sky news reports that a new poll asking brits who they'd like to 'hang, torture or put in the stocks' has a clear winner. drum roll ... gordo brown!!!!
that's only a surprise if you haven't been following events in england.
gordon brown is currently on a holiday and thought this month would give him some breathing room. nope.
upi reports: 'An internal British defense ministry report revealing an annual $4.6 billion in government waste on equipment is being suppressed, an opposition official said.' do you smell gordo? tom peck (independent of london) does:
The Prime Minister has been accused of hushing up an internal report claiming his government is wasting as much as £2.5bn a year in defence spending.
The report by Bernard Gray, a former Ministry of Defence aide, is thought to accuse the Government of squandering the money by making a number of incompetent procurement decisions. Ministers refused to release the 300-page report last night, which they said was only a draft version.
It had been due to be published last month. However, at the last Prime Minister's Questions, Gordon Brown announced that it would now not appear until after the recess.
uh-oh. the new statesman adds: 'The report, commissioned by the former defence secretary John Hutton and led by the ex-defence aide Bernard Gray, had been due to be published before MPs broke up for the summer recess, but will now form part of a wider defence review. Downing Street said the report had been delayed because it was unfinished.' matthew norman offers some thoughts here.
my thoughts? sometimes, you really can't get away.
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Thursday, August 6, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Anthony Zinni explains how he was almost the US Ambassador to Iraq, the US State Dept and White House are criticized for no visible efforts regarding the victims of Camp Ashraf, Iraqi Christians and Sahwa are targeted in violence, and more.
US Gen Anthony Zinni is now retired from the military. He is now promoting a new book he's written with Tony Koltz entitled Leading the Charge: Leadership Lessons from the Battlefield to the Boardroom. He was supposed to be serving in the current administration. On NPR's The Diane Rehm Show today, Diane raised that issue.
Diane Rehm: General Zinni, you almost went to work for the Obama administration. I'd like to hear from you --
Anthony Zinni: Right.
Diane Rehm: -- what happened.
Anthony Zinni: Well, uh, I was called right before the inauguration and asked if I would be willing to serve as, uh, to serve in the administration in a couple of possibilities. And then --
Diane Rehm: By whom?
Anthony Zinni: By General [James L.] Jones, the National Security Advisor. And I said I would given the-the positions he mentioned,. And right after the inauguration, he called and asked if I would serve as the ambassador to, uh, Iraq. And I said I would. And, uh, received a call from the vice president thanking me that I would take that on --
Diane Rehm: Vice President [Joe] Biden.
Anthony Zinni: Vice President Biden. And, uh, I met with Secretary of State [Hillary] Clinton and, uh, deputy -- two deputies. Spent a long time with her in the office. She was asking me what I understood about Iraq, my assessment. I had just gotten back not long before that doing an assessment out there. And then I left that meeting, you know, understanding fully, you know, I was going to be the nominee. I mean I was told to prepare for it, we would move the process forward very quickly because of the outgoing Ambassador Ryan Crocker was coming out very quickly.
Diane Rehm: You shook hands on it?
Anthony Zinni: Yes, we did. I mean, there was no way I left and didn't think this was going to happen. And actually thought I had a very short period of time to get my affairs in order. I mean, obviously, there are a number of things you have to do in your own financial family and all that sort of thing. And for -- a week went by and I was told to stay in touch, be prepared, quote: "Move the paperwork forward." That we were going to move up the confirmation hearings. And nothing was happening. And I tried to contact people and I couldn't get any answers. And finally late -- about a week later -- I finally got a hold of General Jones and he informed me I was not the choice and I was kind of shocked and surprised by it. And then the next morning in the Washington Post, I read that it's Chris Hill and I thought: "Had I not gotten ahold of General Jones, that's how I would found out." To be honest with you, I-I don't, I can understand people changing their minds and I don't object to that. You know that's a fact of life. I-I was just put back by not being called or told by anyone and, to this day, I haven't had anybody explain to me what happened so. But I moved on. Clearly, you know, you have to understand Washington and the way things work and I've moved on from there.
Diane Rehm: What's your best guess as to why you were not chosen?
Anthony Zinni: Honestly, Diane, I don't know. Uh, one of the reasons -- I-I started getting calls that very day from the media, from the press and, uh, people saying, "These are the rumors we're hearing." And they were attributed to senior government officials so that was disturbing. And many of the-the reasons given, I clearly knew were not right because --
Diane Rehm: Such as?
Anthony Zinni: Such as, "Well the Pentagon didn't want you." Or, "A certain general didn't want you." All-all of whom I knew personally and it's just the opposite and matter of fact were calling me upset that-that it hadn't gone through. So I began to be bothered by some of the rumors that obviously were coming out of the -- supposedly attributed by the media to senior government officials.
Diane Rehm: What kinds of rumors?
Anthony Zinni: Well, it was this particular lobby that worked against you, it was this particular individual that-that stopped it or this person. And-and to me that -- you know, to me, many of them I knew weren't true, many of them I thought were only based on rumor and so I thought it important since they were asking me what happened I tried to not engage them but then I finally said, "Well look, let me just tell you the course of events that went by. So there's no misunderstanding that I didn't know or understand that I was be the nominee. And what happened." And-and to this day, nobody's told me what happened. Not that I'm interested anymore. But [laughing] I haven't been told.
Diane Rehm: So even speaking with General Jones, he did not give you a reason?
Anthony Zinni: He did not. Our last conversation, right after that was "Well I'll get back to you as I find out." And, you know, that was in January and then I have not heard anything about it. Not that I'm, again, I'm not interested anymore in what happened.
Diane Rehm: Of course you're not interested anymore since it's over and done with. On the other hand, as a human being, if I had been in your position, I would have felt really stung.
Anthony Zinni: Yeah -- well, yes. I guess the best way to describe my feelings, was I was disappointed because there were many friends and people I respected tremendously in this process and, uh, so that-that created a disappointment and confusion on my part as to what exactly happened.
We'll come back to another section of The Diane Rehm Show in a bit. As Michael Crowley (New Republic) pointed out this week, Chris Hill has no experience with Iraq, doesn't speak Arabic "and has a background in Eastern Europe and Asia." Chris Hill demonstrated in his confirmation hearings that he didn't grasp the issues at stake around disputed Kirkuk. Hill doesn't appear to grasp the issue of the MEK or how the lack of visible efforts to stop the targeting of the MEK by Nouri al-Maliki's forces is causing global outrage. James Morrison (Washington Times) reports Democrats and Republicans in the US House of Representatives have called out the inaction in a letter to the US State Dept -- 21 Democrats, 11 Republicans including Barbara Lee, Sheila Jackson Lee, Brad Sherman, Diane Watson, John Boozman, Bob Inglis, Ted Poe, Dana Rohrabacher, Carolyn B. Maloney and Edolphus Towns. The representatives note, "A community of protected persons has been set upon by security forces of the state to which we relinquished their protection. We believe there is cause to fear the forced expulsion of the Ashraf residents by Iraqi forces." The legislators urge Hillary to instruct Chris Hill to address with Nouri's government "international law and with the assurances Iraq gave the U.S. regarding Ashraf residents." Last Tuesday, Nouri al-Maliki ordered the assault on Camp Ashraf, home to the MEK. The MEK has been in Iraq for decades. They are Iranian exiles welcomed into Iraq by Saddam Hussein. They are currently considered "terrorists" by the US. They were formerly considered such by the European Union and England; however, both re-evaluated and took them off the terrorist watch list. The US military protected the residents of Camp Ashraf during the first six years of the Iraq War. UPI explains, "Iraqi police in July stormed the Camp Ashraf base of the People's Mujahedin of Iran using tear gas and water cannons, promising to expel the 3,500 members of the group." Today The Economist notes, "After the Americans took over in 2003, the PMOI people at Camp Ashraf, as the place is known, were disarmed. More recently the Iraqis decided to take over the camp, doubtless with the ecnouragement of their ruling fellow Shias in Tehran. Ignoring American protests, the Iraqi forces killed at least 11 inmates. If such crude methods are used elsewhere -- for instance, in handling insurgents wanting to come onside -- natioanl reconciliation is unlikely to be achieved." The National Council of Resistance of Iran released the following statement today:
At 9:45 local time this morning, two Iraqi helicopters armed with heavy machine guns flew at low altitude over Camp Ashraf in a bid to intimidate the residents and patrol the area. The helicopters also dropped propaganda flyers. In light of last weeks' massacre of defenseless residents of Ashraf by Iraqi suppressive forces and the US forces' inaction in this respect, and in view of the US forces' role in Iraq's aerial control, particularly in Diyala province;
1- The Iranian Resistance expresses its strongest protest to the American forces for allowing Iraqi helicopters to fly over Ashraf and demands aerial security guarantees from the US forces for Ashraf and prevention of a war crime by violation of Ashraf air space. Considering widespread influence of the terrorist Qods force in Iraq, which has been emphasized by US commanders in Iraq on a number of occasions, and with regards to Iranian regime's plots to annihilate the residents of Ashraf, opening of Ashraf air space to such flights would no doubt be misused by the Iranian regime to commit further crimes.
2- According to our information, the clerical regime's ambassador to Baghdad, Revolutionary Guard Kazemi Qomi who is one of the commanders of terrorist Qods force, had provided the content of the propaganda flyers to the office of the Iraqi Prime Minister on Tuesday, August 4, to be dropped on Ashraf.
3- There is no doubt that all these measures have been dictated by the Iranian regime's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to the government of Iraq in the midst of Iranian people's escalating uprising. Nouri al-Maliki, Iraqi Prime Minister, has now turned into a tool in the hands of the Iranian regime to be used against mullahs' main opposition.
Ashraf's defenseless residents who stood empty handed against barrage of bullets in one of the most barbaric criminal attacks last week by the Iraqi forces do not give any credit to Khamenei and Maliki aerial shows, thus they tore up the documents produced by Khamenei's Revolutionary Guards in Qom and Baghdad before the eyes of Iraqi forces and set fire to them.
Secretariat of the National Council of Resistance of Iran August 6, 2009
Former US House Rep Tom Tancredo pens a column about the MEK for the Washington Times and he states:
Human Rights Watch has called for an impartial investigation into the Iraqi police action. Videos of the July 28 attacks show police wielding not only batons and water canons but iron bars in their assault on unarmed residents. Military Humvees ran over injured protesters. Residents also claim that at least two people were killed by sniper fire. Iraqi security forces have prevented journalists from entering the camp to interview residents.
Independent observers know that the action on July 28 is hardly an isolated incident, as it came on the heels of repeated Iraqi government statements that it intends to disband the camp and evict its residents. Such statements are contrary to the agreement signed with the United States guaranteeing the safety of the refugees.
Iraq is also a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which forbids the forcible return of political refugees who face torture or cruel punishments. But where can they go if the United States continues to label them terrorists?
Iraq's Alsumaria reports that Shirwan Waeli, Minister of State, declared they will not grant asylum to the refugees. Mohammed Abbas (Reuters) reports that Nouri's bag boy Ali al-Dabbagh issued denials that water, medical supplies and food were being blocked from arriving at Camp Ashraf and notes that the claims of the blockage comes from human rights activists as well as Camp Ashraf residents.
The betrayal of the residents of Camp Ashraf should alarm some in England. Today US Maj Gen Richard Nash briefed reporters at the Pentagon. Nash was appearing via satellite from Basra and he was explaining how, in sourthern Iraq, Iraqis are showing leadership. The British turned Basra over to the US and the US is now eager to pass it on to Iraqis. Nash declared, "The Iraqis have stepped up to the challenge and have faced threates head on." How does this apply to England? As the British troops left, they left behind a dog and a cat and asked the Americans to take care of them. Deborah Haynes (Times of London) reports the dog is Sandbag and has 32,000 Facebook friends and 6,000 people who petitioned the British government to allow Sandbag to come to England. Instead, Downing Street released this statement: "Our US colleagues have assured us that both Sandbag and Hesco will be well cared for. Both are currently fit and healthy." Hesco is the Iraqi cat the British soldiers adopted. Of course, the residents of Camp Ashraf were assured by Americans that they would be protected. And, seeing how that turned out, maybe the world should worry Nouri will next launch an assault on Sandbag and Hesco? If so, apparently the White House will remain mute as it has throughout the Camp Ashraf assault.
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad sticky bombing which claimed 1 life and left three people injured, a Baghdad bombing which claimed 1 life and a Mosul bombing which claimed 2 lives and left one person injured. Reuters notes a Kirkuk car bombing which claimed 4 lives and left thirty injured, and a Mosul home bombing which injured two Christian females.
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 money exchange office owner shot dead in Baquba and an attack on a Sahwa checkpoint in Baquba which claimed the life of 1 Sahwa. Reuters notes 1 woman shot dead in Mosul by a drive-by and 1 man shot dead in a Mosul home invasion.
Corpses?
Reuters notes 1 corpse discovered in Mosul.
At the end of last month, Ruth noted that three journalism students, Jennifer Canfield, Tom Hewitt and Jessica Hoffman, with the University of Alaska were headed to Iraq. They are in Iraq and they are reporting at Short Timers. Tom Hewitt offers an overview of events so far including:
While on our way to get our credentials at the Combined Press Information Center in the Green Zone, our convoy came within a few minutes of being hit by an IED, which made the situation getting into the Green Zone a bit tricky due to fears of another attack. We eventually made it into the CPIC, however, and got credentialed.
On the subject of journalists in Iraq, Shon Meckfessel (The Nation) states, "I'm writing this statement to help people understand what happened to my three friends, Shane Bauer, Sarah Shourd and Josh Fattal, who went missing by the Iran/Iraq border. I have been close friends with Shane and Sarah for years, and recently met Josh, a longtime friend of Shane. Shane is a language student and freelance journalist; Sarah is an English teacher, and Josh arranges student exchange trips. All of us have done some writing about our travels, and all of us share a deep appreciation for Middle Eastern cultures." His statement continues. The three were said to have been hiking. They were in northern Iraq, Kurdistan, and allegedly ended up on Iranian soil. (Anyone paying attention to Iraq in the last years knows the external border disputes especially with regards to Iran though it generally gets more attention when the external border dispute has to do with fishermen allegedly entering Iranian waters.) The three are currently held and jailed by the Iranian government. For more on them, see Meckfessel's statement.
Now returning to The Diane Rehm Show where Diane spoke with retired Gen Anthony Zinni today. She raised the issue of Col Timothy Reese's memo.
Diane Rehm: General, there's talk that the administration may declare victory and leave Iraq sooner than planned. What are your thoughts?
Anthony Zinni: Well I-I think first of all in terms of combat troops, I-I think the schedule we're on is the right one. Uh, we've done about all we can do in terms of our troops -- coalition troops -- patrolling the streets and in the cities. We have worked hard enough and long enough with the Iraqi security forces that they have the capability to stand up to the challenge. Now they will have problems, they're not perfect. I do think as we go forward, we'll have to continue security assistance programs helping them with the right equipment training education of their leaders and officers. And that's not just military, that's police and-and other security elements that they have there. But I think that's on track. And I think -- I think an ongoing program of that kind of support is necessary to maintain. It's now up to the Iraqi government. I mean, I think we have put him in a position to succeed. It's going to be an issue of their capability and competence to administer, to allocate funds to build programs. I spent some time over there, late last year, at the request of Ambassador Crocker and General [Ray] Odierno, part of an assessment team looking around and I came away -- especially when I was with some of the ministers and some of the ministries in the Iraqi government -- you know, realizing that they're learning something that they have no experience in and that's how to govern, how to build a bureaucracy, how to make policy. They have some inherent friction points. Obviously it isn't like there's one party in office so you can be consistent. They have a Sunni, a Kurd, a Shia. And you have differences that they have to come to grips with internally. They're beginning to learn the -- how bureaucracies function and how governments need to-to do the nitty gritty of getting things done. And in walking some of the streets and talking to some of the people, trying to assess what some of their expectations are, it came out clear to me that it will succeed if they feel their government is responsive to their needs. They want security. They want their essential services met. They want that electricity on 24-7 and garbage picked up.
Diane Rehm: But suppose all that breaks down. Then what happens to the US and its military?
Anthony Zinni: Well -- it -- I feel, you know, of course, I opposed going into Iraq when we did. Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. And you know that's -- people have come down on different sides of that but the reason I did is we could not afford a deep stabilized disconnected Iraq -- especially since we had other requirements around the world particularly Afghanistan, Pakistan and the entire Taliban and al Qaeda. It-it -- a fragmented destabilized Iraq, right in the heart of the Middle East, I don't think will be for the international community, will be, uh, uh, able to cope with that or able to deal with that by ignoring it. That was my concern: Once you're in, you're in all the way. And I don't think you're going to see a total collapse but I do think my worry would be and-and I don't think this will happen but you could get a fragmentation and see a Kurdish area, a Sunni area, a Shia area split up and, you know, the violence that may go with that. Because at the points where they meet and the fault lines of course there's-there's great danger. Uh, that is going to be difficult for the region. And that's going to wash over and create more problems that we have and-and I would hate to say this but I think we're going to be in a position where we can't let that happen and we need to redefine that "we" is not only the United States. And we need to build more support for ensuring it doesn't happen to begin with or be prepared to take the right actions to react to it.
Diane Rehm: But isn't there very little support internationally?
Anthony Zinni: There is very little support internationally. As a matter of fact, one of my worries about Afghanistan, we're beginning to see waning support and I know you want to talk about that but Iraq of course because the initial entry into Iraq was not received favorably, you know, in the international community with some exceptions. And so the stomach for reengagement obviously isn't there. But I want to say I left there -- and I went there as a skeptic of course and-and-and -- but I admired what General Petraeus did, what Ryan Crocker did, General Odierno because I think they turned it around and gave it a chance. I would -- I would say right now, I do think it will have bumps along the road but it can succeed and I would give you some things to watch. There are three elections in this year. We've already had one, it went very well. If the other two go well, and what I mean by well, the people come out to vote, it's secure, there's no fraud or-or excess influence that shouldn't be -- inappropriate influence, those are going to be good signs. If you begin to see essential services, they're being met. You see the electricity going up, I think then it's going to be on its way to reasonable stability -- at least in the near term and maybe in the long term even more sustainable stability.
