women and 'ladies'

sherry e-mailed to ask for a favor. she said she knows c.i. doesn't like to have 'a truest statement' of the week at the third estate sunday review but if there was any way ('your long, long friendship?') that i could get something from 'And the war drags on . . .' included, could i? could i please try?

sherry, i will try. no promises. c.i. really hates, hates getting 'truest.' if it helps any, liza also wrote me to say how much c.i.'s entry spoke to her. i think it's due to the fact ...

this is probably going to be my topic. i'll include a highlight or 2 but this will probably be my topic. i just realized that.

the reason the entry resonates (and it resonated with me) goes to the fact that women are not using their power. for every c.i., we've got a dozen gail collins acting foolish, weak and simpering. c.i. stands at full height. there's no cowering.

that is an amazing post. it's a short 1 as well. that was my fault because i had problems with blogdrive and had c.i. on the phone for an hour and half trying to figure out what was going on. (it was blogdrive's problem. they've finally fixed it.)

and c.i. was just so tired. i said, 'i'll stay on the phone with you.' because i knew c.i. just wanted to crawl into bed. so c.i.'s on the phone with me and going through the e-mails trying to figure out what to write. there's a highlight (the 1 that opened the piece) and it's from a member who doesn't highlight that often. he said he wasn't clear about the column but he wanted to like it - really wanted to - but kept not.

so c.i.'s trying to read the column and starts talking to me and i'm hearing the keyboard tap-tap-tap. and i really didn't say anything for the longest and finally c.i. asks, 'is something wrong?' i said, 'no. i'm just amazed and hope you wrote about what you were just saying on the phone.' c.i. played it off noting 'i'm tired, i'll write anything just to get to bed.'

but i've read it 3 times and it really is amazing.

a man is writing against the illegal war and then saying that war is what a nation is about and blah, blah, blah. your typical masculinist b.s.

and i went to common dreams today (where it posted) to see if anyone called him out on his sh*t.

you've got what appears to be a lot of men dickering back and forth over the number of dead iraqis. not 1 person leaving a comment bothered to call the writer out on his nonsense that war is a natural part of a nation.

it's not natural. nor is it natural for a man or a woman to make that claim.

but the writer's carrying around a lot of baggage and he unloads it on the readers who may think that is the way it is.

it's not. and if women won't call this crap out, the world's never going to be any better.

i'm sure the mud flap gals had a ton to offer yesterday on push-up bras, how the latest van fair cover is a set back for women's rights and what their weekend bar plans were.

but there is a war going on. there's 1 going on in iraq, obviously, and there is a war going on for public understanding.

women who whine that they aren't taken seriously as columnists might want to examine their output because most are too busy trying to be 'cute' in print or they're coming on all soft and dew-eyed.

where are the strong women who will call this crap out? who will call this illegal war out and call out any man who tries to suggest that war is natural.

c.i. noted that this 'natural characteristic' is not true of every nation and that if you're going to argue that is, you have to then argue that peace making would be a natural characteristic of nations because when war's end, peace has to be made in most cases.

but these men today come on with their heavy hitter attitudes and women play meek and stupid. i'm sick of it.

if there's a female columnist worth reading (which would mean that their column generates more than a smile), let me know. there's robyn blumer (hope i spelled that right) and i used to see her online but she's not in any paper i read. she does write strong.

but there are far too many gail collins and ruth conniffs.

it amazes me that women will not engage in this topic when they have the position to do so. it amazes me that they would rather turn out superficial chatter about the elections where they try to make jokes. women are stereotyping themselves in those columns. they are saying, 'i can't handle big ideas but i can be bitchy. watch, i'll be bitchy here!'

i have no problem with being bitchy. i'll use the word. and i'll apply it to myself.

but i think i have that and other things to offer.

and i also think i can turn bitchy onto some very important topics.

but the 'lady' columnists all seem to be attempting to win the title of most beautiful on campus and limit themselves to beauty queen platitudes.

if you're not angry as the illegal war gets closer to the 5 year mark, and you're an adult, that's pretty sad.

promoting her amazing new book, the terror dream, susan faludi has been sharing a story about how on 9-11 a (male) journalist called her for a reaction for his story and he tells her after that 9/11 is the death of feminism.

because in the face of mass brutality, apparently, feminism goes shrieking for cover.

men can't kill feminism. please, they've tried to in earlier generations.

but women can clamp down on it, they can slow it. (it's a revolution and it won't be stopped.)

they can do that by refusing to be a feminist, obviously. (think of all the women who've said, 'i'm not a feminist but ...')

and part of the refusal to be a feminist is refusing to tackle the big subjects because, believe it or not, war is very much a feminist issue.

women are always targeted in wars. they are victims of sexual assualts, they see their rights destroyed. they see their families destroyed.

and if their families include children of their own, they have to struggle to feed and care for those children in the middle of a war.

they also take up arms. some join the military, some join a resistance.

but there's no indication of that in the bulk of the 'ladies' columing or blogging today.

in 10 or so years, women will be whining that they aren't (still aren't) invited to the chat & chews as guests to talk about the 'big topics.' well some of that fault lies with women who think it's more important to be 'cute' than to risk some 1 calling you a bitch or anything else if you don't smile or, heaven forbid, if you actually show your anger.

anger and brains remain the 2 things that our 'ladies' of the press run from.

and it's really disgusting.

women are serious all over the world and that includes in this country.

but most of the 1s who are given a platform or create 1 for themselves are too damn busy being likeable and writing silly little pieces on silly little topics and, in doing that, they hurt all women because by refusing to use their positions to show how strong we are, they re-inforce that we're not capable of addressing the serious subjects. they say we're a 'niche thinker.'

sherry wondered how c.i. could write like that?

i can answer specifically because i was on the phone while that was written. to a degree, c.i. is telling the truth about something had to go up and c.i. just wanted to get to bed. no question. that is true to a degree.

but it's also true that c.i. doesn't give a f**k about being 'likeable' or considered 'cute' or 'loved.'
it's not about a 'fan club' or anything like that. it's about making those moments count to the best of your ability. and c.i. can hit harder than any 1.

i remember a moot court excercise (is 'excercise' the right word?) in college. if i've told this story before (i don't think i have) forgive me. but it applies. c.i. was on a group with a bunch of men. they were assigned a position and they had to prepare a friend of the court brief (amicus?) and to present their argument to a mock supreme court and take questions from the jury. the issue, by the way, was religion. it was about allowing religion in school.

i think most of you would gather that c.i. firmly believes in a wall between church and state.

but this was the position assinged. there was 1 lefty male and the rest were centrists and they were all against the position they were supposed to argue from. c.i. was as well but this was an excercise (project) they were being graded on.

the men used the fact that they weren't for the position they'd been assigned to claim they couldn't do the research. so c.i. ends up stuck with that and going through all these legal cases. then the man who is supposed to write the brief bails out.

c.i. writes the brief. there are now 3 people on the team. c.i. and 2 men. 1 of the men is supposed to type and present it. he types it. he mis-types it. the typing was a joke and the brief is wrecked. the man did that on purpose (i believe) because he didn't like the side they'd been assigned. before the arguments are supposed to take place, he bails.

i'm there because c.i. and i were going to a rally right after and we were going to leave together. so i'm thinking when is this going to end. and noting that c.i. is getting up and making the argument.

and doing an incredible job. the 'supreme court' was against it. they were for a wall.

