party hack david sirota, of all people, wrote about bill moyers' special that aired on many pbs stations yesterday. sherry e-mailed it to me and wondered 'how brazen can he be?'
good question. sirota's off on a tear and though there are some points i agree with him on, the larger issue is, as sherry pointed out, that he's got a lot of nerve presenting himself as a journalist.
a journalist? that's got to be the funniest claim of last week.
a jounalist does not send out memos to the democratic party. a journalist does not talk about 'we' when referring to congress. a journalist does not pick up 'journalism' only when he's not working on a campaign.
sirota is as guilty of being a part of the revolving door that has weakened journalism - the revolving door between political campaigns and 'journalism' - as any 1 else.
he saves the bulk of his ire for petey beinart (if that's not spelled correctly - i don't worry about spelling war hawks' names correctly) and sherry wondered why that was?
sherry (thank you, sherry) participated in a roundtable tonight and e-mailed earlier today saying 'if you don't have time to do gonzales tonight, grab anything you want to comment on from this.' for the roundtables, there were 7, see mike's '7 Roundtables and Jeremy Brcher & Brendan Smith' which explains how that happened. betty and i co-moderated 1 and that was a ton of fun, i won't lie. but it was not planned. (by either of us.) we were honored to be asked. but i am late tonight (in fact it is friday morning) so i'll skip the cess pool and focus on sherry's comments and questions. (and thank you, sherry!)
petey is young and may be younger than sirota so let's keep that in mind. back in the 80s, i date a guitarist briefly and he hit the roof when c.i. gave me dweezil zappa's solo album. he was furious because dweezil was younger than him. dweezil didn't make my kind of music but i could appreciate his talent. my ex-lover couldn't and could only focus on the fact that some 1 younger than him had a label, had a big push and had a young (and cute) face.
now petey's disgusting. and i'm sure that's the main reason sirota focuses on him; however, the issue of age and petey going to time magazine probably irks sirota as well.
petey was heading up the new republic(an) as the illegal war was being sold. it needs to be noted that not only did petey do stuff in his own writing, his magazine featured attacks (and he was in charge of the magazine) on those who spoke out and that his writers attacked in speeches every chance they got. so petey's pretty vile.
but the reality of the new republic(an) is that it's circulation was in the toilet and it's reach with the american people wasn't great. it did allow - as it had for many, many years - some to point and say, 'look even the new republic(an), a left magazine, supports this.' so that is a tiny power it had. but the weekly standard, for example, had more influence in congress. outside of their poster boy joe lieberman, i can't imagine too many in congress bothering to read the new republic(an).
i think bill moyers let petey off easier than any 1 else and wrote about that last night. so that may be another reason that sirota zooms in on petey - he might feel that petey's age allowed him to be treated with kid gloves.
but i do think there is professional jealosy as well because sirota and petey aren't all that different. they have different sets of beliefs but they operate pretty much the same.
sherry wondered how sirota could sit there slamming people who cover horse race politics? good question because that really does describe sirota.
he might beg to differ and argue that he shares experiences but we all know about how he bragged about a campaign lying to voters - tricking them - telling them that a non-conservative was conservative. of course, he forgot to mention that he worked on that campaign.
so there's not a great deal of difference between sirota and petey.
all that happened is they just left the baseball field to run off into the woods and show each other their 1st jocks and while petey was showing his waist band and how far out it goes, sirota got a look at what was inside and now has a case of envy.
the little boys are 2 peas in a pod.
sirota also takes joe klein to task. joe klein - like petey - is a joke. so is sirota but he seems to think every 1's going to forget that he wrote those slams and attacks on people telling the truth about the weak ass, non-binding congressional measures. now a real reporter not only wouldn't have done that, but a real journalist would have applauded others doing it.
instead, sirota started slamming people for actually telling the truth, started using terms like 'conspiracy' (as c.i. noted, lynne woolsey had stated herself, on democracy now, what sirota was calling conspiracy and lies). sirota lied and hissed and screamed.
he's a party boy and that's all he can offer. he wants to pretend he's a journalist but he's not. he's some 1 who types up words, strings together a few half-thoughts, when not hiring himself out to political campaigns. how is he any different from petey or joe?
not really all that much.
should petey have been the focus? i do think he got off easy. if sirota does (sirota never writes that), that would be reason to address petey.
but of course some 1 really interested in addressing the crap the new republic(an) pulled would have to note arundhati roy who was attacked and it was wished that she would be taken out by a bunker buster. not only does sirota not defend roy's good name, he doesn't even bring that up. arundhati may be a little too much democracy for sirota who is on record as a hugo chavez hater.
my take on sirota. he's one more sell out. he's in a differen time so where he's selling out from is a different place. but he's the joe klein of this age.
in the 70s, he would've been a democrat (i don't think sirota is right-wing, i'll say many things about him, but i don't think he's right-wing), in the 80s, in the 90s. and the only difference between him today and the party hacks of yore - joe klein, jimmy carville, go down the list - is that his 'beliefs' are different because they were all shaped by their time.
none really support democracy. they tend to have hissy fits when democracy actually rears its head. that's why he can brag about a campaign tricking voters like that is a good thing. (a campaign, to repeat, because he didn't note it, that he worked on.)
james carville only disgraced himself defending dom imus to those who were dumb enough to believe james carville was left. james carville isn't left. he grabbed some popular positions for soundbytes. sirota will have his own imus moment in the future.
they pick easy positions and argue those. they don't defend positions - even popular 1s - that might hurt them politically. that's why, when sirota ended up working for ned lamont's campaign (after lamont won the primary), suddenly ned couldn't talk about the illegal war. suddenly ned started going all mealy mouth.
like james carville doing his damage, sirota was there to weaken the message because some 1 who thinks it is good to win a campaign through trickery isn't really going to stand up for a message that the war has to end.
sherry said the biggest laugh in sirota's column was this: 'I went to journalism school because I thought journalism was about sifting through the B.S. in order to challenge power and hold the Establishment accountable.' that is pretty funny coming from a b.s. artist like sirota.
hold the establishment accountable? how he managed to type that without being struck by a bolt from the sky is a mystery. he didn't hold the democratic establishment accountable for refusing to call for an end to the war. in fact, he provided cover for them and attacked the people who were pointing out that the bill sirota was praising (one he lobbied congress for - some journalist) was toothless and non-binding.
he also stripped people of their own power during that stage and it was probably the ugliest moment he's had publicly thus far. the ugliest mainly because most people don't know much about him other than how he self-presents.
now don't think i'm saying i wasn't taken in. i was. he had me fooled for some time. at 1 point i remember talking him up to c.i. and c.i. was so not into the sirota. i said, 'but there was a link to him last week' and c.i. said, 'that was credited to a member. i link to voices that speak to members. every link is not endorsed by me.' i had already seen a few people linked to at the common ills in entries that i knew for a fact c.i. personally loathed. so i should have known that. but i was all, 'tell me about sirota.' and c.i. was like, 'no, you like him. you're entitled to.' blah blah blah. that's c.i. - make up your own mind. so i started paying attention and, thankfully, before sirota launched his attack on hugo chavez was able to see that sirota was the new d.l.c. they mask it in 'progressive' but it's not really about being progressive.
but a lot of people can be taken in by the self-presentation. and obviously, with this article, that's what sirota's hoping for. that people will read it and forget his attacks on the peace movement just last month, his attacks on people who were observing the realities of the bills he was schilling for. his attempt to tar and feather those pointing out reality by comparing them to conspiracy theorists and every thing he else he could think of.
the little boy had a temper tantrum in public and when he found that wasn't going to go over - and it didn't because howard zinn and others stepped up - then all the sudden he started trying to slink back in as your-friendly-progressive.
he is no friend to any 1 but the politicians whose campaigns he works on and has worked on.
sirota seems to think the difference between himself and petey is that petey read others' observations and sirota has 1st hand 1s. sirota does have 1st hand observations and he has those as a result of being hired to work on campaigns. that doesn't make him any better than petey. he is not independent and he is not a journalist.
he's 1 more poser going back and forth through the revolving door and that degrades journalism as well as politics.
sirota, posing, also writes, 'Moyers, channeling a fantastic piece by Jebediah Reed in Radar Magazine, notes that most of the people who regurgitated the Washington Establishment’s debunked case for war have actually been rewarded with even more prominent positions in the media.' who is jebidah reed? 1 more of the mutal reach around & stroke club. you'll find him cited by all the pretenders and posers. they'll pretend jebidah did something amazing.
moyers' does not 'channel' the little nothing that is reed. moyers is building on the work of norman solomon and fair - who called out this nonsense long before reed did. but part of the sirotas goal is to take out independent voices like solomon and replace them with their own party hacks. that's why bob somerby ignored solomon but rushes to praise reed. that's why sirota has to get in yet another shout out to his little buddy and act as though norman solomon and fair haven't already covered this topic at length and as though moyers hasn't publicly credited fair and solomon.
see, it takes a lot of lying to start your own non-revolution. you have to shut up the people and you have to build up 'independent' voices while ignoring reality. reality is that norman solomon covered this many, many times before. see jebidah endorses war, he just doesn't seem to care for this 1 because he's decided it's 'unwinnable.' the war is lost, c.i. noted that long ago. c.i. noted that over half a million iraqis were dead about 6 weeks before the lancet study came out. jebidiah plays catch up with popular opinion and can't call the war itself out, the 'reasons' for it, the premise it is built on. that's sirota's kind of boy.
if you must, you can read his article at common dreams. i'll link to common dreams, i won't link to his article. it's under thursday's offerings. you can read david swanson's response to sirota's babbling here and you can read the third estate sunday review's 'Sad Sirota ' (and yes, i helped with that).
here's c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Thursday, April 26, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, two high profile terrorists stalk the continental United States, US war resisters launch a tour, students REMAIN active (they always have been -- no matter what the old cranks say), and more.
Starting with news of war resisters. Courage to Resist reports that war resisters Camilo Mejia, Pablo Paredes, Agustin Aguayo and Robert Zabala will be speking out from May 9th through 17th in the San Francisco Bay Area. This will be Aguayo's first publicly speaking appearances since being released from the brig earlier this month (April 18th). The announced dates include:
Wednesday May 9 - Marin
7pm at College of Marin, Student Services Center, 835 College Ave, Kentfield. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Pablo Paredes and David Solnit. Sponsored by Courage to Resist and Students for Social Responsibility.
Thursday May 10 - Sacramento
Details TBA
Friday May 11 - Stockton
6pm at the Mexican Community Center, 609 S Lincoln St, Stockton. Featuring Agustin Aguayo.
Saturday May 12 - Monterey
7pm at the Unitarian Universalist Church, 490 Aguajito Rd, Carmel. Featuring Agustin Aguayo and Camilo Mejia. Sponsored by Veterans for Peace Chp. 69, Hartnell Students for Peace, Salinas Action League, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom and Courage to Resist. More info: Kurt Brux 831-424-6447
Sunday May 13 - San Francisco 7pm at the Veterans War Memorial Bldg. (Room 223) , 401 Van Ness St, San Francisco. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia and Pablo Paredes. Sponsored by Courage to Resist, Veteran's for Peace Chp. 69 and SF Codepink. More info:
Monday May 14 - Watsonville
7pm at the United Presbyterian Church, 112 E. Beach, Watsonville. Featuring Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia, Pablo Paredes and Robert Zabala. Sponsored by the GI Rights Hotline & Draft Alternatives program of the Resource Center for Nonviolence (RCNV), Santa Cruz Peace Coalition, Watsonville Women's International League for Peace & Freedom (WILPF), Watsonville Brown Berets, Courage to Resist and Santa Cruz Veterans for Peace Chp. 11. More info: Bob Fitch 831-722-3311
Tuesday May 15 - Palo Alto
7 PM at the First Presbyterian Church (Fellowship Hall), 1140 Cowper, Palo Alto. Featuring Camilo Mejia. Sponsored by Pennisula Peace and Justice Center. More info: Paul George 650-326-8837
Wednesday May 16 - Eureka
7pm at the Eureka Labor Temple, 840 E St. (@9th), Eureka. Featuring Camilo Mejia. More info: Becky Luening 707-826-9197
Thursday May 17 - Oakland
4pm youth event and 7pm program at the Humanist Hall, 411 28th St, Oakland. Featuring Camilo Mejia, Pablo Paredes and the Alternatives to War through Education (A.W.E.) Youth Action Team. Sponsored by Veteran's for Peace Chp. 69, Courage to Resist, Central Committee for Conscientious Objector's (CCCO) and AWE Youth Action Team.
Camilo Mejia's book Road from Ar Ramaid: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia will be published by The New Press on May 1st. He is part of a movement of war resistance within the military that also includes Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Dean Walcott, Camilo Mejia, Linjamin Mull, Joshua Key, Augstin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Camilo Mejia, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder , Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Joshua Key, Mark Wilkerson, Camilo Mejia, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, the documentary Sir! No Sir! traces the war resistance within the military during Vietnam and it will air at 9:00 pm (EST) on The Sundance Channel followed at 10:30 p.m. by The Ground Truth, a documentary that features
Turning to news of terrorism, two high profile terrorists have been issuing threats against Americans, America and the democratic process that is supposed to be the bedrock the United States exists upon. US joke and 2008 GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliana, speaking in New Hampshire on Tuesday, declared that Democrats will not remain on the offensive with terrorism and will wave a white flag as he attempted to subvert democracy in his desperate bid to win the GOP nomination. Not to be outdone, Crazy John McCain, also competing for the GOP 2008 presidential nomination, took The John McCain Showboat Express to South Carolina where he declared, "If we leave Iraq there will be chaos, there will be genocide, and they will follow us home."
Reality check for Senator Crazy: Iraq already has chaos, already has genocide. When the US leaves (and the US will leave at some point) there will be violence in Iraq. That's what can happen to puppet governments, when they have to stand on their own, the people may erupt in violence (mitigated somewhat when appointed puppets get the hell out of the country -- see Marcos and the Phillipines). To state that "they will follow us home" suggests that Senator Crazy may need to undergo a psych exam before continuing in the Senate. After the first Gulf War, the US left (much quicker) and violence did take place. It did not "follow us home." Senator Crazy is attempting to terrorize a nation to drum up some support -- a cheap and should-be illegal stunt. Rudy G? He continues to demonstrate that municipal politics and the national stage do not go hand in hand. The oft dubbed "America's Mayor" should probably focus on pot holes and leave the big subjects to those qualified to weigh in unless he's intent on joining the VOTE INSANE! VOTE JOHN MCCAIN! ticket. In the United States, anyone can run for president -- even nut cases.
Other than missing their morning meds, what could have the two so upset? McCain was responding to the votes today and yesterday, Rudy G was anticipating them. AP reports that today the Senate followed the House's vote (House voted last night) to pass a reconciliation of the measures that earlier passed both houses. The non-binding, toothless measure is now headed to the White House where it awaits a signature from the Bully Boy (in which case it becomes law) or a veto. If Bully Boy vetoes, it goes back to Congress where a two-thirds majority vote of each house is necessary to override the veto. (Bully Boy can also refuse to veto it, do nothing, and after 10 days it would become a law without his signature and without requiring another Congressional vote.) Bully Boy has stated he will veto the bill. AP quotes US Senator Robert Byrd declaring, "The president has failed in his mission to bring peace and stability to the people of Iraq. It's time to bring our troops home from Iraq." Such statements may confuse some people and lead them to believe the measure that has now passed both houses does that; however, it does not "bring our troops home from Iraq." It may allow some US service members to return to the US (or be deployed to Afghanistan); however, there are so many built in escape clauses for the Bully Boy that it's silly to promote the bill as "troops home now" or, for that matter, "troops home" in 2008. AFP observes, "The bill provides more cash than Bush sought to bankroll operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but says US troops are to start withdrawing from Iraq on October 1, with a non-binding target of completing the pullout by March 31, 2008."
Before the Senate vote today, Andrea Lewis spoke with Leigh Ann Caldwell (Free Speech Radio News) and Chris Toensing (Middle East Report) on KPFA's The Morning Show about Congress and Iraq.
Chris Toensing: Well, I have never been able to shake the suspicion all along that the Democrats are engaged in an elaborate show of political theater -- that they do not really intend, in the end, to pass, to insist, that Bush sign legislation which would contain a binding timetable of any sorts. And that they are willing to water down those provisions even further to the point where it's entirely at the president's discretion -- it already almost is. But they're willing, I think, to water it down even further in order to chip away some Republicans who will vote for something like that and then they can claim to the public that they're trying to tie Bush's hands and they're trying to assert their Constitutional oversight role in helping to end this disasterous war and yet not really have their finger prints on Iraq policy. And I've never been able to shake this suspicion that that's really the Democrats game and I'm not speaking about the Progressive Caucus or the Out of Iraq Caucus who have a much clearer goal in mind and a much sounder political strategy in mind but I'm talking about the big national Democrats, the Emanuels and Pelosis in the House, the Schumers and Levins and so on in the Senate. And I think the goal of this is - is to make sure that the war is solely Bush's albatross and solely the Republicans albatross rather than to bring the war to a speedy conclusion.