What three elections this year is he talking about? The one that's taken place, that he's describing, sounds like the Kurdistan elections last month. But he means the January elections (14 provinces voted). If he's including national elections, they're supposed to take place next January (though they could be postponed again). He does say "him" (apparently meaning Nouri) in the above remarks. It's a prettied-up-view of Iraq. But let's stick with elections. We'll drop back to Friday to rerun this:
By the way, Patrick Cockburn was one of the fools insisting in the last weeks that the Iraqis would be able to vote yesterday on the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement. That didn't happen. That was never going to happen. It was obvious for some time and by June, with no move to organize voting and poll workers, it was obviously not happening. But fools and liars -- like Cockburn -- continued to insist it would. Just like they continue to lie that the White House was forced into the SOFA when the White House got everything they wanted with the SOFA. Timothy Williams and Abeer Mohammed cover some of yesterday's reported violence in today's New York Times and also explain:
["]The government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has proposed scheduling the referendum for Jan. 15 to coincide with parliamentary elections.On Thursday, one of the few public mentions of the July 30 deadline was made by Tariq al-Hashemi, one of Iraq's two vice presidents."This date had been carefully chosen to provide the necessary time to have a tangible result," Mr. Hashemi said in a statement. "Failure to meet the date is a delay that denies the Iraqi people their rights."In the meantime, various Iraqi governmental entities pointed fingers at one another for failing to convene an election.["]
The brackets are to note that's all from the paper (obvious in the origianl entry but both paragraphs above are in bold print). It's obvious. And something else is obvious, Patrick Cockburn isn't the worst reporter in indymedia. The worst reporter is the one who stole the New York Times article and has sentences in 'their' report that are word-for-word from the NYT report by Williams and Mohammed. Just a thought, besides being theft, is it really smart for those allegedly against the Iraq War to steal from the New York Times to begin with? It's really not an "anti-war" paper. But pay attention and see if you can spot the NYT rip-off, it's an article that's popping up at many sites currently.
In Iraq, Alsumaria reports Parliament is outraged by Nouri's latest stunt: Calling treaties memos of understanding so he can bypass Congress. You know, the US might be able to call this out . . . Oh wait, they US Congress (including the now-president of the US, Barack Obama) rolled over after the SOFA was approved by the Iraqi Parliament. And Bully Boy Bush called it a SOFA (it was a treaty) to avoid having to put it through the US Congress for approval. Hmmm. It appears Nouri was watching and did learn something -- though not what Zinni outlines as things needed to pass on. Meanwhile, the Bremer walls are coming down around Baghdad -- at least some of them. Maybe. The ethnic cleansing that took place to purge Baghdad ended some time ago. Baghdad's still targeted with bombs, don't pretend it isn't. But the walls were primarily about -- as so many rightly feared -- corralling and herding the 'undesirables,' the ones targeted. Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) kind of notes the walls, but really focuses on the more impostant issues such as: "Iraqi authorities have threatened to seize U.S. vehicles that do not have Iraqi license plates, sending hundreds of American government employees and contractors scrambling to Baghdad's equivalent of the DMV." Sam Dagher (New York Times) notes the claims that "most" of the walls will be removed in 40 days. That claim has been made before, by the way. No one seems aware of that. Dagher notes that the plans do "not cover many of the giant walls put up by the United States military two years ago around Baghdad neighborhoods like Dora, Huriya and Saidiya that experienced the worst of the sectarian bloodshed."
Jason Swindlehurst, Jason Creswell, Alec Maclachlan, Alan McMenemy and Peter Moore, all British citizens, were kidnapped in Baghdad May 29, 2007. Jason Swindlehurst and Jason Creswell were dead when their bodies were turned over to the British authorities after the two leaders of the group bragging about having done the kidnappings were released from US custody. (The same group, and why the brothers had been imprisoned originally by the US, bragged about their actions in assaulting a US base and killing 5 American soldiers.) The British government considers Alec and Alan to be dead (the families remain hopeful) and it is thought (by the British government) that Peter Moore is alive. The group taking credit for the kidnappings and for the deaths of 5 US soldiers is alternately called the Righteous League or the League of Righteous by the press. The press? They got press this week, see Monday's snapshot, because Nouri met with them to bring them back into the government. As noted in the Tuesday snapshot, the press spin that the group has given up violence is false. Their spokesperson says they will not attack Iraqis but that they will continue to go after US service members.Peter Moore is assumed alive and Alec and Adam may be. And Nouri's welcoming the group back to the 'political' process in Iraq? Nouri's spokespeople refute claims made by Gordon Brown's flacks. They claim he's pressing the group on the British citizens. Nouri's spokesperson dismissed that idea and stated it's not a concern for Nouri. Jason Swindlehurst's sister Lizzette Swindlehurst tells the Skelmersdale Advertiser, "To me he [Gordon Brown] could have done something. At the end of the day he is the one with the power in the country, isn't he? I don't know how my mum and dad feel, but I think a lot more could have been done than they said they were doing. I think they knew more as well." Mark Johnson (Skelmersdale Advertiser) quotes her explaining, "They [doubters] were originally saying he had committed suicide. He would not have taken his own life. He would not have done that. Only people who knew him knew he would not do that. He had too much to live for -- he had a little girl." Steve Orme (Liverpool Echo) covers the funeral yesterday. Orme quotes father Russell Swindlehurst stating, "We may not have agreed with their [the government's] policy on the news blackout, but who is to say if the media was informed of everything that went on, the outcome would have been different?"
Turning to the US, Debra Sweet (World Can't Wait) writes about the peace movement and notes four upcoming dates:
Monday October 5, in Washington DC. Protest at the White House against Obama's Wars, on the anniversary of the US attack on Afghanistan, in coalition with National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance (NCNR) and Witness Against Torture, Activist Response Team & Veterans for Peace. We will march from McPherson Square to the White House, and the action will include non violent civil resistance.
Tuesday October 6. We Are Not Your Soldiers! A day of resisting recruitment in high schools, nationwide. In high schools, this means everything from wearing a button or orange armband, to holding film showings & talks, to bringing in anti-war veterans of Iraq & Afghanistan, to sitting in or walking out to protest at recruiting stations. In support of these actions, we urge people to hold war protests on October 6 at recruiting stations, or city centers.
Saturday, Sunday October 10/11: Equality March in Washington DC. World Can't Wait will be present to support the just demand for marriage equality for gay & lesbian partners and for the repeal of the "Defense of Marriage Act." We are not against the repeal of the discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, but we plan to challenge anyone to say why people should go into the military now, when they will contribute to the illegal, unjust, illegitimate, immoral war, and occupations.
Saturday, October 17: Local Protests to End the Iraq & Afghanistan Wars and Occupations.
A majority of people taking the survey said they are ready to organize for October, or want more information. The basic plans are coming together, and we're asking YOU to develop the details as we go forward.
iraq
the diane rehm show
npr
laith hammoudimcclatchy newspapers
the times of londondeborah haynes
mohammed abbas
alsumaria
the washington posternesto londonothe new york timessam dagher
steve ormemark johnson
debra sweet
8/06/2009
late, bob somerby says goodbye to reaching out, etc.
if you were waiting for me to blog, sorry.
and let me just do links this way:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Ty, Jess, and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.
all of the above participated in a roundtable tonight for a new community newsletter. ann and kat hadn't planned to, they didn't know about it. it was right around the time many of usually blog and we got a text can you mike online?
i could and i did. as did the above except kat and ann who were doing their blogs.
we switched to a chat room style because there was too much of a delay on microphones.
so it's a new community newsletter. it will come out on saturdays (1st 1 this saturday). krista says write her or gina if you want to get it, they're helping set up the newsletter. it's not their newsletter. this is an overseas news letter.
polly does a great job with polly's brew but that really does focus on british members. and this 1 will be european community members and elsewhere. a japanese community member is writing a column for it so that'll be great.
c.i.?
every 1 knows c.i. has too much to do. but what's going to take place, instead of a column, beth will interview c.i. each week about a topic she (beth) chooses and that will be c.i.'s contribution. c.i.'ll pop in during roundtables as well but c.i.'s already columns for every newsletter and this is really the only way it can work and even that, as beth pointed out, doesn't mean hassle free.
we had so much fun. ann saw cedric on his computer and asked him what he was doing? they ended up both participating. if a line has cedric's name next to it and you think, 'that's got to be ann,' it probably is. they were using cedric's laptop and all of his chat has his name on it so dominick has to go back and put in every 1's name and i told him i'd mention that.
kat won't be a problem because she did a thing each time before she typed so you knew it was her. i don't know what it is that makes it happen but it's a smiley face that sticks a hand out 1 direction and then the other. i really don't know how to do all that fun stuff. but she did that and so it's obvious when it's kat.
but i'm really excited and i think we all were. it was a lot of fun.
members in 3 countries wanted to know why americans were such little babies? in their countries, the 'birthers' wouldn't be anything to lose a temper over. it'd be a drinking game at best, we were told. they said the united states takes every thing way too serious. i agree with that. and they could back it up with the prime example being the whole let's-impeach-bill-clinton-for-sex nonsense.
kat told a story i'm going to repeat her but you have to read the roundtable to really appreciate it.
when they take a cab from or to the airport instead of renting a car or take a cab in some city they're speaking, the drivers always want to talk to c.i.
they recognize her and know she's left and it's always just hanging out there. after about 3 minutes they'll usually pipe up with 'you mind if i say something.'
and c.i. will lay down a ground rule which is 'if it's politics don't make any assumptions about me and i won't make any about you.'
and usually that falls apart with assumptions about c.i. and c.i. will calmly correct them.
but kat's point was that c.i. can and does talk to every 1.
c.i.'s not spitting on people are telling them they're stupid.
and that they come into contact with a lot of cab drivers who are 'birthers.'
and kat was talking about how c.i. will listen and will be respectful and will note, when the cabbie's done talking, 'i don't personally believe in that, i could be wrong.' and they can have a conversation.
and i'd argue c.i. does more good than all these liars and attackers online because they do have conversations. today, kat's example, was the 'birther' who then went on to socialized medicine pushed by barack.
and c.i. was able to say that she would support socialized medicine, she would campaign around the country for it. but that's not what barack's proposing in any of his plans.
c.i. doesn't support barack's multiple plans but when c.i. explains the basics points of the plans, kat was pointing this happens every time, the cabbie will say, 'well that's not so bad.'
and that's because they're centrists and sometimes right-leaning centrists and they've heard 'barack wants socialized medicine!'
guess what you idiots attacking the 'birthers'? those people aren't going to listen to you. you attack them.
c.i.'s approach is 'if you believe it or suspect it, you need to follow up.' c.i. doesn't attack them. and after that's out of the way, they can have discussions about real things. which includes iraq. kat said they got to the hotel and c.i. stayed in the car talking for 20 minutes to the driver because the topic had turned to iraq. the guy had served over there. and c.i.'s opposed to the illegal war and known for that in real life. and they were able to have a conversation.
and the guy at the start got a little angry (before c.i. even spoke) and then he apologized and said he just doesn't ever feel like any 1 listens to him. and c.i. said don't apologize that it would be rough for a lot of people who went over there to talk about it.
bob somerby, for those who missed it, is about to launch his mega attack on the 'birthers.'
who you trying to reach bobby?
he's not going to reach any 1.
and he'll probably end up sounding like an ass the way barbara boxer did.
if you're going to critique them, especially to 'fact check' them, you better know what they believe.
but you're not going to convince them, grow up.
no 1 yelling at people who didn't believe in the lone gunman convinced any 1.
quit being so stupid.
bob's about to start performing a circle jerk for the choir. same way keith olbermann does. i thought bob somerby was above that.
but it's time for him to start attacking people.
i'm sure he'll get the strong love from the faux left that keith does as a result.
it's a real shame because he had been doing his strongest work in years.
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Wednesday, August 5, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, we examine the useless and uninformed Senator Barbara Boxer who tosses out some Iraq crumbs on NPR, the assault on Camp Ashraf garners worldwide attention, Kurdistan set to become partners in an international oil company, and more.
We'll start with NPR's The Diane Rehm Show. Today US Senator Barbara Boxer was the guest for the first hour, in part to promote her new thriller, written with Mary-Rose Hayes, Blind Trust. We'll note the section on Iraq -- very brief. Those opposed to the Afghanistan War will have much to dig around in the section that follows -- none of it good for Boxer. We're jumping in where she's been listing regrets and grabbing at Iraq.
Senator Barbara Boxer: I regret that even after voting "no" on the War on Iraq, I should have been down there every day making my voice louder and stronger.
Diane Rehm: Why didn't you?
Senator Barbara Boxer: [Sighs] I thought that I said enough when I voted "no" and I continued to speak but not loudly enough and not clearly enough and you know that's why I like this novel because Ellen's my hero, she does everything right I don't.
Diane Rehm: That's quite an admission.
Senator Barbara Boxer: Well it's true.
Diane Rehm: Alright. Speaking of Iraq, there is some talk that the US may, before it's planned deadline, pull its troops out and declare victory. What's your thought?
Senator Barbara Boxer: Well that is definitely some of the advice we're getting from some of our military people. I think it's time to leave, I thought it was time to leave before, so much blood and sweat and tears and guts have been left there and I just have a view of this that-that the people of Iraq have an opportunity now to-to build their own country --
Diane Rehm: They're still killing each other.
Senator Barbara Boxer: Well, you know what? The people of Iraq have to decide if they want a country or they don't want a country and we can't decide it for them.
And that was it. It made Barbara's short list of regrets but?
But it passes like the summer
I'm a wild seed again
Let the wind carry me
-- "Let The Wind Carry Me" written by Joni Mitchell, first appears on her For The Roses
A caller brought her back to earth and Iraq but first Barbara had to make an ass out of herself. It's one thing to say that you're not going to speak to the 'birther' topic, it's another to say that and go on to accuse them of not having their facts and then offer up idiocy passed off as fact. I don't follow that issue but I'm damn well aware that John McCain's birth has been addressed by them and, in fact, they point to Claire McCaskill's actions (including an aborted one) within the Senate to back up their beliefs. Ava and I began speaking to friends of Ann Dunahm's in 2007 and continued through 2008, we spoke to men who were friends with Barack Sr. in college. We do not believe he was born in Kenya. We heard one story repeatedly and consistently. Those who do believe he was born in Kenya should pursue that because this is still, Barbara Boxer's embarrassing performance today on Diane's show not withstanding, a democracy.
(Embarrassing performance? Examples include telling of trying to get a man kicked out of a public event for tossing fake money at her, referring to two journalists as "young women" over and over except to refer to one as a "mother" -- they have careers, Barbara, quit being so damn insulting, and her little grudge f**k against Bill and Hillary Clinton -- we're all sorry your daughter couldn't make her marriage work, quit being such little s**t about it, Barbara).
It's not our issue but, unlike Barbara Boxer, we don't need to tear down people who believe differently than we do. And we don't disgrace ourselves by coming off like a raving lunatic on NPR or, for that matter, by co-writing one book that bombed and inflicting another bad attempt at John Grisham on the American public. And someone who wants to lecture others on facts, should have them. Including on the name of the Feminist Majority Foundation. It's not a difficult name to remember, Barbara. But it's not difficult to follow the headlines and, as her Iraq answer revealed, she can't even do that. (And that's among the most recent statewide poll, PDF format warning The Field Poll, found 43% supproting her re-election and 44% "not inclined to re-elect her." When you're that evenly divided and you're a sitting senator, you've done a great deal wrong.)
Senator Barbara Boxer: First of all, I have never heard Nouri al-Maliki ask us to stay so I don't know what particular speech he [the caller] was referring to. He said for a long time it's time for Americans to leave and I think it is. And what will guide me, obviously the reports on the ground from the military but my overwhelming belief that we have bled so much and done so much that I already say and I said a long time ago we gave the Iraqi people the chance to govern themselves, to rebuild and anyone who served there or any of the families who lost people there or any of those who were wounded there should know they gave their all to give the Iraqis a chance and now they have to take that chance and run with it.
This is the best my state can do? This passes for liberal? Barbara Boxer lying, LYING, about the Iraq War. Did you hear the Barbara say one damn word about the Iraqis who have died? And excuse me, but Barbara knows Nouri's a thug so is she being stupid or playing us for stupid when she says the Iraqi people have a chance at a government?
