elizabeth holtzman, elizabeth de la vega, etc.

okay, a lot to cover.

1st, i do read my e-mails.

my apologies for not cross-posting at my backup site last night. i completely forgot about it. i'll put it down (on the time there) as yesterday when i carry it (and this 1) over tonight. i really forgot. it's still something i'm new too and i'll probably forget again.

2nd, allow me to introduce myself, i'm rebecca. i'm not c.i. when i cross-post c.i.'s snapshots, i do that (a) because keesha asked that we all do it to keep iraq front and center and (b) because i believe in the point keesha was making.

now i agree with the snapshot. on any given day.

but if you're not happy with the way c.i. linked something, why are you complaining to me?

is 'let's close with c.i.'s "iraq snapshot"' confusing to some 1?

i don't know why you'd write me about my links when i am only responsible for the links i put in? i got an e-mail and i'm trying to make sense of what it was about. i go through my permalinks/blogroll and i don't even link to the site i'm being e-mailed about. i ask flyboy and he says, 'oh c.i. links to that.' i call jess and jess says, 'i wrote that guy yesterday.' i don't know why i'm being written to about c.i.'s links. (which were correct.)

but if you're going to tell me i'm linking to something and i'm actually not linking to it, you're wasting your time e-mailing me. since it's a link in a snapshot, i did check with every 1 else to see if they got e-mailed as well. it appears it was just c.i. and myself.

now you have to read elaine's 'Emotional porn' because it's amazing. and what's in the water today? i read the common ills and i'm thinking, 'wow, c.i.'s on fire' and then later i check back and i'm thinking, 'wow, c.i.'s really on fire.' t and i were talking about that on the phone tonight. the baby is now going through this phase of avoiding afternoon naps. it is 'cranky, cranky, cranky, i will lay in my crib but i will not sleep and you can't make me.' that's fine but it means the afternoon nap comes at about 7 right now. so i'm returning calls (and i am notorious for being on the phone) later now. i'm tossing that in so if any 1 reading it that i usually calls is wondering, they know now.

but t and i were talking about the snapshot (which we both loved) and she offered a theory (because the snapshot hits hard) that c.i.'s really sick of the crap that happened in fort worth. i think so too. i wished i'd made the connection.

so much time has been wasted as the peace movement has been steered towards electoral politics and useless actions. we don't need more useless behaviors and i do feel aaron glantz' new radio bits are useless. zach is right, it's less than even npr. (zach's quoted in the snapshot.)
do you want to end the illegal war or not?

that should be. hold on, let me start over.

for actions or coverage, i think those trying to end the illegal war should be asking a few questions of themselves.

1) do you want to end the illegal war?

2) how is what you're doing going to end the illegal war?

3) if it's not, why are you doing it?

and let me be real clear on this, to offer 10 profiles of vets and not have 1 woman is really sad. and it's even sadder if you check out the website and see that 1 of the 10 vets stories (on a website that says it's about veterans from iraq and apparently afghanistan) is a veteran from a war before this century. so you can bend the rules to drop back to other wars but you can't cover women?

that's really sick.

i thought about that because i took a book on the plane trip. years and years ago - mike always talks about being the last to read, but it's me - like back in the 90s or 80s, elaine and c.i. were going on and on about merlin stone's when god was a woman. i finally bought the damn book. but i never read it. i grabbed it for the plane trip and ended up reading it on the way back. (flyboy was flying, the baby was asleep and elaine and mike were trying to get some alone time.)

what an amazing book. i wish i had read it years ago. if you have read it, you know what i'm talking about. if you haven't, pick up when god was a woman. it's an amazing book.

how this ties in tonight is that 10 vets are profiled by glantz and not 1 is a woman. now i'm not an idiot, i'm aware that women's contributions get minimized and erased. but reading when god was a woman, really drove it home. i am in love with that book.

tonight's my night to get up with the baby at 2 and i'll be grabbing this book and re-reading it while i rock and feed. it's just a really amazing and important book about how women's contributions get erased and, what doesn't get erased, is robbed from them and credited to men.

in bit player drama, the wives of alberto and ashcroft are in the news. check out wally's 'THIS JUST IN! A TALE OF TWO WIVES!' and cedric's 'Attorney General Wives.' if it was a film, it would need a soundtrack. i suggest carly simon's 'the wives are in connecticut' as the theme song.

alberto's gone. but the bully boy was the 1 calling the shots and he's still there. this was a point elizabeth de la vega was making on kpfk today. (i don't know the program, sorry. it was in the morning between democracy now's 2 airings.) alberto didn't just decided to do things. (for 1 thing he's not that smart. for another, the justice department was having problems under ashcroft. elizabeth de la vega pointed out john-ass' prayer meetings and how we should have been outraged by those taking place but they got honest about them and that seemed to end the outrage when it shouldn't have.) so this is from elizabeth holtzman's ' Special Prosecutor Should Arrive On Scene As Gonzales Departs' (baltimore sun via common dreams):

The resignation of Alberto R. Gonzales marks the end the most dysfunctional and lawless epoch at the Justice Department since the days of John Mitchell, who authorized the Watergate burglary and then lied about it, stepping down as President Richard M. Nixon’s attorney general in 1972.
Like Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Gonzales has served his president as enabler-in-chief, earning his reputation as the most loyal member of the Cabinet as he lined up the Justice Department behind the White House’s extralegal and unconstitutional maneuverings.
Also like Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Gonzales’ loyal services may have included criminal activity: possible perjury before the Senate and other possible violations of law connected to the firing of U.S. attorneys, mistreatment of detainees, warrantless wiretapping programs and other matters.
No doubt the Bush administration would like to put these controversies behind it. But the furor over Mr. Gonzales’ tenure will hardly end with his resignation; in fact, it’s just beginning. The White House faces not only the unwelcome task of finding a similarly loyal replacement - rumors center on Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who would be a controversial choice - but also the last thing it wanted: Senate confirmation hearings for its new nominee.
In the Watergate era, the Senate used the attorney general confirmation process to impose conditions on the White House that checked its power and ultimately held it to account for abusing it. In 1973, after Mr. Mitchell’s successor, Richard G. Kleindienst, also resigned under a Watergate cloud, the Senate Judiciary Committee stipulated that it would confirm the new nominee, Elliott Richardson, only on the condition that he appoint a Watergate special prosecutor. On taking office, Mr. Richardson appointed Archibald Cox to the position, setting in motion a chain of events that ended with the House Judiciary Committee voting to impeach Mr. Nixon and prompting his resignation.
The Senate can and should take this precedent to heart and demand a special prosecutor as a condition of confirming a new attorney general.

hotlzman knows what she's talking about. so does elizabeth de la vega. if you ask me, dump all the democrats running for president (except dennis) and start pushing a de la vega & holtzman ticket.

imagine what it would be like to have democrats in office that cared about rule of law, that didn't waffle on their objections to torture, that believed in the constitution and in fighting to ensure our rights. wouldn't that be wonderful?

on holtzman, it's worth noting we could have her in congress right now, more than likely. if women hadn't ganged up on her because gerri ferraro had to be backed. you see the same thing today with cindy sheehan. it's the same sort of attacks. (although holtzman and ferraro were in the same democratic primary.) the same crappy pollitt type b.s. of 'it's gerri's seat' the way katha crappa has to say 'it's nancy's seat, don't run cindy.'

as c.i.'s pointed out, where the hell has ferarro been for the bully boy's 2 terms? no where to be found. holtzman's been out there fighting. we need to start backing the fighters and stop hiding behind the timid.

if holtzman were in congress right now, we'd all be better off. if ferraro was in congress right now we'd have, at best, more toll ways.

you're not supposed to say that. you're not supposed to note that '1st' gerri hasn't done anything since 1984 to demonstrate she would have made a good v.p. but she hasn't. holtzman is a fighter.

but there was this attitude, in the 90s (i believe the 1992 race) that gerri was 'owed' the race. i love that. we 'owed' gerri.

like we 'owe' nancy.

i thought it worked the other way around in a democracy.

but katha crappa pollitt says otherwise. so we know it and she are wrong.

let's close with c.i.'s 'iraq snapshot:'

Wednesday, August 5, 2007. Chaos and violence continue; Pacifica launches a project kind of sort of on the illegal war; Kokesh and Sheehan gear up for September 15th, the US military announces multiple deaths, Vanity Fair examines the robbery of the Iraqi people, NBC's Today demonstrates its real priorities, and more.


"I remember one time we were driving around the city setting up checkpoints and we heard a huge explosion," remembers war resister Agustin Aguayo. "So we went to see what was happening and a vehicle of Iraqi police had been hit and my unit stayed back and I could see wounded people in the distance and we just stayed back. And I could see wounded people in the distance and we just stayed back and that seemed weird to me. A company commander was in charge of that convoy and I couldn't understand why we just stood there. So I couldn't understand why we couldn't just randomly." Aguayo went to Iraq as a medic and he's sharing the story with Aaron Glantz on The War Comes Home. The War Comes Home is a podcast that some Pacifica stations may carry as well. In addition to audio, as noted on the permalinks to the left, it also provides text. Jeff Key is another war resister Glantz speaks with. He served in Iraq and was released from the military after coming out as gay on CNN in March 2004. Glantz spoke of Key's stories on KPFK's Uprising yesterday and about The War Comes Home itself as he did on WBAI's Wakeupcall Radio today. The War Comes Home is a project Glantz will be writing, producing and narrating. It will cover a variety of issues facing service members. Today he spoke with Deepa Fernandes (Wakupcall Radio) about the large number of homeless veterans including Iraq veteran Michael Hall and how the homeless from this illegal war are already different -- Glantz explained, "What really concerns homeless advocates is that after the vets came back from Vietnam, it was nine or ten years before you start to see homeless Vietnam veterans but now we're seeing that already with the Iraq War."


Deepa Fernandes: Aaron, you've been busy because when one looks at this website, there are so many stories gathered. What links them all?

