Wally and Cedric continue to work on joint posts. They're both pressed for time because they are working on gettin out the vote in their areas. Expect the joint posts to continue through the lead up to the election.
BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIX MIX -- DC.
THIS JUST IN!
BULLY BOY REASSURE AL-MALIKI!
NOURI AL-MALIKI, THE PUPPET OF THE ILLEGAL OCCUPATION OF IRAQ, WOKEUP FEEL TENSE AND BLOATED.
SOMETIMES A PUPPET JUST NEEDS TO FEEL THE LOVE, NEEDS TO KNOW THAT SOMEONE STILL CARES.
SO BULLY BOY CALLED AL-MALIKI. HE REASSURED HIM THAT HE STILL CARED, HE TOLD AL-MALIKI HE DIDN'T LOOK FAT AND THAT THE NEW HAIR CUT WAS 'SNAZZY.' HE ASSURED AL-MALIKI THAT LONG DISTANCE RELATIONSHIPS DON'T HAVE TO END AND THAT HE'S NEVER FAR FROM THE BULLY BOY'S THOUGHTS OR HEART.
AL-MALIKI WORRIED ABOUT WHAT PEOPLE WERE SAYING ABOUT HIM AND BULLY BOY RESPONDED BY DUSTING OFF AN OLD CAROLE KING AND GERRY GOFFIN CHESNUT, "OH NO, NOT MY SWEET BABY," AND SINGING IT TO AL-MALIKI:
WHEN MY FRIENDS TOLD ME YOU HAD SOMEONE NEW
I DIDN'T BELIEVE A SINGLE WORD WAS TRUE
I SHOWED THEM ALL I HAD FAITH IN YOU
I JUST KEPT ON SAYING
OH, NO, NOT MY BABY
OH, NO, NOT MY SWEET BABY
YOU'RE NOT LIKE THOSE OTHER GUYS
WHO LEAD YOU ON AND TELL YOUR LIES
THEN BULLY BOY TOLD AL-MALIKI HE'D LEAVE U.S. FORCES IN IRAQ FOR AS LONG AS AL-MALIKI WANTED OR AS LONG AS TARGETS WERE NEEDED.
AFTER MAKING KISSY NOISES AND SAYING "NO, YOU HANG UP FIRST!" THEY
ENDED THEIR PHONE CALL.
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Mike noted Pacifica's new program Informed Dissent which is a thirty minute, weekly program covering the national election. The September 23rd broadcast focused on the Iraq war and featured many discussions and reports. On the war, Jodie Evans (CODEPINK) declared, "This issue is effecting every other" and listed concrete examples of what isn't being funded as the illegal war is. Evans also noted that, "It's baffling to look at the Democratic Party and see how spineless and lacking in leadership they are." Informed Dissent airs once a week, a half-hour show, looking at the 2006 US elections, hosted by Mitch Jeserich and featuring contributions from many Pacifica broadcasters.
Recommended: "Iraq Snapshot"
"And the war drags on""Ehren Watada covered by Teresa Watanabe (Los Angeles Times)""NYT: '5 Americans Killed in Iraq, Bringing Month's Toll to 53' (Kirk Semple)"
"NYT: 'Iraiq Interior Minister to Purge Agency to Stem Killings' (Semple and Luo)""'Justice' (Josh White, Karla Adam and Kevin Sullivan)"
"Ruth's Report"
"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts 'Nostalgic Bully'"
"More American troops dead in Iraq as violence continues"
"Music, Ricky Clousing and the hypocrisy of presenting sexual predators as respectable"
"The Queen Bee Gets Stung"
"Ricky Clousing (covered by NYT if not much more)"
"Halloween in the Kitchen"
"Books (C.I.)"
illustration for third
illustration for third
illustration for third estate sunday review.
illustration for the third estate sunday review
illustration for third estate sunday review
barbra streisand and an idiot who slams her
Editorial: What does it say?
TV Review: Try to ignore the Shark in the room
War Hawks Anonymous (Parody)
Target: 14-year-old Julia Wilson
The Brazen Cindra
Felon in the Congress
About the TV reviews
Ruth's Report
Mike and C.I. each pick a highlight
"THIS JUST IN! FELON IN THE CONGRESS"
"Felon in the Congress!"
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Blog Spotlight: Rebecca breaks it down for Gail
Rebecca turned in a long essay this week that resulted in one e-mailer for apologizing for accusing her of going "soft" since she got married. (Rebecca soft? We snort.)
gail collins is on her way out - good riddance
betty's 'The Queen Bee Gets Stung' took a comic look at how gail collins (out in january as the editor of the editorial and op-ed pages) has done nothing. i couldn't agree more. i laughted at the chapter, it's very funny, but i nodded in agreement as well.
mainly because of the crap that made it into this morning's paper on gail's beat. c.i.'s 'SAFIRE WANTS OUT, THE TIMES WANTS A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF SAFIRE, WHY IS THAT?' charted the nonsense of the op-ed pages sometime ago. december 2004, in fact. gail collins didn't do damn thing for women. there were 2 spots filled on the op-ed page in the last 2 years. spots she had some say in. bill keller became executive-editor of the paper and his spot had to be filled. gail collins replaced middle of the road keller with david brooks, a right leaning white male. william safire retired and he was replaced with john tierney. if you're lost, the paper replaced a center columnist and a right leaning 1 with 2 right leaning 1s. that's what the 'breakthrough lady' gail collins gave you. that's her accomplishment.
she made the op-ed pages lean more right and she made sure that they continued to be white and male.
she got applause from women when she grabbed her token spot. she didn't deserve it.
she's worthless.
she's not even a whore. a whore works.
she was a kept mistress.
she was the paper's mistress doing whatever they wanted her to do.
and when she got too long in the tooth, she found out what many a 'other woman' had found out before, you're replaceable.
gail collins has been replaced.
and the new editor of the editorial & op-ed pages starts in january.
to no 1's surprise, it's a man.
it is 2006 and gail collins had a say in replacing 2 columnists, regular 1s who appear in the paper twice a week. she could have looked around and said, 'i only have one woman' and improved that. she could have looked around and said, 'i only have 1 person of color' and improved that.
instead she offered up 2 white, male, right-wingers. and she didn't have to.
even if safire's retirement meant that she needed a right-winger, bill keller was middle-of-the-road and there was no reason to replace him with a right-winger.
now gail collins didn't fight. she didn't fight for women, she didn't fight for people of color.
she was a tepid editor. she hemmed and hawwed and went along with what others wanted.
while she had power, roughly 6 years, she could have used to have made a difference but, as she said in that laughable e-mail that circulated in 2003, she doesn't care about gender, she looks for the best writer.
well then maybe she shouldn't have whored herself out for accolades from women and women's groups about how she was a '1st'?
she was a joke, reading that e-mail was to laugh at that stupid, stupid girl. not woman, girl.
and it was no surprise to anyone who read that e-mail that she would do nothing to help women.
and she hasn't.
and now she's trying to save face by acting like she wanted out.
so she can write another bad book about 'historical women.' save it gail. and no feminists better praise her crappy writing the way some did with the last book.
she's no better than phyllis the shaf-fly. when she had power, she refused to use it.
now, to save face, she's going to try to present herself, yet again, as a feminist.
i don't think the term's elastic.
i don't care her badly written clip-job books are about. i care whether she tried to make a difference and she didn't.
she went along, she didn't make waves and the fact that she was a '1st' ended up being wasted.
another woman, 1 committed to the present, would have argued up and down that it was shameful that the paper had only 1 regular columnist of color and 1 regular columnist that was a woman.
she would have noted that white males already were over represented on the op-ed pages with frank rich, paul krugman, bill keller (then david brooks), thomas friedman, nicholas kristoff, and william safire (then john tierney).
she would have said: 'women do not make up 1/8 of the adult population so why do they make up only 1/8th of our regular columnists?'
but she kept her mouth shut like a good little girl. so it's too damn late for her to try to bore us with another bad book that she'll try to sell by claiming it's something feminists should love.
feminists are aware that there are races, not just 1 race. not just white. they are aware that there is asian-american, that there is african-american, that there is . . .
but gail collins, who'll be trying to play the feminist card to sell another bad book, couldn't be bothered with that.
she couldn't be bothered with fighting or with making a case.
she just, as betty's chapter pointed out, banked her check and let things stay as they were. actually she let them get worse because times readers ended up with an extra right-winger.
john tierney who writes like an idiot and looks like an idiot. today he flaunts his stupidity by arguing wal-mart deserves the nobel peace prize in 'Shopping for a Nobel' and he lies through his teeth to do so and omits every known fact. he claims wal-mart is good for business but fails to note that their demands are breaking vlassic pickles and have already resulted in a bicycle company shutting down. he claims that they lift workers from poverty. which is why wal-mart advised workers to get on food stamps? oh, he leaves that out. he leaves everything out.
and gail collins can tell herself whatever lie she wants but considering the sex discrimination in wages and promotions that have led to so many law suits against wal-mart, the fact that the man (1 of 2) that she ushered in wants to ignore sex based discrimination is her fault. she needs to accept it. and women don't need to cover for her.
she was a 1st? well she was a worst. that link goes to ava and c.i.'s nah-nah-nah sisterhood and that captures gail collins perfectly. she was elevated and instead of attempting to lift even 1 woman up (as a regular columnist), she was happy to reinforce the out of date stereotypes by ushering in 2 white males.
she should be ashamed of herself and, when she tries to book tour her next piece of crap, she should face tough questions about that, about how she failed women and about that laughable e-mail where she went on and on about how she didn't believe in hiring a woman to replace maurren dowd (who was on vacation). she didn't think it was important that while maureen dowd was gone (for weeks) that any woman be brought on. she didn't care about role modeling or making sure that women, especially young females, got the message that there was a place for them in writing columns. her desire was to hire the best.
and, no surprise, the best didn't include any women.
that e-mail getting circulated forced her, when thomas friedman went on vacation, to use 2 women during his lengthy vacation.
when it hit my inbox, i sent it out to every 1 in my address book and 1 woman wrote back that maybe it wasn't fair to circulate it? well it was fair. and thank god to the person who 1st was willing to circulate it.
the fact that it went around and around and around embarrassed her enough to use some women (to fill in for 1 male). and then? and then she lost interest again.
she was riding the easy high that the uninformed gave her, praising her decision as progressive when all it was was face saving.
2 columnists stepped down while she was in charge. she could have brought the op-ed pages into this century. instead she gave more of the same. a man could have done that, any man. so she doesn't deserve to be praised for being a '1st' when all she did was hold down the line, all she did was push the glass ceiling down a little further.
she's a disgrace as any sort of feminist (which only gets loosely claimed when it's time to schill for her bad books) and she's lost the right to use that term in my book.
it's not elastic. she had a chance to make a difference and instead she did what the most sexist man in the world would: hold down the line.
there was nothing brave about that, there was nothing feminist about that.
when women refuse to help other women, they stop being feminist. betty rightly writes about how it wasn't feminism, it was gail collins-ism. that's all it was.
she made no difference. she helped no 1 but herself.
so when she tries to help herself to your hard earned cash and you read some fool tell you that her book on frontier women (or whatever topic she's going to doodle about) is a purchase to make in the name of feminism, realize that she's gotten enough applause already and she never earned any of it by helping other women. she just helped herself.
if that's too difficult for you to grasp, grasp this: before the illegal war started, she turned down a column by a woman. it was against the war. well, you say, there are a lot of submissions to go through. this column? the author? alice walker.
remember that. she, who wasn't concerned about adding color or women to the op-ed pages, turned down 1 of the most noted authors in america. no surprise, it was a woman, a woman of color. alice walker is also a best seller, she's also a pulitzer prize winner. that's what gail collins did, she kept women off the op-ed pages, no matter their honors, no matter their merits.
gail collins was in it for gail collins. she demonstrated that over and over.
she can play the face saving 'i'm leaving for my book' but every 1 knows she was fired. she'll reutrn with the occasional column. she was fired. and i won't pretty it up or pretend like she made a damn bit of difference in all her years in charge. what she did do was allow the times to add 2 more white males and hide their racism and sexism behind the fact that a woman had the title of 'editor'.
she was the mistress providing the alibi.
closing with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Tuesday, October 17, 2006. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, US "officials" issue statements and watch how Balad gets rewritten, an estimated 3,000 Iraqi police officers are told "no job!", and Cindy Sheehan focuses on the numbers that matter (and unlike the big news orgs, doesnt' feel the need to rewrite them).
On the slaughter in Balad, Al Jazeera magazine notes a "New York Times editorial". It's not an editorial, it's a report by Michael Luo. It's a report that the Times is now hiding online and have replaced with a new version. The original is entitled "Iraqis Ask Why U.S. Forces Didn't Intervene in Balad." That's the print headline and the headline if you use the link. But that story doesn't show up on the Middle East page of the website. Instead, a weaker version entitled "Fighting in Iraqi Town Killed Over 60, U.S. Says" with John O'Neil appearing in the byline and also in the end credit "in New York"! Because, surely, to report on Balad, you need O'Neil in New York.
The original, with only Luo in the byline, reported: "Killing also continued to besiege the capital on Monday with the discovery of at least 64 bodies across the city, and two car bomb attacks that appeared to kill 22 people." The white-washed attempt to suck up to "officials" opens with: "The American military said today that more than 60 people were killed in four days of sectarian fighting in Balad . . ."
If you find that disgusting, and you should, take comfort in the fact that there's griping at the paper about the watering down of a fairly straight-down-the-middle report. The original may disappear from the website so if you're interested in what alarms "officials," check it out now. The whitewash tries to reassamble the article but mainly demonstrates how idiotic the paper is. Well over 60 people have died in Balad from Friday to Monday and that was reported by other US outlets -- mainstream sources. [Ellen Knickmeyer and Muhanned Saif Aldin (Washington Post) put it at 80 in their report in today's paper -- which, please note, the Post hasn't felt the need to rewrite to appease "officials."] The original article did not ignore the opinions of the military but, such is the reality of the war, "officials" need things distorted and, such is the cowardice of the paper, that "offiicals" must be appeased.
For those still attempting to follow Balad, CBS and AP report that "sectarian fighting in Balad . . . has killed close to 100 people" since it "began Friday with the slaying of 17 Shiite Muslim workers. Revenge-seeking Shiite death squads then killed 74 Sunnis, causing people flee across the Tigris River to the nearby Sunni-dominated city of Duluiyah." This as CNN also chases down 'official' pleasure, though they claim they're not revising earlier reporting, just noting what 'officials' say and, it is true, they do include this statement: "The number of deaths vary". Reuters harkens back to their earlier days (when they fronted for the US government as revealed during Congressional hearings in the wake of Watergate) by not even attributed their lowered figures to US "officials" or US "military." Monday, before 'official' statements, Ellen Knickmeyer and Muhanned Saif Aldin (Washington Post) reported: "By Sunday afternoon, 80 bodies were stacked in the morgue of the Balad hospital". But watch as the mainstream media grabs onto "official" statement and trashes all that was previously reported. Christopher Bodeen (AP) reports that "at least 91 people" have been killed since Friday in Balad. A report the Times runs online but forgets to rewrite.
Those who watch network or cable news should pay attention to see who carries water for the administration and who notes the reality that was already well established in the mainstream (US) press reports. AFP reports that despite 'official' US claims, US forces are not in control in Balad and that, according to "Malik Laftah, the head of Balad city council," corpses are lying in the streets.
Let's note some of the reported violence but keep in mind that most outlets don't have the guts to stick with their own reporting in the face of a bold face lie from US 'officials' so who knows how the following will be rewritten?
Bombings?
Reuters, right now at this second because who knows how they'll cave tomorrow, reports that, in Baghdad, a car bomb killed killed two police officers and wounded nine, while a roadside bomb left five people wounded and that two different attacks with mortar rounds left a total of three people dead and and three wounded. CBS and AP report that "two Katyusha rockets" left twenty wounded in Baghdad. Al Jazeera notes a bombing in Karmah that claimed the lives of five Iraqi soldiers.