The Iraqi people have had a government imposed upon them by the US government. The Iraqi people would never, NEVER, elect a government of exiles to represent them. No one would. You wouldn't elect someone to the board of supervisors if their 'qualification' was they hid in another region because they were too scared to stand up. With each addition of highlights, Barbara loses more intelligence so maybe she truly is as stupid as she came off but it felt more like she was playing listeners for stupid. Reality, Adil E. Shamoo and Bonnie Bricker (Foreign Policy In Focus) explain, "Parliament members are afraid to attend meetings. Iraq's nascent economy is deteriorating. Hundreds of armed militias are ready to fight for their own interests. This is Iraq today." But Barbara wants to turn it into a fledging democracy?
it appears she's not looking at the facts and let me do her snide little laugh at her because the stupid idiot is so out of touch that she's not aware of the speech. Reading list for the failed and failing author, Margaret Talev's "Iraq's Maliki raises possibility of asking U.S. to stay on" (McClatchy Newspapers) and, Barbara, Anne Gearan covers al-Maliki's remarks for AP. From the July 23rd snapshot:
The articles repeatedly (and falsely) claim the US will be out of Iraq in 2011. That's not what's happening. It's not even claimed to be happening. Does no one listen to Adm Mike Mullen, Gen Ray Odierno or even Secretary of Defense Robert Gates? Reading the articles today, it doesn't appear that anyone does. Uh-oh. Reality slaps them in the face. Aljazeera reports, "The Iraqi prime minister has admitted US troops could stay in the country beyond 2011." Yeah, he did it today and it's only a surprise if you've never grasped what the Status Of Forces Agrement does and does not do. The Washington Post, for example, has one person on staff who understands the SOFA completely. That's one more than the New York Times has. Drop back to real time coverage (Thanksgiving 2008) and you'll see the Washington Post could explain what it did and didn't do and get it right. No other US outlet can make that claim. (The Los Angeles Times hedged their bets but did appear to grasp it in an article co-written by Tina Susman.) McClatchy Newspapers? Oh goodness, Leila Fadel made an idiot of herself over the SOFA. Even more so than the New York Times (Elisabeth Bumiller -- in December and January -- offered some realities but they were lost on the other reporters at the paper). The Times just got it wrong. Fadel got it wrong and sang praises of it. It wasn't reporting, it was column writing passed off as such. Today, Nouri declared, "Nevertheless, if the Iraqis require further training and support we shall examine this at the time, based on the needs of Iraq." Sound familiar? It should. This month you should have heard Adm Mike Mullen make the same statement, you should have heard General Ray Odierno make it over and over beginning in May and US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has made it many times -- generally he's asked when he's visiting a foreign country because US reporters don't really seem to care. One exception would certainly be Dahr Jamail who was on KPFA's Flashpoints yesterday and explained, "We still have over 130,000 troops in Iraq. Troops are not being withdrawn from Iraq. They are being relocated to different bases, some of the bases still within cities, but they are not being withdrawn thus far." Dahr's latest book The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan has just been released this month. IPA provides this context from Global Policy Forum's James Paul: "For all the talk of 'U.S. withdrawal' from Iraq, the reality on the ground is starkly different. U.S. troops still patrol the cities, in flagrant violation of the U.S.-Iraqi security agreement, while Washington remains hugely influential in the politics of the country. The gigantic U.S. embassy looms large in Baghdad, U.S. forces still hold thousands of Iraqi prisoners in the vast U.S. prison camp in the southern desert, dozens of U.S. military bases remain in place including the sprawling 'Camp Victory' complex in Baghdad and Washington continues to press towards its ultimate goal -- the de facto privatization of Iraq's vast oil resources."
So before you go to town on others for not knowing the facts, Barbara, how about you first explain how you, a sitting US Senator pretending to give a damn about Iraq and putting the war on your list of regrets, aren't even aware of what Nouri publicly stated less than three weeks ago while he was in DC? Your incompentence does not do a great deal to encourage a belief that the US Senate knows what it is doing. It does, however, explain why you have NEVER led on the issue of Iraq despite the fact that you -- not Hillary -- had the safest seat from which to do it. Our state has sent huge numbers of service members to Iraq and has seen a large death toll and an even large number of wounded. We have had tremendous leadership in the House, we've had none in the Senate. Want to explain that, Barbara? Want to explain how little you've done to end the illegal war while allegedly representing the people of California? Want to match your record (or lack of it) against US House Rep Lynn Woolsey or Maxine Waters or Diane Watson or . . . Get the point?
Boxers done nothing on the issue of the MEK, of course. Someone explain to her how many potential voters in California care about this issue and maybe she'll suddenly 'discover' it? Last Tuesday, Nouri al-Maliki ordered the assault on Camp Ashraf, home to the MEK. The MEK has been in Iraq for decades. They are Iranian exiles welcomed into Iraq by Saddam Hussein. They are currently considered "terrorists" by the US. They were formerly considered such by the European Union and England; however, both re-evaluated and took them off the terrorist watch list. The US military protected the residents of Camp Ashraf during the first six years of the Iraq War. Matt O'Brien (Contra Costa Times) describes the group as having "an ideology that has blended elements of Islam, feminism and Marxism. To some Iranian-Americans and their political backers in the U.S. Congress, the terrorist label unfairly maligns a group of former militants who have cooperated with America and dedicated their lives to ending an Iranian regime that had oppressed them." Tim Cocks, Muhaned Mohammed and Sophie Hares (Reuters) report the latest involving the MEK at Camp Ashraf, Shirwan al-Waeli (Minister of State for National Security) declares that Iraq will evict them and, if it means sending them back to Iran, they'll do so. Mark Knoller (CBS News) reports a domestic protest in support of Camp Ashraf residents, "Iranian-American protestors have set up camp directly in front of the White House. They're urging President Obama to intervene on behalf of an Iranian enclave inside Iraq." Ken McLaughlin (San Jose Mercury News) explains, "The 3,500 residents of Camp Ashraf are members of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, or People's Mujahedeen of Iran, a dissident group initially formed in the mid-'60s to help topple the regime of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. After the 1979 revolution that deposed the shah, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini turned against the group, executing more than 100,000 of its members and supporters -- and driving others into exile. Many of those exiles landed in the Bay Area, which has an Iranian-American population of more than 200,000." Ensieh and Parviz Yazdanpanah are among the Bay Area residents with relatives at Camp Ashraf and they tell McLaughling "that emails and phone calls have stopped since the July 28 raid". The National Iranian American Council notes US House Rep Bob Filner introduced a resolution last week calling out the assault on Camp Ashraf and that fellow Californian and Democrat US House Rep Howard Berman has called it out as have Republican US House Reps Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Lincoln Diaz-Balart both of Florida. The resolution (in PDF format form) is here and it is entitled "Deploring the ongoing violence by Iraqi security forces against the residents of Camp Ashraf in Iraq:"
Whereas on July 28, 2009, Iraqi troops and police carried out a violent raid against the residents of Camp Ashraf in Iraq, the longstanding home of an Iranian opposition group;
Whereas Iraqi troops fatally shot a number of Camp Ashraf residents and wounded scores of others; and
Whereas the United States Embassy Statement on Transfer of Security Responsibility for Camp Ashraf of December 28, 2008, states that, "The Government of Iraq has provided the US Government written assurances of humane treatment of the Camp Ashraf residents in accordance with Iraq's Constitution, laws and international obligations.": Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives --
(1) deplores the ongoing violence by Iraqi security forces against the residents of Camp Ashraf;
(2) calls upon the Iraqi Government to live up to its commitment to the United States to ensure the continued well-being of those living in Camp Ashraf and prevent their involuntary return to Iran; and
(3) calls upon the President to take all necessary and appropriate steps to support the commitments of the United States under international law and treaty obligations to ensure the physical security and protection of Camp Ashraf residents against inhumane treatment and involuntary deportation by Iraqi security forces.
In England, Deborah Haynes (Times of London) reports that a group of demonstrators on behalf of Camp Ashraf have announced they are going on a hunger strike including Farzaneh Dadkhad who has relatives at Camp Ashraf: "'I am here for Ashraf and I will continue this until I die,' Ms Dadkhad wailed, collapsed on a stretcher at the rally because she was apparently too weak to walk. It was impossible to verify her fasting claim. 'I am here so that my voice is heard by the US Government. They are responsible for what happened,' she said. In a message to Britain, she added: 'Why are you silent, why are you doing nothing? You must take action'." Toby Cohen (Religious Intelligence) quotes "Lord Cobertt of Castle Vale, chairman of the all-party British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom" stating, "It is a shame to this Government and to the American government in particular that so far they have not done anything to stop the violence. I don't care about the arguments about the status of those refugees, under international humanitarian law the actions of the Iraqi security forces are illegal and any other UN member state has the authority to take action. The British Government and the American government are especially complicit in those acts of violence. Why? Because we were the powers that gave protected person status to the residence of Camp Ashraf under the fourth Geneva Convention, and we cannot walk away." The National Council of Resistance of Iran notes, "Today is the seventh day of such strikes [to protest the treatment of the Camp Ashraf residents] in Berlin and Ottawa outside the U.S. ebmassies" and that "demonstrations, sit-ins and gatherings by Iranians against brutal attacks by Iraqi forces on Ashraf and killing and arresting of PMOI members in the Camp have been going on in Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmo in Sweden; Geneva in Switzerland; The Hague in The Netherlands; Melbourne in Australia; Vancouver in Canada; Paris in France, Copenhagen and Arhus in Denmark; and Rome in Italy."
Robert Evans and Jonathan Lynn (Reuters) report, "Iraqi authorities are blocking supplies of food and water going into" Camp Ashraf. They're blocking food and water. At 11:00 p.m. in Baghdad, it was ninety-five degrees. At eleven at night. The high during the day was 114 degrees. And Nouri's thugs are preventing water from being brought into the camp. The reporters quote Jean Ziegler ("a top adviser to the U.N. Human Rights Council") stating, "Preventing people getting food is a gross violation of international law . . . Thas has been going on for 10 days. It is totally scandalous." World Against Torture's General Secretary Eric Sottas is quoted decrying the "sort of passivity on the part of international bodies" and states, "Unless these unarmed and defenceless people are properly protected, this could happen again, perhaps worse." AFP quotes Eric Sottas stating, "The most practical thing would be that the Americans assume their responsibility and intervene again to ensure protection (and) that should late be transferred to an international force." They quote Jean Ziegler stating, "It's shameful. The United States and the European Union should be ashamed of what they did." Massachusetts' Stoneham Sun observes that "an attempt by the Iraqi government to assert control over a camp of Iranian exiles, who until February were under U.S. protection, turned violent. The U.S. reaction was instructive. In essence, it was: While we disagreed with the methods, it was a sovereign matter for the Iraqi government." Eli Lake (Washington Times) maintains the US is pressing for action and quotes an unnamed US official who emailed them the following, "Embassy officials met with representatives from the Government of Iraq [GOI] on July 29, to stress the importance of the GOI fulfilling its commitment to the United States Government to treat Ashraf's residents humanely and to propose permitting an assessment of injuries and deaths by U.S. forces. The GOI allowed a U.S. medical assessment team to enter Ashraf and subsequently approved joint U.S.-Iraqi medical assistance to injured MEK Ashraf residents." Amnesty International issued the following statement:
Iraq: Concern for detained Camp Ashraf residents
Contact: AIUSA media office at 202.544.0200x302
Amnesty International is urgently seeking information about 36 Iranian residents of Camp Ashraf who have been detained since Iraqi security forces seized control of the camp on 28 July 2009 and have been moved to an unknown location in Baghdad amid allegations that some or all of them have been beaten and tortured. According to Abdul Nassir al-Mehdawi, governor of Iraq's Diyala province, quoted by Reuters press agency, "Their cases are being investigated now. They are being charged with inciting trouble. We will deal with them according to Iraqi law; we won't send them back to Iran". It remains unclear, however, whether the 36 have been allowed access to lawyers, contact with their families or any medical treatment that they need.
Amnesty International is urging the Iraqi authorities to disclose the whereabouts of the 36, to allow them immediate access to lawyers, to investigate, fully and impartially, allegations that they were tortured or beaten while held at a provisional detention facility near Camp Ashraf before their transfer to Baghdad, and to ensure that they are being treated humanely.
Amnesty International is also continuing to urge the Iraqi authorities to establish an immediate, independent inquiry into allegations that Iraqi security forces used excessive force when taking control of Camp Ashraf last week. According to unofficial sources, at least eight camp residents were killed and many others injured. 'Ali al-Dabbagh, the spokesperson for the Iraq government, has acknowledged that seven camp residents were killed but said that "five of them threw themselves in front of Iraqi police vehicles" and that two others were shot by other Iranians when they sought to leave the camp. He said that two members of the Iraqi security forces were also killed.
Background
Camp Ashraf, situated about 60km north-east of Baghdad, has hosted some 3,400 members or supporters of thePeople's Mojahedeen Organization of Iran (PMOI), an Iranian opposition organization, since the 1980s. They were formerly under the protection of US forces in Iraq but in recent months they have come under increasing pressure from the Iraqi authorities to relocate to other parts of Iraq or go abroad.
Public Document
# # #
For more information please call Amnesty International's press office in London, UK, on +44 20 7413 5566 or email: press@amnesty.org
International Secretariat, Amnesty International, 1 Easton St., London WC1X 0DW, UK www.amnesty.org
From the human rights organization to the US government's war think-tank, the RAND Corporation issued the following press release yesterday:
At the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Coalition forces classified the Mujahedin-e Khalq, a militant organization from Iran with cult-like elements that advocates the overthrow of Iran's current government, as an enemy force.
The MeK had provided security services to Saddam Hussein from camps established in Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War to fight Iran in collaboration with Saddam's forces and resources. A new study from the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization, looks at how coalition forces handled this group following the invasion.
Although the MeK is a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization by the United States, coalition forces never had a clear mission on how to deal with it.
After a ceasefire was signed between Coalition forces and the MeK, the U.S. Secretary of Defense designated this group's members as civilian "protected persons" rather than combatant prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. The coalition's treatment of the MeK leaves it -- and the United States in particular -- open to charges of hypocrisy, offering security to a terrorist group rather than breaking it up.
Research suggests that most of the MeK rank-and-file are neither terrorists nor freedom fighters, but trapped and brainwashed people who would be willing to return to Iran if they were separated from the MeK leadership. Many members were lured to Iraq from other countries with false promises, only to have their passports confiscated by the MeK leadership, which uses physical abuse, imprisonment, and other methods to keep them from leaving.
Iraq wants to expel the group, but no country other than Iran will accept it. The RAND study suggests the best course of action would have been to repatriate MeK rank-and-file members back to Iran, where they have been granted amnesty since 2003. To date, Iran appears to have upheld its commitment to MeK members in Iran. The study also concludes better guidelines be established for the possible detention of members of designated terrorist organizations.
The study, "The Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq: A Policy Conundrum," can be found here. For more information, or to arrange an interview with the authors, contact Lisa Sodders in the RAND Office of Media Relations at (310) 393-0411, ext. 7139, or lsodders@rand.org.
Remember the pathologizing of gender that took place over the issue of female bombers? They were raped. They were this, they were that. There was nothing factual about any of their crap but some MPs in Parliament used that pathology to advocate 'centers' (prisons) for women whose husbands or fathers or brothers died. Because that is the only way any woman would bomb. Because bombing, they insisted, was just not a thing a woman would do. Of course a woman would do it. Their little sexist minds can't handle reality.So they must be spinning as details in a new case emerge. A would-be female bomber has been convicted. Natalia Antelava (BBC News) reports that 16-year-old Rania Ibrahim states "a relative of her husband had told her to wear the vest" and that, by the way, "she was sold into marriage" approximately five months before she was caught in a bombing attempt on August 23, 2008. Jamal Hashim and Ali I-Khaiyam (Xinhua) quote Rania Ibrahim stating, "I haven't committed any crime or any sin. I was the victim. They forced me to wear the explosive-belt. I didn't want to kill any human being." Forced into marriage. Not raped. No relatives died. Another slap in the face to the stereotyping.
Forced into marriage? Does anyone even care? It doesn't appear they do. For example, Iraq will not allow two men or two women to marry each other. In fact, they are assaulting their own gay and lesbian community. The LGBT community is 'wrong' and somehow 'criminal' for their actions. But the government's paying out $2000 to men to marry women who are Shi'ite or Sunni (if the male is Sunni, he's being paid to marry a Shi'ite, if he's Shi'ite, he's being paid to marry a Sunni). And where's the objection? And who's checking to see if, in a country where forced marriage is not uncommon, that the marriages are partnerships both mates want to enter into? No one's checking, no one's objecting. They won't even state the obvious that the man is being paid. They'll say the couple is getting the money. Bushra Juhi and Deb Riechmann (AP) are the latest to play ASS. In the past, it's been Fox News trumpeting this garbage. Now it's AP. And we're apparently supposed to be charmed by this passage: "His wife, Samma Nasir, said shyly: 'He has chosen me despite my being Shiite'." Men are being paid and whether or not the women really have a choice in this isn't being addressed but US 'reporters' find it 'cute' and rush to coo over it. It's disgusting. And let's note that there are sects in Iraq where the women are kidnapped to force them out of their religion. but Deb and Bushra had other things to grin over, apparently.
Turning to today's reported violence, Reuters notes an armed clash in Mosul which claimed the life of 1 police officer and 2 unknowns with four other people injured, a Ramadi car bombing which claimed the life of 1 woman and left three people (including two police officers) injured and, dropping back to last night, a Baghdad roadside bombing which claimed the lives of 5 police officers and left five more wounded. AFP adds that 11 pilgrims have been kidnapped from a minibus enroute to Karbala.
Meanwhile that government the US installed in Iraq is anti-every freedom. Last month Khalid al-Ansary (Reuters) reported the Ministry of Culture is censoring books in 'free' Iraq and quotes the ministry Taher al-Humoud explaining that all publishers now must "submit lists of titles for approval". Yesterday Timothy Williams (New York Times) reported on efforts by Nouri "to ban sites deemed harmful to the public, to requier Internet cafes to register with the authorities and to press publishers to censor books." The Times has still not reported on the latest assault on journalism in Iraq. When Kurdistan was holding elections, the press was meeting with the judiciary about the problems they face. A draft law has been proposed and -- supposedly yea! -- it will provide a few pennies to the families of Iraqi journalists killed in Iraq. The pennies are a disguise. The law actually exists to control the press. It requires that they sign off to note reporting on anything that might 'endanger' Iraq's 'security'. The pennies are the sugar coating which attempts to sell this latest attempt to legislate censorship.