Aaron Glantz: Well what links them all is that each and every one of these stories on warcomeshome.org is about the impact going over to Iraq and really serving in this dreadful occupation has on the human soldier. . . . With each personal story, we have a fact that goes with them. And the one that just kind of sticks with me is on the story of Specialist Patrick Resta we have this fact that Walter Reed Medical Center did a study and found that 95 percent of soldiers deployed to Iraq had seen dead bodies, 95 percent had been shot at, 89 percent had been ambushed or attacked and 69 percent had seen an injured woman or child and felt they could not provide assistance. I mean, these are not things that you just walk away from when you come back to the United States. They're things that you know haunt you for the rest of your life even if you're lucky enough to have come home and not had a serious physical injury inflicted on you.

Speaking with Thenmozhi Soundararajan on yesterday's Uprising (Sonali Kolhatkar is on maternity leave), Aaron Glantz explained The War Comes Home, "What we want to do is we want to put the stories of the people who have seen the Iraq War first-hand and come back to this country, put their real life stories up on the internet and so that people can pass them around and share them." Of course, stories are online at Iraq Veterans Against the War and War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist among other places. And certainly, Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez (Democracy Now!) could (and time permitting surely would) assemble a special folder of their extensive and ongoing coverage of the illegal war which includes many service members sharing their stories and many Iraqis sharing their stories as well as many peace activists sharing. In the hard push for the site (as Rachel, Micah and Jonah noted of today's WBAI interview) Glantz is actually turning people off as he erects a barrier between the listeners on one side and himself and service members (he says "soldiers") on the other (translated as "Only we get it, man").

The reality is that this is really a pathetic project. I don't mean in terms of Glantz, I do mean in terms of Pacifica Radio. The illegal war hits the five year mark in March and this is all Pacifica has to show for it? (Democracy Now! is an independent program carried on Pacifica, it is not a Pacifica program.) It's not even a program, it's "spots" or "carts" that stations can insert or not for a few minutes. All this time later and no program addressing the Iraq War.

In terms of the project itself, it has its own problems. For starters, it currently has 10 profiles/stories up at the website. Look closely for any female veterans -- but look in vain. It's equally true that when Pacifica Radio elects to finally offer 'spots,' they go with the easiest thing out there: the treatment of the returning. That's the example Glantz gives in both interviews and it's what's represented at the website. It's a bit sad to hear him say these stories are beginning to get attention . . . seven months after Dana Priest and Anne Hull (Washington Post) launched their much discussed series. If the comeback is, "Oh, I meant independent media," it's equally true that Mother Jones has been an early leader on the stories of the wounded with one of the strongest photo essays. It's difficult to promote but the promotion would go down easier if Glantz appeared aware of what was already out there. Of course the story that needs to be covered -- the one that's actually not being told -- is the hunting down of war resisters in this country and outside of it.

So the indifference expressed in e-mails yesterday (after the KPFK interview) and today (after the WBAI interview) isn't surprising. And let's face it, you're dealing with a community who, unlike KPFA, didn't drop the Iraq War last summer and, unlike KPFA, doesn't get mixed up on Falluja and assume, wrongly, that November 2004 was something to be excited about. This feels like sop tossed out to listeners. Glantz is involved (and steering) so hopefully it will be something worth following. Those who've already checked it out and expressed their dismay might give it a month or two and then try again. But there's no question that the promotion has been a big mistake starting with the wall Glantz elected to erect between listeners (listeners one would assume the spots will need) on one side and himself and "soldiers" on the other. It's equally true that those who have waited and waited in vain for KPFA to create the program they owed listeners (one covering the Iraq War and only the Iraq War) are going to be more than disappointed with the easy scope (as it's being promoted by Glantz) of this project.

We already linked to it (on the permalinks) before Glantz was promoting it. If it has anything worth noting, we'll note it in a snapshot. One thing that needs to be noted is that it does feature audio and transcript. Possibly it will feature coverage of war resisters but, as Zach points out, search in vain, even in the Aguayo story, for that term. Zach: "I was going to say 'So timid it's NPR and PBS-like' but the reality is NOW with David Brancaccio profiled war resisters Agustin Aguayo and James Burmeister last month."

The War Comes Home really is timid. It's the sort of coverage to reach what, when I was a teenager, we would have seen as the blue-hair set who went to the matinees of The Odd Couple once a week to see something 'shocking'. Yes, that was a long time ago. Which makes The War Comes Home all the sadder especially when it's 'borrowing' a title that means so much more (even in this illegal war). It's non-thinking coverage that reduces it all to, "Look what they've done to our boys!" Empahsis on "our" and "boys." Rachel called it "an embarrassment to free speech radio" and I was wondering about that but now that I'm dictating this and thinking about it, she's 100% right. "War bad because of what it do to our boys." That's the "simplistic" message Glantz is putting out in the promotion and in the spots currently. (KPFA's very lucky Pauline Kael doesn't have a modern-day equivalent today.) If they can get those robo-fighters out of the planning stages, imagine how many more people can be killed around the world and, judging by projects like The War Comes Home, there will not be anything to object to because none of "our boys" are being injured or killed.

It's a candle-light, silent vigil by the likes of WalkOn.org which really calls into question whom Pacifica thinks their listening audience is? This is the sort of thing that would have fit in nicely back in the days of Baby Cries A Lot's radio show when he would start blubbering about his (adult) kids (who are not in the military) and how the US has to, has to, has to stay in Iraq. It's "anti-war" on that terrain. In the real world it's "The Stateside Minute!" covering stories that most of already well know. (As do listeners of Pacifica Radio.) It's about as 'political' as William Wyler's The Best Years Of Our Lives and let's not kid that that's going to end the illegal war. Maybe it will improve as it goes along. Maybe it will speak with Eli Israel (the first known service member to publicly refuse to serve in Iraq while stationed there)? Maybe it will explore command rape or some other topics the mainstream isn't already covering? And, let's be honest, women are the one being shut out of the discussion. Yes, Laura Flanders rightly noted that in terms of being invited to comment, but I'm talking about what I'm hearing from female veterans. They feel there was a 'flurry' of interest following the disgraceful treatment of Suzanne Swift and that interest then moved on. Certainly, the fact that The War Comes Home can post ten profile stories and not a one of them be about a woman backs their feelings up.

Though nothing at The War Comes Home yet indicates it, there is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Zamesha Dominique, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Carla Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko,Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Jeff Key, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, forty-one US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. The G.I. Rights Hotline link has been included in the snapshots forever now, but please note that this is a new website. The new website is still being upgarded (but working) and with the new website comes a new phone number (877) 4474487 which is "GI RGHTS" the name but missing the second "I". To make sure everyone's aware that there is a new number and a new (toll free) number, we'll included this notice in the snapshot all week. Again, The G.I. Rights Hotline is a new and improved (and new and improving) website that will begin replacing the old site.

Staying on the issue of veterans, Adam Kokesh (Sgt. Kogkesh Goes to Washington) notes that A.N.S.W.E.R. will be holding a "September 15th march from the White House to the Capital to demand an end to the occupation of Iraq. . . . followed by a week of direct action, will mark a turning point for the entire anti-war movement and possibly for the course of American Democracy. The theme of this 'protest' is 'Protesting is not enough. Come for the rally, stay for a week of direct action.' The day after the march will be a training day, followed by National Truth In Recuriting Day, Congressional Challenge Day, a day of Pentagon outreach, Veterans' Lobbying Day, and the Iraq Moratorium. There will be anumber of direct actions to participate in for those who are willing to work to bring our government back in line with the will of the people." Also noting those actions is Cindy Sheehan (writing at Common Dreams): "Members of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW), who are leading the September 15th march, are calling for a "die-in" to end the march and begin the rally. The vets, unlike the chicken-hawk neocons, have actually served in war, particularly the one that Mr. [Willie] Kristol imagines is such a success. IVAW is asking activists to represent a killed service-member and at an appropriate time lie down. Taps will be played and also a simulated 21-gun salute. It sounds respectful to me, being the mom of one of the soldiers, and I will proudly, yet sorrowfully, be lying down for my son that day." John Nichols has a written a piece on Sheehan's campaign -- she's running for the US Congress from California's eighth district -- and when it shows up somewhere other than The Nation, we'll link to it. What we will do is note CODEPINK's Medea Benjamin (at Common Dreams) explaining some realities regarding US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's reaction to protests and hunger strikes: "It is a tactic that was successful with Senator Dianne Feinstein. After six days of having campers outside her home, Feinstein came out to have a cordial half-hour discussion with the fasters and promised a longer meeting. Not Pelosi. During the two-week campout and hunger strike, Pelosi's only interaction with the activists was her hostility toward them. Arriving home late one evening, hunger striker Toby Blome asked 'Why won't you meet with us?' 'I'll never meet with you,' the Speaker screamed. 'Get away fro my house.' When Blome asked her about the homes of all the Iraqis whose privacy we invade, Pelosi snapped and called her 'a nut'." For more on Pelosi, see "Getting to know . . . Pelosi" (The Third Estate Sunday Review).

As Pelosi prolongs the illegal war, the violence continues . . .

Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing that claimed 1 life and left 24 injured "in Baladiyat neighborhood," while one in Bayaa neighborhood resulted in two people being injured, a Kirkuk bombing resulted in seven police officers being injured. CNN reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed "at least 11" lives with twenty more injured citing an official with the Interior Ministry while also noting a Mosul car bombing that claimed the life of an Iraqi police officer and left twenty-eight injured. CBS and AP report that the Baghdad roadside bombing death toll is 13 with twenty-five wounded. According to Reuters, the confusion results from what government officials and police are stating.

Corpses?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 11 corpses discovered in Baghdad.

Today the US military announced: "Three Multi-National Division-Baghdad Soldiers were killed and two others wounded when an explosively-formed penetrator detonated on their patrol during combat operations in an eastern section of the Iraqi capital Sept. 4." And they announced: " A Multi-National Division-Baghdad Soldier was killed and two others wounded during combat operations in a western section of the Iraqi capital Sept. 4." And they announced: "Two Task Force Lightning Soldiers died as a result of injuries sustained from an explosion near their vehicle while conducting operations in Salah ad Din Province, Wednesday." And they announced: "Two Multi-National Division-Baghdad Soldiers were killed and another wounded during combat operations in an eastern section of the Iraqi capital Sept. 5."


The announcements bring the total number of announced deaths of US service members in Iraq to 10 according to ICCC's totals with 3752 US service members killed in the illegal war since it started in March 2003.

