The New York Times has real news on the front page but Stephen Farrell can't see it, despite all the space given to his "Draft Accord Said to Set Goals for Iraq Pullout." The news comes via Khalid Mohammed's front page photo of US Secretary of State Condi Rice. She's raided Elvis' closet! How else to explain the shiny, sparkly suit she wears. Couldn't someone have told her that it was career suicide for Phil Ochs when he began wear the Elvis gold suit.

Refusing to break the news that really matters, Farrell goes on for paragraph after paragraph, saying very little but you really can't tease out a story on a treaty proposal when you haven't seen it and you have no strong confirmation of what it really says, now can you?

But he's on the front page and continued on A10 and trying so hard to turn it into a story. Less time teasing it out and more time getting honest with readers (such as what is withdrawal and what isn't) would have made for a better use of time.

Also on the front page is Richard A. Oppel Jr.'s "Iraq Takes Aim at Leaders Of U.S.-Tied Sunni Groups" which is not a waste of time to read. The White House repeatedly credited the "Awakening" Council members with the small reduction in violence in Iraq. Appearing before Congress in April, US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker repeatedly hailed the "Awakening" as a reason for the reduction. Oppel reports that, "The Shiite-domination government in Iraq is driving out many leaders of Sunni citizen patrols, the groups of former insurgents who joined the American payroll and have been a major pillar in the decline in violence around the nation." Throughout the article, US voices will pop up objecting. Comments made by a Shi'ite general should alarm Americans who mistakenly believe the puppet is anything but a thug himself.

Of the "Awakening" members, Brig Nassir al-Hiti declares, "These people are like cancer and we must remove them"; while Gen Nassir declares the "Awakening" are "like a drug addict who quits only to take drugs again." There's no question that the "Awakening" members are thugs; there's also no question that Nouri has put thugs in place in the Interior Ministry, the police force and more. The only difference is one group of thugs is Sunni ("Awakening") and one group is Shi'ite. The US installed the Shi'ite thugs. Elections will take place (provincial elections) at some point. A great deal of what is taking place (the targeting and arrests of "Awakening" members) has to do with Nouri & company shoring up their own power base before going into those elections.

Leila Fadel's "Key U.S. Iraq strategy in danger of collapse" (McClatchy Newspapers)reports:

But the Iraqi government, which is led by Shiite Muslims, has brought only a relative handful of the more than 100,000 militia members into the security forces. Now officials are making it clear that they don't intend to include most of the rest.
"We cannot stand them, and we detained many of them recently," said one senior Iraqi commander in Baghdad, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the issue. "Many of them were part of al Qaida despite the fact that many of them are helping us to fight al Qaida."
He said the army was considering setting a Nov. 1 deadline for those militia members who hadn't been absorbed into the security forces or given civilian jobs to give up their weapons. After that, they'd be arrested, he said.

Does it sound a great deal like what Nouri's thugs have attempted (and are attempting) with Moqtada al-Sadr's supporters? It should. Fadel speaks with US General David Petraeus for "Petraeus: Iraq slows hiring of former insurgents:"

"We're not going to walk away from them, and as I said, Prime Minister Maliki committed to taking care of them," he said. "I do think it is somewhat understandable that the government struggles to hire former insurgents for its security forces or for its ministerial positions...But this is how you end these kinds of conflicts. That's why they call it reconciliation. It's not done with one's friends, it's done with former enemies."

The illegal war has not improved but you can be sure Bully Boy's worried about the little bump (provided by the "Awakening" Councils) that he had hoped to ease out (sneak out?) of office on and how it's fading.

Ali al-Mashhadani was noted in the July 31st snapshot:

Meanwhile, AP reports that journalist Ali al-Mashhadani is being held by the US military at Camp Cropper. al-Mashhadani works for Reuters, BBC and NPR. Dean Yates (Reuters) reports that (as usual) no charges have been brought against Ali and quotes David Schlesinger (Reuters Editor-in-Chief) explaining, "Any accusations against a journalist should be aired publicly and dealt with fairly and swiftly, with the journalist having the right to counsel and present a defense." From Monday's snapshot, "Sabrina Tavernise (New York Times) reported . . . 'Also on Friday, the American military acknowledged that it unintentionally killed the son of an editor for an American-financed newspaper in the northern city of Kirkuk on Thursday. The military said soldiers had been fired at from a taxi and shot back, hitting Arkan al-Naiemi, 14, in the taxi'." Saturday, Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) wrote about Arkan at Baghdad Observer noting that he "often stayed late at his father's newsroom in Kirkuk. The editor-in-chief of the weekly Voice of Villages, Ali Taha, treated his son as a journalist in training. . . . The teen listened to pop music and was obsessed with computer games. He loved the weekly trips he took with his father to sites in the area. The most recent trip was to the Dokan Dam, the primary water source in Kirkuk. He loved to stay late into the night at the Voice of Villages newsroom, a U.S. supported weekly, and help in any way he could. Who knows what he would've been when he grew up. Who knows what life he would've lived. God had other plans, his father said."
Karin Laub (AP) reports that Ali al-Mashhadani has been released (finally) and that US Maj John C. Hall told the press the release came about "because he was deemed not to be a security threat."

Back to the 'latest' draft of a treaty, Paul Richter and Ned Parker, "U.S. and Iraq close to a troop withdrawal deal" (Los Angeles Times, link has text and video):

But Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki in Baghdad's fortress-like Green Zone, downplayed expectations that approval of an agreement was imminent.
"We'll have agreement when we have agreement," Rice told reporters, addressing speculation that a deal was near.

I'm not sure Condi's downplaying so much as she's pointing out the basic facts. Fadel and Jonathan S. Landay stick to the basics in her reporting of this story here.

Kyle asks that we again note "Bob Herbert's World" from Ralph's Daily Audio -- independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader's audio commentary:


This is Ralph Nader. The New York Times columnist Bob Herbert has a problem.
He's written numerous columns complaining about presidential candidates and their campaigns ignoring serious policy issues. It's as if no one else is running for president in Bob Herbert's world other than Barack Obama and John McCain.
In a recent article that he wrote in the New York Times, he complains about how the two major candidates and their campaigns are ignoring the problems of the cities: the poverty, the transportaion problems, the lack of repair and expansion of public works and facilities, the crime. He complains that the mayors have been complaining that they have been abandoned by Washington, citing a recent gathering of city mayors that he attended.
In one of these gatherings he cites the mayor of Meridian, Mississippi, John Robert Smith saying that he believes the nation should devote the same level of commitment to developing a first-rate passenger rail system as was marshalled for the interstate highway system in the Eisenhower era. Well, the Nader-Gonzalez campaign has taken a strong stand for the expansion and modernization of passenger rail as a way to save energy, to reduce casualties on the highway and to provide more immediate evacuation of the cities in case of a calamity or a natural disaster.
But to Bob Herbert, the Nader Gonzalez campaign which supports almost one-for-one so many of the issues that he advances and champions doesn't exist. To him, the Nader-Gonzalez campaign or any progressive third party campaign doesn't exist in his column so I say to Bob Herbert, "At least level with your readers, Mr. Herbert, tell them that you think the two major parties, Republican and Democrat, own all the voters and there's no one else on the ballot. At least level with them."
This is Ralph Nader.

And Megan notes this from Team Nader:

Banking on Congress

This week, The Wall Street Journal reported that Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) officials are pushing various agencies charged with regulating banks, such as the Treasury’s Office of Thrift Supervision to more aggressively give problem banks lower ratings than they may now be receiving from regulators. Regulators give banks a rank between 1 and 5. Well-managed banks get a 1, problem banks receive a 4 or 5. The FDIC wants to see more banks getting 4s or 5s.

In late July, I wrote to U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass. to suggest that they jointly hold hearings on the FDIC’s ability to deal with potential bank failures in the next several years. In the letter, I noted that in a March 10, 2008 memorandum on insurance assessment rates, Arthur J. Murton, Director of the Division of Insurance and Research for the FDIC stated:

While 99 percent of insured institutions meet the "well capitalized" criteria, the possibility remains that the fund could suffer insurance losses that are significantly higher than anticipated. The U.S. economy and the banking sector currently face a significant amount of uncertainty from ongoing housing sector problems, financial market turbulence and potentially weak prospects for consumer spending. These problems could lead to significantly higher loan losses and weaker earnings for insured institutions.