Shootings?
CBS and AP report that, in Hillah, one man was shot dead and five were wounded when "unidnetified gunmen attacked a facility belongint to the central Euphrates electricity distribution authority". They also note a home invasion in Balad Ruz that claimed the lives of "the mother and four dault sons" and left the father wounded; a drive by shooting in Falluja two police officers were shot dead. AFP reports that four students were shot dead in Basra and, also in Basra, "gynaecologist Dr Youssra Hashem became the latest female professional to be killed amid a rise in violence against women by conservative Muslim factions". Al Jazeera reports the shooting death of "a member of the Patriot Union of Kurdistan" in Mosul."
Corpses?
CBS and AP report that two corpses were discovered in Baghdad ("blindfolded and bound").
Now who knows what will be asserted tomorrow because some lose spines when officials' gums start flapping. Staying on those who buckle, last week, Richard Dannatt caused a stir with criticism of the Iraq war and the suggestion that it was time to pull troops. As Demetri Sevastopulo (Financial Times) notes, "the new chief of the Britsh army" stated troops should leave because just being there "exacerbates the security problem." He buckled quicker than a media boardroom. Despite the fact that British soldiers strongly agreed with his statements.
Now, Lachlan Carmichael (AFP) reports that Tony Blair "has vowed to keep British troops in Iraq until their 'job is done' as her rejected claims that their presence fueled Muslim extremism at home and abroad." The report focuses on Blair and Dannat and apparently missed Colin Brown (Independent of London) reporting that: "John Reid, the Home Secretary, conceded last night for the first time that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have played a part radicalisizing young Muslims."
AFP also reports that Bully Boy went on Bloated Men & Bleached Women (aka Fox "News") to declare his opposition to dividing the nation of Iraq into three autonomous regions. Apparently, while cooing sweet nothings to Nouri al-Maliki on Monday, Bully Boy forgot to raise that issue (last week the parliament took another step in that direction). As Simon Tisdall (Guardian of London) notes, predicting "the worst is yet to come," "One sign came last week when the Shia parliamentary majority rejected Sunni opposition and passed a law allowing partion into autonomous federal regions. It is but a small step from there to national disintergration."
A little noted "official" statement by "US army Lieutenant Colonel Jeffery Martindale" is covered by AFP, this is regarding the violence in Balad: "Marindale also, however, confirmed that two Iraqi police officers had been arrested for taking part in the massacre which triggered the orgy of violence." No, we're not returning to Balad -- the whole 'coverage' is too disgusting. But keep that in mind: two police officers were part of triggering "the orgy of violence." AFP reports that Iraq's interior ministry spokesperson (Abdel Karim Khalaf) held a press conference today to announce "that 1,228 [police officers] had been sacked for breaking the law while nearly 2,000 more were dismissed for derelection of duty."
The Interior minister is Jawad Bolani and, for those who've missed it, the militias are thought by some to have free reign via that ministry. Borzou Daragahi (Los Angeles Times) reported, Saturday, that when reminded that his ministry has been "accused of complicity in sectarian death squad killings," Bolani denied it. Ellen Knickmeyer (Washington Post) noted that not only did Bolani deny the accusations, he "blamed the Facilities Protection Service, or FPS, a massive but unregulated government guard force . . . . Bolani and his predecssor as interior minister, Bayan Jabr, both have minimized the possibility of any police involvement in the nightly killings."
Whether the purge, which also includes moving three police commanders to administrative jobs, is just an attempt to stop the questions from continuing to being asked or whether it's genuine, who knows? But it's worth remembering Rick Jervis (USA Today) reported Monday on how al-Maliki refused to addres disarming militas "until later this year or early next year".
While many supposedly brave press outlets fudge the numbers to please the US administration, Cindy Sheehan (at BuzzFlash) notes some other numbers: 4, 4, 655,000 and more. The first four is "Republican Congresspeople [who] have had to resign from scandals this past year" (Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Mark Foley, Tom DeLay); the second four is the number of "staff members of the corrupt adminstration [who] have resigned in disgrace this year" (Andrew Card, Scooter Libby, Susan Ralston and Snotty McClellan) while 655,000 is the estimate for the number of Iraqis who have dies since the start of the illegal war as a result of the violence. She also reminds that Gold Star Families for Peace will be holding a sit around the White House November 7th and 8th and "Also, go to Progressive Democrats of America to sign the petition to support Congressman Jim McGovern's bill, HR4232, which cuts funding for the continuing occupation. Ending the funding is what stopped Vietnam. Let's cut Iraq off before it becomes as bad as Vietnam."
Also in peace news, Courage to Resist notes Ricky Clousing's statement to the judge in last Thursday's court-martial and sentencing: "My experiences in Iraq forced me tto reevaluate my beliefs and ethics. Ultimately, I felt like I could not serve." Clousing is a war resister and he will serve three months, be reduced in rank and then dishonorably discharged. Clousing took a brave stand and Courage to Resist notes:
Ricky is currently being held in a military brig at Camp LeJune in North Carolina and it is urgent that he receive your words of encouragement and support! Please write to Ricky today!
More information on war resisters who have gone public can be found at Courage to Resist.
mainly because of the crap that made it into this morning's paper on gail's beat. c.i.'s 'SAFIRE WANTS OUT, THE TIMES WANTS A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF SAFIRE, WHY IS THAT?' charted the nonsense of the op-ed pages sometime ago. december 2004, in fact. gail collins didn't do damn thing for women. there were 2 spots filled on the op-ed page in the last 2 years. spots she had some say in. bill keller became executive-editor of the paper and his spot had to be filled. gail collins replaced middle of the road keller with david brooks, a right leaning white male. william safire retired and he was replaced with john tierney. if you're lost, the paper replaced a center columnist and a right leaning 1 with 2 right leaning 1s. that's what the 'breakthrough lady' gail collins gave you. that's her accomplishment.
she made the op-ed pages lean more right and she made sure that they continued to be white and male.
she got applause from women when she grabbed her token spot. she didn't deserve it.
she's worthless.
she's not even a whore. a whore works.
she was a kept mistress.
she was the paper's mistress doing whatever they wanted her to do.
and when she got too long in the tooth, she found out what many a 'other woman' had found out before, you're replaceable.
gail collins has been replaced.
and the new editor of the editorial & op-ed pages starts in january.
to no 1's surprise, it's a man.
it is 2006 and gail collins had a say in replacing 2 columnists, regular 1s who appear in the paper twice a week. she could have looked around and said, 'i only have one woman' and improved that. she could have looked around and said, 'i only have 1 person of color' and improved that.
instead she offered up 2 white, male, right-wingers. and she didn't have to.
even if safire's retirement meant that she needed a right-winger, bill keller was middle-of-the-road and there was no reason to replace him with a right-winger.
now gail collins didn't fight. she didn't fight for women, she didn't fight for people of color.
she was a tepid editor. she hemmed and hawwed and went along with what others wanted.
while she had power, roughly 6 years, she could have used to have made a difference but, as she said in that laughable e-mail that circulated in 2003, she doesn't care about gender, she looks for the best writer.
well then maybe she shouldn't have whored herself out for accolades from women and women's groups about how she was a '1st'?
she was a joke, reading that e-mail was to laugh at that stupid, stupid girl. not woman, girl.
and it was no surprise to anyone who read that e-mail that she would do nothing to help women.
and she hasn't.
and now she's trying to save face by acting like she wanted out.
so she can write another bad book about 'historical women.' save it gail. and no feminists better praise her crappy writing the way some did with the last book.
she's no better than phyllis the shaf-fly. when she had power, she refused to use it.
now, to save face, she's going to try to present herself, yet again, as a feminist.
i don't think the term's elastic.
i don't care her badly written clip-job books are about. i care whether she tried to make a difference and she didn't.
she went along, she didn't make waves and the fact that she was a '1st' ended up being wasted.
another woman, 1 committed to the present, would have argued up and down that it was shameful that the paper had only 1 regular columnist of color and 1 regular columnist that was a woman.
she would have noted that white males already were over represented on the op-ed pages with frank rich, paul krugman, bill keller (then david brooks), thomas friedman, nicholas kristoff, and william safire (then john tierney).
she would have said: 'women do not make up 1/8 of the adult population so why do they make up only 1/8th of our regular columnists?'
but she kept her mouth shut like a good little girl. so it's too damn late for her to try to bore us with another bad book that she'll try to sell by claiming it's something feminists should love.
feminists are aware that there are races, not just 1 race. not just white. they are aware that there is asian-american, that there is african-american, that there is . . .
but gail collins, who'll be trying to play the feminist card to sell another bad book, couldn't be bothered with that.
she couldn't be bothered with fighting or with making a case.
she just, as betty's chapter pointed out, banked her check and let things stay as they were. actually she let them get worse because times readers ended up with an extra right-winger.
john tierney who writes like an idiot and looks like an idiot. today he flaunts his stupidity by arguing wal-mart deserves the nobel peace prize in 'Shopping for a Nobel' and he lies through his teeth to do so and omits every known fact. he claims wal-mart is good for business but fails to note that their demands are breaking vlassic pickles and have already resulted in a bicycle company shutting down. he claims that they lift workers from poverty. which is why wal-mart advised workers to get on food stamps? oh, he leaves that out. he leaves everything out.
and gail collins can tell herself whatever lie she wants but considering the sex discrimination in wages and promotions that have led to so many law suits against wal-mart, the fact that the man (1 of 2) that she ushered in wants to ignore sex based discrimination is her fault. she needs to accept it. and women don't need to cover for her.
she was a 1st? well she was a worst. that link goes to ava and c.i.'s nah-nah-nah sisterhood and that captures gail collins perfectly. she was elevated and instead of attempting to lift even 1 woman up (as a regular columnist), she was happy to reinforce the out of date stereotypes by ushering in 2 white males.
she should be ashamed of herself and, when she tries to book tour her next piece of crap, she should face tough questions about that, about how she failed women and about that laughable e-mail where she went on and on about how she didn't believe in hiring a woman to replace maurren dowd (who was on vacation). she didn't think it was important that while maureen dowd was gone (for weeks) that any woman be brought on. she didn't care about role modeling or making sure that women, especially young females, got the message that there was a place for them in writing columns. her desire was to hire the best.
and, no surprise, the best didn't include any women.
that e-mail getting circulated forced her, when thomas friedman went on vacation, to use 2 women during his lengthy vacation.
when it hit my inbox, i sent it out to every 1 in my address book and 1 woman wrote back that maybe it wasn't fair to circulate it? well it was fair. and thank god to the person who 1st was willing to circulate it.
the fact that it went around and around and around embarrassed her enough to use some women (to fill in for 1 male). and then? and then she lost interest again.
she was riding the easy high that the uninformed gave her, praising her decision as progressive when all it was was face saving.
2 columnists stepped down while she was in charge. she could have brought the op-ed pages into this century. instead she gave more of the same. a man could have done that, any man. so she doesn't deserve to be praised for being a '1st' when all she did was hold down the line, all she did was push the glass ceiling down a little further.
she's a disgrace as any sort of feminist (which only gets loosely claimed when it's time to schill for her bad books) and she's lost the right to use that term in my book.
it's not elastic. she had a chance to make a difference and instead she did what the most sexist man in the world would: hold down the line.
there was nothing brave about that, there was nothing feminist about that.
when women refuse to help other women, they stop being feminist. betty rightly writes about how it wasn't feminism, it was gail collins-ism. that's all it was.
she made no difference. she helped no 1 but herself.
so when she tries to help herself to your hard earned cash and you read some fool tell you that her book on frontier women (or whatever topic she's going to doodle about) is a purchase to make in the name of feminism, realize that she's gotten enough applause already and she never earned any of it by helping other women. she just helped herself.
if that's too difficult for you to grasp, grasp this: before the illegal war started, she turned down a column by a woman. it was against the war. well, you say, there are a lot of submissions to go through. this column? the author? alice walker.
remember that. she, who wasn't concerned about adding color or women to the op-ed pages, turned down 1 of the most noted authors in america. no surprise, it was a woman, a woman of color. alice walker is also a best seller, she's also a pulitzer prize winner. that's what gail collins did, she kept women off the op-ed pages, no matter their honors, no matter their merits.
gail collins was in it for gail collins. she demonstrated that over and over.
she can play the face saving 'i'm leaving for my book' but every 1 knows she was fired. she'll reutrn with the occasional column. she was fired. and i won't pretty it up or pretend like she made a damn bit of difference in all her years in charge. what she did do was allow the times to add 2 more white males and hide their racism and sexism behind the fact that a woman had the title of 'editor'.
she was the mistress providing the alibi.
closing with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Tuesday, October 17, 2006. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, US "officials" issue statements and watch how Balad gets rewritten, an estimated 3,000 Iraqi police officers are told "no job!", and Cindy Sheehan focuses on the numbers that matter (and unlike the big news orgs, doesnt' feel the need to rewrite them).
On the slaughter in Balad, Al Jazeera magazine notes a "New York Times editorial". It's not an editorial, it's a report by Michael Luo. It's a report that the Times is now hiding online and have replaced with a new version. The original is entitled "Iraqis Ask Why U.S. Forces Didn't Intervene in Balad." That's the print headline and the headline if you use the link. But that story doesn't show up on the Middle East page of the website. Instead, a weaker version entitled "Fighting in Iraqi Town Killed Over 60, U.S. Says" with John O'Neil appearing in the byline and also in the end credit "in New York"! Because, surely, to report on Balad, you need O'Neil in New York.
The original, with only Luo in the byline, reported: "Killing also continued to besiege the capital on Monday with the discovery of at least 64 bodies across the city, and two car bomb attacks that appeared to kill 22 people." The white-washed attempt to suck up to "officials" opens with: "The American military said today that more than 60 people were killed in four days of sectarian fighting in Balad . . ."
If you find that disgusting, and you should, take comfort in the fact that there's griping at the paper about the watering down of a fairly straight-down-the-middle report. The original may disappear from the website so if you're interested in what alarms "officials," check it out now. The whitewash tries to reassamble the article but mainly demonstrates how idiotic the paper is. Well over 60 people have died in Balad from Friday to Monday and that was reported by other US outlets -- mainstream sources. [Ellen Knickmeyer and Muhanned Saif Aldin (Washington Post) put it at 80 in their report in today's paper -- which, please note, the Post hasn't felt the need to rewrite to appease "officials."] The original article did not ignore the opinions of the military but, such is the reality of the war, "officials" need things distorted and, such is the cowardice of the paper, that "offiicals" must be appeased.
For those still attempting to follow Balad, CBS and AP report that "sectarian fighting in Balad . . . has killed close to 100 people" since it "began Friday with the slaying of 17 Shiite Muslim workers. Revenge-seeking Shiite death squads then killed 74 Sunnis, causing people flee across the Tigris River to the nearby Sunni-dominated city of Duluiyah." This as CNN also chases down 'official' pleasure, though they claim they're not revising earlier reporting, just noting what 'officials' say and, it is true, they do include this statement: "The number of deaths vary". Reuters harkens back to their earlier days (when they fronted for the US government as revealed during Congressional hearings in the wake of Watergate) by not even attributed their lowered figures to US "officials" or US "military." Monday, before 'official' statements, Ellen Knickmeyer and Muhanned Saif Aldin (Washington Post) reported: "By Sunday afternoon, 80 bodies were stacked in the morgue of the Balad hospital". But watch as the mainstream media grabs onto "official" statement and trashes all that was previously reported. Christopher Bodeen (AP) reports that "at least 91 people" have been killed since Friday in Balad. A report the Times runs online but forgets to rewrite.