Now let's slice off some of that so-called progress. First up, CBS and AP report: "Officials in Sulaimaniyah announced that they had indefinitely postponed the start of the school year for primary and secondary schools in an effort to prevent the further spread of cholera in the northern province. Since the disease broke out in mid-August nine people have died and some 70 others have been confirmed with cholera. Another 4,000 are suffering from symptoms like severe diarrhea and vomiting." Meanwhile, David Sanger (New York Times) notes that the White House, "not Congress, . .. first proposed the benchmarks for Iraq that are now producing failing grades, a provenance that rasies questions about why the administration is declaring now that the government's performance is not the best measure of change." Failing grades? We're back to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report which Renee Schoof and Warren P. Strobel (McClatchy Newspapers) note finds the escalation "of additional U.S. troops in Iraq has failed to curtail violence Citing data from the Pentagon and other U.S. agencies, the Government Accountability Office found that daily attacks against civilians in Iraq have remained "about the same" since February, when the United States began sending nearly 30,000 additional troops to improve security in Iraq.The GAO also found that the number of Iraqis fleeing violence in their neighborhoods is increasing, with as many as 100,000 Iraqis a month leaving their homes in search of safety.The GAO's conclusions contradict repeated assertions by the White House and the Pentagon in advance of the coming congressional debate on whether to stay the course in Iraq or to begin some withdrawal of U.S. troops." And this is the 'softened' GAO report. As Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) observes, "The original GAO report painted an even harsher picture of Iraq but the findings were partially rewritten under pressure from the White House." Peter Grier (Christian Science Monitor) offers, "On 11 benchmarks, Iraq has failed, according to the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress." Grier runs to Professional War Hawk Mikey O'Hanlon who does his usual spin and Grier himself wonders why Congress would 'seize' on a . . . Congressional report? As opposed to seizing on a report produced by the Chamber of Commerce? The Palm Beach Post declares, "It's evident that the talking points haven't changed much since President Bush's first secret trip to Iraq during Thanksgiving in 2003. . . . Like the president's latest trip, the ad push is calculated to win Mr. Bush's failed policies just enough support to prevent Congress from forcing a troop withdrawal, and comes just before Gen. David Petraeus delivers a key assessment of the war in Iraq. That report will come during the week that marks the sixth anniversary of 9/11, a date that Congress set and the White House will be happy to exploit." And Mark Silva (Baltimore Sun) quotes US Senator John Kerry declaring, "September has been much talked about, much waited and now it's here." The 'benchmarks' are mandated by Congress but they came from the White House. When Congress was earlier considering a drawdown of troops (popularly mischaracterized as a withdrawal) and/or cutting off funding for the illegal war, the White House was the one that screamed, "Wait until September! It wouldn't be fair to David [Petreaus]! We have to be fair to David! We have to wait for David!" September has arrived.

Dave Lindorff (CounterPunch) cuts to the chase, "The Iraq War has been lost. The British are acknowledging this fact by pulling out their troops from Basra, Iraq's second largest city, handing over the city to the control of Shia militias. For all intents and purposes, the 'Coalition of the Willing' is now dead. America is now going it alone." Lindorff also remarks upon Bully Boy's layover in Iraq Monday, "He acknowledge defeat too, by flying into Iraq stealthily in the dead of night this week, landing at a remote desert outpost in western Iraq, instead of going to Baghdad, and meeting with American military officials, instead of with the Iraqi government. (So much for Iraq's being a 'sovereign nation'! Can you imagine a head of state of some foreign government, together with his war secretary and his secretary of state, flying in unannounced to some remote American state, and not even meeting with American government officials?) Clearly the US military could not guarantee the president's safety in Baghdad and the Green Zone, so he had to go to a remote outpost where he was safe behind razor wire, mines and an obscene arsenal of soldiers, tanks and gunships." Also remarking on the layover 'meeting' are members of Iraq's Parliament. Raheem Salman and Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) explain that not only were "none of the bills seen as crucial to driving national reconciliation" discussed on Tuesday but "At least one other legislator said he was insulted that Bush had bypassed the capital Monday and limited his visit to a U.S. air base in Anbar province" and quote Abdul Kareen Enizi declaring, "I want to mention my reservation and abhorrence as the meeting was held in an American base in a country having sovereignty."

Meanwhile Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele (Vanity Fair) report on $9 billion that "has gone missing, unnaccounted for, in a frenzy of mismanagement and greed" within the Green Zone. Money was to be made and Custer Battles brought a "gunnysack" for their pickup of $2 million from Paul Beremer (followed by another $2 million) despite the fact that Custer Battles would bill the US "government $400,000 for electricty that cost $74,000. It had billed $432,000 for a food order that cost $33,000. It had charged the C.P.A. for leased equipment that was stolen, and had submitted forged invoices for reimbursement -- all the while moving millions of dollars into offshore bank accounts. In one instance, the company claimed ownership of forklifts used to trasnport the C.P.A.'s cash (among other things) around the Baghdad airport. But up until the war the forklifts had been the property of Iraqi Airways." Bit by bit, war profitteer by war profiteer, the $9 billion vanished: "The simple truth about the missing money is the same one that applies to so much else about the American occupation of Iraq. The U.S. government never did care about accounting for those Iraqi billions and it doesn't care now. It cares only about enuring that an accounting does not occur." (Click here for a Vanity Fair interview with the reporters.)

And finally, on a day that began with announcements of the deaths of US service members in Iraq and while newspapers and most news or news-based or approximate shows were covering the GAO report, NBC's Today decided to go another way. It was Larry Craig, missing millionaires and a host of other things (including Andrea Mitchell's 'commentary' that Hillary Clinton is less liked than Bill Clinton -- like them, love them, hate them, be indifferent, at this point they are a package deal but if Mitchell couldn't get her swipes in at Hillary, what would she be left to do?), it just couldn't cover Iraq. The GAO report wasn't as important as Meredith playing 'cute' on the Larry Craig scandal and Matt really needed to speak with Richard Branson because viewers around the US wouldn't be able to start their days without knowing what a present millionaire thought of a missing one. And of course news reader Natalie felt the thing to start the headlines with was Barbie's Dream House. Whether or not you count on Today for news, you should be aware some Americans do and most grasp the the first hour is 'hard news' (such as it ever is on Today). The GAO report didn't make Natalie's "headlines" and the deaths of US service member had to wait in line behind Barbie and other items.

ron jacobs, etc.

that's Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Pelosi Buys the War" and we need to remember the illegal war wouldn't still be dragging on without 'bipartisanship'. back in march, pelosi bought the illegal war. back in may, as elaine advised us all, isaiah celebrated 2 years of comics for the common ills. so we're all noting that tonight - and wishing we had noted it back in may. mike says it best, 'We're all so busy and honestly don't ever notice that time's flying out the window until after it's flown.' we really are. i started up in january as did third estate so we always know, 'new year, it's been a year.' but i couldn't tell you when anyone else started except betty (april 2005) and c.i. (november 2004). c.i. i know for a number of reasons including elaine was on my ass to check out the common ills. i didn't know the site. i didn't know anything about it. finally on thanksgiving she tells me, 'oh good lord, it's c.i.'s site. go check it out.' i was among the many telling c.i. to start a website. i had no idea it had happened. elaine knew because she spends many thanksgivings with c.i. (she hates christmas with c.i., too many guests that come in and stay over. calls it a 'madhouse'. but she has always celebrated thanksgiving with c.i. for years and years. you can count on 1 hand the number of times she hasn't celebrated thanksgiving with c.i. since we were all in college together.) so elaine was there and noticed c.i. was always leaving the gatherings that week and heading off to the bedroom. she wondered what was up and went in 1 morning and c.i. was all 'do not tell any 1!' which really makes me laugh because it shows the difference between c.i. and myself. when i started this site, i told every 1. was it good? was it bad? do you think i cared! i just had to spread the word. but that's c.i. for you. if elaine hadn't found out by catching c.i. posting, we might never have known. i am serious.

betty's start date i remember because she was doing trial runs forever. i believe starting in february 2005. and she was also already helping out at the third estate sunday review just to see what it was like to do something regularly. by the way, it was so great to see betty in dallas saturday and sunday! i see every 1 but cedric, wally and betty pretty regularly. c.i. & the gang (including kat) generally arrange speaking trips so they can visit and see the baby at the end of it before they head back to california. wally, i see more than cedric and betty because wally usually spends a few weeks with mike each summer. and also wally will grab a speaking trip with c.i. when it's swingable (depends on whether it's just classes or a test that week). betty looked so different. i kept asking what was different? we all saw each other in july for several weeks at c.i.'s. she's switched to a lighter make up. betty's younger than me and the new make up makes her look even younger (though she's really young to begin with - don't want to make her sound old). (mike and elaine i see at least every weekend.) i wish cedric could have gone to dallas but he had a wedding in his family this weekend.

back to topic, elaine's '2 years-plus of Isaiah, Jeff Cohen' really sums up how much we all enjoy isaiah's work. now below is isaiah's latest, 'Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Runaway Bully".'



kat's on the phone. she's almost done with her post for tonight. she wanted to recommend something she's not going to have time to note tonight. it's ron jacobs so it will probably make the snapshot this week. this is from his 'Spinning A War Crime' (dissident voice):

