Your Ad Here


The Common Ills


Saturday, August 13, 2011
Withdrawal and Iraqi military invading provinces?

Withdrawal and Iraqi military invading provinces?

The Ministry of the Defense, Al Mada reports, is planning to buy air craft from multiple countries in a stated attempt to be prepared for a US withdrawal at the end of the year. But the issue isn't what you can store in a hanger, the issue is whether or not you can fly it. And the Baghdad government or 'government' waited way too long on this issue. Since 2007, it's been openly addressed, the training needs of the Iraqi air force. Nouri was prime minister then, he's on his second term now. Why didn't he do something then? More recently, there's been an offer made to welcome back certain members of Iraq's Air Force -- members who served when Saddam Hussein was president of Iraq. That didn't lead to a lot of people coming forward. But why would it? The de-Ba'athification process started by Paul Bremer reamins in place. Despite Nouri agreeing to work on reconciliation (to de-de-Ba'athify) as part of the benchmarks the White House proposed in 2007, nothing ever came of it. So now when the old air force may be needed, there's no rush to step forward because there's no trust. If Nouri had worked on rebuilding the trust back then, he might not have the problem he does today. It's also funny to hear from the Ministry of Defense about how they're going to try to prepare the Iraqi air force quickly -- the Ministry of Defense that still has no head. Nine months after Nouri became prime minister (December 2010; in November he was named prime minister-designate, at the end of December, he became prime minister), there is still no Minister of Defense, no Minister of Interior and no Minister of National Security.

Withdrawal may or may not happen (smart money wouldn't bet on US forces being off Iraqi soil at the start of 2012). On the issue, the Kurdish Globe translate an interview Nechirvan Barzani, Vice President of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, recently gave:


"Leaders of the Kurdistan Region have already spoken about their stances, obviously, regarding the issue of the possible stay of the U.S. forces. for which Iraqis have sacrificed for many years," said Barzani.
He also said Kurdish leaders deal with this issue regarding the Region as a part of the federal Iraq. He said they had nothing to hide in regard to that issue.
Barzani firmly refuted rumors suggesting that the Kurdistan Region President Massoud Barzani had allegedly made a speech demanding U.S. forces to be stationed in Kurdistan Region. "In fact, no such speech has occurred," Barzani assured, adding, "The Kurdistan Region president"s attempts regarding this issue remain within the circle of negotiations currently going on among the Iraqi political powers. The President does not have a unilateral stance on this; but the issue will be resolved according to the negotiations among the Iraqi political components. The final decision will depend on the result of the talks among Iraq's political factions."

Nerchevan Barzani is also a former prime minister of the KRG (2006 through 2009). And, if you use your brain, you'll remember that the person who told Chinese TV that US forces would remain in the KRG wasn't Massoud Barzani or any other member of Nercheven's family or political party. It was the current President of Iraq, Jalal Talabani (who belongs to the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan -- PUK -- not the Barzani's Kurdistan Democratic Party).

Still on non-wihdrawal, Jennifer Quinn (WPRI -- link has text and video) reports, "The Rhode Island National Guard has deployed two of it's units to Iraq for one year. A Company, 1st Battalion 126th Aviation and D Company 126th Aviation will provide aviation support to combat and reconstruction efforts. Approximately 20 Rhode Island soldiers will combine with troops from Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and other states for the length of their deployment."

Ed O'Keefe (Washington Post) has an interesting feature article
on Americans visiting 'Iraq' (visiting the KRG, the US military said no to elsewhere). But this sentence ruins the article for me: "Fearing that the U.S. government and the American people are giving up too soon on a country that still needs help, the women are making their own long-term commitment to the country and, in the process, coming to grips with why the United States came here in the first place." "Coming to grips with why the United States came here in the first place"? Why was that? There's been no Iraq Inquiry in the United States. So why is the US go into Iraq?

It wasn't for liberation or democracy as evidenced by the realities of the Iraq today. So why was it?

It's an interesting article but that statement mars it for me because I think the propaganda has cost enough blood and I'm just not willing for more blood to be spent in the promotion of lies.

Like O'Keefe, Dar Addustour pursues the human interest angle. They file on women driving in Iraq and note women driving even when there's a man in the car. Dar Addustour notes that some countries such as Saudi Arabia forbid women from driving. Lina Mohammed tells the paper that she can afford a car because of her job and that she needs one due to her various responsibilities and that women like her are overcoming oppression. (To be clear, women could drive when Saddam Hussein was president. It is only when the US impose exiles upon the Iraqis that women's rights take a nose dive in Iraq. Women were not liberated by the Iraq War, to the contrary, they have lost rights as a result. This is documented in one report after another from Amnesty International, the United Nations, etc.) Ammar Kasim stated that she believes in women's liberation and encourages all women to live without restrictions and notes that she sees nothing shameful in driving a car.

Meanwhile did a coup take place in the Maysan Province? Dar Addustour reports that the Iraqi military invaded ("stormed" is the term used) police headquarters and declared a new police chief. The provincial council has already had one emergency session in an attempt to deal with the "crisis" whcih they expect to cause turmoil and to which they insist Nouri's government is responsible for. Then there's Nineveh Province, the governor is Atheel al-Nujaifi, the brother of the Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi. Atheel al-Nujaifi has repeatedly had problems with Nouri al-Maliki this year. At one point, Nouri was demanding that al-Nujaifi step down as governor. Dar Addustour reports that Atheel states Nouri is attempting to take over the province via the military. Nouri is allegedly attempting to form the Knights of the State of Law which would be n charge of the Nineveh. Atheel points out that the provincial council has expressly forbidden such a formation.

To end Political Stalemate I (the period of political stagnancy following the March 7, 2010 elections), the Erbil Agreement was created by the political blocs. It allowed Nouri to be named prime minister-designate and it was to create a National Council to address security issues and to be headed by Ayad Allawi whose Iraqiya had come in first in the elections. That was November 2010. Nouri got what he wanted and then went back on the agreement creating Political Stalemate II. Supposedly the National Council is on the verge of being created (despite State of Law objecting to it this week when the first draft was read in Parliament?) and Al Mada reports that the National Alliance is stating it has the rights to half the seats on the Council prompting new objections from State of Law. Still on Parliament, Wael Grace and Ines Tariq (Al Mada) report on efforts in the Parliament to devise a draft law on electronic eavesdropping that will include protections
for citizens and not allow the technology to be used to suppress protests or to spy on people's personal lives. In other news, Al Mada reports Iraqis are concerned with the Japanese goods coming into the country, fearing that they will be contaminated due to the nuclear disaster in Fukushima.

In today's violence, Reuters notes a Mosul bombing which injured two people, a Mosul grenade attack which injured one police officer, a Baghdad drive-by shooting which killed Imam Adil Jaijan and, dropping back to Friday night, a Baghdad roadside bombing which claimed 2 lives and left ten people injured.


We'll close with this from Cindy Sheehan's "The People vs. The Machine" (Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox):

What I observe in the U.S. is the financial chickens coming home to roost after decades’ long foreign expansion and wars. I firmly believe that Barack Obama was (s)elected to put a minority face on this expansion to help quell rising protests against the aggressive wars abroad and the war against the poor here at home. Everything he has done during his disastrous first term in office has been done to shore up the economic defenses of the economic elite: expand wars, TARP, health care "reform" bill, bankster bailouts, and the recent debt ceiling debacle.
Still in Japan, I was recently in Hana-shi, Okinawa Prefecture in Southern Japan. While there, I visited a protest camp in Henoko, where activists have been protesting against the expansion of a U.S. Marine Corps base called Camp Schwab.
Fifteen years ago when this protest started, the “profound wisdom” of the mighty Empire was to build an island offshore with landfill which would spoil the natural beauty of the ocean, and further harm species of endangered manatee and sea tortoise.



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














Posted at 09:20 pm by thecommonills
 

Tell the whore likability is not legality

Tell the whore likability is not legality

The same paper that sold the illegal war in Iraq -- the ongoing illegal war -- brings out another one-time liberal 'humanitarian.' Like Judith Miller before her, whore Elizabeth Rubin has her own political agenda. In fact, she's worse than Judy Miller who can be called "gullible." There's nothing but guile when it comes to Rubin.

Our 'humanitarian' War Hawk Missile's penned a little piece on the MEK for the New York Times. It's her usual lies and trickery.

That's not a defense of the MEK. We have no opinon on the MEK or the PKK or any other of these organizations. We do have an opinion on residents of Camp Ashraf. They are MEK, yes. But our interest in them is based upon their being in Iraq and our opinion of them is founded in the law -- an interesting concept which Rubin's never understood. The US government promised the residents of Camp Ashraf (an Iranian dissident group) protection. The minute that took place, various laws and treaties came into effect -- something a whore like Elizabeth won't ever address not due to stupidity or bad hair but because she's a whore.

I'm not in the mood.

Scott Horton's entered into a war of words recently with the MEK. He can have a war of words wth anyone he wants and I have no opinion on that except for: WHERE'S THE IRAQ COVERAGE?

Truly, when you're off on a personal war with anyone, you better make sure that doesn't interfere with what you're supposed to be doing. By repeatedly making the MEK his topic, he hasn't had time for Iraq all week. I hope the pissing match has been fun for him because it's made for damn boring radio if you're point in listening to Antiwar Radio is to hear about, yes, the wars. Maybe he can host two shows: Antiwar Radio and Antiterrorist Radio? If so, great. But stop short changing the wars in Iraq and Libya by wagging your cock in your own personal pissing match.

Again, we have no opinion on the MEK and Iran. Our focus in Iraq and we've had to pick up Libay because, take a look around, no one else seems willing to. The boys get to have fun pulling on their cocks and pretending that their little cock fights somehow help the world. But while they fondle themselves, as usual it's the little red hens that get stuck with the work -- the little red hens, the original CODEPINK.

Wars are going on, who's paying attention to the world wars when they're focused on their own little petty wars?

If you're generous to Whore Elizabeth Rudin, she writes three paragraphs about the residents of Camp Ashraf. Three paragraphs . . . in a column that's over thirty paragraphs long.

Whore Elizabeth and others need to grasp a tricky little think about the law: Likability is not legality.

Likability is not legality.

I know that's difficult for small and for bought minds to grasp but it is reality.

Paid whore Elizabeth wants you to know she visited Camp Ashraf once in 2003. Did that lead her to ever advocate for the residents? No, but it does allow her to make charges and claims that scream: LOOK AT THOSE WEIRDOS!

What might happen in Iran or not? It's up to the people of Iran.

It's called self-determination and cheap whores like Elizabeth don't believe in that. They want to determine what happens. So she's involved in a pissing match of her own with the MEK.

They're a cult, she tells you, forgetting to explain to you her credentials that allow her to make such a judgment. Cult or religion? I wouldn't pretend to claim that I could make that call on any number of groups (including groups in the US). But Liz Rubin can. She can know about that and she can know about Iran and she can know about the US and she can know about what's really deep inside people's hearts and minds because when you slip your twenty in her g-string, you've bought yourself not just a lap dance, but an expert lap dance.

Lizzie's an expert on everything if you pay her.

Strange, all this time she's posed as a journalist. I will assume her editors at the paper will review the column and keep in mind all of her assertions and, yes, her very real bias, when making future assignments?

And I'll assume that her one-sided reporting on Camp Ashraf is just another indication of the fact that the New York Times remains in the gutter not because Judith Miller broke the paper's back but because the paper loves rolling in the gutter.

Here's Rudin, wallowing in her world of whoredom:

It is possible that such plots do not bother General Jones and other supporters of the group. But Iraq will no longer tolerate its presence. Its government wants the Mujahedeen Khalq out of the country by the end of the year. In April, Iraqi forces attacked Camp Ashraf. General Jones and other supporters of the group were outraged.
They are right that we should have compassion for those trapped inside the camp. A 2009 RAND Corporation study found that at least 70 percent of the group's members there were being held against their will. If the group's American cheerleaders cared for those at the camp half as much as they did for the Rajavis, they would be insisting on private Red Cross visits with each man and woman at Camp Ashraf.
American officials who support the group like to quote the saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." By this logic, the group's opposition to the Tehran theocracy justifies American backing. But there is another saying to consider: "The means are the ends."

She is funny. She's not honest, but she's as funny as that face of hers which looks like something that just stumbled out of the barnyard. First paragraph:

It is possible that such plots do not bother General Jones and other supporters of the group. But Iraq will no longer tolerate its presence. Its government wants the Mujahedeen Khalq out of the country by the end of the year. In April, Iraqi forces attacked Camp Ashraf. General Jones and other supporters of the group were outraged.

Iraq will no longer tolerate its presence? Don't you mean that with the overthrow of a Sunni government and the installation of a government composed of exile Shias with ties to Iran, the puppet government will no longer tolerate Camp Ashraf? That's what you mean, right?

I don't understand your use of the term "now," however, since the Iraqi Governing Council passed a resolution calling for Camp Ashraf residents to be expelled December 9, 2003.


Lizzie, is your calendar not up to date? Or are you just that much of a lying whore? I have no idea how someone can be so repeatedly stupid and still be published by a paper . . . Wait, forgot the rule, "Unless of course the paper is the New York Times."Yeah, yeah, yeah, that explains it all. Thank you so very much.


She writes Camp Ashraf was "attacked"? Don't you mean the "massacre" in April. Forget General Jones, that was the term applied by Senator John Kerry.

Of course, when you're a paid whore, you can't be trusted to distribute a deck of cards evenly, you'll always deal from the bottom.


Let's skip to the third paragraph:

American officials who support the group like to quote the saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." By this logic, the group's opposition to the Tehran theocracy justifies American backing. But there is another saying to consider: "The means are the ends."

American officials who support the group?

Which group?

The MEK within Iran (and elsewhere) or the residents of Camp Ashraf.

They are two different groups. It's a shame that a lying whore wants to lump them together. I do support the rights of the residents of Camp Ashraf to leave Iraq safely and be relocated elsewhere. That has nothing to do with "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" (an idiotic bromide we've long disputed here -- as have many but if Elizabeth Rubin couldn't hump a straw man, she'd probably just be left with an overly large vibrator she'd dubbed El Toro). "The means are the ends"? She's as stupid as she is ugly. No, the law is the law.

Camp Ashraf residents are protected persons under the Geneva Conventions. Whore Elizabeth never mentions this. Why is that? Is she unfamiliar with it? Strange because in the second paragraph, she cites a study, a RAND study commissioned by DoD [PDF format warning, "The Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq, A Policy Conundrum"] , that states this very clearly on pages 13 through 17 of the study. The US was confused as to what the legal status for the residents were. They conducted a review. They then started to apply status. Again, this is in pages 13 through 17 of the study that Rubin cites. Rather strange that she's unfamiliar with it. Pages 19 through 23 deal with Rumsfeld and the White House and the UN and Rumsfeld recognizing them 'in effect' under the Fourth Article of the Geneva Convention for a variety of reasons. ('In effect,' by this point the US is stating the war is over and that the US and the Iraqi 'government' -- puppets -- are engaged in a joint-effort to defeat terrorists in Iraq. For that reason Rumsfeld is stating Geneva per se no longer applies but that, for all intents and purposes, the Fourth Article will be followed with regards to the residents of Camp Ashraf. For legal reasons, that application made them officially and legally protected persons. You can 'per se' it and 'in effect' it all you want, a court is concerned only with what their recognition was. The US was hung up on terms, the court would see, but they were not hung up on what the rights of the residents were. That decision was made and, once made, that decision was binding. If someone can prepare a set of flash cards illustrating this for Elizabeth Rubin, I'm sure she could grasp the concept after two, maybe three months of someone drilling her with them.)

How could Rubin cite a report and be wrong? Hmm. Back to her paragraph two:


They are right that we should have compassion for those trapped inside the camp. A 2009 RAND Corporation study found that at least 70 percent of the group's members there were being held against their will. If the group's American cheerleaders cared for those at the camp half as much as they did for the Rajavis, they would be insisting on private Red Cross visits with each man and woman at Camp Ashraf.