Those who watch network or cable news should pay attention to see who carries water for the administration and who notes the reality that was already well established in the mainstream (US) press reports. AFP reports that despite 'official' US claims, US forces are not in control in Balad and that, according to "Malik Laftah, the head of Balad city council," corpses are lying in the streets.
Let's note some of the reported violence but keep in mind that most outlets don't have the guts to stick with their own reporting in the face of a bold face lie from US 'officials' so who knows how the following will be rewritten?
Bombings?
Reuters, right now at this second because who knows how they'll cave tomorrow, reports that, in Baghdad, a car bomb killed killed two police officers and wounded nine, while a roadside bomb left five people wounded and that two different attacks with mortar rounds left a total of three people dead and and three wounded. CBS and AP report that "two Katyusha rockets" left twenty wounded in Baghdad. Al Jazeera notes a bombing in Karmah that claimed the lives of five Iraqi soldiers.
Shootings?
CBS and AP report that, in Hillah, one man was shot dead and five were wounded when "unidnetified gunmen attacked a facility belongint to the central Euphrates electricity distribution authority". They also note a home invasion in Balad Ruz that claimed the lives of "the mother and four dault sons" and left the father wounded; a drive by shooting in Falluja two police officers were shot dead. AFP reports that four students were shot dead in Basra and, also in Basra, "gynaecologist Dr Youssra Hashem became the latest female professional to be killed amid a rise in violence against women by conservative Muslim factions". Al Jazeera reports the shooting death of "a member of the Patriot Union of Kurdistan" in Mosul."
Corpses?
CBS and AP report that two corpses were discovered in Baghdad ("blindfolded and bound").
Now who knows what will be asserted tomorrow because some lose spines when officials' gums start flapping. Staying on those who buckle, last week, Richard Dannatt caused a stir with criticism of the Iraq war and the suggestion that it was time to pull troops. As Demetri Sevastopulo (Financial Times) notes, "the new chief of the Britsh army" stated troops should leave because just being there "exacerbates the security problem." He buckled quicker than a media boardroom. Despite the fact that British soldiers strongly agreed with his statements.
Now, Lachlan Carmichael (AFP) reports that Tony Blair "has vowed to keep British troops in Iraq until their 'job is done' as her rejected claims that their presence fueled Muslim extremism at home and abroad." The report focuses on Blair and Dannat and apparently missed Colin Brown (Independent of London) reporting that: "John Reid, the Home Secretary, conceded last night for the first time that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have played a part radicalisizing young Muslims."
AFP also reports that Bully Boy went on Bloated Men & Bleached Women (aka Fox "News") to declare his opposition to dividing the nation of Iraq into three autonomous regions. Apparently, while cooing sweet nothings to Nouri al-Maliki on Monday, Bully Boy forgot to raise that issue (last week the parliament took another step in that direction). As Simon Tisdall (Guardian of London) notes, predicting "the worst is yet to come," "One sign came last week when the Shia parliamentary majority rejected Sunni opposition and passed a law allowing partion into autonomous federal regions. It is but a small step from there to national disintergration."
A little noted "official" statement by "US army Lieutenant Colonel Jeffery Martindale" is covered by AFP, this is regarding the violence in Balad: "Marindale also, however, confirmed that two Iraqi police officers had been arrested for taking part in the massacre which triggered the orgy of violence." No, we're not returning to Balad -- the whole 'coverage' is too disgusting. But keep that in mind: two police officers were part of triggering "the orgy of violence." AFP reports that Iraq's interior ministry spokesperson (Abdel Karim Khalaf) held a press conference today to announce "that 1,228 [police officers] had been sacked for breaking the law while nearly 2,000 more were dismissed for derelection of duty."
The Interior minister is Jawad Bolani and, for those who've missed it, the militias are thought by some to have free reign via that ministry. Borzou Daragahi (Los Angeles Times) reported, Saturday, that when reminded that his ministry has been "accused of complicity in sectarian death squad killings," Bolani denied it. Ellen Knickmeyer (Washington Post) noted that not only did Bolani deny the accusations, he "blamed the Facilities Protection Service, or FPS, a massive but unregulated government guard force . . . . Bolani and his predecssor as interior minister, Bayan Jabr, both have minimized the possibility of any police involvement in the nightly killings."
Whether the purge, which also includes moving three police commanders to administrative jobs, is just an attempt to stop the questions from continuing to being asked or whether it's genuine, who knows? But it's worth remembering Rick Jervis (USA Today) reported Monday on how al-Maliki refused to addres disarming militas "until later this year or early next year".
While many supposedly brave press outlets fudge the numbers to please the US administration, Cindy Sheehan (at BuzzFlash) notes some other numbers: 4, 4, 655,000 and more. The first four is "Republican Congresspeople [who] have had to resign from scandals this past year" (Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Mark Foley, Tom DeLay); the second four is the number of "staff members of the corrupt adminstration [who] have resigned in disgrace this year" (Andrew Card, Scooter Libby, Susan Ralston and Snotty McClellan) while 655,000 is the estimate for the number of Iraqis who have dies since the start of the illegal war as a result of the violence. She also reminds that Gold Star Families for Peace will be holding a sit around the White House November 7th and 8th and "Also, go to Progressive Democrats of America to sign the petition to support Congressman Jim McGovern's bill, HR4232, which cuts funding for the continuing occupation. Ending the funding is what stopped Vietnam. Let's cut Iraq off before it becomes as bad as Vietnam."
Also in peace news, Courage to Resist notes Ricky Clousing's statement to the judge in last Thursday's court-martial and sentencing: "My experiences in Iraq forced me tto reevaluate my beliefs and ethics. Ultimately, I felt like I could not serve." Clousing is a war resister and he will serve three months, be reduced in rank and then dishonorably discharged. Clousing took a brave stand and Courage to Resist notes:
Ricky is currently being held in a military brig at Camp LeJune in North Carolina and it is urgent that he receive your words of encouragement and support! Please write to Ricky today!
More information on war resisters who have gone public can be found at Courage to Resist.
Do you Yahoo!?
Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
Kat's Korner
Kat is in Ireland and while she's gone, her blog is still active.
Monday, Betty filled in and gave readers a glimpse at Kat's place.
Wednesday, Ruth filled in and discussed KPFA's Guns and Butter
Friday, C.I. filled in and addressed the return to the US of war resister Kyle Snyder.
Monday, Betty filled in and gave readers a glimpse at Kat's place.
Wednesday, Ruth filled in and discussed KPFA's Guns and Butter
Friday, C.I. filled in and addressed the return to the US of war resister Kyle Snyder.
C.I. explains "And the war drags on"
Why don't we ever spotlight one of the "And the war drags on" entries by C.I.? That's what Shawn wondered in an e-mail. Shawn, for you, here's Thursday's entry.
And the war drags on . . .
Death squads from the Ministry of Interior posing as Iraqi police are killing more people than ever in the capital, emerging evidence shows.
The death toll is high - in all 1,536 bodies were brought to the Baghdad morgue in September. The health ministry announced last month that it will build two new morgues in Baghdad to take their capacity to 250 bodies a day.
Many fear a government hand in more killings to come. The U.S. military has revealed that the 8th Iraqi Police Unit was responsible for the Oct. 1 kidnapping of 26 Sunni food factory workers in the Amil quarter in southwest Baghdad. The bodies of ten of them were later found in Abu Chir neighbourhood in the capital.
Minister for the Interior Jawad al-Bolani announced he is suspending the police unit from official duties, and confining it to base until an investigation is completed.
But sections of the ministry appear responsible for the abductions and killing. Ministry of Interior vehicles were used for the kidnapping in this case, and most men conducting the raid wore Iraqi police uniforms, except for a few who wore black death squad 'uniforms', witnesses told IPS.
The leader of the police unit is under house arrest and faces interrogation for this and other crimes, according to an official announcement.
"It is for sure that they did it," one of the victim's neighbours told IPS on condition of anonymity. "The tortured bodies were found the second day. They came in their official police cars; it is not the first time that they did something like this. They do it all over Baghdad, and we hope they will get proper punishment this time."
Men of the police unit meanwhile do not face imminent punishment. "They are going to be rehabilitated and brought back to service," director-general of the Iraqi police Adnan Thabit told IPS.
The above is from Ali Al-Fadhily and Dahr Jamail's "Government Death Squads Ravaging Baghdad" (IPS). This isn't a new topic to IPS (or Jamail), they've been addressing it for some time. The same can't be said for all media which will now have to play catch up having spent far too long buying into the Bully Boy's happy talk.
If you check the links on the side (I'm too tired for transition but, for those in need, "From happy talk to reality . . ."), you may notice we have Ricky Clousing, Agustin Aguayo, Mark Wilkerson and Ehren Watada's individual sites noted. Finally. I hate going into the template. There are other new links added as well. War resisters matter and Staughton Lynd addresses that in Rachel's highlight, "Soldiers of Conscience" (The Nation):
In the company of these heroes and heroines we turn to the message of another hero, Ehren Watada. In the military system of justice--the system that Congress recently turned its back on in setting up military commissions--there is a proceeding similar to the convening of a grand jury. It is called an Article 23 hearing. The hearing officer decides whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a court martial. This past August 17, at Fort Lewis, Washington, there was an Article 23 hearing for Lt. Watada. Early in the hearing the prosecution played video clips from his recent speeches. In one of these speeches, to the national convention of Veterans for Peace, Lt. Watada said: "Today, I speak with you about a radical idea...The idea is this; that to stop an illegal and unjust war, the soldiers...can choose to stop fighting it."
Of course in itself this was not a new idea. It was another way of saying, Someday they'll have a war and nobody will come.
But what is unusual is Lt. Watada's basis for saying No. Like David Mitchell in the 1960s, Ehren Watada is not a pacifist. He offered to go to Afghanistan but refused to go to Iraq. He refused to go to Iraq for the same reason David refused to go to Vietnam, not because of objection to all wars, but because of a conviction that war crimes were being committed in this particular war, giving rise to an obligation, under the principles declared at Nuremburg, to refuse military service.
Take a minute to recognize how radical a change this would be. The concept of Conscientious Objection, as set forth in Selective Service law during and after World War II and in the existing regulations of all the military services, is based on the Christian teaching of forgiveness of enemies, of doing good for evil, of turning the other cheek, of putting up the sword. To become a conscientious objector the applicant must, first, object to "war in any form", which is to say, to all wars, and second, do so on the basis of "religious training and belief."
This is a noble idea. I happen to adhere to it, personally. But it is unlikely ever to be the conviction of more than a tiny minority of persons of military age. It is a legal system written to accommodate the tender consciences of members of certain small Christian sects that came into being during the Radical Reformation: Quakers, Amish, Mennonites, Brethren, and the like. And let's be honest, Conscientious Objection thus defined exists because the powers that be know that it will never be the worldview of more than a handful of persons.
In a volunteer military, there will be very few persons who object to war in any form. Had this been their belief, why would they have volunteered in the first place? True, it is possible to become a conscientious objector while serving in the military. Certain remarkable individuals like [Camilo] Mejia and Kevin Benderman will deploy to Iraq, be horrified by what they experience, and on reflection conclude that they will never again fight in any war. But common sense tells us that such conscientious-objectors-from-experience will be few.
The above is a speech worth checking out (time permitting, we'll note it in tomorrow's snapshot also). War resistance within the military is growing and the Pentagon notices it, even when media's looking the other way. Attending Ricky Clousing's court-martial last Thursday were five unnamed soldiers who would soon be facing their own for self-checking out of the military. Known war reisters include Clousing, Watada, Mark Wilkerson, Jeremy Hinzman, Brandon Hughey, Patrick Hart, Corey Glass, Carl Webb, Kyle Snyder, Agustin Aguayo . . . What was once confined to solitary figures like Camilo Mejia was followed by many others. (Including Pablo Paredes and Aidan Delgado.) It's not just a few and there will be more. This is a movement the same way it was during Vietnam (Lynd covers some of that in his feature for The Nation and it's also covered in David Zeiger's Sir! No Sir!).
It matters. Earlier today, we noted Melanie McPherson's case. Her case, though not war resistance, matters as well. I received an e-mail from a family member of a war resister and we now use the term "war resister" only to apply to those who state their objection to the war itself. That is how it should be. And thank you to _____ for noting that we followed a phase in labeling someone a war resister who wasn't. Others may do that with McPherson as well. Thus far, she has not cited objection to the war itself as a reason for not going to Iraq. Her objection, which is a solid objection, is based upon the fact that she was trained to be a military journalist and now the military wants to send her to Iraq and put her in a position she's untrained for. As she wrote in the note she left before checking out, she didn't want to be "a bullet catcher." Too many are being used as just that to make the 'count.'
They're just there to try and make the people free,
But the way that they're doing it, it don't seem like that to me.
Just more blood-letting and misery and tears
That this poor country's known for the last twenty years,
And the war drags on.
-- words and lyrics by Mick Softly (available on Donovan's Fairytale)
Last Thursday, the total number of US troop fatalities stood at 2758. Right now? 2787. That's 29 more deaths since last Thursday. (Iraqis? 655,000 and counting. We go with the study.)
Making the 'count' was the topic a few moments ago. Today's CBS Evening News with Katie Couric addressed the issue of the 'count.' Sharyn Alfonsi's "Troops With Stress Disorders Fit For Duty?" addressed the issue of how making the 'count' means troops suffering from PTSD are suddenly 'fit' to serve. Larry Syverson spoke of how his son Bryce was sent to Walter Reed from Iraq and placed in the psychiatric ward (on suicide watch) but he got sent back over in August to make that 'count.' Jason Gunn had PTSD following an explosion in Baghdad but after four months, even though he had PTSD and was suffering from paranoia, the military e-mailed (e-mailed!) and he's back in Iraq as well. Alfonsi reported that the military thought it would be good for Gunn to 'face his fears.' As though he'd just fallen off a horse, apparently.
The US military is finally admitting that their 'crackdown' didn't work so maybe they could admit some other things: (a) the war is illegal, (b) there is no 'win' to be had, (c) they're putting people into Iraq that don't belong there (Steven D. Green being the strongest example), (d) their backdoor draft is demoralizing the military.
There were two big issues for visitors who e-mailed today (of what I read, there were too many to read all of tonight). The first issue was over the fact that someone (a US citizen) was sentenced to death and why hadn't we noted that? When? We've noted it before. Saturday, we noted the case of Mohammad Munaf and we noted a problem with his legal team (a hearsay sworn statement). Did they ever get their act together? (Munaf had a solid case, this about the way attorneys argued his case in the US.) No. If you're late to the topic, Munaf was facing the death penalty (after two US "officials" -- including a general -- spoke with an Iraqi judge in private). He is an American citizen. The hope of his US attorneys was that, since he is in US custody, a US federal judge would bar US forces from turning him over for an execution. Monday on Democracy Now! this occurred:
AMY GOODMAN: How did he end up in Iraq?
JONATHAN HAFETZ: He traveled to Iraq with three Romanian journalists. He had been living in Romania with his wife and three children, who are also all U.S. citizens. He traveled with the journalists to serve as a guide and interpreter as the journalists covered stories in Iraq. And he was called upon, because of his knowledge of the language and of the terrain. They were all kidnapped.
AMY GOODMAN: He was kidnapped, as well.
JONATHAN HAFETZ: He was kidnapped, as well, released two months later. They were kidnapped by an insurgent group, released after two months. And Munaf was then taken into custody by the Americans and has been held by the Americans for 15 months.
AMY GOODMAN: What happened to the Romanians?
JONATHAN HAFETZ: They were set free. They were freed by the kidnapping, and thy’re back in Romania.
AMY GOODMAN: And what do they say?
JONATHAN HAFETZ: Well, we haven’t spoken with them. We’re hopefully calling for a hearing, at which point Munaf could testify, present his case and the evidence of witnesses in his favor to demonstrate that he is innocent, that he had no part in planning the kidnapping. He comes to the federal court as an innocent man who has been held by his own government for 16 months. And the United States takes the position that because the United States is operating as part of a multinational force, the court has no power to review his detention.