The sheer criminality of the entire project was plain for all to see. Sunday night the CBS television show 60 Minutes re-broadcast an interview with Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, the patrol leader in the massacre of 24 civilians in Haditha, Iraq on November 19, 2005. The overall tone of the 60 Minutes segment was relatively objective, refusing to either exonerate the Marine patrol or condemn the men and their leader. At the same time, it was a fair representation of the thinking involved in the murder of civilians in modern warfare -- a phenomenon that not only occurs more often than those of us in the homeland are led to believe, but is also part and parcel of modern warfare. Why else would the term "collateral damage" have been coined?
Sgt. Wuterich was apologetic for the deaths yet remains convinced that he followed Marine engagement rules to the letter. Not only do I believe him, I am also convinced that he followed those rules. When the people you are supposed to kill are the people that live in the cities and towns your troops move in to and take over their homes and schools, then any one of those people is a potential enemy. In a Clintonian moment, Scott Pelley asked if the killings in Haditha constituted a massacre. Wuterich told Pelley and the 60 Minutes audience that, "A massacre in my mind, by definition, is a large group of people being executed, being killed for absolutely no reason and that’s absolutely not what happened here." This discussion of nuance may seem peculiar in light of what was being discussed (the murders of 24 men, women and children), but when considered in terms of the spin dispensed daily by the White House and Pentagon press offices regarding Iraq and Afghanistan, it is not surprising.
There was no nuance involved, however, when Wuterich described the process used by Marines to clear a house. After breaking down the front door, the men "prepped" the inside rooms by opening the door a crack and rolling a grenade inside. "But when you roll a grenade in a room through the crack in the door, that's not positive identification, that's taking a chance on anything that could be behind that door," Pelley responded. Wuterich's answer was clear. "Well that’s what we do. That's how our training goes." Just like the pilots of bombers and helicopter gunships, the lives of those on the ground not in friendly uniforms are not important. Their fate is determined by their proximity to those buildings and people the imperial forces are determined to destroy. Furthermore, many of the air wars' targets are primarily civilian in nature, but are destroyed in order to prevent a country's ability to maintain basic services. Perhaps the clearest evidence of this strategy can be found in the US destruction of Iraq's water purification and electrical systems. As most readers know, Iraqis continue to suffer from this destruction unless they live in the fully serviced Green Zone.

i didn't see the 60 minutes interview. i didn't even know it was coming on and, honestly, after getting back from dallas, wouldn't have watched it i had known. i was too tired.

dallas? the fort worth rally was a bust. we didn't go. we went to dallas intending to. after it was clear that it was 'problematic' at best. the people in charge were not getting the word out and were not responding to attempts to contact them by local media or people trying to attend (or people trying to take photos). we landed in dallas and i was pretty sure i wasn't going. by the time we were in the cabs, i knew i wasn't going. it was too damn hot. and it wasn't even noon yet. you have to be insane to schedule an event in the dead heat of a texas summer day.
i might have gone ahead but i had my baby with me and i was not going to fort worth for an all day event outside in that hot sun. i wouldn't do that to my baby. 'How Not To Stage A Rally' is about how the 'leadership' failed and 'A Day in Dallas and time wasted at Parkland' is about our time in dallas. i want to be really clear on that, by the way. if you heard about the rally and thought, 'oh, that's texas for you,' it is not texas. people do care about ending the illegal war. they do not care to be treated so rudely repeatedly. that organization planned a private party that the 'leaders' could have fun with. those not in the 'leadership'? they weren't interested in reaching out. that's why they made no effort to post fliers or even return contact requests with the local media. it was all ego tripping. and that's why organizations in that area have such a bad reputation and have for so long. they don't want you. if you only recently discovered the war was illegal and wrong, they don't want you. they're getting off on being right. if you were always against the illegal war, they don't want you. they just want their own little private circle.

they are like the sort of 'ladies' group' you'd see on mama's family trying to keep thelma harper out. even on their website, they refused to provide needed information.

the message was loud and clear and people received it: we are not wanted.

i was surprised when every 1 started coming into the conference room. (when we landed saturday morning, c.i. told billie we'd throw a party and to get the word out. i went on to the hotel to get things ready since i wasn't going to the march and rally.) but i was so happy. in non-political life, c.i. would have ditched that bull sh*t nonsense by wednesday (certainly by thursday when a nasty e-mail came in about 'tickets are too needed to attend the rally!'). but for political? i really assumed c.i. would see the thing through to it's tragic end. c.i. is really good about 'vibes' when it comes to projects and knows if it feels bad going in, it's probably only going to get worse. but political?

so i was really thrilled that c.i. steered every 1 back to the hotel and away from the rally. i was told by jim that when they met every 1 (by accident) that had finally agreed to go (because we were going and had flown out for it), members were pissed off to the extreme about that b.s. org. it was 1 complaint after another just shouted rapid fire. jim said c.i. sort of gulped when it started, then mid-way stopped every 1 and said something like, 'okay, let's just forget it. let's just start the party early.' and that's what ended up happening.

my head count was 1638 for the party. i may have missed some 1. it was a great party! great party! and i think we accomplished more that way. i don't think that, if every 1 had said 'let's go', it would have accomplished any more.

i am so glad c.i. put it into today's snapshot. i wasn't expecting that.

but people in texas were furious with that b.s. org and it's equally true that actions will be taking place across the country this month and next. if 'leaders' in local areas can't get it together ... and if you read 'low turnout' anywhere you need to grasp right away it may not have anything to do with people being against the war. there may be a ton of people against the illegal war. they just may not be in the mood for the ego tripping of the people putting on the event.

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Tuesday, September 4, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, Bully Boy takes a layover in Iraq, a lot of the press goes giddy, some in the peace movement play dumb, and more.


Starting with war resisters, but with a twist. As noted yesterday in "The Nation ignores war resisters even as it publishes the child of one," Rebecca's "the nation magazine ignores war resisters while publishing the child of one," Cedric's "The Nation refuses to cover war resisters while publishing the child of one," The Third Estate Sunday Review's "The Nation ignores war resisters even while publishing the child of one," Trina's "The Nation ignores war resisters while publishing the child of one," Betty's "The Nation refuses to cover war resisters while publishing the child of one," Elaine's "The Nation refuses to cover war resisters while publishing the child of one," Mike's "The Nation ignores war resisters while publishing the child of one" and Wally's "The Nation ignores war resisters even while publishing the child of one" (Ruth worked on the report as well) political theorist and writer Naomi Klein is the child of war resisters. Her father could not serve in an illegal war and the family went to Canada. The story isn't that uncommon in Canada (then or now) but it is worth noting at a time when some 'helpful' scolds want to insist that war resisters going to Canada today are 'destroying' their lives. Many made that claim during Vietnam, well before and well after Pierre Trudeau's 1969 decision that Canada would welcome war resisters. Klein, an internationally known author, activist and filmaker, is hardly toiling away in obscurity. Her life was not destroyed by her parents' decision. In fact, her latest book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, comes out in the United States later this month. This is her follow up to her best selling No Logo (Fences and Windows was a collection of her previously published columns). Joshua and Brandi Key have four children (Adam, Anna, Philip and Zackary), Jeremy Hinzman and Nga Nguyen have a son (Liam), Patrick and Jill Hart have a son (Rian), Kimberly and Mario Rivera have two children and those are just some of the war resisters in Canada with children. They don't need lectures from 'well meaning' and 'helpful' types telling them it's "DOOM! DOOM! DOOM! I TELL YOU DOOM!" Reality is Naomi Klein's life was not harmed or short changed because her parents went to Canada to avoid an illegal war. It's bad enough when the BBC's War Hawk and John McCain lovin' Kathy Kay (subbing on NPR) tries that tactic with Joshua Key, it's even worse when this 'cautionary' note comes from those who are supposed to be supporting war resistance within the military.


There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Zamesha Dominique, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Carla Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko,Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, forty-one US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. The G.I. Rights Hotline link has been included in the snapshots forever now, but please note that this is a new website. The new website is still being upgarded (but working) and with the new website comes a new phone number (877) 4474487 which is "GI RGHTS" the name but missing the second "I". To make sure everyone's aware that there is a new number and a new (toll free) number, we'll included this notice in the snapshot all week. Again, The G.I. Rights Hotline is a new and improved (and new and improving) website that will begin replacing the old site.


Last Friday, Sgt. Sanick P. Dela Crus testified in the trial of Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich. While Tony Perry (Los Angeles Times) lead with the news: "A Marine squad leader executed five Iraqi men after a roadside bomb blast killed a Marine and then told squad members to falsely claim that the men were shot while running away" Paul von Zielbauer (New York Times) decided that news was so unimportant that it could be casually tossed out in the eight paragraph of his 'report' and then forgotten. Reality v. fluff? You saw the mainstream press at war with itself throughout the three day weekend.

For instance, on Sunday James Glanz (New York Times) informed that the Iraqi death toll had falled in Baghdad. Though the Times has spent a ton of money in Iraq (villas aren't cheap -- NYT stockholders click here) they apparently do not have a single person who can take down the deaths that actually do end up reported each day. So instead of being able to speak to the paper's own figures, Glanz had to cite AP and Reuters figures. Someone should have told him about McClatchy Newspapers. On Monday, Renee Schoof (McClatchy Newspapers) would utilize those figures to note, "Statistics that McClatchy Newspapers collected in Baghdad don't show any drop in violence. Civilians deaths in the capital were about the same in July as in December, before the American troops increase began. U.S. officials in Baghdad declined to provide data to back up their claims of lower violence." Why should they when the New York Times will rush forward to stand up for the spin?


Well if the US military (and the Times -- "and" provided they are separate entities) admit that the death toll rose outside of Baghdad and McClatchy Newspapers figures show that the death toll in the capital was essentialy "the same in July as in December" where, exactly, is the 'progress'?

Those with a least a modicum of short-term memory may remember the was July was sold. For instance, Stephen Farrell (New York Times) was trumpeting that US deaths had falled to 74. ICCC lists July's total as 79 and -- 74 or 79 -- 83 is greater and, in fact, the total number of US service members announced killed in the month of August (thus far announced). Surely, it's a huge coincidence that the same paper that trumped the 'lower' death toll for the US as proof of 'success' in July 'forgets' to note the rising death toll in August?

In fairness to the paper, Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno wasn't selling this point in August as he had done in July but, in fairness to news consumers, why the paper felt the responsibility to back up baseless claims by the US military to begin with is a question worth asking.

