bully boy gets stood up, ray mcgovern & more

first, mia e-mailed to tell me kpfb was not an a.m. station. she was very kind about it. my apologies.

she also shared her favorite thing was with archive clips of gloria steinem, medea benjamin and others. it aired tuesday. that must have been during the time i went out to grab some take out for dinner. i wish i had caught that.

listening online means i don't have reception in my car. none of the pacifica stations are on satellite radio, are they?

but i listened yesterday and today and never found myself bored so it's amazing that i missed something that i really wish i'd heard. it shows how much they have to offer - a lot more than they aired, they would need hours and hours, days and days, and weeks and weeks for that.

so these 2 days a year where they give us a taste are really worth catching. they're entertaining, educational and inspiring.

i think my favorite today was dorothy healey. she was new to me. she had a really interesting life (she died in august). what a long and amazing life.

and what an amazing job pacifica did with the archive broadcast. as i type, the program on malcom x is about to go off. there have been so many amazing moments.

this is from martha raddatz' 'Diplomatic Embarrassment or Simple Schedule Clarification?' (abc news):

The White House tried to play down the significance of President Bush's meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki being delayed, but it is a huge embarrassment for the president to have a foreign leader cancel a meeting, especially one who has 150,000 American troops in his country.
Bush and Maliki both arrived in Amman today to look for a way to bring the spiraling violence in Iraq under control. They were expected to meet with Jordan's King Abdullah, but only Abdullah and Bush appeared in a photo opportunity with reporters.
After Maliki abruptly cancelled his appearance at the scheduled meeting, the White House insisted this was not a snub.

bully boy traveled all that way for a 3-way and it got called off. poor bully boy. snubbed in front of the whole world. cedric's 'Bully Boy's mystery date goes bust' and wally's 'THIS JUST IN! BULLY BOY GETS STOOD UP BY A "DUD"!' take a comic look at this.

now today, during the section of the pacifica archives where they played portions of larry bensky's interview with oliver north from 1991, larry said that the robert gates hearings will be covered by pacifica but all may not carry it. kpfa (or for me, kpfb) will. (and if you listen to kpfa and have a buffering problem repeatedly or drop out, switch over to kpfb, the stream's available on kpfa's web page by clicking on 'other streams.'

is he going to be rubber stamped? i think so. there was a photo of him standing with harry reid in today's new york times. harry looked pleased and gates looked fat. why do i think it will be a rubber stamp? dems aren't talking to the press about it. even with samuel alito, whose butt they really kissed, they had floated some stuff to the press ahead of the hearings. since nothing's really being floated, i think they're going to roll over.

while it's true that they don't have the majority until the next congress is sworn in come january, it's also true that it appears they're still waiting for the day when it's 'safe' to fight.

this is from ray mcgovern's 'Gates, Hadley: More of the Same' (consortium news):

Initial press reports on information provided to the Senate by Robert Gates, President George W. Bush's nominee for the post of defense secretary, show Gates hewing very closely to the rhetoric of his predecessor. Gates is more parrot than innovator in his responses to a questionnaire given him by the Senate Armed Services Committee, which takes up his nomination on Dec. 5.
None of this surprises those of us who for decades have watched Gates make career after career out of trimming his sails to the prevailing winds. No one should expect Gates to depart one iota from the position of the President, who
said Nov. 28, "I'm not going to pull the troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete." In answering the senators' questions, Gates insisted that an early pullout would risk "leaving Iraq in chaos [with] dangerous consequences both in the region and globally for many years to come."
No surprise either in Gates' strong endorsement of spending billions more on--and prematurely deploying--the missile defense system that was Rumsfeld's pet project. Even if it can be made to work (and this has yet to be demonstrated), the system is of highly dubious utility in preventing the kinds of terrorist attacks that appear far more likely than a nuclear-tipped missile from a "rogue" state like North Korea or Iran--if they ever succeed in developing one.
Gates lumps the two together, saying, "North Korea and Iran continue to develop longer range missiles and are determined to pursue weapons of mass destruction." In attributing this intention to Iran, Gates demonstrates that he has lost none of his verve as master-practitioner of what we intelligence alumni call "faith-based intelligence." Among serious intelligence analysts, especially in the Department of Energy, where the expertise lies, the jury is out on whether Iran is embarked on a weapons-related nuclear program--and, if so, how soon it might have a deliverable nuclear weapon. And the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), led by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mohamed ElBaradei, also keeps saying existing evidence permits no hard and fast conclusions.
In prejudging that key issue, Gates has elevated the status of Iranian intentions, in Rumsfeldian parlance, from a "known unknown" to a "known known." In doing so, he has thrown in his lot with the neo-conservatives, whose record of accuracy in such judgments leaves much to be desired, and who--after a pre-election lull--have been revving up for another try at prevailing on the President to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. Gates' position on Iran’s nuclear weapons plans suggests he will not put up much resistance to importuning by Vice President Dick Cheney and the neo-cons--not to mention the Israelis--that Iran's fledgling nuclear program must be nipped in the bud.
In what is known so far of the information in the completed questionnaire, Gates made one departure from long established White House policy. Very much in tune with the admonishment of his patron Jim Baker that talking directly with adversaries is not "appeasement," Gates implicitly criticized the opposition to negotiating with the likes of Syria and Iran, stressing that such talks could come "as part of an international conference" of the kind the Baker/Hamilton group is said to be suggesting.

