on sunday, Univision aired a democratic party forum (with an outstanding offer to do the same with the republican candidates for their party's nomination). joe biden didn't participate.
which must have been a real shame for him because he missed his chance to take pot shots at hugo chavez.
did you realize that hugo chavez was the biggest problem in the u.s.? a democratically elected leader in venezuela is apparently our biggest problem.
chris dodd (whom my in-laws know) made it into the u.s. senate somehow. asked about immigration ('immigration reform the first year?'), doddy decided the immediate answer to addressing immigration in the united states was ... attacking hugo chavez:
We're allowing Hugo Chavez to become -- winning a public relations battle in Latin America, because we don't invest enough and care about people who are suffering in this part of the world.
no, crazy ass, chavez is popular in latin america for a number of reasons and 'a public relations battle' isn't going to change anything. the problems for the u.s. and its image in latin america is not an issue of 'branding' - it's the fact that latin america has been repeatedly attacked (in every way) by the u.s.
at another point, senator crazy dodd declares, 'i'm old enough to remember when richard nixon's car was stoned in caracas, venezuela, in the late 1950s.' i suppose that was due to hugo chavez as well, chris dodd?
he wasn't done. he ended that long winded answer by declaring, 'we shouldn't as i said earlier, be losing public relations battles to hugo chavez. we have more to say to the hopes and aspirations of people in latin america than hugo chavez does if we engage directly, and i will as president of the united states.' forgive me for finding nutso scary but i remember how the u.s. 'engaged' during the 80s in el salvador, honduras, nicaragua ...
because howdy dowdy couldn't shut up about chavez, he became the question for john edwards. let me refresh your memories, john edwards can't support same-sex marriage because of his religious beliefs.
his church condones killing and lying?
it must. here is his response:
Well, the starting place is one of our problems witth our relationship with Venezuela and one of the problems with Cahvez's basis for power in Venezuela is they have a very heavily oil-dependent economy. The United States of America unfortunately helps feed the oil-dependent economy and the power base for this dangerous leader.
well get back to insane edwards' response in a second but venezuela does not have a problem with 'a very heavily oil-dependent economy.' they have oil. it's only a problem from outside their country. john edwards fell so low in my opinion of him with that bullsh*t answer. now here's some more manure from farm boy john. he's yammering and i'm sick of him so let me just explain he's saying we can win a p.r. 'war' but we're just not fighting it hard enough! edwards stick to trials and not p.r., you're out of your depth.
That is the reason that Chavez can be so effective in brining others in Latin America to surround him when he demonizes the United States of America.
john edwards really was disgusting. no wonder he can't call for all troops out of iraq. hugo chavez has never demonized the u.s. he has criticized strongly the policies. john edwards needs to grow the f**k up. i wonder if the crakatoa suffering simon rosenberg gave him tips for what to say? or maybe it was the party hack david sirota? both of them have some serious lust for hugo chavez. probably trying to displace their sexual longings for the man by getting all angry.
he's not done and telling the crowd how to 'pull the rug out from under a man like hugo chavez.'
why don't you talk impeachment because hugo chavez hasn't started an illegal war?
john edwards is still just a bouncy hair cut with highlights. there's apparently no brain there or he wouldn't make so many idiotic and war hawk noises.
mike gravel was also brought into the question and, no surprise, he showed the wisdom the others lack. he was asked if he considered chavez a dictator and would break relations with him?
No, not at all. In fact, I would reach out to him. Do we forget that on a weekend our CIA tried to depose him? Do we forget that? And of course -- so, is he an enemy? No, he's not an enemy. We've created him as an enemy. We're doing the same thing with Iran. What's the differencee if Chavez deals with Iran? We hope that a lot of countries begin to interchange tehir leadership and begin to think about the globe as one entity. There's nothing wrong.
The same thing with Fidel Castro. Why can't we recognize Cuba? Why -- what's the big deal, after 25 year that these people 125 miles from this country are discriminated against? It makes no sense at all.
We need to open up our arms to all nations and treat them as friends, not start looking for enemies.
so it wasn't all looney tunes on the subject of hugo chavez. as a tonic for the nonsense (and let's not pretend it wasn't xenophobia on display as well as arrogance), you can read i.s.r.'s 'Where is Venezuela going?'.
kat's covering several other aspects of the debate. and sunday's editorial in el espirito will be about the nonsense (by clinton, dodd and obama) about the wall between the u.s. and mexico.
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Tuesday, September 11, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, Petraeus continues to spin, the Democratic debate at the start of the week apparently requires the press to use White-Anglos to 'explain' what happened and why, and more.
Starting with war resisters, John Catalinotto (Workers World) takes a look at war resistance and observes, "Recruiting is way down among African Americans and contested throughout Puerto Rico. The military is drawing from an ever narrower base--small-town USA and immigrants desperate for a quicker road to legal status. Army, Marine and National Guard troops are sent for multiple and longer tours to Iraq and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, organizers of the GI anti-war movement gathered in St. Louis from Aug. 15 to 19 for conventions of Veterans for Peace and Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW). During the IVAW convention, IVAW elected a new board, and this board in turn selected by consensus one of the first war resisters, former Staff Sgt. Camilo Mejia, as its new chair-elect." Catalinotto then leads a dialogue with Different Drummer's Paul Foley, Appeal for Redress' Jonathan Hutto, and IVAW's Mejia, Margaret Stevens, Liam Madden and Phil Aliff. Stevens, who became the new treasurer for IVAW, points out, "It has political significance that Mejia is popular in the organization and respected as a war resister. It says a lot about what people think is the right way to challenge the problem. Camilo said three years ago: 'I won't participate. It is a bad military and I won't help participate.' It is a very courageous stand. He earned his stripes." Camilo Mejia tells the story of his stand and how he came to the decision in Road from Ar Ramadi: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia published last May.
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 [(877) 447-4487], 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.
Turning to violence in Iraq, Ali al-Fadhily (IPS) examines the violence being conducted by the rival Shia sects which "have spread across southern Iraq and Baghdad" and observes, "Many Iraqis are outraged at the government's inability to contain the crisis. They also say the government is making misleading statements." Meanwhile Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London via CounterPunch) points out a key factor missing in the 'Petraeus' 'report': "The truest indicator of the level of violence in Iraq is the number of people fleeing their homes because they are terrified that they will be murdered. According to the UN High Commission for Refugees the number of refugees has risen from 50,000 to 60,000 a month and none are returning. Iraqi society is breaking down. It is no longer possible to get medical treatment for many ailments because 75 per cent of doctors, pharmacists have left their jobs in the hospitals, clinics and universities. The majority of these have fled abroad to join the 2.2 million Iraqis outside the country." Today on Democracy Now!, Amy Goodman interviewed Rick Rowley and broadcast his documentary on the realities of the 'model' province, Al Anbar:
AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about General Petraeus's report, we're joined by filmmaker and journalist Rick Rowley of Big Noise Films. He has just returned from Iraq, where he closely tracked the situation in Anbar province. In a few minutes we'll broadcast a report that Rick shot in Anbar province, but first your comments on the testimony of Ambassador Crocker, Rick, and General Petraeus.
RICK ROWLEY: Well, when General Petraeus says that they're merely applauding these tribes from the sidelines, he's lying. I mean, while we were embedded with the Americans, we saw American military commanders hand wads of cash to tribal militias. And when he says that they are facilitating their integration into the country's security forces, what he means is they're pressuring Iraq's government to incorporate these militias wholesale into the police forces. In fact, that's one of the promises that these tribes are given, that after working with the Americans for a few months, they'll become Iraqi police, be armed by the Iraqi state and be put on regular payroll. So it's completely disingenuous, what he's saying.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain who these militias are in Anbar province that the US troops are working with.
RICK ROWLEY: Well, it's been widely reported that these are former insurgents who were fighting Americans in the past. And that, you know, is troubling for American soldiers. But the far more troubling issue for Iraq is that many of these groups are war criminals who are responsible for sectarian cleansing in the region.
We spent a month and a half in the country, and we crisscrossed Iraq. I was traveling with David Enders and met with the production support of Hiba Dawood, and we found entire communities of refugees who had been displaced by exactly the same tribes that the US had been working with in other parts of the country.
So, you know, it's one thing for Americans to call this a reconciliation process and say that, you know, we're fine with working with people who used to be fighting with us, but it's an entirely different thing for them to be funding groups who are already responsible for sectarian cleansing and are arming themselves for a sectarian civil war.
Remember, DN! offers audio, video and transcripts, watch, listen or read the exclusive report. In some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad mortar attack that left seven people wounded, a Baghdad car bombing that claimed 1 life and left five more wounded.
Shootings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an attack in Diyala that left 2 police officers shot dead, twelve police officers wounded, and 10 assailants dead. Reuters notes six police officers dead from a checkpoint appointment outside Qaiyara, an Iraqi "security officer" was shot dead in Riyadh while "an Iraqi army officer" was shot dead in Kirkuk. And, dropping back to yesterday, Robert H. Reid (AP) reports, "Also Monday, U.S. and Iraqi troops killed three civilians during a raid in Sadr City, police and residents said. Bleichwehl, the military spokesman, said the raid targeted a suspected Shiite extremist who eluded capture. He said there were no reports of civilian or military casualties. But residents showed AP Television News the coffins of the people they said were killed in the raid - a woman and her two daughters. A police officer, speaking on condition of anonymity for security reasons, confirmed they were killed in the firefight."
Kidnapping?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a student was kidnapped in the "village of Taxa (south Kirkuk)."
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 12 corpses were discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes a corpse was discovered in Abbasi.
Meanwhile, in DC, the circus goes on as Gen. David Petraeus maintains he wrote his own report -- and apparently dyed his own hair -- while repeating every bit of spin the Bully Boy's handlers could dream up. Cindy Sheehan observes of the US Congress' refusal to end the illegal war (observes at Common Dreams):
How do I know that Congress is playing politics with human hearts? All one has to do is observe the lack of action on the part of the red and blue pigs to come to this sad but inevitable conclusion. Apparently, MAJORITY Leader, Harry Reid (D-NV) has spent more time over his summer recess trying to convince red pigs to go against George's war plan than he spent trying to coalesce his blue caucus into something that would not resemble the red pigs so closely that the blur becomes purple. He and Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) have already decided that they do not have enough votes to end the occupation just as they decided that impeachment was "off the table" even before they were elected! So they will happily hand over to George more of your tax money and China's money to continue the killing fields in Iraq. Why are they so miserly with democracy, but generous with our treasury and with our dear human treasure? I got two very overt answers to this question one day in Congress this past spring when I was on the Hill. In one of my meetings with Congressman Conyers, he told me that it was more important to put a Democrat back in the White House in '08 than it was to "end the war." After I recovered from my shock, I knew it was confirmed that partisan politics is exactly what is killing our children and the innocent civilians in Iraq. My next stop was in a Congresswoman's office who has always been 100% correct about the war. She is a lovely woman with a lovely heart and does not in anyway qualify (and there are a few dozen others who do not) as a blue pig. She had tears in her eyes when she told me: "Cindy, when I go to Speaker's meetings and we talk about the war, all the talk is about politics and not one of them mentions the heartbreak that will occur if we don't pull our troops out, now." People are dying for two diverse but equally deadly political agendas. The red pigs want to keep the war going because they feed out of the trough of carnage and the blue pigs want to keep it going for votes! Either way is reprehensible.
Just Foreign Policy's Robert Naiman notes (at Common Dreams) of the Democrats' purchasing of the illegal war before their summer break, "It's true that under current Senate rules, on a free-standing bill, 60 votes would be needed on an Iraq bill to overcome a filibuster threat. (Why we tolerate that only 51 Senate votes are needed to confirm nominees to the Supreme Court who oppose fundamental civil rights protections for all Americans, but 60 Senate votes are needed to pass free-standing legislation to end the Iraq war, is a question that deserves a great deal of further scrutiny.) But as we saw on the fight over the supplemental, only 51 votes are needed to attach withdrawal language to legislation that continues to fund the war. With less than 60 votes, the Senate attached a timetable for withdrawal. The President, as expected, vetoed the legislation. Then the Senate backed down. There was no legal or constitutional reason for the Senate to back down. It was a political decision. As a legal matter, the outcome of a confrontation where the Senate and the President agree to fund something, but don't agree on the legislative language to go along with the funding, is undetermined. It's just a question of who blinks first. The Senate could have agreed to continue funding on a temporary basis while the confrontation continued -- that's what the House did -- but 51 Senators didn't have the stomach for that either." He goes on to explain that with Tim Johnson back in the Senate and Republican Senators indicating (such as Chuck Hagel again today) a break with the White House over Iraq, leadership could round up 51 votes. It's also true, as Ruth reminded us over the weekend, Mike Gravel laid out another way to get legislation through when he was a guest for the August 8, 2007 broadcast of NPR's The Diane Rehm Show:
Real simple. You see, they do a cloture vote. Oh one cloture vote, two, can't do it. Stop. Or an override veto. Can't do it? Stop. That's ridiculous. The rules permit to have a vote on cloture every single day, seven days a week, and all the way through this August recess which they're all taking -- and then when the bill comes back vetoed they can repeat it every single day and, I promise you, Diane, that in twenty, forty days we will have a law on the books to withdraw the troops from Iraq. Now time is fleeting. This could have been done by Labor Day and all, I mean all the troops, would come home by Christmas.
Grasping what Congressional 'leadership' refuses to, Gwen Van Veldhuizen lays out very clearly in her letter to The Modesto Bee: "The time has come for our healthy young Americans to be pulled out of Iraq. They are in harm's way. They are in the middle of a civil war. A recent documentary has shown that if Iraqis run away from American troops, our troops are instructed to shoot. My niece, who is in the Army, confirms this. [. . . ] The troops who have changed their hearts and minds about their mission in Iraq have goen absent without leave. They have seen fathers killed while their children cry. Soldiers don't go AWOL on a whim. A lot of serious consequences follow such a decision. Amid all this turmoil, I hear that President Bush's daughter is getting married . . . how sweet."
Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted that at yesterday's Petraeus scripted performance, along with Cindy Sheehan, CODEPINK's Medea Benjamin was among those arrested. CODEPINK's blog offers more details. This week's actions lead up to September 15th (see ANSWER for more information) and the mass protest taking place in DC and IVAW will lead a "die-in". This will be part of a several days of action lasting from the 15th through the 18th. September 17th IVAW will kick off Truth in Recruiting. CODEPINK will be conducting a Peoples March Inside Congress (along with other groups and individuals) on September 17th. United for Peace & Justice (along with others) will begin Iraq Moratorium on September 21st and follow it every third Friday of the month as people across the country are encouraged to wear and distribute black ribbons and armbands, purchase no gas on those Fridays, conduct vigils, pickets, teach-ins and rallies, etc.
In DC, more of the same today from Petraeus. On Petraeus, Nancy A. Youssef and Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) note many things left out of yesterday's scripted, oral report including, "While Petraeus stressed that civilian casualties were down over the last five weeks, he drew no connection between that statement and a chart he displayed that showed that the number of attacks rose during at least one of those weeks."
