cindy noted this by noam chomsky in an e-mail to c.i. and c.i. knows i'm a huge noam freak so it was passed on to me. (i should noted that cindy matched up several highlights with various of us and she was correct in assuming who would be most interested in what.)
from noam chomsky's 'The US Says it is Fighting For Democracy - But is Deaf to the Cries of the Iraqis' (the independent of london via common dreams):
There are, then, very powerful reasons why the US and UK are likely to try in every possible way to maintain effective control over Iraq. The US is not constructing a palatial embassy, by far the largest in the world and virtually a separate city within Baghdad, and pouring money into military bases, with the intention of leaving Iraq to Iraqis. All of this is quite separate from the expectations that matters can be arranged so that US corporations profit from the vast riches of Iraq.
These topics, though high on the agenda of planners, are not within the realm of discussion, as can easily be determined. That is only to be expected. These considerations violate the fundamental doctrine that state power has noble objectives, and while it may make terrible blunders, it can have no crass motives and is not influenced by domestic concentrations of private power. Any questioning of these Higher Truths is either ignored or bitterly denounced, also for good reasons: allowing them to be discussed could undermine power and privilege.
There is another issue: even the most dedicated scholar/advocates of "democracy promotion" recognise that there is a "strong line of continuity" in US efforts to promote democracy going back as far as you like and reaching the present: democracy is supported if and only if it conforms to strategic and economic objectives. For example, supporting the brutal punishment of people who committed the crime of voting "the wrong way" in a free election, as in Palestine right now, with pretexts that would inspire ridicule in a free society. As for democracy in the US, élite opinion has generally considered it a dangerous threat which must be resisted. But some Iraqis agreed with Bush's mission to bring democracy to the world: 1 per cent in a poll in Baghdad just as the noble vision was declared in Washington.
the u.s. is not leaving iraq unless the people demand it. not beg for it, not plead for it, demand it. the 'embassy' in the green zone is bigger than any embassy we have. (it's not really an embassy.) the bases that are being set up and that are set up already. so i'm not going to get caught up in symbolic nonsense.
i had an e-mail about that asking why 'all of you' (which i'm guessing means the various people doing sites in this community but maybe it means the whole world?) 'won't support the resolution.' he means the nonbinding, toothless 'resolution' that is just a lunchtime poll for congress where they say 'please, bully boy, don't escalate.' they have the power to stop the escalation. instead, they waste time on this symoblic resolution.
look, here's how it works, they republicans said no! loudly. with few exceptions. then the toothless measure got cut down even more. c.i. and i took a class (at my insistence because i was interested in the topic and really, really interested in a guy in the class) years ago. it was a drama class and there were all these excercises. 1 of the first was we divided up into pairs. the teacher gave us 1 word. my word was 'no' and c.i.'s was 'yes'. we had to turn that into 2 to 3 minutes in front of the class.
that's how the republicans work. they did it with their 'no.' now people who followed us, the 'yes' person would chase after the 'no,' just like the democrats do with the republicans. and the 'yes' would get weaker and weaker. c.i. didn't do that. c.i. plopped down on the floor the 2nd i walked away and didn't budge.
that's what democrats need to do. instead, they chase after the 'no' and are in a position of weakness right then and there.
that they're doing that and wasting all this time on a symbolic measure is just nonsense.
i don't know if explained the excercise so you could follow. but it was a power dynamics. i have no idea what it had to do with acting. the professor was creepy and hung up on smokers (hated them -- c.i. and i both smoked in college) so we dropped the class.
but in terms of power dynamics i have never forgotten that. we went 1st and it was only seeing every 1 after that i got it. when some 1 says 'no' you try to change them. that's how it worked in every other combo. people rushing around after the 'no' offering weak, pleading 'yes'es. i was honestly surprised when c.i. sat down as i was walking off. and the 1st thing i did was turn around and go back. my firm 'no' became weaker and weaker. c.i. stalled with the 'yes' response each time. it completely threw me. and every 1 was looking and it was a bit embarrassing (it was embarrassing for me to be in front of the entire class so as soon as i found out the guy i thought was hot was in fact gay, we dropped). but it was embarrassing because it was a power struggle. and in every other duo, the yes person just chased the no person around the stage, begging and pleading. democrats need to stop chasing down the 'no's and need to start making the republicans bend to them.