but c.i. chipped away at them enough to get it down to a 5 to 4 vote at the end (5 in favor of the wall). it was amazing to watch because c.i. is for a wall between church and state but c.i. gave an incredible argument. i can think of 3 examples that really drove the point home. (i won't point them out because i won't give the 'vangicals' ammo for their next fight.)

but all 9 of the 'justices' were big liberals. and c.i.'s argument managed to chip away 4.

by the way, i should note that the side wanting to end the wall, the 1s who weren't friends of the court, gave a dull presentation and didn't know their facts when the justices questioned them. nothing threw c.i. c.i. was pulling cases out 1 after the other. 'yes, but the ___ court found ...'

it was just amazing.

afterwards, we were headed to the rally. (we didn't even wait for the decision.) and i was honestly thinking c.i. must believe in that argument because c.i. made it (and did so wonderfully). c.i. cleared that up for me and said, 'becky, that was the side i was assigned. i'm not going to stand there and do it half-assed.'

and i always think about that when i'm reading the common ills and thinking, 'did c.i. just say that?'

c.i.'s writing about things that are believed in, obviously. but it's the same 'i'm not going to do it half-assed.' the war hawks hit hard and c.i. can hit back just as hard. c.i. doesn't cower.

ava was telling me about 'outreach thursday.' that's what she's calling it. 7 military officers (lowest ranking a major, highest ranking a lt. general) wrote in to scream at c.i. for things at the common ills. the major was whining about something 1 and 1/2 years ago (when c.i. was told about it, c.i. said, 'that was a front page story on the new york times, on a sunday in the summer of 2006). he didn't provide a link, he didn't say when it went up, he just wanted to whine.

they were all saying 'you need to watch it or you will blow your credibility.'

maybe that's what the 'ladies' worry about?

c.i. doesn't give a damn.

and doesn't have to because c.i.'s been proved right far too many times. (most recently on the refugees which was a topic that men and women of the left and 'left' sat out on. too afraid to make a call in case this was for real.)

c.i. writes at the common ills the same way as when speaking to a group of students (or other groups). ideally, others will be talking. these days, that's not very difficult. in the earlier days, it was, c.i. will tell you, standing in front of a group of students and speaking for 30 minutes before it could become a conversation. that had to do with people being hyped and with people waiting for leaders to tell them what to do.

but c.i. gives these amazing speeches and never knows where it's going. they aren't written out. there's not a stump speech. c.i.'s speaking (and happiest if it only takes 5 minutes to start the conversation) and looking at the reactions and tailoring it to that.

on fridays, i get to go along. they're hitting middle schools and high schools in my state. and i've learned a lot and can now do it. it's really freeing to just speak your mind without notes.

i'm the type of person who feared speaking in college. elaine and c.i. would have to say, 'rebecca, we need you to speak' to get me to. (and i would.) but for classes and everything else, i needed my index cards from a speech that i had written out and practiced in front of the mirror for hours.

i'm not putting down professional speakers who are good and do it that way. good for them.

but a lot of so-so speakers exist. and maybe it's time they freed themselves.

i think in their case, they're too worried about how they come off and not the topic at hand. 'will they like me?'

and i see that approach in too many 'ladies' writing today.

if you talk to ava, she'll speak about how she's doing this because she wants the illegal war to end. it's the same as with c.i. there's no vanity there. there's no, 'does my hair look good? do you have a brush?' (c.i. doesn't even carry a brush on the road, or a blow dryer. nor does ava. and their hair, fyi, does look fantastic.) they hit the road each week, go all over the country, speak to students, women's groups, active duty service members, and many other people. and it's about the war.

it's taken me forever to grasp to that in my life.

c.i. is some 1 who would never answer the phone unless you begged. when we were in college and shared an apartment (elaine, c.i. and i). the phone could ring forever. if something was planned for that day, c.i. might pick it up. otherwise c.i. would ignore it. c.i. hated talking on the phone. and if it was some stupid class excercise of 'speak for 5 minutes to introduce yourself,' c.i. could be very, very uncomfortable.

if it was a party, c.i. could go through the entire closet looking for something to wear. you'd go into the room see everything that had been in the closet on the floor. but if it was about our earlier illegal war or something political, it didn't matter. 'you've got a stain on __' whatever. c.i. didn't care.

and if some 1 was angry and pissed because they were pro-war, c.i.'s attitude would always be, 'it's not about me, it's about the war.'

i think too often we, women, see it as about us.

i think we silence ourselves too often because we're afraid we won't be liked or likeable.

we're conditioned to expect the judgement and we're conditioned to seek the approval.

and i think some of us (and you can include me on that list for many years) can't draw the line.

'it's about the work.' i've heard that from c.i. over the years more times than i can count. negative attacks never bothered or left a blow. c.i. would always say, 'at the end of the day, they don't know me.' and i know that has to do with growing up in a press family and being able to draw a line between what appeared in a paper and what was reality.

there's a story i want to tell here that really points this out but i think c.i. would be upset.

i'll try to do it without making the point obvious. c.i. came from a political family and was expected to be political.

before c.i. could vote, c.i. was making speeches. c.i.'s mother had a scrap book of some of these things. and when i met her, she showed me the scrap book and it was fun to look through it (i don't think c.i. looks through it - i know c.i. didn't back in the day.) but there was a newspaper clipping from 10th grade in high school, i believe it was 10th grade, and c.i. was speaking a week or 2 before an election to a nursing home. c.i.'s surrounded by these 2 well groomed, boring looking high school boys.

c.i. hated that picture and it was the only time c.i. ever paid attention to personal press. (this story was told to me by c.i.'s mother.) it was raining and c.i. was rushing to get there. so c.i. shows up in a sweater. think about it, think about being caught in a rain downpour. obviously your hair gets wet but think about why you wouldn't want to be caught in a downpour in a sweater. most women will get what i'm saying.

so the picture runs and c.i. looks great in it. but c.i.'s ticked off. (think about it, you'll know why.) and c.i.'s attitude is that it's ridiculing the politics by running what is now a cheesecake photo (due to the downpour making the sweater soaking wet). c.i.'s uncle says, 'it's a sexy photo and that's why it ran. it had nothing to do with you. they just wanted an eye catching photo that would make people stop a second and not just turn the page.'

and that's what it was. but c.i. had been really bothered by the photo (because c.i. doesn't try to trade on sex and the photo seemed to imply otherwise). when c.i.'s uncle explained it that way, it wasn't an issue for c.i. anymore. and that's why c.i. has never made a point to read the press. or even look at the photos. because that moment brought home that it never has anything to do with you. it has to do with a paper or a magazine trying to sell copies, it has to do with a program trying to up their audiences.

i spent the bulk of my adult life worrying what people thought. afraid i might not be liked.

take my mother-in-law. we are tremendous friends now. we are so close. but when flyboy and i were married the 1st time, she hated me. she will tell you that herself.

now part of it is that a 2nd marriage makes it clear that this is more than just a passing thing, true. but it's also true that i stopped caring.

c.i. would tell me not to let it bother me. i would want to work out an understanding with my mother-in-law and basically grovel. (c.i.'s mother and my mother-in-law were very close friends.) even though i knew c.i. had a good take on the woman (they get along very well and always have), it didn't matter, i just wanted to be liked. i wanted so badly to be liked that i was about 8 million different people, all of them trying so hard to please.