Today on KPFK's Uprising Norman Solomon explained how the press presented the avenues for Congress as much more limited than they are and how they reduce Iraq to whether or not the escalation is working while repeatedly avoiding the issue of the legality of the Iraq War. On the press he noted they avoid certain topics (such as the legality of the Iraq War) because "the news media can't tell us what to think but they can tell us what to think about." The distraction process that so many practice to maxium effect. Later today, you could see the perfect example of it as various outlets are running with the supposed news that the escalation number, Bully Boy's indicating!, can drop this summer! A) Short of a draft (or mass enlistment), the escalation cannot go past April 2008 (we've covered that and covered that). B) This isn't a "withdrawal," it's merely dropping down to pre-escalation levels.
Solomon spoke of the air war ongoing in Iraq with little effort being made by outlets to report on it and the continued under-representation of Iraqis in their own stories.
Turning to political races. On Sunday, the Democrats running for their party's 2008 presidential nomination were supposed to hold another one of those 'discussions' that's supposed to pass for a 'debate.' Joe Biden decided to bail on the Miami event which was intend to target/court Latino voters in the United States. The discussion was hailed as a historic first. Madeline Baro Diaz (South Florida Sun-Sentinel) noted it was "the first Spanish-language presidential debate". Jennifer Parker (ABC News) explained the process: "Questions will be asked and answered in English, and then tranlsated into spanish for the network's TV radio andd online platforms." Parker also felt the need to quote Slimey Rosenberg who -- for the record -- is not Latino. In fact, the press coverage of this event -- before and after -- demonstrates yet again the limitations of the news media as they repeatedly went to White men (in this case White Anglo) men to apparently explain the 'exotic' out of some fear that news consumers in the US (which is a varied mix of demographics) would be lost without a White man to 'translate' what was happening.
billed as the first of it's kind broadcast in the Spanish language. Krissah Williams (Washington Post) actually put Latinos front and center by making the angle of her coverage the reactions of one family (Oliva Diaz, parents Alejandra and Gilberto Diaz, and two of Oliva's sisters) to the televised discussion. Williams also observes "New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson is the only Latino in the race -- and he loudly protested Sunday that he was not allowed to answer questions in Spanish". As he should. It takes a great deal of nerve to allegedly promote diversity and be the education party (which the Dems are) while at the same time refusing to allow someone to demonstrate the benefits of being bi or multi-lingual. US Senator Chris Dodd should have joined Richardson in protesting since he's also fluent in Spanish. Michael Bender and John Lantigua (Palm Beach Post) report Richardson responding after he was asked a question, "Puedo contestar en espanol?", being informed "no" and Richardson declaring, "I'm disappointed today that 43 million Latinos in this country, for them not to hear one of their own speak Spanish". Here's the longer response by Richardson:
You know, language is important, but you know, Latinos are always asked these questions. Latinos care about civil rights and immigration, but we care about all issues. We care about health care, about the war in Iraq. We're mainstream. And I do want to say at this point that I was under the impression that in this debate Spanish was going to be permitted because I've always supported Univision all my career, but I'm disappointed today that 43 million Latinos in this country, for them not to hear one of their own speak Spanish is unfortunate. In other words, Univision has promoted English only in this debate.
Meanwhile, Dodd not only refused to protest publicly but then wanted to get credit for offering statements such as this (to should Spanish be the US' second national language), "Certainly promoting greater understanding in language in this country -- it's, I think, a source of some collective embarrassment that we Americans don't speak enough languages, that we always think the rest of the world has to understand English." That's all undercut by his refusal to stand with Richardson.
The nonsense of building a fence on the border between the US and Mexico was raised (Dodd, US Senator Barack Obama and US Senator Hillary Clinton support the fence) and Obama, apparently still lashing out at his own father, replied, "We can't have hundreds of thousands of people coming into this country without knowing who they are." Richardson (rightly) noted, "This is a terrible symbol of America." Williams (Washington Post) noted that when Clinton continued to support a physical wall between Mexico and the US (and apparently, Canada as well "I do favor much more border patrolling and much more technology on both of our borderds"), Olivia Diaz' response was, "A wall won't solve the problem." The discussion was moderated by Univision Network's news anchors Maria Elena Salinas and Jorge Ramos and carried on Univision TV, online at Univision.com, and over the airwaves on RadioCadena Univision. After Obama served up his usual Chicken Sop for the Soul, the next to speak was Clinton and Mike Gravel, going after her, became the first candidate to mention Iraq declaring to loud applause, "But I do want to take my time to give my condolences to the Soriano family. Armando Soriano was recently killed in Iraq, and his father is about to be deported. I think there's something basically wrong with that situation."
Citing the Pew Hispanic Center finding "that two of three Hispanics believe that the U.S. should withdraw from Iraq," US House Rep Dennis Kucinich was asked about withdrawal from Iraq.
Dennis Kucinich: Our troops need to be brought home now, and I have submitted a plan to do just that. Remember, I'm the only one on this stage who actually voted against the war and who voted a hundred percent of the time against funding the war and who presented a plan four years ago to get out of Iraq. We need to -- here's the plan. Number one, we have to end the occupation, bring the troops home, bring the contractors home. We have to have a simultaneous plan where we reach out to the nations, like Syria and Iran, to form a multinational international peacekeeping force that moves in as our troops leave so there's no vacuum. And also, we have to have a program of reconstruction and rehabilitation and reconciliation, and we have to stop trying to steal Iraq's oil. This is the way that we can take steps towards trying to achieve peace -- bring those troops home now, and I'm the only one up here who four years ago shoed the judgment that was necessary, that people expect of a first executive, in not going to war based on lies.
Kucinich's statements received cheers and applause. Sadly for Obama, he had to go after and stuck to his tired (and only partially true) song of being against the illegal war before it started. He leaves out the part where, after he started, he was all for the war and opposed to withdrawal. Oprah's latest product didn't get nearly the response Kucinich did indicating both that the bloom may be coming off the rose and the fact that Obama's real "support" has always been in the press corps. Best moment for Univision? Telling Obama, "Your time is up." In other forums, he gets his hands held while he struggles to walk on his own like a big boy. Former US Senator (and 2004 Democratic vice presidential candidate) John Edwards was asked about withdrawal and the Petraues snow job (which is now ongoing in DC).
John Edwards: I'm absolutely in favor of America leaving Iraq. What I'm concerned about, about the Petraues report, is that it will be basically a sales job by the White House, that it'll be a PR document because that's what we've continually gotten from this administration, throughout the course of the war. And it will be focused on this benchmark or that benchmark than whether some minor progress has been made on one particular benchmark. The underlying question that has existed the entire time that we've been in Iraq is, have the Sunni and Shi'a moved toward some sort of serious political compromise? Because without that compromise, there cannot be peace or stability in Iraq. It cannot happen. And I think we know the answer to that right now. The answer to that question is there has been no political progress. In fact, the Iraqi parliament went on vacation for three or four weeks while American men and women were putting their lives on the line in Iraq. Here's what I believe. I believe no political progress means no funding without a timetable for withdrawal. And if the president vetoes a bill that has a timetable for withdrawal, the Congress should send him another bill with a timetable for withdrawal and continue to do it until he's forced to start withdrawing troops.
Obviously, the US Congress went on vacation during the same time and there should be several other "obviously"s members can add. We're going to note the rest of the responses in full. Obama? Why bother? It's not just the dishonesty, it's the fact that he says the same thing over and over "I was against it before it started". Five years ago. You have your gold star. The truth is you were against it before it started but you were on board after it began. Go peddle your nonsense somewhere else and, hopefully, at some point other candidates on the stage will stop hinting about this (it's been hinted at in three debates) and someone will make the point straight out. If that ends up being Clinton, it will probably be the knock out blow to Obama's campaign.
Hillary Clinton: I was against the surge when it was first proposed. And I believe that nothing which General Petraues or Ambassador Crocker or anyone else coming before the Congress will say next week will in any way underline the basic problem: There is no military solution. That has been said for years now. And that is why I believe we should start bringing our troops home. That however does not in any way suggest that our young men and women in uniform have not performed magnificently and heroically, because they have. They were asked to do what they do best, which is to try to provide some amount of stability or security to give the Iraqi government the time and space to do what the Iraqis must do. Unfortunately despite the heroism of our American forces, the Iraqi government has not reached any kind of political reconciliation. Therefore we need to quit refereeing their civil war and bring our troops home as soon as possible.
Bill Richardson declared, "What I would do with the troops is I would bring them all home -- every one of them. And you know, there's a fundamental difference that I raised in the last debate with Senator Obama, Senator Clinton, Senator Edwards. Under their plans, under their website, they leave either 25 or 50 or 75 troops behind. I'd bring them all home within a period of time of six to eight months, because our troops have become targets. You can't bring reconciliation to Iraq, or an all-Muslim peacekeeping force or a partition, without getting all our troops out. Our kids are becoming targets. They are dying -- the last three months, the highest total. Iraqis are dying. And I -- there is a basic difference between all of us here that I mentioned, involving, what do we do about leaving troops behind? Some say they want to leave combat troops behind. They don't want to leave them [moderator interrupts]. I'd like an answer, because this is a fundamental issue about the conduct of Amerian foreign policy in Iraq."
This is a topic Richardson has been pointing out. On Saturday, the Washington Post published a column by Bill Richardson which began, "Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have suggested that there is little difference among us on Iraq. This is not true: I am the only leading Democratic candidate committed to getting all our troops out and doing so quickly. In the most recent debate, I asked the other candidates how many troops they would leave in Iraq and for what purposes. I got no answers. The American people need answers. If we elect a president who thinks that troops should stay in Iraq for years, they will stay for years -- a tragic mistake." Richardson also has a petition noting stating his "position on ending the war is clear. From the beginning of the campaign he has been calling for complete withdrawal of ALL troops. No excuses. No delays. No troops left behind. In the most recent debate, he asked the other major candidates a clear question: how many troops would you leave behind and for how long? We have yet to hear an answer." The petition calls for other candidates to explain what their plans or 'plans' will do. For example, Clinton's plan is a far cry from the words she offered in the debate.
And that was the portion focusing on Iraq. AP reports the discussion outranked "earlier presidential debates held this year on ABC, CNN, Fox News Channel and MSNBC" and brought in 4.6 million viewers -- that's the TV audience only -- the radio audience and the web audience aren't included in that count. Rebecca and Kat will be addressing other portions of the debate tonight at their sites. One other thing to note here is this from the Palm Beach Post's editorial today, "Who were those six people in Miami Sunday night? Oh, right. Democrats, campaigning in the state that their party threatens to write off."
9/10/2007
jimmy carter, norman finkelstein
JIMMY CARTER: Well, the message is very clear. It deals with Palestine, not inside Israel itself, just the Palestinian Occupied Territories. And the second word is "peace." I describe in this book the efforts for peace so far and my formula, which I think is very reasonable, for bringing peace to Israel and to Israel's neighbors. And I repeat that over and over with a strong condemnation of any kind of terrorism that afflicts innocent people by the actions of either the Palestinians or the Israelis.
And the word "apartheid" is exactly accurate. You know, this is an area that's occupied by two powers. They are now completely separated. Palestinians can't even ride on the same roads that the Israelis have created or built in Palestinian territory. The Israelis never see a Palestinian, except the Israeli soldiers. The Palestinians never see an Israeli, except at a distance, except the Israeli soldiers. So within Palestinian territory, they are absolutely and totally separated, much worse than they were in South Africa, by the way. And the other thing is, the other definition of "apartheid" is, one side dominates the other. And the Israelis completely dominate the life of the Palestinian people.
AMY GOODMAN: Why don't Americans know what you have seen?
JIMMY CARTER: Americans don't want to know and many Israelis don't want to know what is going on inside Palestine. It's a terrible human rights persecution that far transcends what any outsider would imagine. And there are powerful political forces in America that prevent any objective analysis of the problem in the Holy Land. I think it’s accurate to say that not a single member of Congress with whom I’m familiar would possibly speak out and call for Israel to withdraw to their legal boundaries or to publicize the plight of the Palestinians or even to call publicly and repeatedly for good faith peace talks. There hasn't been a day of peace talks now in more than seven years. So this is a taboo subject. And I would say that if any member of Congress did speak out, as I've just described, they would probably not be back in the Congress the next term.
AMY GOODMAN: Who are these forces that you're talking about?
JIMMY CARTER: Well, there's an inherent commitment in America, which I share as a Christian, of a deep commitment to make sure that Israel is safe and that Israel is free and that they can seek for peace. So there's a strong inclination for all of us to support Israel's continued existence in peace. And that is added onto by the very effective work of the American Israeli group called AIPAC, which is performing its completely legitimate task of convincing Americans to support the policies of the Israeli government. And AIPAC is not dedicated to peace. They're dedicated to inducing the maximum support in America, in the White House, in the Congress and in the public media, for whatever policies the Israeli government has at a particular time. And they're extremely effective.
that's from amy goodman's exclusive interview 'Fmr. President Jimmy Carter on “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” Iraq, Greeting the Shah of Iran at the White House, Selling Weapons to Indonesia During the Occupation of East Timor, and More' (democracy now). i'll also note this from a shorter interview with norman finkelstein:
AMY GOODMAN: That was the late Professor Hilberg. How important was this founder of Holocaust studies support to your work, Professor Finkelstein?
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, one of the unusual outcomes of this whole struggle was the alignment of forces. Professor Hilberg is a -- was a conservative Republican, and yet he gave me unstinting support, whereas The Progressive magazine, where you might expect I would get support, they characterized me as a Holocaust minimizer. The Nation magazine said that Alan Dershowitz and I deserved each other. So it really wasn't predictable how the people would align.
now on the progressive, i need to note something. he's referring to a radio interview ruth conniff, who writes for the progressive, gave. elaine wrote about it in 'John Halle, Norman Finkelstein, Ruth Conniff, etc.' i can't be truthdig or common dreams and play dumb (as they did when they posted the pig last week declaring that cbs is owned by g.e.) i don't believe matthew rothschild ever wrote to defend finkelstein. if that is correct, it may be because he didn't want to touch the subject. it may also be, as elaine notes, because finkelstein started e-mailing him about what ruth conniff said on a radio program.
as some 1 who gets really pissed every time c.i. gets an e-mail complaining about something i've written, i can't be silent here. i support norman finkelstein and i've noted that many times before. i do not support going over some 1's head when you haven't contacted the person you have the problem with.
i don't like it when some 1 'tattles' to c.i. on me. i don't support some 1 tattling on ruth conniff to rothschild.
it's insulting.
i know it's a headache for c.i.
c.i. is doing 8 million things and doesn't have time to waste on little tattle tales. i also know c.i. gets really ticked off that some people think they're going to tattle and c.i.'s going to respond, 'you are so right!' c.i. and i have been friends since college. c.i. is not going to take your side if you run to complain on me.
so that could have influence matthew rothschild's decision. i know for a fact that if you complain to c.i. about 1 of us, you get cut. you have a really hard time ever getting highlighted again.
so that may be why rothschild didn't write about it.
there's a man currently who keeps sending me things. he's actually the 1 the blogger fowarded my private e-mails to.
i have no interest in highlighting him.
was he in on 'the joke'? i have no idea.
but he can keep e-mailing things he's written and hoping i'll note them here, but he's hoping in vain. my e-mails were forwarded to him. i know that. i have proof of that (copies of the fowards) and i have no interest in highlighting him because of it.
ironically, i still go to the blogger who forwarded my e-mails site. but that's a whole other story.
i'm not defending rothschild. i don't know that he never wrote about it. if he didn't, that's rather sad. but if he didn't, there may have been a reason. and i can't note the quote without noting the rest because i have been through what ruth conniff went through.
i disagree with every word she said about finkelstein. but i can't play dumb.
i don't disagree with him for calling out what was done to him. to be clear on that.
i'm glad he did.
and i'm glad we wrote 'Bash the Bitch, available where shoddy toys are sold and sexists gather' (the third estate sunday review). please check that out. i'm tired or i'd note other things worth checking out.
i hope the baby gets back on the old schedule but i'm really afraid that the reality is this is the new schedule. and i'm yawning so no time to run down the latest news on alberto or iraq (or even see if there is any). fortunately the snapshot covers what you need to know. let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Monday, September 10, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces more deaths, CODEPINK again shows more bravery than Congress, and more.