Did, Andrea Lewis wondered, Toensing think that US service members would be returning to the US in the fall of 2008?
Toensing: I think it's possible, and actually probably likely, that some troops will be withdrawn, some combat brigades -- as they say. What's not going to happen is an end to the US deployment writ large. There are still going to be, I think, combat brigades there. I think there are also going to be large "enduring bases" various kind of advisors and trainers and support personnel who will be working with the new Iraqi army. I think that the underlying strategic goals of the US are just simply not served by leaving Iraq in its current state. The only conditions under which I can see either a Republican or a Democratic administration withdrawing completely from Iraq would be either if Iraqis themselves unified across all kinds of sectarian and ethinic lines and faught a kind of Pan-Iraqi Infintada against the US that would be unmanageable so that would be one circumstance. The other would be if they were able to find some kind of Iraqi strongman who would be able to ensure that the government would be stable and pliable-- according to Washington's interests -- after the US withdrew all the troops. That's the, that's all along been the underlying strategic goal and I haven't seen too many national Democrats, the ones with presidential ambitions, speak to the heart of US policy in the Persian Gulf and as long as that's not changing I think the US is going to be in Iraq for a long time.
Lewis noted, "Except maybe Dennis Kucinich" which Toensling agree with Leiws on. Dennis Kucinich is a US House Rep and candidate for the 2008 Democratic nomination for president.
In Iraq, AFP reports, the non-binding "timetable for military withdrawal from Iraq brought mixed reviews from Iraqi members of parliament, some of whom doubted the government's ability to meet US demands for faster political reconciliation." The BBC notes Iraq's foreign minister and all around redundant loud mouth Hoshayr Zebari who is yet again screaming that the US cannot leave. If the tired, old song seems familiar, he's been singing it for years.
But when exiles and Kurds are made leaders, put in positions of power (put in by the US -- and Zebari is one of Bully Boy's favorites), it's not really surprising that they don't have the support of the average Iraqi and need a military force to protect them.
In Iraq today, many went without protection. Some of the violence.
Bombings?
Reuters notes a Khalis bombing that killed 10 Iraqi soldiers (15 wounded), a bombing in Jbela that killed a student and left six more wounded, Baghdad mortar attacks that killed 4 (wounded 11), a Baghdad car bombing that killed six (15 wounded) "near Baghdad University," Mosul bombings that killed 3 people (59 wounded), car bombings in southwestern Baghdad that killed 1 (three wounded), a roadside bomb in centeral Baghdad that killed 2 (10 wounded) and a mortar attack in Mahmudiya that "killed a woman and wounded three others".
Shootings?
Reuters reports a woman and her niece shot dead in Tikrit.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 26 corpses were discovered in Baghdad.
Reuters notes one corpse discovered in Mahmudiya and three corpses were discovered in Kirkuk.
In student activism news, Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez (Democracy Now!) spoke with the University of Maryland's Sergio Espana about the five-day fast, Hungry For Peace, that kicks off Monday. Espana stated, "So we're having students and faculty having a fast and a sit-out for five days, protesting the illegal US occupation in Iraq. Every day of the fast will represent roughtly 100,000 of the more than 500,00 Iraqi civilians that have died as a direct consequence of this illegal occupation. We'll also have a lecture series. Now, across the nation, thanks in large part to the Student Peace Action Network, we've had universities from California to Vermont who will also be contributing. So these fasts are nationwide. For example, in Minnesota -- apart from the fast, there will also be rallies going into their Congressional representatives, turning in petitions, letting them know that the American public wants them to do the job that they were actually elected to do -- which is to, you know, support the American public, support the troops and to end this immoral and atrocious war." UMBC Solidarity Coaliton is asking more campuses to sign up -- this include merely wearing black arm bands next week, protesting, fasting, etc.
Also interviewed today was CODEPINK's Medea Benjamin. Excerpt:
AMY GOODMAN: Well, the founder of CODEPINK, Medea Benjamin, joins us now from Washington, D.C. She's a longtime peace activist and also co-founder of Global Exchange. Welcome, Medea, to Democracy Now! You are changing the face, in a sense, of lobbying in Washington. Explain what you're doing.
MEDEA BENJAMIN: Well, these hearings that are going on every day, Amy, they used to be very staid gatherings, where you'd have the K Street lobbyists and you'd have the staff aides and a maybe a sprinkling of tourists. Now, you have CODEPINK lining up early in the morning to get into each of the hearings and turning them into really public affairs. We try to participate in them. We certainly participate with our messages on our bodies. When we can get away with it, we participate with signs. And we often get carried away when we hear them saying things we don't like and get up and say something, sometimes get kicked out, sometimes get arrested, sometimes get tolerated. But we've really turned them into public gatherings, which I think they should be.
Yesterday, when General Petraeus tried -- well, he actually did a hearing behind closed doors, we were outside there yelling, "Let the public in! The public wants to hear!" And so, I think we're really changing the face of the way the proceedings are going on in Congress and demanding a lot more transparency.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Medea, given the number of times you've been ejected in recent months from Congress, you must be probably the best-known security question for the security guards there. Are they watching you and following you constantly?
MEDEA BENJAMIN: They've actually become our friends. We're on a first name basis. When we enter the Capitol buildings, they usually get on their walkie-talkie and say "OK, CODEPINK is here." They follow us around. They go to have lunch with us. They're really quite nice to us and quite sympathetic to our cause, as are a lot of the people that we find in these hearings. Things are really changing in Washington, and they're changing because groups like ours are keeping the pressure on.
And one thing I really want to say to your listening audience is that we need more of you here. We have rented a house, a CODEPINK house, with five bedrooms. We're encouraging people to come from all over the country, stay with us for a week or two weeks. There are people who have left their jobs and are really determined to be on the Hill during all of these discussions about supplemental money. So we need more people to come to Washington, get up in the morning with us, go out to these hearings, let them see that the people are determined to end the war in Iraq and not start another one in Iran.
Turning to media news, Rolling Stone magazine celebrates 40 years in their May 3-17, 2007 double issue. Online, it's not worth checking out. In print, Jane Fonda and Patti Smith are interviewed -- the only two women. There are no people of color. So on a diversity scale, it fails. They do find time for the token neo-con -- the aging (badly aging) boy wonder of the right wing, Tom Wolfe who apparently showed up for the interview after a drunken party at the Buckleys. Strong interviews can be found with Fonda, Smith, Michael Moore, Neil Young, Jackson Browne, Bill Moyers, Norman Mailer and Martin Scorsese. The strong interviews find the subjects reflecting on the last forty years and the changes they see in the country. We'll note Jane Fonda's response to "What indicates to you that young people are hopeful?"
Jane Fonda: Anger. Resistance. They're pissed off, as well they should be. Natalie Maines [of the Dixie Chicks] embodies that. It's that, "F--k it, man -- this not what I want this country to be." There's a lot of young people who feel that way. The young people I work with and who come to my events, they're beginning to feel their power in a very different way than in the Sixties and Seventies.
One young person, Mike (Mikey Likes It!) covered the case of Jake Kovco on Tuesday and I should have linked to it already.
Finally, Wednesday, May 2nd at 6:30 pm in The Great Hall, Cooper Union (NYC), Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove will be presenting readings from their Voices of a People's History of the United States featuring music performed by Allison Moorer and Steve Earle and readings and vocal performances by Ally Sheedy, Brian Jones, Danny Glover, Deepa Fernandes, Erin Cherry, Harris Yulin, Kathleen Chalfant, Kerry Washington, Opal Alladin, Staceyann Chin and Stanley Tucci. Zinn and Arnove will provide both the introduction and the narration.
4/27/2007
4/25/2007
white males on parade - at least some were hot
the house judiciary committee has voted to grant monica goodling immunity in exchange for her testimony. she's the alberto gonzales lover who quit the justice department and wants to claim the 5th to avoid testimony.
that's alberto's cesspool for today.
i watched the bill moyers' special tonight. did you?
1st, the mcclatchy boys. c.i. told me i should hang around the d.c. newsroom. in the words of barbra streisand, oucha magoucha!
i'm sorry when you have a face like tim russert's there should be some sort of legal requirement that you feature some hotties. those mcclatchy boys are hotties.
norman solomon got a haircut and looked very good himself.
and speaking of good haircuts, bob simon of cbs' 60 minutes looks so much better with his haircut.
i know people keep wondering where the g.o.p. 'lost' e-mails are. judging by tim russert's increasingly wide face, he ate them.
eric what's his face is a hottie too (in a tim robbins' way).
but did you wonder where the women were?
judith miller declined to appear. that was noted.
i'm actually glad she did because it helped point out that judith miller was not the entire press. that's a sweet little lie that allows a lot of people to get off scott free.
but where were the women?
maureen dowd was right about iraq. was there any attempt to interview her?
i'm aware that the focus was mainstream news so i'm noting her.
but i'll also toss out amy goodman from independent media because she called out colin powell's united nations' speech in real time. i think it could have been asked of democracy now how they got it right when other's got it so wrong.
if you missed it, jon stewart will be bill moyer's 1st guest on the regular show (starting friday after next). on democracy now today he noted he would also have joshua marshall.
let me be clear, i'm not going to applaud male, male, male.
i'm not going to applaud token female every now and then.
to be honest, i probably won't watch.
why?
jon stewart?
bill moyers already interviewed him and, to me, it just seems cheesy.
'we've got a new show, we've got to get a name! some 1 the kids love!'
what about the special itself?
when presenting the flaws and lies in the case for illegal war, moyers was on strong ground. and i give credit, when showing the new york times' articles that sold the false link between 9-11 and iraq, for including chris hedges article. but where were the women?
other than judith miller (shown walking on a street while it was noted that she turned down an interview), the only woman i remember seeing was the washington post's robin wright and she was only shown because she was on the same meet the press as william safire.
if there's a problem with the press and getting opinions outside the norm, do you really think going to white male after white male is the way to go?
maybe that's part of the problem - the sameness of the press corps? maybe that's why they can't step out?
i also know that bruce dixon and glen ford (and i'd assume margaret kimberly) called out the iraq war. they weren't on. the only african-americans shown were condi rice and colin powell.
oh wait, there was 1 other. oprah was shown cracking down on dissent.
now if you can't show robert parry (white male), that should be because you're going for diversity.
i also fault petey beinhart's interview. why? he gets to chatter away.
he should have been held accountable. it felt to me like he got more of a pass because he's so young. some of his statements really screamed for a tough follow up.
it is worth watching. if you missed it, it may be online. you can buy a dvd of it for $25 at pbs.
but, like i said, i'm not really planning to watch the show. the 1st regular show will have 2 white male guests.
and i'm left to wonder, 'bill moyers' returns to pbs to give us more white males?' i mean, thank goodness, they are such an endangered species on tv, right?
in other tv news, the view is over.
rosie's out. as i've noted before, t's got to have the tv on in her salon and switched to abc when the view is on. that's never been the case before rosie. rosie brought in viewers. (and the ratings demonstrated that.) without rosie, it's back to a yawn fest. i know some people love to celebrate them some joy behar. i don't. she trashed a friend of mine and i don't tolerate that shit. she did so on air. star jones did and so did the hideous meredith. barbara had to apologize for the 3 losers. but i don't forget that.
and the trashing was such that joy can claim left 'til the cows come home but she proved she was nothing but a shitty little person willing to play republican when it was 'fun' and when the whole country was drinking the kool-aid.
so the gab-fest will most likely be cancelled after rosie leaves and it deserves to be. rosie made the show.
i'm not dropping gonzales, by the way. i just planned to write about the moyers' special. i know some readers will check it out due to the fact that i've said the mcclatchy boys are hotties (they are, i'm not hyping). it's worth watching.
but i'm not going to pretend like it was amazing television. all media critics were white males.
the issue of who gets invited to the table remains a problem even for bill moyers. and, sadly, that point is only driven home more by the fact that his 1st friday episode (friday after next) will feature 2 white males as a guest. i really don't think that was the pbs mandate - create a space for more white males.
that's it for me tonight. here's c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Wednesday, April 25, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the United Nations raises the issue of Iraqi fatalities, US House Rep and 2008 presidential contender Dennis Kucinich moves to impeach Dick Cheney, the wall in Baghdad continues to be an issue, and more.
Starting with war resisters. Last Saturday, the latest public war resisters spoke in Greensboro, Terri Johnson. jarnocan (North Carolina World Can't Wait) reports, "Terri Johnson of Greensboro was like a lot of other young people with limited options after high school who are set upon by US Army recruiters. She believed the promises of the recruiters who told her that the Army was nothing more than a good shot at a college education and a prosperous future. She discovered, as do many others who sign up, that not only wa she signing her life away, but the lives of people targeted by the illegal and immoral war on Iraq as well. So she did the right thing. She refused to fight." Jordan Green (Yes! Weekly) notes that "the granddaughter of past Gressnsboro NAACP President Gladys Shipman, deliberately failed to complete her final fitness test at Fort Jackson in South Carolina, and then went AWOL on Sept. 28, 2006, the day before graduation." Speaking at a rally at Governmental Plaza, Johnson stated: "I'm not anti-war one hundred percent because some wars are worth fighting for. But this war is not worth fighting for. I really don't look at myself as a hero. I was just doing it for me because [the war] wasn't for me. There were a lot of my buddies who didn't want to drop out like me, but they didn't have have the courage to make the decision I did." On leaving during basics, Johnson stated, "All you got to do is leave. Throw the towel in. They cannot stop you. Stay gone for thirty-one days. Get your two-way ticket to Lousiville, Kentucky. The MPs will meet you there and pat you down. You will be there for four days and eat this horrible food. The only thing you cannot do is get a federal job. Okay, I wasn't that interested in working for the federal government anyway. The other thing you can't do is re-enlist in another branch of the military."
Terri Johnson is part of a movement of war resistance within the military that also includes Ehren Watada, Dean Walcott, Camilo Mejia, Linjamin Mull, Joshua Key, Augstin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Camilo Mejia, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder , Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Joshua Key, Mark Wilkerson, Camilo Mejia, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
Meanwhile, the United Nations is accusing the puppet government in Iraq of a different form of resistance. Yara Bayoumy (Reuters) reports that the UN states the government is "withholding sensitive civilian casualty figures because the government fears the data would be used to paint a 'very grim' picture of a worsening humanitarian crisis." CNN reports that the refusal to supply the data has prevented the UN from calculating the numbers of Iraqis killed in the first four months of 2007. Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) states that numbers the Los Angeles Times have "obtained from various ministries" puts the 2007 civilian toll at 5,509 thus far this year. The Times figures are incomplete, it should be noted, and Susman is incorrect when she claims that the US "military does not count civilian deaths that occur during its operations". The US military has kept a count -- Nancy A. Youssef broke that story right before Knight Ridder became McClatchy Newspapers. You didn't hear much about that because it was time to travel-logue in indymedia. But the US military is keeping figures, has been keeping figures. They will admit to keeping figures since June of 2005. They refuse to release those figures to the press or to the public. So when the puppet government refuses to release figures to the UN, it all has a familiar ring to it.
Al Jazeera reports, "On Wednesday, the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (Unami) blamed the majority of the bloodshed on sectarian fighting, and expressed concern about the human-rights record of Nuri al-Maliki, Iraq's prime minister." And the response? AFP reports that the puppet, Nouri al-Maliki, issued a statement: "The Iraqi government announces that is has major reservations about this report, which lack precision in its presentation of information, lasts crediblity in many of its points and lacks balance in its presentation of the human rights situation in Iraq." Around the world, chuckles were heard as the puppet questioned someone else's credibility.
The report comes as IRIN notes that Baghdad's "infrastructure continues to deteriorate, causing more violence, health hazards and misery for its seven million inhabitants" and notes "at least 43 workers have been killed in the past few months while collecting rubbish, changing lights or repairing sewage systems in the capital, mostly in the more dangerous neighborhoods of Sadr City, Alawi, Dora, Bab al-Muadham and Adhamiyah."
Turning to United States, US House Rep and 2008 presidential contender Dennis Kucinich
"introduced articles of impeachment Tuesday against Vice President Dick Cheney," The Post Chronicle reported noting that the "main chrages are that Cheney used manipulated intelligence to win support for the war in Iraq, and falsely claimed a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida." For many outlets it was time to put on the old 45 of Simon & Garfunkle . . . Hello darkness my old friend . . . As they "covered" the news by not covering it. The sounds of silence.