Also worth asking is what about the Iraqis resources in their daily lives? Are they any better off? Or are we all supposed to forget that July ended with Oxfam issuing a reported that found: "Forty-three per cent of Iraqis suffer from 'absolute poverty'. According to some estimates, over half the population are now without work. Children are hit the hardest by the decline in living standards. Child malnutrition rates have risen from 19 per cent before the US-led invasion in 2003 to 28 per cent now."? Apparently, we are. And apparently we are being strongly encouraged to forget last week's reports of cholera outbreak in northern Iraq. Now the outbreak goes on but is it really the job of the New York Times to report reality or to prop up an illegal war? AP reports today that Jordan has "banned entry of food supplies from Iraq" as a result of the cholera outbreak in Iraq and notes that a United Nations "Development Program team recently returned from Iraq . . . [and they] blamed the inadequate water supply system and deteriorated infrastructure for the outbreak and warned the disease could spread to other cities in the northern Sulamaniyah province." On the Sulaymaniyah province, Relief Web notes, "Since 23 August 2007, a three to four fold increase of acute watery diarrhea cases were bing reported from one of the teaching hospitals of Sulaymaniyah province in Northern Iraq. Laboratory test performed on stool specimens confirmed Vibrio cholerae serogroup 01 Inaba as the causative pathogen for these reported acute watery diarrhea cases. So far between 23 August and 02 September 2007, the cumulative number of cases of acute watery diarrhoea reported from four out of the eleven districts of Sulaymaniyah province stands at 2,930 including 9 deaths with an overall case fatality rate of 2.30%." Jordan is the only country taking measures to prevent the outbreak spreading to their borders (Jordan has noted they are not closing their borders or stopping Iraqi refugees from entering). NTV MSNB reports that Turkey is so concerned that everyone "entering Turkey from its Habur border gate in southeastern township of Silopi would be scanned for cholera." Sara Flounders (Workers World) notes that 70% of Iraqis lack "access to safe drinking water and 80 percent lacks effective sanitation" and states, "The anti-war movement here must focus attention on the reports that expose the all-pervasive violence of the U.S. occupation. Otherwise the corporate media are able to put their 'spin' on who is responsible for the violence in Iraq today. Consistently they blame the Iraqi people for the unfolding horror and not the U.S. occupation army. The corporate media are currently giving extensive daily coverage to the drumbeat coming from U.S. politicians, Republican and Democrats alike, who wring their hands and describe the chaos and violence that would follow a U.S. troop withdrawal. This constantly repeated theme is woven together with coverage of seemingly senseless and sectarian attacks on civilians by 'terrorist forces.' U.S. troops are described in every news article as trying to end the 'sectarian violence' and desperately seeking to bring security and order. The media's constant focus on seeminly random violence and mayhem, allegedly committed by contending Iraqi militias, is meant to mask the total violence of occupation. It also distorts who the resistance is and what are the primary acts that resistance forces are engaged in. . . . The [centrist think tank Brookings Institute] report contains a chart showing that the vast majority of the resistance attacks are on U.S. forces and Iraqi security forces, not on civilians. According to this chart, 80 to 85 percent of the attacks target the occupation and its collaborators."

Instead of addressing those realities, David S. Cloud and Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) today report on Bully Boy's layover in Iraq yesterday which they state "lasted eight hours." While the steno pool at the Times gets giddy that Bully Boy stated the obvious (some level of US troops may be withdrawn at some point), Martin Fletcher (Times of London) breaks down the reality: in the face of the Congressionally mandated report this month on the White House established 'benchmarks' by which to judge Iraq's 'progress,' Bully Boy needed "to show that the 'surge' is working, which is why he chose to land not in Baghdad, but in the remote air base of al-Asad in Anbar province. . . . Mr Bush's visit was also significant for where he did not go -- namely Baghdad. . . .Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, instead flew to meet Mr Bush in Anbar province". Patrick Martin (WSWS) observes the visit was six-hours and "a publicity stunt aimed at presenting an image of progress in the US military occupation and generating favorable coverage in the servile US commercial media." Ouch, cry Cloud and Myers! Martin also points out that Bully Boy "traveled in complete secrecy to a huge US base, 17 miles in circumference, manned by 10,000 troops, located in relative isolation from Iraqi population centers, near the point where the Euphrates River crosses the Syria-Iraq border. Al Asad is one of the four huge bases -- more like transplanted American cities -- which the Pentagon has built as garrison points for the indefinite stationing of American troops and warplanes. These four bases would play a critical role in any future US war in the region, particularly against Iran or Syria." Here's what had the Times steno pad so excited, Bully Boy declared, "But I want to tell you this about the decis-- about the decision, about my decision -- about troop levels -- those decisions will be based on a calm assessment by our military commanders on the conditions on the ground, not a nervous reaction by Wallic -- Washington politicians to poll results in the media. In other words, when we begin to draw down troops from Iraq, it will be from a position of strength and success, not from a position of fear and failure." (Audio and video here at Democracy Now!) Thank goodness, he's not going to listen to Wallic, but who is Wallic? His imaginary friend? Ken Fireman and Nicholas Jordan (Bloomberg News) provide the context of Bully Boy's 'draw-down' talk: "Bush, for all his 'stay-the-course'' rhetoric, is constrained by a troop-rotation schedule that requires pulling out some forces early next year -- as well as the need to outline an exit strategy for Republicans eyeing the 2008 elections." It's equally true that on August 17th when Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno spoke with reporters and made it very clear that he'd always been told the escalation would end in April stating "what I'm talking about is drawing down to the pre-surge levels," "The surge we know, as it is today, goes through April of '08," etc. (For those who missed it, during the slaughter in Karbala last week, the US military stood down. That came out during Lt. Gen. James Dubik's press briefing August 29th in reply to a question by Samarra TV.) As if Bully Boy distortions and the Times running with them wasn't enough trouble, Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) reports the puppet of the occupation has new delusions and felt the need to claim yesterday "that his government was making progress". 'Progress?' Reuters observed, "Iraqi lawmakers reconvened on Tuesday after a month-long summer recess, under mounting pressure to get legislation passed that Washington believes will help heal deep sectarian rifts in the country. . . . Parliament has not yet passed any of the benchmark laws, including measures that would equitably share oil revenues, ease restrictions on former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party holding public office, and set a date for provincial elections. . . . Parliament reconvened with 164 members and adjourned after about 90 minutes after lawmakers asked for time to read 10 bills that had been presented for their consideration, member of parliament Hussein al-Falluji told Reuters.The 10 bills did not include any of the benchmark laws."

AP reports that the Governmental Accountability Office's report has been passed to them (final draft) and it finds that the puppet government "has not met 11 of its 18 political and security goals" and that the report is "slightly more upbeat than initally planned." Last week, Karen DeYoung and Thomas E. Ricks (Washington Post) reported on the draft version which found "Iraq has failed to meet all but three of 18 congressionally mandated benchmarks for political and military progress . . . The strikingly negative GAO draft, which will be delivered to Congress in final form on Tuesday, comes as the White House prepares to deliver its own new benchmark report in the second week of September, along with congressional testimony from Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker." That was last Thursday. By Friday, DeYoung (Washington Post) was reporting of the allegedly independent report that, "The Pentagon has disputed parts of a progress report on Iraq drafted by the Government Accountability Office, and asked that some of the assessment's failing grades on key political and security benchmarks be changed before the final report is made public next week, a Defense spokesman said yesterday." So much for an 'independent' report.

In news of other leaks, Edmund L. Andrews (New York Times) reports that the former "top Iraq envoy" was not flying solo. Paul Bremer has provided the paper with correspondence which "shows that President Bush was told in advance by his top Iraq envoy in May 2003 of a plan to 'dissolve Saddam's military and intelligence structures'". Andrews writes, "In releasing the letters, Mr. Bremer said he wanted to refute the suggestion in Mr. Bush's comment that Mr. Bremer had acted to disband the army without the knowledge and concurrence of the White House." In one reply, Bully Boy lays it on thick writing, "Your leadership is apparent. You have quickly made a positive and significant impact. You have my full support and confidence."

And we know how that worked out . . .

Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 Baghdad mortar attacks that wounded seven people, a Baghdad bombing ("near Zayuna Communications Centre") that claimed 1 life (five wounded), an Iraqi soldier killed by a bombing in Ishaqui (four more wounded), and a Tikreet bombing that claimed the lives of 3 people ("Chief of Police of al-Siniyah" and two of his bodyguards). Reuters notes a Baiji roadside bombing that claimed the lives of 4 Iraqi soldiers and "an Iraqi army major", a Kirkuk roadside bombing that left two Iraqi soldiers injured and a Baghdad car bombing that claimed 1 life (five wounded).

Shootings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 police officer shot dead in Tikreet (three more wounded) and Fadhel Mohammed al-Dulaimi shot dead in Hawija while attempting to drive home. Reuters notes a member of the Democratic Party of Kurdistan was shot dead today in Mosul (and that one was shot dead yesterday in Mosul)

Corpses?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports the corpse of a woman was discovered in Kirkuk "(20-25 years of age, and had been shot several times")

Staying on reality, today KPFK's Uprising aired the latest radio commentary of Rahul Mahajan (not yet posted at his site Empire Notes) where he took on the piece of illegal war trash that is No End In Sight. "Over the weekend, I had the dubious pleasure of watching No End in Sight, a documentary about the war on iraq made by Charles Ferguson, a political scientist, former consultant for the Brookings Institute and internet millionaire. Although the film has been garnering excellent reviews, it has a must feel to it. Ferguson prides himself on the fact that this film is neither a Republican nor a Democratic one. The upshot is that it's a film about a reasonable foreign policy establishment, a reasonable invasion, and a bunch of reasonable people being sabotaged and undercut by a small handful of jackasses -- Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz, Bremer and the only onscreen villain -- a Washington bureaucrat named Walter Slocombe who first developed the military demobilization plan. There is no examination of the sense of the larger project, of an establishment that mostly supported the war, or even of what the real motives of the invasion might have been. George Packer and Samantha Power as outside critics are not the people to do this job . . . What the film really brings home is that the story of this war is already written and heavily promoted and, unlike the case of Vietnam, it's a script for restoring the status quo ante. It's a story told by members of the Council on Foreign Relations, New York Times journalists, Congresspeople, retired generals and mildly dissident members of the military-intelligence establishment -- a group not exactly noted for ever getting anything right. So far, the antiwar movement has not made any headway in telling its own story -- insofar as it even has one." Or as we put it last month at The Third Estate Sunday Review, "No End In Sight when the peace movement gets behind crap." And sadly, some are. Some are plugging this hideous film that avoids the issue of the illegal war to 'teach' a better illegal war, one with better planning. How stupid is the alleged peace movement? Including one 'name' who included the public e-mail address for this site to pass on, "I agrfee [sic] completely with ____. it is VERY powerful....with administration and high army officials 'playing themselves,' so to speak." No, it's not a film for the peace movement to support (and why I was placed on this forward along with a hundred others, I have no idea). To return to Naomi Klein, her "Baghdad Year Zero" (Harper's magazine) outlined (in 2004) that the chaos in Iraq wasn't an accident, it was planned by the US administration. Now either you support Klein's reporting (and Greg Palast's and Antonia Juhasz . . . ) or you support this 'filmmaker' (first time) with the Council for/of Foreign Relations and Brookings Institute to his 'credits,' this filmmaker who stated that the problem with "the war" (he doesn't call it illegal" was that there were not enough "boots on the ground" -- sell that 'surge,' Charlie, sell it! And, sadly, he'll get a lot of help from that from people -- from 'names' -- that should know better -- that should damn well know better. His fictional film (passed as a documentary) sells illegal wars by accepting them (and Charlie was for the illegal war and still is) as evidenced by public statements such as "if this had been done competently, it could have turned out much, much differently." (Those are his words when he appeared on Uprising July 31, 2007.)