FDIC Chairman Sheila C. Bair, however, has been singing a more upbeat tune. She recently said, "The banking system in this country remains on a solid footing through the guarantees provided by FDIC insurance. The overwhelming majority of banks in this country are safe and sound and the chances that your own bank could fail are remote. However, if that does happen, the FDIC will be there - as always - to protect your insured deposits."

Despite these reassuring words, the recent failure of IndyMac highlights the need for tough Congressional oversight. Banking experts have indicated that the cost of the collapse of IndyMac alone will be between $4 billion and $8 billion. The FDIC has approximately $53 billion on hand to deal with bank failures. This amount may not be adequate, given the cost of IndyMac and given the approximately $4 trillion in deposits the FDIC insures.

Congressional oversight of the financial services industry and its regulators should be a topic priority for Congress. I even suggested several questions that should be put to FDIC officials such as:

1. Was IndyMac on the list of "Problem Institutions" before it failed?

2. Were the other banks that failed this year on the FDIC list of "Problem Institutions"?

3. What is the anticipated cost of dealing with the failures of the other four banks that failed this year?

4. As of March 31, 2008 the FDIC reported 90 "Problem Institutions" with assets of $26 billion. What is the current number of "Problem Institutions" and what are the assets of these "Problem Institutions"?

5. How many banks are likely to fail in 2008 and 2009 respectively?

6. What is the estimated range of costs of dealing with the projected failures?

7. What will the effect of higher losses than those projected be on the FDIC’s estimate of the proper reserve ratio?

8. What are the FDIC's projections for reserves needed and potential bank failures beyond 2009?

9. Is the FDIC resisting raising the current rates of assessments on FDIC insured banks so that the cost of any significant bailouts will have to be shifted to the taxpayers?

10. Does the Government Accountability Office (GAO) believe that the existing rate schedule for banks to pay into the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) is set at the proper level?

It would also make sense for Congress to revisit the FDIC's current approach to setting reserve ratios for banks.

The FDIC is not likely to address its own inability to clearly assess the current risks posed to depositors and taxpayers by the high-rolling, bailout-prone banking industry.

When Congress reconvenes after Labor Day it would be prudent for Senator Dodd and Congressman Frank to focus on the FDIC and our nation’s troubled banks through some tough no-holds-barred hearings. These two lawmakers are going to have to hear from the people back home soon.

Neither Senator Dodd nor Congressman Frank have responded to my letter of July 23, 2008.

END

ShareThisShareThisShareThis

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

iraq
the new york times
stephen farrell
richard a. oppel jr.
the los angeles times
ned parker
paul richter
leila fadel
jonathan s. landay
mcclatchy newspapers

The U.S. military on Wednesday denounced a chaotic raid conducted by an Iraqi special forces unit Tuesday morning that killed an Iraqi government employee and sparked a gunfight with police in Diyala province, northeast of Baghdad.
"It was what appears to be a rogue operation," said Brig. Gen. James C. Boozer, the deputy commander of U.S. forces in northern Iraq, which oversee Diyala.
The Iraqi Islamic Party, the largest Sunni party in the country, has condemned that raid and another in which a local university president was arrested, describing them as part of a Shiite sectarian campaign.

The above is from Washington Post's "Around the World" -- their global briefs section. And no, the New York Times has still not reported on it. Even with four articles from Iraq today. Three already discussed, what we were saving?

The Sob Sister. The Flasher of Falluja -- who exposed himself while covering for the US military during the November 2004 slaughter. Yes, he's back and Dexy's putting on the red light yet again. "Exiting Iraq, Petraeus Says Gains Are Fragile" screams the headline and Dexy checks his Loretta Young hairdo and smooths down his tweed skirt and jacket. The Sob Sister of the Green Zone returns, shoulder pads in place, hunting for more myths and lies to repeat.

Remember this from Sunday night:

But the US military has good news! "Attacks down except roadside bombs, rigged houses"! So attacks are down . . . if you eliminate some of the attacks. The opening sentence: "The numbers of houses rigged with explosives and roadside bombs have increased since the beginning of the Iraqi offensive in Diyala, while other attack trends have been decreasing." Guess this wave of Operation Happy Talk should be dubbed "win some, lose some."

Now we all know Dexy knows how to read press releases from the Green Zone. But somehow he forgot to include that in his article. He just notes Davy Petraeus whispering to him that car and suicide bombings dropped "last month." It was a rough report for Dexy. He looked over (in the morning) and he saw his David "looking drawn, exhausted, and more than a few years older than when he took command" of Dexy's heart? "18 months ago." Thank goodness Dexy is back in the Green Zone to sing:

Love woke me up this morning
Feeling fine
I had you on my mind
Love woke me up this morning
And I haven't had a heart ache today
And all my little tears have gone away
Skies are blue
Because of you.
-- "Love Woke Me Up This Morning," written by Nickolas Ashford & Valerie Simpson, recorded by the Temptations on the album All Directions

Happily, Dexy woke up singing that song. Sadly, Davy whispered to Dexy, "There is not much in the tank at the end of the day."

Don't lose hope, Dexy, just switch to another Ashford & Simpson lyric and sing "you've got to lay it brick by brick, to make it stick, you've got to use all of you, 'cause that's the glue." But wait, he already did: " . . . in the general's exhaustion comes the glimmer of hope . . ." Not the Hope Diamond, mind you, but some day, Dexy, some day.

Let's not even go there on that seventh paragraph.

Forever and ever the story seems to drag on (A&S: "It seems to hang on . . .") until finally it ends. Every thing Davy spits out, Dexy swallows. And hasn't it always been that way?

If Dexy's back in the Green Zone, he may not get the pass he got before. Judith Miller blocked a lot of attention that could have gone Dexy's way. He was fortunate in that regard. Iraq was less so. Some day his tombstone may read: "He was had for a Hershey bar."

Turning to the US presidential race. This is from Ralph's Daily Audio and it is entitled "Debates Declaration:"

This is Ralph Nader. The two major parties -- Republican and Democratic Parties -- and their candidates seem to want to ration debates in this country. Why do we allow presidential debates to be rationed?
We don't allow weather reports to be rationed, entertainment to be rationed, sporting events to be rationed. But when it comes to the future of our country and it's place in the world, when it comes to the livelihoods and the necessities of the American people, we're left with three debates, so-called, in the fall with only Barack Obama and John McCain on the stage. Their own debate commission/corporation ensures that no one else on the stage and they're really not debates, they're like parallel interviews.
So we want people to open up the debates and to support the following declaration:
"We call for opening up the debates. The scope of discussion must be as broad and deep as the serious challenges we face as a nation. We agree that vibrant debate is the heart beat of our democracy and our First Amendment especially during an election year. We recognize that smaller third parties and independents have traditionally played a vital role in our democracy including leading the charge for the abolition of slavery, the women's right to vote and economic justice for workers and farmers. We support opening up the debates beyond the two parties and the so-called Commission on Presidential Debates -- which is a private corporation, co-chaired by former chairman of the Republican and Democratic Parties -- it's time for our presidential debates to once again be hosted by truly non-partisan, civic minded associations."
If you support this declaration, let's hear from you.

Yesterday evening and night time community posts revolved around the theme of 80s music so be sure to check out Rebecca's "corey hart's 'never surrender'," Ruth's "Stevie Nicks' 'Edge of Seventeen'," Kat's "Tracey Chapman's 'Fast Car'," Marcia's "Ashford & Simpson 'High Rise'," Elaine's "Cyndi Lauper" and Mike's "Tina Turner, Bangles, R.E.M.." Cedric's "Barack tells people what he thinks there problem is" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! HE JUST CAN'T CONNECT!" joint-post addresses Barack. In response to the order people are listed in for Wed. theme posts, listing them in the order Wally and Cedric do which allows them to grab all the links easily without going site to site (their order is: Rebecca, Ruth, Kat, Marcia, Elaine and Mike). As for an e-mail asking why Rebecca used '' around a song title, (a) everyone did and (b) Rebecca always does that. Rebecca always does that (using the British music writing version). Everyone did last night in their titles (only Rebecca used '' in the text of the post) because of Wally and Cedric grabbing the post headings to link to. Trina's "Split Pea Soup in the Kitchen" went up this weekend as did Betty's latest chapter "Betsy and Valda come calling" and we'll note those here as well.