when my marriage to flyboy ended, it was just a disaster for me personally. and i went through a very dark phase. for those who don't know, i was pregnant and the fetus was not going to live a normal life or a long life. i made the decision to have an abortion and that was the right thing to do but it really did a number on me. while i don't regret the decision and while i think it was best for the fetus, it was hard because i had a long history of miscarriages and always wanted to have a child. so after the abortion, i just didn't give a damn.

flyboy and i had both been playing roles - even while the marriage was collapsing.

and it was only after that darkness that i really found myself. or at least my strength.

so it's not that my mother-in-law mellowed or anything like that. it's that i finally grew up and realized my role in life was not to spend every hour figuring out how to please others. or that the world didn't end because some 1 said they didn't like me.

so when i'm criticizing the 'ladies,' understand i was 1 of them. i was obsessed with not being controversial, with blending and being likeable.

and throughout all of that, i wasn't being me because i was being 8 million other people.

my story has a happy ending. after i started being myself, i went through my dark phase. i slowly started dating. and flyboy and i ended up dating (after c.i. nudged him) and then we ended up married again. now, finally, i have a child and that was so wonderful because i thought i was too old and with my history of pregnancies ...

all of that's great and wonderful and, i would argue, it all comes from letting go. i didn't need to hold my power and hide it. i didn't need to hide myself. when i stopped hiding who i was, when i stopped thinking my life ended if some 1 didn't like me or didn't like what i wore or didn't like, heaven forbid, something i said, i finally started feeling not just like an adult but like a developing person.

i think i would have been a very loving mother back then. i think i would have given love. that is important. i think i also would have been very damaging because i would have passed on my need to please. i would have instilled it in my child.

i think women need to work to break this conditioning that so many of us suffer from.

at the end of the day, it's not about you. it's never about you.

unless you make it about you because you're either scared of who you are or may be.

we need to accept our power. we need to acknowledge it and let it go. not let it go in the sense of being weak. but let it go in the sense that it is power. it is our power. let it out, release it and watch it grow. when we free ourselves by being ourselves, we're even stronger and we're also happier.

i'm tired and elaine just asked me, 'how long have you been writing?' forever! so let me cheat and do links this way:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Ava
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,

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

Friday, December 7, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the Canadian parlaiment's December 11th hearings on war resisters approach, IVAW's Justin Cliburn speaks in Dallas Sunday, Buzzy and Cookie remain brothers but one is now unemployed (don't cry, Blackwater will probably officially hire him now), bombings in Iraq get some media attention and more.

Staring with war resistance. November 15th, Iraq War resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey learned that the nation's Supreme Court would not hear their appeals. As a result, the focus is now on getting the Canadian Parliament to address the situation. On December 11th, the parliament will hear testimony from war resisters. Dustin Langley (Workers World) notes Hinzman's statements on the illegal war, "They said there were weapons of mass destruction. They haven't found any. They said Iraq was linked to international terrorist organizations. There haven't been any links. This was a criminal war. Any act of violence in an unjustified conflict is an atrocity." Cindy Sheehan (OpEdNews) urges people to utilize Courage to Resist's easy to mail or e-mail resources to allow the Canadian government to know you are watching and to support organizations supporting war resisters as well as supporting war resisters:


Support actual war resisters in Canada by sending them expense money. From my friend Ryan (I gave him and his wife money to get to Canada over two years ago):

In light of the recent Supreme Court denial in Canada, I (Ryan Johnson), My wife (Jen Johnson) and Brandon Hughey need help raising funds to travel to Ottawa to attend hearings before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, where War Resisters will be giving Testimony to the committee. At these hearings the committee will be deciding on whether or not to make a provision to allow war resisters to stay in Canada. This is one of our last chances to be able to continue living in Canada. We will be leaving December 7th because the hearings are December 11th, 2007 so we need to act fast. They may try to send guys back soon and we need to have a strong War Resister Presence. We appreciate all of the support and Want to thank all of you who can help.

Checks/money orders can be sent for Ryan, Jen and Brandon to:312 Tower Rd Nelson, BC V1L3K6

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, 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, Blake LeMoine, 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, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty 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. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).


The voice of war resister Camilo Mejia is featured in Rebel Voices -- playing now through December 16th at Culture Project -- that's ten more days -- and based on Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove's best-selling book Voices of a People's History of the United States. It features dramatic readings of historical voices such as war resister Mejia, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, Malcom X and others will be featured. Musician Allison Mooerer will head the permanent cast while those confirmed to be performing on selected nights are Ally Sheedy (actress and poet, best known for films such as High Art, The Breakfast Club, Maid to Order, the two Short Circuit films, St. Elmo's Fire, War Games, and, along with Nicky Katt, has good buzz on the forthcoming Harold), Eve Ensler who wrote the theater classic The Vagina Monologues (no, it's not too soon to call that a classic), actor David Strathaim (L.A. Confidential, The Firm, Bob Roberts, Dolores Claiborne and The Bourne Ultimatum), actor and playwright Wallace Shawn (The Princess Bride, Clueless -- film and TV series, Gregory and Chicken Little), actress Lili Taylor (Dogfight, Shortcuts, Say Anything, Household Saints, I Shot Andy Warhol, Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle, State of Mind) and actor, director and activist Danny Glover (The Color Purple, Beloved, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Rainmaker, Places In The Heart, Dreamgirls, Shooter and who recently appeared on Democracy Now! addressing the US militarization of Africa) The directors are Will Pomerantz and Rob Urbinati with Urbinati collaborating with Zinn and Arnove on the play. Tickets are $41.. The theater is located at 55 Mercer Street and tickets can be purchased there, over the phone (212-352-3101) or online here and here. More information can be found at Culture Project.

Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:

In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan

March 13th through 15th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation.

IVAW's South Central Region Coordinator Justin Cliburn will be speaking this Sunday in Dallas, Texas at the First Unitarian Church of Dallas, Raible Chapel (4015 Normandy Avenue, Dallas, TX 75205) at 10:30 am. Cliburn served in Iraq (2005-2006) and this event is free and open to the public.

In yet another sign of the failures of the puppet government, Eric Westervelt (NPR's Morning Edition) reports that the health ministry does not have a program to care for the wounded civilians or even to track how many there are. The illegal war hits the five-year mark in March. Puppet of the occupation Nouri-al Maliki and his initial cabinet were all in place by May of 2006. And there is no system in place to track the wounded let alone to treat them. Westervelt tells of 36-year-old, father of five Majid Hameed -- a victim of a bombing targeting his work place in March 2004 that left him burned and then, lack of treatment, left him with gangrene in both hands which spread and his arms were amputated to "just above the elbow" who must now attempt to provide for his family by hawking "trinkets" on the streets of Baghdad. He had been a blacksmith and a security guard prior to the bombing. The failed system really depends on international aid. Westervelt doesn't make that point but that is what's going on. Just as, in the US, Wal-Mart doesn't provide for their employees and expects government services to subsidize them, the Iraqi government leaves it to the NGOs to 'handle' the situation. Hammed got the run around at the various government ministries, a private organization told him they would need both medical and police reports to treat him and the police station refused to assist him with those forms while the local council "laughed at me saying, 'We don't give letters to disabled people confirming they were hit by a car bomb. We know nothing about it. This is not our business'." It's no one's business because the failed puppet government of Nouri al-Maliki is not one that serves Iraqis. Why should the puppets show interest in the Iraqi people when the US government never has?