In other news of get serious quick, Saturday in Fort Worth, Texas a rally was a failure. It was a failure for multiple reasons including poor planning, location choice, time (you don't do a march or rally in the mid-day Texas heat), and just about every thing else that could have been done wrong. Click here for our report at The Third Estate Sunday Review. And here for our report on the trip to Dallas: "The party was a big success. People talked about Iraq, had some great food (and drinks -- Jim's become an expert at mixing drinks), told jokes, shared, caught up, great tunes, you name it. Did it end the illegal war? No. Neither did the crappy event in Fort Worth. But at least our spur of the moment party had attendance. Comments by members (and my own) can be found here. It was a 'leadership' failure where 'leadership' sent a message people picked up on: You aren't wanted. And so they rightly stayed away. There's a big lesson there.

the nation magazine ignores war resisters while publishing the child of one

Do you know Adam, Anna, Philip and Zackary Key?


According to a woman who decided to make herself the spokesperson on war resisters who go to Canada, their parents made a HUGE mistake. HUGE. It's not like, she insisted to a reporter, it was during Vietnam!


Reality check for the dumb and stupid, it wasn't all that easy during Vietnam. Long before Canada's prime minister Pierre Trudeau's 1969 decision to legally welcome war resisters (as opposed to merely looking the other way), they had been streaming into Canada. Most place the start date as 1965 but, in fact, war resisters were going into even earlier.


Those from the US who went to Canada to avoid taking part in an illegal war usually did so with little more than hopes and dreams. There was no set happy ending. There were no guarantees. So when someone today wants to LIE and say, "It's not like it was during Vietnam," she needs to be questioned on exactly what she knows about that time period because it would appear she knows damn little and is helping even less.


Adam, Anna, Philip and Zackary are being raised in Canada because their parents, Joshua and Brandi Key, made a very brave decision for their family after Joshua returned from Iraq. To go back to that illegal war would be wrong. Life doesn't always provide multiple options and you often go with the best possible. For the Keys, that was Canada.


And though an ahistorical worrywart wants to smear that decision publicly with her own gross ignorance, it was a brave decision. And it's a decision many are making today, as they did during Vietnam.


What's life going to be like for the Keys? No one knows. But the family is together and they are rebuilding their lives.


Anna may grow up to be a member of Canada's parliament. Zackary may grow up to be a police officer. Philip may become an internationally known artist. Adam may end up one of the great political minds of the future. Any of that could happen. The children have the support and love of both parents.


Adam Key might even end up someday writing at The Nation.


Think that's so hard?


Naomi Klein writes there.


And Naomi Klein holds dual citizenship in Canada and in the United States because her parents went to Canada to avoid her father serving in an illegal war. No, that's not in her official biography. That is reality.


Naomi Klein, one of the left's strongest voices today, grew up in Canada due to an illegal war.
That's important to know at any time. It's especially important to know when fools want to caution that going to Canada will be the demise for everyone. No, it won't. That's never been the reality and it's not the reality today.


Klein, and many others who are known, were raised in Canada as the children of war resisters. Klein often talks about her teenage mall days and her rejection of her parents' principles (a phase common in many teenagers) and how she ended up becoming politically aware. We'd argue Klein is politically aware because of the family she was raised in and that, after the normal separation process that the adolescent years bring, it goes to very strong lessons from her childhood.


So, let's be really clear, war resisters moving to Canada does not equal "death" or "despair" for them. Opportunties will still exist. We have no doubt that one of the children of the today's war resisters will step forward on the national stage, as Klein has done, thirty years from now and emerge as a genuine leader.


When that happens, we hope that he or she will speak honestly about their lives growing up because after the current illegal war ends, another one will come. There's too much money to be made, too much greed, too much power to be sought for that not to be the case.


And it's especially important for young families making the decision to resist to know that their children are not automatically sentenced to horrible lives as a result of the decisions the parents' make. That was true before an idiot decided to play fortune teller on a subject she knew nothing about it. It will always be true.


Unlike The Peace Resister Katrina vanden Heuvel, Naomi Klein is internationally known. Unlike The Peace Resister, Klein didn't buy her way into the table. She's an international voice who's known around the world and not for something as embarrassing as attempting to show 'wit' with explicit non-jokes about oral sex.


In that tale of two women, you see one woman whose made her own way thanks to the strong foundation she was provided and you see another who bought herself a seat at the table thanks to her grandfather's money. If you looked at a photo of either woman when they were five-years-old, you wouldn't know where they'd end up. Due to family money, you might assume vanden Heuvel would end up with a bigger playground, but you wouldn't know which would grow up to be a strong, mature woman and leader.


Had you bet on money, you would have lost.


So no one knows the future. But the Keys give their children a step up by standing for what they believe in. That always makes a difference.


If one of them, or one of Jill and Patrick Hart's children, or the children of any war resister who moves to Canada, ends up an important voice thirty years from now, we hope they talk about it, we hope they write about it.


The Nation have very little to be proud of post-2004 elections. A lot of nonsense, a lot of skimming the surface, a lot of playing Democratic Party organ and a hell of a lot of wasted time. That all comes under the 'leadership' of Peace Resister Katrina vanden Heuvel who, when not embarrassing herself with oral sex 'jokes' on Comedy Central, dabbles at putting out a weekly 'political' magazine.

It must be like Bizarro World to be the child of a war resister and published by a magazine that refuses to write about them. In print, only Ehren Watada has been written about. A sidebar, to a January 2007 issue, after he's called a "coward" in the main article (on a petition). More recently, The Nation ran an overly praised article in July. In the article, they boasted of 'dozens' of photos provided to them of abuse of Iraqis. They failed to run one photo.


We've never doubted the photos. We know they exist. We know, for instance, that CO Aidan Delgado provided them with one involving a spoon. But there is no bravery at the top of The Nation so the photos didn't run. The same article labels war resister Camilo Mejia a "deserter" and leaves it at that. It refuses to note that Mejia's contract with the US military was over, that as a non-citizen his contract could not be extended, that Senator Bill Nelson had already made an issue out of the fact that Mejia should be sent home, that Mejia attempted to handle that through channels, that Mejia attempted to be granted CO status. The laughable article just tells you that Mejia is a 'deserter'. That's how it goes at the simplistic Nation magazine these days.

That's what happens when a smutty mouthed 'girl' decides to dabble beyond her depth, she betrays everything the magazine is supposed to stand for.


In March, the illegal war hits the five-year-mark. All Katrina vanden Heuvel appears concerned about in terms of the illegal war is that Cindy Sheehan not run from California's eighth district for a Congressional seat.


In a laughable, self-serving response to Cindy Sheehan's calling The Nation out on their appalling record on Iraq, Katrina vanden Heuvel offers a reply that may be even more phony than her faux public speaking voice.


She declares her sadness (she learned of Eleanor Roosevelt's trick -- from aquaintences if not from college, as the person who takes credit for teaching her of it says) over Sheehan's letter and then rushes to declare "As you well know, The Nation has, from the very beginning, been in the forefront of opposing this disastrous war. In fact, very few media outlets have been more strongly and consistently opposed to the war than this magazine, whether in its conception, planning or execution."


Oh, were that it were true. Anyone reading the magazine is well aware that The Nation offers up their yearly editorial against the illegal war each year and little else. When the 2004 elections took place, a lot of people moved away from the topic of the illegal war (the myth was it was a 'downer' and voters didn't care) and that certainly included The Nation. The Peace Resister goes on to mention feature articles but fails to note that the bulk of those articles appeared in print prior to her officially becoming publisher. She also fails to note that many of those articles didn't originate with The Nation but, such as Klein's exposure of the graft Mad Maddie Albright and James Baker were involved in, appeared in other outlets outside the US and The Nation just reprinted them.


She makes the laughable claim that Democrats (and "Republicans and Independents") have been taken to task by the magazine. We think Katha Pollitt got closer to truth following her advisory blog that Cindy Sheehan shouldn't run for Congress, when she explained that the strategy she supports is to target "Blue Dog" Democrats. That's who The Nation targets as well. It gives a pass to all other Democrats.


The claim that The Nation has opposed the illegal war as few other media outlets have requires that people be unaware of the monthly Progessive magazine, CounterPunch, Democracy Now! and a host of other outlets. With regards to The Progressive, that's especially appalling since it's not a weekly.


The Nation has not reviewed any book authored by a war resister (The Progressive and International Socialist Review have). The Nation has not explored the case of Suzanne Swift or Ehren Watada in print. (Sidebars are not explorations.) The strong opposition to the illegal war comes from the magazine before Katrina vanden Heuvel was installed as publisher of the 'leading magazine of the left'. That a member of the centrist Council for Foreign Relations (which was cheerleaing the illegal war from the start) now heads the magazine goes a long way towards explaining why it's fastly becoming the magazine more and more subscribers are dropping.
vanden Heuvel rushes to defend Pollitt (she always rushes to defend her pets which is why David Corn is largely left on his own -- a good thing for him and may the huge interest in him at other -- mainstream -- outlets mean he soons moves on to better things) and tells Sheehan that Pollitt's "criticism is framed by real respect for your 'crucial role in our politics: as an activist'." Katrina vanden Heuvel, who did not win an award from Planned Parenthood (she was not named in the award ceremonies, The Nation magazine won an award, stop the lying) is not a feminist.


So it's no surprise that she doesn't see anything appalling in the fact that Pollitt thinks she can tell a woman, any woman, not to run for public office. But let's deal with this alleged 'real respect' Pollitt allegedly has for Cindy Sheehan.