Losing a free press? It's not like the US is in much place to lecture since the domestic outlets rarely utilize the freedomes they have. Example, reporting on Iraqi "confessions." You expect better from Liz Sly and Saif Hameed (Los Angeles Times). Maybe if Ned Parker wrote the article, it would be worth reading (it's actually a blog post at the paper). We know Iraqi journalist Atwar Bahjat was murdered. By whom? The Iraqi government has a confession which they aired -- it's really appalling how US outlets have failed to report on the aired confessions, on how often they air, how they are Iraq's 'reality' television. The Iraqi government has a confession. 'Confession.' They lie about everything. Even a shoe tosser suddenly has a 'confession' only, when he's allowed to speak, he doesn't. Torture. Torture doesn't bother Sly or Hameed. They run with the 'confession.' All that's known is that Atwar Bahjat was murdered in 2006 and that the Iraqi government claim to have her killer (and rapist) and that they are airing a 'confession' which, if pattern holds, was obtained via torture. Such a confession couldn't be admitted in a US court. But the reporters are happy to run with it.So are Timothy Williams and Rod Nordland (New York Times) who add the lurid details that Sly and Hameed may have had the good sense to leave out. Let's note how the confession doesn't add up (which doesn't mean it's not true but it does make it all the more suspect):The man, Yasser Mohammed Hamad al-Takhi, 25, was shown on Iraqi television in a videotaped confession describing how he and three other men, including one of his brothers, had set up a checkpoint on a road outside the city of Samarra to stop a car carrying the journalist, Atwar Bahjat, and two members of her crew. Mr. Takhi said he had been working for a Sunni armed group with ties to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a homegrown insurgent group that American intelligence agencies say has some foreign leadership. Ms. Bahjat, a journalist working for Al Arabiya, a satellite television station based in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, had been returning to Baghdad after having covered the bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra, an event that pushed Iraq into sectarian warfare.So you blow up a Shi'ite shrine and you do that . . . in public. Meaning, you do that to send a message. To send a message you need . . . the media. So you blow up a shrine and you also kill a reporter covering the bombing? Doesn't make sense. You might kill a reporter not covering it. But why kill a reporter whose amplifying your deed?Here's another thing to think about. When Nouri's toppled, and he will be at some point, and there's a truth commission in Iraq, it's going to be really interesting to find out how many Sunnis were wrongfully convicted, tortured into confessions and blamed. Remember last Tuesday's big bank robbery and how it was Sunnis and it was al Qaeda in Iraq and it was . . . Oh, it was Shi'ites. Working for the government.Yara Bayoumy and Tim Pearce (Reuters) explain what the Times of LA and NY forget to. Suspects were arrested days ago. A key detail. Arrested days ago and yesterday a confession begins airing? When someone confesses, the first thing you want to look at is the timeframe of the confession. You want to consider whether or not it's logical that a torture free confession took place based on the timeline. Based on the timeline, this would appear to be a forced confession. And the key detail: "Iraq previously accused a different man of murdering Bahjat."
Official results from the Kurdistan elections last month have still not been released. But Robin Pagnamenta (Times of London) reports the region "is set to become one of the biggest shareholders in Heritage Oil in a variety of corporate marriages/mergers which would put it in bed with Turkish corporations. The deal requires the Kurdistan Regional Government "cancel a $1.1 billion . . . payment that Genel had been due to make to the KRG for its right to drill and produce oil in the region." Meanwhile Larry Kaplow (Newsweek) explores possible resolutions for oil-rich Kirkuk and observes:
According to the Iraqi constitution, written under U.S. supervision in 2005, Kirkuk residents are supposed to be able to decide their fate in a public referendum. The vote was required by the end of 2007 but has been delayed despite Kurdish protestations. In fact, the extra time has accommodated the return of thousands of Kurds displaced by Saddam Hussein's "Arabization" of the region. Arab leaders allege many more have come in too. No one knows the demographic breakdown of the cities Kurds, Arabs and Turkmen and a census -- with all its own controversial sidelights -- is scheduled for October. But the Kurds probably hold a majority, something that frightens the minority factions. That's probably why Barzani slyly stresses the referendum -- secure that the Kurdish will would triumph.
But the constitution does not spell out what the referendum question is. Barzani says it should be: "Do you want Kirkuk to be part of the Kurdistan region or not, or to be an independent region by itself?" He further said, "The people of Kirkuk are free to decide their future, whether they want to be part of the KRG or an independent region or to join another region."
iraq
the diane rehm show
tim cocksmuhaned mohammed
mark knollercbs news
npr
margaret talevmcclatchy newspapersanne gearan
the new york timestimothy williams
the los angeles timesliz slysaif hameed
rod nordland
newsweeklarry kaplow
and let me just do links this way:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Ty, Jess, and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.
all of the above participated in a roundtable tonight for a new community newsletter. ann and kat hadn't planned to, they didn't know about it. it was right around the time many of usually blog and we got a text can you mike online?
i could and i did. as did the above except kat and ann who were doing their blogs.
we switched to a chat room style because there was too much of a delay on microphones.
so it's a new community newsletter. it will come out on saturdays (1st 1 this saturday). krista says write her or gina if you want to get it, they're helping set up the newsletter. it's not their newsletter. this is an overseas news letter.
polly does a great job with polly's brew but that really does focus on british members. and this 1 will be european community members and elsewhere. a japanese community member is writing a column for it so that'll be great.
c.i.?
every 1 knows c.i. has too much to do. but what's going to take place, instead of a column, beth will interview c.i. each week about a topic she (beth) chooses and that will be c.i.'s contribution. c.i.'ll pop in during roundtables as well but c.i.'s already columns for every newsletter and this is really the only way it can work and even that, as beth pointed out, doesn't mean hassle free.
we had so much fun. ann saw cedric on his computer and asked him what he was doing? they ended up both participating. if a line has cedric's name next to it and you think, 'that's got to be ann,' it probably is. they were using cedric's laptop and all of his chat has his name on it so dominick has to go back and put in every 1's name and i told him i'd mention that.
kat won't be a problem because she did a thing each time before she typed so you knew it was her. i don't know what it is that makes it happen but it's a smiley face that sticks a hand out 1 direction and then the other. i really don't know how to do all that fun stuff. but she did that and so it's obvious when it's kat.
but i'm really excited and i think we all were. it was a lot of fun.
members in 3 countries wanted to know why americans were such little babies? in their countries, the 'birthers' wouldn't be anything to lose a temper over. it'd be a drinking game at best, we were told. they said the united states takes every thing way too serious. i agree with that. and they could back it up with the prime example being the whole let's-impeach-bill-clinton-for-sex nonsense.
kat told a story i'm going to repeat her but you have to read the roundtable to really appreciate it.
when they take a cab from or to the airport instead of renting a car or take a cab in some city they're speaking, the drivers always want to talk to c.i.
they recognize her and know she's left and it's always just hanging out there. after about 3 minutes they'll usually pipe up with 'you mind if i say something.'
and c.i. will lay down a ground rule which is 'if it's politics don't make any assumptions about me and i won't make any about you.'
and usually that falls apart with assumptions about c.i. and c.i. will calmly correct them.
but kat's point was that c.i. can and does talk to every 1.
c.i.'s not spitting on people are telling them they're stupid.
and that they come into contact with a lot of cab drivers who are 'birthers.'
and kat was talking about how c.i. will listen and will be respectful and will note, when the cabbie's done talking, 'i don't personally believe in that, i could be wrong.' and they can have a conversation.
and i'd argue c.i. does more good than all these liars and attackers online because they do have conversations. today, kat's example, was the 'birther' who then went on to socialized medicine pushed by barack.
and c.i. was able to say that she would support socialized medicine, she would campaign around the country for it. but that's not what barack's proposing in any of his plans.
c.i. doesn't support barack's multiple plans but when c.i. explains the basics points of the plans, kat was pointing this happens every time, the cabbie will say, 'well that's not so bad.'
and that's because they're centrists and sometimes right-leaning centrists and they've heard 'barack wants socialized medicine!'
guess what you idiots attacking the 'birthers'? those people aren't going to listen to you. you attack them.
c.i.'s approach is 'if you believe it or suspect it, you need to follow up.' c.i. doesn't attack them. and after that's out of the way, they can have discussions about real things. which includes iraq. kat said they got to the hotel and c.i. stayed in the car talking for 20 minutes to the driver because the topic had turned to iraq. the guy had served over there. and c.i.'s opposed to the illegal war and known for that in real life. and they were able to have a conversation.
and the guy at the start got a little angry (before c.i. even spoke) and then he apologized and said he just doesn't ever feel like any 1 listens to him. and c.i. said don't apologize that it would be rough for a lot of people who went over there to talk about it.
bob somerby, for those who missed it, is about to launch his mega attack on the 'birthers.'
who you trying to reach bobby?
he's not going to reach any 1.
and he'll probably end up sounding like an ass the way barbara boxer did.
if you're going to critique them, especially to 'fact check' them, you better know what they believe.
but you're not going to convince them, grow up.
no 1 yelling at people who didn't believe in the lone gunman convinced any 1.
quit being so stupid.
bob's about to start performing a circle jerk for the choir. same way keith olbermann does. i thought bob somerby was above that.
but it's time for him to start attacking people.
i'm sure he'll get the strong love from the faux left that keith does as a result.
it's a real shame because he had been doing his strongest work in years.
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Wednesday, August 5, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, we examine the useless and uninformed Senator Barbara Boxer who tosses out some Iraq crumbs on NPR, the assault on Camp Ashraf garners worldwide attention, Kurdistan set to become partners in an international oil company, and more.
We'll start with NPR's The Diane Rehm Show. Today US Senator Barbara Boxer was the guest for the first hour, in part to promote her new thriller, written with Mary-Rose Hayes, Blind Trust. We'll note the section on Iraq -- very brief. Those opposed to the Afghanistan War will have much to dig around in the section that follows -- none of it good for Boxer. We're jumping in where she's been listing regrets and grabbing at Iraq.
Senator Barbara Boxer: I regret that even after voting "no" on the War on Iraq, I should have been down there every day making my voice louder and stronger.
Diane Rehm: Why didn't you?
Senator Barbara Boxer: [Sighs] I thought that I said enough when I voted "no" and I continued to speak but not loudly enough and not clearly enough and you know that's why I like this novel because Ellen's my hero, she does everything right I don't.
Diane Rehm: That's quite an admission.
Senator Barbara Boxer: Well it's true.
Diane Rehm: Alright. Speaking of Iraq, there is some talk that the US may, before it's planned deadline, pull its troops out and declare victory. What's your thought?
Senator Barbara Boxer: Well that is definitely some of the advice we're getting from some of our military people. I think it's time to leave, I thought it was time to leave before, so much blood and sweat and tears and guts have been left there and I just have a view of this that-that the people of Iraq have an opportunity now to-to build their own country --
Diane Rehm: They're still killing each other.
Senator Barbara Boxer: Well, you know what? The people of Iraq have to decide if they want a country or they don't want a country and we can't decide it for them.
And that was it. It made Barbara's short list of regrets but?
But it passes like the summer
I'm a wild seed again
Let the wind carry me
-- "Let The Wind Carry Me" written by Joni Mitchell, first appears on her For The Roses
A caller brought her back to earth and Iraq but first Barbara had to make an ass out of herself. It's one thing to say that you're not going to speak to the 'birther' topic, it's another to say that and go on to accuse them of not having their facts and then offer up idiocy passed off as fact. I don't follow that issue but I'm damn well aware that John McCain's birth has been addressed by them and, in fact, they point to Claire McCaskill's actions (including an aborted one) within the Senate to back up their beliefs. Ava and I began speaking to friends of Ann Dunahm's in 2007 and continued through 2008, we spoke to men who were friends with Barack Sr. in college. We do not believe he was born in Kenya. We heard one story repeatedly and consistently. Those who do believe he was born in Kenya should pursue that because this is still, Barbara Boxer's embarrassing performance today on Diane's show not withstanding, a democracy.
(Embarrassing performance? Examples include telling of trying to get a man kicked out of a public event for tossing fake money at her, referring to two journalists as "young women" over and over except to refer to one as a "mother" -- they have careers, Barbara, quit being so damn insulting, and her little grudge f**k against Bill and Hillary Clinton -- we're all sorry your daughter couldn't make her marriage work, quit being such little s**t about it, Barbara).
It's not our issue but, unlike Barbara Boxer, we don't need to tear down people who believe differently than we do. And we don't disgrace ourselves by coming off like a raving lunatic on NPR or, for that matter, by co-writing one book that bombed and inflicting another bad attempt at John Grisham on the American public. And someone who wants to lecture others on facts, should have them. Including on the name of the Feminist Majority Foundation. It's not a difficult name to remember, Barbara. But it's not difficult to follow the headlines and, as her Iraq answer revealed, she can't even do that. (And that's among the most recent statewide poll, PDF format warning The Field Poll, found 43% supproting her re-election and 44% "not inclined to re-elect her." When you're that evenly divided and you're a sitting senator, you've done a great deal wrong.)
Senator Barbara Boxer: First of all, I have never heard Nouri al-Maliki ask us to stay so I don't know what particular speech he [the caller] was referring to. He said for a long time it's time for Americans to leave and I think it is. And what will guide me, obviously the reports on the ground from the military but my overwhelming belief that we have bled so much and done so much that I already say and I said a long time ago we gave the Iraqi people the chance to govern themselves, to rebuild and anyone who served there or any of the families who lost people there or any of those who were wounded there should know they gave their all to give the Iraqis a chance and now they have to take that chance and run with it.
This is the best my state can do? This passes for liberal? Barbara Boxer lying, LYING, about the Iraq War. Did you hear the Barbara say one damn word about the Iraqis who have died? And excuse me, but Barbara knows Nouri's a thug so is she being stupid or playing us for stupid when she says the Iraqi people have a chance at a government?
The Iraqi people have had a government imposed upon them by the US government. The Iraqi people would never, NEVER, elect a government of exiles to represent them. No one would. You wouldn't elect someone to the board of supervisors if their 'qualification' was they hid in another region because they were too scared to stand up. With each addition of highlights, Barbara loses more intelligence so maybe she truly is as stupid as she came off but it felt more like she was playing listeners for stupid. Reality, Adil E. Shamoo and Bonnie Bricker (Foreign Policy In Focus) explain, "Parliament members are afraid to attend meetings. Iraq's nascent economy is deteriorating. Hundreds of armed militias are ready to fight for their own interests. This is Iraq today." But Barbara wants to turn it into a fledging democracy?
it appears she's not looking at the facts and let me do her snide little laugh at her because the stupid idiot is so out of touch that she's not aware of the speech. Reading list for the failed and failing author, Margaret Talev's "Iraq's Maliki raises possibility of asking U.S. to stay on" (McClatchy Newspapers) and, Barbara, Anne Gearan covers al-Maliki's remarks for AP. From the July 23rd snapshot:
The articles repeatedly (and falsely) claim the US will be out of Iraq in 2011. That's not what's happening. It's not even claimed to be happening. Does no one listen to Adm Mike Mullen, Gen Ray Odierno or even Secretary of Defense Robert Gates? Reading the articles today, it doesn't appear that anyone does. Uh-oh. Reality slaps them in the face. Aljazeera reports, "The Iraqi prime minister has admitted US troops could stay in the country beyond 2011." Yeah, he did it today and it's only a surprise if you've never grasped what the Status Of Forces Agrement does and does not do. The Washington Post, for example, has one person on staff who understands the SOFA completely. That's one more than the New York Times has. Drop back to real time coverage (Thanksgiving 2008) and you'll see the Washington Post could explain what it did and didn't do and get it right. No other US outlet can make that claim. (The Los Angeles Times hedged their bets but did appear to grasp it in an article co-written by Tina Susman.) McClatchy Newspapers? Oh goodness, Leila Fadel made an idiot of herself over the SOFA. Even more so than the New York Times (Elisabeth Bumiller -- in December and January -- offered some realities but they were lost on the other reporters at the paper). The Times just got it wrong. Fadel got it wrong and sang praises of it. It wasn't reporting, it was column writing passed off as such. Today, Nouri declared, "Nevertheless, if the Iraqis require further training and support we shall examine this at the time, based on the needs of Iraq." Sound familiar? It should. This month you should have heard Adm Mike Mullen make the same statement, you should have heard General Ray Odierno make it over and over beginning in May and US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has made it many times -- generally he's asked when he's visiting a foreign country because US reporters don't really seem to care. One exception would certainly be Dahr Jamail who was on KPFA's Flashpoints yesterday and explained, "We still have over 130,000 troops in Iraq. Troops are not being withdrawn from Iraq. They are being relocated to different bases, some of the bases still within cities, but they are not being withdrawn thus far." Dahr's latest book The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan has just been released this month. IPA provides this context from Global Policy Forum's James Paul: "For all the talk of 'U.S. withdrawal' from Iraq, the reality on the ground is starkly different. U.S. troops still patrol the cities, in flagrant violation of the U.S.-Iraqi security agreement, while Washington remains hugely influential in the politics of the country. The gigantic U.S. embassy looms large in Baghdad, U.S. forces still hold thousands of Iraqi prisoners in the vast U.S. prison camp in the southern desert, dozens of U.S. military bases remain in place including the sprawling 'Camp Victory' complex in Baghdad and Washington continues to press towards its ultimate goal -- the de facto privatization of Iraq's vast oil resources."
So before you go to town on others for not knowing the facts, Barbara, how about you first explain how you, a sitting US Senator pretending to give a damn about Iraq and putting the war on your list of regrets, aren't even aware of what Nouri publicly stated less than three weeks ago while he was in DC? Your incompentence does not do a great deal to encourage a belief that the US Senate knows what it is doing. It does, however, explain why you have NEVER led on the issue of Iraq despite the fact that you -- not Hillary -- had the safest seat from which to do it. Our state has sent huge numbers of service members to Iraq and has seen a large death toll and an even large number of wounded. We have had tremendous leadership in the House, we've had none in the Senate. Want to explain that, Barbara? Want to explain how little you've done to end the illegal war while allegedly representing the people of California? Want to match your record (or lack of it) against US House Rep Lynn Woolsey or Maxine Waters or Diane Watson or . . . Get the point?