Starting with war resistance, Laura K (We Move To Canada) offers some basic needed steps to support the war resisters who have gone to Canada:
Here are some practical ways you can help.Buy the video. "Let Them Stay" was produced by the War Resisters Support Campaign. It's an excellent introduction to the issue, and can help educate you and others about what US war resisters are facing in Canada. The Support Campaign is an all-volunteer organization. 100% of your $20 will go towards legal and material aid for war resisters.Contact the federal government. Write your MP. Write Stephen Harper. Write the Immigration Minister. Tell them this is the Canada you want to live in. Tell them: let them stay.Sign the petition. If you haven't done so already, join 14,000 of your countrypeople in asking the government to let them stay.Spread the word. How many Canadians don't even know there are US war resisters seeking refuge in Canada? Among those who know, how many mistakenly believe the former soldiers can just live legally in Canada? Talk to your friends, your co-workers, your running buddies, the folks at your dog park. You can help raise awareness, and help create support for those three words.October 27, 2007 is an International Day of Action Against War. Join your neighbours to protest the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. There will be simultaneous protests in Canada and the US. Resisters will be there. Let them stay.
These steps and others are needed because, though unreported (big suprise), the number of US war resisters in Canada continues to grow.
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 [(877) 447-4487], 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.
As Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted today "the Bush administration's top two officials in Iraq are set to give Congress their long-awaited progress report on the Iraq war. The expected outcome is more of the same." In August, a CNN poll found 53% of Americans "suspect that the military assessment will try to make it sound better than it actually is" (Wally's "THIS JUST IN! US SAYS: 'PETREAUS WILL BETRAY US!'" and Cedric's "Petreaus wet & wild moment haunts him" noted the reaction as well) with the Polling Director, Keating Holland, for CNN saying that he didn't "think the mistrust is directed at Petreaus as much as it is what he represents." That was in August. Today, Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted a Washington Post - ABC News poll just released that found . . . 53% say "they believe Petraeus will try to sugar-coat the situation on the ground." The poll was reported by the Post on Sunday and also found 64% disapprove of the Bully Boy's "handling his job," 62% declaring that the Iraq War was "not worth fighting," 60% say the US "is not making significant progress toward restoring civil order in Iraq," 58% say the escalation "hasn't made much difference," 54% do not believe "the security situation" in Iraq will improve "over the next few months," 58% want to see the number of US service members in Iraq decrease," 55% support setting "a deadline for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq by next spring" and 62% say the US should withdraw "right away". Let's repeat that: 62 percent of those polled said the US forces should begin leaving Iraq "right away." When you add in the portion for "By the end of the year" (27%) the percentage leaps to 89%. 89 percent of Americans support US troops beginning to leave Iraq by the end of 2007. Not 2008, not 2009. CBS and the New York Times poll released Sunday (by CBS) found 45% of those survey saw "no impact" from the escalation. That poll (with a 3% plus/minus margin) found a six percent increase in the number supporting the escalation since August. On ABC's This Week Sunday, it was the never ending Dinasour Tour as Cokie Roberts, George Will and Sam Donaldson (on tamborines) joined George Stephanopoulos for the roundtable and Cokie Roberts pimped (from apparently the CBS poll) the tiny increase as big news until Stephanopoulos corrected her by pointing out just how small the increase in this one poll was. Stephanopolous also noted the 62% figure in the CBS - New York Times' poll who stated the US "made a mistake getting involved in Iraq." That figure matches up with the 62% in the Washington Post - ABC poll who stated that "the war with Iraq" was not "worth fighting." (If Stephanopolous was referring to the Post poll, he should have noted the six percent increase in the escalation making things "better" -- also a margin of +3 or -3 -- that "no difference" also had an increase. Guests or moderator stating "a poll by ___" would also clarify which poll was being cited.)
In both polls, 62% of Americans declare the illegal war a mistake. The Washington Post - ABC News poll, again, has 89% of Americans wanting the US forces to beginning withdrawing "right now" or by the end of 2007. We could go to Congress, but let's go to the peace movement instead because it's not pretty. This weekend, Common Dreams posted Tom Hayden's strategy for . . . "Ending the War in 2009." 2009. 2009? It's 2007 and people are yet again being encouraged to wait for two more years. Tom Hayden is hitting the snooze button when America needs to be waking up. Rabbi Micheal Lerner, on Friday, posted a transcript of various members of the peace movement participating in a dialogue with some members of Congress. In a news article (link goes to Common Dreams, we don't link to the original site), Lerner states that "even the people in the anti-war movement don't have - a coherent alternative world view from which to base a strategy." My "world view" sees him beating the hell of his "inner child." If that does something for him, more power to him. However, there is no "world view" needed to end the illegal war (if a "world view" is indeed missing currently). Nor is there a need to wait for 2009 to end the illegal war. And you have to wonder why US House Rep Lynn Woolsey even bothered to participate in the dialogue that Lerner later posted if no one's going to listen to her?
In the dialogue Tim Carpenter, of Progressive Democrats of America, discusses how his group and UFPJ have "been working hard" and "doing email blasts during the recess and Congressional visits. We've generated a little over 9,000 of those emails blast into the [Speaker's?] office . . ." No offense to Carpenter but did he, Lerner or anyone else participating follow what Woolsey replied?
Lynn Woolsey: That's all very useful, Tim, and it's very meaningful. Because people aren't in the streets, because they're electronically communicating, it's easier for the Congress or the media to pretend that it isn't happening, but it isn't visible. Now people start asking: "Why aren't people on the streets?" And I say that they are on the streets, they're on their blog, and they're communicating. We get 3000 emails sometimes in a day, and other members are too, and you cannot pretend the public's not interested in this.
Woolsey is a nice person so it would be a smart thing to strip away the kind words and zoom in on: "Because people aren't in the streets, because they're electronically communicating, it's easier for the Congress or the media to pretend that it isn't happening". I know several people participating in that dialogue and am not trying to beat any of them over the head, but what Woolsey is saying should be loud and clear to everyone.
Leslie Cagan (UPFJ) notes that the strategy that's been pushed (by WalkOn.org) has been target Repubes and notes that she feels (I agree with her) that "a lot of their strategy is geared towards the Presidential elections and the Congressional elections next year." What does Woolsey respond? "Well, maybe you folks should go after the Democrats." Woolsey is a nice person, she's also very smart. Now maybe in a conversation, those statements can drift over heads. When they appear in the transcript, there should be no confusion.
Medea Benjamin (CODEPINK -- whom I have tremendous respect for) is focused, in her first two sentences, on the fact that US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi won't meet with activists. Pelosi won't. Benjamin's correct. Benjamin (far smarter than I) should be able to grasp Pelosi is NOT GOING to. If she's forced, she might. Pelosi talks it up when she comes home but what does she ever do when she's in DC? What has she ever done? (Disclosure: I have donated to Pelosi's campaigns -- all of them -- in the past. I have already stated I am behind Cindy Sheehan in this race.) Pelosi plays a cute little show when she comes home. She's all grins and spins. Her final townhall (apparently -- though it hadn't been billed as the "Farewell Townhall" to those of us attending) had her getting a taste of reality at the same time members of district eight got a taste of reality. Pelosi insisted that she would oppose the construction of any permanent bases in Iraq. When confronted with the fact that permanent bases were already being constructed, Pelosi tried to finesse the term "permanent" and actually said, "Nothing last forever." In that moment, Pelosi, who's been treated with kid gloves for the most part, demonstrated just how great the gulf between her and the citizens who put her into office is. Pelosi grasped the startled reaction and she's not done another townhall. I don't remember if Medea was at that townhall but I know she's heard of it. Peace activists need to grasp Pelosi wrote them off then. It's been a slow estrangement ever since. So the point here is, forget Nancy Pelosi. She doesn't represent the district. She's made that very clear on every issue. Target others. (In DC work. I'm not saying call off any vigils outside Pelosi's office. She needs to be made uncomfortable. But realize that's all that's going to help. She's got her eyes on the 2008 elections and she doesn't give a damn about ending the illegal war.) After noting Pelosi's refusal to meet with the activists (Pelosi should be written off and so should Joe Lieberman -- nothing is achieved by meeting with either), Benjamin asks the money question: "Can't she [Pelosi] decide that we're not going to keep funding this war?" Lerner (rightly) points out, "Pelosi could simply not bring up any funding bill for the military. She could not bring it up, and then say: 'We're only going to bring it up if you agree to end the war'." -- to which Woolsey adds, "That we're only going to be spending our money to bring the troops home. And that's what we're [the Progressive Caucus] going to be pushing for, I promise."
As I'm reading Woolsey's remarks three things are needed (out of many) right now. (1) Physical mobilization (not e-activism). (2) Democrats needing to be targeted. (3) Support for the Progressive Caucus made clear.
Starting with the third point. In March Party Hacks were so busy spit shining the shoes of Pelosi and Steny Hoyer that they flat out lied. They used terms like "conspiracy theorist" to those stating US House Rep Barbara Lee had an amendment on Iraq that Pelosi refused to allow Lee to offer (this is when the Dems bought into the illegal war). That was not a "conspiracy theory" -- that was reality. Woolsey appeared, before the Friday vote, on Democracy Now! and explained that troops home now would not be in the vote, wouldn't even be an amendment but "there will be no amendments". Woolsey, who supports Troops Home Now, was explaining what was going on. To clarify, Juan Gonzalez followed up on the amendment issue and Woolsey agreed that their needed to be amendments but House leadership wasn't allowing them, "I think if our amendment, the Barbara Lee amendment, is made an order, which it wasn't last night and it's not going to, there's a lot of people that would like to vote 'Yes, what I really want is to bring the troops home, but, yes, I will vote with the supplemental, but I want my constituents to know that I really want to bring them home sooner than that'."
Point two. Democrats, by not being targeted, have been allowed to fall into the beltway lazy conventional spin. They've been allowed to relax in official DC and think all is fine and dandy for them (it isn't) and they can just coast. Cagan worded it a lot nicer than I would. If you're 'activism' is "Vote Democrats!" then you aren't part of the peace movement. The peace movement is not an electoral party. Reaching out is one thing. Blurring the line is another. A member of a group participating in the dialogue, trying to apparently speak for the organization, e-mailed this site repeatedly to defend someone attacking war resisters and IVAW, to defend someone who not only attacks those who are part of the peace movement but also someone who thinks targeting Republicans qualifies for peace work. The organizations need to send clear messages to their members. And when Democrats are called out for cowardice by brave voices, such as Howard Zinn, we really don't need to read in Foreign Policy in Focus that 'both' Zinn and Sad Sirota (playing Party Hack and providing non-stop cover) have 'a point'. If Foreign Policy in Focus can't get their own act together enough to grasp that Zinn speaking to truth to power is not on the same level as Sirota providing cover for Democrats, the peace movement will be hopeless and the illegal war will drag on. Too many lines are being blurred. When people think it's okay to attack war resisters, the peace movement is defeating itself by allowing that to go unchallenged. When people want to equate the historian Zinn with Sad Sirota (who was the one shouting "conspiracy theorist" -- after Woolesy had appeared on Democracy Now! so he's either uninformed or a liar) then it's not at all surprising that this illegal war continues to drag on.
Point three. As long as the lines are blurred e-activism will continue to take hold. It's "nice," it doesn't challenge. WalkOn.org is a Democratic Party organ that attempts to present itself as "anti-war" (and the press assists them with that). We do not need more silent gatherings. We need more people like Tina Richards, Cindy Sheehan, the members of IVAW, etc, willing to speak out and use their voices. Those preaching e-activism or silence in public are not part of the peace movement and that needs to be made clear. As long as it's not, some people will elect to choose e-activism as opposed to real activism because e-activism is so much easier. When the peace movement cannot make the difference between the two clear, it really can't expect people to turn out in large numbers for actual actions. There are some people who may not be able to participate due to physical challenges/disabilities, agoraphobia or living a remote region. That is grasped. But for those with mobility and proximity, it needs to be made clear that physical action and e-activism are not equivalent. It's like telling someone that both candy and brocolli will provide you with calcium -- most would then choose candy. The reality is candy doesn't provide you with calcium and e-activism (for those with mobility and proximity) is not activism. But as long as those lines continue to be blurred, when faced with going out into the streets or sitting at home, most will choose to sit at home.
Failure to make that clear, failure to make any of the three clear, means the peace movement will spin the wheels until 2009 at which point another voice will instruct us as to "Ending the war in 2011." The illegal war has gone on long enough. It never should have started. The peace movement has had some real success but failure to make it clear what is and what isn't activism, what is and what isn't the peace movement (electoral campaigns rarely ever make for peace campaigns), and what is and isn't reality -- such as standing up to the spin from Party Hacks -- will mean the peace movement's early success will either fall away or that many represented in the dialogue will find themselves out of the peace movement. When organizations do not serve the movement, they fall away. It happened in the 'sixites' and it's already beginning to happen today with new organizations coming to life.
We're going to turn to violence and if there's time to cover the spin going on right now, we will. If not, well, David Petraues hair color (that's not natural -- I have no idea how it looks on TV, but up close, that color does not look natural and it wouldn't be on a man half Petraeus' age) was as phony as his statements.
