydney Morning Herald via Common Dreams, July 2004):


Iyad Allawi, the new Prime Minister of Iraq, pulled a pistol and executed as many as six suspected insurgents at a Baghdad police station, just days before Washington handed control of the country to his interim government, according to two people who allege they witnessed the killings.
They say the prisoners - handcuffed and blindfolded - were lined up against a wall in a courtyard adjacent to the maximum-security cell block in which they were held at the Al-Amariyah security center, in the city's south-western suburbs.
They say Dr Allawi told onlookers the victims had each killed as many as 50 Iraqis and they "deserved worse than death".

In this morning's New York Times, James Glanz and Stephen Farrell report that the Bully Boy's escalation has led to an escalation in the amount of Iraqi refugees. Citing figures by the Iraqi Red Crescent, the reporters declare "the total number of internally displaced Iraqis has more than doubled, to 1.1 million from 499,000, since the buildup [of troops -- the escalation] started in February." Citing no known figures, the reporters contrast this was the alleged "evidence that the troop buildup has improved security in certain areas". This was the talking point put out by the US military but they refused to release any figures for the claim.

And Lloyd notes Josh White's "U.S. Falters In Bid to Boost Iraqi Business" (Washington Post):

More than a year after the Pentagon launched an ambitious effort to reopen Iraqi factories and persuade U.S. firms to purchase their goods, defense officials acknowledge that the initiative has largely failed because American retailers have shown little interest in buying products made in Iraq.
The Pentagon thought U.S. firms would be willing to help revitalize the war-torn Iraqi economy and create jobs for young men who might otherwise join the insurgency. But the effort -- once considered a pillar of the U.S. strategy in Iraq, alongside security operations and political reform -- has suffered from a pervasive lack of security and an absence of reliable electricity and other basic services.

Reminder: On this week's NOW with David Brancaccio (PBS, beings airing in most markets tonight):

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.

In addition a preview of the show is posted at YouTube.

Already this morning, Reuters notes 26 Iraqis killed or found dead today.

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

On this week's NOW with David Brancaccio (PBS, beings airing in most markets tonight):

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.

In addition a preview of the show is posted at YouTube.

Also today, the US military announced: "One Task Force Lightning Soldier died Aug. 24 as a result of injuries sustained from an explosion earlier in the day while conducting operations in Salah ad Din Province. Four Soldiers were also wounded and transported to a Coalition medical facility for treatment." The current numbers at ICCC are 3725 US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war with 67 for the month thus far.


Today, the US military also announced the death of another prisoner in US custody:

A security detainee died at the Theater Internment Facility at Camp Cropper, Iraq Aug. 23.
Preliminary medical tests indicate the cause of death was from acute renal failure.
The detainee was pronounced dead at 3:31 p.m. by an attending physician at Camp Cropper’s medical facility.
The body will be transported to mortuary affairs and the family will receive the remains upon completion of the investigation, in accordance with standard procedure.

Death by retinal failure? From the July 10th snapshot:

Today, the US military announced a death that took place Saturday: "A security detainee died at the Theater Internment Facility at Camp Cropper, Iraq July 7 from injuries sustained after apparently being assaulted by other detainees. The detainne was pronounced dead at 2:10 a.m. by an attending physician at Camp Cropper's medical facility. The incident is currently under investigation. The family will receive the remains upon completion of the investigation, in accordance with standar procedure." Isn't it great to know the US military has a "standard procedure" when dealing with the deaths of prisoners in American custudy? Did you catch the time? Two in the morning. Two in the morning, Saturday morning, and the US learns of it on a Tuseday.
So the detainee died from injuries sustained after apparently being assualted by other detainees"? And it's under investigation. Anyone thinking of October 30, 2006? That's when the US military announced: "A security detainee died Oct. 29 at Camp Cropper, Iraq, from apparent injuries sustained after being assaulted by other detainees. The incident is under investigation" and what were the results? Camp Cropper sure seems to have a lot of deaths. December 1, 2006, the US military announced: "A security detainee died Nov. 30 at Camp Cropper, Iraq, from what appears to be natural causes." There to they had the "investigation is pending" tossed in. December 6, 2006, the US military announced: "A security detainee died Dec. 2 at Camp Cropper, Iraq, from natural causes." April 6, 2007, the US military announced: "A security detainee died April 4 at Camp Cropper, Iraq." May 28, 2007, the US military announced: "A security detainee died May 26 at Camps Cropper, Iraq." So today's announcement means 6 deaths in less than 1 year. A reported record in the US would probably lead to cries for a prison investigation.

It's now 7 deaths in leass than a year.

Author and activist Grace Paley has died. Democracy Now! will note the passing today:

Grace Paley 1922-2007: We remember the acclaimed writer and poet byreplaying an interview with her from 2003 talking about the peacemovement and the role of poets in a time of war

Marcia passed on that. February 11, 2004, Democracy Now! noted:

Iraq Governing Council to Pay Ex-Iraqi President
The US-installed regime in Iraq said last night it would pay a monthly pension to a former president overthrown more than 35 years ago in a coup that brought Saddam Hussein's Baath party to power. The Iraqi Governing Council says it will pay Abdel-Rahman Aref $1,000 a month and allocate $5,000 to cover his medical bills in Jordan. Aref rose to prominence in 1963 when he was appointed army chief of staff by his elder brother, then President Abdel-Salam Aref. He was overthrown in July of 1968 in a coup that was aided by the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA also gave the Baath Party the names of some 5,000 Iraqi Communists who were then hunted down and killed or imprisoned. Following the coup, Baath party leader Ahmed Hasan al-Bakr became president, with Saddam as his right hand man.

Note the CIA involvement. Abdel-Salam Aref has died in Jordan and you can search the AP write up in vain for any mention of CIA involvement:

Three years later, the brother died in a plane crash and Iraqi army officers, said to have been supported by Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel-Nasser, chose the younger Aref to become Iraq's third president. The plane crash was believed to be a sabotage.
Aref was president until 1968, when he was toppled in a bloodless coup by the Baath Party, led at the time by Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr who became Iraq's next president. But Saddam was believed to have held behind-the-scenes power in the coup and later, until formally taking over the government in 1979.

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

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