8/24/2010

barack and b.p. lie to you

IAN MacDONALD: Well, what’s happening now, we can confirm that the oil that had been visible, that had been so troubling to us and to the ecosystem, as floating layers on the surface of the ocean, has largely disappeared from view. But that does not mean that it’s gone from the ecosystem or gone from our problems. Much of that oil has either sunk to the bottom and has become shallowly buried in marine sediments or in coastal soils, where it will pose, as I said, a threat to the ecosystem for years to come, or potentially it remains in dissolved layers both at the surface and in the deepwater layers that Reddy and Camille Li and his other colleagues at Woods Hole referred to. And as you said at the opening, this scenario of where the oil is and the concerns that it raises about the future of the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem contradict the way in which this government report of August 4th was rolled out by Jane Lubchenco and by Carol Browner.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about how this study by NOAA was done by the National Oceanographic institute.

IAN MacDONALD: Well, the hearing on Thursday before Representative Markey’s subcommittee was pretty remarkable. The questioning went on for over an hour and a half. And during the course of the questioning of the three government witnesses that were there—Bill Lehr of NOAA, Paul Anastas of Food and Drug—of EPA, and Don Kraemer of the Food and Drug Administration—Markey focused on Lehr and made Lehr roll back the statement that three-quarters of the oil was gone. And he was obliged to admit that, in fact, probably 80 percent of the oil is still in the ecosystem.

It seemed clear from Lehr’s testimony that what happened was that he and other scientists at NOAA compiled a report, which they intended as an internal document for the responders so that they could understand the different categories of oil, what had happened to these oil—this budget, as it were, to guide some of the response efforts, and at some point, this report, intended as a private document, became a very public document and was presented by Lubchenco, Browner and by the White House as a scientific result, definitively showing that the oil was gone and inferring that there was little further threat to the ecosystem. What was presented as scientific fact is largely conjectural and contained no references to the scientific literature, none of the algorithms or formulas or other information that would allow investigators or independent investigators to assess what had been done. So this made what should have been science into a policy and a PR exercise, and that’s an unfortunate turn of events in informing the public about the next—future of this oil disaster.

that's from monday's democracy now and barack and the entire administration are lying about the oil. oil does not vanish. oil cannot be eaten by birds so they didn't swoop down and get rid of it nor did fish nibble on it and nibble some more until it was all gone.

the administration is lying.

and lying to buy some time. we do realize that was what b.p.'s major announcements were all along? npr and others reported after the spewing was minimized (i don't think it's been stopped) that 'top kill' (or whatever it was called) and the others were always known to be non-workable but that b.p. would talk it up and it would get in the news cycle.

these things that wouldn't work would get in the news cycle and distort the flow of the news.

it would be 'this may work' and we wouldn't deal with reality.

b.p. did very good p.r.

but - and i made my money in public relations - it couldn't have done such a great job without intense help from the federal government.

barack and the administration are lying.

and that tells you everything you need to know.

they aren't to be trusted with the environment.

and supposedly we all care about the environment. supposedly the president we elected in 2008 was supposed to give a damn about the environment and address the issues of global warming. you don't see barack addressing them do you?

al gore's movie was supposed to have awakened a nation.

barack's apparently put them back to sleep.

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

Tuesday, August 24, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, the Christian Science Monitor repeats a known falsehood in their attempt to go for a blood libel smear against the peace movement, Moqtada al-Sadr may be backing Allawi, Moqtada al-Sadr may be moving to Lebanon, the political stalemate continues, and more.
Today Tom Ashbrook used the hour of On Point (NPR) to explore the situation in Iraq and was joined, by phone from Baghdad, the Los Angeles Times' Liz Sly and the New York Times' Anthony Shadid.
Tom Ashbrook: Liz, you remind us in your recent reporting that -- what, about a year ago? -- when US troops withdrew from the cities in Iraq, Iraqis danced in the street, there was celebration. What about this last week? Americans have heard a lot about the withdrawal of combat troops, what's -- Has there been a public response? Has there been dancing in the street from Iraqis, Liz?
Liz Sly: Well there has no. The reaction has been in noted contrast to last year. And that's because two things are different between this year and last year. Last year, the American troops withdrew from the cities under the terms of the security agreement signed with Iraq and so the Iraqi government trumpeted that as a triumph for Iraq, as a sign of its sovereignty. This year -- This year, the unilateral withdrawal of the 50,000 is an American move in response to President Obama's election pledge to bring the troops home. It hasn't really received much attention from the Iraqis. And the other thing that's different between now and last year is that last year Iraq was looking pretty stable. It kind of was better off than Iraq had been in a long time, violence had subsided a lot, the government was relatively strong, relatively popular, relatively in control. This year, the situation really does feel really unstable again. We had elections in March, they failed to produce a winner, there's been no success in negotiations for a new government and a lot of Iraqis now are feeling very worried about what lies ahead and especially wihtout so many troops -- without so many American troops in the country -- to kind of keep order, if you like?
had finally
Tom Ashbrook: Uh, Liz, Anthony, here was US commander in Iraq Ray Odierno just this last Sunday on CBS [Face The Nation]. He was asked about whether the US had won in Iraq?
Gen Ray Odierno: I would say that we've made lot of progress here. I would say to determine whether we've won the war or not, we can see that in three to five years as we see how Iraq works out. A strong, democratic Iraq should bring stability to the Middle East and, if we see an Iraq moving from that two, three, five years, I think we can call our operation a success.
Tom Ashbrook: Two, three, five years from now? It's a long goodbye already. US troops -- formally -- to be out at the end of next year, we'll see what happens with that. But Anthony Shadid, when you look over that kind of horizon, the right now that Liz is talking about, the spikes in attacks, then there's the two, three, five year horizon out there. Where do see Iraq? What do you see coming, Anthony?
Anthony Shadid: I think Liz is exactly right, this is a very precarious moment right here and what struck me in the past few weeks is the degree of the divorce between the population right now and the ruling elite. And it is an utter divide that's going on right there. The ruling elite is discredited, there's not a lot of trust in them, there's an incredible amount of frustration as Liz pointed out in their inabililty to form a government. Where does that -- that disenchantment, that disillusionment lead to? And I think that's one of the most pressing questions and it's not a question that US officials and the military is reallyd ealing with right now. This is a government or an elite that has lost the trust of the people. It's not a good sign of the durability or even the longterm implications for creating a stable political system. I think it's in fact one of the most danger -- one of the biggest dangers they're facing right now.
Tom Ashbrook: Anthony, who is the ruling elite of Iraq today?
Anthony Shadid: Well interestingly it's many of the same ruling elite that we saw back in 2003 and I think this is going to be one of the American legacies of the invasion/occupation and what's followed here. There are people that the Americans helped empower and they're still, in a lot of ways, calling the shots. I mean, we've heard a lot of the names already. Ayad Allawi, Ahmed Chalabi, Ibrahim Jaafari and, you know, Prime Minister Maliki is one of the different ones but he's from the Dawa party which is one of the parties that were brought back after 2003. So we're dealing with a lot of the same faces and we're dealing with a lot of the same penchant toward deadlock, toward stalemate that's characterized their dealing, you know, back from 2004 and on.
Tom Ashbrook: Liz Sly, the group that Anthony's pointing at there, from 2003, that the US brought in were largely exiles. What has that meant about the way they've approached politics? The Iraq that they now, you know, more or less, for better or worse, rule?
Liz Sly: Well you've got something of a really fundamental divide going on in Iraqi society and politics at the moment and it's the same divide that we saw back in 2003, back in 2004 as the insurgency started. And it's opened up again, if you like, by this latest election. And that really is a huge divide between religious parties which were empowered very much by the US invasion. The Shi'ite religious parties which had been in exile since they'd been persecuted by Saddam. They came back, they formed the government and now they're in power. What you have now is a bit of a situation where there's a little bit of a pushback against that religious style of government that came in in those years by people who want to see a more secular and less overtly religious form of government and, quite frankly, there is a sectarian overture to that as well because there are Sunnis who don't want Shia religious parties to be in control. And so you've got this fundamental divide that we've never really solved in any of the earlier years when the emphasis was mainly on bringing the violence down and not on solving the fundamental political problems. And you've got that divide opening up again just as the troops are going home.
Tom Ashbrook: Anthony Shadid, what's the problem in getting a new government established? The election is five months and counting behind us now. What are the obstacles to some kind of a compromise to get something settled here? What's the problem?
Anthony Shadid: Well I think on one level it's ambition. It's the ambition of the people who did best in the election. But I think more fundamentally, it's a question of power and who has that power and how is that power -- to what degree does everyone enjoy that power? There is a question right now going on of whether the prime minister will have the powers he's had in the past, whether it will be moved to the Cabinet. There are ideas out there of creating a National Strategies Council, a National Security Council that would take some of the powers away from the prime minister but I think we're still in the preliminary stages there. The Ambassador, Christopher Hill, before he left, optimistically forecast it was weeks away but I think pessimism was probably the better sentiment to have and those negotiations seem to have fallen apart. I think when you talk to politicians right now, we're not all of that -- I mean, maybe I'm overstating it a little bit -- but I don't think we're all that further ahead than we were in March. And I think this could last weeks, even months. And the interim is dangerous. That interim encourages rumors of crisis and confrontation and even coups -- coup d'etats -- and you do wonder where -- where this is all going to lead to?
That's an excerpt. Again, Ashbrook devoted the hour to the very important topic. Shadid and Sly were allowed to speak on various aspects of Iraq that never get noted in the rush for 'the week's headlines' that Iraq is often lumped into. I can't think of a time when Iraq got the full hour on any radio show this year. (The Takeaway still deserves praise for their week long look at Iraq.) Check out the show for that and for more on the elections.
March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board notes, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." 163 seats are needed to form the executive government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher -- 163 is the number today but the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance -- this coalition still does not give them 163 seats. They are claiming they have the right to form the government. In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister. It's now 5 months and 17 days. Phil Sands (National Newspaper) notes that if the stalemate continues through September 8th, it will then be a half a year since Iraqis voted.