this is from robert parry's 'WPost Disses the Dixie Chicks' (consortium news) and hold on for my comments:
The smug Washington Post smirked its way through an article about the Dixie Chicks winning five Grammy Awards for the group's heroic album "Taking the Long Way" and the defiant song "Not Ready to Make Nice."
The Post, which has editorially supported George W. Bush’s Iraq War and joined in smear campaigns against war critics like Joseph Wilson, treated the Dixie Chicks with the usual disdain.
In the lead story of the Post’s "Style" section, Bush’s winking-and-nodding role in the boycott of the Dixie Chicks music disappears. Instead the Post puts most of the blame for the troubles on the three-woman band.
The Dixie Chicks are "the polarizing group" whose lead singer Natalie Maines "popped off about President Bush and the war in Iraq," according to the article by Post staff writer J. Freedom du Lac, who adds: “Upon bouncing to the podium after the [Grammy] result was announced, Maines … closed her gaping mouth just long enough to grin mischievously, then said, 'Well, to quote the great Simpsons, 'HA, HA!'"
The Post article portrayed the boycott dispute as one between the Dixie Chicks and their country-music fans, ignoring the extraordinary role played by Bush who in 2003 seemed to relish the punishments meted out by his supporters to Americans who dissented.
So, in recognition of the Dixie Chicks’s five Grammy Awards -- and in honor of the other brave Americans who stood up and questioned the Iraq War when standing up meant paying a price -- we are republishing a story from May 16, 2006, entitled "Dixie Chicks, Valerie Plame & Bush."
that's the post, openly hostile. the new york times? i heard about it from c.i. who phone me this morning. c.i. was pissed. lorne manley co-wrote the article and i forget the other guy (jeff something, i think). i'm not linking. c.i. was between the 2 morning entries and said, 'rebecca, i have to unload or i'm not going to have a 2nd entry.' i unload all the time, it's a 2 way street. i said, 'go for it.' afterwards, i asked if i could write about? c.i. can't. the dixie chicks were going into the snapshot and had already been mentioned the day before and there are always some visitors (hopefully not members) who get their panties in the wad if entertainment's discussed too much at the common ills - even if it's iraq related. so after i heard about it, i said, 'i can write about. i write about everything and anything!' so c.i. said sure. hold on because flyboy's grabbing the paper. people keep saying, 'becky, you're not that big.' i feel it but even if it's all in my head, it's a pain in the ass to get off this couch. or anytime i sit and have to get up, sit anywhere. it's easier on hard wood chairs. flyboy picked up some of those at ruth's suggestion but this time of the day, i just want to be comfy. (everything's fine with the pregnancy - i've just gained weight, before any 1 e-mails, 'is everything okay?')
alright, it's the front page of the arts, b1. let's talk photos 1st. huge photo of the police. if you missed them, they were big and about to be huge but they broke up. 'every breath you take' had gone number 1. 1 more album and they would have been u2. but they weren't and i loved the police but they weren't that big. i'm sure reo speedwagon (who i didn't care for) outsold them easily. they were a good group, i still listen to the cds, but they weren't a super group. they had a new wave and a rock following but they hadn't crossed over into pop saturation. blondie, to cite another group of that time, was huge. the police were 3 guys who usually grabbed 2 hits per album. 'roxanne' is famous now from eddie murphy singing it in 48 hours but it wasn't huge on the charts - it only made it to number 23 on the pop charts. 'don't stand so close' and 'de do do do, de da da da' both made it onto the top 10. 'every little thing she does is magic' made it to number 3 in 1982 - the highest they'd charted up to that point on the singles chart. in 1983, they finally get a number 1 with 'every breath you take' and 'king of pain' goes to number 3. in 1984, 'wrapped around your finger' goes to number 4. to use blondie by comaprison, they went to number 1 a total of 4 times ('rapture,' 'the tide is high,' 'call me' and 'heart of glass') while also having other hits.