Dennis Bernstein addressed the issue of impeaching Cheney on Flashpoints yesterday, noting that Kucinich "broke the silence in Congress . . . Kucinich's actions follow on many calls and a series of througly well constructed and researched arguments for impeachment. Among the strongest cases made for impeachment is that by a former prosecutor, Elizabeth de la Vega with over 2 decades as a federal prosecutor. She is the author of United States v. George W. Bush et al. She's been lecturing on the case for impeachment and following the unraveling also of the Attorney General.".
Elizabeth de la Vega: "I think it's an extremely strong case and what's beautiful about it is that it's very elegantly done and it's just very, very simple. As you mentioned Article I is manipulating the intelligence process to deceive the public and Congress by making up, essentially, a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction so that the administration could invade Iraq. . . . And the specific nature of that fabrication has to do, of course, with the weapons of mass destruction. Article II is very similar except that it relates to the same type of fabrication with regard to a link between . . . al Qaeda and Iraq and 9-11. The third one has to do with Iran. And I think, really, the case is almost irrefutable."
Robert Naiman (The Huffington Post) addresses the press treatment of the issue and notes that "Kucinich seems to be one of the few Members of Congress aware that threatening to attack other countries is a violation of the U.N. Charter, a treaty wo which the U.S. is signatory." Dave Lindorff (who has been covering the impeachment movement across the country) writes (at CounterPunch) that, as a result of Kucinich's actions, "The mainstream corporate media, which has so far been largely ignoring the issue of impeachment, will have to go to extra lengths of censorship to block out the popular movement now, with a bill on the floor of the House, and with impeachment resolutions passing in the Vermont state legislature. It will be interesting to see how the nation's new gatekeepers handle the story now that it is breaking out into the open so forcefully." Those in and near Trenton, New Jersey this weekend, should be aware of the demonstration where "a Human Mural" will spell out "IMPEACH" at the State House in Trenton on 125 W. State Street, Saturday April 28th -- more information can be found here (AfterDowningStreet). That is not the only event across the country. Progressive Democrats of America's Marcy Winograd spoke with Lila Garrett on Connect The Dots With Lila Garrett on KPFK Monday. Winograd and others will be taking part in the California Democratic Party State Convention which will be held in the
San Diego Convention Center this weekend, 111 West Harbor Drive, Convention Center, San Diego. PDA will be mobilizing around many issues including impeachment -- "Impeachment Is On Our Table."
In addition, note this from CODEPINK:
Impeachment Day: April 28It's time to say NO to impunity for lying, spying, and torture. George Bush and Dick Cheney's high crimes and misdemeanors demand accountability. Since Congress doesn't get it, on April 28 Americans are going to spell it out for them: I M P E A C H ! More...
A transcript of Dennis Kucinich's press conference can be found here and, from that, we'll note this from his conference, "This goes beyond partisan terms. This is being done to defend our constitutional system of government. This is being done so that all tose of us who took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States can understand that this impeachment is one valid way in furtherance of the defense of our Constitution. I don't see this as bening distant from anyone, in any capacity in our government. Everyone must reflect on this. Years from now, people will ask, 'Why didn't the United States government respond when they saw this threat to our democracy? Why didn't people inside the government respond?' if this doesn't move forward. And so this really isn't so much, I might add, about the vice president as it is about who we are as a people. What is it that we stand for? What kind of government do the people of the United States expect and deserve? It's not appropriate for the government to lie to people. It is wrong for government officials -- you know, the vice president, in this case -- to take this nation into war based on lies."
In semi-related news, US Secretary of State and Anger Condi Rice has a subpoena with her name on it from the US House Judiciary Committee. CBS News and AP report that she will be asked to testify (presumably under oath) about the lies that Iraq "was seeking uranium from Africa." On a 21-10 vote, the committee agreed to compell Rice's testimony.
From what Americans want to what Iraqis want, CNN reports: "Shiits in Baghdad gathered Wednesday to protest a wall surrounding the Sunni neighborhood of Adhamiya. The U.S. and Iraqi militaries say the wall is for protection, but radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr issued a statement calling the wall sectarian, racist and oppressive. He vowed to support all Iraqis -- Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds and Christians -- and called on them to unite against 'the evil will of the occupier'." Al Jazeera notes, "Moqtada al-Sadr's remarks were the first by the Mahdi Army head since the US military said last week that it was building a wall in Baghdad's Adhamiyah district." Sally Kohn (Common Dreams) shares her thoughts on the issue, "Good fences have never made good policy, just as they've never made good neighbors. Bush's embrace of wall building and secrecy reminds me of totalitarian feudal lords. But feudalism failed too, didn't it? Now that Nouri al-Maliki has poked a hole in Bush's Baghdad wall plans, can we start building some bridges instead?"
In violence today in Iraq . . .
Bombings?
CNN reports: "A truck loaded with chlorine detonated Wednesday at a military checkpoint on the western outskirts of Baghdad, killing one Iraqi and wounded two others". Reuters notes a Balad Ruz bombing that killed 9 and left 16 wounded, a Baghdad roadside bombing ("near a petrol station") that killed 2, and a Baghdad mortar attack on the west Rashid section of Baghdad resulted one death and five wounded. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Mosul bombing that left one person dead, a bobming near Tikrit that wounded two police officers
Shootings?
Reuters reports Ali al-Bayati ("Iraq's former bodybuilding champion") was shot dead in Mosul, another Mosul shooting claimed two lives and left one person wounded, a police officer shot dead in Tuz Khurmato.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 18 corpses discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes a corpse discovered in Hilla.
Finally, Tom Hayden (The Huffington Post) examines a number of issues (life on the ground in Iraq, scandals of the administration) and we'll zoom in on the commentary regarding the US House and Senate measures, "It is hard to know what to make of these Democratic proposals. To what extent are they designed seriously or only for political cover? The most dangerous one is the open-ended authorization to continue combat operations against 'all extremists', which should be opposed by the anti-war movement and their Democratic allies. The related problem is the resurfacing of the 'humanitarian hawks' who delude themselves into believing the US military can succeed in a more low-visibility role combining counter-insurgency and economic development. The flaw in their thinking is that American soldiers can serve as 'trainers' to an Iraqi state described as sectarian even by the Baker-Hamilton Report.
And today Amy Goodman interviewed Bill Moyers on Democracy Now! whose Bill Moyers Journal debuts this week on PBS stations (starts tonight on some PBS stations) and the first episode focuses on the selling of the illegal war.
iraq
terri johnson
north carolina world cant wait
jarnocan
connect the dots with lila garrett
kpfk
tom hayden
democracy nowamy goodman
flashpointsdennis bernstein
elizabeth de la vega
that's alberto's cesspool for today.
i watched the bill moyers' special tonight. did you?
1st, the mcclatchy boys. c.i. told me i should hang around the d.c. newsroom. in the words of barbra streisand, oucha magoucha!
i'm sorry when you have a face like tim russert's there should be some sort of legal requirement that you feature some hotties. those mcclatchy boys are hotties.
norman solomon got a haircut and looked very good himself.
and speaking of good haircuts, bob simon of cbs' 60 minutes looks so much better with his haircut.
i know people keep wondering where the g.o.p. 'lost' e-mails are. judging by tim russert's increasingly wide face, he ate them.
eric what's his face is a hottie too (in a tim robbins' way).
but did you wonder where the women were?
judith miller declined to appear. that was noted.
i'm actually glad she did because it helped point out that judith miller was not the entire press. that's a sweet little lie that allows a lot of people to get off scott free.
but where were the women?
maureen dowd was right about iraq. was there any attempt to interview her?
i'm aware that the focus was mainstream news so i'm noting her.
but i'll also toss out amy goodman from independent media because she called out colin powell's united nations' speech in real time. i think it could have been asked of democracy now how they got it right when other's got it so wrong.
if you missed it, jon stewart will be bill moyer's 1st guest on the regular show (starting friday after next). on democracy now today he noted he would also have joshua marshall.
let me be clear, i'm not going to applaud male, male, male.
i'm not going to applaud token female every now and then.
to be honest, i probably won't watch.
why?
jon stewart?
bill moyers already interviewed him and, to me, it just seems cheesy.
'we've got a new show, we've got to get a name! some 1 the kids love!'
what about the special itself?
when presenting the flaws and lies in the case for illegal war, moyers was on strong ground. and i give credit, when showing the new york times' articles that sold the false link between 9-11 and iraq, for including chris hedges article. but where were the women?
other than judith miller (shown walking on a street while it was noted that she turned down an interview), the only woman i remember seeing was the washington post's robin wright and she was only shown because she was on the same meet the press as william safire.
if there's a problem with the press and getting opinions outside the norm, do you really think going to white male after white male is the way to go?
maybe that's part of the problem - the sameness of the press corps? maybe that's why they can't step out?
i also know that bruce dixon and glen ford (and i'd assume margaret kimberly) called out the iraq war. they weren't on. the only african-americans shown were condi rice and colin powell.
oh wait, there was 1 other. oprah was shown cracking down on dissent.
now if you can't show robert parry (white male), that should be because you're going for diversity.
i also fault petey beinhart's interview. why? he gets to chatter away.
he should have been held accountable. it felt to me like he got more of a pass because he's so young. some of his statements really screamed for a tough follow up.
it is worth watching. if you missed it, it may be online. you can buy a dvd of it for $25 at pbs.
but, like i said, i'm not really planning to watch the show. the 1st regular show will have 2 white male guests.
and i'm left to wonder, 'bill moyers' returns to pbs to give us more white males?' i mean, thank goodness, they are such an endangered species on tv, right?
in other tv news, the view is over.
rosie's out. as i've noted before, t's got to have the tv on in her salon and switched to abc when the view is on. that's never been the case before rosie. rosie brought in viewers. (and the ratings demonstrated that.) without rosie, it's back to a yawn fest. i know some people love to celebrate them some joy behar. i don't. she trashed a friend of mine and i don't tolerate that shit. she did so on air. star jones did and so did the hideous meredith. barbara had to apologize for the 3 losers. but i don't forget that.
and the trashing was such that joy can claim left 'til the cows come home but she proved she was nothing but a shitty little person willing to play republican when it was 'fun' and when the whole country was drinking the kool-aid.
so the gab-fest will most likely be cancelled after rosie leaves and it deserves to be. rosie made the show.
i'm not dropping gonzales, by the way. i just planned to write about the moyers' special. i know some readers will check it out due to the fact that i've said the mcclatchy boys are hotties (they are, i'm not hyping). it's worth watching.
but i'm not going to pretend like it was amazing television. all media critics were white males.
the issue of who gets invited to the table remains a problem even for bill moyers. and, sadly, that point is only driven home more by the fact that his 1st friday episode (friday after next) will feature 2 white males as a guest. i really don't think that was the pbs mandate - create a space for more white males.
that's it for me tonight. here's c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Wednesday, April 25, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the United Nations raises the issue of Iraqi fatalities, US House Rep and 2008 presidential contender Dennis Kucinich moves to impeach Dick Cheney, the wall in Baghdad continues to be an issue, and more.
Starting with war resisters. Last Saturday, the latest public war resisters spoke in Greensboro, Terri Johnson. jarnocan (North Carolina World Can't Wait) reports, "Terri Johnson of Greensboro was like a lot of other young people with limited options after high school who are set upon by US Army recruiters. She believed the promises of the recruiters who told her that the Army was nothing more than a good shot at a college education and a prosperous future. She discovered, as do many others who sign up, that not only wa she signing her life away, but the lives of people targeted by the illegal and immoral war on Iraq as well. So she did the right thing. She refused to fight." Jordan Green (Yes! Weekly) notes that "the granddaughter of past Gressnsboro NAACP President Gladys Shipman, deliberately failed to complete her final fitness test at Fort Jackson in South Carolina, and then went AWOL on Sept. 28, 2006, the day before graduation." Speaking at a rally at Governmental Plaza, Johnson stated: "I'm not anti-war one hundred percent because some wars are worth fighting for. But this war is not worth fighting for. I really don't look at myself as a hero. I was just doing it for me because [the war] wasn't for me. There were a lot of my buddies who didn't want to drop out like me, but they didn't have have the courage to make the decision I did." On leaving during basics, Johnson stated, "All you got to do is leave. Throw the towel in. They cannot stop you. Stay gone for thirty-one days. Get your two-way ticket to Lousiville, Kentucky. The MPs will meet you there and pat you down. You will be there for four days and eat this horrible food. The only thing you cannot do is get a federal job. Okay, I wasn't that interested in working for the federal government anyway. The other thing you can't do is re-enlist in another branch of the military."
Terri Johnson is part of a movement of war resistance within the military that also includes Ehren Watada, Dean Walcott, Camilo Mejia, Linjamin Mull, Joshua Key, Augstin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Camilo Mejia, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder , Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Joshua Key, Mark Wilkerson, Camilo Mejia, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
Meanwhile, the United Nations is accusing the puppet government in Iraq of a different form of resistance. Yara Bayoumy (Reuters) reports that the UN states the government is "withholding sensitive civilian casualty figures because the government fears the data would be used to paint a 'very grim' picture of a worsening humanitarian crisis." CNN reports that the refusal to supply the data has prevented the UN from calculating the numbers of Iraqis killed in the first four months of 2007. Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) states that numbers the Los Angeles Times have "obtained from various ministries" puts the 2007 civilian toll at 5,509 thus far this year. The Times figures are incomplete, it should be noted, and Susman is incorrect when she claims that the US "military does not count civilian deaths that occur during its operations". The US military has kept a count -- Nancy A. Youssef broke that story right before Knight Ridder became McClatchy Newspapers. You didn't hear much about that because it was time to travel-logue in indymedia. But the US military is keeping figures, has been keeping figures. They will admit to keeping figures since June of 2005. They refuse to release those figures to the press or to the public. So when the puppet government refuses to release figures to the UN, it all has a familiar ring to it.
Al Jazeera reports, "On Wednesday, the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (Unami) blamed the majority of the bloodshed on sectarian fighting, and expressed concern about the human-rights record of Nuri al-Maliki, Iraq's prime minister." And the response? AFP reports that the puppet, Nouri al-Maliki, issued a statement: "The Iraqi government announces that is has major reservations about this report, which lack precision in its presentation of information, lasts crediblity in many of its points and lacks balance in its presentation of the human rights situation in Iraq." Around the world, chuckles were heard as the puppet questioned someone else's credibility.
The report comes as IRIN notes that Baghdad's "infrastructure continues to deteriorate, causing more violence, health hazards and misery for its seven million inhabitants" and notes "at least 43 workers have been killed in the past few months while collecting rubbish, changing lights or repairing sewage systems in the capital, mostly in the more dangerous neighborhoods of Sadr City, Alawi, Dora, Bab al-Muadham and Adhamiyah."
Turning to United States, US House Rep and 2008 presidential contender Dennis Kucinich
"introduced articles of impeachment Tuesday against Vice President Dick Cheney," The Post Chronicle reported noting that the "main chrages are that Cheney used manipulated intelligence to win support for the war in Iraq, and falsely claimed a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida." For many outlets it was time to put on the old 45 of Simon & Garfunkle . . . Hello darkness my old friend . . . As they "covered" the news by not covering it. The sounds of silence.
Dennis Bernstein addressed the issue of impeaching Cheney on Flashpoints yesterday, noting that Kucinich "broke the silence in Congress . . . Kucinich's actions follow on many calls and a series of througly well constructed and researched arguments for impeachment. Among the strongest cases made for impeachment is that by a former prosecutor, Elizabeth de la Vega with over 2 decades as a federal prosecutor. She is the author of United States v. George W. Bush et al. She's been lecturing on the case for impeachment and following the unraveling also of the Attorney General.".
Elizabeth de la Vega: "I think it's an extremely strong case and what's beautiful about it is that it's very elegantly done and it's just very, very simple. As you mentioned Article I is manipulating the intelligence process to deceive the public and Congress by making up, essentially, a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction so that the administration could invade Iraq. . . . And the specific nature of that fabrication has to do, of course, with the weapons of mass destruction. Article II is very similar except that it relates to the same type of fabrication with regard to a link between . . . al Qaeda and Iraq and 9-11. The third one has to do with Iran. And I think, really, the case is almost irrefutable."