Today Alsumaria TV reports that State Of Law submitted a "political reform paper" to Iraqiya and Iraqiya has refused the paper. UPI notes that Nouri's spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh issued a statement denying that Iran was attempting to influence the process. Phil Sands (National Newspaper) adds that Syria is working on the political stalemate and attempting to encourage negotiations. Rahmat al-Salaam (Asharq Alawsat Newspaper) reports:

For his part, Al-Iraqiya member Muhammad Allawi said that "Al-Maliki has two options; he can either assumes the second post after the prime minister or accepts to stay as a member of parliament." On the possibility of starting dialogues with the SLC anew in spite of Al-Maliki's insistence to remain a candidate for the post of prime minister in the next government, Allawi said that "Al-Iraqiya had set a condition not to mention the name of Al-Maliki as a candidate to head the next government during the dialogues or the negotiations with it, and in case this happens, the meeting with the SLC would stop." He stressed that Al-Iraqiya is adopting this stand since it is the bloc that has the electoral right which authorizes it to form and head the government."
Muhammad Allawi added that the Al-Iraqiya list "is going ahead in its negotiations with the Iraqi National Alliance (led by Ammar al-Hakim) in determined steps, and the same is the case of the Kurdistan Alliance, while keeping the door open for the SLC to take what it deserves of main posts, specifically the second highest post after the prime minister."
UPI reports that supporters of Moqtada al-Sadr have made a decision whom to back: "Ziyad al-Darb, a lawmaker from Iraqiya, told the Voices of Iraq news agency that Sadrist lawmakers were throwing their weight behind Allawi for prime minster." Saturday Alsumaria TV noted Al Hayat Newspaper was reporting that al-Sadr would be supporting Allawi. Xiong Tong (Xinhua) reported Sunday that al-Sadr and Allawi would meet-up in Syria shortly. Ma'ad Fayad (Asharaq Alawsat Newspaper) reports that rumors are swirling that Moqtada al-Sadr is planning to move to Lebanaon "in order to escape from Iranian pressure, which is pushing for his approval of the nomination of Nuri al-Maliki, leader of the State of Law Coalition and outgoing Prime Minister, for a second term in office." Al Bawaba also notes the rumors and quote an unnamed source stating, "Al-Sadr rejected all the pressures and proposals made by Iranian officials for the approval of al-Maliki and today is planning seriously to go to Lebanon and stay in Beirut." Consider all of the reports today to be etched in soft clay and able to wash away at any time as has repeatedly happened during the nearly six months since the elections.
Today many reporters had a sick day on the job while other 'reporters' continued posing and they all tried to tease a report out of a press release. It was pimping and worse. It was not news. It was whoring. Thanks Christian Science Monitor, Mary Baker Eddy never planned for you to be such a whore, let alone a cheap whore. CSM's editorial board (the same crap that palled around with LIAR Daniel Schorr -- forever remembered as the 'brave guy' who tried to falsely blame Lesley Stahl to save his own ass) wants to tease out the press release and insult our intelligence -- the latter by repeating the tired, disproven trope that US service members were spat on during Vietnam. Who gives the editorial board it's history lessons? Barack Obama. (He was only 8 years old!) Here's reality, you damn dirty whores of the Christian Science Monitor editorial board, from Jerry Lembcke (Vietnam Veterans Against the War):
Many of the current stories are accompanied by stories of spat-upon Vietnam veterans. The recent story of spitting in Asheville, for example, was traced to a local businessman who says he is a veteran who was also spat upon and called a "baby killer" when he returned from Vietnam. An Associated Press story of April 9 reported stories of spat-upon Vietnam veterans surfacing in several cities including Spicer, Minnesota whose mayor said he was spat upon in the San Francisco airport while coming home from Vietnam in 1971.
Similar stories became quite popular during the Gulf War of 1991 which raised my curiosity about where they came from and why they were believed. There is nothing in the historical record -- news or police reports, for example -- suggesting they really happened. In fact, the Veterans Administration commissioned a Harris Poll in 1971 that found 94% of Vietnam veterans reporting friendly homecomings from their age-group peers who had not served in the military. Moreover, the historical record is rich with the details of solidarity and mutuality between the anti-war movement and Vietnam veterans. The real truth, in other words, is that anti-war activists reached out to Vietnam veterans and veterans joined the movement in large numbers.
Stories of spat-upon Vietnam veterans are bogus. Born out of accusations made by the Nixon administration, they were enlivened in popular culture (recall Rambo saying he was spat on by those maggots at the airport) and enhanced in the imaginations of Vietnam-generation men -- some veterans, some not. The stories besmirch the reputation of the anti-war movement and help construct an alibi for why we lost the war: had it not been for the betrayal by liberals in Washington and radicals in the street, we could have defeated the Vietnamese. The stories also erase from public memory the image, discomforting to some Americans, of Vietnam veterans who helped end the carnage they had been part of.
The facsimiles of spat-upon veteran stories that are surfacing now confuse the public dialogue surrounding the war. Debate about the war itself and the politics that got us into it is being displaced by the phony issue of who supports the troops. Everyone supports the troops and wishes them a safe and speedy homecoming. It's the mission they have been sent on that is dividing the nation and it is the mission that we have a right and obligation to question.
And you can read more of Jerry's book The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam online via Google books. (Or actually buy the book. It's a great book and Jerry's a great guy.) You can also refer to Tim King's 2008 article for Salem-News. But what you can't do is WHORE out whatever was left of your reputation and expect anyone to take you seriously. What the Christian Science Monitor has done is repeat a blood libel that they decided to bring up on their own. All on their own. They're liars, they're whores, they're uneducated and they're uniformed -- and that's your editorial board. Beginning to see why -- even with considerable tax breaks -- the Christian Science Monitor could no longer hack it as a print newspaper? Mmmhmm. Watch the little liars try to weasel out of issuing the correction that damn well know they need to. Well remember, they supported the Iraq War. A fact they'd like you to forget. They supported it, they whored it, they did the advance work for it -- that includes the 'brave' and thankfully dead Danny Schorr.
Now a lot of outlets tried to tease the press release into 'news' and no one did a worse job than the Christian Science Monitor. Who actually managed to deliver news? NPR did. They treated it like news meaning they did something more than rewrite the press release, they added the details that were being (intentionally) left out. From their hourly news break this morning.