"A 2009 RAND Corporation study found that at least 70 percent of the group's members there were being held against their will."

That's an interesting . . . 'fact.'


Did Elizabeth Rubin discover that 'fact' by sucking it down to its hairy root? Or possibly it penetrated her from behind?

Elizabeth does what whores do: LIE.

She lies so much she couldn't work anywhere else but the New York Times. The report from RAND did not address that. An appendix to the report (page74, look it up) makes the allegation that "it is possible that nearly 70 percent of the MeK population may have been recruited through deception and kept at Camp Ashraf against their will." It is possible that nearly 70%, in the mouth of a liar, becomes "A 2009 RAND Corporation study found that at least 70 percent of the group's members there were being held against their will."

Only at the New York Times.

"It is possible" also means it's possible that they're wrong. That's what "possible" means. (Again, flashcards please, for Elizabeth.) Shall we contrast "nearly 70%" with "at least 70 percent" or can we all just agree that Elizabeth Rubin is a stupid, lying whore?

Now the RAND report proper, the actual report, not some appendix, is very good at citations. The Appendix is spotty when it comes to citations. And the ten line paragraph in which that maybe appears has many, many figures and zero citations. Or to be Maya Rudolph, "Zero point zero zero" citations.

'Okay,' you say, the citation's not sourced but it could be real.' It could be. That's what "possible" means -- that it could be true or it could be false. If you read the actual report, you'll understand why I'm doubtful of the figure. From pages 42-43 of the RAND report:


Lack of manpower has also meant that MNF-I has never conducted a comprehensive search of Camp Ashraf. The MeK would not allow it, and MNF-I was unwilling to divert manpower at FOB Grizzly from regular regional security missions to force a search upon the group. As a result, there are buildings at Camp Ashraf that no American has ever searched. Former JIATF staff believe that weapons, personnel files, and possibly even MeK members detained by the leadership would likely be
discovered in some of these buildings. At the very least, on the basis of rumors that the MeK were storing WMD for Saddam, the Iraq Survey Group, an international team organized by the Pentagon and the CIA to hunt for Iraq's alleged WMD stockpiles, should have secured access to every building.

I don't disagree with the issue of access. And I've never claimed to be the smartest person in the room, let alone the world, but I do have the common sense to grasp that any 'estimate' of people in a compound is iffy (at best) if the compound's never been inventoried. Not in the report, in an appendix, you're told that nearly 70% of the residents . . . But there's been no inventory of the residents or the compound. So that figure is useless. And even with it being useless, it wasn't enough for Elizabeth Rubin. She had to take "nearly" and turn it into "at least." With a wave of her magic LYING wand.

And people wonder why the New York Times' reputation is in tatters.

For review purposes for those late to the party, we don't support the US backing any exile group in a war against another country. That's Iraq (which did take place and continues to), that's Cuba, that's Iran, that's anywhere. If someone wants to fight for their country, really wants to fight for it, they take up arms. They don't go whining like little babies to other countries, "Oh, help me, help me! I'm so little and small!" Not only do we not support the US fighting proxy wars on behalf of exiles, I personally think it should be grounds for forcible eviction from this country, if you're found plotting a war against your former country. You want to come to the US for asylum, I'm all for it. You want to come to this country to regroup as you plot your next attack? I don't think you should be allowed on US soil. My opinion. The residents of Camp Ashraf are protected persons and needed to be recognized as such. The massacre last April was the second big attack. Both attacks are in violation of the agreement that the US government and Iraq signed. The US is obviously not going to enforce the agreement. Therefore, it is up to the US State Dept to begin working overtime on finding countries that the residents of Camp Ashraf can be resetteld to. If the residents say "no" to resettlement? My opinion -- disagree if you want -- then the US government states, "We are not able or willing to keep agreement we made with you, we are sorry. But what we can do is resettle you. We will do that for six months/three months and then we're done. You're remaining in Iraq puts you at risk. Your refusal to resettle will be seen as an acknowledgment of that risk and an admission that you are choosing to stay while knowing that the US cannot protect you." My opinion -- feel free to disagree. Do I think that's honorable? No. But it's very clear the US government will no longer live up to the promise it made to the residents of Camp Ashraf and that reality needs to be conveyed so that anyone thinking, "Oh, I'll stay, the US will still protect me, they're just saying that to appease Nouri," gets the message that there is no more protection.


Community sites have updated. We'll do it in two lists and in the first we'll also note Watching America, Susan at Random Thoughts, On The Wilder Side with a very important post, Adam vs The Man, Cindy Sheehan, War News Radio and Washington Week:

Credo lies about Funding Pro-War Politicians
5 hours ago


Ann and Kat aren't on the list above. Despite updating. That's not their fault, that's not my fault. It's a Blogger/Blogspot issue. To make up for it, swiping from Cedric and Wally, here are all the community posts from Thursday on (except for Wally and Cedric's post this evening):

"Green Beans in the Kitchen"
"Robert Reich"
"Baked Sweet Potatoes"
"How many terms?"
"4 women, 2 men"
"3 women, 2 men"
"does he get how he looks?"
"not pretty"
"A verdict"
"David Axelrod: Been Caught Lying"
"Good for Michele Bachmann"
"Lopez gets the axe"
"Out of the closet?"
"That's a winning strategy?"
"Just Go With It"
"White Chicks"
"The Vulture Rudy G"
"They Just Don't Care"
"Idiot of the week"
"Tiring"
"No mystery"
"THIS JUST IN! IT WAS OBVIOUS!"

This is one of two entries I have to do tonight and I have to work forever on this one because the New York Times doesn't fact check. And, please note, I could go on for 17 more paragraphs about the lies and distortions in Elizabeth Rubin's bad column. I don't have that time and I'm pretty pissed that I've lost nearly two hours of my time addressing her garbage. And I've still got to do another entry. And of course do the all night writing session with Third. And I'm really not, as noted before, in the damn mood tonight. Which is how I say, we like Sherwood Ross' writings but the one that follows is the last of its kind we'll highlight. We're not campaign politics -- congrats to Michele Bachmann for winning the Iowa straw poll and to Ron Paul for his strong second place showing -- one is victory with great symbolism (see Kat's post), the other is a victory for those opposed to these wars of choice -- and we try to only note the races when it has to do with the wars. It is 2011. It's not even the election year. Because it's Sherwood Ross, we'll excerpt from his piece. But this is the last time we'll do that. If it's not about a war, I'm not interested. I am so especially not interested -- soooooooooooooooo not interested -- in columns about religion or, even more importantly, what's wrong with someone's religion. I don't make that judgment, I don't concern myself -- stick my nose into -- people's worship. We'll note this piece by Sherwood Ross and then I'm done with it. If you send something similar and say, "Well you noted Sherwood," yeah, and I noted my objection. This is from Ross' "OUTLOOK FOR PEACE DIM IF PERRY ELECTED PRESIDENT" (OpEdNews):


The news that Texas Gov. Rick Perry is seeking the Republican presidential nomination may well send a tremor through the Muslim world.
That's because Perry, an evangelical Christian who would make a formidable candidate, appears to actually believe the U.S. military is divinely directed and is liable to continue U.S. interventions in the region.
At a prayer rally only this past August 6th in Houston's Reliant Stadium that attracted 30,000, he "called on Jesus to bless and guide the nation's military and political leaders," the New York Times reported. And his announcement August 11th that he plans to run for president, the Associated Press said, will delight "conservatives looking for a candidate to embrace." Indeed, if Perry is elected with the the fervid support of the Religious Right, they're surely apt get one!
His election, though, could spell doom for any chance of the restoration of peace in the Middle East in our time.
In a campaign against President Obama, Perry could rally the tens of millions of charismatic Christian voters who have done so much to support the transformation of USA into a full-blown warfare state, supporting the military at every juncture, endorsing the illegal Middle East wars of the Pentagon, blindly backing Israeli interventions, and supplying the military with chaplains who spread an ultra-conservative philosophy among the troops.
According to the website "On The Issues," Perry told a veteran's group in a Memorial Day speech in 2008: "Today our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are on patrol, securing freedom for oppressed people, guarding the tender shoots of a blooming democracy, working to eradicate an infestation of terrorism, so that it does not revisit our nation." This, when the invasions had to do with oil and where the occupiers have shown little, if any, concern for "blooming democracy," only how to make a buck.
Perry continued, "Time and again, I speak to soldiers who have seen the positive impact of US efforts and tell of Iraqi communities responding to the rule of law." This is sadly hilarious given the thousands of Middle East peoples who have been jailed by USA for years without attorneys and trials and some of whom have been mercilessly tortured and murdered in secret prisons hidden from the Red Cross.
Perry believes, "We have come too far and sacrificed too much to simply walk away and allow the dark forces of oppression to regain control of these places that have been consecrated by the blood of our nation's best." This, as if U.S. occupiers are not widely seen as "oppressors"!







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








Posted at 08:10 pm by thecommonills
 

Friday, August 12, 2011
Iraq snapshot

Iraq snapshot

Friday, August 12, 2011.  Chaos and violence continue, the US Army releases data on military suicides, Nouri and State Of Law object to something they previously agreed to (twice0, the AFL-CIO pulls a fake out, and more.
 
Starting with the Libyan War, Amnesty International issued the following this week:
 
NATO must take all necessary precautions to avoid civilian casualties during military operations, Amnesty International said today, after allegations by Libyan officials loyal to Colonel Mu'ammar al-Gaddafi that 85 people were killed during an air strike on Monday night.
The organization called on NATO to thoroughly investigate allegations of the deaths of unarmed civilians during the air strike in the area of Majar, south of Zlitan city.
Independent journalists taken to the scene reported having been shown up to 30 body bags, of which the bodies of two women and two children were revealed
On Tuesday, NATO military spokesperson Colonel Roland Lavoie said the "legitimate target" of the strike was several farm buildings taken over by al-Gaddafi forces and said that he had "no evidence of civilian casualties."
"NATO must take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties, even in those cases where al-Gaddafi forces are using civilian facilities for military purposes," said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui of Amnesty International.
"NATO continues to stress its commitment to protect civilians. To that effect, it should thoroughly investigate this and all other recent incidents in which civilians were reportedly killed in western Libya as a result of air strikes."
On 2 August, Amnesty International wrote to NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen asking for clarification on incidents in June in which unarmed civilians were reportedly killed and injured in Surman and Tripoli.
On 19 June, several civilians were reportedly killed, including two children and a woman, when a projectile struck their homes in Tripoli.
A NATO Spokesperson later said that during the air strike on a missile site, "a potential weapon system failure occurred and this caused the weapon not to hit the intended target, and reportedly resulted in a number of civilian casualties."
On 20 June, NATO strikes in Surman against what appeared to be civilian homes in a compound belonging to one of Colonel al-Gaddafi's associates, Khweildy al-Hamedi, reportedly killed several civilians, including two children and their mother.
NATO said that the facility was a legitimate military target and assured that precautions were taken before conducting the "strike which minimized any potential risk of causing unnecessary casualties".
Since March 2011, Amnesty International has repeatedly requested access to territories under the control of Colonel Mu'ammar al-Gaddafi in order to investigate allegations of human rights violations and violations to international humanitarian law. These included the sites of NATO bombings where civilian casualties have been reported. The organization received no response.
On 17 March, as fighting intensified in eastern Libya as well as in Misratah, the UN Security Council authorized the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya and the implementation of all necessary measures, short of foreign occupation, to protect civilians.
The international alliance launched its first military attacks against al-Gaddafi forces on 19 March. NATO took over the military operation in late March.
In their attempt to regain territory under opposition control, al-Gaddafi forces launched indiscriminate attacks and attacks targeting civilians.
Such attacks were particularly widespread in Misratah. Residents faced relentless and indiscriminate rocket attacks from March to mid-May and sporadic attacks in the summer.
On 31 July, three unarmed civilians were killed and another injured when rockets landed in the residential neighbourhood of Magasaba.
 
Whether attacking hospitals or bombing news outlets, NATO has shown a blood desire to inflict as much destruction and death as possible in what was originally termed a "humanitarian mission" that would "protect" civilians.  At the start of the war, it was also asserted it would be a matter of weeks.  That was six months ago.  Every other week, the media breathlessly announces that the so-called 'rebels' are advancing. Are they crawling across Libya on their bellies? 
 
The reality is that they're not advancing in any real sense and that's due to the fact that the US government has yet again backed exiles -- decades old exiles -- and just knows that these people who chose to leave the country will have sway on those who remained behind.  Not very likely.  And that's why NATO bombs like crazy, more than willing to kill civilians in the hope that the final result will be Libyans screaming, "I don't care! I don't care! Do whatever you want! Just stop the bombings!"
 
This week's talking points was "advancing" and "success" just around that corner.  But the week ends with Reuters reporting the so-called 'rebels' attempting to overthrow the current government suffered 11 deaths "in the past 24 hours" while fighting in Brega.
 
Meanwhile  the Coalition of the Killing got a little bigger today when Russia made an announcement.  Xinhua reports, "Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a decree Friday backing the U.N. Security Council resolution that authorized international military action in Libya, the presidential press service said. Russia abstained from voting on UNSC Resolution 1973, which imposed a no-fly zone over Libya and tightened sanctions on the North African country, when the measure was presented in March. According to a decree posted on the Kremlin's website, Russia has agreed to ban all flights to Libya in Russian air space with the exception of flights for humanitarian purposes or for making an emergency landing."
 
2008 US presidential candidate and former US House Rep Cynthia McKinney is speaking around the country, truth-telling, about the Libyan War. Press TV notes today that hundreds turned out in Canada to hear her speak this week and that tomorrow (August 13th) she will be taking part in the Millions March in Harlem.   David Hungerford (Fight Back News) notes hundreds turned out for Cynthia's Newark, New Jersey speak-out and that she quoted Libyans stating, "This is our land and what lies underneath it belongs to  us. We aren't going to let anyone take it away. We wiil fight to the last person and the last bullet." Workers World notes of her speech to a packed crowd at Atlanta's Shrine of the Black Madonna last month, "She declared to the enthusiastic crowd that she would never be a 'team player for war' but was representing the 'peace team' on her travels around the world'."  June 24th, she spoke in DC and this is an excerpt of the speech:
 
 
Cynthia McKinney:  I took a rash step because I was so outraged.  I was outraged that our president would launch yet another illegal, unconstitutional, immoral war.  And so I also knew that my government was lying. I knew -- Again, yes, that's right.  I knew also that the press were lying. After all, in this country we've got at least one court decision that says it's okay for the press to knowingly lie to the American people and to the international community. But not only that, we know from just a few years ago with Iraq that 935 times not only were we lied to but our president, vice president and Condoleeza Rice but the press readily, zealously printed all of those lies. And since I'm a student of the counter-intelligence program, I know that it didn't start with the Iraq War, it started a long time ago.  And the demonizing, the targeting.  Our own FBI said that they wanted to neutralize certain leaders who dared to dissent. And while I'm here, I'm staying at the home of John Judge who has dedicated his life to understanding the nature of political assassinations that have taken place in our country and so we know that we have had silent coups and the end of sniper's bullets that have killed our leaders who have dared to dissent.   Faced with all of that, Brother Akbar [Muhammad] that is so vitally important. Black Amrica has been extremely supportive of our president but not in this case. A line has been drawn in the sand with respect to our president bombing Africa.  And Libya in particular because of the history of support when the United States was supporting apartheid in Africa, on the African continent it was the people of Libya and the leadership of Muammar Gaddafi  who were fighting to eradicate apartheid. And for those Blacks and people of color inside this countrty who were fighting to eradicate American style apartheid, the people of Libya and Muammar Gaddafi were supportive as well. Now I don't know that history but Brother Akbar knows that history very well. And that is part of the reason why Black America has drawn this line in the sand because this is something that is a historical relationship that has context that [. . .] that our President Obama has stepped across, he has crossed over the threshold. I have been blessed to be able to travel all over the world and as I have traveled, at one point I was extremely proud of the fact that Black people in the United States all over the world have a moral authority because everyone all over the world understands the plight that we have struggled against and that we continue to have to struggle against. But unfortunately now, the policies of the Bush administration have been enuciated and implemented by Black faces from Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice and now we have a continuation of those polices through the office of President Obama. So I am directly impacted negatively by the actions of these Black people who have decided that they would cast their lot with War Mongerers, War Criminals and people who peddle in death and destruction.  So I decided that as a responsible and conscious Black person, I wanted my voice heard against what these other people were inunciating. And at the same time, I am sick and tired of war. 
 