Did you catch the key moment? Goodman asks what the Romanians say and the answer should be, "The Romanians say . . ." Instead, the answer was "we haven't spoken with them." Allowing that people had to scramble, there's still no excuse for that. There should have been an answer to Goodman's question. It was a basic question, she wasn't attempting to trip the guest up, she was asking what any journalist would, what any lawyer would, and what any court would want to know. The fact that on Monday they still didn't have it together was sad. [And the guest identifies the 'officials' as "two soldiers" -- when they attorneys were speaking to the press last week, they were stating a general and an unidentified official, another example of how they didn't have it together.] All the more so with the latest news, noted by Jonah (a member, not a visitor) from AP's "Judge: American Can Be Transferred to Iraq for Execution:"
An American citizen facing a death sentence in Iraq lost a court challenge Thursday that would have prohibited the military from turning him over to Iraqi authorities.
Mohammad Munaf was convicted and sentenced to death by an Iraqi judge last week on charges he helped in the 2005 kidnapping of three Romanian journalists in Baghdad.
Munaf, who was born in Iraq and became an American citizen in 2000, sought an emergency order blocking U.S. military officials from turning him over to Iraq. He claimed his trial was flawed and his confession was coerced.
Those would normally be grounds for American citizens to challenge their imprisonment. But U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth said he had no authority to intervene because Munaf was being held by coalition military forces, not by the U.S. military alone.
We had noted it before. Now this isn't the only case involving a US citizen in Iraq. In this case, US 'officials,' wanted to circumvent the rule of law with private testimony. In this case, the Justice Department opposed the appeal (the judge sided with them). It was a different case last week:
In Iraq, the puppet governments continue to raise eye brows. Al Jazeera reports on Ayham al-Samarraie who was arrested "on charges of finanical and managerial corruption in August" for his actions while serving as a minister in Ayham al-Samarraie's government (the first post-invasion puppet government) but he was taken from the court and is now protected by US forces. al-Samarraie's "protection" raises serious questions about whether even the appearance of independence will be allowed for the puppet government. It also raises a serious issue of what was a US citizen doing holding government office in the supposedly independent Iraq.
In this case, the US didn't seem to trust Iraqi justice. From CBS' "Millions Stolen From Iraq's Treasury:"
More than half a billion dollars earmarked to fight the insurgency in Iraq was stolen by people the U.S. had entrusted to run the country's Ministry of Defense before the 2005 elections, according to Iraqi investigators. Iraq's former minister of finance says coalition members like the U.S. and Britain are doing little to help recover the money or catch suspects, most of whom fled the country. The 60 Minutes investigation also turned up audio recordings of a suspect who seems to be discussing the transfer of $45 million to the account of a top political adviser to the interim defense minister.
Correspondent Steve Kroft reports on this mother of all heists this Sunday, Oct. 22, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
"We have not been given any serious, official support from either the United States or the U.K. or any of the surrounding Arab countries," says Ali Allawi, who was confronted with the missing funds when he took over as Iraq's finance minister last year.
He thinks he knows why Iraqi investigators have gotten little help.
"The only explanation I can come up with is that too many people in positions of power and authority in the new Iraq have been, in one way or another, found with their hands inside the cookie jar," says Allawi, who left his post when a new Iraqi government was formed earlier this year.
"And if they are brought to trial, it will cast a very disparaging light on those people who had supported them and brought them to this position of power and authority," he tells Kroft.
In one instance, the US government says "Go ahead and execute," in another they say they have to take custody of the man because Iraqi 'justice' is so in question. (Surely, secret testimony won't make it any stronger.)
The other big issue for some visitors was these statements: "Many reports have the, the US joining the crackdown (the thing that hasn't 'met . . . overall expectations') on August 7th. However, the 'crackdown' began in June. That's the reality. It's been juiced up, beefed up and through various versions but it's gone on since June. Little Willie will next entertain the press corps on Karaoke night by singing 'What A Fool Believes'."
One visitor, especially sure of himself, offered that "You shouldn't write what you don't know about." Right back at you. And it's not my job to spoonfeed every visitor who stumbles past this site. This community didn't take the summer from Iraq. No member questioned that statement because we covered the 'crackdown' from the beginning. We're fully aware of what panic led to the 'crackdown' (though it's doubtful the visitors complaining today are). But for those who seem to think that they must be spoonfed, from the BBC:
Launched in June, Operation Together Forward is a joint US and Iraqi security drive in which thousands of extra troops have been deployed in Baghdad.
The operation was seen as key to asserting the authority of the Iraqi government over all of the capital and eventually the rest of the country, paving the way for the withdrawal of US forces.
But Gen Caldwell said attacks on US troops and Iraqi forces in Baghdad has risen significantly in the first three weeks of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, which began in the last week of September.
I can be, and often am, wrong. But before someone e-mails to gripe about something as long lasting as the ongoing 'crackdown' has been, they might want to do a little work of their own. August is when even more US forces pour in for yet another 'juiced up' version of the 'crackdown.' It is not when the crackdown began and US forces were a part of the crackdown from the beginning. So visitors who objected, you've now been spoonfed, look to someone else to burp you.
Here, we knew the crackdown wasn't going to work. Go to the middle of June when it started and you'll find that stated. It was never going to work and the only people are surprised are the ones who always think 'force is the answer!' Baghdad was already forced against the wall for anyone not in the Green Zone. The 'crackdown' was pouring gas on a fire.
One of the objecting visitors offered that the 'crackdown' should be given twelve months before being discontinued. Apparently, after that comes the "bomb them all" from the Ann Coulter Playbook.
What has happened in Iraq is that it's one repeated battle after another. Why is that? Because there's no objective, none given to the US public, none given to the trooops, none given to the Iraqis. Now there have been ever changing objectives given. WMDs, liberation, democracy, Saddam Hussein, go down the list.
The troops can't fight the same battle day after day, week after week, year after year. Any of the four nonsense reason given should have resulted in the troops leaving long ago. WMDs? There were none. Call it a victory and bring the troops home. Liberation or Saddam Hussein? When Saddam Hussein was captured, bring the troops home (and turn Hussein over to an international body for a real trial). Democracy?
Iraqis are fully aware that they were told they'd be a democracy and they'd have elections. And Jay Garner tried to work on providing elections immediately. The US administration didn't want that and Paul Bremer quickly replaced Garner.
There is nothing left for US troops to do except to continue doing the same thing over and over. That's not a plan, that's not a strategy, that's not an objective for war. The troops are trained to fight a war.
The resistance in Iraq is deeply rooted and the Iraqi people want US forces out. They've wanted that for sometime now. They've seen they're living standards drop, they've seen the water systems and electrical systems destroyed during the war remain non-functioning or barely functioning. (And are quite aware that it's a different story in the heavily fortified Green Zone.) As the resenement continues to build, the resistance continues to grow.
There's no reason for the troops to be there. (They shouldn't have been there to begin with.) Iraqis are adults, they need to govern themselves. You have a civil war there now that results from the actions of this war. The troops aren't safe over there and the Iraqis aren't safe over there. There's no 'win' here. There's the same battle over and over and it will get bloodier and bloodier.
An objective would have been: "When Hussein is captured, the troops will have completed their mission." But there's not a consistent objective because the war was built on lies and greed continues it.
Congress abdicated their role. So did many citizens. The military is not a toy of the Oval Office (nor of the Congress). Civilian control of the military means civilian responsibility. There was no responsibility. Bully Boy scared a lot of people and a lot of people said, "Save us, Big Daddy, save us!" The real cowards are the ones who abdicated to their own responsibilities in the lead up to the war -- officials and average citizens. Some of them now want to sneer "coward" at a Watada or a Clousing. They aren't cowards. They're making a decision to take a stand that needs to be taken because America needs to wake up to reality that there are no goals shared in this illegal war. There's a lot of lofty talk (that the Baker Study Group has already undermined before releasing their report). There's a lot of reality hidden from the public.
New 'strategy' won't 'win' the war. It's unwinnable. Had Bully Boy any brains, he would have pulled the troops long ago and a lot of people would have been able to delude themselves still that the war was a good idea. It wasn't. It was illegal and and the longer the troops are over there, the more clear that becomes.
For Iraqis, reality can be 'managed' via Happy Talk. They have seen and heard stories, they've been touched by the war. A new puppet won't change it. A smarter illegal occupation won't change it. The tag sale on their public commons may be something some Americans can ignore but if you're dependent upon them, as Iraqis were, you can't.
The troops need to come home.
On that note, Brandon notes The Nation's "The War and the Election:"
New confirmation of the importance of ending the Iraq War has come recently with the release of two studies of its staggering costs. A September survey by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes found that 78 percent of Iraqis believe the US military presence is "provoking more conflict than it is preventing." Far from wanting American troops to "stay the course," as George W. Bush and his circle of true believers assert, Iraqis recognize that the occupation is contributing to their country's crisis. The extraordinary depth of that crisis was suggested by another study, this one from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, working with Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, which estimated the Iraqi death toll since the US invasion and occupation at 655,000--a dramatically higher figure than had been previously given.
The United States is in a different place now than it was when Wellstone cast his courageous vote: The war went forward, and the issue now is how to end it as quickly as possible. While far too many Democrats try to have it both ways, criticizing the President but not calling forthrightly for an end to hostilities, conscientious candidates in races across the country are demanding just such action. Over the months we have identified a number of these candidates. This past spring, for example, we noted the tough antiwar challenge that Californian Marcy Winograd was mounting to incumbent Jane Harman; we also applauded former NAACP head Kweisi Mfume's strong antiwar position in a Maryland US Senate primary. These challenges weren't successful, but others were.
[. . .]
As the election approaches, we will continue to bring attention to antiwar candidates on our website (www.thenation.com) and urge readers to support them. As we stated in our editorial of last year, "We firmly believe that antiwar candidates, with the other requisite credentials, can win the 2006 Congressional elections, the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries and the subsequent national election. But this fight, and our stand, must begin now."
The Bully Boy broke the 'barrier' Wednesday when he made the obvious comparison that too many in the press shied from. Now that he's made it, it will continue to be made. The press needs an 'official' before they can get wiggle room these days. Mike notes Elizabeth Sullivan's "Vietnam & Iraq: Another 'Bright Shining Lie'" (Cleveland Plain Dealer via Common Dreams):
The ultimate tragedy of Iraq is that it was dreamed up by a generation that lived through an earlier war constructed atop deception and denial.
The Vietnam generation should have known better.
Yet Iraq is the same "bright shining lie" told by the same sort of smart men -- and this time, smart women -- that Neil Sheehan chronicled in his devastating book about the many-tiered American deceptions that made Vietnam such a quagmire. As with Vietnam, this nation is propping up a corrupt Iraqi government and distorting outcomes by picking its own political winners and losers.
As with Vietnam, U.S. officials faced with military stalemate are grasping at straws via vain attempts to "Iraqify" a national military and police force that lacks legitimacy with most Iraqis. Why else would Iraqis be able to take over only two of the nation's 18 provinces when -- according to ground commander Gen. George Casey -- 80 percent to 90 percent of current violence is concentrated in only five?
As Mike noted, Sullivan's column ran in Thursday morning's paper. She obviously wasn't waiting for permission before making the comparison. Dallas gets the last highlight, Cindy Sheehan's "Sit Down for Peace, Justice, and Accountability" (BuzzFlash):
I usually end my articles with a call to action, but today, I begin with one. Maybe readers get bored with my pieces before the end and don't get to the action part, which is the most important part.
Gold Star Families for Peace is calling for an action in front of the White House on the days of November 6th to November 9th (due to the urgency of our situation, we are beginning the sit-in on Saturday, Nov. 4) to perform a Gandhi-like sit down for peace and justice. Join us to sit down for all or part of the time we will be there. We might as well face it, the White House is where the power is. Congress has spent 6 years invalidating themselves and creating a Unitary Executive Branch that pats Congress on the head for being obedient and circumvents the Supreme Court and goes whining to the same agreeable Congress when the Court (in rare cases) slaps Georgie on the wrist. The potential Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca) has already said that if the Democrats take back the House, impeachment proceedings will not be forthcoming. Who's going to sit down with us to hold the war criminals in power accountable for their war crimes and crimes against humanity and peace?
Tuesday, without a peep from we the people, and while 10 soldiers were being murdered in George's horrendous war for corporate greed, he signed HR6166 into law. 10 soldiers were killed defending the war machine's right to garner obscene profits while the soldiers were being told that they were spreading "freedom and democracy" to Iraq. While they were dying for this supposed "freedom and democracy" their commander in chief and Congress were busy taking away ours. Who's going to sit down with us for these 10 young people to make sure their deaths do count for freedom and democracy?
HR6166 is the Military Commissions Act which allows everyone from George on down to the actual torturer to inflict inhumanity on our fellow human beings with impunity. The Act also allows George to decide who is a terrorist who does not deserve the right to Habeas Corpus and who is not a terrorist who does deserve the right to Habeas Corpus. Who's going to sit down with us to say: "I demand my rights to Habeas Corpus and I repudiate torture in all forms."
The death toll is high - in all 1,536 bodies were brought to the Baghdad morgue in September. The health ministry announced last month that it will build two new morgues in Baghdad to take their capacity to 250 bodies a day.
Many fear a government hand in more killings to come. The U.S. military has revealed that the 8th Iraqi Police Unit was responsible for the Oct. 1 kidnapping of 26 Sunni food factory workers in the Amil quarter in southwest Baghdad. The bodies of ten of them were later found in Abu Chir neighbourhood in the capital.
Minister for the Interior Jawad al-Bolani announced he is suspending the police unit from official duties, and confining it to base until an investigation is completed.
But sections of the ministry appear responsible for the abductions and killing. Ministry of Interior vehicles were used for the kidnapping in this case, and most men conducting the raid wore Iraqi police uniforms, except for a few who wore black death squad 'uniforms', witnesses told IPS.
The leader of the police unit is under house arrest and faces interrogation for this and other crimes, according to an official announcement.
"It is for sure that they did it," one of the victim's neighbours told IPS on condition of anonymity. "The tortured bodies were found the second day. They came in their official police cars; it is not the first time that they did something like this. They do it all over Baghdad, and we hope they will get proper punishment this time."
Men of the police unit meanwhile do not face imminent punishment. "They are going to be rehabilitated and brought back to service," director-general of the Iraqi police Adnan Thabit told IPS.
The above is from Ali Al-Fadhily and Dahr Jamail's "Government Death Squads Ravaging Baghdad" (IPS). This isn't a new topic to IPS (or Jamail), they've been addressing it for some time. The same can't be said for all media which will now have to play catch up having spent far too long buying into the Bully Boy's happy talk.
If you check the links on the side (I'm too tired for transition but, for those in need, "From happy talk to reality . . ."), you may notice we have Ricky Clousing, Agustin Aguayo, Mark Wilkerson and Ehren Watada's individual sites noted. Finally. I hate going into the template. There are other new links added as well. War resisters matter and Staughton Lynd addresses that in Rachel's highlight, "Soldiers of Conscience" (The Nation):
In the company of these heroes and heroines we turn to the message of another hero, Ehren Watada. In the military system of justice--the system that Congress recently turned its back on in setting up military commissions--there is a proceeding similar to the convening of a grand jury. It is called an Article 23 hearing. The hearing officer decides whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a court martial. This past August 17, at Fort Lewis, Washington, there was an Article 23 hearing for Lt. Watada. Early in the hearing the prosecution played video clips from his recent speeches. In one of these speeches, to the national convention of Veterans for Peace, Lt. Watada said: "Today, I speak with you about a radical idea...The idea is this; that to stop an illegal and unjust war, the soldiers...can choose to stop fighting it."