most devoted fans know none of the 3 members can stand each other so we weren't thinking 'together again!' that's the huge photo (2/3's wide and nearly as high). then you have a nice photo of mary j. blige and a smaller 1 of some country music woman. the article is by lorne manly and jeff leeds. the headline is 'dixie chicks win song of the year at grammys.'
1st paragraph is about police, mary j. blige, red hot chili peppers.
2nd paragraph is about 'multiple awards' to the dixie chicks, justin timberlake, bob dylan, tony bennett, gnalrs barkley, t.i. and michael brecker.
3rd paragraph is about mary j. blige and notes her 3 grammy wins.
4th paragraph is about the red hot chili peppers.
5th is about justin timberlake.
6th is about bob dylan and bruce springsteen and others.
7th paragraph is about the themes.
8th paragraph is about mary j. blige
9th paragraph is about the dixie chicks.
you're told they won 2 awards.
now they won 5 awards and this is the problem, it's not that the article had a deadline and was completed before it went to press.
the 12 paragraph tells you that 'capturing album of the year, however, was an uphill struggle. only two country albums -- glen campbell's 'by the time i get to phoenix' and the soundtrack to 'o brother, where art though?' - have triumphed in that category.'
there is nothing between paragraphs 9 and 12 that tells you they won album of the year. they did win and that award was presented late. so if they had time to include that sort-of announcement (that they can't find it in themselves to note), they had time to note it clearly (that would be 3 awards in the 9th paragaph).
now the reality is they won 5 awards. the reality is that they won the 'trifecta.' the 3 most important awards are: album of the year, song of the year and record of the year. they won all 3. that is the trifecta and when that happens, that is the story of the grammys. even if they hadn't won 2 others (which made them the most awarded of the night), just those 3 make them the story. but they don't get a color front page photo.
so the post gets bitchy in print and the new york times ignores and under reports their wins. both reports are insulting. and here's a suggestion to those with deadlines, you don't report a game before it's over, you don't report an awards show before it's over.
this was bullshit. this was a huge thing, to win the trifecta, and the paper of no record couldn't tell you about that. (the 2 awards they note being won were a country vocal for a group or duo and song of the year. they hint at album of the year.) that's bullshit.
the chicks won and they are the story. but you won't find their photo on the front page of the arts section (a black and white appears inside - as though they were little nothings).
if you're reading about a sports game, you want to know who won. if you're reading about the grammys, the 3 most important awards are album of the year, song of the year, record of the year. that's not 'country album' or 'pop album' or 'rock album' - that's album of the year - of all the albums, that's song of the year - of all the songs, that's recording of the year - of all the recordings.
so it was insulting and shouldn't have happened. but it did. 1 paper got bitchy, the other played dumb.
back to robert parry, dennis bernstein spoke with him tonight on Flashpoints about iran. there was another guest as well, larry something. he seemed quite smart but i didn't have a pen, let alone paper, and i wasn't getting off that couch. (i'm really not joking about how hard it is to carry around the pregnancy weight. i'm a small woman who already had big breasts. now i've got this huge belly, larger breasts and not only is it a pain to get up, i have to grab my back when i do to support it.) (and like stevie nicks, i've always 'enhanced' my height with high heels. i can't do that during the pregnancy which just now hit me since next month, i will be more mobile.) but robert parry said that bully boy wants war with iran and that it's considered that april may be the start date. they may try to provoke an attack and then use that as an excuse. there's also the case of the israeli government which wants to attack iran before they go nuclear and is having pressure from the likund party to attack. if israel attacks iran 1st, bully boy will use that as the excuse to attack iran - saying that we need to stand with our ally.