Cynthia McKinney's truth-telling tour continues:
 
A continuing mobilization against the U.S. war on Libya has taken place in cities across the country. Packed, standing room only audiences at major meetings have heard former Congressperson Cynthia McKinney report on her June fact-finding trip to Libya with the Dignity delegation. In every meeting the message rings out: Stop the U.S./NATO bombing of Libya.
In the coming ten days Cynthia McKinney is scheduled to speak at meetings in Boston on Saturday, August 6, in Los Angeles on Sunday, August 7, in Vancouver on Tuesday, August 9. McKinney will speak at the Millions March in Harlem of August 13 along with Minister Farrakhan and other opponents of war and sanctions on Libya and Zimbabwe. She is scheduled to speak at 2 meetings in North Carolina on Sunday, August 14 hosted by the Black Workers for Justice in Rocky Mount and later at a historic civil rights church in Durham.
CLICK HERE for FULL LISTING
CLICK HERE TO DONATE FOR TOUR EXPENSES
To see Cynthia speaking at Riverside Church, click here.  The release notes that Cynthia spoke to a standing-room-only audience at Newark's Abyssinian Baptist Church.   Quoting from the release:
 
A Full listing of the current tour follows and is available at: www.IACenter.org
National-tour, now to 19 cities, organized by International Action
Center in coordination with many antiwar and
community organizations from July 7 to August 28, 2011.
 
And we'll note her upcoming events:
 
 
August 13, Saturday - NYC with Millions March in Harlem
August 14, Sunday - Rocky Mount, and Durham, NC
August 19, Friday – St Louis MO
August 21, Sunday - Pittsburg, PA
August 25, Thursday - Baltimore, MD
August 27, Saturday – Detroit, MI
August 28, Sunday – Denver CO
 
Please note if you're planning to see her Sunday in Rocky Mount that the venue has changed.  She will now be speaking at the Imperical Centre.  It will still start at 3:00 p.m.
 
 
Turning to Iraq where Nouri al-Maliki's greed was once only fabled and whispered of softly, today it's legendary. As he continues to fleece the Iraqi people, his greed may be the thing that destroys the US-propped up government.

Despite the March 7, 2010 election being seen as a rejection of Nouri -- whose slate came in second despite all of the predictions otherwise as well as Nouri's own abuse of office in an attempt to bring in the votes -- his greed would not allow for anyone else to be prime minister. As Nouri dug in his heels following the election, a few wondered what it would take to get Nouri out of the office he had just lost? Thanks to the US, he didn't have to worry and, after nine months of Political Stalemate I, he and the political blocs agreed to follow the Erbil Agreement. Among other things, the Erbil Agreement called for the creation of a national council on security which would be headed by Ayad Allawi (Allawi's Iraqiya came in first in the March 2010 elections). Then Nouri got named prime minister-designate and promptly trashed the agreement.

Via a series of summer house parties, Jalal Talabani brought together the political blocs and, as late as yesterday, there was praise for Jalal's efforts in the Iraqi press. Political Stalemate II was going to be ended. And before nine months! The political blocs -- including Nouri -- had agreed to return to the Erbil Agreement. Yesterday in Parliament, the most vocal opponents to the creation of the national council were from Nouri's State Of Law. Alsumaria TV reports today, "Iraq Premier Nouri Al Maliki reiterated that he is not convinced by the Higher National Strategic Policies Council as the country is heading towards Ministerial reduction and added that the Council is to be established in order to please some parties and doesn't have any role in solving the problems of the political process. During an interview with Alsumaria TV Maliki said he is not convinced by establishing this council especially that the institutions of the Iraqi State are currently flaccid. Maliki stressed that the situation will deteriorate if politics interfered in security."

Though the body was supposed to be independent and have actual powers, Al Rafidayn quotes Nouri stating that its work would be purely advisory. Nouri's trashing this latest agreement much sooner than he did at the end of 2010. When State of Law carped and complained in Parliament yesterday following the reading of the draft law, many observers knew that they must do so with Nouri's blessing (Nouri is the head of State of Law). Now the surprise over that has been replaced with puzzlement over why Nouri is attacking the agreement he just signed off on? Since the only thing most are aware he got was for others to begin publicly speaking favorably of at least entertaining the thought of US forces remaining on the ground in Iraq beyond 2011, that would appear to be all he got from the summer House Parties -- spreading the blame for a continued US presence all around in the government.
 
On the subject of whether or not US troops remain in Iraq after the start of the new year,
Robert Naiman (Huffington Post) observes, "John McCain once said that there's no problem with keeping U.S. troops in Iraq forever, just like we do in Germany, Japan, and South Korea.  How liberals mocked him! But that's what the Obama Administration is now trying to do: keep US troops in Iraq forever. [. . . ] The Pentagon doesn't want you to notice that at the same time Washington is seized with debt hysteria, and the nation's mainstream media are demanding cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits on the preposterous claim that 'we can no longer afford it,' the Pentagon is laying plans to keep 10,000 U.S. troops in Iraq forever.  They call these troops 'trainers,' so we are not supposed to notice. But these 'trainers' engage in combat: they kill Iraqis, and they get killed by Iraqis."  Naiman is with Just Foreign Policy and they're asking you to tell Congress no more Iraq War funding after the end of 2011.  And while Americans wait for the day that Barack will speak publicly about the efforts of the US government to extend the US military presence in Iraq, the costs are not only finanical but also human lives. A memorial in California has been tracking deaths in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars.  Has been.  Jonathan Morales (Contra Costa Times) reports that the memorial in Lafayette has simply run out of space for any more crosses. There is no more space to erect additional crosses to note the deaths and yet the US government wants to continue both wars.
 
Political intrigue continues in Iraq as well.  For example,  Al Mada reports that the Sadr bloc is calling for an investigation into the alleged fake contracts and alleged theft of funds in the Ministry of Electricity. Over the weekend, Nouri al-Maliki announced he was firing the Minister of Electricity due to fake contracts worth billions. There were two main responses. First, many stated Nouri didn't have the power to do the firing, only Parliament did. Second, the Minister of Electricity floated that he had many stories to tell. It has since emerged that these contracts Nouri claims to be surprised and appalled by carry . . . Nouri's signature. Nouri and State Of Law's latest move is to note that this member of Nouri's Cabinet is also a member of Iraqiya. I'm not sure how that assists Nouri since, over the weekend, Iraqiya was the first to state that they supported the move Nouri made.  Dr. Nimrod Raphaeli (The Middle East Media Research Institute) offers an analysis of what happened:
 
 
In July of this year, the Ministry of Electricity signed a contract with a Canadian company, CAPGENT, for $1.2 billion for the construction of 10 power stations with a production capacity of 100 megawatts each. The company was registered in Vancouver, Canada. It also signed a second contract with a German company, Maschinerbrau Halberstadt, for €500 million ($650 million) for the construction of five power stations with a production capacity of 100 megawatts each, to be completed within 12 months from the time a line of credit was extended. It now appears that the two companies are fictitious, and had the contracts been executed they would have would have constituted a monumental case of fraud involving senior officials of the Ministry of Electricity.
The two fraudulent cases came to light thanks to the personal efforts of Jawad Hashim, a former minister of planning in Iraq during the early Ba'thist regime in the 1960s and early 1970s. In a handwritten letter to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, datelined Vancouver, Canada, August 2, 2011, Hashim detailed the fraud.
As a resident of Vancouver, Hashim decided to investigate the available information on the Canadian company while he asked the former minister of economy and governor of the Iraqi central bank, Fakhri Yassin Qadduri, who resides in Germany, to investigate the identity of the German company.

David Baines (Vancouver Sun) reports that Jawad Hashim (the whistleblower) was convicted of "in absentia, of embezzling more than $50 million from the Arab Monetary Fund" and that Hashim maintains that the charges are false and were revenge for his defection from Saddam Hussein's government and his departing Iraq.  Hayder Najm (niqash) questions whether the contracts are indeed with fake companies.
 
 

Last Friday, a prison in Hilla saw a riot and a break out. Among the details that were passed on to the media was that guns with silencers were stored in the prison -- by guards. Why do you need a silencer in a prison if you're a guard? That question was never answered.  Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports four prisoners were killed, 1 guard was killed and four guards were injured.  Dar Addustour reports that the prison break was addressed in Parliament today. Now might be a good time to note what's not addresssed: though there was a great deal of grandstanding when protests were taking place repeatedly throughout Iraq, no salaries were changed. That's the presidency and the vice presidency, that's the prime minister.
 
Reuters notes a Baghdad roadside bombing last night left three people injured and a second one left two Iraqi soldiers injured (other events from last night noted by Retuers were included in yesterday's snapshot). 
 

 

"There is no way to fund what we must do as a nation without bringing our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. The militarization of our foreign policy has proven to be a costly mistake. It is time to invest at home" - AFL-CIO Executive Council, Aug. 3, 2011

 

 

Tom Hayden found the statement amazing and a sign of a 'progressive' victory.  This morning, I disagreed. Tom may have indeed been right.  Because the statement is rather weak and the AFL-CIO has been calling out the Iraq War for years, click here for one 2007 example and although the new statement was approved and passed August 3rd, you can search in favin on the AFL-CIO's website for it.  You'd think such an important statement might make the main  page.  Wrong.  But on the main page you will hear about what you can do for the Democratic Party in next year's elections and about those 'bad' Republicans.  But you won't find the statement. Because it means nothing to the AFL-CIO.  If it did, they'd make it their damn banner already.  It's nothing but an attempt at advertising.  It's nothing but, "We've got to elect Dems!  Who can connect with liberal voters now that Barack's proven to be the golden calf?  I know!  The unions!  Get the AFL-CIO to issue a statement and then when they come to the website we'll lock in their votes for the Democratic Party."  I'm real damn sick of this illegal war to begin with.  But I'm also sick of the partisn b.s. that has surrounded it from day one. It's been used to give Republicans control of Congress (that was the 2002 strategy), it's been used to give Democrats control of both houses of Congress and it's been used to flip the White House.  But the Iraq War has not ended.  And if 'progressives' were serious about ending it today, they'd be talking about the war every time they were in front of the camera or microphone and, in Congress, Barbara Lee wouldn't be writing that embarrassing letter.  Instead, she or someone else, would compose a letter that simply stated: "We will not allow you to continue this war.  We will stop funding." That's all that needs to be said.  And it's not even an issue of votes.  A real filibuster could defeat any and every attempt at continuing to fund the illegal war.
 
On the main page of US Labor Against the War, the top headline, in huge letters, is about the AFL-CIO resolution. And if they cared about their own resolution, that's what the AFL-CIO would have done as well.  Instead it's a 'progressive.'  Meaning, it tricks and decieves, lies and manipulates because all that ever matters is how you vote every other year in November. That is the true meaning of progressive as they have repeatedly taught us (so-called progressives) since 2007.  They're fakes.  Many of them are adults who are too scared of their own shadow to declare they're Socialists.  Matthew Rothschild, for example, presented as "progressive" and only came out as a Socialist after the 2008 election.  (And no doubt, actual Socialists wish the coward would go back in the political closet.) If you use the links US Labor Against the War provides, you suddenly find the 'statement' at the AFL-CIO website.
 
Remember progressives are fakes?  Tom Hayden, the mother of all progressives, the one who nursed them with his man boobs, Tom Hayden writes about this 'amazing' statement, turns it into a Huffignton Post article.
 
Is there a bigger fraud than Tom Hayden?
 
"There is no way to fund what we must do as a nation without bringing our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. The militarization of our foreign policy has proven to be a costly mistake. It is time to invest at home."  Is that not just the sweetest little open the heavens and let in the light statement to be made?
 
What's the problem with the statement?  It's 42 words.
 
42 words.  And this 'big statement' that's only 42 words?
 
It's not really a statement.
 
If I want to make a statement about the wars, I make a statement about the wars.  I don't bury two little sentences of 42 words in a, pay attention, 1592.word essay.  That 'statement'?  It's the eighth paragraph of their press release that should be entitled "Your 2012 Voters' Guide."  19 more paragraphs follow paragraph eight.  Only paragraph eight -- those two sentences of 42 words, mentions the wars.  And Tom wants to claim it as a progressive victory.  Wants to treat it as major news.  And thought he'd get away with it.  There's nothing worth praising here.
 
US Senator Patty Murray is also the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.  Her office notes this event next week.
 

(Washington, D.C.) – On Tuesday, August 16th, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, will hold a listening session to hear from area veterans on local challenges and to discuss her efforts to improve veterans care and benefits nationwide. This will be Senator Murray's first discussion with local veterans as Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Senator Murray will use the struggles, stories, and suggestions she hears on Monday to fight for local veterans in Washington, D.C.

 
 

WHO:          U.S. Senator Patty Murray

                     Local veterans

         

WHAT:        Veterans listening session with Senator Murray

 

WHEN:        Tuesday, August 16th 

         1:00 PM PT

 

WHERE:     Ft. Vancouver Artillery Barracks

                                 600 East Hatheway Road

                                 Vancouver, WA 98661

                     Map

 

 
Still on veterans issues, Joe Fryer (KING5) reports on March Forward's press conference this week where the addressed the issue of military suicides and noted that Sgt Derrick Kirkland repeatedly attempted to take his own life yet was labeled "low risk" by the military. Michael Prysner is quoted stating, "Within 48 hours of being in the care of Fort Lewis, he was dead. The mental health care system is broken. Soldiers are sent on constant, repeated deployments. When they ask for help, they receive notoriously inadequate care."

Tonight at Coffee Strong -- the GI coffeehouse -- a speak-out was held.  Among those telling truths was Mary Kirkland, mother of the late Sgt Derrick Kirkland. Jeremiah Kirkland is a member of March Forward and, like his brother Derrick, he served in the Army. He spoke about his brother's suicide in an interview with March Forward. Excerpt:


MF: What was he like when you talked to him after he was sent home?

Jeremiah Kirkland: He was just totally depressed. It all got to him.

MF: Did he express his frustration with the treatment he was getting?

JK: Yeah, he said all they did was load him up with drugs.

MF: What was your reaction when you heard that he had killed himself?

JK: In all honestly, I was not surprised. I mean, Army mental health care is a joke. You pretty much go there, don't even tell them anything, and they determine whatever category you're in based on different factors and that's the treatment you get. My brother got substandard treatment. The consistently dropped the ball.

MF: Who do you think is responsible for your brother's death?

JK: This government! If he hadn't been deployed, for no goddamn reason but corporate greed, he would still be here.

MF: What do you think about Derrick being rated a "low risk" for suicide by the Army?

JK: Not surprised, honestly. It's just, you know, pretty much whatever they can do to save the government dollar on giving our soldiers actual health care. It just doesn't work.
 
 The speak-out comes as the US Army delivers the latest monthly results on suicide.  Youchi J. Dreazen (National Journal) explains:  "There were 32 Army suicides in July, the highest monthly toll ever recorded. The grim figure underscores the military's continuing inability to find ways of preventing troubled soldiers from taking their own lives."
 
Next week, we'll do two days on the UN report.  I forgot it yesterday and just don't have the time tonight.  My apologies.

Posted at 08:43 pm by thecommonills
 

Nouri breaks his word, just like a little liar

Nouri breaks his word, just like a little liar

Nouri al-Maliki's greed was once only fabled and whispered of softly, today it's legendary. As he continues to fleece the Iraqi people, his greed may be the thing that destroys the US-propped up government.