Boxers done nothing on the issue of the MEK, of course. Someone explain to her how many potential voters in California care about this issue and maybe she'll suddenly 'discover' it? Last Tuesday, Nouri al-Maliki ordered the assault on Camp Ashraf, home to the MEK. The MEK has been in Iraq for decades. They are Iranian exiles welcomed into Iraq by Saddam Hussein. They are currently considered "terrorists" by the US. They were formerly considered such by the European Union and England; however, both re-evaluated and took them off the terrorist watch list. The US military protected the residents of Camp Ashraf during the first six years of the Iraq War. Matt O'Brien (Contra Costa Times) describes the group as having "an ideology that has blended elements of Islam, feminism and Marxism. To some Iranian-Americans and their political backers in the U.S. Congress, the terrorist label unfairly maligns a group of former militants who have cooperated with America and dedicated their lives to ending an Iranian regime that had oppressed them." Tim Cocks, Muhaned Mohammed and Sophie Hares (Reuters) report the latest involving the MEK at Camp Ashraf, Shirwan al-Waeli (Minister of State for National Security) declares that Iraq will evict them and, if it means sending them back to Iran, they'll do so. Mark Knoller (CBS News) reports a domestic protest in support of Camp Ashraf residents, "Iranian-American protestors have set up camp directly in front of the White House. They're urging President Obama to intervene on behalf of an Iranian enclave inside Iraq." Ken McLaughlin (San Jose Mercury News) explains, "The 3,500 residents of Camp Ashraf are members of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, or People's Mujahedeen of Iran, a dissident group initially formed in the mid-'60s to help topple the regime of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. After the 1979 revolution that deposed the shah, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini turned against the group, executing more than 100,000 of its members and supporters -- and driving others into exile. Many of those exiles landed in the Bay Area, which has an Iranian-American population of more than 200,000." Ensieh and Parviz Yazdanpanah are among the Bay Area residents with relatives at Camp Ashraf and they tell McLaughling "that emails and phone calls have stopped since the July 28 raid". The National Iranian American Council notes US House Rep Bob Filner introduced a resolution last week calling out the assault on Camp Ashraf and that fellow Californian and Democrat US House Rep Howard Berman has called it out as have Republican US House Reps Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Lincoln Diaz-Balart both of Florida. The resolution (in PDF format form) is here and it is entitled "Deploring the ongoing violence by Iraqi security forces against the residents of Camp Ashraf in Iraq:"
Whereas on July 28, 2009, Iraqi troops and police carried out a violent raid against the residents of Camp Ashraf in Iraq, the longstanding home of an Iranian opposition group;
Whereas Iraqi troops fatally shot a number of Camp Ashraf residents and wounded scores of others; and
Whereas the United States Embassy Statement on Transfer of Security Responsibility for Camp Ashraf of December 28, 2008, states that, "The Government of Iraq has provided the US Government written assurances of humane treatment of the Camp Ashraf residents in accordance with Iraq's Constitution, laws and international obligations.": Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives --
(1) deplores the ongoing violence by Iraqi security forces against the residents of Camp Ashraf;
(2) calls upon the Iraqi Government to live up to its commitment to the United States to ensure the continued well-being of those living in Camp Ashraf and prevent their involuntary return to Iran; and
(3) calls upon the President to take all necessary and appropriate steps to support the commitments of the United States under international law and treaty obligations to ensure the physical security and protection of Camp Ashraf residents against inhumane treatment and involuntary deportation by Iraqi security forces.
In England, Deborah Haynes (Times of London) reports that a group of demonstrators on behalf of Camp Ashraf have announced they are going on a hunger strike including Farzaneh Dadkhad who has relatives at Camp Ashraf: "'I am here for Ashraf and I will continue this until I die,' Ms Dadkhad wailed, collapsed on a stretcher at the rally because she was apparently too weak to walk. It was impossible to verify her fasting claim. 'I am here so that my voice is heard by the US Government. They are responsible for what happened,' she said. In a message to Britain, she added: 'Why are you silent, why are you doing nothing? You must take action'." Toby Cohen (Religious Intelligence) quotes "Lord Cobertt of Castle Vale, chairman of the all-party British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom" stating, "It is a shame to this Government and to the American government in particular that so far they have not done anything to stop the violence. I don't care about the arguments about the status of those refugees, under international humanitarian law the actions of the Iraqi security forces are illegal and any other UN member state has the authority to take action. The British Government and the American government are especially complicit in those acts of violence. Why? Because we were the powers that gave protected person status to the residence of Camp Ashraf under the fourth Geneva Convention, and we cannot walk away." The National Council of Resistance of Iran notes, "Today is the seventh day of such strikes [to protest the treatment of the Camp Ashraf residents] in Berlin and Ottawa outside the U.S. ebmassies" and that "demonstrations, sit-ins and gatherings by Iranians against brutal attacks by Iraqi forces on Ashraf and killing and arresting of PMOI members in the Camp have been going on in Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmo in Sweden; Geneva in Switzerland; The Hague in The Netherlands; Melbourne in Australia; Vancouver in Canada; Paris in France, Copenhagen and Arhus in Denmark; and Rome in Italy."
Robert Evans and Jonathan Lynn (Reuters) report, "Iraqi authorities are blocking supplies of food and water going into" Camp Ashraf. They're blocking food and water. At 11:00 p.m. in Baghdad, it was ninety-five degrees. At eleven at night. The high during the day was 114 degrees. And Nouri's thugs are preventing water from being brought into the camp. The reporters quote Jean Ziegler ("a top adviser to the U.N. Human Rights Council") stating, "Preventing people getting food is a gross violation of international law . . . Thas has been going on for 10 days. It is totally scandalous." World Against Torture's General Secretary Eric Sottas is quoted decrying the "sort of passivity on the part of international bodies" and states, "Unless these unarmed and defenceless people are properly protected, this could happen again, perhaps worse." AFP quotes Eric Sottas stating, "The most practical thing would be that the Americans assume their responsibility and intervene again to ensure protection (and) that should late be transferred to an international force." They quote Jean Ziegler stating, "It's shameful. The United States and the European Union should be ashamed of what they did." Massachusetts' Stoneham Sun observes that "an attempt by the Iraqi government to assert control over a camp of Iranian exiles, who until February were under U.S. protection, turned violent. The U.S. reaction was instructive. In essence, it was: While we disagreed with the methods, it was a sovereign matter for the Iraqi government." Eli Lake (Washington Times) maintains the US is pressing for action and quotes an unnamed US official who emailed them the following, "Embassy officials met with representatives from the Government of Iraq [GOI] on July 29, to stress the importance of the GOI fulfilling its commitment to the United States Government to treat Ashraf's residents humanely and to propose permitting an assessment of injuries and deaths by U.S. forces. The GOI allowed a U.S. medical assessment team to enter Ashraf and subsequently approved joint U.S.-Iraqi medical assistance to injured MEK Ashraf residents." Amnesty International issued the following statement:
Iraq: Concern for detained Camp Ashraf residents
Contact: AIUSA media office at 202.544.0200x302
Amnesty International is urgently seeking information about 36 Iranian residents of Camp Ashraf who have been detained since Iraqi security forces seized control of the camp on 28 July 2009 and have been moved to an unknown location in Baghdad amid allegations that some or all of them have been beaten and tortured. According to Abdul Nassir al-Mehdawi, governor of Iraq's Diyala province, quoted by Reuters press agency, "Their cases are being investigated now. They are being charged with inciting trouble. We will deal with them according to Iraqi law; we won't send them back to Iran". It remains unclear, however, whether the 36 have been allowed access to lawyers, contact with their families or any medical treatment that they need.
Amnesty International is urging the Iraqi authorities to disclose the whereabouts of the 36, to allow them immediate access to lawyers, to investigate, fully and impartially, allegations that they were tortured or beaten while held at a provisional detention facility near Camp Ashraf before their transfer to Baghdad, and to ensure that they are being treated humanely.
Amnesty International is also continuing to urge the Iraqi authorities to establish an immediate, independent inquiry into allegations that Iraqi security forces used excessive force when taking control of Camp Ashraf last week. According to unofficial sources, at least eight camp residents were killed and many others injured. 'Ali al-Dabbagh, the spokesperson for the Iraq government, has acknowledged that seven camp residents were killed but said that "five of them threw themselves in front of Iraqi police vehicles" and that two others were shot by other Iranians when they sought to leave the camp. He said that two members of the Iraqi security forces were also killed.
Background
Camp Ashraf, situated about 60km north-east of Baghdad, has hosted some 3,400 members or supporters of thePeople's Mojahedeen Organization of Iran (PMOI), an Iranian opposition organization, since the 1980s. They were formerly under the protection of US forces in Iraq but in recent months they have come under increasing pressure from the Iraqi authorities to relocate to other parts of Iraq or go abroad.
Public Document
# # #
For more information please call Amnesty International's press office in London, UK, on +44 20 7413 5566 or email: press@amnesty.org
International Secretariat, Amnesty International, 1 Easton St., London WC1X 0DW, UK www.amnesty.org
From the human rights organization to the US government's war think-tank, the RAND Corporation issued the following press release yesterday:
At the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Coalition forces classified the Mujahedin-e Khalq, a militant organization from Iran with cult-like elements that advocates the overthrow of Iran's current government, as an enemy force.
The MeK had provided security services to Saddam Hussein from camps established in Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War to fight Iran in collaboration with Saddam's forces and resources. A new study from the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization, looks at how coalition forces handled this group following the invasion.
Although the MeK is a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization by the United States, coalition forces never had a clear mission on how to deal with it.
After a ceasefire was signed between Coalition forces and the MeK, the U.S. Secretary of Defense designated this group's members as civilian "protected persons" rather than combatant prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. The coalition's treatment of the MeK leaves it -- and the United States in particular -- open to charges of hypocrisy, offering security to a terrorist group rather than breaking it up.
Research suggests that most of the MeK rank-and-file are neither terrorists nor freedom fighters, but trapped and brainwashed people who would be willing to return to Iran if they were separated from the MeK leadership. Many members were lured to Iraq from other countries with false promises, only to have their passports confiscated by the MeK leadership, which uses physical abuse, imprisonment, and other methods to keep them from leaving.
Iraq wants to expel the group, but no country other than Iran will accept it. The RAND study suggests the best course of action would have been to repatriate MeK rank-and-file members back to Iran, where they have been granted amnesty since 2003. To date, Iran appears to have upheld its commitment to MeK members in Iran. The study also concludes better guidelines be established for the possible detention of members of designated terrorist organizations.
The study, "The Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq: A Policy Conundrum," can be found here. For more information, or to arrange an interview with the authors, contact Lisa Sodders in the RAND Office of Media Relations at (310) 393-0411, ext. 7139, or lsodders@rand.org.
Remember the pathologizing of gender that took place over the issue of female bombers? They were raped. They were this, they were that. There was nothing factual about any of their crap but some MPs in Parliament used that pathology to advocate 'centers' (prisons) for women whose husbands or fathers or brothers died. Because that is the only way any woman would bomb. Because bombing, they insisted, was just not a thing a woman would do. Of course a woman would do it. Their little sexist minds can't handle reality.So they must be spinning as details in a new case emerge. A would-be female bomber has been convicted. Natalia Antelava (BBC News) reports that 16-year-old Rania Ibrahim states "a relative of her husband had told her to wear the vest" and that, by the way, "she was sold into marriage" approximately five months before she was caught in a bombing attempt on August 23, 2008. Jamal Hashim and Ali I-Khaiyam (Xinhua) quote Rania Ibrahim stating, "I haven't committed any crime or any sin. I was the victim. They forced me to wear the explosive-belt. I didn't want to kill any human being." Forced into marriage. Not raped. No relatives died. Another slap in the face to the stereotyping.
Forced into marriage? Does anyone even care? It doesn't appear they do. For example, Iraq will not allow two men or two women to marry each other. In fact, they are assaulting their own gay and lesbian community. The LGBT community is 'wrong' and somehow 'criminal' for their actions. But the government's paying out $2000 to men to marry women who are Shi'ite or Sunni (if the male is Sunni, he's being paid to marry a Shi'ite, if he's Shi'ite, he's being paid to marry a Sunni). And where's the objection? And who's checking to see if, in a country where forced marriage is not uncommon, that the marriages are partnerships both mates want to enter into? No one's checking, no one's objecting. They won't even state the obvious that the man is being paid. They'll say the couple is getting the money. Bushra Juhi and Deb Riechmann (AP) are the latest to play ASS. In the past, it's been Fox News trumpeting this garbage. Now it's AP. And we're apparently supposed to be charmed by this passage: "His wife, Samma Nasir, said shyly: 'He has chosen me despite my being Shiite'." Men are being paid and whether or not the women really have a choice in this isn't being addressed but US 'reporters' find it 'cute' and rush to coo over it. It's disgusting. And let's note that there are sects in Iraq where the women are kidnapped to force them out of their religion. but Deb and Bushra had other things to grin over, apparently.
Turning to today's reported violence, Reuters notes an armed clash in Mosul which claimed the life of 1 police officer and 2 unknowns with four other people injured, a Ramadi car bombing which claimed the life of 1 woman and left three people (including two police officers) injured and, dropping back to last night, a Baghdad roadside bombing which claimed the lives of 5 police officers and left five more wounded. AFP adds that 11 pilgrims have been kidnapped from a minibus enroute to Karbala.
Meanwhile that government the US installed in Iraq is anti-every freedom. Last month Khalid al-Ansary (Reuters) reported the Ministry of Culture is censoring books in 'free' Iraq and quotes the ministry Taher al-Humoud explaining that all publishers now must "submit lists of titles for approval". Yesterday Timothy Williams (New York Times) reported on efforts by Nouri "to ban sites deemed harmful to the public, to requier Internet cafes to register with the authorities and to press publishers to censor books." The Times has still not reported on the latest assault on journalism in Iraq. When Kurdistan was holding elections, the press was meeting with the judiciary about the problems they face. A draft law has been proposed and -- supposedly yea! -- it will provide a few pennies to the families of Iraqi journalists killed in Iraq. The pennies are a disguise. The law actually exists to control the press. It requires that they sign off to note reporting on anything that might 'endanger' Iraq's 'security'. The pennies are the sugar coating which attempts to sell this latest attempt to legislate censorship.
Losing a free press? It's not like the US is in much place to lecture since the domestic outlets rarely utilize the freedomes they have. Example, reporting on Iraqi "confessions." You expect better from Liz Sly and Saif Hameed (Los Angeles Times). Maybe if Ned Parker wrote the article, it would be worth reading (it's actually a blog post at the paper). We know Iraqi journalist Atwar Bahjat was murdered. By whom? The Iraqi government has a confession which they aired -- it's really appalling how US outlets have failed to report on the aired confessions, on how often they air, how they are Iraq's 'reality' television. The Iraqi government has a confession. 'Confession.' They lie about everything. Even a shoe tosser suddenly has a 'confession' only, when he's allowed to speak, he doesn't. Torture. Torture doesn't bother Sly or Hameed. They run with the 'confession.' All that's known is that Atwar Bahjat was murdered in 2006 and that the Iraqi government claim to have her killer (and rapist) and that they are airing a 'confession' which, if pattern holds, was obtained via torture. Such a confession couldn't be admitted in a US court. But the reporters are happy to run with it.So are Timothy Williams and Rod Nordland (New York Times) who add the lurid details that Sly and Hameed may have had the good sense to leave out. Let's note how the confession doesn't add up (which doesn't mean it's not true but it does make it all the more suspect):The man, Yasser Mohammed Hamad al-Takhi, 25, was shown on Iraqi television in a videotaped confession describing how he and three other men, including one of his brothers, had set up a checkpoint on a road outside the city of Samarra to stop a car carrying the journalist, Atwar Bahjat, and two members of her crew. Mr. Takhi said he had been working for a Sunni armed group with ties to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a homegrown insurgent group that American intelligence agencies say has some foreign leadership. Ms. Bahjat, a journalist working for Al Arabiya, a satellite television station based in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, had been returning to Baghdad after having covered the bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra, an event that pushed Iraq into sectarian warfare.So you blow up a Shi'ite shrine and you do that . . . in public. Meaning, you do that to send a message. To send a message you need . . . the media. So you blow up a shrine and you also kill a reporter covering the bombing? Doesn't make sense. You might kill a reporter not covering it. But why kill a reporter whose amplifying your deed?Here's another thing to think about. When Nouri's toppled, and he will be at some point, and there's a truth commission in Iraq, it's going to be really interesting to find out how many Sunnis were wrongfully convicted, tortured into confessions and blamed. Remember last Tuesday's big bank robbery and how it was Sunnis and it was al Qaeda in Iraq and it was . . . Oh, it was Shi'ites. Working for the government.Yara Bayoumy and Tim Pearce (Reuters) explain what the Times of LA and NY forget to. Suspects were arrested days ago. A key detail. Arrested days ago and yesterday a confession begins airing? When someone confesses, the first thing you want to look at is the timeframe of the confession. You want to consider whether or not it's logical that a torture free confession took place based on the timeline. Based on the timeline, this would appear to be a forced confession. And the key detail: "Iraq previously accused a different man of murdering Bahjat."
Official results from the Kurdistan elections last month have still not been released. But Robin Pagnamenta (Times of London) reports the region "is set to become one of the biggest shareholders in Heritage Oil in a variety of corporate marriages/mergers which would put it in bed with Turkish corporations. The deal requires the Kurdistan Regional Government "cancel a $1.1 billion . . . payment that Genel had been due to make to the KRG for its right to drill and produce oil in the region." Meanwhile Larry Kaplow (Newsweek) explores possible resolutions for oil-rich Kirkuk and observes:
According to the Iraqi constitution, written under U.S. supervision in 2005, Kirkuk residents are supposed to be able to decide their fate in a public referendum. The vote was required by the end of 2007 but has been delayed despite Kurdish protestations. In fact, the extra time has accommodated the return of thousands of Kurds displaced by Saddam Hussein's "Arabization" of the region. Arab leaders allege many more have come in too. No one knows the demographic breakdown of the cities Kurds, Arabs and Turkmen and a census -- with all its own controversial sidelights -- is scheduled for October. But the Kurds probably hold a majority, something that frightens the minority factions. That's probably why Barzani slyly stresses the referendum -- secure that the Kurdish will would triumph.
But the constitution does not spell out what the referendum question is. Barzani says it should be: "Do you want Kirkuk to be part of the Kurdistan region or not, or to be an independent region by itself?" He further said, "The people of Kirkuk are free to decide their future, whether they want to be part of the KRG or an independent region or to join another region."
iraq
the diane rehm show
tim cocksmuhaned mohammed
mark knollercbs news
npr
margaret talevmcclatchy newspapersanne gearan
the new york timestimothy williams
the los angeles timesliz slysaif hameed
rod nordland
newsweeklarry kaplow
8/04/2009
gordo and his fortnight
Harriet Harman has vetoed a review of the rape laws at the eleventh hour, complaining that the proposals fail to address the concerns of women.