Robert Naiman (The Huffington Post) addresses the press treatment of the issue and notes that "Kucinich seems to be one of the few Members of Congress aware that threatening to attack other countries is a violation of the U.N. Charter, a treaty wo which the U.S. is signatory." Dave Lindorff (who has been covering the impeachment movement across the country) writes (at CounterPunch) that, as a result of Kucinich's actions, "The mainstream corporate media, which has so far been largely ignoring the issue of impeachment, will have to go to extra lengths of censorship to block out the popular movement now, with a bill on the floor of the House, and with impeachment resolutions passing in the Vermont state legislature. It will be interesting to see how the nation's new gatekeepers handle the story now that it is breaking out into the open so forcefully." Those in and near Trenton, New Jersey this weekend, should be aware of the demonstration where "a Human Mural" will spell out "IMPEACH" at the State House in Trenton on 125 W. State Street, Saturday April 28th -- more information can be found here (AfterDowningStreet). That is not the only event across the country. Progressive Democrats of America's Marcy Winograd spoke with Lila Garrett on Connect The Dots With Lila Garrett on KPFK Monday. Winograd and others will be taking part in the California Democratic Party State Convention which will be held in the
San Diego Convention Center this weekend, 111 West Harbor Drive, Convention Center, San Diego. PDA will be mobilizing around many issues including impeachment -- "Impeachment Is On Our Table."
In addition, note this from CODEPINK:
Impeachment Day: April 28It's time to say NO to impunity for lying, spying, and torture. George Bush and Dick Cheney's high crimes and misdemeanors demand accountability. Since Congress doesn't get it, on April 28 Americans are going to spell it out for them: I M P E A C H ! More...
A transcript of Dennis Kucinich's press conference can be found here and, from that, we'll note this from his conference, "This goes beyond partisan terms. This is being done to defend our constitutional system of government. This is being done so that all tose of us who took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States can understand that this impeachment is one valid way in furtherance of the defense of our Constitution. I don't see this as bening distant from anyone, in any capacity in our government. Everyone must reflect on this. Years from now, people will ask, 'Why didn't the United States government respond when they saw this threat to our democracy? Why didn't people inside the government respond?' if this doesn't move forward. And so this really isn't so much, I might add, about the vice president as it is about who we are as a people. What is it that we stand for? What kind of government do the people of the United States expect and deserve? It's not appropriate for the government to lie to people. It is wrong for government officials -- you know, the vice president, in this case -- to take this nation into war based on lies."
In semi-related news, US Secretary of State and Anger Condi Rice has a subpoena with her name on it from the US House Judiciary Committee. CBS News and AP report that she will be asked to testify (presumably under oath) about the lies that Iraq "was seeking uranium from Africa." On a 21-10 vote, the committee agreed to compell Rice's testimony.
From what Americans want to what Iraqis want, CNN reports: "Shiits in Baghdad gathered Wednesday to protest a wall surrounding the Sunni neighborhood of Adhamiya. The U.S. and Iraqi militaries say the wall is for protection, but radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr issued a statement calling the wall sectarian, racist and oppressive. He vowed to support all Iraqis -- Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds and Christians -- and called on them to unite against 'the evil will of the occupier'." Al Jazeera notes, "Moqtada al-Sadr's remarks were the first by the Mahdi Army head since the US military said last week that it was building a wall in Baghdad's Adhamiyah district." Sally Kohn (Common Dreams) shares her thoughts on the issue, "Good fences have never made good policy, just as they've never made good neighbors. Bush's embrace of wall building and secrecy reminds me of totalitarian feudal lords. But feudalism failed too, didn't it? Now that Nouri al-Maliki has poked a hole in Bush's Baghdad wall plans, can we start building some bridges instead?"
In violence today in Iraq . . .
Bombings?
CNN reports: "A truck loaded with chlorine detonated Wednesday at a military checkpoint on the western outskirts of Baghdad, killing one Iraqi and wounded two others". Reuters notes a Balad Ruz bombing that killed 9 and left 16 wounded, a Baghdad roadside bombing ("near a petrol station") that killed 2, and a Baghdad mortar attack on the west Rashid section of Baghdad resulted one death and five wounded. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Mosul bombing that left one person dead, a bobming near Tikrit that wounded two police officers
Shootings?
Reuters reports Ali al-Bayati ("Iraq's former bodybuilding champion") was shot dead in Mosul, another Mosul shooting claimed two lives and left one person wounded, a police officer shot dead in Tuz Khurmato.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 18 corpses discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes a corpse discovered in Hilla.
Finally, Tom Hayden (The Huffington Post) examines a number of issues (life on the ground in Iraq, scandals of the administration) and we'll zoom in on the commentary regarding the US House and Senate measures, "It is hard to know what to make of these Democratic proposals. To what extent are they designed seriously or only for political cover? The most dangerous one is the open-ended authorization to continue combat operations against 'all extremists', which should be opposed by the anti-war movement and their Democratic allies. The related problem is the resurfacing of the 'humanitarian hawks' who delude themselves into believing the US military can succeed in a more low-visibility role combining counter-insurgency and economic development. The flaw in their thinking is that American soldiers can serve as 'trainers' to an Iraqi state described as sectarian even by the Baker-Hamilton Report.
And today Amy Goodman interviewed Bill Moyers on Democracy Now! whose Bill Moyers Journal debuts this week on PBS stations (starts tonight on some PBS stations) and the first episode focuses on the selling of the illegal war.
iraq
terri johnson
north carolina world cant wait
jarnocan
connect the dots with lila garrett
kpfk
tom hayden
democracy nowamy goodman
flashpointsdennis bernstein
elizabeth de la vega
4/24/2007
dear katrina
dear katrina,
i wrote you once before.
if you've forgotten, it was when you decided you were the boss of everyone. do you remember?
you took it upon yourself to tell people what they should write about.
now this wasn't a memo to the people working for the nation, this was directed to everyone.
somehow you thought you controlled the blogsphere.
you obviously have control issues.
i was planning on covering the gonzales cesspool for the rest of my pregnancy but i'm writing today because you've pissed me off again.
appearing on democracy now this morning, you offered a listing of magazines. you even found time to name the national review. but you couldn't say a word about ms. magazine.
for the record, i'm signed up for many action alerts. the only 1 i've received on the postal hike was from the feminist foundation. so it grates on my nerves that you failed to mention ms. magazine which did send out an action alert.
did the nation?
maybe they buried it in 1 of those e-mails where they plug your tv appearances?
it must be nice to be the editor & publisher and use the e-mail contacts to plug your appearances. i've noticed the same thing doesn't happen with the others who write at the nation but i guess you're a bit higher up, eh?
so you didn't mention ms. magazine and i thought i'd ask you flat out, exactly what kind of a woman are you?
i'm not trying to find out the private dirt (my mother-in-law provides me with that), i'm trying to ask how you, a woman, thinks it's okay that your magazine - the 1 you are editor & publisher of - publishes 1 woman for every 4 men?
that really bothers me.
i know you have a daughter and i'm wondering what kind of world you think you're creating? when she's applying for jobs, will it be okay if she loses out on them because she's told 'we have to hire 4 men before we can even hire 1 woman, sorry.'?
if it's not okay for that to be done to your daughter, why do you think it's okay for you to do it to women?
that's what you do. you, as editor and publisher of the magazine, run 1 female byline for every 4.
does that embarrass you?
i would imagine if it were me, i'd be ashamed of myself.
but you've done that from the 1st issue of january through the last issue of april.
do you plan on doing that all year long?
as a left magazine, is this the message the nation intends to send out?
if it is, i wish you'd issue a memo because i'm sure many women (and even some men) would be interested to know that the nation, which often covers discrimination, is okay with publishing 1 woman for every 4 men.
i'm sure that would effect the circulation and, as my mother-in-law points out, the financial support your magazine gets. or gets for now.
kisses,
rebecca winters
kat's 'Questions Amy Goodman should have asked?,' elaine's 'On the exclusion of women ' and c.i.'s 'Other Items' should also be read. and now, c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot' for the day:
Tuesday, April 24, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, a new documentary on war resisters is making the rounds of the film festivals, Dems and Bully Boy seek out applause lines and more.
Starting with war resisters. The AP reported on Kevin Benderman's appearance at the Atlanta Film Festival Sunday "for the world premiere of the documentary Soldiers of Conscience. The film, which later will be presented in film festivals in Seattle and Massachusetts, is about Benderman and other U.S. soldiers whose experiences in Iraq prompted them to seek out conscientious objector status." The documentary is directed by Catherine Ryan and Gary Weimberg of Luna Productions in Berkeley. Peter Coyote narrates the documentary which features, among others Camilo Mejia, Aidan Delgado, and Joshua Casteel. Benderman tells AP, "If there's anything I can get across to soldiers, it's that I'm not against them. But I am against the war." AP reports that Kevin and Monica Benderman are focusing "on 'Benderman's Bridge, Inc.,' a project to help troops returning from Iraq adjust to civilian life through job training and peer counseling."
Another war resister is Joshua Key who tells his story in the new book The Deserter's Tale which has gotten a lot of attention. Al Cardwell, in a letter to the Sonoma Index-Tribune, writes:
It was reported in the news that President Bush was horrified when he learned of the shooting on the Virginia Tech campus that took 32 lives. Why the horror, George?
Under you "democracy at the end of a gun" - guidance, massacres like that have been occuring daily for the past five years in Iraq.
I just started reading a new book, The Deserter's Tale by Joshua Key, the story of an American soldier who walked away from the war in Iraq. Key enlisted in the Army in 2002 and went to Iraq with the 3rd Armed Calvary Regiment. In the book, Key relates that the war he found himself participating in was not the campaign against terrorists he had expected.
Instead, he saw Iraqi citizens beaten, shot and killed or maimed for little or no provocation. Nearly every other night, he participated in destructive raids on homes he was told were harboring terrorists and never finding evidence of terrorist activity. When he returned home on leave, Key knew he coud never return to Iraq, so he went into hiding and eventually sought asylum in Canada. (A total of 3,196 active-duty soldiers deserted from the United States Army in 2006.)
Support our troops - bring them home now. And impeach the pompous, irresponsible, fascist-minded simpleton in the White House!
Kevin Benderman and Joshua Key are part of a movement of war resistance within the military that also includes Ehren Watada, Dean Walcott, Camilo Mejia, Linjamin Mull, Augstin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Camilo Mejia, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder , Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Joshua Key, Mark Wilkerson, Camilo Mejia, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
While Benderman and others are war resisters, Natalie Storey (The New Mexican) reports on Steve Martinez who is self-checked out of the US army five months ago following the birth of his newborn daughter. Despite attempts by Paul von Zeilbauer (New York Times) to sell the myth that those self-checking out all suffer from PTSD and are not opposed to the illegal war, Martinez doesn't suffer from PTSD. Storey reports, "Tod Ensign, the director of Citizen Soldier, a New York-based group that works for the rights of soldiers and veterans, said Martinez faces three possibilities. His unit might allow him to rejoin if he goes through retraining or agrees to be deployed. He could face administrative punishment like loss of pay or rank. Or, in the worst-case scenario, Martinez could face a court-martial and, after a trial, be sentenced to time in a military prison. What happens to Martinez is largely up to his commander, Ensign said."
And what happens to Iraqis? It happens largely out of the media eye. John Stauber (Center for Media and Democracy) appeared today on KPFA's The Morning Show where he spoke with Andrea Lewis on a variety of topics. One of which was coverage of deaths. Stauber states, "And the best study on how many people have been killed in the Iraq war since the US, uh, unecessarily, uh, you know, illegally, immorally launched it four years ago if over a half a million Iraqis have died, over 500,000 Iraqis have died. You don't hear the media mentioning that either except, if they do, they'll say, of course, the Pentagon and uh the president of the United States dispute that figure.' But that's the best figure we've got."
The count Stauber's referring to was published in the British medical journal, The Lancet, and it found that over 655,000 Iraqis had died since the start of the illegal war. Celeste Biever (New Scientist) spoke with Gilbert Burnham who headed the team conducting the study and Burnham states: "Our intentions were not political. Our centre is for refugee and disaster studies and this is simply the kind of thing we do. Other counts, such as the Iraq Body Count, which consists of volunteer academics and activists based in the UK and the US, rely on reports of deaths in the English-language press, but the press is in the business of producing news, not statistics. The IBS uses news reports mainly written in English, by people who can't leave a very narrow area of Baghdad, while violence is worse in the Al Anbar and Diyala provinces. Mortuaries provide figures but a lot of bodies don't make it there. Also press accounts and mortuary numbers record violent deaths, but people die in a war from many cases."
As Stauber noted, big media either ignores the study or it presents qualifiers. Peter Hart (CounterSpin) rightly noted that a poll that found few Americans knew the number of Iraqis who had died was a reflection on the media and what they cover, not on Americans. Of course, for every Peter Hart or CounterSpin, you can count on those 'helpful' types to take to the airwaves to piss on the peace movement (and "piss on" is the only term for it) via a program that once a year decides to make Iraq the topic and declare that it's the fault of the "anti-war" movement that Americans do not know how many Iraqis have died. [Note: The unnamed guest is not John Stauber, nor is the program The Morning Show.]
Most of us were unaware that the peace movement, or anti-war (men just need that "war" in there apparently) owned one of the big three networks! They must since most Americans continue to get the bulk of their news from television airwaves and since the guest pinned the public's lack of knowledge of how many Iraqis had died not on the media but on the "anti-war" movement.
Possibly, it's time to step away from the public stage when you say (as the guest did) of US troop fatalities, "This is known so well that actually people don't need to be told how many American soldiers have died. Right now it is 3280-something." Actually, the day that aired (the assumption being that is live), the 3,300 benchmark had been passed the day before. Pompous guests don't always know what they're talking about, do they?
But let's be really clear, when you say people don't need to be told how many ___ have died -- Americans, Iraqis, whatever -- you need to consider if Jo Jo Dancer, Your Life Is Calling and it's time to take your ass off the stage.
The program that made time for it's yearly check in on Iraq -- a program which airs over 100 hours each year? Book better guests. And when one wants to piss on the peace movement and the American people, possibly he shouldn't cite a study (The Lancet) and note that it found "was 650,000 people" when it found over 655,000. An attentive host could have corrected the guest. But a (male) host who wants to discuss the illegal war and do so with two guests might be asked why both guests are male to begin with? Are there no female math professors to book? I mean when math professor is the credential, it's seems really strange that the gates were yet again closed on women.
While the math professor didn't think it was important to note or talk about the US service members who had died, Mary Pitt (ICH) wonders: "Who grieves for them? While we have lost a hundred children in that conflagration for every student who fell prey to the mad gunner, the nation mourns only those who were presumably safe from harm while those who fell in service to our country are hidden from our sight and rarely mentioned by name unless they qualify as 'heroes.' They fly home under cover of night and then are treated as baggage on commecrial flights until they are taken to their home town. Their family, friends, and neighbors turn out for their funeral with none taking notice except, perhaps, Rev. Fred Phelps and his little band of ghouls. The funeral over, the families go home to deal with their own desolation as they reflect on the life that was lost and the hopes and dreams that will never come to fruition. They will forever wonder why." And find the deaths of their loved ones dismissed by a pompous "anti-war" math professor (whose field should require he know numbers but -- as witnessed by his bungling of The Lancet study numbers -- apparently doesn't).
Monday on WBAI's Law and Disorder, co-host Michael Smith asked co-host Michael Ratner what it was like to be returning to the United States right now from Germany and France and Ratner responded, "First thing you read, 157 people were killed in Iraq. This is after the so-called escalation -- 'surge' as they call it. Things certainly don't seem to be getting better and, in fact, I think what we may see happening in Iraq is something like the Tet Offensive at some point that will eventually drive the United States out militarily and that just the American people will finally say 'We've had it.' We see the Democrats screwing around a timetable in their legislation but not linking that really to any funding, just putting it in Bush claiming to veto it and realize that people are being slaughtered every day in Iraq."
Democrats screwing around? Yesterday on KPFA's Flashpoints Radio, Robert Knight's "The Knight Report" summed it up as follows:
A Congressional conference committee debated today the best way to not require President Bush to bring an end to the war in Iraq. Throughout the afternoon, legislators quibbled over the non-binding bills enacted earlier this month by both houses. Neither bill would eliminate the US military presence in Iraq nor eliminate the 14 permanent military bases now under construction outside Baghdad and along the Syrian and Iranian borders. Both the House and Senate bills refer only to so-called combat troops which comprise less than a third of the total US presence of more than 150,000 American soldiers, sailors and marines. And even if those provisions were enacted and signed, President George W. Bush would still be allowed to exempt himself from meven their partial withdrawal provisions by citing imaginary benchmarks or invoking national security rendering the legislation moot even if it did survive the veto that is promised by the White House.