Big Oil's enable Iraq Development Program is announcing "positive signs" in Iraq's economy and sourcing it to Bayan Jubur al-Zubaydi (Iraq's Minister of Finance). It's silly nonsense from a silly 'organization' that quotes the minister stating "the new budget allocated $10 billion dollars to subsidise ration card items and the salaries of government employees and pensioners." Yes, we are back to the subsidies. Note the amount. How much of that alleged ten billion goes to saleries? It's worth pondering because Reuters reports Abdul Falah al-Sudany (Iraq's Trade Minister) asserts that the massive reduction in subsidies that will kick in next month stem from a request for "$7 billion in next year's budget to distribute 10 basic items but received only $3 billion." If both officials are telling the truth that would mean seven billion dollars was required to pay the puppet government. That's a big payroll (especially when government workers make so little that IDP is trumpeting the fact that they've been granted income tax waivers) especially when you consider that "more than 60 percent of Iraq's population rely on the rations." Actually, that's the candied number, United Nation's agencies were estimating it was 80 percent and that was before the vast refugee (internal and external) began. Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) explains, "The system under which all Iraqis are issued ration cards allowing them to buy 10 items -- sugar, flour, rice, powdered milk, cooking oil, tea, beans, baby milk, soap and detergent -- for a nominal fee". The issue isn't money, the issue is the White House's lust for privatization that led to a tag sale in Iraq. It's nothing but the (PDF format warning) same crap the US has been pushing for some time in the name of "economic rehabilitation and reform for Iraq." This despite the fact that Steven Mann, Paul Bremer's boy, was more interested (November, 2003) in "Building the market structure that promotes private business." In September 2003, the United Nations' World Food Programme was sounding alarms over the crisis in Iraq and noting, "Any significant disruption of the public distribution system would have a severe negative impact on food access." That was 2003. Things have not gotten better and anyone who has trouble grasping that can just focus on the numbers then for external refugees (100,000) and internal ones (200,000). Both categories are now in the millions (and combined account for over 4 million people). The food program is not 'less needed' today, it's more needed.

But the tag sale on Iraq is more important to the puppet government which works for the US government which -- apparently -- works for big business. Hence, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) notes today, "UPI is reporting Iraq's Oil Ministry is preparing to sign deals for the country's largest oil fields even though the Iraqi government has failed to pass an Iraq oil law. BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, Conoco Phillips and other oil companies are all attempting to win contracts in Iraq. Executives from BP and Shell are expected to be meeting soon with Iraq's Oil Minister. Under Iraqi law, the Oil Ministry can sign service contract deals on its own. But any production-sharing contracts would need parliamentary approval." This follows Selina Williams reporting (for MarketWatch) earlier this week that BP PLC and Royal Duth Shell PLC were to meet Wednesday with Hussein al-Shahristanti (Iraqi oil minister) for oil discussions. UPI's Ben Landon offers "Big Oil's big dreams are close to coming true as Iraq's Oil Ministry prepares deals for the country's largest oil fields with terms that aren't necessarily what companies were hoping for but considered a foot in the door of the world's most promising oil sector." Now who could have added additional strong-arming on that? Has any US official recently visited Iraq?


Robert Gates holds the title of US Secretary of Defense. Spinning the illegal war apparently comes under his job description (and comes naturally but who other than Robert Parry stepped up to call the nomination out when it mattered?). Gates has left Iraq after his photo-op. Thom Shanker (New York Times) quotes Gates declaring he was "encouraged" and that he was "feeling very good abou tthe direction of things in the security arena". Gates was greeted with bombings and bombings continued through his brief stay. Of course, bombings followed his exit. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports, "A suicide woman wearing an explosive belt detonated herself among the civilians near the center of the local committees in Al Mu'alimeen nieghborhood in Muqdadiyah town east of Baquba city around 9,30 am. 16 civilians were killed in the explosion (8 men, 5 women and 3 children) and 27 others were wounded (19 men, 4 children, 2 Sahwa members and 2 women)." CNN, citing the police, identifies the bomber as Suhaila Ali and notes the bombing "took place outside a building that hosts meetings for local members of a so-called awakening council, whose members are opposed to al Qaeda and have formed an alliance with U.S. and Iraqi forces. . . . More than half of the dead and wounded in Friday's bombing were members of the awakening council, the Interior Ministry said." CBS and AP note that two of Suhaila Ali's sons "were killed by Iraqi security forces" and quotes Ibrahim Bajalan ("head of Diyala provincial council") stating, "She wanted to avenge the killing of her two sons." Alaa Shahine (Reuters) pieces together the immediate lead up to the bombing, "Witnesses said a woman walked up to the building, in a street full of shops, and began asking questions. She detonated the vest she was wearing when people out shopping before Friday prayers began gathering around her." UK's In The News notes, "In April the town was hit by another female suicide bomber who killed over 12 people at a police recruitment centre." The Belfast Telegraph observes it was "the second [attack] in the space of 10 days carried out by female suicide bombers." That refers to a November attack summarized then by M-NF as: "A female suicide bomber detonated an explosive laden suicide-vest, wounding seven U.S. soldiers and five Iraqi citizens in Baqubah, Nov. 27." That was only one of the bombings in the Diyala Province. AFP informs, "Hours later, a suicide car bomber rammed his vehicle into an army checkpoint at the nearby town of Al-Mansuriyah, killing 10 people and wounding eight, among them soldiers and members of another Awakening group, security officials said." Alaa Shahine (Reuters) places the death toll at 10 ("seven Iraqi troops and three members of a local neighbourhood patrol") and eight injured. New York Times' Cara Buckley (at the company's International Herald Tribune) notes that the "three volunteers . . . had been working with the U.S. forces." CBS and AP note that two bombings were "about 10 miles apart". Cami McCormick (CBS News) interviews the newly returned to Fort Hood Army 3rd Brigade Combat Team who had been stationed in Diyala for fifteen months.

McCormick: Many say they were stunned by how dangerous their deployment became.


Spc. Cory Barton: I'd always heard from the guys that had been previous deployed and, you know, family members and friends that had been deployed before, they'd always tell me about the major hot spots -- like Falluja, Najaf, Baghdad, Mosul and places like that -- I've never heard anything about Baquba and then when we touched down, we touched ground in there and it was like an epiphany.

McCormick: It was scary?

Barton: Oh, it was a bad dream.

It's not 'safer' in Iraq. In other violence . . .

Shootings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that today two police officers wounded in a Baghdad gun battle and Jabbar Khalaf ("chief of Rabi'aa police station") was shot dead in Mosul along with 4 other police officers and that yesterday a farmer was shot dead outside Kirkuk, 1 Beshmarga Kurdish force intel officer was wounded (by "a pistol with a silencer) while 1 person was shot dead in Kirkuk and another wounded.

Corpses?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad.