Back to Ralph's Daily Audio for "Bob Herbert's World:"

This is Ralph Nader. The New York Times columnist Bob Herbert has a problem.
He's written numerous columns complaining about presidential candidates and their campaigns ignoring serious policy issues. It's as if no one else is running for president in Bob Herbert's world other than Barack Obama and John McCain.
In a recent article that he wrote in the New York Times, he complains about how the two major candidates and their campaigns are ignoring the problems of the cities: the poverty, the transportaion problems, the lack of repair and expansion of public works and facilities, the crime. He complains that the mayors have been complaining that they have been abandoned by Washington, citing a recent gathering of city mayors that he attended.
In one of these gatherings he cites the mayor of Meridian, Mississippi, John Robert Smith saying that he believes the nation should devote the same level of commitment to developing a first-rate passenger rail system as was marshalled for the interstate highway system in the Eisenhower era. Well, the Nader-Gonzalez campaign has taken a strong stand for the expansion and modernization of passenger rail as a way to save energy, to reduce casualties on the highway and to provide more immediate evacuation of the cities in case of a calamity or a natural disaster.
But to Bob Herbert, the Nader Gonzalez campaign which supports almost one-for-one so many of the issues that he advances and champions doesn't exist. To him, the Nader-Gonzalez campaign or any progressive third party campaign doesn't exist in his column so I say to Bob Herbert, "At least level with your readers, Mr. Herbert, tell them that you think the two major parties, Republican and Democrat, own all the voters and there's no one else on the ballot. At least level with them."
This is Ralph Nader.

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

[Note: Entry originally titled, "Dexy's flashing 'The Look of Love' again." After it posted, changed to new title.]

iraq
the washington post
the new york times
dexter filkins
ashford & simpson
like maria said paz
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
trinas kitchen
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
thomas friedman is a great man
ruths report
sickofitradlz

"Part of what I’d like to do is talk to the prime minister and see what still remains to be done, what still needs to be closed," Rice said before meeting with Maliki at his home in the fortified Green Zone here. "Nothing will be signed today."
American and Iraqi negotiators have been saying for weeks that they are close to an agreement, but that Maliki has held up the process over his concern that the agreement doesn't give Iraq enough authority over U.S. troop conduct.
The agreement foresees U.S. combat troops leaving Iraq by 2011, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari has said. Other Iraqi officials have told McClatchy that the agreement also calls for U.S. forces to pull out of Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009.
One senior Iraqi official said Maliki has been the primary obstacle to completing the agreement. Every time negotiators seem close to conlucding the talks, Maliki raises a new issue, the official said.

The above is from Jonathan S. Landy's "Rice meets with Iraq's Maliki on U.S. troop agreement" (McClatchy Newspapers). Before we get to anything else, US House Representative Stephanie Tubb Jones has died. Pictured below with Senator Hillary Clinton for the "Count Every Vote" initiative, Tubbs Jones was a courageous member of the House who stood up for the voters and for the vote in January 2005 (along with US Senator Barbara Boxer). The New York Times had long ridiculed questions of voter fraud in the 2000 and 2004 elections. Tubbs Jones and Boxer's stand meant the press had to take it a little more seriously.


Stephanie Tubbs Jones was a judge, a prosecutor and, following the November 1998 elections, a member of the House of Representatives.

Back to Iraq, Alexandra Zavis reports on Baquba in "Grooming a female suicide bomber" (Los Angeles Times):

The ethnically and religiously mixed province east of Baghdad has long been a center of Al Qaeda in Iraq, which formed alliances here with Sunni tribesmen and nationalist political groups against Shiite militants. This is a world in which few women are educated, loyalty to family and tribe are paramount, and fear permeates relations with outsiders.
Al Qaeda in Iraq leaders, known as emirs, managed to recruit entire clans to their cause by marrying into the families here. The women forced into these marriages are often passed around among emirs, said Saja Quadouri, who sits on the provincial council's security committee and is its only female member.
"They will get married to more than one man and get pregnant without knowing who the father is," she said. "Eventually, due to despair, hopelessness and fear, they get exploited to commit such crimes, as they become unwanted by society."
Other women are persuaded to perform a suicide mission to avenge the loss of a father, husband or brother, said a U.S. intelligence analyst, who asked not to be identified for security reasons. In tribal societies, the loss of male relatives typically leaves women without protection or means of survival.
Asma's marriage collapsed shortly before her husband died in a shootout; she says she does not know who killed him. Her father has spent the last three years in a U.S. detention facility on terrorism charges.

The article makes sweeping generalizations and suffers from what is basically an admission that guilt or innocence doesn't matter. It damn well does. When women are being imprisoned, guilt or innocence damn well matters. (I'm referring to the entire approach of the article but specifically this sentence: "Although it remains far from clear whether the women committed the crimes of which they were accused, the tale they shared from their barren cell offers a peek into the violent and claustrophobic world in which women are groomed to become suicide bombers.")

The New York Times files four articles from Iraq. The strongest is Campbell Robertson and James Glanz' "Iraqi Figures Back U.S. View on Low Spending for Reconstruction" (A7) which tells you that the Iraqi Finance Ministry claims (in figures they handed over to the Times as well as in statements to the paper) that they are spending 57% "of their annual reconstruction budget"; however, the paper's examination of the figures finds that 18% is the better number and if monies for the Kudistan region (which have not been spent, only allocated) is removed, the figure "drops to 8.7 percent." Stephen Farrell offers "U.N. Readies 'Grand Deal' to Resolve Iraq's Dispute Over Kirkuk" (A8) and the main topic was covered in yesterday's snapshot so we'll focus on the more interesting section buried at the end:

Meanwhile Prime Minister Fouad Siniora of Lebanon arrived in Baghdad on Wednesday, in the footsteps of King Abdullah II of Jordan, who earlier this month became the first Arab leader to visit Iraq since the American-led 2003 invasion.
Mr. Siniora appeared with Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki at a news conference about an agreement to export oil to Lebanon. Iraqi oil was also prominent on King Abdullah's agenda.

Stephen Farrell and Thom Shanker's "Draft of Pact Set on Forces From U.S. On Iraq Soil:"

The difficulty in reaching a final agreement reflects its importance to Iraq and the United States. Technically, the document will provide the legal basis for American troops to remain in Iraq beyond 2008. But it will also amount to a political document, spelling out for the people of each nation the most difficult issues of this war, notably how long American troops will remain.
The main sticking points, in fact, are also the most delicate: setting a timeline for American troops to leave and declaring whether American forces would be granted immunity from Iraqi prosecution.
In Baghdad, Hoshyar Zebari, Iraq's foreign minister, said that the text of a draft had been agreed upon by negotiators on the technical and legal teams who had worked on it since March 11. But he cautioned that this fell short of a final agreement because it had yet to be approved by the political leadership in either country, including Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.

Anything that comes out will be a draft. (A point even the White House has made this week -- on Tuesday -- but is somehow lost by the press.) The fourth article? We'll address it in the next entry.

Lolis notes this from Team Nader:

Kilmer, Sheehan, Morello with Nader in Denver

As late as yesterday, we didn't think we had a chance.

For the first time in this campaign, we were at serious risk of missing a self-imposed financial goal.

Then, yesterday, you came through.

And now, we're back in it.

Now, we're just shy of $42,000.

And we have a chance to hit our goal of $50,000 by 11:59 pm tonight.

But we're going to have to bust a gut to get there.

All out.

All day.

All night.

So, we are calling on 900 of you -- our most loyal supporters -- to donate $10 each now to push us over the top.

(900 times $10 equals $9,000, right?)

And for every $10 contribution you donate today, we will give free admission to a needy student who wants to come to hear Ralph Nader at our Open the Debates Super Rally at the University of Denver's Magness Arena. ($10 in advance, $12 at the door.)