Despite the March 7, 2010 election being seen as a rejection of Nouri -- whose slate came in second despite all of the predictions otherwise as well as Nouri's own abuse of office in an attempt to bring in the votes -- his greed would not allow for anyone else to be prime minister. As Nouri dug in his heels following the election, a few wondered what it would take to get Nouri out of the office he had just lost? Thanks to the US, he didn't have to worry and, after nine months of Political Stalemate I, he and the political blocs agreed to follow the Erbil Agreement. Among other things, the Erbil Agreement called for the creation of a national council on security which would be headed by Ayad Allawi (Allawi's Iraqiya came in first in the March 2010 elections). Then Nouri got named prime minister-designate and promptly trashed the agreement.

Via a series of summer house parties, Jalal Talabani brought together the political blocs and, as late as yesterday, there was praise for Jalal's efforts in the Iraqi press. Political Stalemate II was going to be ended. And before nine months! The political blocs -- including Nouri -- had agreed to return to the Erbil Agreement. Yesterday in Parliament, the most vocal opponents to the creation of the national council were from Nouri's State Of Law. Alsumaria TV reports today, "Iraq Premier Nouri Al Maliki reiterated that he is not convinced by the Higher National Strategic Policies Council as the country is heading towards Ministerial reduction and added that the Council is to be established in order to please some parties and doesn’t have any role in solving the problems of the political process. During an interview with Alsumaria TV Maliki said he is not convinced by establishing this council especially that the institutions of the Iraqi State are currently flaccid. Maliki stressed that the situation will deteriorate if politics interfered in security."

Though the body was supposed to be independent and have actual powers, Al Rafidayn quotes Nouri stating that its work would be purely advisory. Nouri's trashing this latest agreement much sooner than he did at the end of 2010. When State of Law carped and complained in Parliament yesterday following the reading of the draft law, many observers knew that they must do so with Nouri's blessing (Nouri is the head of State of Law). Now the surprise over that has been replaced with puzzlement over why Nouri is attacking the agreement he just signed off on? Since the only thing most are aware he got was for others to begin publicly speaking favorably of at least entertaining the thought of US forces remaining on the ground in Iraq beyond 2011, that would appear to be all he got from the summer House Parties -- spreading the blame for a continued US presence all around in the government.

In another interesting development, Al Mada reports that the Sadr bloc is calling for an investigation into the alleged fake contracts and alleged theft of funds in the Ministry of Electricity. Over the weekend, Nouri al-Maliki announced he was firing the Minister of Electricity due to fake contracts worh close to two million dollars. There were two main responses. First, many stated Nouri didn't have the power to do the firing, only Parliament did. Second, the Minister of Electricity floated that he had many stories to tell. It has since emerged that these contracts Nouri claims to be surprised and appalled by carry . . . Nouri's signature. Nouri and State Of Law's latest move is to note that this member of Nouri's Cabinet is also a member of Iraqiya. I'm not sure how that assists Nouri since, over the weekend, Iraqiya was the first to state that they supported the move Nouri made.

Last Friday, a prison in Hilla saw a riot and a break out. Among the details that were passed on to the media was that guns with silencers were stored in the prison -- by guards. Why do you need a silencer in a prison if you're a guard? That question was never answered. But Dar Addustour reports that the prison break will be addressed in Parliament today. Now might be a good time to note what's not addresssed: though there was a great deal of grandstanding when protests were taking place repeatedly throughout Iraq, no salaries were changed. That's the presidency and the vice presidency, that's the prime minister.

In the US, Tom Hayden (Huffington Post) gushes:


"There is no way to fund what we must do as a nation without bringing our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. The militarization of our foreign policy has proven to be a costly mistake. It is time to invest at home" - AFL-CIO Executive Council, Aug. 3, 2011

In a major victory for the progressive movement, the AFL-CIO has condemned the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as a "militarization of our foreign policy" and a "costly mistake." The statement, adopted August 3, is the most forthright in the history of a labor movement marked by pro-war allegiances for many decades. It reflects a deep sentiment among working families, estimated at 80 percent opposition by one longtime labor official in Washington D.C. Much credit goes to the patient bottom-up organizing by U.S. Labor Against the War and others, who solicited endorsements from hundreds of locals and mobilized labor contingents at countless rallies across the country.


I wish I shared Tom's enthusiasm. But the fact remains that The Nation's doing a "sports issue" not an issue on war and peace. The fact remains that the statement from the AFL-CIO is not a statement from various 'progressive' leaders -- the bulk of whom fell silent on the wars rather than criticize their beloved Barky Obama. Union members, led by US Labor Against the War, have something to be proud of; however, considering the demographics of the AFL-CIO and the tirades by 'progressives' in 2008, I think it's beyond dishonest and hypocritical for 'progressives' to now claim to stand with the very people they demonized three years ago. The AFL-CIO is largely the 'old coalition,' the one that Donna Brazile and so many others declared a thing of the past and no longer needed. (For those who missed it, Donna declared that older Americans, White Americans and Latinos were no longer needed in the Democratic Party, declared on CNN, because a new coalition had been created.) Of course, the 2010 elections demonstrated what any student of poli sci should have already noted, there was no new 'coalition' to replaced FDR Democrats. If Hayden wants to act jazzed by the union, he might first need to reconcile the attacks launched on FDR Democrats by numerous organizations he belongs to. He might also want to find his voice on the wars which requires more than checking in when someone else takes a stand. People are dying and silence is not an option.

We'll close with this from Lizzie Phelan's "Waging a Savage War on Libyan People" (ICH):

August 11, 2011 "Information Clearing House" -- More bombs drop on Tripoli and across Libya tonight. Theses bombs dropped by the British government whose own youth are setting that country on fire in protest at their abandonment.
The Libyan government share with the British youth the experience of criminalisation by the British press and politicians, and tonight they extended their solidarity to them.
Libyan Foreign Minister chastised British Prime Minister David Cameron for “describing his own people as criminals” and echoed the sentiments of the youth by declaring him “unfit for the job”.
Recognising that the cause of these “riots” by black and working class youngsters were their ignored demands for better representation, better education and health services, better housing, jobs and more and equal opportunities, he added that, “instead of investing taxpayers money in areas underfunded, [Cameron] is spending it on waging a savage war on Libyan people.”
And on the day that NATO massacred 85 Libyan civilians, the images of Britain on fire can garner little sympathy amongst outraged Libyans. This is just the start of the “chickens [coming] home to roost.”
I watched their heartbroken and incensed loved ones bury the 33 children, 32 women and 20 men NATO claimed were likely to be part of the military or “mercenaries”. Most of the population of the Zlitan town Majer turned out for their burial chanting furiously against NATO.
As we captured on film and in history the aftermath of NATO’s crimes, person after person came to tell us how NATO was creating a generation of Libyans so filled with rage that they would see no recourse but to send themselves to martyrdom in revenge against the west.




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












Posted at 05:43 am by thecommonills
 

Veterans suicides prompts speak out at Coffee Strong

Veterans suicides prompts speak out at Coffee Strong

Joe Fryer (KING5) reports on March Forward's press conference this week where the addressed the issue of military suicides and noted that Sgt Derrick Kirkland repeatedly attempted to take his own life yet was labeled "low risk" by the military. Michael Prysner is quoted stating, "Within 48 hours of being in the care of Fort Lewis, he was dead. The mental health care system is broken. Soldiers are sent on constant, repeated deployments. When they ask for help, they receive notoriously inadequate care."

Tonight at Coffee Strong -- the GI coffeehouse -- a speak-out is planned and will start at 7:30 p.m. Among those telling truths will be Mary Kirkland, mother of the late Sgt Derrick Kirkland. Jeremiah Kirkland is a member of March Forward and, like his brother Derrick, he served in the Army. He spoke about his brother's suicide in an interview with March Forward. Excerpt:

MF: What was he like when you talked to him after he was sent home?

Jeremiah Kirkland: He was just totally depressed. It all got to him.

MF: Did he express his frustration with the treatment he was getting?

JK: Yeah, he said all they did was load him up with drugs.

MF: What was your reaction when you heard that he had killed himself?

JK: In all honestly, I was not surprised. I mean, Army mental health care is a joke. You pretty much go there, don’t even tell them anything, and they determine whatever category you’re in based on different factors and that’s the treatment you get. My brother got substandard treatment. The consistently dropped the ball.

MF: Who do you think is responsible for your brother’s death?

JK: This government! If he hadn’t been deployed, for no goddamn reason but corporate greed, he would still be here.

MF: What do you think about Derrick being rated a “low risk” for suicide by the Army?

JK: Not surprised, honestly. It’s just, you know, pretty much whatever they can do to save the government dollar on giving our soldiers actual health care. It just doesn’t work.

Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and her office issued the following yesterday:
(Washington, D.C.) -- Today, Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Patty Murray and Illinois Senator Dick Durbin sent a joint letter to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Secretary Eric Shinseki expressing their concern about the placement of homeless female veterans in unsecure housing in Chicago, which jeopardized their safety. Chairman Murray and Senator Durbin's letter asks VA for assurances that homeless female veterans across the country who are being cared for by the Department are housed in appropriate, safe and secure conditions.

The full text of the Senators' letter is below:

The Honorable Eric Shinseki

Secretary

Department of Veterans Affairs

810 Vermont Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20420

Secretary Shinseki:
We are writing to express our strong concerns regarding the privacy, safety, and security of homeless female veterans who participate in the grant and per diem (GPD) program. As you know, women veterans are more likely than their male counterparts to become homeless, and VA must be prepared to serve the unique needs of this growing population.
We were recently informed that several homeless female veterans were placed with a provider in Chicago, Illinois, which was only approved to house male veterans. As you know, sexual trauma and domestic violence are prevalent in the homeless women veteran population. Furthermore, placing these women into a mixed-gender environment often exacerbates their trauma. While we understand VA has taken immediate action to remove the women veterans from this facility and to immediately stop per diem payments to this provider, the failure to mitigate the privacy, safety and security risks for these female veterans is simply unacceptable.
Although this appears to be an isolated incident, the problems raised in Chicago do call into question the Department's ability to exercise effective oversight over its GPD grantees and to provide the type of care that homeless female veterans truly need and deserve. In order to ensure that a situation like this never occurs again, we request that you provide us with the results of an inventory of active GPD grantees to certify that there are no ongoing inappropriate placements of homeless female veterans at other facilities or housing situations. Please also provide a description of the measures VA is taking to ensure that homeless female veterans are not housed in inappropriate housing situations in the future, including a description of the grantee inspection process. We expect a detailed briefing to our staffs on these matters as soon as possible.
Secretary Shinseki, we appreciate your commitment to ensuring the highest quality care for homeless veterans. We are grateful for the leadership you have displayed in fighting to end veteran homelessness once and for all and look forward to continuing to work with you to achieve this mutual goal.

Sincerely,

U.S. Senator Patty Murray

Chairman Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee

U.S. Senator Richard Durbin

Senate Majority Whip

###

Meghan Roh

Deputy Press Secretary

Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray

@SenMurrayPress

202-224-2834

Get Updates from Senator Murray



Meanwhile Corbin Hiar (iWatch News) reports Senator Charles Grassley is calling for an audit of the VA's travel funds as a result "of $80 million spent on travel last year by the Department of Veterans Affaris after a senior official billed the government nearly $131,000 for his weekly commute to Washington, D.C."


With that and so much more going on -- including multiple wars -- it's really pathetic that The Nation magazine has done a 'sports' issue. If hairy back thinks he's proven sports is not a distraction with that awful issue, he fails to grasp that the issue is an indictment of the left and of exactly how out of touch the magazine is with America. If you're a political magazine, try being political. The Nation can't hit hard on the wars -- wouldn't want to hurt their beloved Barry -- so they put together a junk issue that is not elevated by the fact that they include contributions by Noam Chomsky and Jane Mayer among others. All that does is remind that for years talented writers wasted their craft and any talent doing similar crap for Playboy magazine. Next up, The Nation Goes To The Beach! With a shocking pictorial featuring Eric Alterman and Betsy Reed in a 'sexy' photo shoot while John Nichols contributes a hard hitting piece on how to get sand out of your swimsuit and personal crevices and Katrina vanden Heuvel explores the dilemma of to wax or not to wax in a lengthy essay entitled "Women of Eastern Europe Vs The French Cut Bikini: Who Really Wins In This Culture War?"

The following community sites -- plus Adam vs The Man, Antiwar.com and Watching America -- updated last night and this morning:




Iraq Veterans Against the Wars notes:

In Washington D.C. on October 7th, we will be marking this commemoration of the Global War on Terror with a unique forum, War Voices, which will bring together people directly impacted by U.S. militarism and the U.S. war economy with ally groups, as well as writers, musicians, and artists. Through story-telling, workshops, discussions, and cultural performances, we will build our power as a movement by meeting one another, building relationships that will inspire us for the long haul, envisioning new directions for the future, and planting the seeds for structures of mutual support and solidarity that will allow us to create a demilitarized world. We will be providing a live webcast of the forum in D.C. for those who are unable to join us for the event. At the forum, we also hope to premiere new digital media featuring Afghan organizations talking about their work.



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








Posted at 05:14 am by thecommonills
 

Thursday, August 11, 2011
I Hate The War

I Hate The War

Jane Fonda has a new book out, Prime Time, that I highly recommend the book. Jane was on The Diane Rehm Show (NPR) today and Ann called to ask if she could comment on a few things. Of course she could have. But I told her if she wanted I'd comment on them myself.

There are three main points I want to make.

1) A caller put out that Jane and her brother Peter both look like their father Henry Fonda. And the caller wondered if some form of discomfort on the part of Henry's over the years might be due to his seeing himself in them.

Jane immediately dismissed the possibility which was too bad. First of all, many a parent sees him or herself in their children and, yes, it can lead to clashes especially if the parent doesn't want the child to do as he or she did.

So on that level the caller is correct.

That wasn't the only level. Natalie Wood introduced me to Henry Fonda years and years ago at a party. He was polite, he was funny. And as soon as he walked off, I commented to Natalie on how uncomfortable in his skin he was and she quickly agreed with that.

The reason I bring this up isn't because Henry was a bad person (I don't think he was, I think he was wonderful in many ways). It's because Jane's 73. Hopefully, she'll live to be 100 but, as she herself knows, time is finite.

Jane and her father had a period of estrangement (Peter did with their father as well). And then that eased and it sometimes seems that Jane learned to accept his quirks. That's fine and dandy. But if she wants to really know her father -- and with time being so short -- she needs to accept his demons. He had them. Everyone does. There's a reason painting was such a relief to him. Henry felt acting was noble and a worthy pursuit. His feelings towards stardom were much more complicated. He knew he needed it to maintain his career. He also hated it because it did involve his appearance and a focus that he didn't want. But he wanted the stardom. (To be clear, he wanted it for acting opportunities. He didn't want fame for the sake of fame. He wanted it because it would allow him to continue to work. And it did.) And between the constant desire for stardom (and forever fear that he'd lost it) and the feeling on his part that stardom also required an emphasis on looks, you have a push-pull that creates a demon before you get into the fact that he didn't think he was good looking and was uncomfortable with his looks. There's a reason for the discomfort. Henry Fonda could make his first film next week and become a star. That's not true of a lot of actors who came along with him or a few years after. Henry would be considered by today's standards. His features -- especially his eyes, color and size and shape -- were not traditional in the thirties.

Next we're getting to plastic surgery. Diane chose to ask about that. I wish she hadn't, there are many important things in the world but I don't think plastic surgery is one of them (if it's elective, it's very important for people who need reconstructive surgery). I was troubled by Jane's answer which can be summed up as, "I want to continue to make movies and so I need to look my best." In addition, she noted that her passing reflection -- such as in a storefront window -- didn't match who she saw in her own mind. Jane looks incredible. But she looked pretty good before the facial surgery and she looked very real. My own personal bias/fear: Being under. In May, when I had to have surgery, well it's life or death, we get through what we have to in those situations no matter how frightened of being under I may be. But I don't do the plastic surgery. (I've always said I would have no problem with having a chemical peel. And if I ever had the time away from people to heal from one, I might have had one by now. But, for myself, I don't believe in face lifts or any other cosmetic surgery that puts you under.)