"Cindy Sheehan put a family face on the antiwar movement." Pollitt wrote that single sentence. It runs in the January 9/16, 2006 issue. ("9/16"? One of those alleged 'double issues' that are the same size as regular issues but subscribers get to pay 'double' for them.) That appears to be Katha Pollitt's entire writing output on Cindy Sheehan prior to Sheehan deciding to run for Congress. Real respect? For the "'crucial role in our politics: as an activist'." Well, golly gee, imagaine if Pollitt had no respect, Sheehan might have been 'robbed' of that single sentence commentary.


Pollitt had no respect for Cindy Sheehan. It never translated into coverage. You walk it like you talk it. The Nation wants credit for a million things and they haven't done any of them. They apparently think they have, they seem to have tricked themselves into believing that. Of course it helps that they disappear online articles. Such as the praise for the James Baker Circle Jerk report which they praised. For those who were spared the Circle Jerk, it enshrines the theft of Iraqi oil and it's really difficult to applaud that and to claim you're strongly opposed to the illegal war. It's really difficult to claim you opposed to the illegal war when, as Congress votes on whether or not to fund the illegal war, you're off Blogging With Retainer about American Idol. It helps that these embarrassments, these pieces that endorse the continued illegal war can, in fact, be disappeared from the magazine's website. It does not, however, change the fact that they went up in the first place. [To read an editor and a publisher blogging on the 'very important' topic of American Idol while avoiding the issue of Congress' voting whether or not to fund the illegal war, you can see Mike's "The Third Estate Sunday Review " and then Elaine's "Monday" and then Rebecca's "cynthia mckinney" -- each excerpted a section of the column after it had been 'disappeared' but before it was also gone from Google cache.]


"Week in and week out, we publish writers who may not agree on everything but who share a fundamental belief in the necessity of ending this war and occupation," vanden Heuvel writes apparently either willing to lie or unaware of the many centrists she continues to bring into the magazine. There's this alleged split between The Nation and The New Republic(an). The split was among readers of the magazines, never among the periodicals. Which is why The Nation website, as late as 2005, linked to The New Republic(an) as one of their "sites we like" and only pulled the link when the complaints poured in. It's why The Nation has regularly published writers from The New Republic(an). Little Lee Lee would probably still be polluting the magazine, in fact, had he not gotten busted at The New Republic(an) for posting favorable comments to his own pieces at that magazine's website.


Every week, vanden Heuvel would have you believe, writers who believe the illegal war should be ended are published. That's really not true. And many weeks they find a way to avoid the illegal war. Take the July 16/23, 2007 issue. It's another "double" issue with the same number of pages as a regular issue. (Well, to be fair, many issues are 38 pages and this one is 46, eight extra pages qualifies as "double"?) In that issue the editors urged the Democrats to "Get in It to Win It" (how very "You go, girl!" of them), the Peace Resister teamed up with a man (it's always a man) to write about health care, Canadian publisher, 'death' of LA Weekly, Micheal Bloomberg, Al Gore being distored by the press in 2000, Michael Moore's latest documentary, Medicare, SEIU, Richard Nixon, India, Iran and Israel are the topics of the issue. Iraq?


Go fish.


Well, let's drop back a week to the July 9, 2007 issue. The topics covered? Editorial on Gaza, pieces on "red tape," Venezuela, immigration, public health, Pollitt babbling in that useless way that is her hallmark (she appears ticked off by The Dangerous Book for Boys), the progressive majority, school reform (or 'reform'), Hong Kong, a book review of Leonard Michaels (who died in 2003), a review of a book on Lincoln Kirstein's contributions to the world of ballet, and four movie reviews. On the last, none of the reviews are about films on Iraq. They've avoided that topic repeatedly. They will most likely break that rule for the documentary by the non-filmmaker who is one of vanden Heuvel's peers at the Council for Foreign Relations. But the reality is the film ignores the illegality of the war and wants to leap into the occupation thereby selling that the premise that illegal war is not the problem, just better planning.


So again, those asking about Iraq are instructed to "Go fish."


And that's pretty much the way it's gone week after week. They still do those firey editorials on the illegal war once a year. They don't stand by them. There was the claim, at the end of 2005, that the magazine refused to support anyone running for Congress not calling for an end to the illegal war. They hit the newsstands the week before the election with a mushy profile on War Hawk Harold Ford, Jnr. Democratic primary challengers (forget third parties, The Nation's current incarnation does) who supported withdrawal while the incumbent supported continued illegal war? They didn't bother to show 'em any love, to get their names out to the public, to use the magazine's power in any manner that was useful in 2006 and they will probably do the same in 2008.


By the time you're going soft and mushy on a candidate who's not only a War Hawk but also posing in front of the Confederate flag at the Little Rebel, you're scraping the bottom of the barrel.


So vanden Heuvel should spare Cindy Sheehan the lecture on how much The Nation allegedly cares about ending the illegal war since it has never translated into "week in and week out" coverage. Nor has Sheehan garnered much coverage from the magazine. When she became the face of the peace movement, she wasn't placed on the cover of The Nation (they had placed her on the cover prior for a story about families who had lost loved ones in the illegal war). Other than John Nichols, no one appears to have been overly interested in covering Cindy Sheehan when she became the face of the peace movement. But, as Sheehan notes, "The Nation also invited me to its foundation dinner in NYC at the end of 2005, presumably to exploit my popularity to sell tickets."


While the magazine avoided the topic of Cindy Sheehan (the same way they avoided the peace movement itself), vanden Heuvel wants to purr that Pollitt has "real respect" for Sheehan when the reality is that respect translates into coverage. Concern translates into coverage. The Nation was more interested in doing a 'special issue' on food than it was in covering the illegal war. So much for 'real respect.'


vanden Heuvel wants to dub Pollitt's 'Please, Cindy, Don't Run' nonsense as "legitimate criticism" and can only get away with that because she's no feminist. But Pollitt's supposed to be a feminist and no feminist tells another woman not to run.


All of vanden Heuvel's New Age babble in soothing tones is undercut by yet another snide smear from Pollitt who posts another attack on Sheehan after vanden Heuvel's fluff was posted.
vanden Heuvel boasts of The Nation's website and well she should -- it misinforms many about the actual content of the print magazine. Those who know the magazine only through the website are misinformed about the magazine. For instance, as C.I. addressed in "2006: The Year of Living Dumbly," the website has allowed many to believe that the magazine covers war resisters when, in fact, it doesn't. When Ehren Watada became the first officer to publicly refuse to serve in the illegal war, The Nation's website did cover it and did so through the end of 2006. The magazine? No. Those were "online exclusives." Cindy Sheehan and CODEPINKs 2006 summer trip to Jordan to meet with Iraqis was covered "online" by Tom Hayden (who was on the trip) but it never ran in the magazine. Though Pollitt wasn't interested in covering CODEPINK's trip, she was interested in slamming the organization for bird-dogging War Hawk Hillary Clinton in 2006. As community member Martha wrote The Nation on December 22, 2006 (in a letter the magazine didn't run, strange, isn't it? -- we first noted it here):


Reading Katha Pollitt's "Ho-Ho-Holiday Donations -- 2006" two questions arose
1) Ms. Pollitt refers to In These Times as The Nation's "sister publication." In light of concerns regarding media consolidation, that phrase needs to be explained.
2) Looking through the ten recommended organizations and publications, I see Hurricane Katrina, I see Vietnam, et al. I don't see Iraq. Is Ms. Pollitt aware that a war is going on? MADRE, an organization recently recommended on RadioNation with Laura Flanders, seems much more fitting than a periodical (two make Ms. Pollitt's list). In addition, there are numerous organizations working for peace and supporting C.O.s.
If Ms. Pollitt is unaware that a war is going on in Iraq, that might explain why she has never written one word about the rape and murder of fourteen-year-old Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi -- a topic that strikes me as much more important than Hillary Clinton being 'bird-dogged."


We think Martha's December 2006 e-mail backs up Cindy Sheehan's current letter and then some.


Katha Pollitt's offended that Sheehan used "stridently" in a sentence about her. Suddenly Pollitt wants to play 'feminist' voice. That's real cute for a useless chatterer who refused to cover the gang-rape and murder of Abeer. That news broke in June 2006. Pollitt avoided it. Consistently. US soldiers have now confessed to their involvement in the gang-rape and murder and been convicted. Steven D. Green had already been discharged (and never should have been inducted) so he will face trial in a civilian court. He maintains his innocence but others have testified he was the ring leader.


"Murder, not war. Rape, not war. That's what we're here talking about today. Not all that business about cold food, checkpoints, personnel assignments. Cold food didn't kill that family. Personnel assignments didn't rape and murder that 14-year-old little girl."


That's Captain Alex Pickands speaking in the August 2006 Article 32 hearing on the War Crimes.


Pollitt was too busy throughout all of 2006, alleged feminist that she is, to weigh in on Abeer. As the criticim mounted, she finally got off her useless horse to 'contribute' to the dialogue with this: "Think of Abeer Qassim al-Janabi, the 14-year-old girl raped and then murdered with her family by US soldiers in Mahmoudiya in March of last year." Her family was raped with her? No, and she was gang-raped. Her family was murdered during the gang-rape in the next room and Abeer could hear the gun shots and the screams while two soldiers took 'turns' raping her and before Steven D. Green allegedly joined in the gang-rape and then allegedly shot her dead.
Pollitt finally 'discovered' Abeer when it was time to write her column for the May 28, 2007 issue. What a friend feminists have in Katha. The most documented War Crime of the illegal war, one that even the military brass couldn't white wash, and Pollitt's avoiding it for six months. It should also be noted that 'feminist' Pollitt's full statement on Abeer is in the single sentence quoted above. As with Cindy Sheehan, Pollitt's alleged concern didn't translate into coverage.