on the weapons that keep getting pimped as from iran, the devices exploding in iraq, robert parry noted that they could be assembled anywhere. there was a strong discussion on how the 'evidence' wasn't there and robert parry reminded every 1 of how the aluminum tubes were sold as weapons (in iraq) when they weren't. it's a credibility issue.
but, as dennis bernstein pointed out, the mainstream media is already trying to scare you and sell you war. it was a really strong program and larry was a great guest. but i didn't have a pen and was telling myself that i would remember robert parry's points - even if i couldn't quote him - and note it tonight.
so that's it for me tonight. closing with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Monday, February 12, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq; the US military has a show & tell; Kelly Dougherty shares what she saw during the court-martial of Ehren Watada last week; in Baghdad, nearly 100 are reported dead and nearly 200 are reported wounded in an attack utilizing multiple bombs;
Starting with Ehren Watada. In June 2006, Watada became the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. Last week, Watada faced a court-martial that lasted from Monday through Friday. Kelly Dougherty (Iraq Veteranst Against the War) reports what she observed noting that the prosecutions witnesses' testimony backed up Watada:
What actually happened, though, was that Lt. Watada's two commanders each testified that Lt. Watada's unit was not negatively impacted by his public statements and that Lt Watada's unit was not negatively impacted by his public statements and that Lt Watada was never ordered not to go public with his opposition to the war. Furthermore, all three men testified that if an officer is given an order he believes to be illegal, in this case participating in the occupation of Iraq, he is obligated to refuse it. Even if the order is found to be legal, all men agreed that they would not expect an officer to act in a manner that violates his conscience.
On Judge Toilet (aka Lt. Col. John Head) and his "Winken, Blinken, and Nod" to the prosecution as Toilet began floating the idea of a mistrail, Dougherty recalls:
It appeared to me, though, that Judge Head really wanted the prosecution to agree with him that the stipulation Lt. Watada signed was indeed a guilty confession and therefore he did not need to testify at all. When the prosecution agreed with the defense, the judge gave them a 15 minute recess to think things over. Afterwards, when the prosecution still agreed that Lt Watada had not made a confession and should take the stand, the judge gave them another recess. He said he'd give them 40 minutes, but if they needed more time to just let him know. Judge Head also made it clear that if the prosecution did not return with the answer he wanted, he would declare a mistrial. From a layperson's point of view, it seemed like the judge waas to prosecute the government's case himself. After the repeated recesses, the judge did declare a mistrial, Lt Watada never testified, and the case was rescheduled for March 19, or the fourth anniversary of the war. That was a surprise ending that none of us attending the court martial expected.
Yesterday, Ruth's Report and The Third Estate Sunday Review's "Editorial: The court-martial is over" addressed the mistrial and what it means for Ehren Watada.
Watada is a part of a movement of resistance with the military that includes others such as Agustin Aguayo (whose court-martial is currently set to begin on March 6th), Kyle Snyder, Darrell Anderson, Ivan Brobeck, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
Currently facing a court-martial (March 6th) is Agustin Aguayo who self-checked out of the military in September of last year and returned less than thirty days later (September 2nd through September 26th) but is being charged with desertion. Stars and Stripes reported last week that Aguayo's is prepared "to plead guilty to being absent without leave, but not to a more serious charge of desertion" and notes that "Desertion charges are typically not filed unless a servicemember has been AWOL for more than 30 days, though there are provisions for the more serious charge during times of war, officials have said." As the military moves to court-martial him (in Germany) a civilian court still hasn't weighed in. On November 21, 2006, the US Court of Appeals in Washington, DC heard Aguayo's appeal and they have yet to issue a ruling on the validity of his being denied c.o. status. Aaron Glantz noted (November 20, 2006 broadcast of The KPFA Evening News) that Aguayo's case is the first of it's kind hear in "a federal court since 1971". If the prosecution sticks with the desertion charge and if Aguayo is found guilty, he could face as many as seven years behind bars.