Craig Windham: The number of US troops in Iraq is now below 50,000 for the first time since the American-led invasion of that country seven years ago NPR's Mike Schusther in Bagdad says the drawdown of combat forces has been completed a week before the date set by President Obama.
Mike Shuster: The US military says that largely brings to a close the US combat role in Iraq. Now the main mission of those troops remaining will be to train and assist Iraqi security forces. But American troops will still be armed and will accompany Iraqi patrols. There are still almost daily insurgent attacks in Iraq. The US may be ending its primary combat role in Iraq but the violence has not ended. In addition, some of the remaining US troops are Special Forces and they will continue to stage secret operations against al Qaeada in Iraq and other insurgent groups. Mike Shuster, NPR News, Baghdad.

That's from the hourly news and I'm not aware of any way to link to that, sorry, so we'll just note NPR. Note that Shuster's able to do what others can't or won't. How very telling. Nor did he have to resort to lying about the peace activists during Vietnam. "Yet since the Vietnam War, when returning soldiers were shunned and even spat on, Americans have learned to distinguish between the service of a soldier and the politics of war" lied the Christian Science Monitor -- which doesn't seem to go with either Mary Baker Eddy's beliefs or those of Christ's -- disgracing itself. ("Shunned"? By the government. But you know that a cowardly editorial board would rather attack the people than hold accountable the government.) This morning, I was surprised to find out that we called out Joe Biden (whom I know and love) in yesterday's snapshot and everyone else wanted to pretend like Joe was making sense yesterday. Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) is the exception: "On the subject of Iraq, Biden mocked those who suggested that violence would rise ahead of the drawdown, insisting it 'didn't happen.' Last month saw the highest death toll of Iraqi civilians in over two years." Good for Jason Ditz. But I was merely surprised by the silence elsewhere. On the smear and attack on the peace movement? I'm furious and outraged. For those who are still suffering from Joe Biden's spin from yesterday, here's Charlie Kimber (Great Britain's Socialist Worker):
The truth is that the US has achieved only the sordid destruction of an entire society. Over a million Iraqis are dead because of the war, as are thousands of US, British and other troops.
Some four million Iraqis have been driven from their homes, and the vast majority are too terrified to return. Basic services are in short supply and the reality for the majority of the Iraqi population is poverty and fear.
July saw the highest number of violent deaths in Iraq for two years: August will be worse.
Sectarianism has been created and entrenched. Al Qaida did not exist in Iraq before the war -- but it does now. The lie that the US has made Iraq a better place is on a scale of the lies about weapons of mass destruction.
And of course the US is not withdrawing from Iraq. "Combat troops" are meant to be out, but 50,000 "trainers and advisers" will remain until the end of 2011, and 10,000 even longer. The US is in the process of recruiting 7,000 security contractors (mercenaries) to back up their power.

Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Anthony Shadid (New York Times) reports 1 car bombing which took the life of a Sahwa leader. Mohammed Tawfeeq and CNN identify the dead is Mithaq Salman Falih and note a Baghdad roadside bombing which wounded two people, a Mosul grenade attack which injured three Iraqi soldiers. Reuters drops back to "late on Monday" to note a Baghdad mortar attack which injured one person.
Shootings?
Anthony Shadid (New York Times) reports 1 "municipal official . . . shot dead" in Baghdad. Mohammed Tawfeeq and CNN identify the dead as Ahmed Hassan. Reuters drops back to "late on Monday" to note two police officers were injured in a Baghdad assault (one bystander was also injured).
Moving to the US, the editorial board of the Delaware County Daily Times observes, "It is easy to sympathize and treat visible wounds, but the illness veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are reporting is difficult to diagnose, often discounted as an excuse by some, and tough to treat. Of the more than 2 million troops who have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, it is estimated that one in five return with post-traumatic stress disorder. Yet, only 78,000 of the 150,000 troops diagnosed with PTSD have been awarded disability claims." The board notes the deaths of Matthew Magdzas, April Olse-Magdzas, their child Lila Magdzas and the family's three dogs -- all apparently dead at the hands of Matthew who was a 23-year-old Iraq War veteran. Mike Simonson (Wisconsin Public Radio) quotes City Council member and Iraq War and Afghanistan War veteran Greg Mertzig stating, "I know by being deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan, it's a huge, hard adjustment. When I got back from my deployment . . . I had some difficulties finding a job. I found myself a little disgruntled and upset with how things were going." Hawaii also saw multiple murders and a suicide, apparently carried out by an Iraq War veteran. The Honolulu Star-Advertiser reports that Iraq War veteran Clayborne Conley is suspected of murdering Kristine Cass and her teenage daughter (Saundra) and then taking his own life. Conley is rumored to have suffered from PTSD.

In other violence news, there's an update to the 2007 murder of Lance Cpl Maria Lauterbach who was murdered while she was eight months pregnant. Amy Thorpe (News 14 -- link has text and video) reports Cesar Laurean was convicted of first degree murder yesterday: "Jurors sided with the state that the defendant wanted to salvage his military career after Lauterbach accused him of rape. Prosecutors said the defendant had a plan to make it seem she went AWOL by sending her to Mexico. An SBI pathologist testified and said Lauterbach's blood was in the Laurean's garage and on a crowbar the prosecution said killed her." His family is quoted worrying about him and expressing no remorse for his actions. For those who've forgotten, he murdered her, dug a hole/pit in his backyard and attempted to destroy her body that way. Maria's body was only discovered when his wife called the authorities to say he'd confessed to her that he'd killed Maria. Chris Brown and Andrew Doud (WNCT -- link has text and video) report that the verdict was returned in "less than 3 hours." In the video, Mary Lauterbach is shown explaining:

This case has begin a tragedy from beginning to end. It started with Maria's chain of command and the NCIS agents who would not listen to me. They cast Maria as a deserter without making any connection with her sexual assault allegation.