Today CNN reports: "The U.S. military data obtained by CNN indicates that 165 Iraqis were murdered in Baghdad last month, a slight increase from the previous two months. However, the number represents a significant decrease since the Baghdad security plan began earlier this year. It is not clear how the U.S. military obtained the number, but CNN statistics -- compiled from numbers released by the Iraqi Interior Ministry -- suggest 428 Iraqis were murdered in Baghdad in August, their bodies dumped in the streets. In July, 612 Iraqis were murdered, according to the Interior Ministry." This follows Renee Schoof (McClatchy Newspapers) reporting on Labor Day, "Statistics that McClatchy Newspapers collected in Baghdad don't show any drop in violence. Civilian deaths in the capital were about the same in July as in December, before the American troop increase began. U.S. officials in Baghdad declined to provide data to back up their claims of lower violence." Last week, Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) reported on the skepticism by "many experts within and outside the government" over the US "military's claim that violence has decreased sharply in Iraq in recent months" and explained why including that intelligence analysts note classifying "sectarian" or "criminal" based on whether the bullet went in the front of the head or back is "cherry picking". This story was kind-of, sort-of denied by Petreaus today. He didn't really deny it, just stated he wasn't aware of it. He's grabbing the Ronald Reagan covers. In addition, the GAO also stated that violence hasn't dropped. Renee Schoof and Warren P. Strobel (McClatchy Newspapers) reported last week that the GAO crunching of the figures "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" into Iraq (the escalation). CNN joins the above in reporting that there has been no descrease in the violence, despite the claims of the US administration and military.
Yesterday, both McClatchy Newspapers and the New York Times examined the realities in Iraq today. Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) notes Bully Boy's declaring (January 2007) that the escalation would mean the puppet government in Iraq would have "breathing room" and be able to work on the political issues but "[w]ith less than a week to go before the White House delivers a congressionally mandated report on that plan, none of this has happened." What has happened? Fadel reports on the increasing segregation in Baghdad where "Sunni Muslims in the capital now live in ghettos encircled by concrete blast walls to stop militia attacks and car bombs" while Shia militias engage in their slaughter of all (including slaughtering Shi'ites), that the militias have "heavily infiltrated" Iraq's national forces, no decrease in civilian deaths and that Al Anbar Province is the only exception to the continued decay. We'll get back to Al Anbar Province if there's time. Damien Cave and Stephen Farrell (New York Times) reported (on the front page and for two full pages inside -- A12 and A13) on the "Unmet Goals" noting that there is still not "a unified and trusted national government," and that the escalation coincides with the departure of over 35,000 from their residences in the capital. On Al Anbar Province, Cave and Farrell note that those currently working with the US in the alleged "model province" (where one US marine died September 7th and the US military announced the death yesterday, FYI) "made it abundantly clear that their cooperation did not come fre" -- nor is this a long-term arrangement. Cave and Farrell quote El Paso's Timothy Johnston who notes a a bombing attack targeting US service members in June didn't appear to phase the new 'friends' leading him to declare, "I don't trust them. They will smile in your face and stab you in the back. They were just too close to that E.F.P. not to have known." Back to Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) on Al Anbar Province -- "that success has little to do with the 4,000 U.S. troops who were sent to Anbar as part of the surge of 30,000 additional troops to Iraq. Instead, it began more than four months earlier, with the formation last September of the Anbar Salvation Council to fight the escalating terror of Sunni extremists. Officials agree that the anti-Islamist coalition in Anbar has yet to ally itself with the Shiite-led government in Baghdad, and a recent National Intelligence Estimate warned that it might even threaten it."
Today, Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) examines Al Anbar Province noting that nothing is clear regarding whether alliances formed or permanent or not and quotes Maj. Jeff Pool admitting that (if there are gain) the much lauded "Anbar model" isn't exportable due to "too many unique variables."
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad car bombing that claimed 2 lives (five more were wounded), a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed 2 lives (thirteen more wounded), a Kirkuk roadside bombing that claimed 1 life (four more wounded) and a Mosul truck bombing that claimed 10 lives and left at least sixty more wounded. On the Mosul truck bombing, Reuters puts the injured at 78 (sticks with 10 for the figure dead) and says it was actually outside Mosul in Tal Marag village and they note an Iskandariya mortar attack that injured 13 Iraqi soldiers,
Shootings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Basra attack where "the manager superviser of finace" was shot dead and then his corpse was set on fire. Reuters notes three police officers "killed in clashes with militants in easter Mosul,"
Corpses?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 10 corpses were discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 3 corpses discovered in Mahmudiya.
The US military announced today: "A Task Force Lightning Soldier died from injuries sustained from rocket fire while on patrol in Kirkuk province, Sunday. One Soldier was also wounded and transported to a Coalition medical facility for treatment." And they announced: "One Soldier died and two Soldiers were injured this morning east of Baghdad when the vehicle they were travling in overturned and caught fire." " And they announced: "Seven Multi-National Division-Baghdad Soldiers were killed and 11 others wounded in a vehicle accident in a western portion of the Iraqi capital Sept. 10." The last two announcements use that popular phrase, as Ruth pointed out Saturday, "under investigation." The announced deaths for the month of US service members in Iraq now stands at 29 with the total number announced dead in the illegal war since it started currently at 3771.
Today, Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) observes, "Besides commanding U.S. forces in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus has become the administration's top pitchman for the strategy in Iraq." This as the AP reports on their poll (Associated Press-Ipsos) which finds 57% saying the Iraq War was a "mistake," 59% declaring "they believe history will judge the Iraq war as a failure" and finds an even smaller 'boost' in support for the war due to the escalation (smaller than the two polls noted earlier) with only a 4% increase in those who believe the escalation "has helped stabilize Iraq" (up to 36%). 57% saying, in that poll, the illegal war is a mistake, 62% in the other polls cited. The American people want the illegal war to end. They can make nice with Petraeus and Crocker all day in Congress, it doesn't change the fact that the public wants the illegal war over. Nor does it change the data contained in the Washington Post-ABC News poll. Who does the American public trust to handle the issue of Iraq? Democrats by 42%. But don't break out the party hats just yet. Not only did 31% say Republicans, there's a "trend." In May of 2006, Dems scored high on this category with 50% of respondents citing them. It then dipped as low as 43% until it went higher, 51% in October of 2006 (just in time for those elections). Since then? It's fallen to 42%. Republicans have also fallen. But Dems were swept into control of both houses of the US Congress with the promise of ending the illegal war. Who is keeping the illegal war going at this point? Not the American people who say end it. Not Iraqs who declare the escalation a failure (by 70% in the BBC, ABC News and NHK poll just out which also finds "nearly 60% see attacks on US-led forces as justified."). It's Congress and White House that are refusing to end the illegal war.
Petraeus declared today, "Blah, blah, LIE, blah, blah, SPIN, blah, blah, AVOID . . ." That more than notes the nonsense.
Turning to what does matter. As noted Friday, Tina Richards (Grassroots America), Adam Kokesh (Iraq Veterans Against the War) and Ian Thompson were arrested on Thursday for the 'crime' of posting fliers. As noted yesterday, "Editorial: You should be very angry" (The Third Estate Sunday Review), Richards and Kokesh held a press conference yesterday. Nathan Grossman (The GW Hatchet) interviewed Kokesh who declared, "Welcome to the police state" and notes, "We were ready to get arrested, but I really wasn't expecting that level of brutality." Actions continue today with Suevon Lee (New York Times) reporting members of CODEPINK have been ejected from a public hearing after showing up three hours before the hearing began to be sure they would be able to get at least one of the twenty general public seats and hear Petraeus speak. AFP reports nine members of CODEPINK were ejected and "One woman screamed 'No, No, No, No,' as she was dragged out." Reuters states it was "No! No! No! I have a right to be heard!" William H. McMichael (Navy Times) notes that cries of "Tell the truth, general!" were the apparent 'crime' and also states Cindy Sheehan was among four women arrested. National Journal's Hotline reports that two women with CODEPINK were chanting, "The American people don't believe you anymore!"
And the word "apartheid" is exactly accurate. You know, this is an area that's occupied by two powers. They are now completely separated. Palestinians can't even ride on the same roads that the Israelis have created or built in Palestinian territory. The Israelis never see a Palestinian, except the Israeli soldiers. The Palestinians never see an Israeli, except at a distance, except the Israeli soldiers. So within Palestinian territory, they are absolutely and totally separated, much worse than they were in South Africa, by the way. And the other thing is, the other definition of "apartheid" is, one side dominates the other. And the Israelis completely dominate the life of the Palestinian people.
AMY GOODMAN: Why don't Americans know what you have seen?
JIMMY CARTER: Americans don't want to know and many Israelis don't want to know what is going on inside Palestine. It's a terrible human rights persecution that far transcends what any outsider would imagine. And there are powerful political forces in America that prevent any objective analysis of the problem in the Holy Land. I think it’s accurate to say that not a single member of Congress with whom I’m familiar would possibly speak out and call for Israel to withdraw to their legal boundaries or to publicize the plight of the Palestinians or even to call publicly and repeatedly for good faith peace talks. There hasn't been a day of peace talks now in more than seven years. So this is a taboo subject. And I would say that if any member of Congress did speak out, as I've just described, they would probably not be back in the Congress the next term.
AMY GOODMAN: Who are these forces that you're talking about?
JIMMY CARTER: Well, there's an inherent commitment in America, which I share as a Christian, of a deep commitment to make sure that Israel is safe and that Israel is free and that they can seek for peace. So there's a strong inclination for all of us to support Israel's continued existence in peace. And that is added onto by the very effective work of the American Israeli group called AIPAC, which is performing its completely legitimate task of convincing Americans to support the policies of the Israeli government. And AIPAC is not dedicated to peace. They're dedicated to inducing the maximum support in America, in the White House, in the Congress and in the public media, for whatever policies the Israeli government has at a particular time. And they're extremely effective.
that's from amy goodman's exclusive interview 'Fmr. President Jimmy Carter on “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” Iraq, Greeting the Shah of Iran at the White House, Selling Weapons to Indonesia During the Occupation of East Timor, and More' (democracy now). i'll also note this from a shorter interview with norman finkelstein:
AMY GOODMAN: That was the late Professor Hilberg. How important was this founder of Holocaust studies support to your work, Professor Finkelstein?
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, one of the unusual outcomes of this whole struggle was the alignment of forces. Professor Hilberg is a -- was a conservative Republican, and yet he gave me unstinting support, whereas The Progressive magazine, where you might expect I would get support, they characterized me as a Holocaust minimizer. The Nation magazine said that Alan Dershowitz and I deserved each other. So it really wasn't predictable how the people would align.
now on the progressive, i need to note something. he's referring to a radio interview ruth conniff, who writes for the progressive, gave. elaine wrote about it in 'John Halle, Norman Finkelstein, Ruth Conniff, etc.' i can't be truthdig or common dreams and play dumb (as they did when they posted the pig last week declaring that cbs is owned by g.e.) i don't believe matthew rothschild ever wrote to defend finkelstein. if that is correct, it may be because he didn't want to touch the subject. it may also be, as elaine notes, because finkelstein started e-mailing him about what ruth conniff said on a radio program.
as some 1 who gets really pissed every time c.i. gets an e-mail complaining about something i've written, i can't be silent here. i support norman finkelstein and i've noted that many times before. i do not support going over some 1's head when you haven't contacted the person you have the problem with.
i don't like it when some 1 'tattles' to c.i. on me. i don't support some 1 tattling on ruth conniff to rothschild.
it's insulting.
i know it's a headache for c.i.
c.i. is doing 8 million things and doesn't have time to waste on little tattle tales. i also know c.i. gets really ticked off that some people think they're going to tattle and c.i.'s going to respond, 'you are so right!' c.i. and i have been friends since college. c.i. is not going to take your side if you run to complain on me.
so that could have influence matthew rothschild's decision. i know for a fact that if you complain to c.i. about 1 of us, you get cut. you have a really hard time ever getting highlighted again.
so that may be why rothschild didn't write about it.
there's a man currently who keeps sending me things. he's actually the 1 the blogger fowarded my private e-mails to.
i have no interest in highlighting him.
was he in on 'the joke'? i have no idea.
but he can keep e-mailing things he's written and hoping i'll note them here, but he's hoping in vain. my e-mails were forwarded to him. i know that. i have proof of that (copies of the fowards) and i have no interest in highlighting him because of it.
ironically, i still go to the blogger who forwarded my e-mails site. but that's a whole other story.
i'm not defending rothschild. i don't know that he never wrote about it. if he didn't, that's rather sad. but if he didn't, there may have been a reason. and i can't note the quote without noting the rest because i have been through what ruth conniff went through.
i disagree with every word she said about finkelstein. but i can't play dumb.
i don't disagree with him for calling out what was done to him. to be clear on that.
i'm glad he did.
and i'm glad we wrote 'Bash the Bitch, available where shoddy toys are sold and sexists gather' (the third estate sunday review). please check that out. i'm tired or i'd note other things worth checking out.
i hope the baby gets back on the old schedule but i'm really afraid that the reality is this is the new schedule. and i'm yawning so no time to run down the latest news on alberto or iraq (or even see if there is any). fortunately the snapshot covers what you need to know. let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Monday, September 10, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces more deaths, CODEPINK again shows more bravery than Congress, and more.
Starting with war resistance, Laura K (We Move To Canada) offers some basic needed steps to support the war resisters who have gone to Canada:
Here are some practical ways you can help.Buy the video. "Let Them Stay" was produced by the War Resisters Support Campaign. It's an excellent introduction to the issue, and can help educate you and others about what US war resisters are facing in Canada. The Support Campaign is an all-volunteer organization. 100% of your $20 will go towards legal and material aid for war resisters.Contact the federal government. Write your MP. Write Stephen Harper. Write the Immigration Minister. Tell them this is the Canada you want to live in. Tell them: let them stay.Sign the petition. If you haven't done so already, join 14,000 of your countrypeople in asking the government to let them stay.Spread the word. How many Canadians don't even know there are US war resisters seeking refuge in Canada? Among those who know, how many mistakenly believe the former soldiers can just live legally in Canada? Talk to your friends, your co-workers, your running buddies, the folks at your dog park. You can help raise awareness, and help create support for those three words.October 27, 2007 is an International Day of Action Against War. Join your neighbours to protest the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. There will be simultaneous protests in Canada and the US. Resisters will be there. Let them stay.
These steps and others are needed because, though unreported (big suprise), the number of US war resisters in Canada continues to grow.
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 [(877) 447-4487], 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.
As Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted today "the Bush administration's top two officials in Iraq are set to give Congress their long-awaited progress report on the Iraq war. The expected outcome is more of the same." In August, a CNN poll found 53% of Americans "suspect that the military assessment will try to make it sound better than it actually is" (Wally's "THIS JUST IN! US SAYS: 'PETREAUS WILL BETRAY US!'" and Cedric's "Petreaus wet & wild moment haunts him" noted the reaction as well) with the Polling Director, Keating Holland, for CNN saying that he didn't "think the mistrust is directed at Petreaus as much as it is what he represents." That was in August. Today, Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted a Washington Post - ABC News poll just released that found . . . 53% say "they believe Petraeus will try to sugar-coat the situation on the ground." The poll was reported by the Post on Sunday and also found 64% disapprove of the Bully Boy's "handling his job," 62% declaring that the Iraq War was "not worth fighting," 60% say the US "is not making significant progress toward restoring civil order in Iraq," 58% say the escalation "hasn't made much difference," 54% do not believe "the security situation" in Iraq will improve "over the next few months," 58% want to see the number of US service members in Iraq decrease," 55% support setting "a deadline for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq by next spring" and 62% say the US should withdraw "right away". Let's repeat that: 62 percent of those polled said the US forces should begin leaving Iraq "right away." When you add in the portion for "By the end of the year" (27%) the percentage leaps to 89%. 89 percent of Americans support US troops beginning to leave Iraq by the end of 2007. Not 2008, not 2009. CBS and the New York Times poll released Sunday (by CBS) found 45% of those survey saw "no impact" from the escalation. That poll (with a 3% plus/minus margin) found a six percent increase in the number supporting the escalation since August. On ABC's This Week Sunday, it was the never ending Dinasour Tour as Cokie Roberts, George Will and Sam Donaldson (on tamborines) joined George Stephanopoulos for the roundtable and Cokie Roberts pimped (from apparently the CBS poll) the tiny increase as big news until Stephanopoulos corrected her by pointing out just how small the increase in this one poll was. Stephanopolous also noted the 62% figure in the CBS - New York Times' poll who stated the US "made a mistake getting involved in Iraq." That figure matches up with the 62% in the Washington Post - ABC poll who stated that "the war with Iraq" was not "worth fighting." (If Stephanopolous was referring to the Post poll, he should have noted the six percent increase in the escalation making things "better" -- also a margin of +3 or -3 -- that "no difference" also had an increase. Guests or moderator stating "a poll by ___" would also clarify which poll was being cited.)
In both polls, 62% of Americans declare the illegal war a mistake. The Washington Post - ABC News poll, again, has 89% of Americans wanting the US forces to beginning withdrawing "right now" or by the end of 2007. We could go to Congress, but let's go to the peace movement instead because it's not pretty. This weekend, Common Dreams posted Tom Hayden's strategy for . . . "Ending the War in 2009." 2009. 2009? It's 2007 and people are yet again being encouraged to wait for two more years. Tom Hayden is hitting the snooze button when America needs to be waking up. Rabbi Micheal Lerner, on Friday, posted a transcript of various members of the peace movement participating in a dialogue with some members of Congress. In a news article (link goes to Common Dreams, we don't link to the original site), Lerner states that "even the people in the anti-war movement don't have - a coherent alternative world view from which to base a strategy." My "world view" sees him beating the hell of his "inner child." If that does something for him, more power to him. However, there is no "world view" needed to end the illegal war (if a "world view" is indeed missing currently). Nor is there a need to wait for 2009 to end the illegal war. And you have to wonder why US House Rep Lynn Woolsey even bothered to participate in the dialogue that Lerner later posted if no one's going to listen to her?
In the dialogue Tim Carpenter, of Progressive Democrats of America, discusses how his group and UFPJ have "been working hard" and "doing email blasts during the recess and Congressional visits. We've generated a little over 9,000 of those emails blast into the [Speaker's?] office . . ." No offense to Carpenter but did he, Lerner or anyone else participating follow what Woolsey replied?
Lynn Woolsey: That's all very useful, Tim, and it's very meaningful. Because people aren't in the streets, because they're electronically communicating, it's easier for the Congress or the media to pretend that it isn't happening, but it isn't visible. Now people start asking: "Why aren't people on the streets?" And I say that they are on the streets, they're on their blog, and they're communicating. We get 3000 emails sometimes in a day, and other members are too, and you cannot pretend the public's not interested in this.
Woolsey is a nice person so it would be a smart thing to strip away the kind words and zoom in on: "Because people aren't in the streets, because they're electronically communicating, it's easier for the Congress or the media to pretend that it isn't happening". I know several people participating in that dialogue and am not trying to beat any of them over the head, but what Woolsey is saying should be loud and clear to everyone.
Leslie Cagan (UPFJ) notes that the strategy that's been pushed (by WalkOn.org) has been target Repubes and notes that she feels (I agree with her) that "a lot of their strategy is geared towards the Presidential elections and the Congressional elections next year." What does Woolsey respond? "Well, maybe you folks should go after the Democrats." Woolsey is a nice person, she's also very smart. Now maybe in a conversation, those statements can drift over heads. When they appear in the transcript, there should be no confusion.
Medea Benjamin (CODEPINK -- whom I have tremendous respect for) is focused, in her first two sentences, on the fact that US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi won't meet with activists. Pelosi won't. Benjamin's correct. Benjamin (far smarter than I) should be able to grasp Pelosi is NOT GOING to. If she's forced, she might. Pelosi talks it up when she comes home but what does she ever do when she's in DC? What has she ever done? (Disclosure: I have donated to Pelosi's campaigns -- all of them -- in the past. I have already stated I am behind Cindy Sheehan in this race.) Pelosi plays a cute little show when she comes home. She's all grins and spins. Her final townhall (apparently -- though it hadn't been billed as the "Farewell Townhall" to those of us attending) had her getting a taste of reality at the same time members of district eight got a taste of reality. Pelosi insisted that she would oppose the construction of any permanent bases in Iraq. When confronted with the fact that permanent bases were already being constructed, Pelosi tried to finesse the term "permanent" and actually said, "Nothing last forever." In that moment, Pelosi, who's been treated with kid gloves for the most part, demonstrated just how great the gulf between her and the citizens who put her into office is. Pelosi grasped the startled reaction and she's not done another townhall. I don't remember if Medea was at that townhall but I know she's heard of it. Peace activists need to grasp Pelosi wrote them off then. It's been a slow estrangement ever since. So the point here is, forget Nancy Pelosi. She doesn't represent the district. She's made that very clear on every issue. Target others. (In DC work. I'm not saying call off any vigils outside Pelosi's office. She needs to be made uncomfortable. But realize that's all that's going to help. She's got her eyes on the 2008 elections and she doesn't give a damn about ending the illegal war.) After noting Pelosi's refusal to meet with the activists (Pelosi should be written off and so should Joe Lieberman -- nothing is achieved by meeting with either), Benjamin asks the money question: "Can't she [Pelosi] decide that we're not going to keep funding this war?" Lerner (rightly) points out, "Pelosi could simply not bring up any funding bill for the military. She could not bring it up, and then say: 'We're only going to bring it up if you agree to end the war'." -- to which Woolsey adds, "That we're only going to be spending our money to bring the troops home. And that's what we're [the Progressive Caucus] going to be pushing for, I promise."
As I'm reading Woolsey's remarks three things are needed (out of many) right now. (1) Physical mobilization (not e-activism). (2) Democrats needing to be targeted. (3) Support for the Progressive Caucus made clear.
Starting with the third point. In March Party Hacks were so busy spit shining the shoes of Pelosi and Steny Hoyer that they flat out lied. They used terms like "conspiracy theorist" to those stating US House Rep Barbara Lee had an amendment on Iraq that Pelosi refused to allow Lee to offer (this is when the Dems bought into the illegal war). That was not a "conspiracy theory" -- that was reality. Woolsey appeared, before the Friday vote, on Democracy Now! and explained that troops home now would not be in the vote, wouldn't even be an amendment but "there will be no amendments". Woolsey, who supports Troops Home Now, was explaining what was going on. To clarify, Juan Gonzalez followed up on the amendment issue and Woolsey agreed that their needed to be amendments but House leadership wasn't allowing them, "I think if our amendment, the Barbara Lee amendment, is made an order, which it wasn't last night and it's not going to, there's a lot of people that would like to vote 'Yes, what I really want is to bring the troops home, but, yes, I will vote with the supplemental, but I want my constituents to know that I really want to bring them home sooner than that'."
Point two. Democrats, by not being targeted, have been allowed to fall into the beltway lazy conventional spin. They've been allowed to relax in official DC and think all is fine and dandy for them (it isn't) and they can just coast. Cagan worded it a lot nicer than I would. If you're 'activism' is "Vote Democrats!" then you aren't part of the peace movement. The peace movement is not an electoral party. Reaching out is one thing. Blurring the line is another. A member of a group participating in the dialogue, trying to apparently speak for the organization, e-mailed this site repeatedly to defend someone attacking war resisters and IVAW, to defend someone who not only attacks those who are part of the peace movement but also someone who thinks targeting Republicans qualifies for peace work. The organizations need to send clear messages to their members. And when Democrats are called out for cowardice by brave voices, such as Howard Zinn, we really don't need to read in Foreign Policy in Focus that 'both' Zinn and Sad Sirota (playing Party Hack and providing non-stop cover) have 'a point'. If Foreign Policy in Focus can't get their own act together enough to grasp that Zinn speaking to truth to power is not on the same level as Sirota providing cover for Democrats, the peace movement will be hopeless and the illegal war will drag on. Too many lines are being blurred. When people think it's okay to attack war resisters, the peace movement is defeating itself by allowing that to go unchallenged. When people want to equate the historian Zinn with Sad Sirota (who was the one shouting "conspiracy theorist" -- after Woolesy had appeared on Democracy Now! so he's either uninformed or a liar) then it's not at all surprising that this illegal war continues to drag on.
Point three. As long as the lines are blurred e-activism will continue to take hold. It's "nice," it doesn't challenge. WalkOn.org is a Democratic Party organ that attempts to present itself as "anti-war" (and the press assists them with that). We do not need more silent gatherings. We need more people like Tina Richards, Cindy Sheehan, the members of IVAW, etc, willing to speak out and use their voices. Those preaching e-activism or silence in public are not part of the peace movement and that needs to be made clear. As long as it's not, some people will elect to choose e-activism as opposed to real activism because e-activism is so much easier. When the peace movement cannot make the difference between the two clear, it really can't expect people to turn out in large numbers for actual actions. There are some people who may not be able to participate due to physical challenges/disabilities, agoraphobia or living a remote region. That is grasped. But for those with mobility and proximity, it needs to be made clear that physical action and e-activism are not equivalent. It's like telling someone that both candy and brocolli will provide you with calcium -- most would then choose candy. The reality is candy doesn't provide you with calcium and e-activism (for those with mobility and proximity) is not activism. But as long as those lines continue to be blurred, when faced with going out into the streets or sitting at home, most will choose to sit at home.
Failure to make that clear, failure to make any of the three clear, means the peace movement will spin the wheels until 2009 at which point another voice will instruct us as to "Ending the war in 2011." The illegal war has gone on long enough. It never should have started. The peace movement has had some real success but failure to make it clear what is and what isn't activism, what is and what isn't the peace movement (electoral campaigns rarely ever make for peace campaigns), and what is and isn't reality -- such as standing up to the spin from Party Hacks -- will mean the peace movement's early success will either fall away or that many represented in the dialogue will find themselves out of the peace movement. When organizations do not serve the movement, they fall away. It happened in the 'sixites' and it's already beginning to happen today with new organizations coming to life.
We're going to turn to violence and if there's time to cover the spin going on right now, we will. If not, well, David Petraues hair color (that's not natural -- I have no idea how it looks on TV, but up close, that color does not look natural and it wouldn't be on a man half Petraeus' age) was as phony as his statements.
Today CNN reports: "The U.S. military data obtained by CNN indicates that 165 Iraqis were murdered in Baghdad last month, a slight increase from the previous two months. However, the number represents a significant decrease since the Baghdad security plan began earlier this year. It is not clear how the U.S. military obtained the number, but CNN statistics -- compiled from numbers released by the Iraqi Interior Ministry -- suggest 428 Iraqis were murdered in Baghdad in August, their bodies dumped in the streets. In July, 612 Iraqis were murdered, according to the Interior Ministry." This follows Renee Schoof (McClatchy Newspapers) reporting on Labor Day, "Statistics that McClatchy Newspapers collected in Baghdad don't show any drop in violence. Civilian deaths in the capital were about the same in July as in December, before the American troop increase began. U.S. officials in Baghdad declined to provide data to back up their claims of lower violence." Last week, Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) reported on the skepticism by "many experts within and outside the government" over the US "military's claim that violence has decreased sharply in Iraq in recent months" and explained why including that intelligence analysts note classifying "sectarian" or "criminal" based on whether the bullet went in the front of the head or back is "cherry picking". This story was kind-of, sort-of denied by Petreaus today. He didn't really deny it, just stated he wasn't aware of it. He's grabbing the Ronald Reagan covers. In addition, the GAO also stated that violence hasn't dropped. Renee Schoof and Warren P. Strobel (McClatchy Newspapers) reported last week that the GAO crunching of the figures "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" into Iraq (the escalation). CNN joins the above in reporting that there has been no descrease in the violence, despite the claims of the US administration and military.
Yesterday, both McClatchy Newspapers and the New York Times examined the realities in Iraq today. Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) notes Bully Boy's declaring (January 2007) that the escalation would mean the puppet government in Iraq would have "breathing room" and be able to work on the political issues but "[w]ith less than a week to go before the White House delivers a congressionally mandated report on that plan, none of this has happened." What has happened? Fadel reports on the increasing segregation in Baghdad where "Sunni Muslims in the capital now live in ghettos encircled by concrete blast walls to stop militia attacks and car bombs" while Shia militias engage in their slaughter of all (including slaughtering Shi'ites), that the militias have "heavily infiltrated" Iraq's national forces, no decrease in civilian deaths and that Al Anbar Province is the only exception to the continued decay. We'll get back to Al Anbar Province if there's time. Damien Cave and Stephen Farrell (New York Times) reported (on the front page and for two full pages inside -- A12 and A13) on the "Unmet Goals" noting that there is still not "a unified and trusted national government," and that the escalation coincides with the departure of over 35,000 from their residences in the capital. On Al Anbar Province, Cave and Farrell note that those currently working with the US in the alleged "model province" (where one US marine died September 7th and the US military announced the death yesterday, FYI) "made it abundantly clear that their cooperation did not come fre" -- nor is this a long-term arrangement. Cave and Farrell quote El Paso's Timothy Johnston who notes a a bombing attack targeting US service members in June didn't appear to phase the new 'friends' leading him to declare, "I don't trust them. They will smile in your face and stab you in the back. They were just too close to that E.F.P. not to have known." Back to Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) on Al Anbar Province -- "that success has little to do with the 4,000 U.S. troops who were sent to Anbar as part of the surge of 30,000 additional troops to Iraq. Instead, it began more than four months earlier, with the formation last September of the Anbar Salvation Council to fight the escalating terror of Sunni extremists. Officials agree that the anti-Islamist coalition in Anbar has yet to ally itself with the Shiite-led government in Baghdad, and a recent National Intelligence Estimate warned that it might even threaten it."
Today, Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) examines Al Anbar Province noting that nothing is clear regarding whether alliances formed or permanent or not and quotes Maj. Jeff Pool admitting that (if there are gain) the much lauded "Anbar model" isn't exportable due to "too many unique variables."
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad car bombing that claimed 2 lives (five more were wounded), a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed 2 lives (thirteen more wounded), a Kirkuk roadside bombing that claimed 1 life (four more wounded) and a Mosul truck bombing that claimed 10 lives and left at least sixty more wounded. On the Mosul truck bombing, Reuters puts the injured at 78 (sticks with 10 for the figure dead) and says it was actually outside Mosul in Tal Marag village and they note an Iskandariya mortar attack that injured 13 Iraqi soldiers,
Shootings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Basra attack where "the manager superviser of finace" was shot dead and then his corpse was set on fire. Reuters notes three police officers "killed in clashes with militants in easter Mosul,"
Corpses?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 10 corpses were discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 3 corpses discovered in Mahmudiya.