Labour’s deputy leader used her position as Gordon Brown’s stand-in to demand a more radical overhaul of the law, such as targets for prosecutors and police to secure more convictions. She has the backing of Vera Baird, the Solicitor-General, but Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary and Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, do not want to widen the terms of reference and the review has been postponed.
Ms Harman has been standing in for the Prime Minister since he left for a summer break last week.
that's from francis elliott, richard ford and rosemary bennett's article for the times of london and, see, when gordo's away, things actually happen. and i say good for harriet harman. well done. alice thomson (same outlet) doesn't applaud but does note that things are actually being addressed:
Finally we have a prime minister again. Harriet Harman has filled a vacuum. We have had little leadership for a year, and suddenly we know where we stand. You are probably appalled, you think she is ghastly, hideous, ranting. But, admit it, at least she is a conviction politician.
She has a view, an agenda and, knowing Harriet, a neatly written out list of goals. In the few days since Ms Harman walked through the door of No 10, she has not stopped. She is everywhere, with her own opinion on everything, challenging Home Office civil servants and bankers’ bonuses. Deputies are not supposed to do this. They are meant to hide under the desk and hope they won’t be hit by a croquet mallet.
The past year has been visionless. Parliament has frittered away its time.
maybe gordo could stay on fortnight? with the emerging news (more to come) on the way his government 'fixed' the expense scandal (mps are now able to deduct even more as expenses), he might need to stay away.
independent television news (link has text & video) reports on another brewing scandal:
A group of MPs is calling for an independent inquiry into allegations that the Government was complicit in torture of terror suspects.
Parliament's Joint Human Rights Committee has examined the details of several cases where it has been alleged that terror suspects were mistreated by Britain's allies overseas.
They include the case of Binyam Mohamed, an Ethopian-born British resident, who was held in Guantanamo Bay detention centre earlier this year, after being arrested in Pakistan in 2002.
He alleges that he was "rendered" to Morocco and Afghanistan, and he claims that MI5 colluded with his interrogators by getting them to ask him specific questions which led to his making false confessions.
Another case noted by the committee is that of Rangzieb Ahmed, a UK-born convicted terrorist, who claims to have been tortured in Pakistan, including by having his fingernails removed.
again, maybe gordo shouldn't return? maybe he should just stay on a never ending holiday? people would say, 'oh that gordon brown, he's crazy.' and that would take his actions/sins off the labour party and keep them only on him.
but gordo's not very smart and he's obviously not concerned about the labour party or he would have resigned when it was hinted that he should by party elders.
richard norton-taylor (guardian) adds:
The former shadow home secretary David Davis said he had no doubt the UK had been complicit in the torture of terror suspects abroad, adding that refusing to reveal policy information "smacks of a cover-up". He told the BBC he was sure both Brown and Tony Blair had seen evidence of UK complicity.
"Of course they will have done. The intelligence and security committee actually wrote a letter to the current prime minister some months ago. The joint committee on human rights has asked for that to be published. He won't publish that.
"They've asked for them to publish the guidelines given to the intelligence agencies by ministers in the period between 9/11 and now. They've refused to do that either ... If they've got nothing to hide why not publish the guidelines?"
Davis referred to the case of Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian-born British resident who was held in Guantánamo Bay before his return to the UK earlier this year. In a high court ruling last week, two judges showed that MI5 knew more about Mohamed's secret imprisonment, where he says he was tortured, than earlier admitted. They have now asked David Miliband, the foreign secretary, if he stands by claims made in court on his behalf that if the judges' seven-paragraph summary of CIA information about the case were disclosed, the US would limit intelligence-sharing with the UK and thus put British lives at risk.
again, he might just want to stay on fortnight. let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Tuesday, August 4, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the military announces two deaths, Nouri's new friends with benefits didn't renounce violence (they still say they'll be attacking US troops), Iraq War veterans continue to suffer to get the needed medical care and to re-adjust to daily life, and more.
Today the US military announced: "A Soldier assigned to Multi-National Division - South died of a non-combat related injury August 4. The Soldier's name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin." That announcement came from M-NF which is supposed to announce deaths and, later, DoD announces the names of the dead. That's how it's supposed to work. But frequently that's not how it works. Late yesterday, DoD announced: "Staff Sgt. Johnny R. Polk, 39, of Gulfport, Miss., died July 25 at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Landstuhl, Germany, of wounds suffered when his vehicle was struck by anti-tank grenade on July 23 in Kirkuk, Iraq." That July 25th death was never reported by M-NF and, again, was only announced late yesterday -- long after the outlets had done their 'end of the month' pieces. This happens over and over and the press falls for it everytime -- like saps, like suckers. The announcements bring to 4330 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war. Back to Polk, the Killeen Daily Herald informs that Polk's full name is Johnny Roosevelt Polk and that he enlisted in March 1992, deployed to Iraq at the start of the year and his "awards and decorations include the Bronze Star Medal, Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, Army Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Korean Defense Service Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon, Army Service Ribbon and the Overseas Service Ribbon."
We'll move on to today's reported violence in Iraq. Bombings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing wounded four people. Reuters notes a Jurf al-Sakhar roadside bombing left two people injured and, dropping back to Monday, a Mosul roadside bombing which left two Iraqi soldiers injured.
Shootings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 Iraqi soldier wounded in a Mosul shooting. Reuters drops back to Monday to note 1 "off-duty government employee" shot dead in front of his Mosul home and 1 "brother of Iraq's chief of traffice police" shot dead in Mussayab.
Though the Iraq War hasn't ended and the violence hasn't stopped, it's fallen off the radar -- or further off. Michael Crowley (New Republic) notes the 'downgrading' of the ongoing war:
A recent dispatch from Iraq by The New York Times' Elisabeth Bumiller articulated something that has been true for several months now: America has moved on from the Iraq War. Much of the 2008 election was organized around that conflict. Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton in large measure by deriding the judgment she showed in supporting the 2003 Iraq war resolution. And John McCain's public embrace of George W. Bush's policies may have doomed his campaign from the start. Few things seemed to exhilarate Obama's supporters more than his firm call for "an end" to the Iraq war. And now, just six months into Obama's presidency, and even before Obama's troop-withdrawal plan has begun in earnest, Iraq has been replaced by Afghanistan as the conflict that will probably define his presidency.
Crowley believes US forces are the only thing keeping the 'peace' in Iraq -- we obviously disagree (though they're the only thing keeping Nouri in office) on that and other things but Crowley wrote a serious piece about Iraq and that's so very rare today so we'll link As noted in yesterday's snapshot, Nouri lost that loving feeling. Nouri has teamed up with the Righteous League or the Leage of Righteous, warmly wecloming them into the fold. You have to read to the fifth paragraph of Rod Nordland's report (New York Times) this morning to discover that, contrary to Nouri's claims, the group has not renounced violence. In the fifth paragraph, Nordland slips in "the group has not renounced fighting the Americans" and quotes their spokesperson Salam al-Maliki declaring, "We are only fighting the United States." Then, point of fact, they're fighting the puppet government. Not just because Nouri's propped up by the presence of US service members but also because of the various security agreements between the US and Iraq -- more than just the SOFA. So everybody needs to grasp what happened -- it's apparently beyond the New York Times and Rod Nordland. The US has recognized their installed government as a legitimate one and have entered into various contracts with it. Nouri signed off on those. And now Nouri's welocming into the process the League of Righteous who have not renounced violence against the US and who maintain they will continue violence against the US.
How did Bobby Ghosh (Time magazine) describe it last month when Nouri came begging to the US? Oh, yes, Nouri "talked about broadening Iraq's relationship with the U.S. and cooperation in the area of economics, culture and education as well as a conference in October for potential investors in Iraq." Forget the "War on Terror" (though Congress has refused to repeal that legislation), the United States has never been in the position of maintaining diplomatic relations with a foreign country who openly embraces a group that publicly announces it will attack the US. That's not how it works, that's not ever how it has worked.
The group not only maintains that they will continue to attack US forces, they brag about killing Brian S. Freeman, Jabob Fritz, Johanthan B. Chism, Shawn P. Falter and Johnathon M. Millican. Despite that, see the June 9th snapshot, the US military released the two brothers who lead the group in an effort apparently to get the group to release the five British hostages they kidnapped May 29, 2007. They realeased two: Jason Swindlehurst and Jason Creswell. Both men were released dead The British government considers Alec Maclachlan and Alan McMenemy to be dead (the families are still hopeful). The British government hopes Peter Moore is alive. (In part because they need some good news to stem the outcries for the inept performance throughout the kidnappings.) So two ringleaders of a group which publicly claims credit for the kidnappings of 5 British citizens and the deaths of 5 US soldiers are released by the US and the trade off is the group hands over two corpses? No, it doesn't seem fair.
Nor does Nouri making nice. Oliver August (Times of London) offers the British government spin of Nouri raising the issue of Peter Moore with the group. Really? Nouri's bag boy Ali al-Dabbagh tells the New York Times, the British hostages were not discussed ("We cannot negotiate with the kidnappers" -- so why have talks with them) and the Times of New York also states Nouri "said that their status had not been discussed." Nordland can leave out a great deal (and frequently does) but he's never been busted lying intentionally. Today Robert Dreyfuss (The Dreyfuss Report, The Nation) covers some of the issues and wonders, "In other words, Maliki met with a bunch of Shiite terrorists, welcomed them with open arms. Why would he do that?" Because Nouri's a thug. Better question is why the US is trashing every rule of diplomacy they've operated under -- regardless of which party occupied the White House -- and acting as if it's suddenly okay for a foreign power the US funds (one we installed, of course) and one the US provides military backing for to conduct business with a group that has openly and publicly stated they will KILL US service members? That's just not allowed. That's just not done. The normal response to that is for the US to break off all diplomatic ties and recall their ambassador. But there's been no response at all to this and the US continues spending billions on Iraq and Nouri wants more US businesses to come to Iraq. They shouldn't. And if you're a business in Iraq -- and several California-based companies now are in Iraq -- you should be very worried that your stoes might be protested, that you might lose business because what Nouri's doing is unacceptable and apparently Barack's cast himself as President Pushover because this is a very embarrassing moment for the United States as he refuses to make a comment or call it out, let alone follow normal diplomatic guidelines for this situation.
On diplomatic, one thing Michael Crowley gets very right in his post is that Chris Hill, US Ambassador to Iraq, doesn't speak Arabic and has a background in Eatern Europe and Asia." Golly, remember all the jokes about Condi Rice's field of study being the now disengrated USSR?
The memo by US Col Timothy Reese advocating all US troops out of Iraq by the end of 2010 is covered by Rory O'Connor (Media Is A Plural):
Colonel Reese argues instead that all American forces should withdraw by August 2010, pointing out, "If there ever was a window where the seeds of a professional military culture could have been implanted, it is now long past. U.S. combat forces will not be here long enough or with sufficient influence to change it."
So who's right -- the military and political forces that want to prolong our long national nightmare in Iraq as a means of extending American presence and leverage there, or the expert analyst who literally wrote the book on the U.S. Army's history in Iraq?
Colonel Reese - and the now late, but still great Senator Aiken -- had it right. Out Now!
Sidebar, Media Channel is not yet back online but O'Connor's blog is back up and Danny Schechter's News Dissector blog is back up.
Yes, the US needs to leave Iraq and it appears the British may have. Deborah Haynes (Times of London) reports, "British troops may not return to southern Iraq to finish their mission in the country, David Miliband has admitted." Now help me out here because I was immune to the Barry O Kool-Aid flavor but what situation is created for the US in Iraq right now? It already felt like Somolia with Nouri's verbal attacks on US service members but now that Nouri's welcoming in groups who are publicly stating (presently stating, this isn't the past) that their mission is to kill US troops, what is the reason to remain in Iraq?
And does anyone give a damn about the US service members?
With only himself present yesterday senate wise, Senator Byron Dorgan noted he was going to call the hearing ("in the interest of time") of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee to order. Dorgan declared the hearing was the 20th oversight hearing the DPC had done into the contracting fraud and waste in Iraq and Afghanistan and, "On June 20th of last year, we held a hearing that revealed how Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR), at a site in Iraq, had exposed US troops and its own workers to -- among others -- to sodium dichromate -- a highly toxic, cancer-causing chemical. This exposure took place in the spring and summer of 2003 at a water facility -- water treatment facility -- in Qarmat Ali, Iraq. In my judgment, the Army's response to this incident and to the findings of our hearing has been tragically inadequate. Sodium dichromate is a deadly poison. According to an expert who testified at our hearing last year, a grain of sand worth of chromium dichromate per cubic meter could lead to serious long-term health problems including cancer."
Sodium dichromate was in the news at the end of 2008. From the December 4, 2008 snapshot:
Yesterday, KBR was in the news for imprisoning workers in Iraq and now Scott Bronstein and Abbie Boudreau (CNN) report KBR is being sued by 16 members of Indiana's National Gaurd who served in Iraq and maintain that KBR knew a water treatment plant (which the soliders were assigned to) exposed them to dangerous chemicals such as the carcinogenic sodium dichromate. David Ivanovich (Houston Chronicle) explains, "In their suit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Evansville, Ind., the plaintiffs contend KBR knowingly allowed them to be exposed to sodium dichromate, a chemical used as an anti-corrosive but containing the carcinogen hexavalent chromium. The alleged exposure occurred while the guardsmen were providing security for KBR workers at the Qarmat Ali water plant in southern Iraq." Rajini Vaidyanathan (BBC) elaborates, "The soldiers say that they and other civilian contractors there were repeatedly told there was no danger, and that when they reported health problems such as nose-bleeds to their bosses, they were told they were simply 'allergic to the sand'. The court papers claim that these symptoms were the early side-effects of the chemical, and that some who served on the site went on to suffer severe breathing problems and nasal tumours."
December 22nd Armen Keteyian (CBS Evening News with Katie Couric -- text and video) reported on James Gentry's developing lung cancer after serving at Iraq where he guarded KBR's water plant, "Now CBS News has obtained information that indicates KBR knew about the danger months before the soldiers were ever informed. Depositions from KBR employees detailed concerns about the toxin in one part of the plant as early as May of 2003. And KBR minutes, from a later meeting state 'that 60 percent of the people . . . exhibit symptoms of exposure,' including bloody noses and rashes."
Dorgan's noted the witnesses for the hearing: Iraq War veterans Russell Kimberling, Rocky Bixby, Russel Powell and Glenn Bootay and Dr. Herman Gibb. Dorgan explained one person would not be with them, "Sergeant First Class David Moore, a platoon leader and a 20-year veteran of the Indiana National Guard, was exposed to sodium dichromate at Qarmat Ali. He died in 2008 from lung disease after returning from Iraq. He was wheezing, unable to breathe, constantly coughing, yet doctors were mystified by the cause of his disease." Dorgan noted the government's inability to take accountability from time to time such as with Agent Orange or, more recently, the repeated denials about KBR's shoddy electrical work in Iraq which led to the deaths of US service members.
Senator Evan Bayh wondered why the Indianna National Guard wasn't notified promptly since so many of those exposed were serving with the Indianna National Guard? He also declared, "I've got two principle interests in this. First, to ensure that all those of you who were exposed and were potentially exposed get the treatment to which you are entitled You served our country honorably, you deserve the best medical care possible. We shouldn't put the burden of proof on you because there are photographs of piles of this stuff sittting around. There's no doubt at all that people were exposed so you shouldn't be in the position, as Senator Dorgan was saying, today or five years or ten years from now trying to go back and prove that it was service related. So that's my principal concern: To make sure that you're treated well and get the medical care you deserve. And then the second thing, Senator Dorgan, would be to make sure that this kind of thing never happens again."
We won't note all the opening statements. Those two were worth noting. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid showed up. For what reason? To show that any senator serving on the committee was more qualified than he is to be Senate leader? It was an embarrassing reading of a statement, one in which he never managed to note the Iraq War veterans present as witnesses or to even look at them. But he appeared more concerned with his stop-and-start 'innovative' style of reading from a piece of paper -- or, as he might put it, in . . . novativestyleof . . . readingfromapieceofpap . . . er.
Batallion medic Rusell Powell spoke of being assigned to the Qarmat Ali water treatment plant and the orange power everywhere, with ripped open bags leaving the sodium dicrhomate exposed to the wind, "These bags were spread throughout the facility, both inside and outside the buildings. The bags were often placed at the doorways of the buildings so we had to walk through piles of the orange powder when we entered and exited the buildings. The soldiers at Qarmat Ali would even use the bags as protection during storms, we'd use them as security measures as sand bags, we'd eat there, we'd sit there and eat lunch." Despite the powder being everywhere, the US Army and KBR never provided any warnings or even "voiced any concerns." In 2004, he left Iraq and his rashes, nose bleeds, stomach problems and lesions continued. Finally, in 2009, the West Virginia National Guard notified him via letter that he was "exposed to sodium dichromate while serving at Qarmat Ali."
"My symptoms haven't changed since my service in Iraq," Powell told the committee. "I go almost weekly to doctors appointments for various medical conditions and I have to miss work and ask for additional sick time. I'm testifying today because it is disheartening to know I may not be able to see my sons graduate from high school , college, get married or hold my grandchildred because of this completely avoidable exposure."
And that really does capture what's been stolen and what the reckless endangerment has left those at the water treatment facility plant with: The knowledge that even events in the immediate future, their children's graduation, may be things they are not present for as a result of the actions and decisions made by KBR and, at the very least, the inaction of the US military command. Rocky Bixby noted his difficulty in carrying on conversations because he has to cough repeatedly. He explained that, "Each morning we received regular briefings from KBR about our security work. The only hazards identified at the Qarmat Ali facility were related to developments in the war. No one from KBR or the Army ever told us about hazardous materials at the Qarmat Ali facility."