In the interview, Jane and Diane speak glowingly of Vanessa Redgrave and Vanessa's blessed with cheekbones that make a face lift a non-issue. When you're 73, who do you play after a face lift?

Does Jane look 73 to anyone?

She doesn't to me. I think she could pass for her fifties -- especially in real life. But is that what she wants to play? 50-year-olds? More and more, Shirley MacLaine seems not just smart but a genius. And what Shirley did by going older allowed her to now play her own age (or even older) and play some dynamic roles and give some amazing performances.

At 73, you really can't be leading lady and hopefully you have a lot more going on inside you which allows you to be more interesting than you could be as a leading lady.

But if anyone has blazed the trail, broken the mold and set new standards, it's Jane Fonda. She was a film star and leading lady in her 40s and 50s which is unheard of except for the true greats like Bette Davis, Katharine Hepburn and, yes, Jane Fonda.

So if Jane wants to act, smartest thing she can do is go back into production. She's responsible for films such as Coming Home, Old Gringo (a wonderful mosaic in my opinion -- daring for refusing to forsake the linear storyline), 9 to 5, On Golden Pond, Rollover and The Dollmaker. As important as her work in front of the camera has been, no one should shortchange the work she's done behind the camera or how it cahnged the industry and changed women's roles in film. For every actress who got a production deal only to learn that she's not up to it, there have been women like Sally Field and Demi Moore who've been tremendously successful (both artistically and financially) in production and as a result of the road Jane blazed.

If she wants to act, she can change the industry again. How so, find these roles that are calling to her and make these movies and do so on a very, very low budget. I'm talking self-finance. Bette Davis wanted to do Ethan Frome and never did, wanted to play Mary Todd Lincoln and never did, ended her career playing the best of the roles she was offered. Unlike Bette Davis at the same age, Jane is finanically set. And she can afford to self-finance several low budget films (I'm thinking in terms of six weeks shooting and using digital video) with stories and topics that mean something to her. Those who make a point to despise her (a small but vocal crowd) will insist "vanity project." They're going to criticize anyway. Jane's in the position that no other actress has been in. She's still got her health and her looks are considerable. When Bette Davis was Jane's current age, Kim Carnes was giving Bette a new lease on fame via the hit song "Bette Davis Eyes" (written by Jackie DeShannon and Donna Weiss). Grasp that when Bette was doing Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?, Bette was 20 years younger than Jane is now.

Jane's got a marvelous opportunity that no other actress has yet had. She has power that none of them did. And she's able to do something other than complain bitterly that Jack Warner wouldn't do the Mary Todd Lincoln film. It's a marvelous opportunity and one that should be valued and exercised if she wants to continue acting.

At 73, it's really time for bravery. Which brings us to the third point -- or closer to it. Jane has a new book, Prime Time, that is wonderful. Is the bulk of this entry war related? In some ways, I think yes. But I also think Jane is a cultural phenomon worthy of this focus and I, honestly, also hope it makes you think about reading the book and maybe showing up for one of her book signing appearances.

But if she hadn't spoken about war on Diane's show today, Ann wouldn't have felt she had to cover it. And I wouldn't have felt I had to. Jane's a wonderful person but at 73 people need to use their voices and do so strongly. If you can't speak out at 73, when can you?



Diane Rehm: Here's one from Steve who says, "You have the most political movie star in the history of movies in the studio and you haven't asked her whether she's still opposed to war."

Jane Fonda: Of course, I'm opposed to war. I mean, who wouldn't be opposed to war. Yes, I'm opposed to war. I'm opposed to violence. I -- one of the things that I focus on now in this third act is trying to address the question and stop violence against women and girls, which happens worldwide. I work with the young girls and boys in Georgia still. My nonprofits are there and I, you know, I try to do what I can, you know.

Diane Rehm: War is very much with us. You had your own experience as you protested the war in Vietnam. Why do you believe there have been so few protests regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, in Libya?

Jane Fonda: Yeah. I think it's complicated now. You know, we were attacked, huh. It's very, very different than Vietnam where, you know, this was a people far, far away. They never attacked us or threatened us. There was a draft and so we were more viscerally involved across the board. I think that starting with the -- after 911 the government -- it was the Bush Administration then was very clever at manipulating public opinion in such a way that we supported going into Iraq, even though it was the wrong place to be. I think it's complicated now. And I also think that, well, people don't know quite what to do now about it. It's hard. I think the economy is one of the things, more than anything, that's going to force us to stop going to war. We just can't afford it anymore.

It's not complicated. Jane never spoke out when LBJ was in the White House (her activism in the US began when Nixon was in the White House) and she's silenced herself since Barack arrived in the White House.

At the DC rally in January 2007, Jane said what at the end of her speech? "Thank you for being here, and we'll continue to be here for as long as necessary."

When did it stop being necessary? Because Jane no longer talks about the Iraq War publicly unless pressed and then it's a bunch of generic bromides.

You're the one who told a huge crowd that "we'll continue to be here for as long as necessary." And you got a waive of applause for that line. You who are famous for doing the head tilt, mouth grimace move while saying/laughing, "And they'll hold me to it!" And I'm quoting you from the 80s. Long before 2007 in DC. So you knew what you were saying and you knew how it would be received.

So where are you, Jane?

Barack's been office for some time. He didn't end the Iraq War, he didn't end the brutal occupation that has enriched the Iraqi exiles and turned the people who lived in the country when it was allegedly 'liberated' into beggars and vagrants in their own land.

It's not complicated, it's very simple. If you continue wars and start your own, you are a War Hawk. If you're opposed to wars, you call War Hawks out.

It's really sad that the obvious question the caller asked came from the caller. The issue was avoided by Diane at other times when it should have been front and center. The war hasn't ended and people continue to die. Silence isn't going to end the illegal war.

It's over, I'm done writing songs about love
There's a war going on
So I'm holding my gun with a strap and a glove
And I'm writing a song about war
And it goes
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Oh oh oh oh
-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!)

Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4477. Tonight it is [PDF format warning] still 4477.



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





Posted at 10:24 pm by thecommonills
 

Iraq snapshot

Iraq snapshot

Thursday, August 11, 2011.  Chaos and violence continue, Senator Patty Murray raises concerns about the treatment of female veterans, Political Stalemate II continues, house bombings are still the new fad in Iraqi violence, and more.
 
Starting with women veterans.  Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and her office notes:
 
(Washington, D.C.) -- Today, Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Patty Murray and Illinois Senator Dick Durbin sent a joint letter to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Secretary Eric Shinseki expressing their concern about the placement of homeless female veterans in unsecure housing in Chicago, which jeopardized their safety.  Chairman Murray and Senator Durbin's letter asks VA for assurances that homeless female veterans across the country who are being cared for by the Department are housed in appropriate, safe and secure conditions.
 

The full text of the Senators' letter is below:

 

The Honorable Eric Shinseki

Secretary

Department of Veterans Affairs

810 Vermont Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20420

 
Secretary Shinseki:
We are writing to express our strong concerns regarding the privacy, safety, and security of homeless female veterans who participate in the grant and per diem (GPD) program.  As you know, women veterans are more likely than their male counterparts to become homeless, and VA must be prepared to serve the unique needs of this growing population.
We were recently informed that several homeless female veterans were placed with a provider in Chicago, Illinois, which was only approved to house male veterans.  As you know, sexual trauma and domestic violence are prevalent in the homeless women veteran population.  Furthermore, placing these women into a mixed-gender environment often exacerbates their trauma.  While we understand VA has taken immediate action to remove the women veterans from this facility and to immediately stop per diem payments to this provider, the failure to mitigate the privacy, safety and security risks for these female veterans is simply unacceptable.
Although this appears to be an isolated incident, the problems raised in Chicago do call into question the Department's ability to exercise effective oversight over its GPD grantees and to provide the type of care that homeless female veterans truly need and deserve.  In order to ensure that a situation like this never occurs again, we request that you provide us with the results of an inventory of active GPD grantees to certify that there are no ongoing inappropriate placements of homeless female veterans at other facilities or housing situations.  Please also provide a description of the measures VA is taking to ensure that homeless female veterans are not housed in inappropriate housing situations in the future, including a description of the grantee inspection process. We expect a detailed briefing to our staffs on these matters as soon as possible.
Secretary Shinseki, we appreciate your commitment to ensuring the highest quality care for homeless veterans.  We are grateful for the leadership you have displayed in fighting to end veteran homelessness once and for all and look forward to continuing to work with you to achieve this mutual goal.
 

Sincerely,                                                                                   

 

U.S. Senator Patty Murray

Chairman Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee

 

U.S. Senator Richard Durbin

Senate Majority Whip

###

Meghan Roh

Deputy Press Secretary

Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray

@SenMurrayPress

202-224-2834

Get Updates from Senator Murray

 
Now moving on to the Libyan War, Saturday July 30th, NATO attacked the Libyan Broadcasting Authority. We noted the Libyan Broadcasting Authority's statement in the August 3rd snapshot. The International Federation of Journalists issued the following statement on NATO bombing the journalism outlet:
 
The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) today condemned the NATO air strikes against Libyan state television which took place last Saturday in Tripoli, killing three journalists and injured fifteen staff members according to its director of the English service, Khalid Basilia.
According to agency reports, NATO confirmed that it bombed the transmitters without giving any details of casualties, posting on its website that their aim was to degrade Libyan leader Gaddafi's "use of satellite television as a means to intimidate the Libyan people and incite acts of violence against them."
"We utterly condemn this action which targeted journalists and threatened their lives in violation of international law. These kinds of actions that use violence to stifle dissident media spell catastrophe for press freedom," said IFJ General Secretary, Beth Costa.
The IFJ says that the bombing is in contravention of UN Security Council resolution 1738, passed in December 2006, which explicitly condemned such attacks against journalists and media, and clearly established that media equipment and installations constitute civilian objects and are not to be considered target of any type for military reprisals.
The IFJ has continually protested these kinds of attacks since the 1999 NATO bombing in Belgrade of the Serbian broadcaster RTS, which killed 16 people. At the time, NATO said the station was a legitimate military target because it was a "propaganda mouth piece" for the regime of Slobodan Milosevic regime.
The IFJ says there is no justification for the action under international law and calls once again on NATO to refrain from such attacks against media.
"Our concern is that when one side decides to take out a media organisation because they regard its message as propaganda, then all media are at risk," said Costa. "In conflict situations, international law is clear that unarmed journalists cannot be treated as combatants, irrespective of their political affiliations."

For more information, please contact IFJ on + 32 2 235 210

The IFJ represents more than 600.000 journalists in 131 countries
 
Barack Obama declared war on the Libyan government back in March but has hid behind NATO and claimed that it was not a war to avoid getting Congressional approval.  He also insisted that it was to protect protesters in Libya from a violent government response. Barry Neild (CNN) notes that with protests and riots breaking out in England, the governments of Libya and Iran are "mocking Britain over riots" and that "The criticism came as other nations around the world reassed their usually peaceful views of the UK, revising official advice to Britain-bound travelers and publishing newspaper headlines and editorials likening London to the troublespots such as Somalia's Mogadishu."
 
Law and Disorder Radio -- which airs Mondays on WBAI  and around the country throughout the week -- is a weekly program which examines issues and offers solid legal analysis because the three hosts are all attorneys as well:  Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights). On the program for the week of July 11th, the legality of the Libyan War was explored.
 
Michael Smith:  Michael, the actions that the Obama administration took against Libya is really a perversion of the law.  Explain what they did in order to justify not going to Congress.
 
Michael Ratner: Well the use of military force by the president has to be authorized by Congress under the United States Constitution.  That's very clear.  And it's not just war, it's use of -- it's hostilities, it's really any military action anywhere in the world other than in self-defense.  So we start from the premise that military actions, whether in Libya, killing people in Somolia or Yemen, etc., has to be authorized by Congress. In some cases the president claimed that the authorization to use military force passed in 2001 -- after 9/11 -- gave him authority.  But in other cases, he's just asserting raw, naked power.  He's claiming that because these don't amount to large wars that the Constitution doesn't apply and he doesn't have to go to Congress.  Now then what happened because this is a common claim of presidents whether it's in Libya or Somolia, Congress after Vietnam built in a safety trigger.  They said, "Lookit, you still need our consent to go to war, or to go into hostilities or bomb people, etc. But we're going to put in a safety trigger.  If you do that, if you engage in hostilities and you don't come to us first like you're required to do under the Constitution, then you have sixty days to come back to us and get authority or within sixty days all troops have to be automatically withdrawn." So it's a safety figure because they knew the president would do exactly what Obama is doing, violate the Constitution. They put in a safety trigger that said you have sixty days to get authority, if you don't have authority then you then have 30 more days to get all the troops out, a total of 90 days. So in the case of Libya, of course, the 90 days have passed and the War Powers Resolution had required that all those troops be brought out.  So we had a sort of double system.  Is that clear, Michael?
 
Michael Smith: Well as a practical matter, the political will in this country is lacking to do anything.  Technically what he did is a crime and he can be impeached for it and tried and gotten out of office but I don't think that's going to happen.
 
Michael Ratner: It's a high crime or misdemeanor.  It's true violation of the Constitution, it's a violation of Congressional statute, you could impeach him. But good luck.  We've never -- we've never successfully impeached anybody.  I mean, we had, you know, Andrew Johnson after the Civil War was at least tried and acquitted eventually but I think that was the case.  Nixon, rather than be impeached, resigned. Clinton made it through.  Bush made it through. So what do you say, Michael?  It looks like it's not a really good lever.
 
FYI, Michael Ratner has teamed with Margaret Ratner Kunstler for the just released book Hell No, Your Right To Dissent.  Back to the Libyan War, as Michael Ratner noted, Barack is in violation of the War Powers Act.  A group of men, thought to be former citizens of Libya and supporters of the so-called rebels (Transitional National Council) stormed an embassy today.  Al Jazeera reports the the Libyan Embassy in Stockholm was attacked with people hanging the flag of the TNC and tossing any photos of Libya's leader Muamma Gaddafi "out of its windows."  Al Jazeera notes 7 men were arrested.
 
 
The Secretary-General is deeply concerned by reports of the unacceptably large number of civilian casualties as a result of the conflict in Libya. He expresses his sincere sympathies and solidarity with the Libyan people, in particular, those who have lost loved ones in the recent attacks carried out in the country. The Secretary-General calls on all parties to exercise extreme caution in their actions, in order to minimise any further loss of civilian life.
He once again reiterates his strongly held belief that there can be no military solution to the Libyan crisis. A ceasefire that is linked to a political process which would meet the aspirations of the Libyan people, is the only viable means to achieving peace and security in Libya.
The Secretary-General urges all Libyan parties to immediately engage with his Special Envoy, Mr. Abdul Ilah Al-Khatib, and respond concretely and positively to the ideas presented to them, in order to end the bloodshed in the country.
 
 
Jacob Zuma is the President of South Africa.  AFP quotes him stating, "We have found ourselves in a situation where the developed world has decided to intervene in Africa in a manner that was not agreed to when the UN resolution 1973 . . . was passed. We have found this resolution being abused in a manner that is totally unacceptable."  Zuma, like the African Union, wants the violence stopped and peace talks to take place. (He does not see Gaddafi being a part of those talks.) While the African Union has repeatedly called for the matter to be left to the regional powers (which would not include the US or NATO), the White House wants Gaddafi out of power and wants to split Libya up into at least three regions.  The Council on Foreign Relations loves every war -- at least until continuing to love it reveals their War Hawk nature, at which point (as with Iraq) they finally start calling for an end to it.  Today they offer Daniel Serwer 'explaining' what can be done with Libya after the US kicks out Gaddafi (I'm not saying that will come to be, but that is the premise of Serwer's paper, Gaddafi is gone).  As with the selling of the Iraq War, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies is at the forefront of the calls for violence.  That did not register at the start of the Iraq War.  Hopefully, people will notice it this time.  Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies is nothing but a hotbed little War Hawks.
 