The US military announced today: "A Task Force Lightning Soldier died from injuries sustained from rocket fire while on patrol in Kirkuk province, Sunday. One Soldier was also wounded and transported to a Coalition medical facility for treatment." And they announced: "One Soldier died and two Soldiers were injured this morning east of Baghdad when the vehicle they were travling in overturned and caught fire." " And they announced: "Seven Multi-National Division-Baghdad Soldiers were killed and 11 others wounded in a vehicle accident in a western portion of the Iraqi capital Sept. 10." The last two announcements use that popular phrase, as Ruth pointed out Saturday, "under investigation." The announced deaths for the month of US service members in Iraq now stands at 29 with the total number announced dead in the illegal war since it started currently at 3771.
Today, Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) observes, "Besides commanding U.S. forces in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus has become the administration's top pitchman for the strategy in Iraq." This as the AP reports on their poll (Associated Press-Ipsos) which finds 57% saying the Iraq War was a "mistake," 59% declaring "they believe history will judge the Iraq war as a failure" and finds an even smaller 'boost' in support for the war due to the escalation (smaller than the two polls noted earlier) with only a 4% increase in those who believe the escalation "has helped stabilize Iraq" (up to 36%). 57% saying, in that poll, the illegal war is a mistake, 62% in the other polls cited. The American people want the illegal war to end. They can make nice with Petraeus and Crocker all day in Congress, it doesn't change the fact that the public wants the illegal war over. Nor does it change the data contained in the Washington Post-ABC News poll. Who does the American public trust to handle the issue of Iraq? Democrats by 42%. But don't break out the party hats just yet. Not only did 31% say Republicans, there's a "trend." In May of 2006, Dems scored high on this category with 50% of respondents citing them. It then dipped as low as 43% until it went higher, 51% in October of 2006 (just in time for those elections). Since then? It's fallen to 42%. Republicans have also fallen. But Dems were swept into control of both houses of the US Congress with the promise of ending the illegal war. Who is keeping the illegal war going at this point? Not the American people who say end it. Not Iraqs who declare the escalation a failure (by 70% in the BBC, ABC News and NHK poll just out which also finds "nearly 60% see attacks on US-led forces as justified."). It's Congress and White House that are refusing to end the illegal war.
Petraeus declared today, "Blah, blah, LIE, blah, blah, SPIN, blah, blah, AVOID . . ." That more than notes the nonsense.
Turning to what does matter. As noted Friday, Tina Richards (Grassroots America), Adam Kokesh (Iraq Veterans Against the War) and Ian Thompson were arrested on Thursday for the 'crime' of posting fliers. As noted yesterday, "Editorial: You should be very angry" (The Third Estate Sunday Review), Richards and Kokesh held a press conference yesterday. Nathan Grossman (The GW Hatchet) interviewed Kokesh who declared, "Welcome to the police state" and notes, "We were ready to get arrested, but I really wasn't expecting that level of brutality." Actions continue today with Suevon Lee (New York Times) reporting members of CODEPINK have been ejected from a public hearing after showing up three hours before the hearing began to be sure they would be able to get at least one of the twenty general public seats and hear Petraeus speak. AFP reports nine members of CODEPINK were ejected and "One woman screamed 'No, No, No, No,' as she was dragged out." Reuters states it was "No! No! No! I have a right to be heard!" William H. McMichael (Navy Times) notes that cries of "Tell the truth, general!" were the apparent 'crime' and also states Cindy Sheehan was among four women arrested. National Journal's Hotline reports that two women with CODEPINK were chanting, "The American people don't believe you anymore!"
9/07/2007
oink, oink go the pigs
In the following column, Paul Krugman hits on about a dozen important points, but never quite mentions the key one: the whole Petraeus report ritual is complete and utter bullsh*t. No report could say anything to justify an illegal occupation. If it did say credibly that violence was down, that would be a reason to end the occupation. Everyone knows violence is up. That too is a reason to end the occupation.
that's david swanson doing an intro to a repost of paul krugman's column. i don't worship at the church of the krugman so i enjoyed it and thought i'd share. krugman seems like a well meaning liberal, always ready to sell the latest talking point in such a way that it goes down smooth & easy. only it doesn't if you know reality. for instance, his getting nostalgic in a speech about the 50s was sickening even before you factored in the fact that ... it was the annivesary of the rosenbergs' executions. murdered by the state and krugman's waxing on about those wonderful 50s.
of course david swanson is mild with krugman but shows his ass with katie couric. i think we're going to tackle this bullsh*t of the national past-time that is bash the bitch this weekend at third so i'll just ask, 'is it fun to be a sexist pig?' do all the pigs need to gather together and sniff each other?
i've really had it with that nonsense.
that b.s. is the reason we still have michael gordon at the new york times. because the boys love nothing so much as attacking women. if they did it fairly, to both genders, it would be 1 thing. but instead they go after women and they don't even feel the need to be accurate in their sexist smears.
for those who remember the todd s. purdum commentaries at the common ills, c.i.'s point was that we get 'knee pads' and all this other crap on women but men get a damn pass over and over. they get called out for a day and then forgiven.
if all the little pigs wanted to go after the richard nixon & rush limbaugh loving newscaster while they also went after katie couric, that would be 1 thing. but they don't. they ignore those men and just go to town on katie couric. it's sexism. they should be ashamed.
considering that no man would be alive today if it weren't for women, it's really amazing when they feel the need to flaunt their hatred of women.
i think hillary clinton's disgusting. but i don't avoid calling barack obama - her twin - disgusting as well. the boys can't say the same. they're too busy pretending obama's anti-war. the same obama who declared in 2004 that the u.s. couldn't withdraw troops now that the war was started. some anti-war person, huh? he's full of crap. the same as hillary.
but notice who calls him out and who gives him a pass.
he's got samantha power as his big advisor. power whom noam chomsky and howard zinn have both noted has the feathers of a war hawk. but let's all pretend differently and carve up the woman only yet again.
katha pollitt's disgusting and i've called her out. until yesterday's excerpt, i wasn't aware gilligan had joined in the bashing of cindy sheehan so let me take a moment to note how full of crap he is.
Starting with war resisters. Daryl Shandro (Political Affairs) reports on how the influx of war resisters into Canada has created the need for new chapters to be created (they were -- Ottawa, Kingston, Hamilton and London) and shares how war resister Steve Yoczik spoke informatively and amusingly about his own experience to a group in Sudbury: "Steve waged a concerted bid to be kicked out of the army. Over a period of months, he deliberately failed between 50 and 100 physical tests. When it became obvious that the officers would not file three consecutive failing reports so as to have his status reviewed, Steve started to fail to appear for the tests and was flippant, if not outright insubordinate, if these absences brought any reporach. Steve figures he was gone for a while before anyone realized that he was AWOL. He found out about the War Resisters Support Campaign in Canada through a friend -- a model soldier and US patriot who disagreed so strongly with the war in Iraq that he fled to Canada rather than participate in it." Shandro notes Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey's appeals to Canada's Supreme Court and that the "continues to lobby for the political solution: these War Resisters must be given sanctuary under a separate immigration category, much like the US war resisters of the Vietnam era received under the Trudeau government. In Sudbuy we are now fielding a serious inquiry every week from War Resisters. These are people 'checking into' Toronot and then moving to their host city within hours or days. They are calling from Germany (military hosipital) and bases all over the continental U.S., and they are coming. In Toronto the serious inquiries are about three a week; arrivals, both anticipated and unanticipated, are becoming more and more frequent."
Ehren Watada is also resisting the Iraq War. In June 2006, he became the first known officer to publicly refuse to deploy the war (he cited the illegal nature of the war). In February of this year, Judge Toilet (aka John Head) presided over the court-martial of Watada. Watada had elected to go with a jury of his peers. Judge Toilet saw Watada's case was being made for him by the prosecution witness and attempted to flush justice by delcaring a mistrial -- over defense objection and over the initial objection of the prosecution -- Toilet had to coax the prosecution into seeing that what he was offering was a 'do over.' However, the Constitution does not allow for 'do overs' and, as National Lawyers Guild president Marjorie Cohn has noted, double-jeopardy had already attached. Currently, Watada is due to stand for another court-martial next month. The appeals process are ongoing. Judge Toilet has said there is no double-jeopary and that he can be impartial and should be allowed to sit on a second court-martial. Howls of laughter echo through the land at both assertions. Last month, we noted the Japanese American Citizens League (JACL)'s statement regarding Watada. On Wednesday, Caroline Aoyagi-Strom (New American Media) noted the JACL's statement and the struggle it took to get that weak statement and notes Mas Hashimoto declaring, "Today we are at a crossroads. What kind of organization are we going to be? We need to take a stand, a firm and dedicated stand." while Alan Nishi declares, "We should take a more solid stance than we have in the past." The stand taken thus far is to note that Watada has civil rights and that he is "protected from double jeopardy" and, as Aoyagi-Strom notes, JALC is now supposed "to help educate other groups on the controversial issue."
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 month, NOW with David Brancaccio covered war resisters Agustin Aguayo and James Burmeister. Tonight (in most PBS markets, the program airs tonight) NOW with David Brancaccio examines the issue of sexual abuse in the military:
Roughly one in seven of America's active duty military soldiers is a woman, but a NOW investigation found that sexual assault and rape is widespread. One study of National Guard and Reserve forces found that almost one in four women had been assaulted or raped. Last year alone, almost 3,000 soldiers reported sexual assault and rape by other soldiers. On Friday, September 7 (check your local listings), in one of the only national television broadcasts of the issue, NOW features women who speak out for the first time about what happened. One woman recounts her ordeal of rape by her superior officer. Many more don't report the incidents for fear of how it will affect their careers. The shocking phenomenon has a label: military sexual trauma, or MST. NOW meets women courageously battling to overcome their MST, bringing light to an issue that's putting the army in shame. A NOW exclusive investigation. The NOW website at www.pbs.org/now will offer the latest statistics on MST and insight into the challenges of reporting sexual abuse in the military
Online, NOW with David Branccacio has a fact sheet regarding the percentages. Some that should immediately stand out include "60% of women have experienced military sexual trauma" and "23% of women have experienced military sexual assault." (27% of males have also "experienced military sexual trauma".) Also online, they interview (text) Kate Summers (Miles Foundation) about the issue and offer advice from Rev. Dorthy Mackey: "I encourage any survivor of sexual abuse in the military to immediately contact family or friends who love them. Tell them the complete sotry of the facts, have them record or get e-mails of the facts from the survivor. These friends and family who are not traumatized must be willing to act as guides/support and spokesperson for the survivor. Within the military system, the already traumatized survivor is lost. Once the covert or overt hostility begins, the survivor is multiply re-victimized." Rev. Mackey founded Survivors Take Action Against Abuse by Military Personnel, served nine years in the Air Force and, as she discussed with Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) in July of 2004, was raped three times, "twice by military doctors during appointments. Rev. Mackey explained to Goodman, "So there's a lot more to this, and yet no one wants to invite those of us who know. And one of the moves on right now is to have the Pentagon itself establish a victim's advocacy office. I would hate to tell you, but from the Congressional Congress' own lips, the Women's Congressional Congress' own lips, they said, as we have been telling them, that rapists keep getting promoted into the senior ranks. Up into the Pentagon. And when you have the Pentagon itself, who has refused any recommendations in the last 16 years with 19 task forces of sexual misconduct, it's not being addressed. What's going to happen is the same that many of us who've lived through it have seen, and they will typically shut down these victims even more so. I mean, a nice term they really should do for this victim's advocacy office they're considering, call it the Pentagon's Lobotomy Shop, because that's what it will be for these victims."
More recently, Traci Hukill (The Progressive, January 2007) examined the issue and offered many important details such as: "Last year, the Pentagon received reports of 2,374 rapes or attempted rapes from all of its bases worldwide, about 40 percent more than the year before. But that's probably just a fraction of the real number. One reason the crime still goes unreported may lurk in the annual [Pentago] report: Last year, just seventy-nine servicemembers were court-martialed for sexual assault. Why bother reporting if nothing will happen to the perpetrator?"
The most famous example of sexual abuse and command rape during this illegal war is Suzanne Swift. Swift attempted to work through military channels. Nothing was done. Finally, 'help' was offering her a class on how women could work not to 'invite' rape and abuse. Swift self-checked out when she returned from Iraq. She was taken from her mother's home in handcuffs. The military wanted the entire matter to go away. Even their white wash investigation verified some of the details of assault. Instead of doing the honorable thing and immediately discharge Swift (with full benefits and an honorable discharge), the US military elected to punish her. Sarah Rich, her mother, continues to fight for her daughter and other victims of sexual assault. The US Congress continues to pretend that nothing happened to Swift and that, if it did, it's not like they have oversight of the military.
Not content to be useless, a number are gearing up for DC actions this month. Paul Schwartzman (Washington Post) reports that in Lafayette Square Thursday, the police staged a big rollout to disrupt a press conference and 'deal' with the very important 'crime' of sign posting. One police officer attempted to 'disarm' Tina Richards who held menacing glue (wheat paste). Schwartman reports, "A few feet away, Kristine Klein, 13, Richards's daughter, started crying. She said that another officer had grabbed her arm and pushed her. As Richards tried to call to her daughter from the cruiser, another officer closed the window." What a proud moment for DC police. They also nabbed Adam Kokesh and Ian Thompson. Don't you feel safer? The three were charged with "defacing public property." Descrating the Constitution is a-okay in DC which is why Bully Boy's still sitting pretty and not facing impeachment. But try to post a flier, and it's SWAT time. The Times of India quotes A.N.S.W.E.R.'s Brian Becker declaring, "The police suppressed the press conference. In the middle of the speeches, they grabbed the podium. Then, mounted police charged the media present to disperse them." The Times of India notes, "The charge caused a peaceful crowd of some 20 journalists and four or five protestors to scatter in terror, an AFP correspondent at the event in Layfayette Square said." The press conference was intended to get the word out on the actions in DC beginning September 15th with a march and a die-in. A.N.S.W.E.R. has a press release with photos and note the police officer pulling Kokesh's left arm behind his back to save the capital from . . . a posted flier. A video is posted on YouTube. You'll hear chatter about "a national security threat" as DC police swarm in. You'll see a police officer jerk Tina Richards by her arm repeatedly, call for "backup" over his radio before grabbing the bucket of paste. Backup takes a while to arrive (with sirens). Then a real idiot on horseback comes galloping up screeching, "Back up, folks, back up, back up, back up, back up" over and over like the idiot he is. The entire point was to disrupt the statements that Tina Richards was making to the press at the time.
Richards and Kokesh do not represent a minority view in the US. Nor are they in the minority around the world. A new BBC poll of 22 countries has found 39% say troops home right now and another "28% backed a gradual pull-out" while only 23% declared US troops should "stay until Iraq was safe".