2 new readers asked a question each.

g.s. wondered why my links aren't exact (the underlines beneath them when you read)? g.s., i have very long fingernails and if i'm on my laptop it's a big problem because my 'mouse' is a little red stick in the center of the keyboard. but even when i'm my computer with a tower, monitor and keyboard, getting the link just right isn't big on my agenda.

sonia askes what i'd pick as the best movie of 2006? if i can include a documentary, sir! no sir! because it's amazing. if you haven't seen it, please check it out. it moves so quickly, it is not boring. you'll love it.

if i can't include a documentary? i don't think there's 1. there's a movie i want to see this month and if it turns out to be as good as it looks, it will probably be my choice. i have been watching brokeback mountain a lot lately. i saw that in 2005 but it came out on dvd in 2006. that's the only thing that i've been impressed with. i'm really getting into the way the camera frames the scenery and considering if there's a message beyond 'oh, pretty!' (i think there is). i also think jake gyllenhaal is amazingly hot.

he and michelle williams give amazing performances. i can watch brokeback over and over.

before i go further, i know c.i. does not have the time to do entries all the time. i also know that speaking today and tomorrow especially means no time. but an amazing taxi cab story. i said, 'oh you should write about that this week.' c.i. said, 'isn't that thomas friedman-esque? "my cab driver said ..." well isn't it?' it is. but the conversation, about the illegal war, was the sort thomas friedman would never write up.

i told flyboy about it and he agreed that it was worth writing up. he also passed on something his mother-in-law wanted me to note. this came up at 1 of her dinners, a woman who knew c.i. brought up some of the speaking trips. she made some comment like 'well, i guess some people will do anything for money.' my mother-in-law was offended. (she knows c.i. and they get along. old money.) she told that woman she didn't know what she was talking about and corrected her on it. she asked flyboy to get me to note that ('because you know it will never go up at the common ills'). c.i. doesn't get paid for speaking. c.i. doesn't take money for it, doesn't let any 1 pay for travel or for hotels. that all comes out of c.i.'s pocket. it's been that way since feb. 2003.

c.i. hasn't just made it a focal point of life, c.i.'s refused money for it.

that's not a surprise to me because that's how c.i. is, outside of the birthday, it's a struggle to even get c.i. to let you pay for a meal. 1 of the guys i dated in college was a sculpter. he had sold something, his 1st piece sold, and he invited a number of friends out to celebrate. i was ordering like i would at any meal. c.i. and elaine just had a glass of tea each. as soon as it was over, elaine and c.i. split and i found later that was because they were starving. i didn't understand that and they explained that the 1st check was wonderful but he really didn't need to blow it. (and he did end up doing that.) they weren't comfortable having a meal on him. i was but i always remind myself we were dating and sleeping together.

but there were probably 13 people there and they weren't sleeping with him. (as far as i know!) all of them except elaine and c.i. were eating like it was their last supper. it's something that probably didn't occur to them, that this check would hopefully be 1 of many but they wouldn't be rolling in every day.

but i think the rest of us, including me, were thinking 'oh money.' elaine and c.i. never had to worry about and both prefer to pay their own way. and they keep track on the meals they buy. they don't get in a fight over the check but you will hear, 'no, you got it last time.' i never know who got it last time. once i started working, i was able to pay my own way as well. but i still love big presents and they both do not. they'd prefer you get something small. it has to do with the way they were raised. if you get either of them a big gift they're less pleased than if you picked up something small.