The TNC (so-called 'rebels') assassinated Abdel Fatah Younes.  He had defected from Gaddafi's side early in the war and was with the TNC, even holding a position in it.  And then the TNC began to doubt him and murdered him.  While a large number of TNC-ers are exiles (some from America, some from elsewhere), without actual Libyans on the TNC's side, it's going to be very difficult for them to continue to pretend to represent the will of the Libyan people.  And when one of the highest ranking defectors in the TNC is still not trusted, it does not instill a sense of security in others who defected over to the TNC side.  Patrick Cockburn (Indpendent of London) observes:
 
This week the head of the TNC, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, sacked his whole government on the grounds that some were complicit in the killing. He was apparently forced to do so in order to quell the rage of the powerful Obeidi tribe to which Younes belonged.

A ludicrous aspect of the whole affair is that at the very moment the rebel leaders are at each other's throats, they are being recognised by country after country as the legitimate government of Libya. This week TNC diplomats took over the Libyan embassies in London and Washington and are about to do so in Ottawa. In a masterpiece of mistiming, Britain recognised the rebel government on the day when some of its members were shooting their own commander-in-chief and burning his body.

 
Noting Cockburn's article last night, Elaine observed, "The Libyan War receives more attention from the international press these days, have you noticed that? I am sure another wave is due any day now on how godly and saintly and wonderful the so-called 'rebels' are. This 'brief' mini-cakewalk that Barack promised is now what, five months old? When it's in year whatever, do you think people will give a damn?"
 
Yesterday, the State Dept's spokesperson Victoria Nuland was quizzed about her claim that TNC was "a sign of vibrant transparency and democratic accountability and she responded, "I think we stand by what I said yesterday, which is that this is an opportunity for renewal not only in political terms, but in terms of the confidence that the Libyan people are going to to have in TNC leadership."  The TNC murdered one of their own and Victoria Nuland wants to talk "opportunity for renewal"?
 
Turning to the Iraq War, if it ends at the end of 2011, why are they still deploying troops to it?  Today the Providence Journal reports a send-off is scheduled this Friday (9:00 a.m., Quonset Air National Guard Base) for two units of the Rhode Island National Guard who are deploying "to Iraq for a year. They will provide aviation support for combat and reconstruction operations, the National Guard said."   Jennifer Quinn (WPRI) also notes the deployment, "A Company, 1st Battalion 126th Aviation and D Company 126th Aviation will deploy ti Iraq for one year."
 
March 7, 2010, Iraqis voted. The elections would determine members of Parliament who would then determine who was prime minister who would then determine with the Parliament who made up the Cabinet. This is not a lengthy process. Or it's not supposed to be. But it drug on for a little over nine months creating Political Stalemate I. In November 2010, a deal was hammered out, the Erbil Agreement, saying Nouri and State of Law would get this, Iraqiya would get this, etc. This deal allowed Political Stalemate I to end. And Nouri became prime minister-designate that month. And Nouri quickly disregarded the other elements of the deal, refusing to honor them and starting Political Stalemate II.

Nouri was named prime minister-designate in November. Per the Constitution, he then had 30 days to nominate members of his Cabinet and have the Parliament approve them. But Nouri never nominated a full Cabinet. And to this day, the positions of Minister of the Interior, Minister of Defense and Minister of National Security have never been filled. Every few weeks comes the speculation that finally Nouri is going to make nominations. It's August, eight months after the positions should have been filled. Will Political Stalemate II last longer than the first one?

Dar Addustour states that "informed sources" state that the issue will be resolved "net week" and that the candidates have already been decided. Al Rafidayn states three nominees will be named by the National Alliance and credits the recent House Party at Jalal's for ending the impasse. 

The Erbil Agreement called for the creation of a National Council on security issues and called on Ayad Allawi (whose Iraqiya came in first in the March 7th elections) to head the new body. On the first day Parliament met following the Erbil Agreement, many members of Iraqiya walked out when the agreed to creation of this body was immediately tabled. Al Sabaah reports that people expect today's session of Parliament to be "heated" due to the fact that the issue of the National Council is on the agenda -- finally on the agenda. Aswat al-Iraq reports that National Alliance MP Abdul-Hussein Abtan objected at the first reading of the draft law and is stating that the council would have too much power.

The Cabinet was reduced by 17 positions last month. Nouri had promised everyone something in an attempt to sew up votes for prime minister. As a result, even with three ministry heads not named, Nouri kicked things off in December with a bloated Cabinet. Charges of corruption and protests led Nouri to propose trimming the Cabinet's ministers and deputy ministers. Bilgay Duman (Sunday Zaman) calls out the decision:

This decision which was taken with the agreement of political groups of the Republic of Iraq is seen that will cause new problems for Iraq even if it seems as positive at first. First of all, there is a big question mark that is about which tasks will be given to political groups whose ministries are taken over. On the other hand, associating ministries is in question. For instance, associating Ministry of Culture and Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities is being discussed. However, the Ministry of Culture was afforded to the Coalition of Iraqi union under the leadership of Cevat El Bolani who is the former internal affairs minister and the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities was afforded to one person of Al-Sadr's group. In case of associating these two ministries, the possibility of being a moot question concerning it will be afforded to which group is pretty high. Because of the fact that there has not been any appointment to ministries, it is thought that the new assignments will raise problems in Iraqi politics. This situation may lead the Republic of Iraq to a new crisis. On the other side, the continuing discussions relating to the existence of American soldiers in Iraq and also the disagreement among political groups might deepen this crisis. In the forthcoming period, the issues such as reviewing of government or calling an early election may be anticipated to be brought up to the agenda again. 

Patrick Seale (Gulf News) observes,  "Iraq's new-found 'democracy', dominated by Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki, is characterised by a great number of parties and splinter groups, all jostling for advantage. This produces a lot of heated talk but not much action — to the extent that a leading Iraqi (consulted for this article) described the Iraqi political scene as resembling that of the French Fourth Republic."
 
Filing early and never updating, Reuters notes Wednesday events that they didn't cover yesterday: two Kirkuk roadside bombings injured one police officer, 1 corpse was discovered in Kirkuk, 1 corpse was discoovered in Hilla, a Mosul roadside bombing injured a child, another Mosul roadside bombing injured a police officer, a Falluja roadside bombing injured eight people. Interesting.  But today W.G. Dunlop Tweets:

 

wdunlop87 3 dead, 49 wounded in #Iraq violence on Thursday http://bit.ly/nWBnx5
 

 

Ali Yussef (AFP) reports 3 people were killed by a bombing of police officer's Ramadi home leaving 3 dead and 24 wounded. As we noted Monday, home bombings are the new craze in Baghdad -- Sunday an Iskandariya home bombing resulted in the death of 5 family members (nine more injured) and a Baghdad home bombing claimed the life of 1 Sahwa and the life of his son (two female family members were injured) and Monday a Haswa home bombing left four members of a police officer's family injured. In addition, AFP notes four bombings slammed Baghdad after sunset with at least ten people left injured.

 


Yesterday it was still news in Australia that the last 33 Australian soldiers were finally leaving Iraq. Yes, Kevin Rudd lied and said "Elect me and all soldiers come home." Why do you think it was so easy to defeat Kevin Rudd in the first place (Rudd didn't even make a full three years in the post). Jeremy Thompson (Australia's ABC) reports that John Howard's words may come back to haunt him. Howard was prime minister before Rudd. As Tony Blair and Bully Boy Bush lied to their own nations in the lead up to the war, so Howard lied to Australians. Now MP Andrew Wilkie wants Parliament to launch an inquiry into the war and wants Howard to testify before it. The article notes of the start of the illegal war, "At the time, Mr Wilkie was an intelligence officer with the Office of National Assessments (ONA) and resigned his post because he said the Government had no evidence Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction." David Ellery (Canberra Times) explains, "Mr Wilkie said yesterday that Mr Howard and former Coalition foreign minister Alexander Downer must be made to explain why they took Australia to war based on a lie in 2003. He wants an inquiry similar to the one being conducted by Sir John Chilcot in Britain." AAP adds, "No light had ever been shone on the behaviour of Mr Howard and former foreign minister Alexander Downer." News9 reports that Tony Abbott, opposition leader in Parliament, is already shooting down the idea of an inquiry. Meanwhile Dennis Jett (McClatchy Newspapers) notes that the US has had no inquiry:

Various Senate committees and special commissions put out reports five or six years ago, but they were set up to have a balance between Republican and Democratic politicians and given narrow mandates. The results were invariably weasel-worded conclusions that evaded the truth and provided little insight and no accountability. To the extent any blame was assessed, it was directed at unnamed bureaucrats. Instead of bearing any responsibility for the war and its aftermath, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and Tenet rake in seven figure advances for their books and six figure fees for giving speeches to friendly audiences.

So why is there no interest in finding out what lessons can be learned from the Iraq experience, what went wrong and who is responsible? The four failures identified by the Chilcot committee apply even more to Bush since Blair was only acting as Bush's poodle. Does America suffer from NADD -- national attention deficit disorder? Or is there another reason.

The war was unnecessary because Saddam Hussein had no WMD. And he wasn't going to get any because the UN inspectors were doing an effective job. The war was illegal, because, as the legal experts in the British Foreign Office concluded, it was against international law. Bush used violations of Security Council resolutions to justify invading Iraq. He never bothered to ask the UN for the authorization that would have legitimized the invasion, however, because he knew he could not get it.

 

 

Posted at 05:47 pm by thecommonills
 

Political Stalemate II

Political Stalemate II

March 7, 2010, Iraqis voted. The elections would determine members of Parliament who would then determine who was prime minister who would then determine with the Parliament who made up the Cabinet. This is not a lengthy process. Or it's not supposed to be. But it drug on for a little over nine months creating Political Stalemate I. In November 2010, a deal was hammered out, the Erbil Agreement, saying Nouri and State of Law would get this, Iraqiya would get this, etc. This deal allowed Political Stalemate I to end. And Nouri became prime minister-designate that month. And Nouri quickly disregarded the other elements of the deal, refusing to honor them and starting Political Stalemate II.

Nouri was named prime minister-designate in November. Per the Constitution, he then had 30 days to nominate members of his Cabinet and have the Parliament approve them. But Nouri never nominated a full Cabinet. And to this day, the positions of Minister of the Interior, Minister of Defense and Minister of National Security have never been filled. Every few weeks comes the speculation that finally Nouri is going to make nominations. It's August, eight months after the positions should have been filled. Will Political Stalemate II last longer than the first one?

Dar Addustour states that "informed sources" state that the issue will be resolved "net week" and that the candidates have already been decided. Al Rafidayn states three nominees will be named by the National Alliance and credits the recent House Party at Jalal's for ending the impasse.

The Erbil Agreement called for the creation of a National Council on security issues and called on Ayad Allawi (whose Iraqiya came in first in the March 7th elections) to head the new body. On the first day Parliament met following the Erbil Agreement, many members of Iraqiya walked out when the agreed to creation of this body was immediately tabled. Al Sabaah reports that people expect today's session of Parliament to be "heated" due to the fact that the issue of the National Council is on the agenda -- finally on the agenda. Aswat al-Iraq reports that National Alliance MP Abdul-Hussein Abtan objected at the first reading of the draft law and is stating that the council would have too much power.

The Cabinet was reduced by 17 positions last month. Nouri had promised everyone something in an attempt to sew up votes for prime minister. As a result, even with three ministry heads not named, Nouri kicked things off in December with a bloated Cabinet. Charges of corruption and protests led Nouri to propose trimming the Cabinet's ministers and deputy ministers. Bilgay Duman (Sunday Zaman) calls out the decision:

This decision which was taken with the agreement of political groups of the Republic of Iraq is seen that will cause new problems for Iraq even if it seems as positive at first. First of all, there is a big question mark that is about which tasks will be given to political groups whose ministries are taken over. On the other hand, associating ministries is in question. For instance, associating Ministry of Culture and Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities is being discussed. However, the Ministry of Culture was afforded to the Coalition of Iraqi union under the leadership of Cevat El Bolani who is the former internal affairs minister and the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities was afforded to one person of Al-Sadr’s group. In case of associating these two ministries, the possibility of being a moot question concerning it will be afforded to which group is pretty high. Because of the fact that there has not been any appointment to ministries, it is thought that the new assignments will raise problems in Iraqi politics. This situation may lead the Republic of Iraq to a new crisis. On the other side, the continuing discussions relating to the existence of American soldiers in Iraq and also the disagreement among political groups might deepen this crisis. In the forthcoming period, the issues such as reviewing of government or calling an early election may be anticipated to be brought up to the agenda again.

Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and she has an event with veterans today:

(Washington, D.C.) -- On Thursday, August 11th, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, will hold a listening session to hear from area veterans on local challenges and to discuss her efforts to improve veterans care and benefits nationwide. This will be Senator Murray's first discussion with local veterans as Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Senator Murray will use the struggles, stories, and suggestions she hears on Monday to fight for local veterans in Washington, D.C.

WHO: U.S. Senator Patty Murray

Local veterans

WHAT: Veterans listening session with Senator Murray

WHEN: Thursday, August 11th

9:00 AM PT

WHERE: VFW Post 239

190 S. Dora Avenue

Bremerton, WA 98312

Map



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







Posted at 05:34 am by thecommonills
 

Inquiries

Inquiries

Starting with a community note: If you are a community member and you donated to KPFA last week because of the Libyan War coverage, e-mail me how much you donated and where to send the check. I will personally cover your donation. There are a growing number of e-mails expressing outrage about donating to KPFA for the Libyan War coverage guest host Kevin Pina and Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya were doing. They provided the coverage each Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday on Flashpoints. Dennis Bernstein returned last week and listeners got Tuesday and Wednesday coverage last week but, typical, by Thursday Dennis was off on a flight of fancy. They're no longer covering the Libyan War -- despite the fact that coverage of the Libyan War is why Pacifica Radio is supposed to exist.

As I noted last week, a friend with KPFA asked me to note that it was pledge week and if I would encourage people to donate. The station needs money badly. I did do that little pledge here -- with caveats. If you are a community member and you donated to KPFA because of the Libyan War coverage, the now non-existant Libyan War coverage, e-mail me what the amount was and where you'd like a check sent. Ideally use one of the two private e-mail accounts. I'll ask Shirley and Eli to just work those today and tomorrow so we can get this issue taken care.

I am very, very sorry that I pitched KPFA for the Libyan War coverage -- coverage I was promised would be continuing -- and some of you donated and now there's no Libyan War coverage. They're so uninterested in the region that last night Voices of the Middle East and North Africa didn't even air so that one of the disgrunted regime that nearly brought KPFA to bankruptcy could yack on the airwaves in between a movie being played. (Don't love you love movies played on radio?)

A number of you are expressing outrage about the crap Dennis has offered instead: Catherine Austin Fitts. A number of e-mails refer to along the terms of "Reagan administration refugee." She was not of the Reagan administration. She served in George H.W. Bush's administration.

There's an economic crisis. It's the crisis of now for many Americans. The crisis of now. When you're already talking above people's heads because you think your insider baseball chatter makes you (Dennis and Catherine) look smart, you risk losing the audience. When this country is dealing with a crisis of now and your forever going back a two decades (at least), you're losing the audience. It's bad radio on every level: A failure to connect with the listener, a failure to make the issue contemporary and timely and a failure to grasp how dull the two of you sound droning on for an hour (with 'questions' from the listeners if and when you get around to them).

As I understood the problem yesterday, it was the lack of Libyan War coverage everywhere. That's why yesterday's snapshot started with Libyan War coverage. Reading over e-mails this morning (usually the only time I go into the e-mails during the week), I see it much more than that, it is a specific complaint about Flashpoints walking away from the Libyan War. I am responsible to the community. If you are a community member, e-mail me how much you donated and where you want the check sent to. (I'm not responsible to the world. If you're not a community member, this doesn't apply to you, you're listening in on a private conversation in a public space.)