And yet . . . yesterday came the news from the US Pentagon that the number of US forces in Iraq had reached 168,000 and were expected to rise to 172,000 shortly. Before Democrats won control of both houses in the US Congress in the November 2006 elections and before the US Congress was sworn in (January 2007) the number of US troops in Iraq was approximately 144,000. Robin Wright and Jonathan Weisman (Washington Post) report that US General and White House spokesperson David Petraeus is reportedly showing "a willingness to consider a drawdown of one brigade of between 3,500 and 4,500 US troops from Iraq early next year" and that Fancy Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House) and her right hand, Steny Hoyer, are yet again throwing in the towel with Hoyer stating, "Clearly we don't have the numbers to override the president's vetoes, as has been clearly demonstrated, nor do we expect to for a long time." Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) also notes the cowardice in Congress: "On Capitol Hill, the Democratic leadership appears set to give up its efforts on setting a deadline for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The Senate is expected to vote on a bill later this month that would call for withdrawal to begin this year but it would include no language on when the troop withdrawal had to be completed." Susan Cornwell (Reuters) reports US Senator Dick Durbin gave a speech today where he declared: "This Congress can't give President (George W.) Bush another blank check for Iraq. I can't support an open-ended appropriation which allows this president to continue this failed policy." While it's great that Durbin realizes Congress did give Bully Boy a "blank check," he'll need more than straight talk to combat his own party's rush to cave again.
Outside the spineless DC bubble, Greg Mitchell (Editor & Publisher) quotes Cathy Fish, mother of John Fish III, explaining, "Three weeks ago I was hugging a happy loving wonderful son. And now as you can see . . . I've got pictures." John Fish committed sucide after returning from Iraq.
It's Friday which means news of violence trickles out slowly. So we'll start out with Ali al-Fadhily (IPS) reporting that Samarra has been the site of fighting between the US and Iraqis beginning August 26th when, an Iraqi explains, "there was fierce fighting between armed men and American forces in the Armooshiya district, and I saw Americans evacuate many of their soldiers by stretchers. As usual, Americans took revenge by bombing the district." Iman, an Iraqi woman, tells Fadhily that a US bombing "killed a woman with her seven children" and that the violence has been confirmed in a statement from the Muslim Scholars Association
while the associations Sheikh Taha tells al-Fadhily, "They think their crimes would stop Iraqis from demanding their rights for liberty and prosperity, but the results are always different from what the American leaders hope. They are only pushing more Iraqis to be armed against them, and you can see that the facts on the ground are the opposite of what they tell their people. Their soldiers are getting killed every day and they (U.S. military) are losing in Iraq."
In the small reported violence that will lead to many filing reports of "Yesterday in . . ." tomorrow . . .
Bombings?Robert H. Reid (AP) reports in 'peaceful' Al Anbar Province, the 'model' Bully Boy touts, "two suspension bridges" were blown up and brought to five the number of bridges in Al Anbar Province blown up this year..
Shootings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Dwood Salman ("member of the municipality council") was shot dead outside of his home in Suleiman Beck.
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 8 corpses were discovered in Baghdad.
Today the US military announced: "Three Task Force Lightning Soldiers were killed in Nineveh province Thursday when an explosion occurred near their vehicle." And they announced: "Four Marines assigned to Multi National Force-West were killed Sept. 6 while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar Province." ICCC lists the total number for US service members who have died in the illegal war at 3760 and, for the month thus far, at 18. And four of the seven deaths were in Al Anbar Province, the 'model' province.
Today the UK Ministry of Defence announced: "It is with deep sadness that the MOD must confirm the death of a British soldier from the Parachute Regiment in Iraq on Wednesday 5, September 2007. The soldier sustained fatal injuries in the early hours of Wednesday while conducting routine operations". The death bringsthe number of United Kingdom troops killed in Iraq to 169.
In other news, the Online Predator has turned his attention away from underage girls and is now attacking Katie Couric online. One might wonder why he hates all women were it not for the howls of laughter at his latest blunder -- which should make everyone wonder about his previous 'facts' on Iran. Let's quote Pig Predator: "CBS is owned by General Electric. GE is working hard to get favorable trading status with any number of foreign trading partners. The U.S. trade representative is working hard on GE's behalf." GE owns NBC. Facts are tough, eh, Online Predator? [FYI, The Progressive's Matthew Rothschild -- who has not engaged in Bash the Bitch -- has posted the efforts CBS' Early Show took, while on location, to avoid allowing people against the illegal war to be on camera in the background.] So CBS Evening News went to Iraq and did any of the critics watch? Apparently not. Probably Piggy Pedophile tried to. He probably pulled the lever down on his GE toaster and got confused when no picture came on.
Yesterday, Katie Couric (CBS Evening News) interviewed Syrian president Bashar Assad who responded to the charges that the Syrian government was funding, training or whatever else the US military brass wants to offer as the current justification for the failure of the illegal war (it failed because it was illegal), "What do they do, those terrorists in Iraq? They kill civilians, they create chaos. What interest have Syria in having chaos in Iraq? Chaos is contagious. If we help the chaos in Iraq, this means we we work against our interest. So we do our best to control our borders, first of all for Syrians; second, for the Iraqis; third, for the region." This morning Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) reported that "Israeli Air Force jets purportedly entered Syrian airspace" and Syria fired back. So you might think some of the 'critics' would take a moment to check out yesterday's interview with the president of Syria. However, you would be wrong.
Couric interviewed Assad and Iraq was the topic. Assad explained that Syria pays "the price for the chaos in Iraq today," criticized the US administration for attempting to respond to political situations with military non-answers, and observed, "It's getting worse every day, nothing is better. Sometimes it gets better, but it's like a flash in the pan; it just disappears, it's transient. We're talking about the result, the chaos is worse, the killing is worse than before. . . ." Assad also declared his belief that US troops should leave Iraq pointing out that "after four years . . . every day is getting worse than before. So I cannot say that American forces will bring stability to Iraq."
It's cute the way another round of Bash the Bitch allows alleged 'media critics' to ignore the fact that one of the biggest complaints about network news is the decrease in international coverage but a whole crowd ignored an interview on Iraq with the president of one of Iraq's neighboring countries. Same way they didn't appear to notice the slack off in coverage from Iraq by Los Angeles Times and New York Times correspondents this week (most noticeable today).
Syria is where Riverbend is now. The Iraqi blogger of Baghdad Burning recounts how she and her family waited and waited for the safest time to make their journey and she writes:
The tears had stopped about an hour after we'd left Baghdad. Just seeing the dirty streets, the ruins of buildings and houses, the smoke-filled horizon all helped me realize how fortunate I was to have a chance for something safer.
By the time we were out of Baghdad, my heart was no longer aching as it had been while we were still leaving it. The cars around us on the border were making me nervous. I hated being in the middle of so many possibly explosive vehicles. A part of me wanted to study the faces of the people around me, mostly families, and the other part of me, the one that's been trained to stay out of trouble the last four years, told me to keep my eyes to myself- it was almost over.
It was finally our turn. I sat stiffly in the car and waited as money passed hands; our passports were looked over and finally stamped. We were ushered along and the driver smiled with satisfaction, "It's been an easy trip, Alhamdulillah," he said cheerfully.
As we crossed the border and saw the last of the Iraqi flags, the tears began again. The car was silent except for the prattling of the driver who was telling us stories of escapades he had while crossing the border. I sneaked a look at my mother sitting beside me and her tears were flowing as well. There was simply nothing to say as we left Iraq. I wanted to sob, but I didn't want to seem like a baby. I didn't want the driver to think I was ungrateful for the chance to leave what had become a hellish place over the last four and a half years.
Riverbend and her family join over 4 million Iraqi refugees (internal and external) whom the illegal war has 'liberated'. Relief Web released a new study today on the refugee crisis
noting that their numbers increase "[a]s the security situation continues to deteriorate inside Iraq, human displacement escalates to levels unparalleled in the region" and that it threatens the entire region. The report notes: "The exodus of Iraq's professionals has led to severe brain drain, hitting the health, education, and government sectors particularly hard. This will have serious implications for Iraq's ability to rebuild the country when the violence decreases. Internal displacement is resulting in ethnic and sectarian homogenization of the country, and displaced communities are increasingly vulnerable to violence, kidnappings, and control by militias. Displacement is both a consequence and a cause of sectarian polarization in the country. Jordan and Syria now face internal security threats related to the immense economic burden of hosting the Iraqi populations, new sectarian demographics, tension among host and refugee populations as well as across sectarian divides, the potential of increased regime opposition, and the possibility that refugees will be recruited into armed militias if humanitarian assistance isn't sufficient to meet their needs."
Unrelated note, Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights, co-host of Law and Disorder) has a website entitled Just Left. Community member Jonah noted that we plug things in the snapshot from time to time and asked if that could be worked in.
that's david swanson doing an intro to a repost of paul krugman's column. i don't worship at the church of the krugman so i enjoyed it and thought i'd share. krugman seems like a well meaning liberal, always ready to sell the latest talking point in such a way that it goes down smooth & easy. only it doesn't if you know reality. for instance, his getting nostalgic in a speech about the 50s was sickening even before you factored in the fact that ... it was the annivesary of the rosenbergs' executions. murdered by the state and krugman's waxing on about those wonderful 50s.
of course david swanson is mild with krugman but shows his ass with katie couric. i think we're going to tackle this bullsh*t of the national past-time that is bash the bitch this weekend at third so i'll just ask, 'is it fun to be a sexist pig?' do all the pigs need to gather together and sniff each other?
i've really had it with that nonsense.
that b.s. is the reason we still have michael gordon at the new york times. because the boys love nothing so much as attacking women. if they did it fairly, to both genders, it would be 1 thing. but instead they go after women and they don't even feel the need to be accurate in their sexist smears.
for those who remember the todd s. purdum commentaries at the common ills, c.i.'s point was that we get 'knee pads' and all this other crap on women but men get a damn pass over and over. they get called out for a day and then forgiven.
if all the little pigs wanted to go after the richard nixon & rush limbaugh loving newscaster while they also went after katie couric, that would be 1 thing. but they don't. they ignore those men and just go to town on katie couric. it's sexism. they should be ashamed.
considering that no man would be alive today if it weren't for women, it's really amazing when they feel the need to flaunt their hatred of women.
i think hillary clinton's disgusting. but i don't avoid calling barack obama - her twin - disgusting as well. the boys can't say the same. they're too busy pretending obama's anti-war. the same obama who declared in 2004 that the u.s. couldn't withdraw troops now that the war was started. some anti-war person, huh? he's full of crap. the same as hillary.
but notice who calls him out and who gives him a pass.
he's got samantha power as his big advisor. power whom noam chomsky and howard zinn have both noted has the feathers of a war hawk. but let's all pretend differently and carve up the woman only yet again.
katha pollitt's disgusting and i've called her out. until yesterday's excerpt, i wasn't aware gilligan had joined in the bashing of cindy sheehan so let me take a moment to note how full of crap he is.
he has a column called 'The Dog Days of War' at the nation (no links to trash) where he goes on and on about the u.s. and 'we' - on and on with 'we,' 'we,' 'we.' but the thing it, he's not an american. he's a citizen of the united kingdom, not the united states. now he couldn't go to town on tony blair the way he can cindy sheehan because he really doesn't write that often for the nation. often they offer reprints of his columns for the paper he works for, the guardian of london. that's really a piece of crap newspaper with few exceptions. the times of london (a murdoch paper) broke the news of the downing street memos. search through the guardian for that story. lots of luck finding it. they propped up tony blair like there was no tomorrow. (as both c.i. and tariq ali pointed out when tony blair finally hit the road.)
he's such a piece of crap. he makes his name finger pointing outside his own country. there are a lot of people less than impressed with his reporting on jamacian rap. a lot who consider him an impealist. and for good reason. at some point, maybe the united kingdom citizen can BUTT HIS DAMN NOSE out of u.s. politics and start telling the truth about what's happening in his own country. it's especially insulting, if you think about it, that a citizen of england wants to butt into american politics. i thought a revolutionary war was fought to avoid the yoke of the british.
even if that day never comes, he needs to stop saying 'we' when referring to americans. he is not 1 of us and that's the sort of crap the nation pulls too often, trying to put 1 over on the public.
for the record, no 1 who can't even vote in our elections should be able to say who should or should not run in them. and gary younge, from england, is based in nyc so that's 1 more reason for him to shut the hell up about a san francisco race.
what little busy bodies our 'leaders' on the left are.
here's c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Starting with war resisters. Daryl Shandro (Political Affairs) reports on how the influx of war resisters into Canada has created the need for new chapters to be created (they were -- Ottawa, Kingston, Hamilton and London) and shares how war resister Steve Yoczik spoke informatively and amusingly about his own experience to a group in Sudbury: "Steve waged a concerted bid to be kicked out of the army. Over a period of months, he deliberately failed between 50 and 100 physical tests. When it became obvious that the officers would not file three consecutive failing reports so as to have his status reviewed, Steve started to fail to appear for the tests and was flippant, if not outright insubordinate, if these absences brought any reporach. Steve figures he was gone for a while before anyone realized that he was AWOL. He found out about the War Resisters Support Campaign in Canada through a friend -- a model soldier and US patriot who disagreed so strongly with the war in Iraq that he fled to Canada rather than participate in it." Shandro notes Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey's appeals to Canada's Supreme Court and that the "continues to lobby for the political solution: these War Resisters must be given sanctuary under a separate immigration category, much like the US war resisters of the Vietnam era received under the Trudeau government. In Sudbuy we are now fielding a serious inquiry every week from War Resisters. These are people 'checking into' Toronot and then moving to their host city within hours or days. They are calling from Germany (military hosipital) and bases all over the continental U.S., and they are coming. In Toronto the serious inquiries are about three a week; arrivals, both anticipated and unanticipated, are becoming more and more frequent."
Ehren Watada is also resisting the Iraq War. In June 2006, he became the first known officer to publicly refuse to deploy the war (he cited the illegal nature of the war). In February of this year, Judge Toilet (aka John Head) presided over the court-martial of Watada. Watada had elected to go with a jury of his peers. Judge Toilet saw Watada's case was being made for him by the prosecution witness and attempted to flush justice by delcaring a mistrial -- over defense objection and over the initial objection of the prosecution -- Toilet had to coax the prosecution into seeing that what he was offering was a 'do over.' However, the Constitution does not allow for 'do overs' and, as National Lawyers Guild president Marjorie Cohn has noted, double-jeopardy had already attached. Currently, Watada is due to stand for another court-martial next month. The appeals process are ongoing. Judge Toilet has said there is no double-jeopary and that he can be impartial and should be allowed to sit on a second court-martial. Howls of laughter echo through the land at both assertions. Last month, we noted the Japanese American Citizens League (JACL)'s statement regarding Watada. On Wednesday, Caroline Aoyagi-Strom (New American Media) noted the JACL's statement and the struggle it took to get that weak statement and notes Mas Hashimoto declaring, "Today we are at a crossroads. What kind of organization are we going to be? We need to take a stand, a firm and dedicated stand." while Alan Nishi declares, "We should take a more solid stance than we have in the past." The stand taken thus far is to note that Watada has civil rights and that he is "protected from double jeopardy" and, as Aoyagi-Strom notes, JALC is now supposed "to help educate other groups on the controversial issue."