Ralph will be joined by his running mate Matt Gonzalez.

And -- breaking news -- a star studded line-up will join Ralph and Matt in a call to open up the Presidential debates.

Featuring -- Val Kilmer, Cindy Sheehan and Rage Against the Machine's Tom Morello, Jello Biafra, Nellie McKay, and Ike Reilly.

So, please -- give a student a chance to attend this historic event.

Donate $10 now -- or whatever you can afford -- and send a student to raise the banner in Denver -- Open the Presidential Debates, More Voices, More Choices.

Keep an eye on our widget throughout the day.

Watch your name go up in lights.

And see if we blast through our goal.

Donate now.

And let's get it done.

Together, we will not be denied.

Onward.

The Nader Team.

PS: Last chance to get our two DVD Sicko/Awake from Your Slumber package. If you donate $100 or more by tomorrow night, we will send you the best argument yet made for single payer Medicare for all health insurance -- the DVD Sicko. Plus, we'll send Awake from Your Slumber -- the DVD starring Ralph Nader and Patti Smith -- autographed by Ralph.

ShareThisShareThis

Micah notes this video from Team Nader.




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



iraq
jonathan s. landay
mcclatchy newspapers
alexandra zavis
the los angeles times
stephen farrell
the new york times
thom shanker
campbell robertson
james glanz