Instead, the laughable piece allows Katha Pollitt to flashback to her girlhood days when she read Romeo & Juliet. As C.I. noted August 12th:


Over at The Nation, Katha Pollitt scribbles in the useless way that's become her hallmark for this century. Pollitt, who in 2006, took the time to call out CODEPINK when she could have been writing about Abeer (a story that feminists especially should have been writing about), enlists in the "Cindy Don't Run" campaign. In fairness to Pollitt, it should be noted that she finally wrote about Abeer late this year, after Alexander Cockburn's column had finally gotten the name "Abeer" into print at The Nation. Pollitt did a shout out in one sentence while drooling, prolonged adolesecent she now writes as, over Romeo & Juliet possibilities. Let's be real clear on that damn story, a couple gets married from two tribes, the wife is stoned to death. Save your drama about the great love story because the man didn't sacrifice s__. This wasn't Romeo & Juliet and many believe this wasn't a marriage of choice. But the MSM put out the spin and damned if all the saps didn't buy into it even though the tribe in question was repeatedly under assault and women from it were being kidnapped and "married" into forced marriages. Pollitt wrote like a fool singing the score to Seven Brides For Seven Brothers who stares at you blankly when you bring up the rape of the Sabine women.


That sums up Pollitt's nonsense. It ran in the "Spring Books" issue so maybe she felt the need to rise to the level of 'dramatic'? For 18 lines, Pollitt went on about, yes, a very real stoning but also about a mythical reason. The stoned woman "had fallen in love," Pollitt tells you and this was the "crime" for which she was stoned. The stoning happened and it is criminal. We're not disputing that. (Some media outlets are.) The reasons for the stoning? Even the media is now putting distance between themselves and the Shakespeare in the Park narrative. As Elaine noted August 15th:


Then I read the snapshot and, some good news, if you use the links on the bombings in northern Iraq, you'll see some MSM outlets are expressing skepticsm of the narrative and not merely repeating it. It may very well be true, about the whys of the stoning; however, there's been no evidence offered of that Romeo & Juliet narrative. If it is true, I'd just like to know how it is true. I don't think there's any excuse for stoning anyone. I'm not even questioning the stoning (although, maybe I should, at least one story did not[e] the cell phone captures were not verified). I'm only questioning how you look [at] a sect that is being targeted with forced marriage and decide, "Oh, no, this was love. This was true love."

If it was, all I think is that the press should have offered proof of it and I never saw any. I saw a cute little narrative, I saw a lot of what looked like leaping to conclusions.

But I never saw anything resembling proof that it wasn't a forced marriage.


Now while it is true that this community avoided leaping onto the Romeo & Juliet bandwagon because a reporter in Iraq warned C.I. that the popular narrative wasn't supported by any facts, it probably helps to know the facts and, BE HONEST, Pollitt doesn't.


In February, Minority Rights Group International issued a (PDF format) report , authored by Preti Taneja and entitled "Assimilation, Exodus, Eradication: Iraq's minority communities since 2003." The report noted that women were being kidnapped and forced to convert to other religion by men they 'married' (post-kidnapping) under duress and cited the Mandaen and Yazidi women as especially being targeted. So Pollitt rushing in during the month of May to scribble about 'love' was always going to be a hard sell. For the record, the myth that the 'young' 'lovers' were in love overlooked the man's age and the fact that no one in the press ever spoke to him but depended upon second and third-hand 'reporting.' Right about now, a genuine feminist might want to feel a little shame for scribbles that 'celebrated' a man who most likely kidnapped and raped a much younger woman. In May 2007, when Pollitt wrote, the War Crimes against Abeer were not in dispute. So, naturally, she reduced Abeer to a single-sentence (in the only thing she ever wrote about Abeer) and instead (this is where the xenophobia allegations against Pollitt really take root -- though reach another level when she slams Alexander Cockburn) went to town on a story that including many non-verified details to write about what we'll term those 'savages'.


vanden Heuvel wants to stress that the magazine has covered "week in and week out" Iraq when, not only is that false, they couldn't even cover the news in real time. It's not that they weren't aware of Abeer, they just didn't care. It didn't fit the 'frame' they were into. So much easier to, as Pollitt did, slam the 'savages' than to hold Americans accountable for what were crimes and what have resulted in convictions. And that's really at the heart (or 'frame') of The Nation's alleged Iraq coverage since the 2004 election. The issue is never the very real tragedy for Iraqis, it's all about the US. (Alexander Cockburn remains the exception and, as we've noted before, we count him as being part of CounterPunch, not The Nation. The slams from The Nation in print and online have only encouraged our belief more so.)


So possibly, Cindy Sheehan's noting that reality when she writes, "Maybe Katha Pollitt et al. should go to the Middle East and view the carnage that this Administration has caused with the complicity of the Democratic Party, which she so stridently defends."


Of course Pollitt misses the point (or pretends to) writing, "Sheehan accuses me of 'stridently' (nice --does anyone EVER use that word for a man?) defending the Democratic Party's 'complicity' in the war and of not caring about the sufferings of Iraqis the way she does."

Pollitt needs to get a new set of glasses in her advanced age because Sheehan never writes what Pollitt's claiming (however, Sheehan should write it). As for "strident," we've USED the term and applied it to many males. Pollitt's bound to her NYC bubble and only gets out, apparently, when it's time to carpet bag by voting in another state.


Sheehan's writing is actually a letter to the magazine. Katrina vanden Heuvel attempts to bill it as a "dialogue." As Ellen Willis once said, vanden Heuvel likes and courts weak personalities because they're so much easier to control. And it's so much easier to dub something a 'dialogue' when vanden Heuvel can ensure she gets the last word. It's not a dialogue. Sheehan wrote a letter to the editor and instead of doing the smart thing and considering it, vanden Heuvel strikes her floating-on-a-cloud pose to get in the last word. We find her pose laughable but do prefer it to the smutty mouth she sports on Comedy Central. Or maybe she honestly believes an independent woman of the left should attempt to come off like Monica Lewinsky?


What we do know is that the magazine has the child of war resisters in the midst. And they work really hard to avoid noting that in the same way they work really hard to avoid covering Ivan Brobeck, Patrick Hart, Joshua Key, Kimberly Rivera, Linjamin Mull, Corey Glass, Marc Train, Ross Spears, Phil McDowell, Robin Long, Ryan Johnson, Kyle Snyder, Christian Kjar, Phil McDowell, Dean Walcott and the many others who have gone to Canada as a result of the US engaging in an illegal war.


What we do know is that their laughable article avoid interviewing any of those people. Strange since even the US military wanted to interview Joshua Key after he wrote about (see his book The Deserter's Tale) War Crimes in Iraq -- wanted it so badly they crossed the border into Canada, posed as Canadian police and harassed Winnie Ng.


"What!" readers of The Nation gasp. They gasp because The Nation ignored that story as well.

Gregory Levey (writing in Salon) would cover that topic while The Nation would ignore it. That story also includes the pre-wedding arrest of Kyle Snyder, in Canada, on the orders of the US military. An investigation is currently underweigh in Canada on that issue and, while we expect a white wash, that an investigation has been launched goes to the outrage Canadians have over the violation of their national sovereignty by Canadian police willing to be tools in service of the US military.


We enjoyed Pollitt's faux outrage at her writing being dubbed done "stridently" especially since that high horse Pollitt loves to hop on, BE HONEST, never includes calling out her own magazine. As we noted July 4th (though Pollitt stayed silent), The Nation's record of publishing women is shameful.


"Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you must have a penis"
"Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis"
"Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis"
"Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis"
"Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis"
"Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis"
"Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis"
"Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis"
"Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis"
"Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis"


Pollitt never bothered to express outrage over that publicly though she has (repeatedly) taken the New York Times to task for the number of women they run on the op-ed pages -- from the Glass House she resides in.


July 4th, we tackled the magazine's disgraceful record of publishing women. Jess mentioned that to someone at an organization when replying to their e-mail to C.I. The result was that the e-mail was passed on. (And we're still waiting for the apology which better be coming soon or we may run the e-mail Jess was replying to at The Third Estate Sunday Review. If the pass on was supposed to 'embarrass' Jess, trust us, the original e-mail will be embarrassing for the organization. C.I. has given permission for the e-mail to be published because Jess was replying for C.I. and "If replies can be passed on, so can the original e-mail. No privacy protection works one way.") As a result, The Nation attempted an end-run at the last minute (July 2nd) where they tried to derail our article. For that reason, no one discussed this article other than to note it would run at all sites and would cover The Nation. Even when a sudden 'fan' with The Nation showed up last week to ask what the topic would be? (Friends at the magazine revealed the 'fan' wasn't and that it was most likely a fishing trip to gear up for another attempted pre-empt.)



July 7th, Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez spoke with one author of The Nation's laughable piece and we've been accused of ignoring that. We weren't ignoring that Democracy Now! broadcast. We were holding our comments for this article. If you watched the broadcast you should have noticed what Goodman and Gonzalez, not The Nation provided, excerpts from interviews with war resisters that they (Goodman and Gonzalez) had conducted. We applaud them for seeing the obvious flaw in The Nation's overly praised report and doing their part to make sure they didn't fall into the same trap.


This article focused on war resisters and it may be news to some at The Nation that Naomi Klein is the child of war resisters. It may cause some uncomfortable moments among the many who have avoided the topic of war resisters. Later this month, Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism is released (September 18th). We've all read it, it's amazing. (It will also be available in audio format on CD.) You can write something that amazing when you're a true independent voice as opposed to a party organ playing the notes instructed by a 'frame'. It's also worth noting that the most in depth article Klein wrote on Iraq, the must read "Baghdad Year Zero," ran not in The Nation, but in Harper's Magazine.


As for The Nation, we'd hope to be done with it. We don't bother to read it anymore. But we're hearing stories -- including the destroying of Laura Flanders' brilliant radio show to turn it into an hour long infomerical each week for The Nation magazine -- and may have to tackle those at a future date. We hear a great deal from friends on the masthead of the magazine -- and we should probably note here that everyone with the magazine does not endorse or embrace the embarrassment it has become -- so we can't rule out tackling it again. We'd honestly prefer to be done with it. If community members make it an issue, C.I. has to tackle it at The Common Ills. The rest of us have the luxury of writing about whatever we want and we really don't see much value in writing about a useless magazine whose editor and publisher is bound and determined to make it increasingly useless (while plugging organizations that she and her father belong to without ever disclosing that fact). But when someone with the magazine wants to unload, as they frequently do, we will still listen and possibly write about.


It's easy to write off the useless magazine because it's not interested in war resistance at a time of illegal war. To learn about that, you have to go elsewhere. For 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.


-- The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
and Ruth of Ruth's Report