For those who've forgotten, Cesar eventually ended up in Mexico. How did that happen? The military refused to take anything seriously. He was the prime suspect. The police were moving in and the military -- despite the rape charge and the fact that Maria was missing -- didn't even bother to keep an eye on him. Emily Friedman (ABC News -- link has text and video) reports: "Sources familiar with the probe told ABC News at the time that Laurean boarded a bus in Raleigh-Durham, N.C., and then rode to Houston. In Houston, he allegedly boarded another bus and then traveled to San Luis Potosi, a state in central Mexico. The massive three-month international manhunt eventually culminated in Lauren's capture in Mexico in April 2008. Mexican police on an anti-kidnapping operation reportedly spotted Laurean wandering the street and became suspicious when they realized he didn't speak Spanish very well."
As noted in yesterday's snapshot, there have been some truth tellers despite the media spin on the drawdown. We'll continue to highlight them this week. Today, we'll note Cindy Sheehan, "Deja Vu All Over Again" (Peace of the Action):
My son, Casey and at least 4000 more troops have been killed in Iraq since George Bush's famous Captain Codpiece moment when he flew onto the deck of the Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier near San Diego and declared an "end to major combat" in Iraq. At that point, my son's division, the First Cavalry's, imminent deployment to Iraq was canceled (but later rescheduled). I remember the day that happened on May 1st, 2003 Casey called me from Ft. Hood and we I discussed the fact that the war was over. Now, in a stultifying display of deja vu, the Obama administration is declaring another end to combat in Iraq seven years, three months, and 18 days after BushCo's declaration. Not only is this an astounding display of re-framework, many people are going to believe it. I just saw a commentator on MSNBC(GE) telling everyone that President Barack Obama ended the war in Iraq ahead of schedule. Dozens of Iraqis were killed this past week and I think that they didn't get the memo about the war being over, either. People are still going to die -- soldiers will still be killed because the Iraqis have always seen them as oppressors and occupiers, not saviors.
And we'll close with Iraq Veterans Against the War's "The Iraq Debacle: The Legacy of Seven Years of War:"
We, the undersigned organizations and individuals, mark the August 31st partial withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq with the following evaluation and recommendations:
* The U.S. occupation of Iraq continues and the reduction of U.S. troops in Iraq can at best be called only a rebranded occupation. While the number of U.S. troops in Iraq will be reduced from a high of 165,000, there will still be 50,000 troops left behind, some 75,000 contractors, five huge "enduring bases" and an Embassy the size of Vatican City.
* The U.S. military's overthrow of the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein did not lead to a better life for Iraqis—just the opposite. It resulted in the further destruction of basic infrastructure—electricity, water, sewage—that continues to this day. The U.S. dropped more tons of bombs on Iraq than in all of WWII, destroying Iraq's electrical, water and sewage systems. Iraq's health care and higher education systems, once the best in the entire region, have been decimated. The U.S. war on Iraq unleashed a wave of violence that has left over one million Iraqis dead and four million displaced, as well as ethnic rivalries that continue to plague the nation. We have seriously wounded millions of Iraqis, creating a lifetime of suffering and economic hardship for them, their communities and the entire nation as it struggles to rebuild.
Life expectancy for Iraqis fell from 71 years in 1996 to 67 years in 2007 due to the war and destruction of the healthcare system. The U.S. use of weapons such as depleted uranium and white phosphorous has taken a severe toll, with the cancer rate in Fallujah, for example, now worse than that of Hiroshima.
* The majority of the refugees and internally displaced persons created by the US intervention have been abandoned. Of the nearly 4 million refugees, many are now living in increasingly desperate circumstances in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and around the world. As undocumented refugees, most are not allowed to work and are forced to take extremely low paying, illegal jobs ($3/day) or rely on the UN and charity to survive. The United Nations refugee agency (UNHCR) has documented a spike in the sex trafficking of Iraqi women.
* Iraq still does not have a functioning government. Many months after the March 7 elections, there is still a political vacuum and violence that is killing roughly 300 civilians a month. There is no functioning democracy in place and little sign there will be one in the near future.
* The Iraq War has left a terrible toll on the U.S. troops. More than one million American service members have deployed in the Iraq War effort. Over 4,400 U.S. troops have been killed and tens of thousands severely injured. More than one in four U.S. troops have come home from the Iraq war with health problems that require medical or mental health treatment. PTSD rates in the military have skyrocketed. In 2009, a record number of 245 soldiers committed suicide.
* The war has drained our treasury. As of August 2010, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $750 billion on the Iraq War effort. Counting the cost of lifetime care of wounded vets and the interest payments on the money we borrowed to pay for this war, the real cost will be in the trillions. This misappropriation of funds has contributed to the economic crises we are experiencing, including the lack of funds for our schools, healthcare, infrastructure and investments in clean, green jobs.
* The U.S. officials who got us into this disastrous war on the basis of lies have not been held accountable. Not George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld. No one. Neither have the Bush administration lawyers who authorized torture, including Jay Bybee and John Yoo. The "think tanks," journalists and pundits who perpetuated the lies have not been fired—most are today cheerleading for the war in Afghanistan.
* The war has led to the pillaging of Iraqi resources and institutionalization of corruption. The U.S. Department of Defense has been unable to account for $8.7 billion of Iraqi oil and gas money meant for humanitarian needs and reconstruction after the 2003 invasion. The invasion has also led to the erosion of Iraqi government control over the nation's oil. In 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, which included executives of America's largest energy companies, recommended opening up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment. The resulting draft Iraq Oil Law threatens global grab for Iraq's resources as the international oil cartel seeks to reestablish its control. Adoption of the oil law, however, has been stymied by stiff popular resistance, foremost by the oil workers and their union.
* The war has not made us more secure. The US policy of torture, extraordinary rendition, indefinite detention, violent and deadly raids on civilian homes, gunning down innocent civilians in the streets and absence of habeas corpus has fueled the fires of hatred and extremism toward Americans. The very presence of our troops in Iraq and other Muslim nations has become a recruiting tool.
Given the above, we, the undersigned individuals and organizations, mark the occasion of this troop withdrawal by calling on the Administration and Congress to take the following actions:
* Withdrawal of all U.S. troops and military contractors from Iraq and the closing of all U.S. bases;
* Reparations to help the Iraqis repair their basic infrastructure and increased funds for the millions of internally and externally displaced Iraqis;
* Full support for the U.S. troops who suffer from the internal and external wounds of war;
* Prosecution of those officials responsible for dragging our country into this disaster;
* Transfer of funds from war into resources to rebuild America, with a focus on green jobs.
* The lessons of this disastrous intervention should also be an impetus for Congress and the administration to end the war in Afghanistan. It's time to focus on creating real security here at home and rebuilding America.
Bay Area Labor Committee for Peace & Justice
CODEPINK: Women for Peace
Community Organizing Center
Courage to Resist
Fellowship of Reconciliation
Global Exchange
Institute for Policy Studies' New Internationalism Project
Iraq Veterans Against the War
Jeannette Rankin Peace Center
Just Foreign Policy
Military Families Speak Out
Nicholas (Nick) Dibs, Independent candidate for Congress
Pax Christi - USA
Under the Hood
United for Peace and Justice
US Labor Against the War
Veterans for Peace
Voices for Creative Nonviolence
Voters for Peace
War Is a Crime
Women's International League for Peace & Freedom (WILPF) Los Angeles Branch
See the following link for additional signatories:
http://www.womensaynotowar.org/article.php?id=5510
Posted by at

8/23/2010

latest on the gulf disaster

Out of Touch President

that's Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Out Of Touch President" from yesterday. barack and his never-ending vacations. considering all the time off he takes, you kind of get the idea that the little princess never wanted to be president.

let's talk the gulf disaster. no, it hasn't ended. and the latest development? today mandalit del barco had a report for all things considered (npr):


Until now, BP, the company that created the spill, had been handling the process. But on Monday, independent administrator Kenneth Feinberg took over as head of BP's $20 billion compensation fund.