Wednesday, August 20, 2008.  Choas and violence continue, another US service member is dead, Richard A. Oppel Jr.'s reporting has the UN and US in damage control, Bully Boy lies to the VFW, lies surround yesterday's assaults in Diyala Province, and more.   Starting with war resistance. US war resister Tim Richard could not take part in the illegal war in Iraq for legal and ethical reasons so he went to Canada.  At the London War Resisters Support Campaign, he notes J.M. Branum's response to the ridiculous Rondi Adams. James Branum, a member of the National Lawyers Guild and co-chair of their Military Law Task Force, is representing US war resister Robin Long expected to face a court-martial shortly after being extradited from Canada last month.    Courage to Resist offers the followings to support Robin:         1. Donate to Robin's legal defense         Online: http://couragetoresist.org/robinlong         By mail: Make checks out to "Courage to Resist / IHC" and note "Robin Long" in the memo field. Mail to:    Courage to Resist       484 Lake Park Ave #41     Oakland CA 94610  Courage to Resist is committed to covering Robin's legal and related defense expenses. Thank you for helping make that possible.      Also: You are also welcome to contribute directly to Robin's legal expenses via his civilian lawyer James Branum. Visit girightslawyer.com, select "Pay Online via PayPal" (lower left), and in the comments field note "Robin Long". Note that this type of donation is not tax-deductible.     2. Send letters of support to Robin      Robin Long, CJC        2739 East Las Vegas            Colorado Springs, CO 80906        Robin's pre-trial confinement has been outsourced by Fort Carson  military authorities to the local county jail.         Robin is allowed to receive hand-written or typed letters only. Do NOT include postage stamps, drawings, stickers, copied photos or print articles. Robin cannot receive packages of any type (with the book exception as described below).        3. Send Robin a money order for commissary items          Anything Robin gets (postage stamps, toothbrush, shirts, paper, snacks, supplements, etc.) must be ordered through the commissary. Each inmate has an account to which friends may make deposits. To do so, a money order in U.S. funds must be sent to the address above made out to "Robin Long, EPSO". The sender's name must be written on the money order.       4. Send Robin a book           Robin is allowed to receive books which are ordered online and sent directly to him at the county jail from Amazon.com or Barnes and Noble. These two companies know the procedure to follow for delivering books for inmates.   Robin Long was extradited.  It was done under the cloak of deportation because Judge Anne Mactavish knew that if she openly instituted extradition proceedings, there would be higher checks on her actions which could have prevented Robin from being forced out of Canada.  It is not a minor point and it's one that's all the important as US war resister Jeremy Hinzman has been informed he has until September 23rd to leave Canada.  In Robin's case, Mactavish was willing to ignore the law as well as guidelines covering refugees and immigrants (most obvious in her decision to extradite Robin and break up a family -- Robin is the father of a Canadian child) and willing to oversee the handover of Robin Long to US authorities (that's what makes it extradition and not deportation).  Hopefully, Jeremy's expulsion from Canada will be stopped.  But people need to pay attention to what happens if it is not.  Robin was locked away for weeks and kept from contact with those who could have advised and offered support.  He went from a Canadian jail to being handed over to US authorities.  Judge Mactavish argued that Robin had to be imprisoned because he was a "flight risk."  A "flight risk"?  If someone you are debating expelling is a "flight risk," you don't lock them away.  You hope they decide to leave on their own to avoid your government paying the costs of a hearing.  Mactavish got a way with a lot.  If Jeremy is expelled, all eyes should be watching to ensure that laws are not broken.  Jeremy is being highly pro-active and has already taped a video, which you can find at the  War Resisters Support Campaign, where he speaks directly to Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada:   Jeremy Hinzman: Hello, Mr. Harper.  This is my family Nga, Liam and Meghan.  We've been in Canada for the last four and a 1/2 years.  I was a specialist in the 82nd Air borne division of the United States Army and served honorably in Afghanistan.  In 2004, my family and I came to Canada because we would not participate in the Iraqi War, a war which Canada also refused to participate in because it was condemned by the international community.  One of your predecessors, Pierre Trudeau, once said that Canada should be have from militarism and we took him at this word.  On June 3, 2008, the Canadian Parliament passed a motion saying that United States war resisters should be able to remain in Canada.  We're asking you to abide by this motion and allow us to stay in Canada.  Thank you.   Title Card: On September 23rd, the Harper government plans to deport the Hinzman family back to the United States.   Title Card: Hinzman faces a court martial and up to 5 years in military prison for opposing the Iraq war and coming to Canada.   Title Card: War Resisters Support Campaign (Canada): www.resisters.ca     Courage to Resist alerts, "Supporters are calling on Hon. Diane Finley, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, to intervene. Phone 613.996.4974 or email finley.d@parl.gc.ca,"Iraq Veterans Against the War also encourages people to take action, "To support Jeremy, call or email Hon. Diane Finley, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and ask her to intervene in this case. Phone: 613.996.4974 email: finley.d@parl.gc.ca." In addition to that, Canada's War Resisters Support Campaign is staging an emergency meeting this week (August 20th, Wednesday, 7:00 pm, Steelworkers Hall at 25 Cecil St.) and planning a day of action (September 13th) where "[a]ctions, demonstrations and pickets will take place in cities and towns all across Canada."     There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Yovany Rivero, William Shearer, Michael Thurman, Andrei Hurancyk, Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara 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, Daniel Baker, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, 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, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty 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 [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).     Turning to Iraq where Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reports, "A key pillar of the U.S. strategy to pacify Iraq is in danger of collapsing" and she's referring to the counter-insurgency 'strategy' of putting thugs on the US payroll so that they will, as US Ambassador to Iraq outlined to Congress repeatedly in April, stop attacking Americans (the 'strategy' is: Fork over your lunch money and you'll be safe on the playground).  Call them "Awakening" Council or "Sons of Iraq" or whatever, they're thugs paid to play nice.  Fadel notes that the Shi'ite dominated government of puppet Nouri al-Maliki refuses to bring these Sunni militias into the government and quotes "one senior Iraqi commander in Baghdad" explaining, "We cannot stand them, and we detained many of them recently."  That part is no surprise.  The next part of the quote?  "Many of them were part of al Qaida despite the fact that many of them are helping us to fight al Qaida" can be seen as the cover explanation that will be offered (and has been offered) for not bringing them in.  One group of thugs in power doesn't want to share with another.  The US installed one group and then, "counter-insurgency" (brought to Iraq by such 'great' minds as Sarah Sewall and Monty McFate) decided paying off the other dominant (in the population) group of thugs was just the thing to . . . throw the whole country off balance.  Which it has.  Let's hear it for the quackery of Sidewalk Social Scientists.  Fadel quotes one thug leader of the "Awakening" Council, Mullah Shahab al Aafi, declaring, "If they disband us now, I will tell you that history will show we will go bacck to zero.  I will not give up my weapons.  I will never give them up, and I will carry my weapon again.  If it is useless to talk to the government, I will be forced to carry my weapons and my pistol."    As Fadel notes the White House has repeatedly sold the "Awakening" Councils as a success story.  So let's drop back to April for some basics.  From April 8th, when US Amassador Crocker and US General David Petraeus brought their variety show to Congress:   How much lunch money is the US forking over?  Members of the "Awakening" Council are paid, by the US, a minimum of $300 a month (US dollars).  By Petraeus' figures that mean the US is paying $27,300,000 a month.  $27 million a month is going to the "Awakening" Councils who, Petraeus brags, have led to "savings in vehicles not lost".  Again, in this morning's hearings, the top commander in Iraq explained that the US strategy is forking over the lunch money to school yard bullies.  [. . .] Crocker's entire testimony can be boiled down to a statement he made in his opening statements, "What has been achieved is substantial, but it is also reversible."  Which would translate in the real world as nothing has really changed.  During questioning from Senator Jack Reed, Crocker would rush to shore up the "Awakening" Council members as well.  He would say there were about 90,000 of them and, pay attention, the transitioning of them is delayed due to "illliteracy and physical disabilities."    That afternon, the Senate Foreign Affairs committe chair would outline the three reasons violence was "down" (but had not ceased), Joe Biden: "First, the Sunni Awakening, which preceded the surge.  Second, the Sadr cease-fire.  Third, sectarian cleansing that left much of Baghdad segregated, with fewer targets to shoot or bomb.  These tactical gains are relative.  Violence is now where it was in 2005 and spiking up again.  Iraq is still incredibly dangerous and, despite what the President says, very far from normal.  And these gains are fragile.  Awakening members frustrated at the government's refusal to integrate them into the national security forces could turn their guns back on us."  What if the "Awakening" Council members turned their guns?  It's not pie-in-the-sky, it's a question that should have been answered back in April.  The frustrations are boiling over as al-Maliki continues to refuse to fold them into the government forces.  Back to that snapshot and focusing on Senator Barbara Boxer's time:   She then turned to the issue of monies and the militias, "You are asking us for millions more to pay off the militias and, by the way, I have an article here that says Maliki recently told a London paper that he was concerned about half of them" and wouldn't put them into the forces because he doubts their loyalty.  She noted that $182 million a year was being paid, $18 million a month, to these "Awakening" Council members and "why don't you ask the Iraqis to pay the entire cost of that progam" because as Senator Lugar pointed out, "It could be an opportunity" for the Iraqi government "to turn it into something more long term."  This is a point, she declared, that she intends to bring up when it's time to vote on the next spending supplamental. Crocker tried to split hairs.   Boxer: I asked you why they couldn't pay for it. . . . I don't want to argue a point. . . I'm just asking you why we would object to asking them to pay for that entire program giving all that we are giving them in blood and everything else?   Crocker declared that he'd take that point back to Iraq when he returned.    Now we're flipping over to the April 10th snapshot and bringing in the topic of the treaties:   Senator Joe Biden: We will hear today about the two agreements that the Administration is negotiating with Iraq which were anticipated in the November Declaration. On Tuesday, Ambassador Crocker told us that these agreements would set forth the "vision" -- his phrase -- of our bilateral relationship with Iraq.  One agreement is a "strategic framework agreement" that will include the economic, political and security issues outlined in the Declaration of Principles. The document might be better titled "What the United States will do for Iraq," because it consists mostly of a series of promises that flow in one direction -- promises by the United States to a sectarian government that has thus far failed to reach the political compromises necessary to have a stable country.  We're told that the reason why we're not continuing under the UN umbrella is because the Iraqis say they have a sovereign country. But they don't want a Status of Forces Agreement because that flows two ways. The Administration tells us it's not binding, but the Iraqi parliament is going to think it is. The second agreement is what Administration officials call a "standard" Status of Forces Agreement, which will govern the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, including their entry into the country and the immunities to be granted to them under Iraqi law. Unlike most SOFAs, however, it would permit U.S. forces -- for the purposes of Iraqi law -- to engage in combat operations and detain insurgents. In other words, to detain people that we think are bad guys. I don't know any of the other nearly 90 Status of Forces Agreements that would allow a U.S. commander to arrest anyone he believes is a bad guy.   The treaties are back in the news but before we get to them, April 10th, Biden was calling out the "internal threat" aspect and explaining that it required the US "to support the Iraqi government in its battle with all 'outlaw groups' -- that's a pretty expansive commitment," and one that requires the US "to take sides in Iraq's civil war" when "there is no Iraqi government that we know of that will be in place a year from now -- half the government has walked out. . . . We want to normalize a government that really doesn't exist."  Senator Russ Feingold would add, "Given the fact that the Maliki government doesn't represent a true coalition, won't this agreement [make it appear] we are taking sides in the civil war especially when most Iraqi Parliamentarians have called for a withdrawal of troops?"  All of the issues raised in today's news cycle were not only known some time ago, they were raised by the US Congress repeatedly in April (and brushed aside by those sent before them to offer talking points).  AP reports that US sources are saying the treaties (both of them) have been worked out and will soon be formalized.  Yesterday, US White House spokesperson Gordon Johndroe confirmed that the White House had been sent a draft.   On December 31st of this year, the United Nations authorization for the occupation of Iraq (there was never any authorization for the illegal war itself) expires.  Nouri al-Maliki has already angered the Iraqi Parliament by twice ignoring it and renewing the mandate.  But nothing is preventing the UN from offering a stop-gap measure of some form to briefly cover the occupation while the US presidency switches hand (Bully Boy has had his two terms and on his way out the door).  Even better, no extension -- even a brief one -- would end the illegal war because foreign forces would have to leave Iraq.  Instated, the White House is pushing long-term treaties that they attempt to call by other names to avoid the US Constitutional requirement that requires Senate authorization of all treaties.  (al-Maliki has stated that, on Iraq's ends, the Iraqi Parliament will follow their own Constitution to some degree and the Parliament will have some form of approval.)   The United Nations raised Iraq yesterday in their daily press briefing where a spokesperson (Farhan Haq) spoke for Ban Ki-moon and asserted "that, over the past five years, the United Nations has continued to help the people of Iraq -- and others throughout the world -- who suffer from violence, disease and want."  It is the fourth anniversary of the bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad (22 UN staffers died) and the spokesperson declared, "This work is often dangerous, but it must go on.  Those who died on August 18th, 2003 would have it no other way."  When you're arguing for continued actions on the backs of the dead, you're arguing from a position of weakness and "position of weakness" describes the UN's role throughout the Iraq War. Naturally Bloody War Hawk Samantha Power (taking time out from praising counter-insurgency) took to the New York Times yesterday to satisfy her blood lust with a column.  Despite providing a cloak for the ongoing illegal war, the anniversary of the UN bombing yesterday resulted in no 'shout out' from the White House with Gordon Johndroe not even acknowledging it in his press briefing.   Today in Florida, the Bully Boy of the United States addressed the VFW.  Gordon Johndroe had explained in yesterday's White House press briefing that the speech would be "a look-back on significant moments in the war on terror," and indeed Bully Boy attempted to use the 'war on terror' to justify everything but daughter Jenna's wedding expenses.  If he could fold it into the so-called war on terror, he obviously would have.  On Iraq he referenced Saddam Hussein as "a brutal dictator who murdered his own people" leaving out the fact that he was installed by the US and took most of his actions with US approval.  "Because we acted, the dicator is gone," he declared striving really hard to sound like a munchkin in The Wizard of Oz, "and 25 million Iraqis are free."  Bully Boy is wrong, approximately 2 million Iraqis are 'free' -- the external refugees who face new tragedies in other countries.  No one in Iraq is 'free.'  Not checking out the news cycle, Bully Boy complained that Iraq's suitation was once criticized and that some "were willing to give up on the mission."  Bully Boy made clear he would never apologize for the illegal war he started. He did make time to lie about "political and economic progress . . . taking place".  Lying is all the rage in front of the VFW this month.  Presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama lied this week.  He hailed presumptive Republican candidate John McCain's ("served this nation honorably") and then used his speech to attack McCain claiming that he (Barack) had always been consistent in his opposition to the illegal war.  A lie.  Another was hailing Nouri al-Maliki as "democratically-elected."  al-Maliki wasn't even the first choice of the US in the spring of 2006 (nor was he the first choice of the Iraqi parliament).  al-Maliki was installed.  It's that kind of lie -- one that comes so easily to Barack -- which goes a long, long way towards explaining how he's not vested in ending the illegal war.  Attempting to dispell his 'stranger' quality to the VFW, he ignored speaking of his father and his many wives and instead emphasized the American side of his family.  He also claimed wife Michelle had been speaking to veterans knowing no one would check into that (she's not sought out veterans) and knowing few would dare point out that Barack's refused a request for debate by, yes, veterans.  He repeatedly went nasty on McCain (including on the GI Rights Bill) knowing that as the darling of the press corps he can continue to attack and only McCain's attacks on him will ever be noted.  The only improvement for Barack is that someone has tutored him enough that he now no longer speaks of "the bomb" dropped on Pearl Harbor and appears aware that it was multiple bombs.  Yes, he truly is that stupid.   Yesterday's snapshot noted Richard A. Oppel Jr.'s "Kurdish Control of City Creates Political Powderkeg in North Iraq" (New York Times) on what Kurds are boasting as their takeover of oil-rich Kirkuk.  Missy Ryan (Reuters) reports today that US ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker is insisting that Iraqi MPs must not be "bitter" over events in Kirkuk and that It's important that the elections law focus on elections, not on attempting to use this legislation to solve a difficult and much more complicated problem." Had the US government wanted to stop it, Kirkuk's fate would not appear sealed today.  Crocker sanctimonously added, "It is important to remember what brings you together, not only the differences."  Economically, one difference is that Kirkuk is oil-rich and it's not as simple as Crocker wants to portray it.  Peter Graff (Reuters) reports that the UN's Staffan de Mistura declared at a press conference today that the UN was working on a "grand deal" to be revealed in September or October that would hopefully "resolve a looming row without fresh bloodshed" and, regarding Kirkuk, the UN would not advocate a referendrum but would instead attempt "to negotiate a broad political deal which could then be put to a 'confirmatory referendum', backed by all sides."   Yesterday, Iraqi security forces raided Sunni politicians, killed and arrested.  Nicholas Spangler and Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) report four police officers were wounded in the Diyala actions, the governor's secretary was shot dead, Hussein al Zubaidi ("provincial council member and head of security committee") was arrested, computers were seized and "Taha Dria, a Shiite lawmaker from Diyala who was not in the government compound during the raid, said the armed forces were from Iraq's Emergency Response Unit, an American-trained unit similar to U.S. Special Forces" quoting him explaining that, "They were wearing khaki. Their weapons were American. The Humvees they used looked American. They didn't have any ranks on their shoulders. They didn't talk."  They also report eye witnesses saw two US helicopters and that the helicopters fired on the Iraqi people.  The US military issued a denial on accusations yesterday and maintained that one helicopter was in the area but for other reasons and it was not involved in actions. Ned Parker and Usama Redha (Los Angeles Times) note the US military's denial and also explain that "a prominet Sunni university dean" was also arrested, that the Iraqi forces involved "reports to Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's counter-terrorism office" but al-Maliki claims he was unaware and his office insists, "These special forces work with the Americans. They are not associated with the Ministry of Defense. They have goals, and they didn't inform anyone else."  Nichoals Spangler (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that the US continues to deny any involvement in yesterday's lawless activities with US Big Gen James Boozer insisting, "It was what appears to be a rogue operations."  If true, it would reflect poorly on Bully Boy's declarations today, wouldn't it?  Spangler notes, "Both men arrested are Sunni Muslims, and the Iraqi Islamic Party, the largest Sunni party in the country, immediately condemned the raids as part of a sectarian campaign by the largely Shiite Muslim security forces."  So busy spinning, M-NF apparently was too busy to announce a death which is how the death toll for the month thus far reached 18 US service members with no one noticing (4145 since the start of the illegal war). Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .   Bombings?   Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that left two people wounded. Reuters notes four were wounded in that bombing   Shootings?   Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two Iraqi soldiers were wounded in a Baghdad shooting and a Nozad Sirwan ("engineer") was shot dead in Kirkuk. Reuters notes 1 person shot dead and two more wounded in Tuzkhurmato, 1 person shot dead by the US military in Abu Alapa, .   Corpses?   Reuters notes 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad and 2 corpses were discovered in Hilla.   Turning to the US presidential race.  Cynthia McKinney, Green Party presidential nominee, continues her campaign stops in Tennessee.  Tomorrow she starts the day in Dickson and moves on to Nashville where she will hold a press converence at Legislative Plaza (11:00 a.m., open to the public) and then  and she has upcoming appearances this week (tomorrow and Thursday) followed by a public Q&A.   Indpendent presidential candidate Ralph Nader continues his campaign for ballot access.  Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez' independent presidential bid has set the goal of appearing on 45 states' ballots and Ryan J. Foley (AP) reports that the Nader campaign in Wisconsin is 100 signatures away from the required number of signatures to gain access to the state's ballot and that they expect to more than exceed the required number by the September 2nd deadline.  In other news, Team Nader notes:   As late as yesterday, we didn't think we had a chance. For the first time in this campaign, we were at serious risk of missing a self-imposed financial goal. Then, yesterday, you came through. And now, we're back in it. Now, we're just shy of $42,000. And we have a chance to hit our goal of $50,000 by 11:59 pm tonight. But we're going to have to bust a gut to get there. All out. All day. All night. So, we are calling on 900 of you -- our most loyal supporters -- to donate $10 each now to push us over the top. (900 times $10 equals $9,000, right?) And for every $10 contribution you donate today, we will give free admission to a needy student who wants to come to hear Ralph Nader at our Open the Debates Super Rally at the University of Denver's Magness Arena. ($10 in advance, $12 at the door.) Ralph will be joined by his running mate Matt Gonzalez. And -- breaking news -- a star studded line-up will join Ralph and Matt in a call to open up the Presidential debates. Featuring -- Val Kilmer, Cindy Sheehan and Rage Against the Machine's Tom Morello, Jello Biafra, Nellie McKay, and Ike Reilly. So, please -- give a student a chance to attend this historic event. Donate $10 now -- or whatever you can afford -- and send a student to raise the banner in Denver -- Open the Presidential Debates, More Voices, More Choices. Keep an eye on our widget throughout the day. Watch your name go up in lights. And see if we blast through our goal. Donate now. And let's get it done. Together, we will not be denied. Onward.      iraq tim richard jeremy hinzman robin long jim branum leila fadel laith hammoudi nicholas spangler usama redha the los angeles times ned parker saif hameed  the new york times richard a. oppel jr.