Yesterday it was still news in Australia that the last 33 Australian soldiers were finally leaving Iraq. Yes, Kevin Rudd lied and said "Elect me and all soldiers come home." Why do you think it was so easy to defeat Kevin Rudd in the first place (Rudd didn't even make a full three years in the post). Jeremy Thompson (Australia's ABC) reports that John Howard's words may come back to haunt him. Howard was prime minister before Rudd. As Tony Blair and Bully Boy Bush lied to their own nations in the lead up to the war, so Howard lied to Australians. Now MP Andrew Wilkie wants Parliament to launch an inquiry into the war and wants Howard to testify before it. The article notes of the start of the illegal war, "At the time, Mr Wilkie was an intelligence officer with the Office of National Assessments (ONA) and resigned his post because he said the Government had no evidence Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction." David Ellery (Canberra Times) explains, "Mr Wilkie said yesterday that Mr Howard and former Coalition foreign minister Alexander Downer must be made to explain why they took Australia to war based on a lie in 2003. He wants an inquiry similar to the one being conducted by Sir John Chilcot in Britain." AAP adds, "No light had ever been shone on the behaviour of Mr Howard and former foreign minister Alexander Downer." News9 reports that Tony Abbott, opposition leader in Parliament, is already shooting down the idea of an inquiry. Meanwhile Dennis Jett (McClatchy Newspapers) notes that the US has had no inquiry:

Various Senate committees and special commissions put out reports five or six years ago, but they were set up to have a balance between Republican and Democratic politicians and given narrow mandates. The results were invariably weasel-worded conclusions that evaded the truth and provided little insight and no accountability. To the extent any blame was assessed, it was directed at unnamed bureaucrats. Instead of bearing any responsibility for the war and its aftermath, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and Tenet rake in seven figure advances for their books and six figure fees for giving speeches to friendly audiences.

So why is there no interest in finding out what lessons can be learned from the Iraq experience, what went wrong and who is responsible? The four failures identified by the Chilcot committee apply even more to Bush since Blair was only acting as Bush’s poodle. Does America suffer from NADD—national attention deficit disorder? Or is there another reason.

The war was unnecessary because Saddam Hussein had no WMD. And he wasn’t going to get any because the UN inspectors were doing an effective job. The war was illegal, because, as the legal experts in the British Foreign Office concluded, it was against international law. Bush used violations of Security Council resolutions to justify invading Iraq. He never bothered to ask the UN for the authorization that would have legitimized the invasion, however, because he knew he could not get it.

And the war was immoral because, despite all the Pentagon’s high tech, precision weaponry, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians died. So many that Bush may well be responsible for killing more Iraqi civilians than Saddam Hussein ever did. General Tommy Franks, who directed the invasion and also profited from his own book deal after the war, once said, “we don’t do body counts.” Clearly an accurate estimate was not in the interests of the Bush administration, but why is there no attempt to find out now?


The following community sites -- plus Cindy Sheehan, On The Wilder Side, Antiwar.com and Random Thoughts -- updated last night:


Turning to the US, Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and she has an event with veterans today:
(Washington, D.C.) -- On Thursday, August 11th, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, will hold a listening session to hear from area veterans on local challenges and to discuss her efforts to improve veterans care and benefits nationwide. This will be Senator Murray's first discussion with local veterans as Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Senator Murray will use the struggles, stories, and suggestions she hears on Monday to fight for local veterans in Washington, D.C.

WHO: U.S. Senator Patty Murray

Local veterans

WHAT: Veterans listening session with Senator Murray

WHEN: Thursday, August 11th

9:00 AM PT

WHERE: VFW Post 239

190 S. Dora Avenue

Bremerton, WA 98312

Map


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











Posted at 05:28 am by thecommonills
 

Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Iraq snapshot

Iraq snapshot

Wednesday, August 11, 2011.  Chaos and violence continue, the financial cost of war is noted (pay attention, Steve Inskeep), talk of extending the US military presence in Iraq continues, Iraqi Youth issue a statement, and more.
 
Starting with the Libyan War.  Black Star News (via San Francisco Bay View) notes that "the entire Black population" of Misrata has been driven out of the city by the so-called rebels and cites this Wall St. Journal report where the rebels boast of being "the brigade for purging slaves, black skin." Were George W. Bush still illegally occupying the White House, there would be a huge outcry over that.  Instead it's little reported.  Black Star News states the New York Times has ignored the racism of the so-called rebels of the Transitional National Council and the attacks on Black Libyans:
 
If the case was reversed and Black Libyans were committing ethnic cleansing against non-Black Libyans, does anyone believe that the people who now control the editorials or the news pages at the New York Times would ignore such a story? Evidently, it doesn't bother the sages at the Times that Black Libyans are specifically being targeted for liquidation because of their skin color.
Instead, the New York Times is busy boasting of its support for NATO's bombing campaign -- as in a recent editorial -- which this week alone is reported to have killed 20 civilians. The Times has also ignored Rep. Dennis Kucinich's call to the International Criminal court (ICC) to investigate NATO commanders on possible war crimes in connection to Libyan civilians killed.
The Times can't write about the ethnic cleansing of Black Libyans and migrants from other African countries because it would diminish the reputation of the 'rebels,' who the Times have fully embraced, even after the ICC also reported that they too have committed war crimes.  Instead, the Times is comfortable with the simplistic narrative, "al-Qaddafi bad," "rebels good," regardless of the fact that the Wall Street Journal also reported the rebels are being trained by former al-Qaeda leaders who were relesed from U.S. custody in Guantanamo Bay.
 
Monday, Elaine noted:
 
Charles Levinson (Wall St. Journal) and William Booth (Washington Post) both report that the so-called 'rebels' in Libya, the TNC-ers, have 'reshuffled' their administrative cabinet in a desperate bid to try to calm the fears of their western supporters over the TNC's assassination of their own colleague Abdel Fattah Younis.
I don't believe a simple cabinet shuffle will calm fears. Their supporters are ready to bail on them. The TNC provided a ton of promises and delivered on none of them.
 
For a roundtable at Third on Sunday, Jim asked what the most important recent news in the Libyan War had been:
 
Mike: I'll go. I think it was, I'm pulling up Friday's snapshot, give me a second. Okay, on the second hour of Friday's Diane Rehm Show, James Kitfield of National Journal said, "People aren't really talking about but I believe it's in September the UN resolution that really okayed this runs out and given that NATO has gone way beyond what it originally said it was going to do which was just to protect people from massacre from the air to bombing command centers and taking out tanks, it's very hard for me to imagine that they get an extension of that [resolution] through the [United Nations] Security Council so that means that there might be a due-by-date on NATO airstrike and power for this and the further complicates it." I did not know the UN resolution ran out next month. To me, that's the biggest development.

Elaine: I'd agree with Mike but note that another important story is Reuters' report that the so-called 'rebels' were supplied with ammunition yesterday by a Qatari plane. The coverage from Al Jazeera has been one-sided and pro 'rebels.' That plane owned by the government of Qatar? Al Jazeera is also owned by the government of Qatar.

Ann: While those are both important points, I think the points we made last Sunday in "How's that Libyan War going?" were the biggest issue because, all last week, throughout the whole week, the death of Abdul Fatah Yunis continued to have an impact.
 
 
All are important items but Ann's correct that the murder of Abdul Fatah Yunis has continued to have an impact.  That is why the so-called 'rebels' did the 'cabinet shuffle' and Elaine's right that that's not enough.  Last night Amir Ahmed (CNN) reported 'rebel' 'leader' "Mustafa Abdel Jalil has dismissed the rebels' 14-member executive board" and that this is over the assassination of Abdel Fattah Younis.  Kim Sengupta (Independent) explains, "The dismissal of the entire cabinet by Mustafa Abdel Jalil was acknowledged as an attempt to reassure the family of General Abdel Fatah Younes and the powerful tribe to which he belonged -- the Obeidis -- that action was being taken over the death. However, the move late on Monday was also viewed as a further sign of schism within the rebel movement, beset by internal feuding six months into a civil war which appears to have reached a stalemate, with Muammar Gaddafi still in power in Tripoli." RT (Journal of Foreign Relations) notes a 70-page plan to force Gaddafi out which would require staging "a mass uprising in Tripoli" which the US and NATO hope would cause people to leave the government's side and support the 'rebels.'  The article notes: "Key to the council's strategy will be the creation of a 10-15,000-strong military force, which is to quell any remaining resistance from Gaddafi loyalists. The troops will be paid for by the United Arab Emirates, the plan suggests.  They should be recruited amongst Libyans living in the north-west of the country, Tripolitania, so that their presence is not erroneously taken as a foreign occupation by the locals, says the document."
 
Turning to the Iraq War and starting with economics in the hopes that we won't all be as ignorant on the topic as Steve Inskeep (see yesterday's snapshot).  Nobel winning economist Joseph Stiglitz appeared on Yahoo's Daily Ticker today to address the US economy.
 
Jeff Macke:  We've got a massive debt situation effecting this country. We've got the baby boomers all set to retire, Generation X are set to pick up the tab. Is more stimulus the answer to this debt crisis and what's the end game here?
 
Joseph Stiglitz: Well more stimulus is about the only thing that we can do.  One of the other things that we can do is restructure the debt. One-quarter of all Americans owe more money on their home than the value of their house.  The home used to be the retirement account, something to pay for their kid's education.  No longer true. It's a liability. And we need to restructure these debts. In corporations, we understand the principal. We have something called Chapter 11 which is designed to keep the corporations going, keep jobs and give the corporation a fresh start. We need to do that for all Americans. We need to have what I call "A Home Owners' Chapter 11"  to get these millions and millions of Americans who are being dragged down by this excessive debt, pushed by the mortgage companies and the banks.  Restructure it and give them a fresh start.  It doesn't do anybody any good to force these people out of their homes.  An economy in which you have homeless people and empty homes doesn't make any sense and that's where we're going.
 
Aaron Task: Right. Right and I know we have to wrap it and I know this opens up a whole other can of worms but did you see anything in the debt ceiling that got done, let's forget the cantankerous negotiations for a second, the deal itself that gives you any hope that we're a step closer to resolving our problems?
 
Joseph Stiglitz: No. And it actually leaves me very pessimistic because if I had been talking, engaged in that kind of discussion, I would have gone back to 2001 where we had a 2% of GDP [Gross Domestic Product] surplus.  And [former Chair of the Federal Reserve Alan] Greenspan argued that we needed to have a tax cut because if we didn't we would pay off the entire national debt and it would be dificult for him to conduct monetary policy. So in a span of just a decade we went from this almost unmanageable surplus to an unmanageable deficit.  And to answer the question as to what we ought to do, all you need to do is think about how did we get from there to here?  Four things made a big difference. In fact, account for almost all of the difference.  And if we reverse those four things, we're actually home easy.   What are those four things? A tax cut for the rich beyond our ability to afford. Trillion dollar wars that have not improved our security. A major economic downturn.  Put America back to work and our tax revenues will increase enormously.  And finally a medical part D of Medicare, Medicare Part D,  where we put a provision that we not negotiate with the drug companies, estimated to cost by various people giving various estimates as much as a trillion dollars in a decade.You get rid of those four things and were actually on pretty sound basis.
 
 
Most experts estimate that the defence budget would lose $600 billion to $700 billion over the next 10 years.  If so, let the guillotine fall.  It would be a much-needed adjustment to an out-of-control military-industrial complex. 
First, some history. The Pentagon's budget has risen for 13 years, which is unprecedented.  Between 2001 and 2009, overall spending on defence rose from $412 billion to $699 billion, a 70 per cent increase, which is larger than in any comparable period since the Korean War.  Including the supplementary spending on Iraq and Afghanistan, we spent $250  billion more than average US defence expenditures during the Cold War -- a time when the Soviet, Chinese and Eastern European militaries were arrayed against the United States and its allies. Over the past decade, when we had no serious national adversaries, US defence spending has gone from about a third of total worldwide defence spending to nearly 50 per cent.  In other words, we spend almost as much on defence as the planet's remaining countries put together.
 
Today Dan Rodricks (Baltimore Sun) also notes military spending, "While defense spending in the United States flat-lined for a time, it was always the largest chunk of discretionary spending in the federal budget, and it grew significantly after the Sept. 11 attacks.  It grew, by some estimates, 110 percent since the advent of the war on terror and the wars in in Iraq and Afghanistan. We spend more on defense than all other countries combined." The editorial board of the Billings Gazette also notes the large financial drain of the wars, "According to the Congressional Research Service, the United States budgeted spending of $51 billion this year alone on the Iraq War. The Afghan war budget for this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, is $119.4 billion. The amount spent on these two wars over the past decade far exceeds the defense cuts contemplated over the coming decade in the deficit-reduction law. War-related costs already total $1.29 trillion for Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom."  Press TV (link has text and video) interviews the Washington Peace Center's Paul Mango about the economy and the military.  Excerpt.
 
 
Press TV: Why doesn't the US right now remove their troops from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, is it because of their revenue for their security firms of Blackwater and DynaCorp?

Magno: Well, I'm not sure if it's the private security auxiliaries in particular. Certainly, there are a lot of privateers like that and a lot of military contractors who have a lot of profits at stake and perpetuating permanent warfare in the region. And so that ends up being part of the problem and the willingness of our political personalities. The secretary of defense --and the president capitulate to that-- keeps the problem going forward. We haven't accomplished very much in the region in a decade's time, and we ought to get out of there and save our money and save what is left of our dignity, I suppose. And that's what all the American people want...
 
 
Meanwhile Fatima al-Zeheri (Eurasia Review) gives Steve Inskeep a run for the money in the stupidity contest. Like Steve, it's difficult for Fatima to stay up to date on facts.  Fatima wants the US to pay Iraqis money.  Really?  No, the Iraqi government or 'government.'  No way in hell.  The Iraqi people are not and have not been served by the government the US put in place.  When the Iraqis are finally free of the exiled thugs the US forced on them, they have every right to demand payment for lands damaged and lives lost.  But Fatima wants to reward -- please grasp this -- the 'government' made up of exiles who advocated for the Iraq War.  In other words, Ahmed Chalabi going to get paid by US tax payers.  The 'government' is corrupt.  That's why so much money is missing, that's why it's ranked so low on the transparency index.  That's before you get into Nouri's latest scandal where over a million dollars in contracts were signed with companies . . . including companies that don't exist.  And while Nouri blames the Minister of Electricity, others point that Nouri was co-signer on those contracts.  I'm all for the US government paying for the damage inflicted by the Iraq War -- provided it is to Iraqis or a legitimate government that they chose and that represents them.
 
Fatima the Foreign Policy In Focus writer also insists that the US "must clean up the mess that it made."  No, stop saying that crap. The US needs to get out of Iraq.  Only a ______ idiot or a War Hawk would suggest, that the US "must clean up the mess that it made." We addressed that stupidity back in 2004 with "Should This Marriage Be Saved?"
 
When you say the US "must clean up the mess that it made," you are saying that the US must remain in Iraq in order to, yes, "clean up the mess."  Buy a damn clue.  Your stupidity hurts.  I can't be nice to you, I can't pretty it up for you or say, "Nice effort."  Your stupidity hurts.
 
Clean up?  We've used the "white carpet" example repeatedly in this community. From February 16, 2006:
 
On the radio earlier tonight (on Pacifica), it was noted that the Iraqi government, in wake of the most recent Abu Ghraib pictures, was asking that all prisoners in US custody be turned over to the Iraqi government. But some well intentioned ones (or "well intentioned" ones) still think our government can "fix" things. As though if we just give Karen Hughes enough time to work out her spin-charms, Iraqis will forget all about the raids, the arrests, the bombings, the tag-sale on their industries and public goods . . . Elaine long ago compared this attitude to a jerk who spilled red wine on her white rug. If you missed that story, it was years ago. Elaine had her first "adult" apartment that she could furnish as she wanted and she thought the most adult thing in the world would be a white rug (white couch, white was the theme of that living room). As soon as she had the entire apartment decorated to her taste, she threw a party. As I remember the jerk, he was drunk off his rear. He was loud and annoying and staggering. At any rate, he spills not a drop of red wine but the entire glass on her carpet. The color drained from Elaine's face. I'll never forget that. I made no attempt to go over because I knew how much Elaine loved that rug (although I think it may have been carpet, check with her). The jerk insisted upon helping and was only spreading the stain (possibly because he was drunk but maybe just because he didn't know what he was doing). Elaine kept telling him to get out of her way and let her clean up the mess. (That's when I went over.) But apparently, the well intent set can't grasp that when you destroy something, people aren't waiting for you to fix it -- they just want you to go. They want you to leave.
 