Bixby explained x-rays have discovered a node on his chest. Approximately every fourth or fifth continuous sentence of speaking at the hearing would require Bixby having to clear his throat or experiencing a coughing spasm where he coughed repeatedly. As he pointed out, had they been warned, none of this would have happened. Had they been warned, they would have taken protections including using the suits provided because of the fear/threat that Saddam Hussein would use chemical weapons on US forces. In the end, Saddam had no chemical weapons and the real chemical threat came from KBR.
"At no time during our deployment," declared Russel Kimberling, "were we told to wear face masks or chemical gear." By the two month mark, he'd developed a hole inside his nose, the navel cavity, and he noted that all the people he knows who have served at Qarmat Ali has symptoms. He is now judged to have "a pre-existing condiction" and has difficulting obtaining life insurance as a result. As the father of a four-year-old son, this is not a minor worry for Kimberling. In addition, he explained, "I am hesitant to have another child because I could be passing on genetic defects to him or her. If I do develop cancer, I am concerned about the financial situation of my loved ones who would be left behind."
Dorgan followed up with a question about the insurance issue.
Senator Byron Dorgan: Mr. Kimberling, you said that you were turned down for life insurance. Did they tell you why that you were denied?
Russell Kimberling: I just got a letter, after after I found this out five years later. I had let my life insurance from the deployment kind of lapse and i figured uhOh I better go back in. And they didn't tell me it was directly related to my exposure they just said due to my -- I had to sign a waiver for my VA which, you know, I think it has my shoulder, hearing and a back problem. I wouldn't be denied life insurance for that. They said I was a high risk. And I don't know what -- they didn't give me a reason.
"After I returned from Iraq, I was never contacted by the army about the potential exposure at Qarmat Ali," explained Glen Booty. "I was unaware that I had been exposed to a toxic chemical but my health problems continued to get worse. I began vomiting up to twenty times a day and I couldn't keep any solid food down. My headaches continued. The point of origin of my illness was while I was in Iraq." Even now knowing about the exposure and receiving some treatments, Booty continues to suffer from: "constant headaches, constant chest pain with skipped heart beats, shortness of breath due to the lower edge of my lungs being collapsed, extreme fatigue, periodic skin rashes, inability to sweat, periodic vomiting without nausea, loss of feeling on my left side and torso, high blood sugar, episodes of kidney stones, episodes of blacking out and short term memory loss."
We'll note this exhange from the hearing.
Senator Evan Bayh: Captain Kimberling, you testified that you escorted a group of, was it KBR employees, who had the white suits on, the environmental suits on, to the site. Did I understand your testimony correctly?
Russell Kimberling: Civilian attired. I couldn't say whether they were, you know, Corps of Engineers or KBR.
Senator Evan Bayh: Ah but they had --
Russell Kimberling: Civilian attire on.
Senator Evan Bayh: Oh, civilian attire. I thought you said they had enviornmental suits.
Russell Kimberling: Well they had it, when they got in the vehicles, civilian attire, when they got out of the vehicles, at the site, they had white PPE [Personal Protective Equipment], the gear.
Senator Evan Bayh: So when you were -- why do you suppose they put that on? Before they got out of the vehicles?
Russell Kimberling: They knew something we didn't.
Senator Evan Bayh: Well that's my point. And so they drove up in civilian attire but before they got out to set foot on the ground, they put on the environmental suits obviously indicating they were worried about something?
Russell Kimberling: Yes.
Senator Evan Bayh: But you and your men and women hadn't been informed of anything at that point, correct?
Russell Kimberling: Correct.
Senator Evan Bayh: At what point after that, if at all, were you informed?
Russell Kimberling: It was within a couple of weeks that, uh, Lt Col [James] Gentry, once he -- once we figured out what it was, we were informed and we didn't go back to the site.
Senator Evan Bayh: So there were at least a couple of weeks there when presumably they didn't find out that dayso there was a period of some time, at least a couple of weeks, probably longer ,that people were aware there was some pretty hazardous stuff there -- so much that they protect themselves -- but you and your men hadn't been notified?
Russell Kimberling: Yes, sir.
The civilian visit was in August 2003. Kimberling had been stationed at the water treatment facility since April 2003. Elsewhere in the hearing, he noted that Lt Col James Gentry "is currently battling terminal lung cancer, most likely caused by his exposure to sodium dichromate, and has entered hospice care."
Meanwhile, David Martin (CBS Evening News with Katie Couric -- link has text and video) reports on Iraq War veteran Casey Owens who lost his legs while serving in Iraq who has had to fight the VA for needed treatment and who TBI is repeatedly swept aside and ignored. "I've gone to the VA and complained," he explains, "about certain symptoms but it's usually just shrugged off as sinus headaches or migraines or stress." Gregg Zoroya (USA Today) reports on the strain deployments are causing military families such as Lynn and Capt Mark Flitton with Mark having a very difficult time readjusting to life with his family after being deployed three times in the last ten years. He tells Zoroya, "I haven't come home yet. I'm still in the war mode, and I don't know that I'm going to come back out of it until I know I don't have any more war rotations to go back on." Drop back to Friday's snapshot and pair Flitton's statements with Mary who called into NPR's The Diane Rehm Show to share her story:Hi there. As a matter of fact, that's exactly what I was calling about. My husband is currently on his fourth tour in Iraq which is his fifth deployment in six years. As a matter of fact, he's physically lived at home six months since 2001. There's -- there's two reasons I think why the high suicide rate You have these up tempo deployments. When someone comes back from being deployed in Iraq you have what's called a honeymoon period and it might be a month or several months where everyone's happy to see you and every thing's going fine and then the cracks start to show a little bit the stress that every body's been under -- whether it's the normal stress or maybe PTSD. But by the time that starts to rear it's head, they're back for another deployment again and so those issues don't get addressed. And I live in fear for when my husband is home permanently and I know for certain that we're going to have to address that. My husband told me once a story when they were in Iraq, in a combat mission. There was a young gentlemen, maybe 19, scared to death to go out -- understandably. And he was out maybe thirty minutes and they got hit by an IED. He was absolutely terrified and the next day he had to go back out on another mission. And he did not want to go and he had to. And I asked my husband what do you do in those circumstances? And my husband said "Charley Mike" which is an acronym for CM and it means continue mission. That is the most important thing is you continue the mission and you don't stop until it's complete and then you look back and maybe try to figure out what's wrong with these poor people. The -- I don't care what any senior officials say -- the mental health is abysmal in the military. It's frowned upon, there's not enough services. Also I think because the rest -- only the military is at war and the rest of the country is not, there's not -- there's a big disconnect there and I think that adds to the situation. My husband is proud to do his service. He's happy to be there so many other fathers don't have to be. But he would like at least some acknowledgment and recognition. When you turn on the TV and very little is talked about.
Moving to the press, pundits, gas bags. And if they don't like being called out, they should try talking about the Iraq War than, for example Naomi Klein, repeatedly using women to get some cheap laughs. Like Klein, two journalists working for the Washington Post thought it was fine and dandy to go to town, CJR's Greg Marx calls it out here, Kirsten Powers (New York Post) goes further in calling all out all this sexist garbage:
If [Dana] Milbank made a "satirical" race-based joke about Obama, he'd be fired. But that's not going to happen here.
After all, calling Hillary Clinton the b-word is practically mainstream behavior. During the '08 campaign, a (female) questioner at a McCain event asked "How can we beat the bitch?" McCain laughed. Conservative commentator Alex Castellanos defended this on CNN saying that Clinton deserves to be called a "bitch."
For what? Running for president? How dare she!
The only thing worse would be running for vice president. Just ask Sarah Palin.
I'm no fan of the former governor of Alaska, but as a life-long feminist I can't ignore the endless stream of sexism directed at her.
Friday on MSNBC, guest host Donny Deutsch asked, "If Palin wasn't hot, would we be talking about her?" His two female guests -- one Republican and one Democrat -- were united in their disagreement with this assertion.
But Deutsch was adamant: "The only reason we are so fascinated, the American public has never seen a woman that looks like this in power. That's where the fascination starts."
Where was this insightful analysis when the vapid JFK-wannabe John Edwards and his silky hair ended up as the Dems choice for VP in 2004? Or was everyone too dazzled by his completely undistinguished one term as a senator?
Lastly, Iraq Veterans Against the War's Adam Kokesh is running for the US Congress out of New Mexico's third district and he announced last month he was going to be on the Republican ticket (link has video and text). An e-mail came in asking if we'd dumped Adam because he was on the Republican ticket? No. We'll continue to note him and Congress would be lucky to have Adam as member on any party ticket. There's just not time for everything -- the hearing covered today couldn't go into yesterday's snapshot because there wasn't room and I didn't feel like boiling it down to one paragraph which was all the room that was left -- so something's get held with the hopes that they'll be noted at a later date. This week, Iraqi refugees should be a topic, hopefully tomorrow. But I'm holding things on that. There's never enough room for everything on Iraq. Things like a political run are more likely to get held. But there's no walk away from Adam because he's running on the Republican ticket. We're not a Libertarian site but we never ignored Adam because he's a Libertarian. We'll continue to note him and probably more so this month because Congress is about to go on recess.
iraq
the killeen daily herald
gregg zoroyausa today
cbs news
armen keteyian
nprthe diane rehm showdanny schechter
the new york timesrod nordland
the times of londonoliver augustdeborah haynes
Labour’s deputy leader used her position as Gordon Brown’s stand-in to demand a more radical overhaul of the law, such as targets for prosecutors and police to secure more convictions. She has the backing of Vera Baird, the Solicitor-General, but Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary and Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, do not want to widen the terms of reference and the review has been postponed.
Ms Harman has been standing in for the Prime Minister since he left for a summer break last week.
that's from francis elliott, richard ford and rosemary bennett's article for the times of london and, see, when gordo's away, things actually happen. and i say good for harriet harman. well done. alice thomson (same outlet) doesn't applaud but does note that things are actually being addressed:
Finally we have a prime minister again. Harriet Harman has filled a vacuum. We have had little leadership for a year, and suddenly we know where we stand. You are probably appalled, you think she is ghastly, hideous, ranting. But, admit it, at least she is a conviction politician.
She has a view, an agenda and, knowing Harriet, a neatly written out list of goals. In the few days since Ms Harman walked through the door of No 10, she has not stopped. She is everywhere, with her own opinion on everything, challenging Home Office civil servants and bankers’ bonuses. Deputies are not supposed to do this. They are meant to hide under the desk and hope they won’t be hit by a croquet mallet.
The past year has been visionless. Parliament has frittered away its time.
maybe gordo could stay on fortnight? with the emerging news (more to come) on the way his government 'fixed' the expense scandal (mps are now able to deduct even more as expenses), he might need to stay away.
independent television news (link has text & video) reports on another brewing scandal:
A group of MPs is calling for an independent inquiry into allegations that the Government was complicit in torture of terror suspects.
Parliament's Joint Human Rights Committee has examined the details of several cases where it has been alleged that terror suspects were mistreated by Britain's allies overseas.
They include the case of Binyam Mohamed, an Ethopian-born British resident, who was held in Guantanamo Bay detention centre earlier this year, after being arrested in Pakistan in 2002.
He alleges that he was "rendered" to Morocco and Afghanistan, and he claims that MI5 colluded with his interrogators by getting them to ask him specific questions which led to his making false confessions.
Another case noted by the committee is that of Rangzieb Ahmed, a UK-born convicted terrorist, who claims to have been tortured in Pakistan, including by having his fingernails removed.
again, maybe gordo shouldn't return? maybe he should just stay on a never ending holiday? people would say, 'oh that gordon brown, he's crazy.' and that would take his actions/sins off the labour party and keep them only on him.
but gordo's not very smart and he's obviously not concerned about the labour party or he would have resigned when it was hinted that he should by party elders.
richard norton-taylor (guardian) adds:
The former shadow home secretary David Davis said he had no doubt the UK had been complicit in the torture of terror suspects abroad, adding that refusing to reveal policy information "smacks of a cover-up". He told the BBC he was sure both Brown and Tony Blair had seen evidence of UK complicity.
"Of course they will have done. The intelligence and security committee actually wrote a letter to the current prime minister some months ago. The joint committee on human rights has asked for that to be published. He won't publish that.
"They've asked for them to publish the guidelines given to the intelligence agencies by ministers in the period between 9/11 and now. They've refused to do that either ... If they've got nothing to hide why not publish the guidelines?"
Davis referred to the case of Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian-born British resident who was held in Guantánamo Bay before his return to the UK earlier this year. In a high court ruling last week, two judges showed that MI5 knew more about Mohamed's secret imprisonment, where he says he was tortured, than earlier admitted. They have now asked David Miliband, the foreign secretary, if he stands by claims made in court on his behalf that if the judges' seven-paragraph summary of CIA information about the case were disclosed, the US would limit intelligence-sharing with the UK and thus put British lives at risk.
again, he might just want to stay on fortnight. let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Tuesday, August 4, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the military announces two deaths, Nouri's new friends with benefits didn't renounce violence (they still say they'll be attacking US troops), Iraq War veterans continue to suffer to get the needed medical care and to re-adjust to daily life, and more.
Today the US military announced: "A Soldier assigned to Multi-National Division - South died of a non-combat related injury August 4. The Soldier's name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin." That announcement came from M-NF which is supposed to announce deaths and, later, DoD announces the names of the dead. That's how it's supposed to work. But frequently that's not how it works. Late yesterday, DoD announced: "Staff Sgt. Johnny R. Polk, 39, of Gulfport, Miss., died July 25 at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Landstuhl, Germany, of wounds suffered when his vehicle was struck by anti-tank grenade on July 23 in Kirkuk, Iraq." That July 25th death was never reported by M-NF and, again, was only announced late yesterday -- long after the outlets had done their 'end of the month' pieces. This happens over and over and the press falls for it everytime -- like saps, like suckers. The announcements bring to 4330 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war. Back to Polk, the Killeen Daily Herald informs that Polk's full name is Johnny Roosevelt Polk and that he enlisted in March 1992, deployed to Iraq at the start of the year and his "awards and decorations include the Bronze Star Medal, Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, Army Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Korean Defense Service Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon, Army Service Ribbon and the Overseas Service Ribbon."
We'll move on to today's reported violence in Iraq. Bombings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing wounded four people. Reuters notes a Jurf al-Sakhar roadside bombing left two people injured and, dropping back to Monday, a Mosul roadside bombing which left two Iraqi soldiers injured.
Shootings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 Iraqi soldier wounded in a Mosul shooting. Reuters drops back to Monday to note 1 "off-duty government employee" shot dead in front of his Mosul home and 1 "brother of Iraq's chief of traffice police" shot dead in Mussayab.
Though the Iraq War hasn't ended and the violence hasn't stopped, it's fallen off the radar -- or further off. Michael Crowley (New Republic) notes the 'downgrading' of the ongoing war:
A recent dispatch from Iraq by The New York Times' Elisabeth Bumiller articulated something that has been true for several months now: America has moved on from the Iraq War. Much of the 2008 election was organized around that conflict. Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton in large measure by deriding the judgment she showed in supporting the 2003 Iraq war resolution. And John McCain's public embrace of George W. Bush's policies may have doomed his campaign from the start. Few things seemed to exhilarate Obama's supporters more than his firm call for "an end" to the Iraq war. And now, just six months into Obama's presidency, and even before Obama's troop-withdrawal plan has begun in earnest, Iraq has been replaced by Afghanistan as the conflict that will probably define his presidency.
Crowley believes US forces are the only thing keeping the 'peace' in Iraq -- we obviously disagree (though they're the only thing keeping Nouri in office) on that and other things but Crowley wrote a serious piece about Iraq and that's so very rare today so we'll link As noted in yesterday's snapshot, Nouri lost that loving feeling. Nouri has teamed up with the Righteous League or the Leage of Righteous, warmly wecloming them into the fold. You have to read to the fifth paragraph of Rod Nordland's report (New York Times) this morning to discover that, contrary to Nouri's claims, the group has not renounced violence. In the fifth paragraph, Nordland slips in "the group has not renounced fighting the Americans" and quotes their spokesperson Salam al-Maliki declaring, "We are only fighting the United States." Then, point of fact, they're fighting the puppet government. Not just because Nouri's propped up by the presence of US service members but also because of the various security agreements between the US and Iraq -- more than just the SOFA. So everybody needs to grasp what happened -- it's apparently beyond the New York Times and Rod Nordland. The US has recognized their installed government as a legitimate one and have entered into various contracts with it. Nouri signed off on those. And now Nouri's welocming into the process the League of Righteous who have not renounced violence against the US and who maintain they will continue violence against the US.
How did Bobby Ghosh (Time magazine) describe it last month when Nouri came begging to the US? Oh, yes, Nouri "talked about broadening Iraq's relationship with the U.S. and cooperation in the area of economics, culture and education as well as a conference in October for potential investors in Iraq." Forget the "War on Terror" (though Congress has refused to repeal that legislation), the United States has never been in the position of maintaining diplomatic relations with a foreign country who openly embraces a group that publicly announces it will attack the US. That's not how it works, that's not ever how it has worked.
The group not only maintains that they will continue to attack US forces, they brag about killing Brian S. Freeman, Jabob Fritz, Johanthan B. Chism, Shawn P. Falter and Johnathon M. Millican. Despite that, see the June 9th snapshot, the US military released the two brothers who lead the group in an effort apparently to get the group to release the five British hostages they kidnapped May 29, 2007. They realeased two: Jason Swindlehurst and Jason Creswell. Both men were released dead The British government considers Alec Maclachlan and Alan McMenemy to be dead (the families are still hopeful). The British government hopes Peter Moore is alive. (In part because they need some good news to stem the outcries for the inept performance throughout the kidnappings.) So two ringleaders of a group which publicly claims credit for the kidnappings of 5 British citizens and the deaths of 5 US soldiers are released by the US and the trade off is the group hands over two corpses? No, it doesn't seem fair.