that's why, now that elaine and mike are dating, i always tell him, 'call me before you get her anything.' elaine would be even more appalled at mike buying a big gift due to the fact that he's in college. with me, she'll just roll her eyes. but mike's a college student and works hard at his part-time job. if he went out and blew a check on her, she'd feel bad for days.

with both elaine and c.i., i think they appreciate the freedom. they can't be bought. and they aren't dependent upon any 1.

flyboy surprised me with a new stereo. it was his contribution to the remodeling. now i can afford that myself but, yeah, i did freak out. i was thrilled. i'm not at all 'don't buy me anything big!' hopefully, our child will probably be more like elaine and c.i. because he or she will grow up with it and not be dreaming of the big presents.

sherry and i've been talking about that in e-mails, adoption, and in case any 1 else was wondering, we are going through legal channels. a friend knew of an adoption that was coming up and i appreciated her heads up but i don't want to be accused of being madonna! so we're going the slow route. we're assuming 12 or so months from now. but, yes, we are going to be adopting (and have started the process) but, no, we won't be baby shopping. we'll do it legally, legal by the laws of the united states not 'oh, well it's legal by that country's laws.'

now for a highlight. i really don't want to write about this but will at the end. this is norman g. finkelstein's 'Rush to Judgment: Human Rights Watch Must Retract Its Shameful Press Release' (counterpunch):

How has Human Rights Watch responded to the challenge? It criticized Israel for destroying Gaza's only electrical plant, and also called on Israel to "investigate" why its forces were targeting Palestinian medical personnel in Gaza and to "investigate" the Beit Hanoun massacre.
On the other hand, it accused Palestinians of committing a "war crime" after they captured an Israeli soldier and offered to exchange him for Palestinian women and children held in Israeli jails. (Israel was holding 10,000 Palestinians prisoner.) It demanded that Palestinians "bring an immediate end to the lawlessness and vigilante violence" in Gaza. (Compare Amira Hass's words.) It issued a 101-page report chastising the Palestinian Authority for failing to protect women and girls. It called on the Palestinian Authority to take "immediate steps to halt" Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel.
Were this record not shameful enough, HRW crossed a new threshold at the end of November.
After Palestinians spontaneously responded to that "unknown voice on a cell phone" by putting their own bare bodies in harm's way, HRW rushed to issue a press release warning that Palestinians might be committing a "war crime" and might be guilty of "human shielding." ("Civilians Must Not Be Used to Shield Homes Against Military Attacks")

finkelstein wants you to e-mail and ask them to retract their press release ('Email HRW Middle East director Sarah Leah Whitson--whitsos@hrw.org - and HRW executive director Kenneth
Roth -- RothK@hrw.org.'). that's why i didn't want to write about it. i really like finkelstein and he's smarter than i am, so if you want to write, please do.

i just don't think it will make any difference. i hate human rights watch. so much that c.i. will call and say, 'will you be upset if i highlight this?' (c.i.'s highlighted them once or twice and both times asked my permission. c.i. wouldn't dream of calling me to ask me not to highlight something and if i called to check something, i would be told, as i always have been, 'it's your site, you highlight what you want.') but i just hate human rights watch. somewhere at the third estate sunday review, we mention them. i've always said they're all about appeasing critics. then roth gave a comment to the nation that basically read like 'we don't give a damn what the left thinks of us but we have to watch out for the right-wing.' that's how they act as well. i think their 'findings' are tilted not just to the right but in favor of the israeli government. i have no use for them.

i think they're timid and biased 'reports' allow others to remain complacent and stupid. i don't see them concerned with human rights, i see them as concerned with pleasing the right wing fringe that worships the israeli government. if you're really concerned with human rights, you should be making waves, not sailing happily along. i'm sick of them.

i think norman (don't make me look up his last name again) is very smart (he's also kind of hot) so he probably knows better about whether they'll respond or not to complaints. i just don't care for the organization at all.

if they'd tell the truth and not shade it, i think they'd really be able to help the issue but there's no bravery, just appeasement.

here's c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Wedensday, November 29, 2006. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq; a classified US assessment, jotted down in memo form by Stephen Hadley, finds the puppet of the occupation untrustworthy; whack-a-mole continues to be the game of choice for US military heads, and the big meet up in Jordan hits a snag right out of the box.