Following the report, Dennis Bernstein noted, "It is crystal clear now that the Democrats have no intention of taking the president on regarding the cut off of aid for the occupation and continuing bloody and expanding war in Iraq." Bernstein gave Carl Levin as an example and then interviewed Ray McGovern about McGovern's recent article ("Levin Gives Cheney Reason To Smirk"). Staying on the topic of what Congress is doing, John Stauber, speaking with Andrea Lewis on KPFA's The Morning Show, also noted that:
We see now the war drifiting into the political election of 2008 and now we see the Democrats, who came to power in the House and Senate on the revulsion that the American public feels towards Bush and the war, rather than stepping it up and showing the backbone necessary to really do what I think the public wants -- is force an end to this war -- posing and posturing and trying to have it both ways. So they're about to send a bill to the president. The president says he'll definitely veto it. And we hear you know the bill referred to as, uh, legislation to end the war but in fact There's nothing binding at all in the legislation and so you know I think you've got Democrats going, "Hey, you know the war would well for us last time around, it's going to work well for us next time around." And here I am being cynical but I think this is an accrate assesment, the politically safe thing for the Democrats is to make sure they don't get pegged as the party that lost Iraq and one year and 6 months from now use the ongoing war to bloody and beat the Republicans if you will politically and seize the White House and elect more Democrats.
CBS and AP report that Bully Boy, no surprise, is maintaining he will veto and that US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is comparing Bully Boy to LBJ. While they both search for applause lines, violence continues in Iraq.
Bombings?
AP reports that yesterday's attack on the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad was followed with another attack today where two car bombings left at least six wounded.Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded two civilians in the Mansour district, a student killed by a locker bomb at the Denistry College, 2 dead from a mini-bus bomb (9 wounded), a mortar attack that killed 4 and left 10 wounded and, outside Baghdad, a Hilla car bombing that killed 3. Reuters reports a truck bombing in Ramadi that took 25 lives (44 wounded), a Numaniya roadside bombing that killed one "police officer and two of his family members, including a child" and three Iraqi soldiers "near Kerbala" from a roadside bomb. Shootings?
AP reports, "Police . . . said gunmen disguised as Iraqi soldiers killed six Iraqis and burned five homes Tuesday . . . South of the capital, a family of seven was shot to death in their beds at dawn by masked gunmen, neighbors and police said."Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 19 corpses discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes two corpses discovered in Numaniya and five coprses in Mosul. Today, the US military announced that 9 US service members had died in a bombing on Monday. AFP notes that the deaths brought their count to 3330. Reuters notes that three wounded Australian soldiers from a bombing in Nasiriya.
Staying with Australia and turning to the topic of Jake Kovco. April 21, 2006, Jake Kovco died in Baghdad. This summer we repeatedly noted the whitewash that was the military inquiry into his death. At the end of last month, new developments came out. Judy Kovco, rightly, feels she has not gotten answers to her son's death. Briefly, Kovco died in his room. The gun that allegedly killed him had another soldier's DNA on it (and a laughable defense was offered for that -- and run with -- but the coroner's office shot holes through that nonsense). Both of Kovco's roommates were present in the room, they admit to that. They also deny knowing what happened. No one knows anything. And the military inquiry decided the thing to do was to pin the blame on Jake Kovco and say he must have been playing around with his gun when it discharged (even though he wasn't holding it by the evidence presented). Eleanor Hall (The World Today), "Back home again, and the finding that Private Jake Kovco shot himself while skylarking in his Baghdad barracks was always controversial. Now a report commissioned by New South Wales Police, and leaked to The Australian newspaper, has cast fresh doubt on that version of events. A military board inquiry last year ruled the soldier shot himself, but the new report says there is insufficient evidence to determine whether the trigger was pulled accidentally. And the Australian Defense Association says a coronial inquest is now inevitable." We'll note this more tomorrow.
i wrote you once before.
if you've forgotten, it was when you decided you were the boss of everyone. do you remember?
you took it upon yourself to tell people what they should write about.
now this wasn't a memo to the people working for the nation, this was directed to everyone.
somehow you thought you controlled the blogsphere.
you obviously have control issues.
i was planning on covering the gonzales cesspool for the rest of my pregnancy but i'm writing today because you've pissed me off again.
appearing on democracy now this morning, you offered a listing of magazines. you even found time to name the national review. but you couldn't say a word about ms. magazine.
for the record, i'm signed up for many action alerts. the only 1 i've received on the postal hike was from the feminist foundation. so it grates on my nerves that you failed to mention ms. magazine which did send out an action alert.
did the nation?
maybe they buried it in 1 of those e-mails where they plug your tv appearances?
it must be nice to be the editor & publisher and use the e-mail contacts to plug your appearances. i've noticed the same thing doesn't happen with the others who write at the nation but i guess you're a bit higher up, eh?
so you didn't mention ms. magazine and i thought i'd ask you flat out, exactly what kind of a woman are you?
i'm not trying to find out the private dirt (my mother-in-law provides me with that), i'm trying to ask how you, a woman, thinks it's okay that your magazine - the 1 you are editor & publisher of - publishes 1 woman for every 4 men?
that really bothers me.
i know you have a daughter and i'm wondering what kind of world you think you're creating? when she's applying for jobs, will it be okay if she loses out on them because she's told 'we have to hire 4 men before we can even hire 1 woman, sorry.'?
if it's not okay for that to be done to your daughter, why do you think it's okay for you to do it to women?
that's what you do. you, as editor and publisher of the magazine, run 1 female byline for every 4.
does that embarrass you?
i would imagine if it were me, i'd be ashamed of myself.
but you've done that from the 1st issue of january through the last issue of april.
do you plan on doing that all year long?
as a left magazine, is this the message the nation intends to send out?
if it is, i wish you'd issue a memo because i'm sure many women (and even some men) would be interested to know that the nation, which often covers discrimination, is okay with publishing 1 woman for every 4 men.
i'm sure that would effect the circulation and, as my mother-in-law points out, the financial support your magazine gets. or gets for now.
kisses,
rebecca winters
kat's 'Questions Amy Goodman should have asked?,' elaine's 'On the exclusion of women ' and c.i.'s 'Other Items' should also be read. and now, c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot' for the day:
Tuesday, April 24, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, a new documentary on war resisters is making the rounds of the film festivals, Dems and Bully Boy seek out applause lines and more.
Starting with war resisters. The AP reported on Kevin Benderman's appearance at the Atlanta Film Festival Sunday "for the world premiere of the documentary Soldiers of Conscience. The film, which later will be presented in film festivals in Seattle and Massachusetts, is about Benderman and other U.S. soldiers whose experiences in Iraq prompted them to seek out conscientious objector status." The documentary is directed by Catherine Ryan and Gary Weimberg of Luna Productions in Berkeley. Peter Coyote narrates the documentary which features, among others Camilo Mejia, Aidan Delgado, and Joshua Casteel. Benderman tells AP, "If there's anything I can get across to soldiers, it's that I'm not against them. But I am against the war." AP reports that Kevin and Monica Benderman are focusing "on 'Benderman's Bridge, Inc.,' a project to help troops returning from Iraq adjust to civilian life through job training and peer counseling."
Another war resister is Joshua Key who tells his story in the new book The Deserter's Tale which has gotten a lot of attention. Al Cardwell, in a letter to the Sonoma Index-Tribune, writes:
It was reported in the news that President Bush was horrified when he learned of the shooting on the Virginia Tech campus that took 32 lives. Why the horror, George?
Under you "democracy at the end of a gun" - guidance, massacres like that have been occuring daily for the past five years in Iraq.
I just started reading a new book, The Deserter's Tale by Joshua Key, the story of an American soldier who walked away from the war in Iraq. Key enlisted in the Army in 2002 and went to Iraq with the 3rd Armed Calvary Regiment. In the book, Key relates that the war he found himself participating in was not the campaign against terrorists he had expected.
Instead, he saw Iraqi citizens beaten, shot and killed or maimed for little or no provocation. Nearly every other night, he participated in destructive raids on homes he was told were harboring terrorists and never finding evidence of terrorist activity. When he returned home on leave, Key knew he coud never return to Iraq, so he went into hiding and eventually sought asylum in Canada. (A total of 3,196 active-duty soldiers deserted from the United States Army in 2006.)
Support our troops - bring them home now. And impeach the pompous, irresponsible, fascist-minded simpleton in the White House!
Kevin Benderman and Joshua Key are part of a movement of war resistance within the military that also includes Ehren Watada, Dean Walcott, Camilo Mejia, Linjamin Mull, Augstin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Camilo Mejia, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder , Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Joshua Key, Mark Wilkerson, Camilo Mejia, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
While Benderman and others are war resisters, Natalie Storey (The New Mexican) reports on Steve Martinez who is self-checked out of the US army five months ago following the birth of his newborn daughter. Despite attempts by Paul von Zeilbauer (New York Times) to sell the myth that those self-checking out all suffer from PTSD and are not opposed to the illegal war, Martinez doesn't suffer from PTSD. Storey reports, "Tod Ensign, the director of Citizen Soldier, a New York-based group that works for the rights of soldiers and veterans, said Martinez faces three possibilities. His unit might allow him to rejoin if he goes through retraining or agrees to be deployed. He could face administrative punishment like loss of pay or rank. Or, in the worst-case scenario, Martinez could face a court-martial and, after a trial, be sentenced to time in a military prison. What happens to Martinez is largely up to his commander, Ensign said."
And what happens to Iraqis? It happens largely out of the media eye. John Stauber (Center for Media and Democracy) appeared today on KPFA's The Morning Show where he spoke with Andrea Lewis on a variety of topics. One of which was coverage of deaths. Stauber states, "And the best study on how many people have been killed in the Iraq war since the US, uh, unecessarily, uh, you know, illegally, immorally launched it four years ago if over a half a million Iraqis have died, over 500,000 Iraqis have died. You don't hear the media mentioning that either except, if they do, they'll say, of course, the Pentagon and uh the president of the United States dispute that figure.' But that's the best figure we've got."
The count Stauber's referring to was published in the British medical journal, The Lancet, and it found that over 655,000 Iraqis had died since the start of the illegal war. Celeste Biever (New Scientist) spoke with Gilbert Burnham who headed the team conducting the study and Burnham states: "Our intentions were not political. Our centre is for refugee and disaster studies and this is simply the kind of thing we do. Other counts, such as the Iraq Body Count, which consists of volunteer academics and activists based in the UK and the US, rely on reports of deaths in the English-language press, but the press is in the business of producing news, not statistics. The IBS uses news reports mainly written in English, by people who can't leave a very narrow area of Baghdad, while violence is worse in the Al Anbar and Diyala provinces. Mortuaries provide figures but a lot of bodies don't make it there. Also press accounts and mortuary numbers record violent deaths, but people die in a war from many cases."
As Stauber noted, big media either ignores the study or it presents qualifiers. Peter Hart (CounterSpin) rightly noted that a poll that found few Americans knew the number of Iraqis who had died was a reflection on the media and what they cover, not on Americans. Of course, for every Peter Hart or CounterSpin, you can count on those 'helpful' types to take to the airwaves to piss on the peace movement (and "piss on" is the only term for it) via a program that once a year decides to make Iraq the topic and declare that it's the fault of the "anti-war" movement that Americans do not know how many Iraqis have died. [Note: The unnamed guest is not John Stauber, nor is the program The Morning Show.]
Most of us were unaware that the peace movement, or anti-war (men just need that "war" in there apparently) owned one of the big three networks! They must since most Americans continue to get the bulk of their news from television airwaves and since the guest pinned the public's lack of knowledge of how many Iraqis had died not on the media but on the "anti-war" movement.
Possibly, it's time to step away from the public stage when you say (as the guest did) of US troop fatalities, "This is known so well that actually people don't need to be told how many American soldiers have died. Right now it is 3280-something." Actually, the day that aired (the assumption being that is live), the 3,300 benchmark had been passed the day before. Pompous guests don't always know what they're talking about, do they?
But let's be really clear, when you say people don't need to be told how many ___ have died -- Americans, Iraqis, whatever -- you need to consider if Jo Jo Dancer, Your Life Is Calling and it's time to take your ass off the stage.
The program that made time for it's yearly check in on Iraq -- a program which airs over 100 hours each year? Book better guests. And when one wants to piss on the peace movement and the American people, possibly he shouldn't cite a study (The Lancet) and note that it found "was 650,000 people" when it found over 655,000. An attentive host could have corrected the guest. But a (male) host who wants to discuss the illegal war and do so with two guests might be asked why both guests are male to begin with? Are there no female math professors to book? I mean when math professor is the credential, it's seems really strange that the gates were yet again closed on women.
While the math professor didn't think it was important to note or talk about the US service members who had died, Mary Pitt (ICH) wonders: "Who grieves for them? While we have lost a hundred children in that conflagration for every student who fell prey to the mad gunner, the nation mourns only those who were presumably safe from harm while those who fell in service to our country are hidden from our sight and rarely mentioned by name unless they qualify as 'heroes.' They fly home under cover of night and then are treated as baggage on commecrial flights until they are taken to their home town. Their family, friends, and neighbors turn out for their funeral with none taking notice except, perhaps, Rev. Fred Phelps and his little band of ghouls. The funeral over, the families go home to deal with their own desolation as they reflect on the life that was lost and the hopes and dreams that will never come to fruition. They will forever wonder why." And find the deaths of their loved ones dismissed by a pompous "anti-war" math professor (whose field should require he know numbers but -- as witnessed by his bungling of The Lancet study numbers -- apparently doesn't).
Monday on WBAI's Law and Disorder, co-host Michael Smith asked co-host Michael Ratner what it was like to be returning to the United States right now from Germany and France and Ratner responded, "First thing you read, 157 people were killed in Iraq. This is after the so-called escalation -- 'surge' as they call it. Things certainly don't seem to be getting better and, in fact, I think what we may see happening in Iraq is something like the Tet Offensive at some point that will eventually drive the United States out militarily and that just the American people will finally say 'We've had it.' We see the Democrats screwing around a timetable in their legislation but not linking that really to any funding, just putting it in Bush claiming to veto it and realize that people are being slaughtered every day in Iraq."
Democrats screwing around? Yesterday on KPFA's Flashpoints Radio, Robert Knight's "The Knight Report" summed it up as follows:
A Congressional conference committee debated today the best way to not require President Bush to bring an end to the war in Iraq. Throughout the afternoon, legislators quibbled over the non-binding bills enacted earlier this month by both houses. Neither bill would eliminate the US military presence in Iraq nor eliminate the 14 permanent military bases now under construction outside Baghdad and along the Syrian and Iranian borders. Both the House and Senate bills refer only to so-called combat troops which comprise less than a third of the total US presence of more than 150,000 American soldiers, sailors and marines. And even if those provisions were enacted and signed, President George W. Bush would still be allowed to exempt himself from meven their partial withdrawal provisions by citing imaginary benchmarks or invoking national security rendering the legislation moot even if it did survive the veto that is promised by the White House.
Following the report, Dennis Bernstein noted, "It is crystal clear now that the Democrats have no intention of taking the president on regarding the cut off of aid for the occupation and continuing bloody and expanding war in Iraq." Bernstein gave Carl Levin as an example and then interviewed Ray McGovern about McGovern's recent article ("Levin Gives Cheney Reason To Smirk"). Staying on the topic of what Congress is doing, John Stauber, speaking with Andrea Lewis on KPFA's The Morning Show, also noted that:
We see now the war drifiting into the political election of 2008 and now we see the Democrats, who came to power in the House and Senate on the revulsion that the American public feels towards Bush and the war, rather than stepping it up and showing the backbone necessary to really do what I think the public wants -- is force an end to this war -- posing and posturing and trying to have it both ways. So they're about to send a bill to the president. The president says he'll definitely veto it. And we hear you know the bill referred to as, uh, legislation to end the war but in fact There's nothing binding at all in the legislation and so you know I think you've got Democrats going, "Hey, you know the war would well for us last time around, it's going to work well for us next time around." And here I am being cynical but I think this is an accrate assesment, the politically safe thing for the Democrats is to make sure they don't get pegged as the party that lost Iraq and one year and 6 months from now use the ongoing war to bloody and beat the Republicans if you will politically and seize the White House and elect more Democrats.
CBS and AP report that Bully Boy, no surprise, is maintaining he will veto and that US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is comparing Bully Boy to LBJ. While they both search for applause lines, violence continues in Iraq.
Bombings?
AP reports that yesterday's attack on the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad was followed with another attack today where two car bombings left at least six wounded.Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded two civilians in the Mansour district, a student killed by a locker bomb at the Denistry College, 2 dead from a mini-bus bomb (9 wounded), a mortar attack that killed 4 and left 10 wounded and, outside Baghdad, a Hilla car bombing that killed 3. Reuters reports a truck bombing in Ramadi that took 25 lives (44 wounded), a Numaniya roadside bombing that killed one "police officer and two of his family members, including a child" and three Iraqi soldiers "near Kerbala" from a roadside bomb. Shootings?