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 month, NOW with David Brancaccio covered war resisters Agustin Aguayo and James Burmeister. Tonight (in most PBS markets, the program airs tonight) NOW with David Brancaccio examines the issue of sexual abuse in the military:
Roughly one in seven of America's active duty military soldiers is a woman, but a NOW investigation found that sexual assault and rape is widespread. One study of National Guard and Reserve forces found that almost one in four women had been assaulted or raped. Last year alone, almost 3,000 soldiers reported sexual assault and rape by other soldiers. On Friday, September 7 (check your local listings), in one of the only national television broadcasts of the issue, NOW features women who speak out for the first time about what happened. One woman recounts her ordeal of rape by her superior officer. Many more don't report the incidents for fear of how it will affect their careers. The shocking phenomenon has a label: military sexual trauma, or MST. NOW meets women courageously battling to overcome their MST, bringing light to an issue that's putting the army in shame. A NOW exclusive investigation. The NOW website at www.pbs.org/now will offer the latest statistics on MST and insight into the challenges of reporting sexual abuse in the military
Online, NOW with David Branccacio has a fact sheet regarding the percentages. Some that should immediately stand out include "60% of women have experienced military sexual trauma" and "23% of women have experienced military sexual assault." (27% of males have also "experienced military sexual trauma".) Also online, they interview (text) Kate Summers (Miles Foundation) about the issue and offer advice from Rev. Dorthy Mackey: "I encourage any survivor of sexual abuse in the military to immediately contact family or friends who love them. Tell them the complete sotry of the facts, have them record or get e-mails of the facts from the survivor. These friends and family who are not traumatized must be willing to act as guides/support and spokesperson for the survivor. Within the military system, the already traumatized survivor is lost. Once the covert or overt hostility begins, the survivor is multiply re-victimized." Rev. Mackey founded Survivors Take Action Against Abuse by Military Personnel, served nine years in the Air Force and, as she discussed with Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) in July of 2004, was raped three times, "twice by military doctors during appointments. Rev. Mackey explained to Goodman, "So there's a lot more to this, and yet no one wants to invite those of us who know. And one of the moves on right now is to have the Pentagon itself establish a victim's advocacy office. I would hate to tell you, but from the Congressional Congress' own lips, the Women's Congressional Congress' own lips, they said, as we have been telling them, that rapists keep getting promoted into the senior ranks. Up into the Pentagon. And when you have the Pentagon itself, who has refused any recommendations in the last 16 years with 19 task forces of sexual misconduct, it's not being addressed. What's going to happen is the same that many of us who've lived through it have seen, and they will typically shut down these victims even more so. I mean, a nice term they really should do for this victim's advocacy office they're considering, call it the Pentagon's Lobotomy Shop, because that's what it will be for these victims."
More recently, Traci Hukill (The Progressive, January 2007) examined the issue and offered many important details such as: "Last year, the Pentagon received reports of 2,374 rapes or attempted rapes from all of its bases worldwide, about 40 percent more than the year before. But that's probably just a fraction of the real number. One reason the crime still goes unreported may lurk in the annual [Pentago] report: Last year, just seventy-nine servicemembers were court-martialed for sexual assault. Why bother reporting if nothing will happen to the perpetrator?"
The most famous example of sexual abuse and command rape during this illegal war is Suzanne Swift. Swift attempted to work through military channels. Nothing was done. Finally, 'help' was offering her a class on how women could work not to 'invite' rape and abuse. Swift self-checked out when she returned from Iraq. She was taken from her mother's home in handcuffs. The military wanted the entire matter to go away. Even their white wash investigation verified some of the details of assault. Instead of doing the honorable thing and immediately discharge Swift (with full benefits and an honorable discharge), the US military elected to punish her. Sarah Rich, her mother, continues to fight for her daughter and other victims of sexual assault. The US Congress continues to pretend that nothing happened to Swift and that, if it did, it's not like they have oversight of the military.
Not content to be useless, a number are gearing up for DC actions this month. Paul Schwartzman (Washington Post) reports that in Lafayette Square Thursday, the police staged a big rollout to disrupt a press conference and 'deal' with the very important 'crime' of sign posting. One police officer attempted to 'disarm' Tina Richards who held menacing glue (wheat paste). Schwartman reports, "A few feet away, Kristine Klein, 13, Richards's daughter, started crying. She said that another officer had grabbed her arm and pushed her. As Richards tried to call to her daughter from the cruiser, another officer closed the window." What a proud moment for DC police. They also nabbed Adam Kokesh and Ian Thompson. Don't you feel safer? The three were charged with "defacing public property." Descrating the Constitution is a-okay in DC which is why Bully Boy's still sitting pretty and not facing impeachment. But try to post a flier, and it's SWAT time. The Times of India quotes A.N.S.W.E.R.'s Brian Becker declaring, "The police suppressed the press conference. In the middle of the speeches, they grabbed the podium. Then, mounted police charged the media present to disperse them." The Times of India notes, "The charge caused a peaceful crowd of some 20 journalists and four or five protestors to scatter in terror, an AFP correspondent at the event in Layfayette Square said." The press conference was intended to get the word out on the actions in DC beginning September 15th with a march and a die-in. A.N.S.W.E.R. has a press release with photos and note the police officer pulling Kokesh's left arm behind his back to save the capital from . . . a posted flier. A video is posted on YouTube. You'll hear chatter about "a national security threat" as DC police swarm in. You'll see a police officer jerk Tina Richards by her arm repeatedly, call for "backup" over his radio before grabbing the bucket of paste. Backup takes a while to arrive (with sirens). Then a real idiot on horseback comes galloping up screeching, "Back up, folks, back up, back up, back up, back up" over and over like the idiot he is. The entire point was to disrupt the statements that Tina Richards was making to the press at the time.
Richards and Kokesh do not represent a minority view in the US. Nor are they in the minority around the world. A new BBC poll of 22 countries has found 39% say troops home right now and another "28% backed a gradual pull-out" while only 23% declared US troops should "stay until Iraq was safe".
And yet . . . yesterday came the news from the US Pentagon that the number of US forces in Iraq had reached 168,000 and were expected to rise to 172,000 shortly. Before Democrats won control of both houses in the US Congress in the November 2006 elections and before the US Congress was sworn in (January 2007) the number of US troops in Iraq was approximately 144,000. Robin Wright and Jonathan Weisman (Washington Post) report that US General and White House spokesperson David Petraeus is reportedly showing "a willingness to consider a drawdown of one brigade of between 3,500 and 4,500 US troops from Iraq early next year" and that Fancy Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House) and her right hand, Steny Hoyer, are yet again throwing in the towel with Hoyer stating, "Clearly we don't have the numbers to override the president's vetoes, as has been clearly demonstrated, nor do we expect to for a long time." Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) also notes the cowardice in Congress: "On Capitol Hill, the Democratic leadership appears set to give up its efforts on setting a deadline for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The Senate is expected to vote on a bill later this month that would call for withdrawal to begin this year but it would include no language on when the troop withdrawal had to be completed." Susan Cornwell (Reuters) reports US Senator Dick Durbin gave a speech today where he declared: "This Congress can't give President (George W.) Bush another blank check for Iraq. I can't support an open-ended appropriation which allows this president to continue this failed policy." While it's great that Durbin realizes Congress did give Bully Boy a "blank check," he'll need more than straight talk to combat his own party's rush to cave again.
Outside the spineless DC bubble, Greg Mitchell (Editor & Publisher) quotes Cathy Fish, mother of John Fish III, explaining, "Three weeks ago I was hugging a happy loving wonderful son. And now as you can see . . . I've got pictures." John Fish committed sucide after returning from Iraq.
It's Friday which means news of violence trickles out slowly. So we'll start out with Ali al-Fadhily (IPS) reporting that Samarra has been the site of fighting between the US and Iraqis beginning August 26th when, an Iraqi explains, "there was fierce fighting between armed men and American forces in the Armooshiya district, and I saw Americans evacuate many of their soldiers by stretchers. As usual, Americans took revenge by bombing the district." Iman, an Iraqi woman, tells Fadhily that a US bombing "killed a woman with her seven children" and that the violence has been confirmed in a statement from the Muslim Scholars Association
while the associations Sheikh Taha tells al-Fadhily, "They think their crimes would stop Iraqis from demanding their rights for liberty and prosperity, but the results are always different from what the American leaders hope. They are only pushing more Iraqis to be armed against them, and you can see that the facts on the ground are the opposite of what they tell their people. Their soldiers are getting killed every day and they (U.S. military) are losing in Iraq."
In the small reported violence that will lead to many filing reports of "Yesterday in . . ." tomorrow . . .
Bombings?Robert H. Reid (AP) reports in 'peaceful' Al Anbar Province, the 'model' Bully Boy touts, "two suspension bridges" were blown up and brought to five the number of bridges in Al Anbar Province blown up this year..
Shootings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Dwood Salman ("member of the municipality council") was shot dead outside of his home in Suleiman Beck.
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 8 corpses were discovered in Baghdad.
Today the US military announced: "Three Task Force Lightning Soldiers were killed in Nineveh province Thursday when an explosion occurred near their vehicle." And they announced: "Four Marines assigned to Multi National Force-West were killed Sept. 6 while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar Province." ICCC lists the total number for US service members who have died in the illegal war at 3760 and, for the month thus far, at 18. And four of the seven deaths were in Al Anbar Province, the 'model' province.
Today the UK Ministry of Defence announced: "It is with deep sadness that the MOD must confirm the death of a British soldier from the Parachute Regiment in Iraq on Wednesday 5, September 2007. The soldier sustained fatal injuries in the early hours of Wednesday while conducting routine operations". The death bringsthe number of United Kingdom troops killed in Iraq to 169.
In other news, the Online Predator has turned his attention away from underage girls and is now attacking Katie Couric online. One might wonder why he hates all women were it not for the howls of laughter at his latest blunder -- which should make everyone wonder about his previous 'facts' on Iran. Let's quote Pig Predator: "CBS is owned by General Electric. GE is working hard to get favorable trading status with any number of foreign trading partners. The U.S. trade representative is working hard on GE's behalf." GE owns NBC. Facts are tough, eh, Online Predator? [FYI, The Progressive's Matthew Rothschild -- who has not engaged in Bash the Bitch -- has posted the efforts CBS' Early Show took, while on location, to avoid allowing people against the illegal war to be on camera in the background.] So CBS Evening News went to Iraq and did any of the critics watch? Apparently not. Probably Piggy Pedophile tried to. He probably pulled the lever down on his GE toaster and got confused when no picture came on.
Yesterday, Katie Couric (CBS Evening News) interviewed Syrian president Bashar Assad who responded to the charges that the Syrian government was funding, training or whatever else the US military brass wants to offer as the current justification for the failure of the illegal war (it failed because it was illegal), "What do they do, those terrorists in Iraq? They kill civilians, they create chaos. What interest have Syria in having chaos in Iraq? Chaos is contagious. If we help the chaos in Iraq, this means we we work against our interest. So we do our best to control our borders, first of all for Syrians; second, for the Iraqis; third, for the region." This morning Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) reported that "Israeli Air Force jets purportedly entered Syrian airspace" and Syria fired back. So you might think some of the 'critics' would take a moment to check out yesterday's interview with the president of Syria. However, you would be wrong.
Couric interviewed Assad and Iraq was the topic. Assad explained that Syria pays "the price for the chaos in Iraq today," criticized the US administration for attempting to respond to political situations with military non-answers, and observed, "It's getting worse every day, nothing is better. Sometimes it gets better, but it's like a flash in the pan; it just disappears, it's transient. We're talking about the result, the chaos is worse, the killing is worse than before. . . ." Assad also declared his belief that US troops should leave Iraq pointing out that "after four years . . . every day is getting worse than before. So I cannot say that American forces will bring stability to Iraq."
It's cute the way another round of Bash the Bitch allows alleged 'media critics' to ignore the fact that one of the biggest complaints about network news is the decrease in international coverage but a whole crowd ignored an interview on Iraq with the president of one of Iraq's neighboring countries. Same way they didn't appear to notice the slack off in coverage from Iraq by Los Angeles Times and New York Times correspondents this week (most noticeable today).
Syria is where Riverbend is now. The Iraqi blogger of Baghdad Burning recounts how she and her family waited and waited for the safest time to make their journey and she writes:
The tears had stopped about an hour after we'd left Baghdad. Just seeing the dirty streets, the ruins of buildings and houses, the smoke-filled horizon all helped me realize how fortunate I was to have a chance for something safer.
By the time we were out of Baghdad, my heart was no longer aching as it had been while we were still leaving it. The cars around us on the border were making me nervous. I hated being in the middle of so many possibly explosive vehicles. A part of me wanted to study the faces of the people around me, mostly families, and the other part of me, the one that's been trained to stay out of trouble the last four years, told me to keep my eyes to myself- it was almost over.
It was finally our turn. I sat stiffly in the car and waited as money passed hands; our passports were looked over and finally stamped. We were ushered along and the driver smiled with satisfaction, "It's been an easy trip, Alhamdulillah," he said cheerfully.
As we crossed the border and saw the last of the Iraqi flags, the tears began again. The car was silent except for the prattling of the driver who was telling us stories of escapades he had while crossing the border. I sneaked a look at my mother sitting beside me and her tears were flowing as well. There was simply nothing to say as we left Iraq. I wanted to sob, but I didn't want to seem like a baby. I didn't want the driver to think I was ungrateful for the chance to leave what had become a hellish place over the last four and a half years.
Riverbend and her family join over 4 million Iraqi refugees (internal and external) whom the illegal war has 'liberated'. Relief Web released a new study today on the refugee crisis
noting that their numbers increase "[a]s the security situation continues to deteriorate inside Iraq, human displacement escalates to levels unparalleled in the region" and that it threatens the entire region. The report notes: "The exodus of Iraq's professionals has led to severe brain drain, hitting the health, education, and government sectors particularly hard. This will have serious implications for Iraq's ability to rebuild the country when the violence decreases. Internal displacement is resulting in ethnic and sectarian homogenization of the country, and displaced communities are increasingly vulnerable to violence, kidnappings, and control by militias. Displacement is both a consequence and a cause of sectarian polarization in the country. Jordan and Syria now face internal security threats related to the immense economic burden of hosting the Iraqi populations, new sectarian demographics, tension among host and refugee populations as well as across sectarian divides, the potential of increased regime opposition, and the possibility that refugees will be recruited into armed militias if humanitarian assistance isn't sufficient to meet their needs."
Unrelated note, Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights, co-host of Law and Disorder) has a website entitled Just Left. Community member Jonah noted that we plug things in the snapshot from time to time and asked if that could be worked in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)