If you missed it, it was time for the laughable Nation magazine to do another editorial on the illegal war. Why they bothered is anyone's guess. They accepted (without question) the bulk of the spin regarding the latest wave of Operation Happy Talk. By contrast, the US Socialist Worker demonstrates needed common sense in their "Editorial: 'Mission Accomplished' again?" noting: "A new U.S. war lie -- concocted by the Bush administration, endorsed by the Democrats, embraced by the mainstream media -- has been deployed to justify continuing the occupation in Iraq. The claim is that the Bush 'surge' of 30,000 U.S. troops to Iraq worked -- and is, at long last, bringing 'peace' and 'stability.' . . . . But lurking behind the hype is a different reality -- one that reporters working in Iraq readily admit. A Pew Research Center poll of U.S. reporters working in Iraq found that '[n]early 90 percent of U.S. journalists in Iraq say much of Baghdad is still too dangerous to visit' -- and that many believe U.S. media 'coverage has painted too rosy a picture of the conflict'." As the editorial notes, imperialism is a bi-partisan goal with Republicans and Democrats embracing one another from across the aisle. Which is why CBS and AP's bulletin should come as no surprise: "Democrats controlling Congress sent the most explicit signals yet on Thursday that they are resigned to providing additional funding for the war in Iraq before Congress adjourns for the year." They're preparing to cave again. And as CBS reports that $1 billion in equipment is missing in Iraq. There for-show stunt that found US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid claiming they woulnd't budge has collapsed. As the Socialist Worker concludes, "The bipartisan Washington establishment is rallying around the consensus that the surge worked because it provides the excuses for continued occupation. Opponents of the war need to expose this new war lie -- and insist that life in Iraq will only really improve when the U.S. gets out."

And those enlisting to assist don't just include The Nation but also NPR. As Ruth noted yesterday, the public radio network "did 'investigative journalism' . . . They discovered that the American people have lost interest in ending the illegal war. How did they unearth this questionable claim? They spoke to Congressional staffers. They spoke to staffers of Congress members, the same Congress that has refused to end the illegal war. It is truly a shock, at least to NPR, that said staffers might lie to take the heat off the people who sign their pay checks." NPR's Day to Day wants you to believe that "Iraq has become less of an issue in the presidential campaign." They need you to believe it having offered a two-hour Democratic presidential hopefuls 'debate' this week where, despite the US being engaged in a war, the 'moderators' never asked about the Iraq War. As noted in Wednesday's snapshot, that 'reality' is far from reality: "In fact the latest poll found it the issue most noted by respondents -- you could take the second and third most cited issues (economy and healthcare), add them together and Iraq would still outrank them. But the media has lost interest. Add another poll to the mix. Faye Fiore (Los Angeles Times) reports on the Los Angeles Times - Bloomberg News poll which found, "Nearly six of every 10 military families disapprove of Bush's job performance and the way he has run the war, rating him only slightly better than the general population does." Was the illegal war "worth it"? All poll respondents state no by 60%, respondents from homes "with active military/vets" said no by 57% and homes "with military in Iraq/vets" said no by 60%. Translation: America says the illegal war was not worth it. To anser the Clash's musical question -- "Should I Stay or Should I Go" -- 23% polled said bring them home "right away" (21% for homes with active military/vets and 27% for homes with military in Iraq/vets) while 41% say bring them home "within next year" (37% and 42% in the previous breakdown). Bring the troops home? 64% say YES! It's only in the lame media that wants to pretend the issue is no longer an issue. And of course the media includes some on the 'left' because you can't pimp the war supporter Barack Obama so hard and still call for an end to the illegal war. (LAT piece is also at Common Dreams.)

Turning from the mercenaries in Congress to the mercenaries of Blackwater. When last we checked in on Buzzy and Cookie (November 19th snapshot), Howard Cookie Krongard was remaining the US State Dept's inspector general but stated he was going to remove himself from pretending to provide oversight of Blackwater due to the fact that his brother A. B. Buzzy Krongard serves on the advisory board of Blackwater. Previously, Cookie had tried to deny that Buzzy was working with Blackwater, deny in a Congressional hearing, but admitted it was true after requesting a break. Despite Cookie's claims, Buzzy told Scott Shane (New York Times) that he had told his brother he was on the advisory board "a few weeks ago." In an update, Reuters reports today that Cookie has announced he will resign from the State Department. Jeremy Scahill (Common Dreams) provides an update on the latest to do with Blackwater and he will be back on Democracy Now! next week to discuss the latest regarding the mercenaries (I believe Monday). Scahill concludes in his latest piece: "In short, Blackwater is moving ahead at full steam. Individual scandals clearly aren't enough to slow it down. The company's critics in the Democratic-controlled Congress must confront the root of the problem: the government is in the midst of its most radical privatization in history, and companies like Blackwater are becoming ever more deeply embedded in the war apparatus. Until this system is brought down, the world's the limit for Blackwater Worldwide--and as its rebranding campaign shows, Blackwater knows it."

iraq, torture

RICK ROWLEY: But some opponents of the oil law still see Prime Minister Maliki as an American ally and worry that this current draft will lead to privatization and an American oil grab.
FALEH ABOOD UMARA: [translated] The law was written by the American administration, and it serves the American interest in Iraq.
RICK ROWLEY: Faleh Abood, head of the Southern Oil Workers' Union, has led several strikes against the government.
FALEH ABOOD UMARA: [translated] We achieved many things. We were able to raise salaries and get workers pieces of land. But what made people oppose us was our opposition to the oil and gas law.
RICK ROWLEY: In fact, Oil Minister Shahristani used a Saddam-era law that the Americans left in place to declare the union illegal and has pledged to stop future strikes.
HUSSAIN AL-SHAHRISTANI: The law under Saddam was reinstated, so even after the fall of the regime, that was the law, and anybody who tries to disrupt oil production and export would be liable to government actions, because this would be considered as a sabotage of national economy.

that's from democracy now's 'The Battle For Basra & Iraq's Oil' which broadcast the documentary that aired on al jazeera previously. also from democracy now today, this is a headline:

Report: Huckabee Pushed For Release of Serial Rapist
In campaign news, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is coming under increasing scrutiny for his role in the release of a convicted rapist while he was governor of Arkansas. Investigative journalist Murray Waas has revealed that Huckabee aggressively pushed for the early release of Wayne Dumond in 1999 despite being warned by numerous women that Dumond had sexually assaulted them or their family members, and would likely strike again. After Dumond was released he went on to rape and murder at least one other woman. Huckabee has claimed that he supported the release of Dumond because, at the time, he had no good reason to believe that the man represented a further threat to the public. Earlier this week the Huffington Post posted letters sent to Huckabee that directly contradict this claim.

i wrote about the disgusting huckabee last week and you can also check out cedric's 'Conniff likes Huckabee, Huckabee likes rapists' and wally's 'THIS JUST IN! HUCKABEE LOVES THE RAPISTS!'.

the washington post's dan eggen and joby warrick have a pretty big scoop, 'CIA Destroyed Videos Showing Interrogations: Harsh Techniques Seen in 2002 Tapes:'

The CIA made videotapes in 2002 of its officers administering harsh interrogation techniques to two al-Qaeda suspects but destroyed the tapes three years later, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden said yesterday.
Captured on tape were interrogations of Abu Zubaydah, a close associate of Osama bin Laden, and a second high-level al-Qaeda member who was not identified, according to two intelligence officials. Zubaydah has been identified by U.S. officials familiar with the interrogations as one of three al-Qaeda suspects who were subjected to "waterboarding," a technique that simulates drowning, while in CIA custody.
The tapes were made to document any confessions the two men might make and to serve as an internal check on how the interrogations were conducted, senior intelligence officials said.
All the tapes were destroyed in November 2005 on the order of Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., then the CIA's director of clandestine operations, officials said. The destruction came after the Justice Department had told a federal judge in the case of al-Qaeda operative Zacarias Moussaoui that the CIA did not possess videotapes of a specific set of interrogations sought by his attorneys. A CIA spokesman said yesterday that the request would not have covered the destroyed tapes.
The tapes also were not provided to the Sept. 11 commission, the independent panel that investigated the 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, which demanded a wide array of material and relied heavily on classified interrogation transcripts in piecing together its narrative of events.