Helga Aguayo, Agustin's wife, has not only spoken out for her husband but for other war resisters as well. Most recently, Jason Farbman and Sam Bernstein (Socialist Worker) reported on Helga Aguayo addressing Watada supporters in Tacoma the day before Watada's court-martial began: "All war resisters should be supported. They will ultimately bring an end to the war." Jeff Paterson reported that she was there with their two children and her mother-in-law. Someone who knows something about marriage to a war resister was honored at the Grammys yesterday with a lifetime achievement award, Joan Baez. From 1968 to 1973, Baez was married to David Harris who was convicted of draft refusal and impisoned from 1969 to 1971. During that time, along with speaking out and activism, Baez wrote "A Song for David" (One Day at a Time):
And the stars in your sky
Are the stars in mine
And both prisoners
Of this life are we.
Through the same troubled waters
We carry our time,
You and the convicts and me.
That's a good thing to know
On the outside or in,
To answer not where
But just who I am.
Because the stars in your sky
Are the stars in mine
And both prisoners
Of this life are we.
Another woman who knows about marriage to a war resister is Brandi Key, the wife of Joshua Key. Joshua Key's book The Deserter's Tale documents his time serving in Iraq, what he witnessed and why he decided to self-check out. Nathan Whitlock (Toronto Star) reviews the book: "In 2003, Key spent seven months in Iraq, raiding the houses of Iraqi families, driving in heavily armed motorcades through hostile neighbourhoods, fighting an enemy that could attack and disappear at will, and watching with growing despair as his fellow soldiers, his army and, by extension, his country, abandoned all moral legitimacy. At the end of that seven months, Key walked away, going AWOL and going underground with his young family before eventually crossing the border into Canada in search of a new life. . . . The turning point for Key comes when he arrives at the scene of a supposed firefight, only to discover a group of U.S. soldiers kicking around the heads of Iraqi men like soccer balls. [Joshua Key:] 'We had become a force for evil, and I could not escape the fact that I was part of the machine'."
And the machine grinds on.
In Iraq? Well just Sunday the US military flacks and leadership were yet again bragging -- they'd begun their sweep, this version of the crackdown was going to do the trick. They spun and they spun and Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Damien Cave (New York Times) showed up in print with talk of "large-scale sweeps expected in eastern Baghdad". Someone forgot to tell central Baghdad. Devika Bhat (Times of London) reports that "two busy market areas in central Baghdad" wre the target of a bombing attack today. Ibon Villelabeitia (Reuters) reports mulitple explosions. Al Jazeera notes: "A column of smoke hundreds of feet wide billowed into the air above the market near the east bank of the Tigris river and near the central bank building." AFP reports: "The blasts were timed to mark the end of a national 15-minute silence called by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on the first anniversary of the demolition of a Shiite shrine by Sunni bombers that unleased a wave of sectarian attacks."
CNN says it was "[f]ive explosions". Bushra Juih (AP) notes three car bombs and a bombing detonaed by a man wearing it ("explosives-filled vest) which, combined, resulted in massive destruction, "[s]hops and stalls were obliterated," "debris and clothing mannequins were scattered in pools of blood on the floor of the warehouse-type building while men piled up plastic chairs". CBS and AP note Lara Logan, CBS News, "reports the parking structure was still ablaze nearly three hours after the initial explosion, and she says the death toll is likely to continue rising." CBS and AP also note "conflicting accounts about whether one or two car bombs were involved" and "a bomb hidden in a bag". BBC puts the number at three (two car bombs and a parcel bomb). Ibon Villelabeitia (Reuters) quotes eye witness Wathiq Ibrahim: "I saw three bodies shredded apart. Paramedics were picking up body pieces and human flesh from the pools of blood on the ground and placing them in small plastic bags. The smoke turned the place dark." CNN puts the toll thus far at 90 dead and 190 wounded.