AP reports, "Police . . . said gunmen disguised as Iraqi soldiers killed six Iraqis and burned five homes Tuesday . . . South of the capital, a family of seven was shot to death in their beds at dawn by masked gunmen, neighbors and police said."Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 19 corpses discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes two corpses discovered in Numaniya and five coprses in Mosul. Today, the US military announced that 9 US service members had died in a bombing on Monday. AFP notes that the deaths brought their count to 3330. Reuters notes that three wounded Australian soldiers from a bombing in Nasiriya.
Staying with Australia and turning to the topic of Jake Kovco. April 21, 2006, Jake Kovco died in Baghdad. This summer we repeatedly noted the whitewash that was the military inquiry into his death. At the end of last month, new developments came out. Judy Kovco, rightly, feels she has not gotten answers to her son's death. Briefly, Kovco died in his room. The gun that allegedly killed him had another soldier's DNA on it (and a laughable defense was offered for that -- and run with -- but the coroner's office shot holes through that nonsense). Both of Kovco's roommates were present in the room, they admit to that. They also deny knowing what happened. No one knows anything. And the military inquiry decided the thing to do was to pin the blame on Jake Kovco and say he must have been playing around with his gun when it discharged (even though he wasn't holding it by the evidence presented). Eleanor Hall (The World Today), "Back home again, and the finding that Private Jake Kovco shot himself while skylarking in his Baghdad barracks was always controversial. Now a report commissioned by New South Wales Police, and leaked to The Australian newspaper, has cast fresh doubt on that version of events. A military board inquiry last year ruled the soldier shot himself, but the new report says there is insufficient evidence to determine whether the trigger was pulled accidentally. And the Australian Defense Association says a coronial inquest is now inevitable." We'll note this more tomorrow.
4/23/2007
going but not yet gone gonzales
The goddess of liberal talk radio is now the top rated lib talk host in the country. In the most recent Talking Radio survey of syndicated lib talk hosts, Randi Rhodes has ended Ed Schultz' two year reign as the number one talker and held off aggressive challenges from number three Thom Hartmann and number four Stephanie Miller.
that's from talkingradio. no offense to thom hartmann who is supposed to be doing a good job (i'm not doubting it, i just haven't heard him), good for randi. no great for randi! number 1. she's deserved it for some time and then some. i can't rank hartmann (whose writing i enjoy but i've never listened to him) but she is far above ed schultz (who's likely listening to dirty briefs left lying on the floor) and stephanie miller really isn't as funny or as cute as she seems to think she is. so good for randi who does do humorous bits but mainly backs up her points with facts, facts, facts.
okay, let's move into the gonzales cesspool. i'm starting with dahlia lithwick (slate) because she's got an interesting take on last week's hearings that i haven't heard anyone else offer:
Assuming the president watched so much as 10 minutes of his attorney general being poleaxed by even rudimentary questions from the Senate judiciary committee, it strains credulity to believe that Gonzales still has Bush's "full confidence."
Until you stop to consider that the president wasn't watching the same movie as the rest of us and that Gonzales wasn't reading from the same script. Perhaps what we witnessed yesterday was in fact a tour de force, a home run for the president's overarching theory of the unitary executive.
The theory of the unitary executive is a radical vision of executive power in which the president is the big boss of the entire executive branch and has final say over everything that happens within it. At its core, the theory holds that Congress has very limited authority to divest the president of those powers. An expanded version of this theory was the legal predicate for the torture memo: "In light of the president's complete authority over the conduct of war, without a clear statement otherwise, criminal statutes are not read as infringing on the president's ultimate authority in these areas. ... Congress may no more regulate the president's ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield."
One of the key issues in the early battles over unitary executive theory was the president's firing power. In its first incarnations, the notion of a unitary executive shored up the president's claim that he was entitled to fire executive officials--including the independent counsel and agency heads--as the mood took him.
If you watch the Gonzales hearing through this prism (and in this White House, even the bathroom windows look out through that prism), they were a triumph. For six impressive hours, the attorney general embodied the core principles that he is not beholden to Congress, that the Senate has no authority over him, and that he was only there as a favor to them in their funny little fact-finding mission.
you know what? i think she's right. i think this is how the white house is interpreting the hearing. you know what else? if this were 2004 or 2005, they'd be right to interpet it that way. but it's 2007. what i mean by that is that the check is the people. it's not congress. congress is nothing but cowardly. and they were happy to be cowards while the people were all loving them some bully boy. then, when he started tanking in the polls, congress kept waiting for the bounce that never came. they acted like they still couldn't speak up because the bounce was just around the corner. but, in 2007, the country has turned against bully boy. he could shit gold at this point and americans would yawn.
so i think lithwick's correct in guessing how the white house sees it but i think the white house will be the 1 facing a reality check because americans are not going to go 'oh, cool.'
bully boy didn't watch the testimony. lithwick's points still stand (unless you honestly believe that that bully boy forms his own opinions and not the reality that they are fed to him). this is from buzzflash:
Now we know why President Bush was the only person who had anything positive to say about Alberto Gonzales' testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee: he never watched it! A White House press conference Monday revealed that Bush only "got regular updates" and then maybe "saw some news coverage of it later that day:"
Q But did the President actually see the testimony?
MS. PERINO: He got regular updates from us while we were on the road -- we were on the road that day, on the way to Ohio.
he didn't even watch. he delegated. what a c.e.o., huh? it's his attorney general which should give him a personal interest. it's also the person heading the department of justice so bully boy's job dictates that he follows this but he's never been up for the job. here's reuters:
U.S. President George W. Bush on Monday rejected calls to fire Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, saying Gonzales' testimony at a stormy congressional hearing last week "increased my confidence" in him.
i think bully boy, to steal from harry reid, is living in denial. i think gonzales will be gone. marjorie cohn was on WBAI (hugh hamilton's show that starts at 3:00 pm, i think). she's on every monday. we made a point to listen and she had some strong points and noted this piece she'd written:
The attorney general was central to the Bush-Cheney-Yoo illegal domestic surveillance program. When he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee after the New York Times uncovered the secret spying program, attorney general Gonzales walked in lockstep with his bosses. Gonzales would not tell the senators whether Bush had authorized other secret programs. He refused to say whether the government could wiretap purely domestic calls without a warrant, or whether he had the authority to search the first class mail of American citizens or to examine people's medical records. When Republican Senator John Cornyn asked him whether law enforcement could shoot down a plane with drugs, Gonzales said, "I'd have to think about that."
At Gonzales' confirmation hearing for attorney general, he said he wasn't sure whether torturing prisoners could be lawful. The former Texas Supreme Court justice surely knew the terms of the Convention Against Torture, a treaty ratified by the United States and therefore part of the supreme law of the land under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. The convention says, "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability, or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification for torture."
Yet, as White House counsel, Gonzales had advised Bush that the Geneva Conventions, which mandate humane treatment for all captives, were "quant" and "obsolete." Gonzales' advice facilitated the torture of prisoners in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantánamo and secret CIA prisons around the world. Gonzales had evidently done his homework. The Nazi lawyers at Nuremberg also advised their clients that the Geneva Conventions were "quaint" and "obsolete."
she also addresses his actions when bully boy was governor of texas. sherry asked me how much longer i thought this story would play out? my guess today is that gonzales will resign within a few weeks. that's my guess because i was asked. i don't think this is going away. i think reporters are on this story with more disclosures, specific 1s where attorneys were fired because republicans were going to be exposed. so i do see this lasting for a few more weeks.
it's also true that if c.i.'s prediction about me going into early labor were true, i should be able to write about this up to delivery. joe asked about that. an apology to joe because i meant to write about the pregnancy last week and had said i would just for him. i didn't know the shower (which was wonderful) was happening. that was a surprise shower. i thought i'd be writing on friday about my pregnancy but instead was busy and thought 'you'll grab it after the study group' but then there was the surprise baby shower. joe wondered if i thought c.i. was right? i have learned never to doubt c.i.'s gut. when there's a gut feeling that a prediction's based on, it tends to be an accurate guess. so i am factoring that in (and that's probably why i'm rushing through so much these days - in case the guess is accurate). it may not end up being correct but, if the past is any indication, the odds are that it accurate. and let's also remember, c.i. knew i was pregnant when even i didn't know. c.i. is how i found out. i thought i had the flu or something - it was morning sickness. i hadn't been paying attention to my period - and at my age, you're gearing up for the change so you don't think much of it, or i didn't - we weren't trying to get pregnant - we were going through the adoption process - so even if the prediction that i'd deliver early was off, c.i. already told me i was pregnant when no 1, including me, knew that. in fact, on the phone i was arguing with c.i. i kept saying 'oh i am not pregnant.' c.i. kept listing reasons why i was. finally, i decided, 'i think c.i.'s right.'
for a funny take on gonzales, check out wally & cedric's 'THIS JUST IN! DREAMGIRL ALBERTO!' and 'Alberto thinks he's Jennifer Hudson.' and if i didn't already mention it saturday, please read trina's 'Make your own kind of salad in the Kitchen' which she wrote saturday while i was working on my post. we were both in her kitchen trying to finish quickly so c.i. could include us in the morning post. i think she managed a real post on saturday, i kind of floated through mine.
here's c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Monday, April 23, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki attempts to revoke a 'building permit,' War Crimes get reported but does anyone notice, and Santa Cruz students win a victory.
Starting with construction -- non-reconstruction. Friday the US military announced a 'new idea' they'd build a three mile wall to divide one neighborhood from another. As Elaine noted: "'Balkanizatin' may be the accepted term in use but what's going on, like so much of the 'security measures' in Iraq reflect what the Israeli government does to the Palestinians." To no one's suprise but the US military, Iraqis noticed it too. Dean Yates and Ibon Villelabeitia (Reuters) reported yesterday that Nouri al-Maliki was halting the construction "around the district of Adhamiya" and that some of the resident of the neighborhood "have compared the wall to barriers erected by Israel in the occupied West Bank." Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) reports today that al-Maliki, announcing the stoppage, comapred the walls to "other walls" but "did not specify in his remarks what other walls he referred to. However, the separation barrier in the West Bank being erected by Israel, which is Israel says is for protection but greatly angers Palestinians, is a particularly delicate issue among Arabs."
Rubin notes that the Giddiest Gabor in the Green Zone, Little Willie Caldwell, declared that the US military has no "strategy of building walls or creating 'gated communities'" and Rubin goes on to note that, despite this piece of fluff, "American military officials said last week in a statement that the Adhamiya wall was 'one of the centerpieces of a new strategy'." Karin Brulliard (Washington Post) reports that this "walling off at least 10 of Baghdad's most violent neighborhoods and using biometric technology to track some of their residents" is "creating what officers call 'gated communities'". Officers are calling it "gated communities" now, US military officers, and despite what Little Willie says, they were doing so last week. Construction began on April 10th and only began to be reported last week. Brulliard draws this comparison: "The gated communities concept has produced mixed results in previous wars -- including failure in Vietnam, where peasants were forcibly moved to fortified hamlets only to become sympathizers of the insurgency." Reuters offers three other comparisons: the Berlin War, Israeli West Bank Barrier and the Northern Ireland Peacelines. Danny Schechter (News Dissector writing at Common Dreams) notes, "That's what the war for Iraqi Freedom has come to. The US is now emulating the Israelis by building a wall to separate two neighborhoods in Baghdad. It's apartheid time in Mesopotamia. Any and all pretense to promoting freedom and human rights is off the agenda as a desperate Administration uses all necessary means -- and not in the Malcolm X sense -- to prevent the inevitable and secure as much of the oil that it can." [Danny Schechter's documentary In Debt We Trust will be shown at Ithaca College tomorrow, April 24th, the even is free, starts at 7:30 p.m. and Schechter will be present at Park Hall Auditorium to discuss the film.]
Meanwhile IRIN reports, "Baghdad specialists and citizens have hit out against the US strategy of building walls around Sunnie districts that are surrounded by Shia areas. They say such barriers would worsen the lives of thousands of Iraqis and would increase violence." They also note al-Maliki's Sunday announcement that the construction of the wall would stop but "it appears his statement has been ignored as locals say the walls continue to be built by US troops."
Nouri al-Maliki is the puppet of the occupation, he is prime minister in title only because the US government continues to call the shots. Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) reports that "hundreds of Adhamiya residents marched in the neighborhood today to demand that the partially completed structure be taken down. 'No to the sectarian wall' read some of the banners they carried." CNN cites police estimates of 7,000 Iraqis participating in the march. Alissa J. Rubin, with NYC help from Jon Elsen, reports (at the International Herald Tribune -- owned by the Times) that "American and Iraqi officials appeared Monday to be moving away from" the wall. It should be noted that though Ryan Crocker (US ambassador to Iraq) says that al-Maliki's order will be respected. Multiple outlets (including AFP) note Brigadier General Qassim Atta who, time and again, mocks Iraqi politicians and states that the walls will go up, that the press has misreported them and implies the puppet has no power. While the last isn't news, that the head of the Iraqi military would show such disdain is rather amazing considering that al-Maliki is supposed to command them. It may remind some of the August 2006 reports that the military was planning a coup against al-Maliki.
Despiate Atta's disdain, foreign press, such as the BBC, is much more likely to note the wall is a US project while domestic press tries to dance around the issue (hard to do when the nominal prime minister has called for the construction to cease and it continues). The BBC notes that the "US military, which is behind the project" and that's pretty clear as is the noting of the fact that the US military is working around the clock ["US troops, protected by heavily-armed vehicles, have been working at night to build the 3.6m (12ft) wall."] which sort of exposes the lie that the lack of electricity, potable water, et al couldn't be fixed because (a) it takes time and (b) it's just so darn dangerous. Clearly, when the US administration wants something, the US military does it. So what's going on? The wall isn't about safety for Iraqis. It's about walling them in. The biometric devices were used in Falluja as well (after the November 2004 slaughter of Falluja reduced the modern city to rubble and turned inhabitants into refugees -- many of whom still live in tent cities to this day). Those devices haven't done a damn thing to stop the violence there.
As Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted today, "In Fallujah, the chair of the City Council was assassinated on Saturday. Sami Abdul-Amir al-Jumaili is the fourth chair of the Fallujah city council to be killed in the past 14 months. He took the job a month ago." China's People's Daily has photos of the funeral and notes that Abdul-Amir al-Jumaili "was gunned down . . . as he was walking outside his home in central Falluja".
Last week, the deadliest day in Iraq took place (Wednesday) with very little attention. Certainly it received not even half the attention that the Virginia Tech shootings (last Monday) did. This is Naomi Klein:
When I was twenty-three, I had my first media job as a copy editor at a newspaper. The newspaper closed at 11 P.M., but two people stayed until 1 A.M. in case a news story broke that was so significant it was worth reopening the front page. On the first night that it was my turn to stay late, a tornado in a southern U.S. state killed three people, and the senior editor on duty decided to reopen the front page. On my second night, I read on the wires that 114 people had just been killed in Afghanistan, so I dutifully flagged down the senior editor. Remember, I was young, and it seemed to me that if three people warranted reopening the front page, then 114 people would surely classify as a major news event. I will never forget what the editor told me. "Don't worry," he said, "those people kill each other all the time."
Since Septemeber 11, I've been thinking again about that incident, about how we in the media participate in a process that confirms and reconfirms the idea that death and murder are tragic, extraordinary and intolerable in some places and banal, ordinary, unavoidable, even expected in others.
Because, frankly, I still have some of that naive twenty-three-year-old in me. And I still think the idea that some blood is precious, some blood is cheap is not just morally wrong but has helped to bring us to this bloody moment in our history.
From a speech given by Klein included in Fences and Windows (Picardor, 2002), a collection of many of her columns which have appeared in the Guardian of London and Canada's Globe & Mail. Klein's next book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, will be released September 8, 2007. We saw the same thing play out last week. Cindy Sheean (writing at AfterDowningStreet) noted that Bully Boy decided that he needed to skip the yucks at the White House Correspondent's Dinner this weekend . . . out of respect for the 30+ who died at Virginia Tech. The deaths of Iraqis and US service members didn't bother him. In fact, he was yucking it up at the February 24, 2004 Correspondents Dinner. "Those weapons of mass destruction must be somewhere," he joked as slides of himself were displayed looking throughout the White House. Ha-ha-ha, the press responded, soiling their own reputations if not their drawers. That must be the an example of how Bully Boy is a "man who can be very funny when he wants to". So writes Docker Boy and Don Imus Apologist David Carr in today's New York Times (C1 -- no link, we don't link to trash) who explains that his sweet Bully Boy "was in no mood" for yucks "after the massacre at Virginia Tech". (Docker Boy, it bears noting, also seems unaware that Todd S. Purdum wrote for the New York Times before moving on to better pastures in the form of Vanity Fair.) So the Bully Boy -- sensing which way the media looks and grasping that David Carr isn't just the Media Village Idiot, he's also the unwashed's crowd's chronicler -- postures and poses over the Virginia Tech shootings while the lives of Iraqis and US troops matter as little to the mainstream press as they do to the Bully Boy.