Starting with
the memo:

We returned from Iraq convinced we need to determine if Prime Minister Maliki is both willing and able to rise above the sectarian agendas being promoted by others. Do we and Prime Minister Maliki share the same vision for Iraq? If so, is he able to curb those who seek Shia hegemony or the reassertion of Sunni power? The answers to these questions are key in determining whether we have the right strategy in Iraq.

Maliki reiterated a vision of Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish partnership, and in my one-on-one meeting with him, he impressed me as a leader who wanted to be strong but was having difficulty figuring out how to do so. Maliki pointed to incidents, such as the use of Iraqi forces in Shia Karbala, to demonstrate his even hand. Perhaps because he is frustrated over his limited ability to command Iraqi forces against terrorists and insurgents, Maliki has been trying to show strength by standing up to the coalition. Hence the public spats with us over benchmarks and the Sadr City roadblocks.
Despite Maliki's reassuring words, repeated reports from our commanders on the ground contributed to our concerns about Maliki's government. Reports of nondelivery of services to Sunni areas, intervention by the prime minister's office to stop military action against Shia targets and to encourage them against Sunni ones, removal of Iraq's most effective commanders on a sectarian basis and efforts to ensure Shia majorities in all ministries -- when combined with the escalation of Jaish al-Mahdi's (JAM) [the Arabic name for the Mahdi Army] killings -- all suggest a campaign to consolidate Shia power in Baghdad.

Michael R. Gordon (New York Times) reports that author of the memo is National Securtiy Adviser Stephen J. Hadley and that Hadley wrote the memo November 8, 2006. The memo was based on conclusions Hadley drew while visiting the Green Zone on October 30th, a visit John F. Burns and David E. Sanger (New York Times) noted was spoken of "only in the vaguest of terms". The memo's distrust of Nouri al-Maliki and its suggestions fly in the face of what Geroge W. Casey Jr. was publicly pushing immediately prior to Hadley's visit. As Amit R. Paley (Washington Post) reported the US' military commander's claims of Iraqi security forces 'success' was doubted by American troops on the ground.

The memo covers a number of topics. Mainly it attempts to chart how the puppet can be propped up if he agrees to continue to following orders from the US administration (such as "support the renewal of the UN mandate for multinational forces" -- done yesterday -- through the end of 2007 as Sandra Lupien noted on yesterday's The KPFA Evening News). If that is the case, US tax dollars can be used to prop up political parties that do not support Moktada al-Sadr and thereby sideline al-Sadr from the process. ("This bloc would not require a new election, but would rather involve a realignment of political actors within the Parliament.") Mainly the memo's concerned with appearances, ways to make it appear the puppet is independent and strong. Such as: "Encourage Zal [Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador] to move into the background and let Maliki take more credit for positive developments." As noted in previous snapshots, Zalmay-Take-Me-Away is on his way out. His supposed 'success' in Afghanistan began to implode in front of the world shortly after he was shipped to Iraq to create more 'success.' Reality didn't wait and Zalmay is on the way out.

The memo offers that al-Maliki can appear 'strong' if the US administration will: "Seek ways to strengthen Maliki immediately by giving him additional control over Iraq forces, although we musr tecognize that in the immediate time frame, we would likely be able to give him more authority over existing forces, not more forces" While pushing appearances, Hadley makes it very clear that al-Maliki is extremely out of touchand that he has one self-presentation "when he talks with Americans" and another at other times. Hadley writes: "But the reality on the streets of Baghdad suggest Maliki is either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions, or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action."

The memo reveals the doubts, all the times after, that the US administration still has of their puppet.
Mark Silva (Chicago Tribune) reports that Tony Snow Job issued a statement of Bully Boy's confidence in al-Maliki which should make the puppet shudder if he's aware of "Heck of a job, Brownie." [Or of November 1st, when Bully Boy was singing Rummy's praises. As Ron Hutcheson (McClatchy Newspapers) reported: "Rumsfeld's ouster came a week after Bush told a small group of reporters that he wanted the defense secretary to stay on the job until end of his presidency."]

Silva also speaks with a nameless administration official who states that the memo is about raising questions and it "doesn't mean you're casting judgment" which is either cover up or the nameless hasn't read the memo. The third step Hadley outlines that al-Maliki "should take" is to "Shake up his cabinet by appointing nonsectarian, capable technocrats in key service (and security) ministries."