Other bombings?
Reuters notes a bombing in nothern Baghdad that left two dead and five wounded. CNN notes four dead as a result of a car bomb in Mandali.
Shootings?
Reuters reports that the body guard of "an Interior Ministry employee" was shot dead in Baghdad and another was wounded and that "a primary school guard in Central Kut" was shot dead. CNN notes a person shot dead and two more wounded when their car was attacked in Muqdadiya.
Corpses?
Reuters reports 32 discovered in "scattered" in Baghdad, the corpse of a police officer ("bearing signs of torture") discovered in Falahiya, three corpses discovered in Mosul.
The above comes as the Red Cross Federation has issued an appeal: "In order to bring emergency relief goods to 50,00 socially vunlerable families (some 300,000 people), the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies has launched an appeal for 10.3 million Swiss francs (USD 8.3 million/6.4 million pounds). These funds are also meant to cover the health needs of 150,000 people for 12 months. 'This appeal is also meant to help the Iraqi Red Crescent continue to provide vital assistance in emergency relief and health care to the most vulnerable groups of the population throughout the country,' underlines Ahmed Gizo, Head of the Middle East/ North African Department at the Federation Secretariat in Genevea. 'They are the only ones who can still do this and it is essential they pursue this mission.' Electricity shortages, insufficient clean water, a deteriorating health service and soaring inflation (more than 76% in August 2006) have worsened already difficult living conditions. According to the UN, more than 630,000 people have been displaced since February 2006. In this context of violence and insecurity, the need for non-food items has become almost as important as food. This appeal will finance the delivery of items including clothing and cloth, blankets, kitchen utensils, stoves, jerricans, mattresses and tends to families considered socially vulnerable, because they do not have an income provider, or shelter or have very little income. Appeal funds will also be used to train more than 2,000 IRCS staff and volunteers as well as 46,000 school children in first aid, and will support four rounds of national polio immunization campaigns for 100,00 children under five years old."
As Anthony Arnove (author of IRAQ: The Logic of Withdrawal) noted to Kevin Zeese (CounterPunch), "Iraqis are far more likely to die violently in Iraq today than they were under the dictatorship" and, keep in the mind the appeal of the Red Cross Federation and what that money would be going for (money the US government should be providing), "In terms of how things will be once the U.S. withdraws, each day longer the United States stays, the possibilities of a livable outcome diminish. Which is why, in addition to pushing for immediate withdrawal, we also need to call on the United States and its allies to pay reparations to the Iraqi people (not just for the destruction caused by the most recent illegal invasion and occupation but before that the devastating sanctions, the toxic legacy and destruction of the 1991 Gulf War, and all the years that the U.S. armed and supported Saddam Huessein as he carried out his worst crimes). They can do a far better job rebuilding their country than the corporate looters and thugs of Halliburton, Bechtel, and Blackwater can." The Red Cross and Red Crescent are attempting to provide aid, the question is why the United States isn't?
Zeese noted Antonia Juhasz's work on the economic war on Iraq and Arnove replied: "The economic take-over of Iraq absolutely should be reversed. Antonia Juhasz is right, as Naomi Klein, who has also written very powerfully on this topic. Klein writes: 'The United States, having broken Iraq, is not in the process of fixing it. It is merely continuing to break the country and its people by other means, using not only F-16s and Bradleys, but now the less flashy weaponry' of economic strangulation. We need to call for an end to military and ecnomic occupation, as well as the removal of U.S. military bases."
Meanwhile, today, the US military announced: "A Soldier assigned to Multi-National Corps-Iraq, died February 11, 2007 in a non-combat related incident" and they announced: "A Multi-National Division - Baghdad Soldier died when insurgentstargeted a security patrol in a western segment of the Iraqi capital Feb. 11. While conducting a cordon and search operation, the patrol came under enemysmall arms fire. One Soldier was killed and another was wounded in the attack."