Of course in itself this was not a new idea. It was another way of saying, Someday they'll have a war and nobody will come.
But what is unusual is Lt. Watada's basis for saying No. Like David Mitchell in the 1960s, Ehren Watada is not a pacifist. He offered to go to Afghanistan but refused to go to Iraq. He refused to go to Iraq for the same reason David refused to go to Vietnam, not because of objection to all wars, but because of a conviction that war crimes were being committed in this particular war, giving rise to an obligation, under the principles declared at Nuremburg, to refuse military service.
Take a minute to recognize how radical a change this would be. The concept of Conscientious Objection, as set forth in Selective Service law during and after World War II and in the existing regulations of all the military services, is based on the Christian teaching of forgiveness of enemies, of doing good for evil, of turning the other cheek, of putting up the sword. To become a conscientious objector the applicant must, first, object to "war in any form", which is to say, to all wars, and second, do so on the basis of "religious training and belief."
This is a noble idea. I happen to adhere to it, personally. But it is unlikely ever to be the conviction of more than a tiny minority of persons of military age. It is a legal system written to accommodate the tender consciences of members of certain small Christian sects that came into being during the Radical Reformation: Quakers, Amish, Mennonites, Brethren, and the like. And let's be honest, Conscientious Objection thus defined exists because the powers that be know that it will never be the worldview of more than a handful of persons.
In a volunteer military, there will be very few persons who object to war in any form. Had this been their belief, why would they have volunteered in the first place? True, it is possible to become a conscientious objector while serving in the military. Certain remarkable individuals like [Camilo] Mejia and Kevin Benderman will deploy to Iraq, be horrified by what they experience, and on reflection conclude that they will never again fight in any war. But common sense tells us that such conscientious-objectors-from-experience will be few.
The above is a speech worth checking out (time permitting, we'll note it in tomorrow's snapshot also). War resistance within the military is growing and the Pentagon notices it, even when media's looking the other way. Attending Ricky Clousing's court-martial last Thursday were five unnamed soldiers who would soon be facing their own for self-checking out of the military. Known war reisters include Clousing, Watada, Mark Wilkerson, Jeremy Hinzman, Brandon Hughey, Patrick Hart, Corey Glass, Carl Webb, Kyle Snyder, Agustin Aguayo . . . What was once confined to solitary figures like Camilo Mejia was followed by many others. (Including Pablo Paredes and Aidan Delgado.) It's not just a few and there will be more. This is a movement the same way it was during Vietnam (Lynd covers some of that in his feature for The Nation and it's also covered in David Zeiger's Sir! No Sir!).
It matters. Earlier today, we noted Melanie McPherson's case. Her case, though not war resistance, matters as well. I received an e-mail from a family member of a war resister and we now use the term "war resister" only to apply to those who state their objection to the war itself. That is how it should be. And thank you to _____ for noting that we followed a phase in labeling someone a war resister who wasn't. Others may do that with McPherson as well. Thus far, she has not cited objection to the war itself as a reason for not going to Iraq. Her objection, which is a solid objection, is based upon the fact that she was trained to be a military journalist and now the military wants to send her to Iraq and put her in a position she's untrained for. As she wrote in the note she left before checking out, she didn't want to be "a bullet catcher." Too many are being used as just that to make the 'count.'
They're just there to try and make the people free,
But the way that they're doing it, it don't seem like that to me.
Just more blood-letting and misery and tears
That this poor country's known for the last twenty years,
And the war drags on.
-- words and lyrics by Mick Softly (available on Donovan's Fairytale)
Last Thursday, the total number of US troop fatalities stood at 2758. Right now? 2787. That's 29 more deaths since last Thursday. (Iraqis? 655,000 and counting. We go with the study.)
Making the 'count' was the topic a few moments ago. Today's CBS Evening News with Katie Couric addressed the issue of the 'count.' Sharyn Alfonsi's "Troops With Stress Disorders Fit For Duty?" addressed the issue of how making the 'count' means troops suffering from PTSD are suddenly 'fit' to serve. Larry Syverson spoke of how his son Bryce was sent to Walter Reed from Iraq and placed in the psychiatric ward (on suicide watch) but he got sent back over in August to make that 'count.' Jason Gunn had PTSD following an explosion in Baghdad but after four months, even though he had PTSD and was suffering from paranoia, the military e-mailed (e-mailed!) and he's back in Iraq as well. Alfonsi reported that the military thought it would be good for Gunn to 'face his fears.' As though he'd just fallen off a horse, apparently.
The US military is finally admitting that their 'crackdown' didn't work so maybe they could admit some other things: (a) the war is illegal, (b) there is no 'win' to be had, (c) they're putting people into Iraq that don't belong there (Steven D. Green being the strongest example), (d) their backdoor draft is demoralizing the military.
There were two big issues for visitors who e-mailed today (of what I read, there were too many to read all of tonight). The first issue was over the fact that someone (a US citizen) was sentenced to death and why hadn't we noted that? When? We've noted it before. Saturday, we noted the case of Mohammad Munaf and we noted a problem with his legal team (a hearsay sworn statement). Did they ever get their act together? (Munaf had a solid case, this about the way attorneys argued his case in the US.) No. If you're late to the topic, Munaf was facing the death penalty (after two US "officials" -- including a general -- spoke with an Iraqi judge in private). He is an American citizen. The hope of his US attorneys was that, since he is in US custody, a US federal judge would bar US forces from turning him over for an execution. Monday on Democracy Now! this occurred:
AMY GOODMAN: How did he end up in Iraq?
JONATHAN HAFETZ: He traveled to Iraq with three Romanian journalists. He had been living in Romania with his wife and three children, who are also all U.S. citizens. He traveled with the journalists to serve as a guide and interpreter as the journalists covered stories in Iraq. And he was called upon, because of his knowledge of the language and of the terrain. They were all kidnapped.
AMY GOODMAN: He was kidnapped, as well.
JONATHAN HAFETZ: He was kidnapped, as well, released two months later. They were kidnapped by an insurgent group, released after two months. And Munaf was then taken into custody by the Americans and has been held by the Americans for 15 months.
AMY GOODMAN: What happened to the Romanians?
JONATHAN HAFETZ: They were set free. They were freed by the kidnapping, and thy’re back in Romania.
AMY GOODMAN: And what do they say?
JONATHAN HAFETZ: Well, we haven’t spoken with them. We’re hopefully calling for a hearing, at which point Munaf could testify, present his case and the evidence of witnesses in his favor to demonstrate that he is innocent, that he had no part in planning the kidnapping. He comes to the federal court as an innocent man who has been held by his own government for 16 months. And the United States takes the position that because the United States is operating as part of a multinational force, the court has no power to review his detention.
Did you catch the key moment? Goodman asks what the Romanians say and the answer should be, "The Romanians say . . ." Instead, the answer was "we haven't spoken with them." Allowing that people had to scramble, there's still no excuse for that. There should have been an answer to Goodman's question. It was a basic question, she wasn't attempting to trip the guest up, she was asking what any journalist would, what any lawyer would, and what any court would want to know. The fact that on Monday they still didn't have it together was sad. [And the guest identifies the 'officials' as "two soldiers" -- when they attorneys were speaking to the press last week, they were stating a general and an unidentified official, another example of how they didn't have it together.] All the more so with the latest news, noted by Jonah (a member, not a visitor) from AP's "Judge: American Can Be Transferred to Iraq for Execution:"
An American citizen facing a death sentence in Iraq lost a court challenge Thursday that would have prohibited the military from turning him over to Iraqi authorities.
Mohammad Munaf was convicted and sentenced to death by an Iraqi judge last week on charges he helped in the 2005 kidnapping of three Romanian journalists in Baghdad.
Munaf, who was born in Iraq and became an American citizen in 2000, sought an emergency order blocking U.S. military officials from turning him over to Iraq. He claimed his trial was flawed and his confession was coerced.
Those would normally be grounds for American citizens to challenge their imprisonment. But U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth said he had no authority to intervene because Munaf was being held by coalition military forces, not by the U.S. military alone.
We had noted it before. Now this isn't the only case involving a US citizen in Iraq. In this case, US 'officials,' wanted to circumvent the rule of law with private testimony. In this case, the Justice Department opposed the appeal (the judge sided with them). It was a different case last week:
In Iraq, the puppet governments continue to raise eye brows. Al Jazeera reports on Ayham al-Samarraie who was arrested "on charges of finanical and managerial corruption in August" for his actions while serving as a minister in Ayham al-Samarraie's government (the first post-invasion puppet government) but he was taken from the court and is now protected by US forces. al-Samarraie's "protection" raises serious questions about whether even the appearance of independence will be allowed for the puppet government. It also raises a serious issue of what was a US citizen doing holding government office in the supposedly independent Iraq.
In this case, the US didn't seem to trust Iraqi justice. From CBS' "Millions Stolen From Iraq's Treasury:"
More than half a billion dollars earmarked to fight the insurgency in Iraq was stolen by people the U.S. had entrusted to run the country's Ministry of Defense before the 2005 elections, according to Iraqi investigators. Iraq's former minister of finance says coalition members like the U.S. and Britain are doing little to help recover the money or catch suspects, most of whom fled the country. The 60 Minutes investigation also turned up audio recordings of a suspect who seems to be discussing the transfer of $45 million to the account of a top political adviser to the interim defense minister.
Correspondent Steve Kroft reports on this mother of all heists this Sunday, Oct. 22, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
"We have not been given any serious, official support from either the United States or the U.K. or any of the surrounding Arab countries," says Ali Allawi, who was confronted with the missing funds when he took over as Iraq's finance minister last year.
He thinks he knows why Iraqi investigators have gotten little help.
"The only explanation I can come up with is that too many people in positions of power and authority in the new Iraq have been, in one way or another, found with their hands inside the cookie jar," says Allawi, who left his post when a new Iraqi government was formed earlier this year.
"And if they are brought to trial, it will cast a very disparaging light on those people who had supported them and brought them to this position of power and authority," he tells Kroft.
In one instance, the US government says "Go ahead and execute," in another they say they have to take custody of the man because Iraqi 'justice' is so in question. (Surely, secret testimony won't make it any stronger.)
The other big issue for some visitors was these statements: "Many reports have the, the US joining the crackdown (the thing that hasn't 'met . . . overall expectations') on August 7th. However, the 'crackdown' began in June. That's the reality. It's been juiced up, beefed up and through various versions but it's gone on since June. Little Willie will next entertain the press corps on Karaoke night by singing 'What A Fool Believes'."
One visitor, especially sure of himself, offered that "You shouldn't write what you don't know about." Right back at you. And it's not my job to spoonfeed every visitor who stumbles past this site. This community didn't take the summer from Iraq. No member questioned that statement because we covered the 'crackdown' from the beginning. We're fully aware of what panic led to the 'crackdown' (though it's doubtful the visitors complaining today are). But for those who seem to think that they must be spoonfed, from the BBC:
Launched in June, Operation Together Forward is a joint US and Iraqi security drive in which thousands of extra troops have been deployed in Baghdad.
The operation was seen as key to asserting the authority of the Iraqi government over all of the capital and eventually the rest of the country, paving the way for the withdrawal of US forces.
But Gen Caldwell said attacks on US troops and Iraqi forces in Baghdad has risen significantly in the first three weeks of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, which began in the last week of September.
I can be, and often am, wrong. But before someone e-mails to gripe about something as long lasting as the ongoing 'crackdown' has been, they might want to do a little work of their own. August is when even more US forces pour in for yet another 'juiced up' version of the 'crackdown.' It is not when the crackdown began and US forces were a part of the crackdown from the beginning. So visitors who objected, you've now been spoonfed, look to someone else to burp you.
Here, we knew the crackdown wasn't going to work. Go to the middle of June when it started and you'll find that stated. It was never going to work and the only people are surprised are the ones who always think 'force is the answer!' Baghdad was already forced against the wall for anyone not in the Green Zone. The 'crackdown' was pouring gas on a fire.
One of the objecting visitors offered that the 'crackdown' should be given twelve months before being discontinued. Apparently, after that comes the "bomb them all" from the Ann Coulter Playbook.
What has happened in Iraq is that it's one repeated battle after another. Why is that? Because there's no objective, none given to the US public, none given to the trooops, none given to the Iraqis. Now there have been ever changing objectives given. WMDs, liberation, democracy, Saddam Hussein, go down the list.
The troops can't fight the same battle day after day, week after week, year after year. Any of the four nonsense reason given should have resulted in the troops leaving long ago. WMDs? There were none. Call it a victory and bring the troops home. Liberation or Saddam Hussein? When Saddam Hussein was captured, bring the troops home (and turn Hussein over to an international body for a real trial). Democracy?
Iraqis are fully aware that they were told they'd be a democracy and they'd have elections. And Jay Garner tried to work on providing elections immediately. The US administration didn't want that and Paul Bremer quickly replaced Garner.
There is nothing left for US troops to do except to continue doing the same thing over and over. That's not a plan, that's not a strategy, that's not an objective for war. The troops are trained to fight a war.
The resistance in Iraq is deeply rooted and the Iraqi people want US forces out. They've wanted that for sometime now. They've seen they're living standards drop, they've seen the water systems and electrical systems destroyed during the war remain non-functioning or barely functioning. (And are quite aware that it's a different story in the heavily fortified Green Zone.) As the resenement continues to build, the resistance continues to grow.
There's no reason for the troops to be there. (They shouldn't have been there to begin with.) Iraqis are adults, they need to govern themselves. You have a civil war there now that results from the actions of this war. The troops aren't safe over there and the Iraqis aren't safe over there. There's no 'win' here. There's the same battle over and over and it will get bloodier and bloodier.
An objective would have been: "When Hussein is captured, the troops will have completed their mission." But there's not a consistent objective because the war was built on lies and greed continues it.
Congress abdicated their role. So did many citizens. The military is not a toy of the Oval Office (nor of the Congress). Civilian control of the military means civilian responsibility. There was no responsibility. Bully Boy scared a lot of people and a lot of people said, "Save us, Big Daddy, save us!" The real cowards are the ones who abdicated to their own responsibilities in the lead up to the war -- officials and average citizens. Some of them now want to sneer "coward" at a Watada or a Clousing. They aren't cowards. They're making a decision to take a stand that needs to be taken because America needs to wake up to reality that there are no goals shared in this illegal war. There's a lot of lofty talk (that the Baker Study Group has already undermined before releasing their report). There's a lot of reality hidden from the public.
New 'strategy' won't 'win' the war. It's unwinnable. Had Bully Boy any brains, he would have pulled the troops long ago and a lot of people would have been able to delude themselves still that the war was a good idea. It wasn't. It was illegal and and the longer the troops are over there, the more clear that becomes.
For Iraqis, reality can be 'managed' via Happy Talk. They have seen and heard stories, they've been touched by the war. A new puppet won't change it. A smarter illegal occupation won't change it. The tag sale on their public commons may be something some Americans can ignore but if you're dependent upon them, as Iraqis were, you can't.
The troops need to come home.
On that note, Brandon notes The Nation's "The War and the Election:"
New confirmation of the importance of ending the Iraq War has come recently with the release of two studies of its staggering costs. A September survey by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes found that 78 percent of Iraqis believe the US military presence is "provoking more conflict than it is preventing." Far from wanting American troops to "stay the course," as George W. Bush and his circle of true believers assert, Iraqis recognize that the occupation is contributing to their country's crisis. The extraordinary depth of that crisis was suggested by another study, this one from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, working with Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, which estimated the Iraqi death toll since the US invasion and occupation at 655,000--a dramatically higher figure than had been previously given.