For those paying attention months ago, al-Maliki's claimed that was happening. He began saying it was happening after he finally got a cabinet semi together. He missed the Constitutional deadline as well as his own appointed deadline. When he finally had a 'cabinet' it was short three positions. As soon as those were filled, al-Maliki began making repeated noises about a 'shake up' that has still not taken place. That was telling when Hadley visited in October, it was telling when Hadley wrote the memo on November 8th and, as November draws to a close, it's even more telling.

As Tony Snow Job tries to spin the memo, the US administration still attempts to deny the reality of the civil war that has been raging in Iraq.
Shatha al-Awsy (McClatchy Newspapers) registers quite clearly what she has seen in the last year in the neighborhood she lived, the neighbors who left as strangers began showing up, the talk of impending attacks, the need to build a secret passage way between her home and her parents, the night when violence was only streets away, her baby crying from the mortar rounds falling and her promise to herself to leave if they made it through tomorrow.

In the face of such reality,
the US administration continues to deny Iraq is in a civil war. James Coomarasamy (BBC) reports that Stephen Hadley, of all people, "has said the Iraqi government does not see it in those terms, while the president himself described the latest attacks as part of an ongoing campaign by al-Qaeda militants." The same Hadley who wrote "the reality on the streets of Baghdad suggests Maliki is either ignorant of what is going on"? Meanwhile, Diala Saadeh (Reuters) reports Colin Powell, former US Secretary of State, has stated, "I would call it a civil war. . . I have been using it (civil war) because I like to face the reality." (Like your blot?) On CBS' The Early Show, Bob Schieffer (host of Face the Nation) offered, "This is not a memo that was leaked by some Democrat in Congress. This is something that obviously came from someone within the administration itself. It shows that the situation in Iraq is the kind of chaos that has been described by others at every level, political and military. It paints a picture that is unlike what we have been hearing from the administration. We've been hearing that things are getting better and so on and so forth, that al-Maliki is doing his best. Now this memo raises questions about those statements."

CNN reports, ahead of the Jordan meeting with Bully Boy, Nouri al-Maliki has seen "his support erode on two fronts Wednesday as a White House memo questioned his leadership and a powerful political bloc suspended participation in Iraq's government." The suspension of participation was made quite clear Friday when al-Sadr's bloc stated that if al-Maliki went to Jordan to meet with the puppet, they would be pulling their support for al-Maliki.

Thomas Wagner and Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) report that "the 30 lawmakers and six Cabinet members" in the Sadr bloc "said their boycott was necessary because the meeting" between Bully Boy and al-Maliki "constituted a 'provocation to the feelings of the Iraqi people and a violation of their constitutional rights'." As Amy Goodman noted on Democracy Now! today, the bloc announced they were boycotting because "Bush is a criminal who killed a lot of Iraqis and we do not want him to interfere in Iraq's affairs" but prefer that the puppet instead do business with the U.N. Security Council. Deb Riechmann (AP) reports that the meet up in Amman, Jordan that was due to start today (Bully Boy & puppet) has now been put off with the US administration declaring it would take place "on Thuresday."

Meanwhile the city of Baquba is "
shutdown" by violence. "Shutdown"? The sequel to 'crackdown'? (Which Baghdad is still under.) AP reports bombing raids by US aircraft while "the univeristy, public schools and many stores remained closed" and the deaths of five Iraqi police officers.


AP reports a roadside bomb in Bahgdad left three Iraqis dead and 11 more wounded and
"[t]wo mortar rounds also exploded near the Health Ministry, wounding two soliders" in the heavily fortified Green Zone.
Reuters notes: two car bombs in Iraq (one in central Baghdad, the other in southwestern Baghdad) that left two police officers dead and five Iraqis wounded;
a car bomb in Samarra that killed six police officers; a car bomb in Mosul that left one civilian dead and 23 more injured; On the car bomb in Samarra,
AP notes that it was a coordinated attack using the car bomb and guns and reports that four police officers were killed and four more wounded.


AP reports that the Green Zone in Baghdad was ringed with gunfire "for most of the morning." AFP reports that four guards of the Pensions Department in central Baghdad were shot dead while on duty.


Reuters notes that the corpse "of a teacher with gunshot wounds" was discovered in Diwaniya today.