yes, the u.s. government tortures. how many times has bully boy claimed that it doesn't happen? tapes were destroyed to protect the c.i.a. and the government. it had nothing to do with protecting the identities. torture is a crime and a video record opened up the entire government to criminal charges.

the article tells you that the new york times is preparing an article. they don't have it posted. that's apparently why hayden went public. in addition, please note that the democrats and republicans in congress went along with it.

i don't think all of us vote for congress to protect us from reality. i don't think we say, 'keep us ignorant.' some may. hopefully, that's a small number.

but this really comes down to 'we know best and we must lie to protect every 1.' it's that attitude that allows so many to doubt the government.

and they have no 1 to blame for that but themselves. a democracy does not operate in secret or under the premise that a few know better than the population.


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

Thursday, December 6, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the 'great return' isn't but more details refuting the myth emerge, and more.

Starting with war resistance. Nathan Burden is a soldier who self-checked out after joining the military following high school. Courage to Resist interviews Burden and he explains how a problem was ignored. His recruiter made passes at Burden's mother. When Burden learned of it, he complained and was told it would be taken care of. He would later learn that 'taken care of' meant promoting the recruiter to station commander. He explained other signs of the military was not listening and, on going AWOL, noted that "soldiers were doing this because they were being ignored when they applied for conscientious objector so I realized I wasn't the only soldier this had happened to and I wasn't going to judge the army on just one guy that made the pass on my mom" but the problem continued to be ignored.
On CO's, Burden shares, ""There was a guy who applied for cons objector because he didn't want to do it and he got ignored" so he ended up checking out. The man had deployed to Iraq and Burden says, "he told me that him and his buddies had applied for conscientious objector before and been ignored." Last month, a traffic violation led to his being stopped and then place in jail for two weeks while MPs were supposed to be coming to the jail to pick him up. They weren't able to. After two weeks, the military's position was, "Allright we're going to let you out and you've got two days to get to Fort Campbell." Burden left jail and did not go to Fort Campbell. He shared that he had "twins on the way" and that his family supports his decision.

A body that has not been supportive of Iraq War resisters who refuse to fight in an illegal war based on lies is the Canadian government. November 15th, Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey learned that the nation's Supreme Court would not hear their appeals. As a result, the focus is now on getting the Canadian Parliament to address the situation. On December 11th, the parliament will hear testimony from war resisters. Cindy Sheehan (OpEdNews) urges people to utilize Courage to Resist's easy to mail or e-mail resources to allow the Canadian government to know you are watching and to support organizations supporting war resisters as well as supporting war resisters:


Support actual war resisters in Canada by sending them expense money. From my friend Ryan (I gave him and his wife money to get to Canada over two years ago):

In light of the recent Supreme Court denial in Canada, I (Ryan Johnson), My wife (Jen Johnson) and Brandon Hughey need help raising funds to travel to Ottawa to attend hearings before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, where War Resisters will be giving Testimony to the committee. At these hearings the committee will be deciding on whether or not to make a provision to allow war resisters to stay in Canada. This is one of our last chances to be able to continue living in Canada. We will be leaving December 7th because the hearings are December 11th, 2007 so we need to act fast. They may try to send guys back soon and we need to have a strong War Resister Presence. We appreciate all of the support and Want to thank all of you who can help.

Checks/money orders can be sent for Ryan, Jen and Brandon to:312 Tower Rd Nelson, BC V1L3K6

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, 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, Blake LeMoine, 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, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty 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. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).


The voice of war resister Camilo Mejia is featured in Rebel Voices -- playing now through December 16th at Culture Project -- that's ten more days -- and based on Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove's best-selling book Voices of a People's History of the United States. It features dramatic readings of historical voices such as war resister Mejia, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, Malcom X and others will be featured. Musician Allison Mooerer will head the permanent cast while those confirmed to be performing on selected nights are Ally Sheedy (actress and poet, best known for films such as High Art, The Breakfast Club, Maid to Order, the two Short Circuit films, St. Elmo's Fire, War Games, and, along with Nicky Katt, has good buzz on the forthcoming Harold), Eve Ensler who wrote the theater classic The Vagina Monologues (no, it's not too soon to call that a classic), actor David Strathaim (L.A. Confidential, The Firm, Bob Roberts, Dolores Claiborne and The Bourne Ultimatum), actor and playwright Wallace Shawn (The Princess Bride, Clueless -- film and TV series, Gregory and Chicken Little), actress Lili Taylor (Dogfight, Shortcuts, Say Anything, Household Saints, I Shot Andy Warhol, Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle, State of Mind) and actor, director and activist Danny Glover (The Color Purple, Beloved, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Rainmaker, Places In The Heart, Dreamgirls, Shooter and who recently appeared on Democracy Now! addressing the US militarization of Africa) The directors are Will Pomerantz and Rob Urbinati with Urbinati collaborating with Zinn and Arnove on the play. Tickets are $41.. The theater is located at 55 Mercer Street and tickets can be purchased there, over the phone (212-352-3101) or online here and here. More information can be found at Culture Project.

Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:

In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan

March 13th through 15th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation.

IVAW's South Central Region Coordinator Justin Cliburn will be speaking this Sunday in Dallas, Texas at the First Unitarian Church of Dallas, Raible Chapel (4015 Normandy Avenue, Dallas, TX 75205) at 10:30 am. Cliburn served in Iraq (2005-2006) and this event is free and open to the public. In September of this year, Cliburn shared some of his post-Iraq drill experiences at Courage to Resist and noted:

Someone who had not deployed before asked if we would go again. "In a heartbeat!" one soldier replied. Others assured him that they would have no problem going back. Now, the eyes were on me.
"No, I am not going back to participate in that war."
The look of shock and awe on their faces quickly gave way to a flurry of questions about how I would get out, what I would do, how I could do that to my comrades, why I felt the way I did, what I thought I was proving, and why I thought I could make a difference. The question that got me on a roll, however, was none of the above.
"What are you going to do . . . become a conscientious objector?" one soldier and friend said with a smirk and a chuckle.
"In fact, I just may do that. That's what I am, essentially, isn't it?"
You could have heard a pin drop as the smirks fell from their faces; this appeared to be the worst thing I could have said. It amazes me how they had just gotten done talking about taking pleasure in bullying Iraqis and I was somehow demonized for stating that I had a moral objection to the occupation and subjugation of a third world nation. I have a conscience, and that upset them more than anything I could have said for some reason.