Nor does Nouri making nice. Oliver August (Times of London) offers the British government spin of Nouri raising the issue of Peter Moore with the group. Really? Nouri's bag boy Ali al-Dabbagh tells the New York Times, the British hostages were not discussed ("We cannot negotiate with the kidnappers" -- so why have talks with them) and the Times of New York also states Nouri "said that their status had not been discussed." Nordland can leave out a great deal (and frequently does) but he's never been busted lying intentionally. Today Robert Dreyfuss (The Dreyfuss Report, The Nation) covers some of the issues and wonders, "In other words, Maliki met with a bunch of Shiite terrorists, welcomed them with open arms. Why would he do that?" Because Nouri's a thug. Better question is why the US is trashing every rule of diplomacy they've operated under -- regardless of which party occupied the White House -- and acting as if it's suddenly okay for a foreign power the US funds (one we installed, of course) and one the US provides military backing for to conduct business with a group that has openly and publicly stated they will KILL US service members? That's just not allowed. That's just not done. The normal response to that is for the US to break off all diplomatic ties and recall their ambassador. But there's been no response at all to this and the US continues spending billions on Iraq and Nouri wants more US businesses to come to Iraq. They shouldn't. And if you're a business in Iraq -- and several California-based companies now are in Iraq -- you should be very worried that your stoes might be protested, that you might lose business because what Nouri's doing is unacceptable and apparently Barack's cast himself as President Pushover because this is a very embarrassing moment for the United States as he refuses to make a comment or call it out, let alone follow normal diplomatic guidelines for this situation.
On diplomatic, one thing Michael Crowley gets very right in his post is that Chris Hill, US Ambassador to Iraq, doesn't speak Arabic and has a background in Eatern Europe and Asia." Golly, remember all the jokes about Condi Rice's field of study being the now disengrated USSR?
The memo by US Col Timothy Reese advocating all US troops out of Iraq by the end of 2010 is covered by Rory O'Connor (Media Is A Plural):
Colonel Reese argues instead that all American forces should withdraw by August 2010, pointing out, "If there ever was a window where the seeds of a professional military culture could have been implanted, it is now long past. U.S. combat forces will not be here long enough or with sufficient influence to change it."
So who's right -- the military and political forces that want to prolong our long national nightmare in Iraq as a means of extending American presence and leverage there, or the expert analyst who literally wrote the book on the U.S. Army's history in Iraq?
Colonel Reese - and the now late, but still great Senator Aiken -- had it right. Out Now!
Sidebar, Media Channel is not yet back online but O'Connor's blog is back up and Danny Schechter's News Dissector blog is back up.
Yes, the US needs to leave Iraq and it appears the British may have. Deborah Haynes (Times of London) reports, "British troops may not return to southern Iraq to finish their mission in the country, David Miliband has admitted." Now help me out here because I was immune to the Barry O Kool-Aid flavor but what situation is created for the US in Iraq right now? It already felt like Somolia with Nouri's verbal attacks on US service members but now that Nouri's welcoming in groups who are publicly stating (presently stating, this isn't the past) that their mission is to kill US troops, what is the reason to remain in Iraq?
And does anyone give a damn about the US service members?
With only himself present yesterday senate wise, Senator Byron Dorgan noted he was going to call the hearing ("in the interest of time") of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee to order. Dorgan declared the hearing was the 20th oversight hearing the DPC had done into the contracting fraud and waste in Iraq and Afghanistan and, "On June 20th of last year, we held a hearing that revealed how Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR), at a site in Iraq, had exposed US troops and its own workers to -- among others -- to sodium dichromate -- a highly toxic, cancer-causing chemical. This exposure took place in the spring and summer of 2003 at a water facility -- water treatment facility -- in Qarmat Ali, Iraq. In my judgment, the Army's response to this incident and to the findings of our hearing has been tragically inadequate. Sodium dichromate is a deadly poison. According to an expert who testified at our hearing last year, a grain of sand worth of chromium dichromate per cubic meter could lead to serious long-term health problems including cancer."
Sodium dichromate was in the news at the end of 2008. From the December 4, 2008 snapshot:
Yesterday, KBR was in the news for imprisoning workers in Iraq and now Scott Bronstein and Abbie Boudreau (CNN) report KBR is being sued by 16 members of Indiana's National Gaurd who served in Iraq and maintain that KBR knew a water treatment plant (which the soliders were assigned to) exposed them to dangerous chemicals such as the carcinogenic sodium dichromate. David Ivanovich (Houston Chronicle) explains, "In their suit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Evansville, Ind., the plaintiffs contend KBR knowingly allowed them to be exposed to sodium dichromate, a chemical used as an anti-corrosive but containing the carcinogen hexavalent chromium. The alleged exposure occurred while the guardsmen were providing security for KBR workers at the Qarmat Ali water plant in southern Iraq." Rajini Vaidyanathan (BBC) elaborates, "The soldiers say that they and other civilian contractors there were repeatedly told there was no danger, and that when they reported health problems such as nose-bleeds to their bosses, they were told they were simply 'allergic to the sand'. The court papers claim that these symptoms were the early side-effects of the chemical, and that some who served on the site went on to suffer severe breathing problems and nasal tumours."
December 22nd Armen Keteyian (CBS Evening News with Katie Couric -- text and video) reported on James Gentry's developing lung cancer after serving at Iraq where he guarded KBR's water plant, "Now CBS News has obtained information that indicates KBR knew about the danger months before the soldiers were ever informed. Depositions from KBR employees detailed concerns about the toxin in one part of the plant as early as May of 2003. And KBR minutes, from a later meeting state 'that 60 percent of the people . . . exhibit symptoms of exposure,' including bloody noses and rashes."
Dorgan's noted the witnesses for the hearing: Iraq War veterans Russell Kimberling, Rocky Bixby, Russel Powell and Glenn Bootay and Dr. Herman Gibb. Dorgan explained one person would not be with them, "Sergeant First Class David Moore, a platoon leader and a 20-year veteran of the Indiana National Guard, was exposed to sodium dichromate at Qarmat Ali. He died in 2008 from lung disease after returning from Iraq. He was wheezing, unable to breathe, constantly coughing, yet doctors were mystified by the cause of his disease." Dorgan noted the government's inability to take accountability from time to time such as with Agent Orange or, more recently, the repeated denials about KBR's shoddy electrical work in Iraq which led to the deaths of US service members.
Senator Evan Bayh wondered why the Indianna National Guard wasn't notified promptly since so many of those exposed were serving with the Indianna National Guard? He also declared, "I've got two principle interests in this. First, to ensure that all those of you who were exposed and were potentially exposed get the treatment to which you are entitled You served our country honorably, you deserve the best medical care possible. We shouldn't put the burden of proof on you because there are photographs of piles of this stuff sittting around. There's no doubt at all that people were exposed so you shouldn't be in the position, as Senator Dorgan was saying, today or five years or ten years from now trying to go back and prove that it was service related. So that's my principal concern: To make sure that you're treated well and get the medical care you deserve. And then the second thing, Senator Dorgan, would be to make sure that this kind of thing never happens again."
We won't note all the opening statements. Those two were worth noting. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid showed up. For what reason? To show that any senator serving on the committee was more qualified than he is to be Senate leader? It was an embarrassing reading of a statement, one in which he never managed to note the Iraq War veterans present as witnesses or to even look at them. But he appeared more concerned with his stop-and-start 'innovative' style of reading from a piece of paper -- or, as he might put it, in . . . novativestyleof . . . readingfromapieceofpap . . . er.
Batallion medic Rusell Powell spoke of being assigned to the Qarmat Ali water treatment plant and the orange power everywhere, with ripped open bags leaving the sodium dicrhomate exposed to the wind, "These bags were spread throughout the facility, both inside and outside the buildings. The bags were often placed at the doorways of the buildings so we had to walk through piles of the orange powder when we entered and exited the buildings. The soldiers at Qarmat Ali would even use the bags as protection during storms, we'd use them as security measures as sand bags, we'd eat there, we'd sit there and eat lunch." Despite the powder being everywhere, the US Army and KBR never provided any warnings or even "voiced any concerns." In 2004, he left Iraq and his rashes, nose bleeds, stomach problems and lesions continued. Finally, in 2009, the West Virginia National Guard notified him via letter that he was "exposed to sodium dichromate while serving at Qarmat Ali."
"My symptoms haven't changed since my service in Iraq," Powell told the committee. "I go almost weekly to doctors appointments for various medical conditions and I have to miss work and ask for additional sick time. I'm testifying today because it is disheartening to know I may not be able to see my sons graduate from high school , college, get married or hold my grandchildred because of this completely avoidable exposure."
And that really does capture what's been stolen and what the reckless endangerment has left those at the water treatment facility plant with: The knowledge that even events in the immediate future, their children's graduation, may be things they are not present for as a result of the actions and decisions made by KBR and, at the very least, the inaction of the US military command. Rocky Bixby noted his difficulty in carrying on conversations because he has to cough repeatedly. He explained that, "Each morning we received regular briefings from KBR about our security work. The only hazards identified at the Qarmat Ali facility were related to developments in the war. No one from KBR or the Army ever told us about hazardous materials at the Qarmat Ali facility."
Bixby explained x-rays have discovered a node on his chest. Approximately every fourth or fifth continuous sentence of speaking at the hearing would require Bixby having to clear his throat or experiencing a coughing spasm where he coughed repeatedly. As he pointed out, had they been warned, none of this would have happened. Had they been warned, they would have taken protections including using the suits provided because of the fear/threat that Saddam Hussein would use chemical weapons on US forces. In the end, Saddam had no chemical weapons and the real chemical threat came from KBR.
"At no time during our deployment," declared Russel Kimberling, "were we told to wear face masks or chemical gear." By the two month mark, he'd developed a hole inside his nose, the navel cavity, and he noted that all the people he knows who have served at Qarmat Ali has symptoms. He is now judged to have "a pre-existing condiction" and has difficulting obtaining life insurance as a result. As the father of a four-year-old son, this is not a minor worry for Kimberling. In addition, he explained, "I am hesitant to have another child because I could be passing on genetic defects to him or her. If I do develop cancer, I am concerned about the financial situation of my loved ones who would be left behind."
Dorgan followed up with a question about the insurance issue.
Senator Byron Dorgan: Mr. Kimberling, you said that you were turned down for life insurance. Did they tell you why that you were denied?
Russell Kimberling: I just got a letter, after after I found this out five years later. I had let my life insurance from the deployment kind of lapse and i figured uhOh I better go back in. And they didn't tell me it was directly related to my exposure they just said due to my -- I had to sign a waiver for my VA which, you know, I think it has my shoulder, hearing and a back problem. I wouldn't be denied life insurance for that. They said I was a high risk. And I don't know what -- they didn't give me a reason.
"After I returned from Iraq, I was never contacted by the army about the potential exposure at Qarmat Ali," explained Glen Booty. "I was unaware that I had been exposed to a toxic chemical but my health problems continued to get worse. I began vomiting up to twenty times a day and I couldn't keep any solid food down. My headaches continued. The point of origin of my illness was while I was in Iraq." Even now knowing about the exposure and receiving some treatments, Booty continues to suffer from: "constant headaches, constant chest pain with skipped heart beats, shortness of breath due to the lower edge of my lungs being collapsed, extreme fatigue, periodic skin rashes, inability to sweat, periodic vomiting without nausea, loss of feeling on my left side and torso, high blood sugar, episodes of kidney stones, episodes of blacking out and short term memory loss."
We'll note this exhange from the hearing.
Senator Evan Bayh: Captain Kimberling, you testified that you escorted a group of, was it KBR employees, who had the white suits on, the environmental suits on, to the site. Did I understand your testimony correctly?
Russell Kimberling: Civilian attired. I couldn't say whether they were, you know, Corps of Engineers or KBR.
Senator Evan Bayh: Ah but they had --
Russell Kimberling: Civilian attire on.
Senator Evan Bayh: Oh, civilian attire. I thought you said they had enviornmental suits.
Russell Kimberling: Well they had it, when they got in the vehicles, civilian attire, when they got out of the vehicles, at the site, they had white PPE [Personal Protective Equipment], the gear.
Senator Evan Bayh: So when you were -- why do you suppose they put that on? Before they got out of the vehicles?
Russell Kimberling: They knew something we didn't.
Senator Evan Bayh: Well that's my point. And so they drove up in civilian attire but before they got out to set foot on the ground, they put on the environmental suits obviously indicating they were worried about something?
Russell Kimberling: Yes.
Senator Evan Bayh: But you and your men and women hadn't been informed of anything at that point, correct?
Russell Kimberling: Correct.
Senator Evan Bayh: At what point after that, if at all, were you informed?
Russell Kimberling: It was within a couple of weeks that, uh, Lt Col [James] Gentry, once he -- once we figured out what it was, we were informed and we didn't go back to the site.
Senator Evan Bayh: So there were at least a couple of weeks there when presumably they didn't find out that dayso there was a period of some time, at least a couple of weeks, probably longer ,that people were aware there was some pretty hazardous stuff there -- so much that they protect themselves -- but you and your men hadn't been notified?
Russell Kimberling: Yes, sir.
The civilian visit was in August 2003. Kimberling had been stationed at the water treatment facility since April 2003. Elsewhere in the hearing, he noted that Lt Col James Gentry "is currently battling terminal lung cancer, most likely caused by his exposure to sodium dichromate, and has entered hospice care."
Meanwhile, David Martin (CBS Evening News with Katie Couric -- link has text and video) reports on Iraq War veteran Casey Owens who lost his legs while serving in Iraq who has had to fight the VA for needed treatment and who TBI is repeatedly swept aside and ignored. "I've gone to the VA and complained," he explains, "about certain symptoms but it's usually just shrugged off as sinus headaches or migraines or stress." Gregg Zoroya (USA Today) reports on the strain deployments are causing military families such as Lynn and Capt Mark Flitton with Mark having a very difficult time readjusting to life with his family after being deployed three times in the last ten years. He tells Zoroya, "I haven't come home yet. I'm still in the war mode, and I don't know that I'm going to come back out of it until I know I don't have any more war rotations to go back on." Drop back to Friday's snapshot and pair Flitton's statements with Mary who called into NPR's The Diane Rehm Show to share her story:Hi there. As a matter of fact, that's exactly what I was calling about. My husband is currently on his fourth tour in Iraq which is his fifth deployment in six years. As a matter of fact, he's physically lived at home six months since 2001. There's -- there's two reasons I think why the high suicide rate You have these up tempo deployments. When someone comes back from being deployed in Iraq you have what's called a honeymoon period and it might be a month or several months where everyone's happy to see you and every thing's going fine and then the cracks start to show a little bit the stress that every body's been under -- whether it's the normal stress or maybe PTSD. But by the time that starts to rear it's head, they're back for another deployment again and so those issues don't get addressed. And I live in fear for when my husband is home permanently and I know for certain that we're going to have to address that. My husband told me once a story when they were in Iraq, in a combat mission. There was a young gentlemen, maybe 19, scared to death to go out -- understandably. And he was out maybe thirty minutes and they got hit by an IED. He was absolutely terrified and the next day he had to go back out on another mission. And he did not want to go and he had to. And I asked my husband what do you do in those circumstances? And my husband said "Charley Mike" which is an acronym for CM and it means continue mission. That is the most important thing is you continue the mission and you don't stop until it's complete and then you look back and maybe try to figure out what's wrong with these poor people. The -- I don't care what any senior officials say -- the mental health is abysmal in the military. It's frowned upon, there's not enough services. Also I think because the rest -- only the military is at war and the rest of the country is not, there's not -- there's a big disconnect there and I think that adds to the situation. My husband is proud to do his service. He's happy to be there so many other fathers don't have to be. But he would like at least some acknowledgment and recognition. When you turn on the TV and very little is talked about.
Moving to the press, pundits, gas bags. And if they don't like being called out, they should try talking about the Iraq War than, for example Naomi Klein, repeatedly using women to get some cheap laughs. Like Klein, two journalists working for the Washington Post thought it was fine and dandy to go to town, CJR's Greg Marx calls it out here, Kirsten Powers (New York Post) goes further in calling all out all this sexist garbage:
If [Dana] Milbank made a "satirical" race-based joke about Obama, he'd be fired. But that's not going to happen here.
After all, calling Hillary Clinton the b-word is practically mainstream behavior. During the '08 campaign, a (female) questioner at a McCain event asked "How can we beat the bitch?" McCain laughed. Conservative commentator Alex Castellanos defended this on CNN saying that Clinton deserves to be called a "bitch."
For what? Running for president? How dare she!
The only thing worse would be running for vice president. Just ask Sarah Palin.
I'm no fan of the former governor of Alaska, but as a life-long feminist I can't ignore the endless stream of sexism directed at her.
Friday on MSNBC, guest host Donny Deutsch asked, "If Palin wasn't hot, would we be talking about her?" His two female guests -- one Republican and one Democrat -- were united in their disagreement with this assertion.
But Deutsch was adamant: "The only reason we are so fascinated, the American public has never seen a woman that looks like this in power. That's where the fascination starts."
Where was this insightful analysis when the vapid JFK-wannabe John Edwards and his silky hair ended up as the Dems choice for VP in 2004? Or was everyone too dazzled by his completely undistinguished one term as a senator?
Lastly, Iraq Veterans Against the War's Adam Kokesh is running for the US Congress out of New Mexico's third district and he announced last month he was going to be on the Republican ticket (link has video and text). An e-mail came in asking if we'd dumped Adam because he was on the Republican ticket? No. We'll continue to note him and Congress would be lucky to have Adam as member on any party ticket. There's just not time for everything -- the hearing covered today couldn't go into yesterday's snapshot because there wasn't room and I didn't feel like boiling it down to one paragraph which was all the room that was left -- so something's get held with the hopes that they'll be noted at a later date. This week, Iraqi refugees should be a topic, hopefully tomorrow. But I'm holding things on that. There's never enough room for everything on Iraq. Things like a political run are more likely to get held. But there's no walk away from Adam because he's running on the Republican ticket. We're not a Libertarian site but we never ignored Adam because he's a Libertarian. We'll continue to note him and probably more so this month because Congress is about to go on recess.
iraq
the killeen daily herald
gregg zoroyausa today
cbs news
armen keteyian
nprthe diane rehm showdanny schechter
the new york timesrod nordland
the times of londonoliver augustdeborah haynes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)