On Monday morning, Feinberg held a town hall meeting — one of three held in the area — in Biloxi, Miss., one of the hardest hit regions of the Gulf.

"The Gulf Coast Claims Facility has replaced BP," he announced, adding that he would now be handling claims for BP's oil spill victims.


and kenny feinberg? he's insisting he's the 1 who came up with the rule that if you take a settlement from bp you can't later sue them.

he's bragging about that.

if true, he needs to be fired immediately.

you may think:

'rebecca, if they take $4,000 from bp for lost wages and then calculate that it was $6,000, that's on them.'

maybe.

but what if they take the settlement and ...

what if 10 years from now, they have tumors or birth defects and they go to sue only to learn that the u.s. government sold them down the river and they have no right to sue having taken the settlement money?

what if?

bp is a coporation.

forget the touchy-feely ads on tv, they do what makes them money.

and this rule makes them money.

if we had a working left, you better believe kenny and the government would be in trouble for forcing the victims into an either/or and sold their rights away.


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













































Posted by at
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)
Monday, August 23, 2010. Chaos and violence continues, the US military announced another death on Sunday, Joe Biden serves up a course in creative speaking, Margaret Hassan's killer has escaped from an Iraqi prison, Ayad Allawi tells Vladimir Putin that the US wants Iran's approval of any Iraqi government, Medea Benjamin tangles with Blackwater and more.

The Hindu explains, "Over 50,000 U.S. troops are to remain in Iraq, and their numbers could rise to 70,000. They will be called 'Advise and Assist brigades'; they have warplanes and helicopters and will accompany Iraqi troops into combat. The U.S. also has several big, effectively permanent military bases in Iraq; and intends to maintain about 200,000 mercenaries as 'protectors' of western business and other interests across the country." Before we get to anything else, we need to grasp that reality. A lot of spin was spun today.


In the United States this morning, Vice President Joe Biden gave a very strange speech. Matt Negrin (Politico) has the money quote if not the analytical ability to realize what he has: "Don't buy into 'we have failed in Afghanistan.' We are now only beginning, with the right general and the right number of forces, to seek our objectives." Anyone see the problem? That's a swipe on Stanley McChrystal. So McChrystal was the wrong general? Well darn that Bully Boy Bush for putting McChrystal in charge of Afghanistan. Oh wait, McChrystal was Barack's choice. Ann Scott Tyson (Washington Post), June 3, 2009: "Army Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, President Obama's choice to lead the war in Afghanistan, said yesterday that violence and combat deaths will intensify as more U.S. troops surge into Taliban-held areas, but he vowed to execute a "holistic" strategy in which killing insurgents would be subordinate to safeguarding Afghan civilians. McChrystal, a former Special Operations commander, pledged that if confirmed he will take extreme measures to avoid Afghan civilian casualties -- a problem that has long tarnished the U.S.-led military campaign -- putting civilians at risk only when necessary to save the lives of coalition troops." So Barack's been overseeing a war for how long? He chose the wrong general and it took him how long to realize that?

Biden was there to talk about Iraq and, though he knows better, he gave the usual sap and sop. Instead of talking about how the service members should have the public's 'gratitude,' he should have offered the government's sympathy for sending them off to fight an illegal war and a war built on lies. Joe was in crowd pleaser mode and nothing he said matched with the facts.

"You would not recognize the country today!" he insisted. As proof he pointed to the ethnic cleansing/civil war of 2006 and 2007. That would be the ethnic cleansing which created the Iraqi refugee crisis. After you create 4.1 million refugees (higher by some estimates), you would see less violence but, of course, the thugs need someone new to target and it's a damn shame, A DAMN SHAME, that neither Joe Biden or Barack Obama has said one damn word about the targeting of Iraq's LGBT community. It is as shameful as the long silence Ronald Reagan had on AIDS and they -- Joe and Barack -- better accept how ugly this will look historically on their record. The LGBT community targeted and they never said a word.

On the t hetargeting, at Huffington Post, Jennifer Utz notes:

Last October, New York Magazine published a horrifying article about the persecution of gays in Iraq. The article describes men presumed to be homosexuals being hunted down, tortured, and shot dead at close range. The militias that commit these horrific acts often leave the bodies on the side of the road, with the word "PERVERT" taped to their chests.
But an even more brutal method of torture and murder has been adopted. Militias use super glue to close the men's anuses, and then force them to drink a fluid that induces diarrhea, causing them to explode from the inside.
As a filmmaker, I spent eight months living in Syria documenting the lives of gay Iraqi men.
One of them, a 24 year-old, left his Baghdad home after a note arrived on his front door reading "If your gay son doesn't leave the country, we'll kill the whole family." He told me he considered himself lucky -- "at least they warned me."


Jennifer Utz has started Iraqi Refugee Stories to tell the stories of the world's largest refugee crisis. Joe Biden heaped praise on the drawdown of 'combat troops' and declared this morning, of Iraq's security forces, that they "are 650,000 strong and already leading the way to defend and protect their country." Robert Fisk (Independent of London via ZNet) observes:


So we should not be taken in by the tomfoolery on the Kuwaiti border in the last few hours, the departure of the last "combat" troops from Iraq two weeks ahead of schedule. Nor by the infantile cries of "We won" from teenage soldiers, some of whom must have been 12-years-old when George W Bush sent his army off on this catastrophic Iraqi adventure. They are leaving behind 50,000 men and women - a third of the entire US occupation force - who will be attacked and who will still have to fight against the insurgency.



Yes, officially they are there to train the gunmen and militiamen and the poorest of the poor who have joined the new Iraqi army, whose own commander does not believe they will be ready to defend their country until 2020. But they will still be in occupation - for surely one of the "American interests" they must defend is their own presence - along with the thousands of armed and indisciplined mercenaries, western and eastern, who are shooting their way around Iraq to safeguard our precious western diplomats and businessmen. So say it out loud: we are not leaving.


Defend and protect their country? They don't even have the capabilities to secure their own borders which is, traditionally speaking, the first measure of a nation-state's level of security. (For those in doubt, look to Greece.) Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) reports that attempts are being made to integrate the Kurdish and the Iraqi forces and quotes US Lt Gen Michael Barbero stating, "The Iraqis realize they have to get the Iraqi Army focused on defending the sovereignty of Iraq. There is a realization that we have to move on and start doing this and get as far down the road as we can in the next 16 months." Arraf reminds, "Iraq, carved out of the remnants of the Ottoman Empire by the victors of World War II, borders six countries -- Saudi Arabia, Syria, Kuwait, Turkey, Jordan, and Iran."