Staying with the illegal war but turning to the failure of the esclation which Bully Boy dubbed the 'surge.' The escalation was never going to produce lasting results. The escalation was never going to, in fact, accomplish much of anything. And the unspoken reality is that a current GOP candidate for his party's 2008 presidential nomination knew that though he chose and continues to choose to lie about that. But before we get to that, yesterday on NPR's All Things Considered, Melissa Block explained, "Today US military officers told Defense Secretary Robert Gates they need help in northern Iraq. They said they don't have enough troops because so many have been called to Baghdad to take part in the surge there. US Army Col. Tony Thomas said the north has suffered, there's been an increase in violence and Thomas called for more American soldiers and the return of 1400 Iraqi troops who were sent to the center of the country. Meantime there were four significant bombings in Iraq today including one in a shopping district of Baghdad . . ." [This was the set-up to Iraqi voices which Ruth covered yesterday.] In this morning's New York Times, Michael Gordon writes of the increase in violence in northern Iraq where resistance fighters are thought to "have relocated" and "migrated" specifically to Mosul. What's going on is what has been going on and what was always known would take place. But it was too important for some to re-sell the illegal war so truth got left out. The escalation is a failure in every way and that is not just political, it also in terms of the military aims. It was always going to be a military failure.

We're dropping back to the August 4, 2006 snapshot noting a section of the August 3, 2006 US Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

Senator John McCain: So, General Abizaid, we're moving 7,500 troops into Baghdad, is that correct?
General John Abizaid: The number is closer to 3,500.
[. . .]
McCain: And where are these troops coming from?
Abizaid: Uh, the troops, the Styker Brigade, is coming down from Mosul.
McCain: From Mosul? Is the situation under control in Ramadi?
Abizaid: Uh, the situation in Ramadi, is better than it was two months ago.
McCain: Is the situation under control in Ramadi?
Abizaid: I think the situation in Ramadi is workable.
McCain: And the troops from Ramadi came from Falluja, isn't that correct?
Abizaid: I can't say senator, I know that --
McCain: Well that's my information. What I worry about is we're playing a game of whack-a-mole here. We move troops from -- It flares up, we move troops there. Everybody knows we've got big problems in Ramadi and I said, "Where you gonna get the troops?" 'Well we're going to have to move them from Falluja.' Now we're going to have to move troops into Baghdad from someplace else. It's very disturbing.

Somehow, in all of his cheerleading, McCain forgot what might possibly the only moment of the Iraq War where he could claim to have been right. He was right. He spoke before the escalation proper (stop-loss orders had already been put into effect effecting Alaska troops; however, the 'surge' would be floated proper by the Bully Boy only after the November 2006 elections). What played out under the escalation was what? Troops pulled from other areas to go to Baghdad, to go to Al Anbar Province. The escalation has been what McCain dubbed (rightly) "whack-a-mole" and, as he noted, "It's very disturbing." Now, as Melissa Block noted, you have US military officers telling Robert Gates on his Baghdad stop-over that they need the troops sent to Baghdad back in northern Iraq. It is whack-a-mole. It is exactly what McCain predicted. It's a shame he's taken to selling the myth of 'success' because otherwise he could be pointing out not only that the escalation is a failure but that he was right back on August 3, 2006.

Despite the realities, CBS and AP report that David Petraeus (General Betrayus) is bragging "that maintaining security is easier than establishing it and gives him more flexibility in deploying forces." CNN reminds that Gates had the same set of talking points but added: "security, stability and democracy in Iraq are 'within reach'." Ann Scott Tyson and Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) remind that this (overly) optimistic evaluation is in stark contrast to his confirmation hearings statements when he declared "that the United States was neither winning nor losing in Iraq". Jamie Gumbrecht and Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) observe, "Just before U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters in the Green Zone Wednesday that safety and security for Iraq are within read, a car bomb rocked a nearby neighborhood in what appeared to be the deadliest blast in Baghdad since September." Paul von Zielbauer (New York Times) described the scene: "incinerated bodies of passengers were visible in the smoking shell of a public bus. The blast also killed several street vendors; human remains, including those of a motorcyclist ripped in half, were scattered over a wide area, witnesses daid. The blast also wounded 33 people, the authorities said." Yesterday, the death toll from that one bombing was thought to be 14. CNN notes that the number was actually 5 higher, the Interior Ministry announced today that the death toll was 19 and the wounded was 36.

Military officers saying troops pulled from northern Iraq need to be returned? Among the many other crimes in the region -- 'honor' killings. IRIN quotes Youssif Mohamed Aziz ("regional minister of human rights") citing thsese figures: "Ten murdered women were from Arbil, 11 from Dahouk and six from Sulaimaniyah [the three provinces making up the Kurdish region], while 97 other women -- 60 in Arbil, 21 in Dahouk and 16 in Sulaimaniyah -- had tried to commit suicide by self-immolation during the four months." MADRE explains, "Human rights abuses committed against women -- most often by male relatives -- in the name of 'family honor' are called 'honor crimes.' These crimes, including murder, are intended to "protect the family honor" by preventing and punishing women's violations of accepted behavior, particularly sexual behavior. MADRE, along with the Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq (OWFI), supports women in Iraq by creating a safe network of women's shelters, serving as an Underground Railroad to help these women escape honor killings." The 'honor' killings take place throughout Iraq. Earlier this week, Reuters reported on how over 40 women have been found in Basra as corpses after being murdered and quotes Basra's chief of police Maj. Gen. Abdul-Jalil Khalaf stating, "Some women were killed with their children. One was a six-year-old child, another with an 11-year-old."

At the end of October, Riverbend (Baghdad Burning) shared what she and her family were facing in Syria, "Within a month of our being here, we began hearing talk about Syria requiring visas from Iraqis, like most other countries. Apparently, our esteemed puppets in power met with Syrian and Jordanian authorities and decided they wanted to take away the last two safe havens remaining for Iraqis -- Damascus and Amman. The talk began in late August and was only talk until recently -- early October. Iraqis entering Syrian now need a visa from the Syrian consulate or embassy in the country they are currently in. In the case of Iraqis still in Iraq, it is said that an approval from the Ministry of Interior is also required (which kind of makes it difficult for people running away from militias OF the Ministry of Interiror. Today, there's talk of a possible fifty dollar visa at the border. Iraqis who entered Syria before the visa was implemented were getting a one month visitation visa at the border. As soon as that month was over, you could take your passport and visit the local immigration bureau. If you were lucky, they would give you an additional month or two. When talk about visas from Syrian embassy began, they stopped giving an extension on the initial border visa. We, as a family, had a brilliant idea. Before the commotion of visas began, and before we started needing a renewal, we decided to go to one of the border crossing, cross into Iraq, and come back into Syria -- everyone was doing it. It would buy us some time -- at least 2 months." Riverbend is noting multiple realities in that excerpt (and in her entire post) but pay attention to why Iraqis might briefly cross the border, why all crossing the border are not 'returning' and the hassles put in place by the Syrian government for those visas. Hannah Allam (McClatchy Newspapers) visits Damascus to see what's really going and encounters Bahija Jawad (among others) who has Iraqi males shouting at her to get on the convoy (you have to wonder if the criminals driving these convoys get paid per head) and Allam notes, "Despite reports of more Iraqis returning to Baghdad in response to the drop in violence there, there's no flood of Iraqis leaving Syria to go home. Interviews with refugees and aid workers indicate that most Iraqis share Jawad's opinion -- that the current letup in violence is fleeting and that it's wiser to stay put than return to neighborhoods still controlled by the same unpredicatable militants who forced them to flee. The numbers bear that out. While estimates from aid groups indicate that 60,000 Iraqis have returned home from Syria, Jordan and other Arab countries, that number represents only 2.4 percent of the 2.5 million Iraqis who've fled their country." Ali al-Fadhily (IPS) provides an in-depth look at the realities for Iraq's external refugees noting that they are "faced with detention abroad, or a homecoming to death threats." al-Fadhily quotes Ali Jassim, who was deported from Lebanon to Baghdad, stating, "To deport an Iraqi refugee is to issue a death warrant. The Lebanese authorities are applying regular migration rules to Iraqis, meaning that most Iraqis in Lebanon will be deported." Citing reports from Human Rights Watch, the World Food Programme and interviews with Iraqis, al-Fadhily makes clear that, regardless of the country refugees end up in, asylum is temporary and always in danger. In yesterday's New York Times, Thanassis Cambanis reported on Jaffar Sadiq al-Lami, an Iraqi refugee in Lebanon arrested for being a refugee without a visa who was given the choice of staying in a Lebanon jail or returning to Iraq and managed to hold out for seven months of jail time before it became too much. Now he's back in Iraq and states that he believes "officials in Iraq were manipulating refugee numbers, ecnouraging returns to Iraq so they could claim that security had improved."