Elaine told the story the next day at her site.  And she's told it many times before in community newsletters as well as at Rebecca's site in 2005 when she guest blogged for Rebecca:
 
It's the same attitude that says, "We have to stay now because we have to fix our mess." Because, apparently, the Iraqis are children who can't do anything without wonderful us. We are causing more strife and more tension, enflaming the region. We can't fix the problem we've caused because we haven't changed a damn thing about ourselves. We went over there with the attitude that we had a right to do so. Now we think we have a right to "fix" the problems. The only people we see with rights over in Iraq are Americans. We render the Iraqis invisible (when not portrayed as terrorists). Simple children who need us to fix it.
Have you ever thrown a party? If so, you'll probably be able to relate to this story. After a year in practice, I decided I was going to have my dream home and that, foolishly, included white carpet in the living room. One glass of spilled red wine and that was it for the carpet. But when the person spilled it, I didn't want their help in "cleaning it up." I wanted them to step away and let me try to fix my own carpet. It couldn't be cleaned up so I had to replace it.
So here's my point, we've ruined their white carpet and while they're doing a slow burn over that, we're saying, "Hey, we can fix it." They just want us out already.
If that's too difficult for someone to grasp, I'd suggest they read "
Should This Marriage Be Saved?"
 
 
The US needs to leave Iraq.  It needs to leave Iraq immediately.  If the carpets need cleaned or replace, a bill can be sent.  The US does not need to "clean up the mess" -- cleaning up the mess would require the US staying in Iraq even longer.  The US needs to leave Iraq and it needs to leave immediately.
 
That, of course, isn't likely to happen when the US government is in negotiations with the Iraqi government to continue the US military presence beyond December 31, 2011.  Al Jazeera and the Christian Science Monitor's Jane Arraf Tweets:
 
jane arraf
janearraf New #Sadr warning on US troops in #Iraq - interestingly in English, which even English-speaking Sadrists won't speak goo.gl/r33Oa
 
 
Xinhua reports Moqtada al-Sadr is yet again bleeting that US troops need to leave Iraq. The tubby terrorist is said to have declared, "Enough of this occupation, terror and abuse. We are not in need of your help. We are able to combat and defeat terrorism and achieve unity." And certainly Moqtada did help unity when his militia helped purge sections of Baghdad during the 2006 and 2007 ethnic cleansing. After awhile, the issue becomes: Are his followers as stupid as he thinks they are? Moqtada always makes these noises and doesn't follow them up. In the US, he'd be a Democrat in the House. Swearing that any day now, any day, he's going to draft a resolution that's going to put Barack on notice and things are going to change.

Moqtada makes these noises all the time. He's done it since, early on in the start of the war, he was elevated (thanks to Iran) from neighborhood thug to leader. You'd think his followers would grasp that he's not doing anything by now. But, hey, some Americans convince themselves that ____ (yes, I am thinking of one in particular) is really about peace and really cares about it and, gosh, if ___ only had more support, the wars would be over.

Moqtada trots out his standard response every time -- when the UN mandate was renewed at the end of 2006, at the end of 2007, when the SOFA was being debated. He's a chatty do-nothing.

Another do-nothing is H.D.S. Greenway whose International Herald Tribune column ("Stop Dithering in Iraq") rightly calls for the US to leave Iraq but wrongly fails to hold Barack accountable for his efforts to keep the US military in Iraq. Greenway whimpers, "I had thought President Obama had already made a decision: U.S. troops out in 2011. But now there is foot dragging on the part of the U.S. military and others in the administration."

I'm sorry, is the Herald Tribune attempting to report a coup? Is Barack no longer president?

Barack Obama is doing what he wants to do with Iraq. It's what Samantha Power spoke of during the campaign (especially when she thought she was off record). Power and Joe Biden were tasked by Barack to supervise Iraq. They are not 'off the reservation' or 'lone wolves.' They are carrying out his orders. It's amazing how pathetic some adults are as they repeatedly demonstrate that they can call out a policy but only if they work overtime to make it appear that this administration policy somehow came to be without Barack's knowledge or permission.

On withdrawal, Margaret Griffiths (Antiwar.com) observes, "On the other hand, if the Americans do leave on schedule, the various militias could make good on threats to attack those Iraqis who assisted U.S. troops. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have worked for the U.S. government or American contractors since the beginning of the occupation. Many have already been killed or are in hiding because of their work. They would like to immigrate to the United States, but proper visas are difficult to win even for them." From Walid Kalaji's "US wants an Iraq stay, indefinitely" (Star):

In the melee of protests surging through most of the Arab world, it is very noticeable that hardly any news concerning the public anger and discontent in Iraq is allowed to flash across the news broadcasts of most TV satellite channels, especially those that sing to the tunes of the US occupying regime and its cohorts. They are busier with the hot issues going on in other arenas such as in Syria and Libya where the old designs of regime change are never ending, as befit the overall picture of a subservient Arab world, in the clutches of Western Imperialism and Zionism.
It is comically perplexing to hear the US officials lamenting the unsubstantiated death toll of 2,000 civilians in Syria over the past five months, while the number of deaths caused so far by the US-led occupation of Iraq has reached almost 1.5 million Iraqis, mostly civilians, besides some 2 million who perished during the sanctions regime to which Iraq was subjected to from 1991 – 2003.
We have not heard any of the said TV lackey mouthpieces lament the daily death of Iraqis at the hands of US troops and their protégées, the Iraqi security forces and the sectarian militias of senior US-backed Iraqi officials. Yet news does filter through various media outlets detailing the daily demonstrations and protests sweeping Iraqi cities and towns in protest at the continuous foreign occupation and the corrupt Iraqi government of Nouri Al-Maliki.

Meanwhile, Aswat al-Iraq reports that Nouri's been given until September 9th to get his house in order. By whom? The paper reports, "The Young Activist, Laith Mohammed Reza, has said on Wednesday that a group of Young Activists have granted the government of Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, what it termed as the 'last' chance to present its resignation, due to 'its sectarian policy, suppressing peaceful demonstrations and the press,' or else the Activists would 'launch protest demonstrations, similar to the demonstrations of February 25th last'." The Great Iraqi Revolution posts the following statement:

An announcement to the great people of Iraq and to its youth:
Over the past seven months , the protests and the sit ins that we have participated in have achieved alot more for us than it has for other nations and countries under similar circumstances. One of the most important acievements is the spirit of demonstration and protest against injustice ,which was not a prevalent feature or practice in our society under occupation. It has also succeeded in raising international public awareness about what is happening in Iraq after a long international media blackout which was due to special international interest or reluctance of most governments and media corporations to upset the occuping power .We have thus managed through communal activism to throw a rock into the stagnant pond of international compliance and nonchalance.
During this holy month of Ramadan, we need to begin planning a new start for the Iraqi Revolution starting on the first Friday after Eid Al Fitr on September 9. We call on our beloved Iraqi people , the youth of the revolution and all the angry masses to start a campaign of mobilization of the public towards demonstrating on 9/9 in Tahrir Squara in Baghdad and every where else in the country.
We call upon all Iraqis to use every opportunity that presents itself during this holy month be it in daily intervisits between families in communities , prayer in mosques ,or during other communal events and meetings to promote for this monumental event.
It is the responsibility of every freedom loving Iraqi who wants to live in a country that he can proudly call his own, where corruption is weeded out and dealt with in the most transparent legal way possible , where people have a right to electricity and other utilities , where police and security forces provide safety rather than terror, and where innocent detainees tortured in secret prisons are released and compensated. For those of us who are aspiring for these fundemental rights, going to the streets is the only path for us , the people, to regain our lost rights and to seek compensation and retribution as citizens. Otherwise there is little hope for change any time soon.
August 9, 2011
 
In today's reported violence, Reuters notes a Baghdad car bombing injured six people, a Baghdad roadside bombing injured eight people, a Baghdad bombing injured three people and in Falluja yesterday, 1 people died in a bombing.
 
At the start of the week, the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights released [PDF format warning] "2010 Report on Human Rights in Iraq." It's a major report and we're covering each day this week in the snapshots (we covered the prisons in yesterday's snapshot with women and Iraq's LBGT community covered in Monday's snapshot). Today we'll cover media workers who will be called "journalists" by me throughout the rest unless we're quoting from the report.  (Stringers in Iraq do far more than stringers are expected to do.  Even drivers have had to do far more than drive a vehicle.  It's a war zone and everyone's pitched in.  They've earned the right to be called "journalists.") I was hoping this week, the media or journalism organizations would weigh in on the proposed law in Iraq to 'protect' journalists. Based on Arabic media, I side with Goran (Change) on the proposal and object to it.  It would have been really great if US outlets could have reported on it or journalism organizations could have reviewed it and came out with a position.  But apparently, they were all too busy . . . doing . . . nothing.  Lots and lots of nothing.
 
The report covers the year 2010. It asserts that freedom of assembly and expression are important and that they are guaranteed by the Constituion.  However, defamation is treated as a criminal act (and in the KRG, just reporting can get you cited for "breeches of peace"). The report fails to mention the best known lawsuit, when Nouri pitched a fit over the Guardian.  April 30, 2009, Ghaith Abdul -Ahad reported on how Nouri was the New Saddam based on a wide, wide range of interviews and research.  Excerpt from the article:
 
The charges voiced by the INSI officers are heard, in hushed tones, more and more around Baghdad these days. Critics say Maliki is concentrating power in his office (the office of the prime minister) and his advisers are running "a government inside a government", bypassing ministers and parliament. In his role as commander in chief, he appoints generals as heads of military units without the approval of parliament. The officers, critics say, are all loyal to him. He has created at least one intelligence service, dominated by his clan and party members, and taken two military units - the anti-terrorism unit and the Baghdad brigade - under his direct command. At the same time he has inflated the size of the ministry of national security that is run by one of his allies.
Maliki, who many say was chosen because he was perceived to be weak and without a strong grassroots power base, has managed to outflank everyone: his Shia allies and foes, the Americans who wanted him removed at one time, even the Iranians.
 
The article -- which also featured friends of Nouri singing his praises ("he is very honest and very organised") -- enraged Little Saddam  In May of 2009, Martin Chulov (Guardian) reported, the country's "national intelligence service . . .  launched a court action to sue the Guardian."   As 2009 wound down, Martin Chulov and Julian Borger (Guardian) reported the newspapers lost the case, "An Iraqi court has ordered the Guardian to pay Nouri al-Maliki damages of 100 m dinar (52,000 British pounds) after supporting a complaint by the Iraqi prime minister's intelligence service that he had been defamed by a Guardian story in April describing him as increasingly autocratic. The ruling ignored testimony by three expert witnesses from the Iraqi journalists' union summoned by the court, who all said that the article was neither defamatory nor insulting and argued that no damages were warranted." Julian Borger (Guardian) reported on the reaction to the Guardian losing the court case, "There was widespread condemnation from around the world today of an Iraqi court ruling fining the Guardian for reporting criticism of the country's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki.  A broad range of leading journalists, Iraq experts, civic society activists and former officials involved in Iraq's postwar reconstruction said the ruling and fine -- for an article quoting intelligence officials as saying Maliki was becoming increasingly authoritarian -- reflected a marked decline in press freedom in Iraq."  Charles Tripp (Guardian) offered this analysis:
 
But it underlines two odd features in the court case. The first is that Maliki was not cited as the injured party, and yet has been awarded unprecedented damages by a supposedly independent Iraqi court. The second is that the article's description of his emergence as a "strong man" of Iraqi politics is not simply accurate, but is part of the very image that he himself has been cultivating for the past couple of years. In order to aspire to this role, he has used some familiar idioms of Iraqi political life, among them the well-known practice of al-targhib wa al-tarhib [perhaps best translated "carrot and stick"]. The Iraqi press has had to tread a fine line if they are to avoid both when reporting Maliki's political ascent.
Throughout 2008 he used the Iraqi armed forces to reconquer the provinces of Iraq, projecting himself as the leader whose only thought was the unity of the country. This was the image he wanted to convey in the January 2009 provincial elections. So to make sure he got a good press, he promised that thousands of journalists would be awarded grants of land for a nominal price, or for free. He was reviving a form of land patronage long used by his predecessors to cement officers, officials and now journalists to their retinue.
Some welcomed it and others were appalled. But for those who persisted in investigating awkward questions, the government had no hesitation in using the courts. More journalists found themselves fighting charges of libel or of endangering national security – a charge levelled at foreign news media, particularly from the Arab world.
 
And he's only become more of a Little Sadam since then.  And the US government has rewarded him for that.  It's not about making Iraqi lives better, it's about the US and its allies getting out of Iraq what they want (oil, new markets, etc.).  Fortunately for journalism, the case didn't end there.  The newspaper appealed.  In January, we noted, "Josh Halliday (Guardian) reported in the middle of this month that the Guardian had, on appeal, won in the libel case brought against them by Nouri al-Maliki's Iraqi National Intelligence Service over this article." 
 
The UN report notes, "The appeal court in Wassit Governorate issued a warrant to arrest Sajjad Salim al-Fatlawi, the editor in al-Sada newspaper, on 6 September, after the Wassit Governorate Council and the President of Wassit Appeal Court has sued al-Fatlawi for defemation and slander after he had criticized the executive and judicial authorities in Wassit." July 11, 2010, Iraq's High Judicial Council stated they had created a court just for "media-related cases".
 
The Journalistic Freedom Observatory, an Iraqi NGO, cautioned against the establishment of this court because Article 95 of the Constitution of Iraq outlaws special or extraordinary courts. An early case handled by the court concerned Ziyad al-Ajily, editor of Aalam newspaper and head of the Journalistic Freedom Observatory, who was sued for damages on 26 September by the Ministry of Youth over an article about a sports complex construction in Basra.  The court ruled on 31 October that al-Ajily had not defamed the Ministry and that his article satisfied the citizens' legitimate demands he informed about matters of public interest.
 
Zooming in on the KRG, the report notes that the KRG Parliament passed the Law of Journalism in 2010 and the report sees pluses to it and minuses as well (offences are efined vaguely and fines are very high)
 
UNAMI notes with concern that political and other enties appear to use judicial procedures as a tool to discourage media from investigating allegations of bad governance, often seeking disproportionate fines or damages.  For example, on 2 August the KDP filed three lawsuits for defeamtion against the newpaper Roznama, its editor-in-chief, and one author.  Roznama is funded by the opposition party Corran (Change List) and has accused the KDP and PUK of benefitting from oil smuggling.  The KDP also sued three other newspapers, Hawlati, Awene and Levin, for damages, relying on provisions of the ICPC and not on the more liberal KRG Journalism Law.
 
Turning to the US, Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and her office notes this event on Thursday:
 
(Washington, D.C.) -- On Thursday, August 11th, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, will hold a listening session to hear from area veterans on local challenges and to discuss her efforts to improve veterans care and benefits nationwide. This will be Senator Murray's first discussion with local veterans as Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Senator Murray will use the struggles, stories, and suggestions she hears on Monday to fight for local veterans in Washington, D.C.

WHO:          U.S. Senator Patty Murray

                     Local veterans

         

WHAT:        Veterans listening session with Senator Murray

 

WHEN:        Thursday, August 11th 

         9:00 AM PT

 

WHERE:     VFW Post 239

                                 190 S. Dora Avenue

                                 Bremerton, WA 98312

                     Map

 
 

Posted at 04:20 pm by thecommonills
 


Next Page




<< August 2011 >>
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
 01 02 03 04 05 06
07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31


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




rss feed