The United States is in a different place now than it was when Wellstone cast his courageous vote: The war went forward, and the issue now is how to end it as quickly as possible. While far too many Democrats try to have it both ways, criticizing the President but not calling forthrightly for an end to hostilities, conscientious candidates in races across the country are demanding just such action. Over the months we have identified a number of these candidates. This past spring, for example, we noted the tough antiwar challenge that Californian Marcy Winograd was mounting to incumbent Jane Harman; we also applauded former NAACP head Kweisi Mfume's strong antiwar position in a Maryland US Senate primary. These challenges weren't successful, but others were.
[. . .]
As the election approaches, we will continue to bring attention to antiwar candidates on our website (www.thenation.com) and urge readers to support them. As we stated in our editorial of last year, "We firmly believe that antiwar candidates, with the other requisite credentials, can win the 2006 Congressional elections, the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries and the subsequent national election. But this fight, and our stand, must begin now."
The Bully Boy broke the 'barrier' Wednesday when he made the obvious comparison that too many in the press shied from. Now that he's made it, it will continue to be made. The press needs an 'official' before they can get wiggle room these days. Mike notes Elizabeth Sullivan's "Vietnam & Iraq: Another 'Bright Shining Lie'" (Cleveland Plain Dealer via Common Dreams):
The ultimate tragedy of Iraq is that it was dreamed up by a generation that lived through an earlier war constructed atop deception and denial.
The Vietnam generation should have known better.
Yet Iraq is the same "bright shining lie" told by the same sort of smart men -- and this time, smart women -- that Neil Sheehan chronicled in his devastating book about the many-tiered American deceptions that made Vietnam such a quagmire. As with Vietnam, this nation is propping up a corrupt Iraqi government and distorting outcomes by picking its own political winners and losers.
As with Vietnam, U.S. officials faced with military stalemate are grasping at straws via vain attempts to "Iraqify" a national military and police force that lacks legitimacy with most Iraqis. Why else would Iraqis be able to take over only two of the nation's 18 provinces when -- according to ground commander Gen. George Casey -- 80 percent to 90 percent of current violence is concentrated in only five?
As Mike noted, Sullivan's column ran in Thursday morning's paper. She obviously wasn't waiting for permission before making the comparison. Dallas gets the last highlight, Cindy Sheehan's "Sit Down for Peace, Justice, and Accountability" (BuzzFlash):
I usually end my articles with a call to action, but today, I begin with one. Maybe readers get bored with my pieces before the end and don't get to the action part, which is the most important part.
Gold Star Families for Peace is calling for an action in front of the White House on the days of November 6th to November 9th (due to the urgency of our situation, we are beginning the sit-in on Saturday, Nov. 4) to perform a Gandhi-like sit down for peace and justice. Join us to sit down for all or part of the time we will be there. We might as well face it, the White House is where the power is. Congress has spent 6 years invalidating themselves and creating a Unitary Executive Branch that pats Congress on the head for being obedient and circumvents the Supreme Court and goes whining to the same agreeable Congress when the Court (in rare cases) slaps Georgie on the wrist. The potential Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca) has already said that if the Democrats take back the House, impeachment proceedings will not be forthcoming. Who's going to sit down with us to hold the war criminals in power accountable for their war crimes and crimes against humanity and peace?
Tuesday, without a peep from we the people, and while 10 soldiers were being murdered in George's horrendous war for corporate greed, he signed HR6166 into law. 10 soldiers were killed defending the war machine's right to garner obscene profits while the soldiers were being told that they were spreading "freedom and democracy" to Iraq. While they were dying for this supposed "freedom and democracy" their commander in chief and Congress were busy taking away ours. Who's going to sit down with us for these 10 young people to make sure their deaths do count for freedom and democracy?
HR6166 is the Military Commissions Act which allows everyone from George on down to the actual torturer to inflict inhumanity on our fellow human beings with impunity. The Act also allows George to decide who is a terrorist who does not deserve the right to Habeas Corpus and who is not a terrorist who does deserve the right to Habeas Corpus. Who's going to sit down with us to say: "I demand my rights to Habeas Corpus and I repudiate torture in all forms."
Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com
Blog Spotlight: Mike gives John Kerry a campaign warning
Mike sounds the warning bell for John Kerry in this post. (Mike also notes C.I. is not endorsing Hillary Clinton and wanted to clear that up. He got two e-mails on Saturday asking about that. C.I. hasn't, and won't, endorse.)
Why John Kerry Will Lose the Dem Nomination in 2008
Tuesday and we got two days more before Friday rolls around. Let's kick things off with
Media Matters' "Fox's Cameron: NY Times "essentially hoping to demoralize Republicans" to reduce their turnout:"
On the October 17 edition of Fox News Live, Fox News chief political correspondent Carl Cameron asserted that an October 16 New York Times report, indicating that Republican party officials have said they "are moving to reduce financial support" for Sen. Mike DeWine's (R-OH) re-election campaign in order to "divert party money to other embattled Republican senators," demonstrates that "The New York Times and Democrats are essentially hoping to demoralize Republicans and take away the energy for the base that Republicans think will protect their majorities."
I think Media Matters should have pointed out that Candy Ass Cameron was caught bragging to Bully Boy during the 2000 campaign about the work his wife (Cameron's, I know, I was shocked too, he seems like a closeted type) was doing to get Bully Boy elected. You can see that clip in Robert Greenwald's Outfoxed.
I got an e-mail from John Kerry (everybody who signs up got it) and I was going to note it here. Then I started reading over it. Is he trying to start a project that will defend all Democrats or just the ones who served in the military? If it's just ones who were in the military, he hasn't learned a thing from 2004, sorry. They made that awful party convention all about the military. They didn't even want Hillary to speak (had to be pressured there) because they were trying to act so 'manly.' You had non-military Obama and John Edwards acting like they'd just left a platoon. It was disgusting. I know some idiots praised Obama's speech. I think he's overly praised. I think he says the most obvious thing and he is the biggest kiss ass. He was against the war when he had a real opponent and then Jack Ryan got knocked out by a sex scandal and Obama got more and more candy covered ass like.
If Kerry's trying to provide a protection team for candidates who served in the military, that's his right but I ain't gonna push it here. Piss off, as Rebecca's thinking of titling her post tonight (on another topic). I guess when you have no ideas and nothing to offer, you hide behind the military the way the Republicans try to hide behind the flag?
If you listened to the Informed Dissent from the last week of September, you heard Paul Hackett make an idiot of himself. His opinions are fine and dandy for a private citizen, not for someone who ran for Congress and tried for the Senate. His 'bond' was the corps. That's where his loyalties lie. If he were elected, he said, that would be where his loyalties were.
Well maybe he needs to run for the House in a single member district that has nothing but a military base because I don't think a member of Congress goes in with the attitude that one group of people is more important than another. I don't give a damn about his 'bond' and how it's for life and all the crap he said. Except when he wants to represent America. That's no different than voting in someone who's in the pocket of big business.
His loyalty will always be the corps. Well stay the hell out of running for public office and try learning what 'public office' means. Candy ass cry baby who forgot to play 'tough guy' when his butt got kicked out of the Dem Senate race. He was always a creep.
And John Kerry's an idiot if he wants to build his 2008 campaign around the military. He did that in 2004 and even with a record turnout, he didn't win. (I believe the election was stolen.) He won't get that in 2008 for playing from the same playbook as 2004. People were grumbling about it in 2004. They won't put up with it in 2008. He pulls that shit and Hillary will sell right by him because she'll talk about children and nobody will doubt her on children except extreme Republicans. Kerry will be trying to act macho and look ridiculous because the GOP's 2004 smear tactics won't be forgotten and Hillary will sail right past him.
And guess what? I think she would deserve to. If all he can do is flash his Vietnam military record again then just hand the nomination to Hillary, don't make us go through a primary. Give it to her. I don't like her. But you better believe if the 'boys' try to strut, they'll look like fools and Hillary's going to be going back to the issue of children. C.I. pointed that out two weeks ago and it was one of those times when I was like, "Huh?" I had to think about it. But that's exactly right.
It's her strongest image area with the widest support. No the extreme Republicans don't buy it but Democrats and independents do. And if the boys try to parade service, she's not an idiot, she'll go to what reaches beyond the VFW. And she'll wipe the floor with everyone of them.
I didn't get fully what C.I. was talking about until I saw the e-mail from Kerry's organization. I read it and was excited and then I reread it and it was like a light bulb going off. He's playing the same tired campaign that didn't pull people in. (Not wanting Bully Boy pulled them in.) And Hillary can go to the issue of children. She's believable on that.
C.I. did this perfect imitation of Hillary, in a primary debate for the Dem pres nomination, speaking after the boys tried to stud it up by saying something like, "Well, while that is important, I'm concerned with our future and our future is our children. Our children are the nation's most imporant resource and I believe we need to ensure that they are protected, that they are educated and that they are valued because we have had enough of quick fixes and it's time for this nation to look towards the future." That's something like what C.I. said. I probably screwed up the words but I was like, "Huh?" before that. And when C.I. did the imitation, I got chills and I don't like Hillary. I didn't have the guts to go, "You're right." So I'll say it here. Should be public enough. :D But C.I. was right and when I read the e-mail from John Kerry's organization the second time, I really got it.
If he can't find anything else, he's doomed. He'll be up on the stage going "Vietnam, Vietnam, Vietnam, blah blah." And as all the boys try to stud it it'll look good. Then Hillary will come along and blow them out of the water because in the most direct way, she'll speak and come off like she's for all Americans while they're off on some macho high.
Rebecca is as anti-Hillary as I am but she was blown away when C.I. did the Hillary imitation and said, "My God, there is no stopping her." And there won't be if the guys want to play who's got the bigger dick. I'm going to title this "Why John Kerry Will Lose the Dem Nomination in 2008" because if he doesn't start making some changes he will.
As a War Hawk, she can afford to go to other issues and not worry about people calling her "soft." And like C.I. pointed out, the GOP has spent fourteen years telling America she's anything but soft so she doesn't have a fall out factor. A Republican trying to smear her as "soft" or "too feminine" is going to be going against 14 years of the image they've built up to their faithful. And Dems as a whole and swing voters, the second she goes to children, will immediately remember her work as First Lady and be thinking, "Yeah! You tell them, Hillary! Listen to those boys blustering to act macho! You're our candidate!"
So if this is what's in John Kerry's playbook, he's going to hand Hillary the nomination. By the way, if Hillary does run, we may start running photos with our commentaries at The Third Estate Sunday Review. C.I.'s got a ton of them, snapshots, not press shots (from the 1992 campaign, White House, and after). C.I.'s agreed to at least one (which is a nice photo of Hillary) provided we crop everyone else out of it. If it's not clear in here, let me repeat, I'm not for Hillary. I would really like to see John Kerry get it but he's not going to get it by replaying 2004. It'll be four years later and America will want leadership not staring in the review mirror.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Tuesday, October 17, 2006. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, US "officials" issue statements and watch how Balad gets rewritten, an estimated 3,000 Iraqi police officers are told "no job!", and Cindy Sheehan focuses on the numbers that matter (and unlike the big news orgs, doesnt' feel the need to rewrite them).
On the slaughter in Balad, Al Jazeera magazine notes a "New York Times editorial". It's not an editorial, it's a report by Michael Luo. It's a report that the Times is now hiding online and have replaced with a new version. The original is entitled "Iraqis Ask Why U.S. Forces Didn't Intervene in Balad." That's the print headline and the headline if you use the link. But that story doesn't show up on the Middle East page of the website. Instead, a weaker version entitled "Fighting in Iraqi Town Killed Over 60, U.S. Says" with John O'Neil appearing in the byline and also in the end credit "in New York"! Because, surely, to report on Balad, you need O'Neil in New York.
The original, with only Luo in the byline, reported: "Killing also continued to besiege the capital on Monday with the discovery of at least 64 bodies across the city, and two car bomb attacks that appeared to kill 22 people." The white-washed attempt to suck up to "officials" opens with: "The American military said today that more than 60 people were killed in four days of sectarian fighting in Balad . . ."
If you find that disgusting, and you should, take comfort in the fact that there's griping at the paper about the watering down of a fairly straight-down-the-middle report. The original may disappear from the website so if you're interested in what alarms "officials," check it out now. The whitewash tries to reassamble the article but mainly demonstrates how idiotic the paper is. Well over 60 people have died in Balad from Friday to Monday and that was reported by other US outlets -- mainstream sources. [Ellen Knickmeyer and Muhanned Saif Aldin (Washington Post) put it at 80 in their report in today's paper -- which, please note, the Post hasn't felt the need to rewrite to appease "officials."] The original article did not ignore the opinions of the military but, such is the reality of the war, "officials" need things distorted and, such is the cowardice of the paper, that "offiicals" must be appeased.
For those still attempting to follow Balad, CBS and AP report that "sectarian fighting in Balad . . . has killed close to 100 people" since it "began Friday with the slaying of 17 Shiite Muslim workers. Revenge-seeking Shiite death squads then killed 74 Sunnis, causing people flee across the Tigris River to the nearby Sunni-dominated city of Duluiyah." This as CNN also chases down 'official' pleasure, though they claim they're not revising earlier reporting, just noting what 'officials' say and, it is true, they do include this statement: "The number of deaths vary". Reuters harkens back to their earlier days (when they fronted for the US government as revealed during Congressional hearings in the wake of Watergate) by not even attributed their lowered figures to US "officials" or US "military." Monday, before 'official' statements, Ellen Knickmeyer and Muhanned Saif Aldin (Washington Post) reported: "By Sunday afternoon, 80 bodies were stacked in the morgue of the Balad hospital". But watch as the mainstream media grabs onto "official" statement and trashes all that was previously reported. Christopher Bodeen (AP) reports that "at least 91 people" have been killed since Friday in Balad. A report the Times runs online but forgets to rewrite.
Those who watch network or cable news should pay attention to see who carries water for the administration and who notes the reality that was already well established in the mainstream (US) press reports. AFP reports that despite 'official' US claims, US forces are not in control in Balad and that, according to "Malik Laftah, the head of Balad city council," corpses are lying in the streets.
Let's note some of the reported violence but keep in mind that most outlets don't have the guts to stick with their own reporting in the face of a bold face lie from US 'officials' so who knows how the following will be rewritten?
Bombings?
Reuters, right now at this second because who knows how they'll cave tomorrow, reports that, in Baghdad, a car bomb killed killed two police officers and wounded nine, while a roadside bomb left five people wounded and that two different attacks with mortar rounds left a total of three people dead and and three wounded. CBS and AP report that "two Katyusha rockets" left twenty wounded in Baghdad. Al Jazeera notes a bombing in Karmah that claimed the lives of five Iraqi soldiers.
Shootings?
CBS and AP report that, in Hillah, one man was shot dead and five were wounded when "unidnetified gunmen attacked a facility belongint to the central Euphrates electricity distribution authority". They also note a home invasion in Balad Ruz that claimed the lives of "the mother and four dault sons" and left the father wounded; a drive by shooting in Falluja two police officers were shot dead. AFP reports that four students were shot dead in Basra and, also in Basra, "gynaecologist Dr Youssra Hashem became the latest female professional to be killed amid a rise in violence against women by conservative Muslim factions". Al Jazeera reports the shooting death of "a member of the Patriot Union of Kurdistan" in Mosul."
Corpses?
CBS and AP report that two corpses were discovered in Baghdad ("blindfolded and bound").
Now who knows what will be asserted tomorrow because some lose spines when officials' gums start flapping. Staying on those who buckle, last week, Richard Dannatt caused a stir with criticism of the Iraq war and the suggestion that it was time to pull troops. As Demetri Sevastopulo (Financial Times) notes, "the new chief of the Britsh army" stated troops should leave because just being there "exacerbates the security problem." He buckled quicker than a media boardroom. Despite the fact that British soldiers strongly agreed with his statements.
Now, Lachlan Carmichael (AFP) reports that Tony Blair "has vowed to keep British troops in Iraq until their 'job is done' as her rejected claims that their presence fueled Muslim extremism at home and abroad." The report focuses on Blair and Dannat and apparently missed Colin Brown (Independent of London) reporting that: "John Reid, the Home Secretary, conceded last night for the first time that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have played a part radicalisizing young Muslims."