Today, the
US military announced: "A Task Force Lightning Soldier assigned to 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, was killed when an improvised explosive device exploded near his vehicle while conducting operations in Salah ad Din Province Tuesday. A second Soldier from this unit was wounded and transported to a CoalitionForces' medical treatment facility."; and they also announced: "One Soldier assigned to Regimental Combat Team 7 died today from wounds sustained due to enemy action while operating in Al Anbar Province." Al-Anbar Province? Before we move on, let's note that the count for US troops who have died in Iraq this month thus far is 65. (Which doesn't include Major Troy L. Gilbert whose plane crashed this week and who is classified as missing by the US military while other press reports report he died in the crash or following the crash.)

We're going to
flash back to the August 3rd United States Senate Armed Services Committee hearing when the following exchange took place:

Senator John McCain: So, General Abizaid, we're moving 7,500 troops into Baghdad, is that correct?

General John Abizaid: The number is closer to 3,500.
[. . .]
McCain: And where are these troops coming from?
Abizaid: Uh, the troops, the Styker Brigade, is coming down from Mosul.
McCain: From Mosul? Is the situation under control in Ramadi?
Abizaid: Uh, the situation in Ramadi, is better than it was two months ago.
McCain: Is the situation under control in Ramadi?
Abizaid: I think the situation in Ramadi is workable.McCain: And the troops from Ramadi came from Falluja, isn't that correct?Abizaid: I can't say senator, I know that --
McCain: Well that's my information. What I worry about is we're playing a game of whack-a-mole here. We move troops from -- It flares up, we move troops there. Everybody knows we've got big problems in Ramadi and I said, "Where you gonna get the troops?" 'Well we're going to have to move them from Falluja.' Now we're going to have to move troops into Baghdad from someplace else. It's very disturbing.

Is the situation in Ramadi under control, McCain repeatedly asked?

Ramadi is in Al-Anbar and the entire province is not "under control" (nor could it be).

Edward Wong (New York Times) reported, "American troops killed five girls, including at least one baby" on Tuesday in Al-Anbar Province. Andrew Buncombe and Nick Paton Walsh (Independent of London) report that in addition to the five dead, "Fighting broke out in the city of Ramadi, considered a stronghold of the anti-US insurgency, after a US patrol discovered a roadside bomb in the Hamaniyah section of the city."

This comes as
Jonathan Karl (ABC News) reports that the "Pentagon officials are considering a major strategic shift in Iraq, to move U.S. forces out of the dangerous Sunni-dominated al-Anbar province and join the fight to secure Baghdad." Has Al-Anbar Province been 'pacified'? No (and it won't be). As the four year anniversary of the illegal war comes ever closer, the US military is still attempting to impose order on Baghdad -- the only area that's ever been 'safe,' the area that's now been under a 'crackdown' (in all its variations) since June. And nothing's stopped the chaos and violence.

So the 'answer,' for the US government, is the same 'answer' they always have, what John McCain labeled "whack-a-mole." Writing in the Guardian of London,
Dilip Hiro proposes another answer: "Now, a revived proposal should have the American and British troops withdraw in stages from Iraq and hand over the stabilization task to a combined force of Muslim countries under UN command. Stationing a Muslim stabilization force in Iraq would dispel the intense alienation that exists now between Iraqis and the Anglo-American troops. The brown-skinned Muslim troops would be seen praying in the same mosques as Iraqis, and they would have an innate understanding of the social and cultural mores of the local people since they come from societies similar to that in Iraq. Unlike the Anglo-American troops, they would not be advancing an agenda like planting a Jeffersonian model of democracy or seeking preference in exploiting Iraqi oil."

Reuters reports, the 'answer' remains to 'shift' "a couple of battalions" here and there. It hasn't worked, it won't work. But the US adminstration refuses to face reality. Which is why CNN reports that "the U.S. military plans to move at least three more battalions of American soldiers into the Iraqi captial". And which is why the illegal war continues to drag on.

Remember, the
Pacifica's Archives is on day two of a two-day special: Pacifica Radio Archives Presents Voices For Peace And Non-Violence. It is airing on all Pacifica stations (KPFA, KFCF, KPFT, WBAI, KPFK, WPFW), many affiliates and online. The special started today and pulls from the fifty plus years of archives. (Donations made during this two day period go to preserve the archives.) Among the voices heard since yesterday MLK, Coretta Scott King, Rosa Parks, Camilo Mejia, Medea Benjamin, Lena Horne, Fannie Lou Hamer, Gloria Steinem, Flo Kennedy, Gore Vidal, Kurt Vonnegut, Jane Fonda, Bette Davis, Ruth Gordon, Malcolm X, Angela Y. Davis, and many others.