The question of the day: Have you enlisted in the whisper campaign? Serial war whisperer and pathetic war pornographer Michael Gordon is back -- and apparently he's stolen his former co-writer Judith Miller's wardrobe. As noted Saturday: "Looking at today's New York Times, Michael R. Gordon shows up in drag. It's a wig with pixie bangs and you keep waiting for him to (falsely) snarl, 'I was proved f**king right.' The propaganda is entitled "Deadliest Bomb In Iraq Is Made By Iran, U.S. Says." He's jetted over to DC, the byline tells you. And he barely stumbled across the runway in high heels before anonymice descended upon him with breathy whispers. They offer him "details" and we're all supposed to buy in.That requires forgetting previous 'scoops' like September 8, 2002's 'U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts.' He co-wrote that planted story with the help of Judith Miller. How freeing it must be (like ditching a girdle?) to get the byline all to himself. The war pornography of Michael Gordon tells us one thing today -- the blood letting in Iraq is no longer enough to get his war-on up (what ever is?) and now he's signed on to sell the American people a war with Iran."
Where stenography and pornography mix, there is Michael Gordon -- and where there is Michael Gordon there is a (false) story the administration wants told. Saturday, on RadioNation with Laura Flanders jokingly wondered if Michael R. Gordon and Judith Miller could be the same person?
As the disbelief and ridicule piled on and realizing that Gordo's leaky war-on might not be the best way to frighten the public (can you be frightened while laughing?), the US military held a super-secret, fudge brownie meeting with reporters on Sunday. The reporters were not allowed to identify anyone -- though all the unnamed are on the government payroll and supposedly working for the US tax payer. They skipped the coldcuts and instead made the spread all about E.F.P.s (explosively formed penetrators") and insisted that the devices were from Iran.
Tina Susman and Borzou Daragahi (Los Angeles Times) note there were "two tables laden with what they said were uniquely Iranian military hardware and weapons fragments." James Glanz (New York Times) reports: "The officials were repeatedly pressed on why they insisted on anonymity in such an important matter affecting the security of American and Iraqi troops." Best non-answer? One of those participating couldn't have if it was required that reporters identify government employees making claims that could lead to a war. Glanz noted the "evidence" was known of "as early as 2004" Susman and Daragahi report: "The officials said each piece of the displayed hardware could be traced to Iran, though to the untrained eye, there were no obvious Iranian markings other than that on dynamite. Some of the munitions bore Western lettering." Joshua Partlow (Washington Post) notes the response from the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad: "We deny such charges. We ask those who are claiming such evidence: Show the documents in public. We cannot compensate for the American failure and fiasco in Iraq. It is not our policy to be involved in any hostile operations against coalition forces here" and that Labeed M. Abbawi (deputy foreign minister in Iraq) echoed that: "If they have anything really conclusive, then they should come out and say it openly, then we will pick it up from there and use diplomatic channels".
In the US Congress, the House of Representatives have begun a non-binding resolution. The first half is the generic statement. The gums (no teeth) is in the second part: "Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007 to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq." Of the resolution, Susan Cornwell (Reuters) reports that "the House is expected to vote on [it] Friday".
Finally, at yesterday's Grammys, the Dixie Chicks received five awards. Next month would be the four year anniversary of the attack on the Chicks that began when Natalie Maines spoke a little truth Bully Boy and his bully posse couldn't handle. Radio programmers pulled the group's songs, hate mail and death threats in, the right-wing phone banked to create an impression that the Dixie Chicks stood alone. As Geoff Boucher (Los Angeles Times) notes, their performance of "Not Ready To Make Nice" was introduced by Joan Baez who hailed them as "three brave women." They won for Record of the Year, Song of the Year, Best Country Album, Album of the Year and Country Performance by a Duo or Group With Vocal. Natalie Maines, Emily Robison and Martie Maguire were supposed to be "dead" career wise after the bullies came running. Just one more plan the right-wing couldn't pull off.