AFP also reports that Bully Boy went on Bloated Men & Bleached Women (aka Fox "News") to declare his opposition to dividing the nation of Iraq into three autonomous regions. Apparently, while cooing sweet nothings to Nouri al-Maliki on Monday, Bully Boy forgot to raise that issue (last week the parliament took another step in that direction). As Simon Tisdall (Guardian of London) notes, predicting "the worst is yet to come," "One sign came last week when the Shia parliamentary majority rejected Sunni opposition and passed a law allowing partion into autonomous federal regions. It is but a small step from there to national disintergration."
A little noted "official" statement by "US army Lieutenant Colonel Jeffery Martindale" is covered by AFP, this is regarding the violence in Balad: "Marindale also, however, confirmed that two Iraqi police officers had been arrested for taking part in the massacre which triggered the orgy of violence." No, we're not returning to Balad -- the whole 'coverage' is too disgusting. But keep that in mind: two police officers were part of triggering "the orgy of violence." AFP reports that Iraq's interior ministry spokesperson (Abdel Karim Khalaf) held a press conference today to announce "that 1,228 [police officers] had been sacked for breaking the law while nearly 2,000 more were dismissed for derelection of duty."
The Interior minister is Jawad Bolani and, for those who've missed it, the militias are thought by some to have free reign via that ministry. Borzou Daragahi (Los Angeles Times) reported, Saturday, that when reminded that his ministry has been "accused of complicity in sectarian death squad killings," Bolani denied it. Ellen Knickmeyer (Washington Post) noted that not only did Bolani deny the accusations, he "blamed the Facilities Protection Service, or FPS, a massive but unregulated government guard force . . . . Bolani and his predecssor as interior minister, Bayan Jabr, both have minimized the possibility of any police involvement in the nightly killings."
Whether the purge, which also includes moving three police commanders to administrative jobs, is just an attempt to stop the questions from continuing to being asked or whether it's genuine, who knows? But it's worth remembering Rick Jervis (USA Today) reported Monday on how al-Maliki refused to addres disarming militas "until later this year or early next year".
While many supposedly brave press outlets fudge the numbers to please the US administration, Cindy Sheehan (at BuzzFlash) notes some other numbers: 4, 4, 655,000 and more. The first four is "Republican Congresspeople [who] have had to resign from scandals this past year" (Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Mark Foley, Tom DeLay); the second four is the number of "staff members of the corrupt adminstration [who] have resigned in disgrace this year" (Andrew Card, Scooter Libby, Susan Ralston and Snotty McClellan) while 655,000 is the estimate for the number of Iraqis who have dies since the start of the illegal war as a result of the violence. She also reminds that Gold Star Families for Peace will be holding a sit around the White House November 7th and 8th and "Also, go to Progressive Democrats of America to sign the petition to support Congressman Jim McGovern's bill, HR4232, which cuts funding for the continuing occupation. Ending the funding is what stopped Vietnam. Let's cut Iraq off before it becomes as bad as Vietnam."
Also in peace news, Courage to Resist notes Ricky Clousing's statement to the judge in last Thursday's court-martial and sentencing: "My experiences in Iraq forced me tto reevaluate my beliefs and ethics. Ultimately, I felt like I could not serve." Clousing is a war resister and he will serve three months, be reduced in rank and then dishonorably discharged. Clousing took a brave stand and Courage to Resist notes:
Ricky is currently being held in a military brig at Camp LeJune in North Carolina and it is urgent that he receive your words of encouragement and support! Please write to Ricky today!
More information on war resisters who have gone public can be found at Courage to Resist.
Be sure to check out Like Maria Said Paz for her thoughts even if Elaine just said, "I forgot to put that in mine." :D That's cool. We're both rushing tonight because she drove in and we're going to catch a movie or do something.
Media Matters' "Fox's Cameron: NY Times "essentially hoping to demoralize Republicans" to reduce their turnout:"
On the October 17 edition of Fox News Live, Fox News chief political correspondent Carl Cameron asserted that an October 16 New York Times report, indicating that Republican party officials have said they "are moving to reduce financial support" for Sen. Mike DeWine's (R-OH) re-election campaign in order to "divert party money to other embattled Republican senators," demonstrates that "The New York Times and Democrats are essentially hoping to demoralize Republicans and take away the energy for the base that Republicans think will protect their majorities."
I think Media Matters should have pointed out that Candy Ass Cameron was caught bragging to Bully Boy during the 2000 campaign about the work his wife (Cameron's, I know, I was shocked too, he seems like a closeted type) was doing to get Bully Boy elected. You can see that clip in Robert Greenwald's Outfoxed.
I got an e-mail from John Kerry (everybody who signs up got it) and I was going to note it here. Then I started reading over it. Is he trying to start a project that will defend all Democrats or just the ones who served in the military? If it's just ones who were in the military, he hasn't learned a thing from 2004, sorry. They made that awful party convention all about the military. They didn't even want Hillary to speak (had to be pressured there) because they were trying to act so 'manly.' You had non-military Obama and John Edwards acting like they'd just left a platoon. It was disgusting. I know some idiots praised Obama's speech. I think he's overly praised. I think he says the most obvious thing and he is the biggest kiss ass. He was against the war when he had a real opponent and then Jack Ryan got knocked out by a sex scandal and Obama got more and more candy covered ass like.
If Kerry's trying to provide a protection team for candidates who served in the military, that's his right but I ain't gonna push it here. Piss off, as Rebecca's thinking of titling her post tonight (on another topic). I guess when you have no ideas and nothing to offer, you hide behind the military the way the Republicans try to hide behind the flag?
If you listened to the Informed Dissent from the last week of September, you heard Paul Hackett make an idiot of himself. His opinions are fine and dandy for a private citizen, not for someone who ran for Congress and tried for the Senate. His 'bond' was the corps. That's where his loyalties lie. If he were elected, he said, that would be where his loyalties were.
Well maybe he needs to run for the House in a single member district that has nothing but a military base because I don't think a member of Congress goes in with the attitude that one group of people is more important than another. I don't give a damn about his 'bond' and how it's for life and all the crap he said. Except when he wants to represent America. That's no different than voting in someone who's in the pocket of big business.
His loyalty will always be the corps. Well stay the hell out of running for public office and try learning what 'public office' means. Candy ass cry baby who forgot to play 'tough guy' when his butt got kicked out of the Dem Senate race. He was always a creep.
And John Kerry's an idiot if he wants to build his 2008 campaign around the military. He did that in 2004 and even with a record turnout, he didn't win. (I believe the election was stolen.) He won't get that in 2008 for playing from the same playbook as 2004. People were grumbling about it in 2004. They won't put up with it in 2008. He pulls that shit and Hillary will sell right by him because she'll talk about children and nobody will doubt her on children except extreme Republicans. Kerry will be trying to act macho and look ridiculous because the GOP's 2004 smear tactics won't be forgotten and Hillary will sail right past him.
And guess what? I think she would deserve to. If all he can do is flash his Vietnam military record again then just hand the nomination to Hillary, don't make us go through a primary. Give it to her. I don't like her. But you better believe if the 'boys' try to strut, they'll look like fools and Hillary's going to be going back to the issue of children. C.I. pointed that out two weeks ago and it was one of those times when I was like, "Huh?" I had to think about it. But that's exactly right.
It's her strongest image area with the widest support. No the extreme Republicans don't buy it but Democrats and independents do. And if the boys try to parade service, she's not an idiot, she'll go to what reaches beyond the VFW. And she'll wipe the floor with everyone of them.
I didn't get fully what C.I. was talking about until I saw the e-mail from Kerry's organization. I read it and was excited and then I reread it and it was like a light bulb going off. He's playing the same tired campaign that didn't pull people in. (Not wanting Bully Boy pulled them in.) And Hillary can go to the issue of children. She's believable on that.
C.I. did this perfect imitation of Hillary, in a primary debate for the Dem pres nomination, speaking after the boys tried to stud it up by saying something like, "Well, while that is important, I'm concerned with our future and our future is our children. Our children are the nation's most imporant resource and I believe we need to ensure that they are protected, that they are educated and that they are valued because we have had enough of quick fixes and it's time for this nation to look towards the future." That's something like what C.I. said. I probably screwed up the words but I was like, "Huh?" before that. And when C.I. did the imitation, I got chills and I don't like Hillary. I didn't have the guts to go, "You're right." So I'll say it here. Should be public enough. :D But C.I. was right and when I read the e-mail from John Kerry's organization the second time, I really got it.
If he can't find anything else, he's doomed. He'll be up on the stage going "Vietnam, Vietnam, Vietnam, blah blah." And as all the boys try to stud it it'll look good. Then Hillary will come along and blow them out of the water because in the most direct way, she'll speak and come off like she's for all Americans while they're off on some macho high.
Rebecca is as anti-Hillary as I am but she was blown away when C.I. did the Hillary imitation and said, "My God, there is no stopping her." And there won't be if the guys want to play who's got the bigger dick. I'm going to title this "Why John Kerry Will Lose the Dem Nomination in 2008" because if he doesn't start making some changes he will.
As a War Hawk, she can afford to go to other issues and not worry about people calling her "soft." And like C.I. pointed out, the GOP has spent fourteen years telling America she's anything but soft so she doesn't have a fall out factor. A Republican trying to smear her as "soft" or "too feminine" is going to be going against 14 years of the image they've built up to their faithful. And Dems as a whole and swing voters, the second she goes to children, will immediately remember her work as First Lady and be thinking, "Yeah! You tell them, Hillary! Listen to those boys blustering to act macho! You're our candidate!"
So if this is what's in John Kerry's playbook, he's going to hand Hillary the nomination. By the way, if Hillary does run, we may start running photos with our commentaries at The Third Estate Sunday Review. C.I.'s got a ton of them, snapshots, not press shots (from the 1992 campaign, White House, and after). C.I.'s agreed to at least one (which is a nice photo of Hillary) provided we crop everyone else out of it. If it's not clear in here, let me repeat, I'm not for Hillary. I would really like to see John Kerry get it but he's not going to get it by replaying 2004. It'll be four years later and America will want leadership not staring in the review mirror.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Tuesday, October 17, 2006. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, US "officials" issue statements and watch how Balad gets rewritten, an estimated 3,000 Iraqi police officers are told "no job!", and Cindy Sheehan focuses on the numbers that matter (and unlike the big news orgs, doesnt' feel the need to rewrite them).
On the slaughter in Balad, Al Jazeera magazine notes a "New York Times editorial". It's not an editorial, it's a report by Michael Luo. It's a report that the Times is now hiding online and have replaced with a new version. The original is entitled "Iraqis Ask Why U.S. Forces Didn't Intervene in Balad." That's the print headline and the headline if you use the link. But that story doesn't show up on the Middle East page of the website. Instead, a weaker version entitled "Fighting in Iraqi Town Killed Over 60, U.S. Says" with John O'Neil appearing in the byline and also in the end credit "in New York"! Because, surely, to report on Balad, you need O'Neil in New York.
The original, with only Luo in the byline, reported: "Killing also continued to besiege the capital on Monday with the discovery of at least 64 bodies across the city, and two car bomb attacks that appeared to kill 22 people." The white-washed attempt to suck up to "officials" opens with: "The American military said today that more than 60 people were killed in four days of sectarian fighting in Balad . . ."
If you find that disgusting, and you should, take comfort in the fact that there's griping at the paper about the watering down of a fairly straight-down-the-middle report. The original may disappear from the website so if you're interested in what alarms "officials," check it out now. The whitewash tries to reassamble the article but mainly demonstrates how idiotic the paper is. Well over 60 people have died in Balad from Friday to Monday and that was reported by other US outlets -- mainstream sources. [Ellen Knickmeyer and Muhanned Saif Aldin (Washington Post) put it at 80 in their report in today's paper -- which, please note, the Post hasn't felt the need to rewrite to appease "officials."] The original article did not ignore the opinions of the military but, such is the reality of the war, "officials" need things distorted and, such is the cowardice of the paper, that "offiicals" must be appeased.
For those still attempting to follow Balad, CBS and AP report that "sectarian fighting in Balad . . . has killed close to 100 people" since it "began Friday with the slaying of 17 Shiite Muslim workers. Revenge-seeking Shiite death squads then killed 74 Sunnis, causing people flee across the Tigris River to the nearby Sunni-dominated city of Duluiyah." This as CNN also chases down 'official' pleasure, though they claim they're not revising earlier reporting, just noting what 'officials' say and, it is true, they do include this statement: "The number of deaths vary". Reuters harkens back to their earlier days (when they fronted for the US government as revealed during Congressional hearings in the wake of Watergate) by not even attributed their lowered figures to US "officials" or US "military." Monday, before 'official' statements, Ellen Knickmeyer and Muhanned Saif Aldin (Washington Post) reported: "By Sunday afternoon, 80 bodies were stacked in the morgue of the Balad hospital". But watch as the mainstream media grabs onto "official" statement and trashes all that was previously reported. Christopher Bodeen (AP) reports that "at least 91 people" have been killed since Friday in Balad. A report the Times runs online but forgets to rewrite.
Those who watch network or cable news should pay attention to see who carries water for the administration and who notes the reality that was already well established in the mainstream (US) press reports. AFP reports that despite 'official' US claims, US forces are not in control in Balad and that, according to "Malik Laftah, the head of Balad city council," corpses are lying in the streets.
Let's note some of the reported violence but keep in mind that most outlets don't have the guts to stick with their own reporting in the face of a bold face lie from US 'officials' so who knows how the following will be rewritten?
Bombings?
Reuters, right now at this second because who knows how they'll cave tomorrow, reports that, in Baghdad, a car bomb killed killed two police officers and wounded nine, while a roadside bomb left five people wounded and that two different attacks with mortar rounds left a total of three people dead and and three wounded. CBS and AP report that "two Katyusha rockets" left twenty wounded in Baghdad. Al Jazeera notes a bombing in Karmah that claimed the lives of five Iraqi soldiers.
Shootings?
CBS and AP report that, in Hillah, one man was shot dead and five were wounded when "unidnetified gunmen attacked a facility belongint to the central Euphrates electricity distribution authority". They also note a home invasion in Balad Ruz that claimed the lives of "the mother and four dault sons" and left the father wounded; a drive by shooting in Falluja two police officers were shot dead. AFP reports that four students were shot dead in Basra and, also in Basra, "gynaecologist Dr Youssra Hashem became the latest female professional to be killed amid a rise in violence against women by conservative Muslim factions". Al Jazeera reports the shooting death of "a member of the Patriot Union of Kurdistan" in Mosul."
Corpses?
CBS and AP report that two corpses were discovered in Baghdad ("blindfolded and bound").
Now who knows what will be asserted tomorrow because some lose spines when officials' gums start flapping. Staying on those who buckle, last week, Richard Dannatt caused a stir with criticism of the Iraq war and the suggestion that it was time to pull troops. As Demetri Sevastopulo (Financial Times) notes, "the new chief of the Britsh army" stated troops should leave because just being there "exacerbates the security problem." He buckled quicker than a media boardroom. Despite the fact that British soldiers strongly agreed with his statements.
Now, Lachlan Carmichael (AFP) reports that Tony Blair "has vowed to keep British troops in Iraq until their 'job is done' as her rejected claims that their presence fueled Muslim extremism at home and abroad." The report focuses on Blair and Dannat and apparently missed Colin Brown (Independent of London) reporting that: "John Reid, the Home Secretary, conceded last night for the first time that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have played a part radicalisizing young Muslims."