Monday's snapshot noted Justice Robert Barnes' July 4th ruling in Joshua Key's case. Which resulted in X repeatedly e-mailing the public account. X explains repeatedly that he hasn't read the decision which is probably what should stop him before he feels the need to e-mail again. It's a 23-page decision. If you can't read a 23-page decision, you really have no right to disagree. You've got no standing to disagree. But X thinks that "military deserters and evaders" (Barnes) is "no big thing and just something written in passing." Yeah, that makes sense.

Of course Barnes was just writing in passing. He didn't mean for his ruling to matter, he didn't take it all seriously, and, no doubt, cobbled it together with little thought, intent or perspective.

If that's what you believe the only reason for believing that is you haven't read the decision.

Barnes is not practicing Anais Nin's symphonic writing (or Hannah Arendt's in her longer pieces -- not an insult to either writer) where the words twist and turn inward and outward so that the pace itself and the rhythm becomes as important as any thought expressed. He chooses his words very precisely. He is not going for symphonic writing nor is he redundant. It's a meticulous, carefully considered ruling.

"Military deserters and evaders" is not a classification he invented for that ruling. Those terms have been in use for a long time and, for present day purposes, they cover both a Joshua Key (who served in Iraq, "military deserter") and a Jeremy Hinzman (who did not serve in Iraq, "military evader").