On the latest Inside Iraq (Al Jazeera, began airing on Friday), Jane Dutton explored the current state of Iraq.

Jane Dutton: Iraqis have endured invasion, economic stagnation, wars, sanctions and internal conflict for decades. Today in the aftermath of the seven year war in Iraq, citizens lack even the most basic of services leaving many of them feeling helpless, desperate and in utter disbelief that their homeland is still in a state of chaos. Now the United Nations is promising to create a better future for the people of Iraq. The UN will work closely with a government, civil organizations, academia and the private sector to achieve a series of development goals in Iraq. These goals are: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, achieve universal primary education, promote gender equality and empower women, reduce child mortality, improve maternal health, combat HIV/AIDs, malaria and other diseases, ensure environmental sustainability and create global partnership for development. To find out more about the Millenium Development Goals and whether the UN will be able to achieve in developing them, I'm joined from Erbil by Christine McNab. Ms. McNab is a director of the office of development and humanitarian support at the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq and also the United Nations' resident and humanitarian coordinator for Iraq. And from Baghdad, by Ali Babin, the Iraqi Minister of Planning and Development Cooperation. Welcome both of you to the program. Ms. McNab, the very comendable goals, these Millineum Goals, but how do you plan to go about achieving them?

Christine McNab: It's not really a matter of whether they're comendable, it's a matter of the fact that they are very, very good shorthand for a developmental agenda of any country. And even in a country like Iraq which is still struggling with the impact of conflict. They do give us very clear guidelines of what needs to be done. They're not just development goals because they also concentrate on the most vulnerable. So they're also humanitarian goals. Can we achieve them by 2015? It's possible. It's going to be very, very difficult -- partly because of the violence. But we are working closely with the ministries and the Minister of Planning is one of our close partners. We have a network of 600 UN workers across the country -- these are national staff. We have another 150 international staff who are working in and out of the country as possible. And this is done in close coordination -- as you said -- with local NGOs. And the local NGOs and our staff are going to be the real heroes of the Millenium Development Goals because we can help them and we can support them with government. And, especially with the local government and local societies, they are already making a difference.

Jane Dutton: But this is a very big week for Iraq. You touched on the violence, it's one of the bloodiest months since the invasion. The US troops have pulled out which will eventually leave Iraq with only 50,000 support troops. There's sewage running down the street in certain parts of the country. The basic services aren't there. Who really cares about these goals? Who has the desire to push them forward?

Christine McNab: Are you still asking me --

Jane Dutton: I'm asking you Ms. McNab.

Christine McNab: -- or are you asking the Minister?

Jane Dutton: I am asking you.

Christine McNab: Okay, well who has the desire? I certainly have the desire and my team has the desire but that's not enough. It has to come from within, it has to come from the country. And I don't quite recognize the picture you painted because although there is terrific violence going on, there's also normal life going on in many parts of the country, many governorates. People are actually able to go about their business. Hospitals have been rebuilt or new hospitals built. We have been rebuilding the schools. The access to clean water is increasing. And I would be the first to admit it's not fast enough. Sanitation still is a huge issue. And the environment has been terribly neglected.

Jane Dutton: Mr. Baban --

Christine McNab: Women are getting --

Jane Dutton: Excuse me --

Christine McNab: -- better access.

Jane Dutton: Okay, Mr. Baban do you support these goals, do you think that this is something that is achievable in your country?

Ali Baban: Of course, we achieve a lot. But the problem, as you diagnose it, the lack of stablity in the country. The country face many challenges. The chaos, the political antagonism, the lack of stability -- this is the main problems and challenges the country faces. I think without defeating, without overcoming those problems, we cannot achive a lot. You cannot -- You are not talking about a normal country. You are talking about an extraordinary situation. So we should take that in our consideration.

Jane Dutton: How do you think these goals which are often cited as being better suited to Africa, how do you think they fit into this middle-income country of yours?

Ali Baban: Of course the humanitarian need is equal -- are equal around the world. So I think the problem now that Iraqi people can overcome their antagonism -- political antagonism -- and go for work for development. Iraq, as you know and as all people know, is a rich country. So there is no lack of money and we have everything in this country. We have the fortune. But the problem mainly concentrate on development

Jane Dutton: Let's put that to Ms. McNab. How does the UN view this political standoff at the moment. Five months on and there's still no credible government or there's no government at all.

There is no goverment. March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board notes, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." 163 seats are needed to form the executive government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher -- 163 is the number today but the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance -- this coalition still does not give them 163 seats. They are claiming they have the right to form the government. In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister. It's now 5 months and 16 days. Phil Sands (National Newspaper) notes that if the stalemate continues through September 8th, it will then be a half a year since Iraqis voted.

And Joe Biden, with a straight face, declared to the VFW today, "It's because politics and nationalism has broken out in Iraq." [Jon Garcia, Karen Travers and Jake Tapper (ABC News) quote him stating, "Politics, not war, has broken out in Iraq." I'm sure they are correct that he said that but I'm going by the speech as it was written, working from the prepared text.] Politics have not broken out in Iraq. They've broken in Iraq. Five months after an election and you still can't form the government? That's a broken process. US national security types threatening Iraqi politicians with "state of emergency" being declared if they don't form a government? That's a broken process. US suggesting that a new position -- that Allawi or Nouri could take -- be created out of whole cloth and contrary to the country's Constitution? That's a broken process. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported: on the stalemate yesterday and quoted Hoshyar Zebari, Foreign Minister, stating, "In Washington, I told them, 'It would be embarrassing if you left and there's no government in place.' The U.S. will still have a substantial force here, but it needs to use it to produce results. . . . The Iraqi leaders are at an impasse, and we need help from our American friends." Doesn't sound as sweet as the words flowing from Joe's mouth.

Andrew England (Financial Times of London) reports that State Of Law and Iraqiya are supposed to begin talks again today and that the break off in talks over Nouri al-Maliki's assertion (on state TV) that Iraqiya was a "Sunni" party/slate have been mitigated by an elaboration/explanation on Nouri's part. Talks have broken off before and may again. Meanwhile the Voice of Russia reports that Ayad Allawi is supposed to make a trip to Russia shortly to, in the words of an Iraqiya spokesperson, "establish trust relations between Iraq and its friends."

Joe was crowd-pleasing so much, his nose should have grown 17 inches. Certainly he was orbiting the earth and no longer bound by gravity or facts when he declared that Iraqis voted for the people they wanted to and none of these candidates "were wanted by Iran." Uh, no, Joe. No.

In fact, that's not just wrong, that's grossly wrong, that's insulting. Did the Iraqi people get to vote for the candidates they wanted to? Does no one remember the Justice and Accountability Commission that purged multiple candidates from the lists? And Ahmed Chalabi and his pal Ali al-Lami were working on whose authority? Iran. So not only were voters denied the chance to vote for some candidates they would have liked to have, Iran pretty much ran through the lists. And the winners? Nouri's beloved by Iran. (The US wants Nouri because Nouri's indicated -- according to State Dept friends -- that he will gladly go along with extending the US occupation if he is made prime minister. So it's no surprise that Joe is spinning so wildly for Nouri.) Politics have broken out, declared Joe today but the Financial Times of London points out, "The reality is that the political space the surge was meant to open up created a vacuum that remains unfilled. Iraq's elections are the Arab world's freest, but nearly six months on from the last polls politicians have still not managed to form a new government. And not only the state, but Iraqi society is broken. One in six Iraqis, disproportionately middle-class professionals, have fled their homes, around half for other countries."