Though it received little attention (and certainly didn't result in op-eds being commissioned or hours of cable TV), Ali al-Fadhily (IPS) reports that last week's slaughter in Iraq is being dubbed "Bloody Wednesday" and -- STOP THE PRESSES -- he manages to speak with a woman. If you missed it, the few stories that were filed on the bombings may have noted that women (and children) were among the dead, but from the Times of New York to the smallest of the dailies, they couldn't seem to find a single woman in Iraq. The woman tells al-Fadhily, "I do not believe it is al-Qaeda any more. I do not care any more, I am just losing my loved ones. The last explosion hit my husband now he is disabled, and this one took my son's life." "I do not believe in al-Qaeda any more" is not to be read as implying she once supported the organization -- the woman is stating she doesn't believe the easy answers always provided as to who is responsible. While she doesn't care, "many people around Baghdad are blaming the occupation forces and the U.S.-backed government." Not for failure to prevent the slaughter, but for the bombings themselves. Are they responsible?
Well it's not unheard of (see Latin American) but what it says without question is that Iraqis are turning more and more against the illegal war and the occupation of their country by foreign forces. And who would have thought that could happen? Increasing his unfavorables yet again, the only polling trick the Bully Boy's ever been able to pull off in the long term.
Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London via CounterPunch) reports that "As Iraqis bury the 230 people killed or found dead on Wednesday, ominous signs are appearing that the Shia militas have resumed their tit-for-tat killings. There is a sharp increase in the number of dead bodies found bearing signs of torture, with 67 corpses discovered dumped in Baghdad in the first three days of the week. People in Baghdad, both Shia and Sunni, do not dare move bodies left lying in the rubbish outside their doors though they sometimes cover them with a blanket. One corpse was left lying for days in the centre of a main commercial street in the Sunni bastion of al-Adhamiyah in east Baghdad. He was believed to be a victim of al-Qa'ida in Iraq, which has been killing Sunni who belong to other guerilla groups or are associated with the government. Local people say that US and Iraqi forces stationed in a newly renovated police station in al-Adhamiyah as part of the security plan seem unaware of what is happening around them."
The violence continues. Amy Goodman noted that "at least 60 people" died in Iraq Sunday. That includes the 23 Yazidis shot dead in Mosul (covered here). IRIN notes, "Members of the Yazidi religious minoirty have asked the Iraqi government and international NGOs to protect them after gunmen on Sunday killed 23 Yazidis in Mosul, northern Iraq. . . . Yazidis are members of a culturally Kurdish, syncretistic religious group, which is neither Christian nor Muslim, who worship an angelic figures considered by some Muslims and Christians to be the devil. The group is pre-Islamic." Put that together with Alissa J. Rubin on the topic and myself on the topic earlier this morning and you still don't have a comprehensive overview of the religion. But note that it is not just Shias and Sunnis.
Rubin (New York Times) reported Sunday on the US military's complicity in torture in Iraq noting Captain Darren Fowler's praise for Iraqi soldiers' actions -- the actions included torture -- and when the torture became known, Fowler told Rubin, "What I don't see, I don't know, I can't see. The detainees are deathly afrid of being sent to the Iraqi justice system, because this is the kind of thing they do. But this is their culture." No, it's not. But rewarding that behavior -- this isn't just a case of looking the other way -- does popularize it and that's exactly what the US has done. Complicity in torture leaves one open to charges of war crimes; however, the US military has their own actions to worry about as well. As reported by The Socialist Worker, Ahmad Fadil al-Jumayli, a 9-year-old boy, is being held by the US military because they suspect his father belongs to the resistance. Due to that belief, "the soldiers seized the boy and told the headmaster that the father had to turn himself in if he wanted his son to be freed." To be clear, no ifs, no ands, no buts, that is a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions, that is a War Crime. As even Alberto Gonzales had to admit (New York Times, "The Rule of Law," May 15, 2004, A27): "Both the United States and Iraq are parties to the Geneva Conventions. The United States recognizes that these treaties are binding in the war for the liberation of Iraq. There has never been any suggestion by out government that the conventions do not apply in the conflict." The Fourth Geneva Conventions makes clear that civilians cannot be used as hostages. Holding a nine-year-old boy in attempt to 'smoke out' his father is in violation and it is a War Crime.
Bombings?
BBC reports on a car bombing "outside an office of the Kurdistan Democratic Party" in Tal Uskuf killed at least 10. Reuters notes an additional 20 were wounded. BBC notes "residents were in deep shock as it was the first time it had been hit in the four years of Iraq's anti-US insurgency." AFP reports, "A suicide bomber blew himself up outside the Al-Yasmin restaurant near the capital's fortified Green Zone, killing seven people and wounding 14, a security official said. The walled zone houses the US embassy and the Iraqi parliament where a suicide bomber triggered his explosive vest on April 12, killing one lawmaker. Two more car bombs exploed in a parking lot a short distance from the Green Zone, immediately opposite the Iranian embassy and also close to the Iraqi defence ministry building." Reuters notes that one of the two car bombs resulted in the death of one person and left four wounded. In addition, Reuters notes a roadside bombing near Mahaweel that left three injured and a Ramadi bombing the left 20 dead and 35 wounded. CBS and AP note that Ramadi bombing as well as another one where 7 ("including a child") were injured.
Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) reports a bombing in Baquba where "a car blew up in the middle of a crowd of policement. The gathering included the police chief, Safa Atimimi, who was among the 10 people killed."
Shootings?
Reuters notes police Colonel Abdul Muhsin Hassan was shot dead in Mosul and a Baghdad attack in Ur where US troops were fired upon "trying to emplace cement barriers" (that would be the walls), a police officer shot dead in Iskandariya (another was wounded),
Corpses?
In Baghdad, 11 were reported discovered on Saturday and 11 on Sunday. Monday's count?
No word on Baghdad but Reuters reports the corpses of 3 police officers were discovered in Shirqat.
Today, the US military announced: "An MNC-I Soldier died at approximately 12:45 pm Monday after an improvised explosive device exploded near his location in Muqudadiyah."
In activism news, as Indybay Media notes, the USCS Students Against War had a strong victory last week when they suceeded in forcing the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine corps recruiters out of the UC Santa Cruz job fair to be held tomorrow. Natalaie McaIntyre states, We've upheld our community's values of tolerance and nonviolence despite federal attempts to impose militarism on our daily lives. If every school prevented recruitment, if every port stopped shipping weapons, if every community refused to accept war profiteers as neighbors, war would be impossible."
Meanwhile, in Will They Cave News, Richard Cowan (Reuters) reports that US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has announced that veto threat or not, Congress will put forward "a war funding bill setting March 31 as the goal for pulling most U.S. troops out of Iraq." This follows Garrett Reppenhagen, Michael T. McPhearson and Kevin Martin's open letter (at Truthout) noting that the Bully Boy "is playing a game of political chicken with Democratic Congressional leaders over nearly $100 billion to fund his war policies ina supplemental appropriations bill. The president threatens to veto the bill after a House-Senate conference committe reconciles the differences in their separate bills, passes the reconciled version in both Houses and then sends it to the White House. Bush predictably opposes any and all challenges by Congress to his warmaking authority, and the conference report will likely retain some mix of benchmarks, timelines for partial troop withdrawal in 2008 and other conditions from the House and Senate versions of the supplemental." They note that should Bully Boy respond with a veto, Congress should "use it as an opportunity to end the war and bring our troops home now, not in 2008. They should not bother attempting to override Bush's veto (which requires a 2/3 majority in both Houses and has next to no chance of occuring), nor should they come back with a weaker bill -- it is already too weak and full of loopholes that could leave tens of thousands of US troops in Iraq indefinitely -- nor a bill for short-term funding of the war."
Garett Reppenhagen is with Iraq Veterans Against the War, Michael McPhearson with Veterans for Peace and Kevin Martin with Peace Action.
Finally, in news of war resisters, The Deserter's Tale continues to be awarded strong review. The book, written by US war resister Joshua Key with Lawrence Hill, has most recently been review by John Wright (Australia's Courier-Mail) who writes: "So, what can be going on in Iraq for someone by then already used to mayhem, fights and automatic weapons to flee? Unfortunately, this 'disturbing' to say the least, impossible-to-put-down-adults-only book tells you. . . I wasn't prepared for Key's graphic descriptions of what actually seems to be going on there." Home from Iraq on leave in December 2003, Joshua Key self-checked out of the US military after witnessing war crimes and realizing that the war was based on lies. The Deserter's Tale is the story of what he saw while serving in Iraq and how he came to the decision that the right from wrong he was taught was more important than simply following orders. Joshua, Brandi key and their children went underground after he self-checked out before Key learned of Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman and other war resisters who had self-checked out and moved to Canada. The Keys moved to Canada and Joshua Key is currently appealing the supposed (and laughable) refugee committee's decision as to whether or not he will be granted asylum. Road from Ar Ramaid: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia by Camilo Mejia is the next book out of the gates by a war resister --- The New Press will publish it May 1st.
Joshua Key and Camilo Mejia are part of a movement of war resistance within the military that also includes Ehren Watada, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Augstin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Camilo Mejia, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder , Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Joshua Key, Mark Wilkerson, Camilo Mejia, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
that's from talkingradio. no offense to thom hartmann who is supposed to be doing a good job (i'm not doubting it, i just haven't heard him), good for randi. no great for randi! number 1. she's deserved it for some time and then some. i can't rank hartmann (whose writing i enjoy but i've never listened to him) but she is far above ed schultz (who's likely listening to dirty briefs left lying on the floor) and stephanie miller really isn't as funny or as cute as she seems to think she is. so good for randi who does do humorous bits but mainly backs up her points with facts, facts, facts.
okay, let's move into the gonzales cesspool. i'm starting with dahlia lithwick (slate) because she's got an interesting take on last week's hearings that i haven't heard anyone else offer:
Assuming the president watched so much as 10 minutes of his attorney general being poleaxed by even rudimentary questions from the Senate judiciary committee, it strains credulity to believe that Gonzales still has Bush's "full confidence."
Until you stop to consider that the president wasn't watching the same movie as the rest of us and that Gonzales wasn't reading from the same script. Perhaps what we witnessed yesterday was in fact a tour de force, a home run for the president's overarching theory of the unitary executive.
The theory of the unitary executive is a radical vision of executive power in which the president is the big boss of the entire executive branch and has final say over everything that happens within it. At its core, the theory holds that Congress has very limited authority to divest the president of those powers. An expanded version of this theory was the legal predicate for the torture memo: "In light of the president's complete authority over the conduct of war, without a clear statement otherwise, criminal statutes are not read as infringing on the president's ultimate authority in these areas. ... Congress may no more regulate the president's ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield."
One of the key issues in the early battles over unitary executive theory was the president's firing power. In its first incarnations, the notion of a unitary executive shored up the president's claim that he was entitled to fire executive officials--including the independent counsel and agency heads--as the mood took him.
If you watch the Gonzales hearing through this prism (and in this White House, even the bathroom windows look out through that prism), they were a triumph. For six impressive hours, the attorney general embodied the core principles that he is not beholden to Congress, that the Senate has no authority over him, and that he was only there as a favor to them in their funny little fact-finding mission.
you know what? i think she's right. i think this is how the white house is interpreting the hearing. you know what else? if this were 2004 or 2005, they'd be right to interpet it that way. but it's 2007. what i mean by that is that the check is the people. it's not congress. congress is nothing but cowardly. and they were happy to be cowards while the people were all loving them some bully boy. then, when he started tanking in the polls, congress kept waiting for the bounce that never came. they acted like they still couldn't speak up because the bounce was just around the corner. but, in 2007, the country has turned against bully boy. he could shit gold at this point and americans would yawn.
so i think lithwick's correct in guessing how the white house sees it but i think the white house will be the 1 facing a reality check because americans are not going to go 'oh, cool.'
bully boy didn't watch the testimony. lithwick's points still stand (unless you honestly believe that that bully boy forms his own opinions and not the reality that they are fed to him). this is from buzzflash:
Now we know why President Bush was the only person who had anything positive to say about Alberto Gonzales' testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee: he never watched it! A White House press conference Monday revealed that Bush only "got regular updates" and then maybe "saw some news coverage of it later that day:"
Q But did the President actually see the testimony?
MS. PERINO: He got regular updates from us while we were on the road -- we were on the road that day, on the way to Ohio.
he didn't even watch. he delegated. what a c.e.o., huh? it's his attorney general which should give him a personal interest. it's also the person heading the department of justice so bully boy's job dictates that he follows this but he's never been up for the job. here's reuters:
U.S. President George W. Bush on Monday rejected calls to fire Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, saying Gonzales' testimony at a stormy congressional hearing last week "increased my confidence" in him.
i think bully boy, to steal from harry reid, is living in denial. i think gonzales will be gone. marjorie cohn was on WBAI (hugh hamilton's show that starts at 3:00 pm, i think). she's on every monday. we made a point to listen and she had some strong points and noted this piece she'd written:
The attorney general was central to the Bush-Cheney-Yoo illegal domestic surveillance program. When he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee after the New York Times uncovered the secret spying program, attorney general Gonzales walked in lockstep with his bosses. Gonzales would not tell the senators whether Bush had authorized other secret programs. He refused to say whether the government could wiretap purely domestic calls without a warrant, or whether he had the authority to search the first class mail of American citizens or to examine people's medical records. When Republican Senator John Cornyn asked him whether law enforcement could shoot down a plane with drugs, Gonzales said, "I'd have to think about that."
At Gonzales' confirmation hearing for attorney general, he said he wasn't sure whether torturing prisoners could be lawful. The former Texas Supreme Court justice surely knew the terms of the Convention Against Torture, a treaty ratified by the United States and therefore part of the supreme law of the land under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. The convention says, "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability, or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification for torture."
Yet, as White House counsel, Gonzales had advised Bush that the Geneva Conventions, which mandate humane treatment for all captives, were "quant" and "obsolete." Gonzales' advice facilitated the torture of prisoners in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantánamo and secret CIA prisons around the world. Gonzales had evidently done his homework. The Nazi lawyers at Nuremberg also advised their clients that the Geneva Conventions were "quaint" and "obsolete."
she also addresses his actions when bully boy was governor of texas. sherry asked me how much longer i thought this story would play out? my guess today is that gonzales will resign within a few weeks. that's my guess because i was asked. i don't think this is going away. i think reporters are on this story with more disclosures, specific 1s where attorneys were fired because republicans were going to be exposed. so i do see this lasting for a few more weeks.
it's also true that if c.i.'s prediction about me going into early labor were true, i should be able to write about this up to delivery. joe asked about that. an apology to joe because i meant to write about the pregnancy last week and had said i would just for him. i didn't know the shower (which was wonderful) was happening. that was a surprise shower. i thought i'd be writing on friday about my pregnancy but instead was busy and thought 'you'll grab it after the study group' but then there was the surprise baby shower. joe wondered if i thought c.i. was right? i have learned never to doubt c.i.'s gut. when there's a gut feeling that a prediction's based on, it tends to be an accurate guess. so i am factoring that in (and that's probably why i'm rushing through so much these days - in case the guess is accurate). it may not end up being correct but, if the past is any indication, the odds are that it accurate. and let's also remember, c.i. knew i was pregnant when even i didn't know. c.i. is how i found out. i thought i had the flu or something - it was morning sickness. i hadn't been paying attention to my period - and at my age, you're gearing up for the change so you don't think much of it, or i didn't - we weren't trying to get pregnant - we were going through the adoption process - so even if the prediction that i'd deliver early was off, c.i. already told me i was pregnant when no 1, including me, knew that. in fact, on the phone i was arguing with c.i. i kept saying 'oh i am not pregnant.' c.i. kept listing reasons why i was. finally, i decided, 'i think c.i.'s right.'
for a funny take on gonzales, check out wally & cedric's 'THIS JUST IN! DREAMGIRL ALBERTO!' and 'Alberto thinks he's Jennifer Hudson.' and if i didn't already mention it saturday, please read trina's 'Make your own kind of salad in the Kitchen' which she wrote saturday while i was working on my post. we were both in her kitchen trying to finish quickly so c.i. could include us in the morning post. i think she managed a real post on saturday, i kind of floated through mine.
here's c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Monday, April 23, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki attempts to revoke a 'building permit,' War Crimes get reported but does anyone notice, and Santa Cruz students win a victory.