Judge Barnes took the case before him very seriously. His ruling is rooted in Canadian law, in international law and contains careful citations. To dismiss his use of the phrase "military deserters and evaders" is to assume otherwise or to convince yourself, "Well, he was tired there and just rushing to finish writing it."

The Cliff Notes version is that Barnes explained why the 'board's' ruling in Key's case was too narrow. But the full decision explains why the rulings by the 'board' have been too narrow. That's why he bring in international law and non-governmental bodies (such as the International Red Cross). The entire ruling is an argument against the simplistic findings that the 'board' has repeatedly reached. (Canada's Refugee and Immigration Board does not make the decision, one member does. That's why I say 'board.') Joshua Key's case was the one before him. He was not required to mention Jeremy Hinzman by name; however, he does mention Jeremy by name. There's a reason for that.

To assume otherwise is to assume that Barnes' decision wasn't carefully considered. The only way you can reach that conclusion is to avoid reading the actual decision. Barnes' decision is a present day landmark. When you have a landmark decision, it gets built on. Barnes isn't an idiot, he full well knew that. He knew his decision would get attention and he knew it would come under scrutiny. So he sourced it throughout. There's not one section that's based on conjecture. It is a solid legal ruling in which every section is backed up and grounded in the law.

To insist that Jeremy Hinzman is just tossed out in passing and that Barnes didn't know what he was doing by mentioning Hinzman or that he was being redundant with the phrase "military deserters and evaders" is to argue something that the ruling (in it's 23 pages) does not back up.

X copies and pastes coverage from a daily paper when news of the ruling broke. Few journalists have any legal background or understanding. Even those who do have the constraints of deadlines. There is nothing in the article that suggests the reporter read the decision (in part or in full), let alone grasped it. There is no quote from the decision and the 'analysis' comes from quoting others. In the US (which is where X is from), when a government report is released and is covered, it's covered immediately. It may be over 100 pages. The reporters covering it out of the gate have not read the full report. And that's true, even in the next day's papers. Linda Greenhouse has left the New York Times and is now a college professor so it will be interesting to watch out how the New York Times' coverage of Supreme Court rulings is in the future. Greenhouse had a gift but she also had tremendous skill and training. The reporter highlighted by X covers a number of 'beats' and the legal beat is not usually one of them.

If we had a functioning press, Big or Small, Barnes' legal ruling would have been explored at length in magazines. (The daily press, by its nature, is about highlights.) We don't and Small Media has no real interest in war resisters period. (In These Times being the exception.) Before Katrina vanden Heuvel put her 'mark' on The Nation (which will come out with a little club soda), many lawyers did appear in the magazine. (Don't throw out Professor Patti inventing mythical French boys who tell her John Kerry's life story or combing through issues of People magazine to offer the racist and offensive comparison of African-American to black dogs. That's not a trained legal mind working, that's someone suffering from severe pop cultural damage.) That said, a number of attorneys have websites where they blog and there ws nothing preventing any of them from combing through the decision and writing about it. If you know one who did, by all means e-mail.

I don't know why you would go to the trouble of getting a law degree, starting a website and then deciding your 'contribution' would be to gas bag over election talking points. Which brings up another e-mail. James Branum is an attorney and he has a website. This entry is dictated around what I put in earlier this morning. I forgot to put in a link to the National Lawyers Guild and the person I'm dictating too is unfamiliar with links. So no link in this for the National Lawyers Guild for that reason. But a visitor suggested we link to Branum on the permalinks to the left. We'll highlight Branum in entries (with links in entries). We won't link to him on the permalinks.

That's nothing against him but has to do with a stunt someone pulled which enraged the community. When that happened, all the NLG links were pulled. There's an entry (probably a Thursday night "I Hate The War" entry) where it's written about. I support the NLG but I know the community and when the community turns it's a waste of their time and my time to try to 'override' that. A NLG person did a STUPID thing. Surprising because the person is so smart. But at a time when emotions were already charged across the country, the person decided to wade into electoral issues (no reason at all for that) and wrote an embarrassing column ("embarrassing" is my call). It destroyed support for the NLG in this community.

When people are in a position where they are the face of the organization, they need to think about how to build the organization and how to build recognition and support for it in the larger world. Political candidates? That's not really worth their commenting on and it kind of cheapens the organizations when they do. There was no reason nor need for that column and its opinions expressed were uninformed. I heard about the column from a friend and dreaded going into the e-mails because I knew there would be a severe backlash to the NLG. And there was a severe backlash from the community. As there should have been.

A lawyer knows the term "charged language" and that column was nothing but "charged language." I have no idea what was in it for ____ personally but I doubt the fallout was worth it. In the position ____ holds, the column clearly became in the eyes of many an endorsement of a candidate (and a screed against another). That's not why office holders of an organization are elected. The column's subtext was all 'decent' people support Barack and all 'indecent' people support Hillary. That would not be reflected in a polling of NLG's own membership which includes a number who do not believe in party politics, a number who are not impressed with Barack, a number who belong to a third party (including an increasingly vocal segment that's asking why the hell some in leadership of the NLG -- an independent body -- is working overtime to prop up the Democratic Party to begin with) and some that, yes, supported Hillary.

It was a stupid decision to write that column. It was extreme stupidity to post it.

It has caused more fallout -- not just within this community -- than was ever expected. And it is exactly the reason that the NLG should stay out of party politics.

Katrina vanden Heuvel has destroyed The Nation magazine to the point that unless you're addicted to the text version of the cable chat & chews, the fact-free, water cooler gas bagging, you no longer have use for that periodical. That same easy, immature mindset has now taken hold at The Progressive as well. It is among the reasons that we can't get discussions of war resisters, let alone of other real issues. Everything must be filtered through so that it does not have a negative impact on Barack.

I have no idea why so many people want to prostitute themselves for any candidate -- regardless of whom he or she is. But the facile musings being offered do not challenge, do not inform and do not help the left. That was obvious long before ____ wrote the column attacking Hillary. There was no reason for the column and all it did was cause fallout.

For that reason, all of the NLG links were pulled from the permalinks.

My guess is that had the same person championed a candidate in a third party or an independent candidate (regardless of right or left), it would have been viewed differently. But the idea that the NLG is attacking Hillary, distorting her, to promote a corporate candidate offended just as many non-Hillary supporters as it did Hillary-supporters.

And when you hold the office ___ does in the NLG and you are insisting that Hillary was calling for someone to be murdered, you are seen as writing for the NLG. That's a serious charge and, as an attorney (one highly placed in the NLG), you give that impression.

A whiner attorney e-mailed to complain we didn't note his (non NLG) event. In Los Angeles, at the same time people were going to town on Hillary and accusing her of murderous desires for noting the fact that Robert Kennedy was assassinated, a symposium was being held on the RFK assassination. Hillary mentioning historical fact is calling/hoping for murder? Noting history is that? But this organization can stage their event without any fallout?

The organization's website featured a column -- while they were holding their conspiracy convention -- saying that Hillary noting RFK's assassination was a 'threat' to Barack. If they honestly felt that way, then maybe the organization should have cancelled their convention? If Hillary mentioning history is a 'threat' to Barack, then surely a conspiracy convention is a great deal more.

It was always insane to argue Hillary was suggesting or rooting for something to happen to Barack but it was never as insane as coming from the organization that was holding their kook convention which no one fretted over, no one called out. But the kooks could call out Hillary?

No, we didn't promote that organization's event. I never said we would. (A reply went out noting that Ruth probably would and that, they assumed, I might.) When there was all the high drama over Hillary's remarks, the promotion of that event became iffy. When I visited their website and saw that they were declaring Hillary's mentioning of previous candidates who were in campaigns for months was seen as a threat, there was no way we were going to note the convention.

Referencing history is a threat? But a bunch of kooks getting together to jerk off over conspiracy theories was fine and dandy?

I don't usually call people 'kooks' or toss around 'conspiracy' as a pejorative; however, if your organization wants to offer theories that are counter to the accepted history for days and days at a public convention and you also want to attack Hillary for mentioning historical facts, you're a kook. You're a crazy. You're a nut job.