Earlier today the Voice of Russia reported that Ayad Allawi was to make a trip to Russia in order to, in the words of an Iraqiya spokesperson, "establish trust relations between Iraq and its friends." Alsumaria TV reports he has met with Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and Allawi stated the US opposed him becoming prime minister and that they will not back anyone who does not have "good relations with Iran".

Joe insisted, "I am absolutely confident that Iraq will form a national unity government that will be able to sustain the country." Really? It hasn't so far. And that includes the 2005 election that led to the formation (April 2006) of Nouri's government. That government did not sustain the country. Saturday in Nasiriyah, there was a demonstration. Bassem Attiya (AFP) reports that nineteen people were injured in the demonstration with people shouting, "Where is the electricity?" Press TV adds that 40 people were arrested. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) estimates 200 people participated in the protests "over power outages and bad basic services." Nouri's been prime minister for over four years now -- in large part because he kicked back the elections (missing the scheduled date) and in part because he refused to step aside -- so that's all on him, Joe.

Turning to legal news, David Batty (Guardian) reports that the only person convicted (Ali Lufti Jassar) in the 2004 kidnapping and killing of CARE International's Margaret Hassan has escaped from prison at some point and appears to have been aided in his prison break. Mohammed Tawfeeq and CNN add:

[Deputy Justice Minister Busho] Ibrahim said officials did not know of al-Rawi's escape until a month ago. The British Embassy last month said Foreign Secretary William Hague spoke of the matter to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari. "Mr. Zebari assured Mr. Hague that the Iraqi government were aware of the case and were keen to ensure justice," an embassy statement said.
A spokesman for Hassan's family said in a statement last month that al-Rawi had been due in court July 16 as part of an appeal against his conviction. Concern was growing over his fate, as he had missed some earlier hearings, the statement said. The court was told he had escaped in an "incident."
"Jassar is known to be part of the gang that kidnapped and killed my sister," said Deirdre Manchanda, Hassan's sister, in the statement. "We have fought for justice for six years, only to find that not one member of this gang can be brought to justice."
Hassan's family only wants to know where her remains are and bring them home for burial, she said. "We can only ever hope to do that if he is recaptured and brought back to face justice."

AFP reports the British Foreign Office issued the following statement: "Justice must be done for this dreadful crime, committed against someone who dedicated her life to helping all Iraqis." The Irish Independent adds, "Last night, one of Mrs Hassan's sisters, Geraldine Riney, said the family was still looking for Margaret's remains to be returned to them." In other prison news, Trudy Rubin (Philadelphia Inquirer) reports that Salem, her driver who was assisting the US military, was released from jail finally but now is living an underground life to avoid retaliation from Shi'ite militias and that his two sons remain imprisoned.


Sunday the US military announced: "CONTINGENCY OPERATING BASE BASRA, Iraq – A United States Forces -- Iraq Soldier was killed today in Basra province while conducting operations in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. The names of service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense official website at http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/. The announcements are made on the Web site no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. The incident is under investigation." Martin Chulov (Guardian) explains, "Details of the incident were not released, but Basra airport base, which is still home to about 4,000 US forces, had experienced increased numbers of rocket attacks in recent weeks as the deadline drew near for the withdrawal of combat troops. Two soldiers suffered minor wounds in a rocket strike early last week, and rockets have hit the Green Zone in Baghdad almost daily for the past month." The announcement brought the total number of US service members killed in the Iraq War since it began to 4417.

In today's reported violence, Saad Abdul-Kadir (AP) reports at least 3 people died in Baghdad "overnight and early Monday" and at least twenty more were left injured -- two died from mortar shells (three wounded), 1 Iraqi soldier killed in Ramadi (six people wounded), three Iraqi soldiers wounded in a Mosul grenade attack. Reuters notes a Sulaimaniya mortar attack (from Iran) which injured one person and 5 people shot dead in Haditha. Mohammed Tawfeeq and CNN explain the five were employees of the Oil Ministry and that the killers escaped with a ton of money (approximately $400,000 in US dollars). Meanwhile Hugh Sykes (BBC News) reports, "Iraqi police have broken up an alleged al-Qaeda gang whose members have been killing traffic police in Baghdad, officials said."


The top US commander in Iraq, Gen Ray Odierno hit the US airwaves yesterday. James Gordon Meek (New York Daily News) told CNN's State of the Union that the US "could be there [in Iraq] beyond 2011." For many other outlets the 'news' was something else. AP thinks the news is that Odierno stated the US could resume combat operations (unlikely, says Odierno, but possible). Don Lee (Los Angeles Times) thinks that the big and new news too. By contrast, Xinhua leads with the same point Meek sees as news:

Top U.S. commander in Iraq Ray Odierno said on Sunday that the United States could have a military presence in Iraq well after 2011 when all U.S. troops are set to leave.
Less than two weeks before the scheduled end of U.S. combat operations in Iraq, Odierno told CNN's Candy Crowley on Sunday talk show "State of the Union" that he could imagine a scenario where "we could be there beyond 2011."


So which is the big news?


That call can be made. The news is that the US could be in Iraq beyond 2011. That's news thanks to the news industry. Despite a cranky CBS gas bag's claim that the internet is repeating rumors (I would guess that would be AM Talk show radio hosts, actually, but Bob Schieffer's not going to go there and risk being called out on radio) while CBS doesn't repeat rumors. (CBS legal department came to a different conclusion, Bob, or have you forgotten the AWOL Bush story on 60 Minutes II?) The reality is that CBS is among the multitude of outlets that have spent the last 18 months plus insisting that the Status Of Forces Agreement means that the Iraq War ends in 2011. That's not what it means, that's never been what it means. But the media outlets have overwhelming 'reported' otherwise. That makes Odierno's statements on that aspect news. And he told Bob that Sunday on Face The Nation (CBS News -- link has text and video), "If they ask us that they might want us to stay longer, we certainly would consider that. That would obviously be a policy decision that would be made by the national security team and the president over time." The "national security team"? Ray Odierno spoonfed press types a mouthful in that statement but watch them all play dumb again and pretend Hillary's running Iraq. And if you're still not getting it, read "Blame Hillary" at Third, and key point for those who can't grasp reality:

Let's set aside reality for just a moment and pretend Hillary will be over 'an army' in Iraq. If that's true (it's not true), why would there be anger at Hillary? If Barack was putting Hillary in charge of such an apparatus, the anger should be aimed at him.
Or have we all forgotten the Christ-child's fabled 'superior sense of judgment.' You know, the super power which allows him to, after the fact, know what should have been done? Some call it Monday morning quarterbacking, others call it Barack Obama's glorious know-how.
And remember how in campaign appearance after campaign appearance and debate after debate, he declared himself right on Iraq and Hillary wrong? Have you forgotten that?
If Hillary were being put in charge of Iraq, it would be the biggest slap in the face to Barack Obama's primary supporters you could imagine. They'd elected to vote for him and not Hillary due to the Iraq War and, yet, she's being placed (by him) in charge of the Iraq War?
It's not happening but, if it were, the Cult of St. Barack should be storming the barricades and issuing cries of, "Barry, how could you!!!!"