Starting with construction -- non-reconstruction. Friday the US military announced a 'new idea' they'd build a three mile wall to divide one neighborhood from another. As Elaine noted: "'Balkanizatin' may be the accepted term in use but what's going on, like so much of the 'security measures' in Iraq reflect what the Israeli government does to the Palestinians." To no one's suprise but the US military, Iraqis noticed it too. Dean Yates and Ibon Villelabeitia (Reuters) reported yesterday that Nouri al-Maliki was halting the construction "around the district of Adhamiya" and that some of the resident of the neighborhood "have compared the wall to barriers erected by Israel in the occupied West Bank." Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) reports today that al-Maliki, announcing the stoppage, comapred the walls to "other walls" but "did not specify in his remarks what other walls he referred to. However, the separation barrier in the West Bank being erected by Israel, which is Israel says is for protection but greatly angers Palestinians, is a particularly delicate issue among Arabs."
Rubin notes that the Giddiest Gabor in the Green Zone, Little Willie Caldwell, declared that the US military has no "strategy of building walls or creating 'gated communities'" and Rubin goes on to note that, despite this piece of fluff, "American military officials said last week in a statement that the Adhamiya wall was 'one of the centerpieces of a new strategy'." Karin Brulliard (Washington Post) reports that this "walling off at least 10 of Baghdad's most violent neighborhoods and using biometric technology to track some of their residents" is "creating what officers call 'gated communities'". Officers are calling it "gated communities" now, US military officers, and despite what Little Willie says, they were doing so last week. Construction began on April 10th and only began to be reported last week. Brulliard draws this comparison: "The gated communities concept has produced mixed results in previous wars -- including failure in Vietnam, where peasants were forcibly moved to fortified hamlets only to become sympathizers of the insurgency." Reuters offers three other comparisons: the Berlin War, Israeli West Bank Barrier and the Northern Ireland Peacelines. Danny Schechter (News Dissector writing at Common Dreams) notes, "That's what the war for Iraqi Freedom has come to. The US is now emulating the Israelis by building a wall to separate two neighborhoods in Baghdad. It's apartheid time in Mesopotamia. Any and all pretense to promoting freedom and human rights is off the agenda as a desperate Administration uses all necessary means -- and not in the Malcolm X sense -- to prevent the inevitable and secure as much of the oil that it can." [Danny Schechter's documentary In Debt We Trust will be shown at Ithaca College tomorrow, April 24th, the even is free, starts at 7:30 p.m. and Schechter will be present at Park Hall Auditorium to discuss the film.]
Meanwhile IRIN reports, "Baghdad specialists and citizens have hit out against the US strategy of building walls around Sunnie districts that are surrounded by Shia areas. They say such barriers would worsen the lives of thousands of Iraqis and would increase violence." They also note al-Maliki's Sunday announcement that the construction of the wall would stop but "it appears his statement has been ignored as locals say the walls continue to be built by US troops."
Nouri al-Maliki is the puppet of the occupation, he is prime minister in title only because the US government continues to call the shots. Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) reports that "hundreds of Adhamiya residents marched in the neighborhood today to demand that the partially completed structure be taken down. 'No to the sectarian wall' read some of the banners they carried." CNN cites police estimates of 7,000 Iraqis participating in the march. Alissa J. Rubin, with NYC help from Jon Elsen, reports (at the International Herald Tribune -- owned by the Times) that "American and Iraqi officials appeared Monday to be moving away from" the wall. It should be noted that though Ryan Crocker (US ambassador to Iraq) says that al-Maliki's order will be respected. Multiple outlets (including AFP) note Brigadier General Qassim Atta who, time and again, mocks Iraqi politicians and states that the walls will go up, that the press has misreported them and implies the puppet has no power. While the last isn't news, that the head of the Iraqi military would show such disdain is rather amazing considering that al-Maliki is supposed to command them. It may remind some of the August 2006 reports that the military was planning a coup against al-Maliki.
Despiate Atta's disdain, foreign press, such as the BBC, is much more likely to note the wall is a US project while domestic press tries to dance around the issue (hard to do when the nominal prime minister has called for the construction to cease and it continues). The BBC notes that the "US military, which is behind the project" and that's pretty clear as is the noting of the fact that the US military is working around the clock ["US troops, protected by heavily-armed vehicles, have been working at night to build the 3.6m (12ft) wall."] which sort of exposes the lie that the lack of electricity, potable water, et al couldn't be fixed because (a) it takes time and (b) it's just so darn dangerous. Clearly, when the US administration wants something, the US military does it. So what's going on? The wall isn't about safety for Iraqis. It's about walling them in. The biometric devices were used in Falluja as well (after the November 2004 slaughter of Falluja reduced the modern city to rubble and turned inhabitants into refugees -- many of whom still live in tent cities to this day). Those devices haven't done a damn thing to stop the violence there.
As Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted today, "In Fallujah, the chair of the City Council was assassinated on Saturday. Sami Abdul-Amir al-Jumaili is the fourth chair of the Fallujah city council to be killed in the past 14 months. He took the job a month ago." China's People's Daily has photos of the funeral and notes that Abdul-Amir al-Jumaili "was gunned down . . . as he was walking outside his home in central Falluja".
Last week, the deadliest day in Iraq took place (Wednesday) with very little attention. Certainly it received not even half the attention that the Virginia Tech shootings (last Monday) did. This is Naomi Klein:
When I was twenty-three, I had my first media job as a copy editor at a newspaper. The newspaper closed at 11 P.M., but two people stayed until 1 A.M. in case a news story broke that was so significant it was worth reopening the front page. On the first night that it was my turn to stay late, a tornado in a southern U.S. state killed three people, and the senior editor on duty decided to reopen the front page. On my second night, I read on the wires that 114 people had just been killed in Afghanistan, so I dutifully flagged down the senior editor. Remember, I was young, and it seemed to me that if three people warranted reopening the front page, then 114 people would surely classify as a major news event. I will never forget what the editor told me. "Don't worry," he said, "those people kill each other all the time."
Since Septemeber 11, I've been thinking again about that incident, about how we in the media participate in a process that confirms and reconfirms the idea that death and murder are tragic, extraordinary and intolerable in some places and banal, ordinary, unavoidable, even expected in others.
Because, frankly, I still have some of that naive twenty-three-year-old in me. And I still think the idea that some blood is precious, some blood is cheap is not just morally wrong but has helped to bring us to this bloody moment in our history.
From a speech given by Klein included in Fences and Windows (Picardor, 2002), a collection of many of her columns which have appeared in the Guardian of London and Canada's Globe & Mail. Klein's next book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, will be released September 8, 2007. We saw the same thing play out last week. Cindy Sheean (writing at AfterDowningStreet) noted that Bully Boy decided that he needed to skip the yucks at the White House Correspondent's Dinner this weekend . . . out of respect for the 30+ who died at Virginia Tech. The deaths of Iraqis and US service members didn't bother him. In fact, he was yucking it up at the February 24, 2004 Correspondents Dinner. "Those weapons of mass destruction must be somewhere," he joked as slides of himself were displayed looking throughout the White House. Ha-ha-ha, the press responded, soiling their own reputations if not their drawers. That must be the an example of how Bully Boy is a "man who can be very funny when he wants to". So writes Docker Boy and Don Imus Apologist David Carr in today's New York Times (C1 -- no link, we don't link to trash) who explains that his sweet Bully Boy "was in no mood" for yucks "after the massacre at Virginia Tech". (Docker Boy, it bears noting, also seems unaware that Todd S. Purdum wrote for the New York Times before moving on to better pastures in the form of Vanity Fair.) So the Bully Boy -- sensing which way the media looks and grasping that David Carr isn't just the Media Village Idiot, he's also the unwashed's crowd's chronicler -- postures and poses over the Virginia Tech shootings while the lives of Iraqis and US troops matter as little to the mainstream press as they do to the Bully Boy.
Though it received little attention (and certainly didn't result in op-eds being commissioned or hours of cable TV), Ali al-Fadhily (IPS) reports that last week's slaughter in Iraq is being dubbed "Bloody Wednesday" and -- STOP THE PRESSES -- he manages to speak with a woman. If you missed it, the few stories that were filed on the bombings may have noted that women (and children) were among the dead, but from the Times of New York to the smallest of the dailies, they couldn't seem to find a single woman in Iraq. The woman tells al-Fadhily, "I do not believe it is al-Qaeda any more. I do not care any more, I am just losing my loved ones. The last explosion hit my husband now he is disabled, and this one took my son's life." "I do not believe in al-Qaeda any more" is not to be read as implying she once supported the organization -- the woman is stating she doesn't believe the easy answers always provided as to who is responsible. While she doesn't care, "many people around Baghdad are blaming the occupation forces and the U.S.-backed government." Not for failure to prevent the slaughter, but for the bombings themselves. Are they responsible?
Well it's not unheard of (see Latin American) but what it says without question is that Iraqis are turning more and more against the illegal war and the occupation of their country by foreign forces. And who would have thought that could happen? Increasing his unfavorables yet again, the only polling trick the Bully Boy's ever been able to pull off in the long term.
Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London via CounterPunch) reports that "As Iraqis bury the 230 people killed or found dead on Wednesday, ominous signs are appearing that the Shia militas have resumed their tit-for-tat killings. There is a sharp increase in the number of dead bodies found bearing signs of torture, with 67 corpses discovered dumped in Baghdad in the first three days of the week. People in Baghdad, both Shia and Sunni, do not dare move bodies left lying in the rubbish outside their doors though they sometimes cover them with a blanket. One corpse was left lying for days in the centre of a main commercial street in the Sunni bastion of al-Adhamiyah in east Baghdad. He was believed to be a victim of al-Qa'ida in Iraq, which has been killing Sunni who belong to other guerilla groups or are associated with the government. Local people say that US and Iraqi forces stationed in a newly renovated police station in al-Adhamiyah as part of the security plan seem unaware of what is happening around them."
The violence continues. Amy Goodman noted that "at least 60 people" died in Iraq Sunday. That includes the 23 Yazidis shot dead in Mosul (covered here). IRIN notes, "Members of the Yazidi religious minoirty have asked the Iraqi government and international NGOs to protect them after gunmen on Sunday killed 23 Yazidis in Mosul, northern Iraq. . . . Yazidis are members of a culturally Kurdish, syncretistic religious group, which is neither Christian nor Muslim, who worship an angelic figures considered by some Muslims and Christians to be the devil. The group is pre-Islamic." Put that together with Alissa J. Rubin on the topic and myself on the topic earlier this morning and you still don't have a comprehensive overview of the religion. But note that it is not just Shias and Sunnis.
Rubin (New York Times) reported Sunday on the US military's complicity in torture in Iraq noting Captain Darren Fowler's praise for Iraqi soldiers' actions -- the actions included torture -- and when the torture became known, Fowler told Rubin, "What I don't see, I don't know, I can't see. The detainees are deathly afrid of being sent to the Iraqi justice system, because this is the kind of thing they do. But this is their culture." No, it's not. But rewarding that behavior -- this isn't just a case of looking the other way -- does popularize it and that's exactly what the US has done. Complicity in torture leaves one open to charges of war crimes; however, the US military has their own actions to worry about as well. As reported by The Socialist Worker, Ahmad Fadil al-Jumayli, a 9-year-old boy, is being held by the US military because they suspect his father belongs to the resistance. Due to that belief, "the soldiers seized the boy and told the headmaster that the father had to turn himself in if he wanted his son to be freed." To be clear, no ifs, no ands, no buts, that is a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions, that is a War Crime. As even Alberto Gonzales had to admit (New York Times, "The Rule of Law," May 15, 2004, A27): "Both the United States and Iraq are parties to the Geneva Conventions. The United States recognizes that these treaties are binding in the war for the liberation of Iraq. There has never been any suggestion by out government that the conventions do not apply in the conflict." The Fourth Geneva Conventions makes clear that civilians cannot be used as hostages. Holding a nine-year-old boy in attempt to 'smoke out' his father is in violation and it is a War Crime.
Bombings?
BBC reports on a car bombing "outside an office of the Kurdistan Democratic Party" in Tal Uskuf killed at least 10. Reuters notes an additional 20 were wounded. BBC notes "residents were in deep shock as it was the first time it had been hit in the four years of Iraq's anti-US insurgency." AFP reports, "A suicide bomber blew himself up outside the Al-Yasmin restaurant near the capital's fortified Green Zone, killing seven people and wounding 14, a security official said. The walled zone houses the US embassy and the Iraqi parliament where a suicide bomber triggered his explosive vest on April 12, killing one lawmaker. Two more car bombs exploed in a parking lot a short distance from the Green Zone, immediately opposite the Iranian embassy and also close to the Iraqi defence ministry building." Reuters notes that one of the two car bombs resulted in the death of one person and left four wounded. In addition, Reuters notes a roadside bombing near Mahaweel that left three injured and a Ramadi bombing the left 20 dead and 35 wounded. CBS and AP note that Ramadi bombing as well as another one where 7 ("including a child") were injured.
Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) reports a bombing in Baquba where "a car blew up in the middle of a crowd of policement. The gathering included the police chief, Safa Atimimi, who was among the 10 people killed."
Shootings?
Reuters notes police Colonel Abdul Muhsin Hassan was shot dead in Mosul and a Baghdad attack in Ur where US troops were fired upon "trying to emplace cement barriers" (that would be the walls), a police officer shot dead in Iskandariya (another was wounded),
Corpses?
In Baghdad, 11 were reported discovered on Saturday and 11 on Sunday. Monday's count?
No word on Baghdad but Reuters reports the corpses of 3 police officers were discovered in Shirqat.
Today, the US military announced: "An MNC-I Soldier died at approximately 12:45 pm Monday after an improvised explosive device exploded near his location in Muqudadiyah."
In activism news, as Indybay Media notes, the USCS Students Against War had a strong victory last week when they suceeded in forcing the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine corps recruiters out of the UC Santa Cruz job fair to be held tomorrow. Natalaie McaIntyre states, We've upheld our community's values of tolerance and nonviolence despite federal attempts to impose militarism on our daily lives. If every school prevented recruitment, if every port stopped shipping weapons, if every community refused to accept war profiteers as neighbors, war would be impossible."
Meanwhile, in Will They Cave News, Richard Cowan (Reuters) reports that US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has announced that veto threat or not, Congress will put forward "a war funding bill setting March 31 as the goal for pulling most U.S. troops out of Iraq." This follows Garrett Reppenhagen, Michael T. McPhearson and Kevin Martin's open letter (at Truthout) noting that the Bully Boy "is playing a game of political chicken with Democratic Congressional leaders over nearly $100 billion to fund his war policies ina supplemental appropriations bill. The president threatens to veto the bill after a House-Senate conference committe reconciles the differences in their separate bills, passes the reconciled version in both Houses and then sends it to the White House. Bush predictably opposes any and all challenges by Congress to his warmaking authority, and the conference report will likely retain some mix of benchmarks, timelines for partial troop withdrawal in 2008 and other conditions from the House and Senate versions of the supplemental." They note that should Bully Boy respond with a veto, Congress should "use it as an opportunity to end the war and bring our troops home now, not in 2008. They should not bother attempting to override Bush's veto (which requires a 2/3 majority in both Houses and has next to no chance of occuring), nor should they come back with a weaker bill -- it is already too weak and full of loopholes that could leave tens of thousands of US troops in Iraq indefinitely -- nor a bill for short-term funding of the war."
Garett Reppenhagen is with Iraq Veterans Against the War, Michael McPhearson with Veterans for Peace and Kevin Martin with Peace Action.
Finally, in news of war resisters, The Deserter's Tale continues to be awarded strong review. The book, written by US war resister Joshua Key with Lawrence Hill, has most recently been review by John Wright (Australia's Courier-Mail) who writes: "So, what can be going on in Iraq for someone by then already used to mayhem, fights and automatic weapons to flee? Unfortunately, this 'disturbing' to say the least, impossible-to-put-down-adults-only book tells you. . . I wasn't prepared for Key's graphic descriptions of what actually seems to be going on there." Home from Iraq on leave in December 2003, Joshua Key self-checked out of the US military after witnessing war crimes and realizing that the war was based on lies. The Deserter's Tale is the story of what he saw while serving in Iraq and how he came to the decision that the right from wrong he was taught was more important than simply following orders. Joshua, Brandi key and their children went underground after he self-checked out before Key learned of Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman and other war resisters who had self-checked out and moved to Canada. The Keys moved to Canada and Joshua Key is currently appealing the supposed (and laughable) refugee committee's decision as to whether or not he will be granted asylum. Road from Ar Ramaid: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia by Camilo Mejia is the next book out of the gates by a war resister --- The New Press will publish it May 1st.
Joshua Key and Camilo Mejia are part of a movement of war resistance within the military that also includes Ehren Watada, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Augstin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Camilo Mejia, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder , Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Joshua Key, Mark Wilkerson, Camilo Mejia, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)