Due to the climate that the left created over Hillary's remarks, the convention being noted here was always going to be 'iffy' but what got them blocked out was that they joined that climate with the story on the front page of their website. If you think Hillary noting an assassination in a sentence is a threat to Barack, then your multi-day convention covering the same assassination (IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEAR! as the idiots loved to scream at Hillary) shouldn't have been scheduled for an election year and should have been called off by your own reasoning.
You can't apply a standard to her brief comments and act as if your multi-day event is somehow immune to the same (false) charges.

That makes you a kook and a nut job.

We don't have time for crazy. We're focused on the Iraq War. (And that illegal war is enough insanity and then some.)

The presidential election will come and go. Unless the election results in Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader (alphabetical order -- and no links because I didn't plan to mention them in this) taking office, there's not going to be an end to the Iraq War because of whomever is installed in the White House. I'm not really sure how much power the gas bags have (individually they have none, collectively they may have some) but they will have wasted perceived or real power by making an election their focus. It's not a topic that isn't already gas bagged over by a multitude. There is no gas bag shortage I'm aware of. It's a damn shame so many who actually have an education of value or experiences of value (or both) elected not to use their strengths and write about topics that could have increased understanding because they instead wanted to pretend they'd been invited on Meet The Press. You sort of picture all of them, at the end of the day, sitting on their sofas by themselves, taking part in imaginary roundtables where, no doubt, Tim Russert is still the moderator.

2004 saw the destruction of the peace movement in the United States. That happened because ending the illegal war took a back seat and John Kerry called "shotgun!" Suddenly, the peace movement was supposed to exist to drive a candidate (one who was not promising an end to the illegal war -- anymore than Barack is today) to victory. Picking up the pieces after Kerry lost (yes, gas bags, sometimes even with you all acting as a cheering section, your candidate will lose) was beyond difficult. You had MoveOn . . . moving on from the illegal war and they were far from alone. You had left 'voices' floating that the Iraq War wasn't such a bad thing (Tom Hayden -- in an increasingly rare, brave moment -- called one such 'voice' out). Cindy Sheehan single handedly brought the peace movement back to life. She can't do that again. (And she also got infected with election madness -- I'm not referring to her own campaign, I'm referring to her comments left on articles at Common Dremas.) And no mother similar to Cindy can. The press attitude will be, "Oh, we've reported that already."

So what does The Cult of Barack really think is going to happen after the November election? Their candidate may win the White House. If so, he's not promised an end to the illegal war. He refused to promise that all troops would be out of Iraq, if he was elected, by 2012. His 'promise' was that he would withdraw 'combat' troops in 16 months. That's not all troops and we've long noted here how the phrase 'combat' can be manipulated. And Samantha Power revealed to the BBC and Barack himself revealed to CNN that his 'promise' wasn't binding and he'd decide what to do about Iraq if he got elected. So what does The Cult plan to do after? I wouldn't recommend a mass suicide but haven't they already committed 'voice' suicide by repeatedly prostituting themselves out to pretend he's promising the end of the illegal war? Equally true is that Barack may lose. Kerry did. (Had he fought the Ohio count, he likely would have won. But he didn't fight by his own choice so he lost.) The peace movement does what then?

"Nothing" to those who pay attention to Tom Hayden's increasingly ridiculous writings. According to Hayden, if Barack doesn't win, it's over. (Yes, he did write that. He's become that foolish. Again.) For those who remember 2004, the template seems to suggest that for months and months, the peace movement 'leaders' will be inactive and 'voices' will suggest that we can learn to love the illegal war. And, at some point, if we're really lucky, a genuine leader will emerge to respark the peace movement and we can start all over rebuilding what we tore down for a War Hawk candidate.

In either scenario the illegal war continues. Foreign fighters (including US service members) continuing dying in an illegal war as do Iraqis. Iraqis continue being refugees within and outside their own country. So where's the big pay-off?

The Cult gets to say, "We got Barack into office!" Is that supposed to lessen the death of an Iraqi child's parents? Is that supposed to allow an illegal war to go down the throat a little easier?

In 2004, The Nation couldn't stop hyping the election to the point that they declared it the 'Torture election,' decreed it was a referendum on torture. They made that declaration so, by their own 'logic,' 2004 was the year that Americans embraced torture. By their 'logic,' the electorate (they're never concerned with the people, just the electorate), torture is now embraced by the people and has been since November 2004.

The November election will come and go. Some people will be happy with the results, some people won't be. That's how it's always been and how it always will be barring some mutation in humanity. The same Cult that couldn't persuade Barack to stick to an actual promise (FISA) won't be in any stronger position if he's elected. They've never demanded anything of him, they've never held him accountable. They've excused him and begged from him. He's not royalty. You make demands on politicians. You hold them accountable. They work for you.

2008 has been so-called 'alternative' media acting like some stereotypical slutty wallflower, so desperate to land the quarterback (even for one night), that s/he will do anything. Well, Panhandle Media 'put out' and I'm not seeing a damn thing they have to show for it. Not even a preganancy scare/AIDS test, so let's all assume that, if nothing else, they practiced safe sex.

Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader is holding Super Rallies to put issues on the table and to call for opening the debates. If the debates are not opened, no issue will be on the table. We might get 'musings' by this year's John Edwards and John Kerry of whether or not Dick Cheney loves his gay daughter. (Tricky Dick loved both of his daughters, there's no reason to have ever doubted that Dick Cheney loved his children. But somehow that passed for an 'issue.' By two candidates -- Kerry and Edwards -- who didn't have the guts to come out in support of same-sex marriage.) That's the sort of thing that will pass for 'issues' and for an 'informed discourse' if the debates again invite only two candidates. The debates need to be opened to all candidates. August 27th is the Super Rally in Denver and the html on this is just going to be pasted in (again, the person I'm dictating this too is not familiar with linking):

http://www.votenader.org/blog/2008/08/20/kilmer-sheehan-morello-with-nader-in-denver/

Home
Nader 2008 Blog
Kilmer, Sheehan, Morello with Nader in Denver
Posted by The Nader Team on Wednesday, August 20, 2008 at 02:43:00 AM
ShareThis
As late as yesterday, we didn't think we had a chance.
For the first time in this campaign, we were at serious risk of missing a self-imposed financial goal.
Then, yesterday, you came through.
And now, we're back in it.
Now, we're just shy of $42,000.
And we have a chance to hit our goal of $50,000 by 11:59 pm tonight.
But we're going to have to bust a gut to get there.
All out.
All day.
All night.
So, we are calling on 900 of you -- our most loyal supporters -- to donate $10 each now to push us over the top.
(900 times $10 equals $9,000, right?)
And for every $10 contribution you donate today, we will give free admission to a needy student who wants to come to hear Ralph Nader at our Open the Debates Super Rally at the University of Denver's Magness Arena. ($10 in advance, $12 at the door.)
Ralph will be joined by his running mate Matt Gonzalez.
And -- breaking news -- a star studded line-up will join Ralph and Matt in a call to open up the Presidential debates.
Featuring -- Val Kilmer, Cindy Sheehan and Rage Against the Machine's Tom Morello, Jello Biafra, Nellie McKay, and Ike Reilly.
So, please -- give a student a chance to attend this historic event.
Donate $10 now -- or whatever you can afford -- and send a student to raise the banner in Denver -- Open the Presidential Debates, More Voices, More Choices.

Keep an eye on our widget throughout the day.
Watch your name go up in lights.
And see if we blast through our goal.
Donate now.
And let's get it done.
Together, we will not be denied.
Onward.
The Nader Team.
PS: Last chance to get our two DVD Sicko/Awake from Your Slumber package. If you donate $100 or more by tomorrow night, we will send you the best argument yet made for single payer Medicare for all health insurance -- the DVD Sicko. Plus, we'll send Awake from Your Slumber -- the DVD starring Ralph Nader and Patti Smith -- autographed by Ralph.
ShareThis

Micah wants a video highlighted and that can't happen today. Embedding the code can be a problem for even those who are familiar with links. We'll note that Nader campaign video tomorrow morning.

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


iraq
jeremy hinzman
joshua key
jim branum
val kilmer
tom morello
cindy sheehan