So Bob and CBS, where was your SOFA reporting in real time? Where did you explain to the American people that the SOFA didn't mean the end of the Iraq War? That's right, you never did. The didn't lie on the other aspect: US troops returning to combat. They just rarely reported it; however, they did report it.

You can refer to the November 2, 2007 "Iraq snapshot" the Third Estate Sunday Review's "NYT: 'Barack Obama Will Keep Troops In Iraq'" and the latter is based on the transcript of the interview conducted by Michael Gordon and Jeff Zeleny with then-candidate Barack Obama (the transcript was much more illuminating than what Gordon and Zeleny wrote up for the article that the paper ran).

In the case of the SOFA, the media -- with very few exceptions -- has repeatedly and wrongly 'informed' that it means the end of the Iraq War. They practiced -- as we noted in real time -- prediction, prophecy, etc. but they were not practicing reporting. Reporting is telling readers what has happened. Barack's plan to send combat troops back into Iraq after pulling them out if things went badly was reported on. It wasn't emphasized -- didn't fit the falese image the press was attempting to paint for the Cult of St. Barack -- but it was reported.

The SOFA? They're still misreporting it. Take a look at the USA Today editorial board today serving up this crap: "Seven years after the invasion and 16 months before the last U.S. soldier is scheduled to depart, few would be bold enough to proclaim victory in Iraq or foolish enough to declare defeat. Instead, U.S. operations seem destined to end in a slow, unsatisfying fadeout as Iraq muddles its way into an uncertain future. This will leave the U.S. to play a high-stakes endgame with steadily decreasing sway." Scheduled to depart? There's no such schedule at current, there never has been. Contract law isn't a tricky thing. We went over this repeatedly in the last nearly two years. And yet it's still a 'surprise' and 'news' to many because the media continues to get it wrong. And that, Bob Schieffer, is far more damaging than an opinion someone holds about whether or not someone else belongs to this religion, that religion or no religion. And, in fact, what Simmi Aujla (Politico) does is so questionable, Politico should review Aujla's resume (Aujla emphasizes the combat aspect but insists that Odierno "said the country will be ready for the U.S. withdrawal to be completed in Sept. 2011" without noting that Odierno stated US forces could remain in Iraq after 2011.

A few people are telling the truth about what did and did not happen last week (no, Virginia, the war did not end). We'll try to spotlight a few of them each day this week and we'll start with two today. Last week Barack offered some pretty lies and the media ran with them. Bill Van Auken (WSWS) observed:

The White House and the Pentagon, assisted by a servile media, have hyped Thursday's exit of a single Stryker brigade from Iraq as the end of the "combat mission" in that country, echoing the ill-fated claim made by George W. Bush seven years ago.
Obama is more skillful in packaging false propaganda than Bush, and no doubt has learned something from the glaring mistakes of his predecessor. Bush
landed on the deck of the US aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003 to proclaim -- under a banner reading "Mission Accomplished" -- that "major combat operations" in Iraq were over. A captive audience of naval enlisted personnel was assembled on deck as cheering extras.
Obama wisely did not fly to Kuwait to deliver a similar address from atop an armored vehicle. He merely issued a statement from the White House, while leaving the heavy lifting to the television networks and their "embedded" reporters, who accompanied the brigade across the border into Kuwait and repeated the propaganda line fashioned by the administration and the military brass.

Anthony Cordesman offered similar thoughts in "Iraq: 'Mission Accomplished' Mark II":

Well, he did not wear a flight suit, stand on a carrier deck, or have a "Mission Accomplished" banner behind him. The fact remains, however, that President Obama did issue a second "mission accomplished statement on Iraq on August 18th, and one just as wrong and irresponsible as the one given by President Bush:

Today, I'm pleased to report that -- thanks to the extraordinary service of our troops and civilians in Iraq -- our combat mission will end this month, and we will complete a substantial drawdown of our troops...By the end of this month, 50,000 troops will be serving in Iraq. As Iraqi Security Forces take responsibility for securing their country, our troops will move to an advise-and-assist role. And, consistent with our agreement with the Iraqi government, all of our troops will be out of Iraq by the end of next year. Meanwhile, we will continue to build a strong partnership with the Iraqi people with an increased civilian commitment and diplomatic effort.


Political posturing is the norm in Washington, and claiming victory and an end
to a war is far more popular than bearing the burden of leadership and dealing
with reality. The Iraq War is not over and it is not "won." In fact, it is at as critical a stage as at any time since 2003. Regardless of the reasons for going to war, everything now depends on a successful transition to an effective and unified
Iraqi government, and Iraqi security forces that can bring both security and stability to the average Iraqi. The creation of such an "end state" will take a minimum of another five years, and probably ten.

Iraq still faces a serious insurgency, and deep ethnic and sectarian tensions. In spite of its potential oil wealth, its economy is one of the poorest in the world in terms of real per capita income, and it is the second year of a budget crisis that has force it to devote most state funds to paying salaries and maintaining employment at the cost of both development and creating effective security forces.

Other voices telling the truth that we'll highlight in the week are Cindy Sheehan and Medea Benjamin and, on the latter, we'll close with the opening of Medea's "Blackwater vs. Pinkwater: The Wife of Eric Prince Picks a Fight With CODEPINK" (War Is A Crime.org):

It felt surreal to be inside the home of Erik Prince, the founder, owner and chairman of Blackwater (or Xe, as it is now called). Prince, a former Navy Seal, provides security for the CIA, the Pentagon and the State Department. His company trains 40,000 people a year in skills that include personal protection. Yet his home in McLean, Virginia, has no security. None. Not even a fence or a guard dog or a No Trespassing sign. And his mother-in-law, who helps care for his young children, invited a total stranger--me--into his home without hesitation.

I had gone to Princes' home, together with two CODEPINK colleagues, assuming it would be empty. I'd read in the New York Times that Mr. Prince and his family had moved out of the country, fleeing from a series of civil lawsuits, criminal charges and Congressional investigations stemming from his company's contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to the news, "In documents filed last week in a civil lawsuit brought by former Blackwater employees accusing Mr. Prince of defrauding the government, Mr. Prince sought to avoid giving a deposition by stating that he had moved to Abu Dhabi [which is in the United Arab Emirates] in time for his children to enter school there on August 15." Susan Burke, the lawyer seeking the deposition, announced that she was flying to the Emirates to find him.

I had been feeling particularly upset about Blackwater lately. Seeing the combat troops leaving Iraq, I'd been thinking about the banner CODEPINK members held in countless anti-war vigils: "Iraq War: Who Lies? Who Dies? Who Pays? Who Profits?" Politicians lied about weapons of mass destruction, Iraqis and American soldiers died, U.S. taxpayers paid, and companies like Blackwater make a killing. In just a few years, Blackwater received over $1 billion in U.S. government contracts, contracts that accounted for 90 percent of its revenue. Erik Prince, the company's sole owner, was now taking his profits, trying to sell the company and running away to the Emirates, a country that has no extradition treaty with the United States.


iraq
the washington post
ann scott tyson
the chrisitan science monitor
jane arraf
abc news
jake tapper
karen travers
the financial times of london
andrew england
the voice of russia
the guardian
david batty
trudy rubin
the philadelphia inquirer
martin chulov
wsws
bill van auken
the washington post
leila fadel
robert fisk
bbc news
hugh sykes
the new york daily news
james gordon meek
the associated press
the los angeles times
don lee
xinhua
usa today
politico
simmi aujla
alsumaria tv