AFP also reports that Bully Boy went on Bloated Men & Bleached Women (aka Fox "News") to declare his opposition to dividing the nation of Iraq into three autonomous regions. Apparently, while cooing sweet nothings to Nouri al-Maliki on Monday, Bully Boy forgot to raise that issue (last week the parliament took another step in that direction). As Simon Tisdall (Guardian of London) notes, predicting "the worst is yet to come," "One sign came last week when the Shia parliamentary majority rejected Sunni opposition and passed a law allowing partion into autonomous federal regions. It is but a small step from there to national disintergration."
A little noted "official" statement by "US army Lieutenant Colonel Jeffery Martindale" is covered by AFP, this is regarding the violence in Balad: "Marindale also, however, confirmed that two Iraqi police officers had been arrested for taking part in the massacre which triggered the orgy of violence." No, we're not returning to Balad -- the whole 'coverage' is too disgusting. But keep that in mind: two police officers were part of triggering "the orgy of violence." AFP reports that Iraq's interior ministry spokesperson (Abdel Karim Khalaf) held a press conference today to announce "that 1,228 [police officers] had been sacked for breaking the law while nearly 2,000 more were dismissed for derelection of duty."
The Interior minister is Jawad Bolani and, for those who've missed it, the militias are thought by some to have free reign via that ministry. Borzou Daragahi (Los Angeles Times) reported, Saturday, that when reminded that his ministry has been "accused of complicity in sectarian death squad killings," Bolani denied it. Ellen Knickmeyer (Washington Post) noted that not only did Bolani deny the accusations, he "blamed the Facilities Protection Service, or FPS, a massive but unregulated government guard force . . . . Bolani and his predecssor as interior minister, Bayan Jabr, both have minimized the possibility of any police involvement in the nightly killings."
Whether the purge, which also includes moving three police commanders to administrative jobs, is just an attempt to stop the questions from continuing to being asked or whether it's genuine, who knows? But it's worth remembering Rick Jervis (USA Today) reported Monday on how al-Maliki refused to addres disarming militas "until later this year or early next year".
While many supposedly brave press outlets fudge the numbers to please the US administration, Cindy Sheehan (at BuzzFlash) notes some other numbers: 4, 4, 655,000 and more. The first four is "Republican Congresspeople [who] have had to resign from scandals this past year" (Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Mark Foley, Tom DeLay); the second four is the number of "staff members of the corrupt adminstration [who] have resigned in disgrace this year" (Andrew Card, Scooter Libby, Susan Ralston and Snotty McClellan) while 655,000 is the estimate for the number of Iraqis who have dies since the start of the illegal war as a result of the violence. She also reminds that Gold Star Families for Peace will be holding a sit around the White House November 7th and 8th and "Also, go to Progressive Democrats of America to sign the petition to support Congressman Jim McGovern's bill, HR4232, which cuts funding for the continuing occupation. Ending the funding is what stopped Vietnam. Let's cut Iraq off before it becomes as bad as Vietnam."
Also in peace news, Courage to Resist notes Ricky Clousing's statement to the judge in last Thursday's court-martial and sentencing: "My experiences in Iraq forced me tto reevaluate my beliefs and ethics. Ultimately, I felt like I could not serve." Clousing is a war resister and he will serve three months, be reduced in rank and then dishonorably discharged. Clousing took a brave stand and Courage to Resist notes:
Ricky is currently being held in a military brig at Camp LeJune in North Carolina and it is urgent that he receive your words of encouragement and support! Please write to Ricky today!
More information on war resisters who have gone public can be found at Courage to Resist.
Be sure to check out Like Maria Said Paz for her thoughts even if Elaine just said, "I forgot to put that in mine." :D That's cool. We're both rushing tonight because she drove in and we're going to catch a movie or do something.
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.
Blog Spotlight: Elaine on justice
Elaine discusses justice.
Justice
To the left is Isaiah's "Bully Boy's tired little number" which I enjoyed (especially the rosy cheeks). It also made me think of how much I hate the GAP ads. Audrey Hepburn was a little too stylish to wear the CRAP from GAP, most of which is made by child labor. In it's own way, the trashy ad is perfect. The GAP uses children and other underpaid workers in sweat shops to make their clothes and to sell them they use the legacy of a dead woman. They don't do a thing themselves.
Before I forget, as I did yesterday, please visit Mikey Likes It! for Mike's thoughts. I think there's a theme of justice for this post. There's no justice in the clothes at the GAP (or in using Audrey Hepburn's classy image to peddle their wares).
"Ex-Commander Talks at Abu Ghraib Hearing" (Associated Press via Common Dreams):
Fort Meade, Maryland - An Army Reserve officer accused of ignoring abuses of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison was a daily visitor to the "hard site," where some detainees were stripped naked as an interrogation technique, a former military police commander testified Wednesday.
Capt. Donald Reese's testimony supported government allegations that Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan, as director of the prison's interrogation center, knew about the abuse and lied about it.
Reese testified on the third day of Jordan's Article 32 investigation, the military equivalent of a grand jury hearing. The hearing to determine whether Jordan, the highest-ranking soldier charged in the scandal, should be court-martialed for any of the 12 charges he faces. He could face up to 42 years in prison if convicted.
Reese was commander of the 372nd Military Police Company, which guarded the hard site at Abu Ghraib in the autumn of 2003, when most of the abuses documented in photographs seen around the world occurred.
Prosecutor Lt. Col. Jon Pavlovcak asked him Wednesday how often he had seen Jordan inside the hard site, a building that housed prisoners held for interrogation.
"Every day, sir," Reese replied.
That's staying with the theme of justice. The lower level ones are the only ones who have been punished so far. It's past time that the abuses were charted on up through the chain. If you remember Lynndie England and have wondered what's up in her life (prison), you can read Tara McKelvey's "A Soldier's Tale" (Marie Claire). Have you thought about Abu Ghraib much lately? That was exposed in 2004. It's now 2006. Our elected officials decided we weren't grown up enough to see all the photos but they want to tell us that we've seen the worst of them or that there's nothing to be concerned about. Along with that, we've heard dismissals that it was just "a few bad apples," that the actions were just "fun and games" or "sex play." In fact, one of the biggest defenders of the abuses at Abu Ghraib wasn't in the Congress. Where was he?
On your TV screens if you're not smart enough to turn off CSI: NY. That is such a disgusting show (click here for Ava and C.I.'s review of it) and that has a great deal to do with the Abu Ghraib defender Gary Sinise.
"Shame on Us All" (Robert Parry, Consortium News):
History should record October 17, 2006, as the reverse of July 4, 1776.
From the noble American ideal of each human being possessing "unalienable rights" as declared by the Founders 230 years ago amid the ringing of bells in Philadelphia, the United States effectively rescinded that concept on a dreary fall day in Washington.
At a crimped ceremony in the East Room of the White House, President George W. Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 while sitting behind a sign reading "Protecting America."
On the surface, the law sets standards for harsh interrogations, prosecutions and executions of supposed terrorists and other "unlawful combatants," including al-Qaeda members who allegedly conspired to murder nearly 3,000 people on Sept. 11, 2001.
"It is a rare occasion when a President can sign a bill he knows will save American lives," Bush said. "I have that privilege this morning."
But the new law does much more. In effect, it creates a parallel "star chamber" system of criminal justice for anyone, including an American citizen, who is suspected of engaging in, contributing to or acting in support of violent acts directed against the U.S. government or its allies anywhere on earth.
Gary Sinise could probably defend the death of democracy, the death of rule of law. Robert Parry is right, it is a dark day and we should all be ashamed.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Wednesday, October 18, 2006. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq; Wednesday begins with the news of ten more US toops dying (on Tuesday) in Iraq; step back, Tricia, Bully Boy's now the Littlest Nixon; while Bully Boy gets cover the Poodle and the Puppet stumble; and the so-called coalition of the willing continues to dwindle.
Reuters reports that Slovakia will be leaving the coalition and taking all but 11 of their 110 troops with them and quotes Robert Fico (prime minister) stating, "Slovak soldiers can start packing their stuff because they have to be home in Feburary 2007".
Their eyes are all asking
Are you in, or are you out
And I think, oh man,
What is this about?
-- "In or Out" written by Ani DiFranco
Slovakia is out. The Poodle? He's trying to hang on as prime minister of England. AFP reports that Tony Blair "admitted" that troops might be "exacerbating" the continued chaos and violence in Iraq and might act as "provocation" for other acts of violence. It has not been an easy time for the Poodle. As his leaked schedule pointed out, he was supposed to be glad handing and in the midst of a publicity blitz. Instead, questions dog him. The questions continue due to Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian of London) reporting British Brigadier Ed Butler's comments on the Afghanistan fighting in light of also declaring war in Iraq "meant British soldiers faced a much tougher task now." This follows on the heels of last weeks criticism by British General Richard Dannatt and Colin Brown (Independent of London) reporting yesterday that England's Home Secretary, John Reid, had admitted the wars were "radicalizing young Muslims." Reuters notes: "Blair and U.S. President George W. Bush are facing a barrage of criticism over Iraq as the death toll rises." Well at least they have each other (who else would have them), right? Or maybe not.
The puppet of the occupation? Is Nouri al-Maliki taking Bully Boy's promise that the US will not set a timetable for withdrawal of US forces too seriously? Probably so. The BBC reports that al-Maliki "ordered the release of a senior figure in the orgainsation headed by radical Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr." AFP observes the release is "another setback for US plans," notes that Sheikh Mazen al-Saedi was not only released but also "driven to a Sadrist office by the ministry of the interior." This at the same time that nearly 3,000 Iraqi police officers have been fired for breaking the law and/or derelicition of duty and, as Sabrina Tavernise (New York Times) reports, on the firing of the "two most senior police commanders from their posts" following the earlier "suspension of an entire Iraqi police brigade . . . on suspicions that some members may have permitted or even participated in death squad killings".
As the puppet government's concept of 'justice' continues to be questioned, al-Maliki holds dear to Bully Boy's promise that he's not planning on pulling his government's support. The puppet would do well to grasp he's dealing with the Littlest Nixon and that it's election time in the US. Or, as Jim Lobe (IPS) puts it, "If Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki were inclined to bet his life on President George W. Bush's latest assurances that there will be no timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, he should probably give it a second thought." After all, Borzou Daragahi (Los Angeles Times) reports the strangely time re-emergence in Iraq of CIA-puppet and former Iraqi prime minister Iyad Allawi, while Paul Reynolds (BBC) and Julian Borger (Guardian of London) attempt to cover the strangely leaked 'plan' coming out of the James Baker study group which boils down to (a) involve Syria and Iran or (b) redeploy US troops so they're stationed outside of Iraq but able to 'swoop in' in hit-and-run type actions. The feasibility of either option is doubtful but, if Baker sings "I will be your father figure" loud enough, the hope is that it will appear Bully Boy has a 'plan' or is being handed a 'plan.' It's the Nixon playbook and why, despite Baker's many statements that nothing would be released before the election, the 'plan' has been leaked. It's also why Baker drew attention to his study group in the first place -- certainly not the smartest thing to do if you're hoping to keep it quiet.
Violence and chaos continue in Iraq.
Bombings?
CBS and AP report that a roadisd bomb killed four body guards and Ali Qassim al-Tamimi ("head of intelligence for the Maysan provincial police force") as they traveled between Amarah and Basra. AFP reports the death of three Iraqi soldiers (with three more injured) -- victims of a bombing in Kirkuk. Reuters notes a car bombing in Iraq that left five wounded ("central Baghdad") while "[a] car bomb targeting an Iraqi army patrol in central Baghdad" left five people wounded.
Shootings?
AFP reports the shooting death, in Suweira, of "a guard escorting an electricity company repair team". Reuters notes a police officer was shot dead in Baghdad.
Corpses?
AFP reports that three corpses were discovered in Suweira. Reuters reports that a police officer's corpse was discovered "between Kerbala and Hilla."
Meanwhile, CBS and AP report: "Local Sunni and Shiite leaders were meeting in an attempt to resolve the fate of more than 40 people missing since their 13-car convoy was waylaid at a checkpoint on Sunday outside Balad, where almost 100 people were killed in five days of sectarian fighting. The head of Iraq's security commission angrily accused the government of failing to resolve the crisis."
All the above as IRIN notes that Iraqi children aren't able to attend school due to the violence: " . . . only 30 percent of Iraq's 3.5 million students are currently attending classes. This compares to approximately 75 percent of students attending classes the previous year, according to UK-based NGO Save the Children." Also while Mariam Karouny (Reuters) reports that Ramadi has been 'staked': "Dozens of al Qaeda-linked gunmen took to the streets of Ramadi on Wednesday in a show of force to announce the city was joining an Islamic state comprising Iraq's mostlly Sunni Arab provinces, Islamists and witnesses said." Doesn't sound like something the Jimmy Baker Study Group planned for -- quick, someone order them some juiceboxes and fruit rollups so they can get back to 'work.' "Secession". Someone help Condi to her feet, sounds like "civil war" just became official.
Last week, The Lancet published the study on Iraqi deaths since the start of the illegal war and arrived at the estimate that the war had cost the lives of approximately 655,000 Iraqis. Dr. Curren Warf (at Consortium News) examines the study and notes that "the media has been unable to find a scientist critical of the study, [so] they've turned to policy wonks with literally no expertise in the health scienes." Those having questions about the study or wanting to learn more can attend The Medical Consequences of the War in Iraq: Health Challenges Beyond the Battlefield this Saturday (Oct. 21st) at the Grand Ballroom, Ackerman Union, UCLA -- registration for the conference begins at 8:30 a.m.(registration is $25) and the conference will last until 5:30 p.m. Dr. Warf will be among those attending. Also noting the study, Robert Scheer (Truthdig) concludes: "The point is that it is time for the Iraqis, like the Vietnamese, to make their own history. They can hardly make a worse mess of it."
Scheer's point is dead on but maybe it's hard to recognize reality in the Green Zone? James Hider (Times of London) provides Green Zone in a snapshot: "In the US-protected fortress, Iraq's Government huddles, riven by sectarian splits and cut off from its terrified people. Inside their bubble ministers live in comparatively luxurious compounds, each sectarian bloc divided from the next by barricades. They are hard to reach by telephone. Some spend more time outside the country than in it."
Today, the Washington Post reported that ten US troops died in Iraq on Tuesday (US military announced the deaths on Wednesday). The deaths are 'honored' by the US Defense Dept., Heather Wokusch (GNN) reports, which "quietly announced on Monday that mandatory anthrax vaccinations would resume for military personnel and civilians deploying to 28 countries across the globe and even for some based in the U.S." Prior to the illegal war in Iraq, one of the hottest topics within the military, for many years, had been the forced anthrax vaccinations. Don't suggest Donald Rumsfeld doesn't care . . . about screwing everyone over.
Turning to peace news, Ehren Watada's father has now done two speaking tours to raise awareness of his son's case. NBCSanDiego.com reported on his Monday appearance noting that: "If he [Ehren Watada[ is found guilty of all charges, he could get eight years in prison." Pam Wight (San Gabriel Tribune) reports on Bob Watada's Thursday engagement at First Friends Church and quotes Bob Watada stating: "After the Nurember trials you can't use 'I was just following orders' as an excuse anymore. He started thinking that he would be complicit in war crimes and crimes against humanity for participating in an illegal and immoral war." More information on Ehren Watada and other war resisters can be found at Courage to Resist.
And we'll close with this from Yuri Loudon (Internationalist Magazine)'s interview with Howard Zinn, Zinn explaining the illegal war: "The government set out to present false information. Colin Powell presented a detailed account of Hussein's WMDs, probably the most compact assembly of falsehoods that have ever been uttered in front of the United Nations. They then bombarded the public, aided by an uncritical press, with information that led them to believe that the United States was somehow in imminent danger and that we had to go to war. There was a barrage of information given to the public by the government, and then repeated by the press. This is clear evidence that the government cannot depend on the public's natural instinct to go to war; they have to work very, very hard; they have to propagandize and persuade them [the public] that war is necessary."
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.