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.

iraq
al mada
the kurdish globe
wpri
jennifer quinn
the washington post
ed okeefe
dar addustour
wael grace
ines tariq
cindy sheehan
iraq
iraq
iraq

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:

• 
  
• 
  The Daily Jot

  THIS JUST IN! MISS BARACK BOUT TO BLOW!

  2 hours ago
• 
  Cedric's Big Mix

  Look who wants to play civil

  2 hours ago
• Watching America

  Gays and Lesbians in America Win the Fight for Marriage

  3 hours ago
• 
  Random Thoughts from Random Places

  One Sacked Teacher to Another

  3 hours ago

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

iraq
the new york times
elizabeth rudin
antiwar radio
scott horton
sherwood ross
iraq
iraq

Iraq snapshot

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.

iraq
alsumaria tv
al rafidayn
al mada
dar addustour
the huffington post
tom hayden
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq

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.

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

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:

• 
  The Daily Jot

  THIS JUST IN! IT WAS OBVIOUS!

  1 hour ago
• 
  Cedric's Big Mix

  No mystery

  1 hour ago
• News From Antiwar.com

  GOP Debate on Foreign Policy: All About Iran

  5 hours ago

• Watching America

  The Civilian Victims of the C.I.A’s Drone War

  7 hours ago
• 
  Adam vs. The Man — RT Programs RSS

  WWIII, Weapons of WWIII, Stewart Rhodes: Who do the troops support? Is the...

  8 hours ago
• 
  Mikey Likes It!

  Tiring

  8 hours ago
• Ann's Mega Dub

  3 women, 2 men

  8 hours ago
• 
  Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)

  Lopez gets the axe

  8 hours ago
• Ruth's Report

  David Axelrod: Been Caught Lying

  8 hours ago
• 
  Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude

  not pretty

  8 hours ago
• Oh Boy It Never Ends

  "White Chicks"

  8 hours ago

Iraq Veterans Against the Wars notes:



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

iraq
king5 news
joe fryer
iwatch news
corbin hiar
march forward
iraq
iraq

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.


iraq
i hate the war
the ballet

Iraq snapshot

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

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

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.

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.

WHO: U.S. Senator Patty Murray

Local veterans

WHAT: Veterans listening session with Senator Murray

WHEN: Thursday, August 11^th

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.

iraq
dar addustour
al rafidayn
al sabaah
sunday zaman
bilgay duman
iraq

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:

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

• 
  
• 
  Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox

  My Speech on the 66th Anniversary of the Bombing of Nagasaki by Cindy Sheehan

  7 hours ago
• 
  The Daily Jot

  THIS JUST IN! HE ATTEMPTS COMEDY!

  7 hours ago
• 
  Cedric's Big Mix

  An audition

  7 hours ago
• 
  Random Thoughts from Random Places

  I KNEW This Was Going to Happen

  7 hours ago
• 
  Mikey Likes It!

  The Libyan War

  7 hours ago
• 
  SICKOFITRADLZ

  London and Acorn

  7 hours ago
• 
  Ann's Mega Dub

  5 men, 1 woman

  7 hours ago
• 
  Trina's Kitchen

  The wacky economy

  7 hours ago
• 
  Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)

  History

  7 hours ago
• 
  Like Maria Said Paz

  Libyan War

  7 hours ago
• 
  Ruth's Report

  Senator Patty Murray

  7 hours ago
• 
  Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude

  the fake

  7 hours ago
• 
  Oh Boy It Never Ends

  Nothing for us

  7 hours ago
• News From Antiwar.com

  At Least 25 Killed as US Drones Strike North Waziristan

  7 hours ago
• OntheWilderSide

  Verizon Strike

  7 hours ago

WHO: U.S. Senator Patty Murray

Local veterans

WHAT: Veterans listening session with Senator Murray

WHEN: Thursday, August 11^th

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.

iraq
abc
jeremy thompson
the canberra times
david ellery
news9
mcclatchy newspapers
dennis jett
iraq
iraq
iraq

Iraq snapshot

WHO:          U.S. Senator Patty Murray

                     Local veterans

         

WHAT:        Veterans listening session with Senator Murray

 

WHEN:        Thursday, August 11^th 

         9:00 AM PT

 

WHERE:     VFW Post 239

                                 190 S. Dora Avenue

                                 Bremerton, WA 98312

                     Map