In other violence . . .

Bombings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that left five people wounded and another one that left six wounded. Reuters notes a Falluja roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 police officer and left three more injured.

Shootings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an attack in Qarataba that left 8 Iraqi soldiers dead and five more wounded while 3 of the attackers were also killed. Reuters raises the death toll 1 for nine Iraqs killed but notes they are Kurdish troops and includes the qualifier that there are two reports that it appears "referred to the same incident." Reuters notes a police officer was shot dead in Dhuluiya with two more injured and the US military shot dead two 'suspected' people in Baghdad with two more injured.

Corpses?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 5 corpses discovered in Baghdad and 1 in Al Saadiyah. Reuters notes 1 corpse discovered in Kirkuk.

Today, CBS and AP report, a funeral with empty coffins was held "near Baghdad" due to the fact that it was too dangerous to hold the funeral in a village where 45 people have been killed "in recent months". In the Green Zone today, Reuters reports, the Iraqi Parliament was witness to a screaming match between members: represent al-Sadr's bloc, Bahaa al-Araji and representing the Sunni Accordance Front, Adnan al-Dulaimi (al-Dulaimi is the legislator who was under house arrest on Thursday, Friday and Saturday after a bomb was found near or on his compound -- accounts vary with al-Dulaimi's supporters saying "near" and not "on"). What was the point of the shouting? al-Araji screamed about some 'documents' that may or may not have been genuine and when al-Dulaimi said the documents had nothing to do with him, "Shut up! . . . Liar!" was the parliamentary response.

In US political news, Iraq has fallen off the Democratic presidential contenders's radar with few exceptions. One is Senator Hillary Clinton who can boast of an endorsement from retired Gen. Wesley Clark (video available) who states, "I've known Hillary Clinton for twenty-four years. I know she has what it takes to end the war in Iraq, avert war in Iran, and restore our country's standing in the world." That went up online last night. John Edwards and Senator Barack Obama have multiple items on their home page but none even note Iraq. Third on Senator Joe Biden's home page is his November column entitled "End Iraq war." Senator Chris Dodd keeps his Iraq plan on the home page ("No Half Measures"). Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich are focused on Iran. Mike Gravel promotes a Rally For Freedom in LA at Pan Pacific Park Monday (December 10th) from one to four p.m. which does include "Bring Our Troops Home" as one of the issues. Gravel will be there speaking at the rally.

Finally, today on Democracy Now!, Amy Goodman broadcast a new documentary from Big Noise Films (made for Al Jazeera) entitled The Battle for Basra & Iraq's Oil:

RICK ROWLEY: So who is fighting here? And what is the battle for Basra about? Basra is Iraq's economy. 80% of Iraq's proven oil reserves are in Basra. And last year, its exports brought $31 billion to Baghdad. That's 93% of the federal budget. What is at stake is control over massive oil revenues. Without Basra, the central government in Baghdad would collapse. A new oil law was drafted that would create a federal oil and gas council to manage the country's natural wealth. The council would be headed by the prime minister and largely under the control of the Shiite party that is America's closest ally in Iraq: the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council. But the law has been stalled in Parliament for two years.
PROF. JUAN COLE: Oil doesn't seem to be under control in Iraq. No one in the Iraqi government really could tell you where all the money goes.
RICK ROWLEY: Professor Juan Cole is one of America's leading experts on Shia factions in Iraq.
PROF. JUAN COLE: And it has been alleged in the press that as much as $2 billion a year is being embezzled and smuggled, and it's going straight into the coffers of the Shiite militias of the south.
RICK ROWLEY: Cole says that Governor al-Waili's Islamic Virtue Party has the upper hand in controlling Basra's oil.

katrina's howler monkeys attack ... the truth

who will save us from katrina's howler monkeys and their lies? paul rogat loeb is lying big time and of course no 1 will call him on it. here's what crap ass squeezes out:

You could say she was just playing the game, but John Edwards and Barack Obama, in comparison, campaigned throughout the country to support worthy Democratic candidates, while doing negligible fundraising for their own pending campaigns. The Edwards campaign ended that season still in debt from 2004. Obama emerged with less than a million in the bank. Their top priorities really did seem to be helping other Democrats win a critical election, instead of subordinating all other goals to their own personal futures.
For another contrast, the entire Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee raised only $107 million that season, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee $103 million. Hillary spent more than a third as much as either of these, more than any candidate in America that year. Only the self-funded Jon Corzine has ever spent more for a Senate race in our history. And she did this for a race that was never in doubt.
Imagine if Hillary had transferred $20 million into the dozen Congressional campaigns that Democrats lost by margins as close as a few hundred votes. Or into Harold Ford’s Senatorial campaign, to help close a $5-million gap with Republican Bob Corker. By late summer it was clear that the Democrats had a huge opportunity and were scrambling for the funds to respond to it. A few extra ads or mailings might well have tipped the balance in more of these races. That’s why so many of us were stretching to contribute, even when it hurt. Hillary made different decisions. Much as may have been true with her support of a recent Iran vote so reckless that Senator James Webb called it “Dick Cheney’s pipe dream,” her priority was election-year positioning.

yes, it's time to attack hillary yet again and facts don't really matter. did obama support the left, the real left and nothing but the left. tell it to some 1 who didn't vote in conn., coffee boy paul. barack obama endorsed joe lieberman over ned lamont. left out that fact, didn't you paul coffee fetcher?

i am so sick of katrina and her lying crowd of assholes. if you hate hillary, hate her. (i don't care for her). but quit lying. they are such liars.

and did you catch cup of coffee paul laughable revelation? hillary should have what? should have given money to harold ford junior?

that would be the head of the d.l.c. today. that would be the african-american who campaigned at the 'little rebel,' posing in front of the confederate flag. the anti-gay harold ford jr. whose entire family is as corrupt as he is (or are we all supposed to pretend his uncle's public court incident didn't take place recently?).

harold ford jr. is not a progressive, was not a progressive and is still a tool of corporations.

you don't have to take my word for it, glen ford's writing (at black agenda report) today about the disgraceful harold ford jr. and that's not the 1st time ford's noted his nonsense.

all pauly has to offer is book titles that rip off show tunes. keep signing 'em, pauly. maybe some 1 will applaud you. maybe katrina will tip you for the coffee.

but in the real world, you and every 1 else are a huge embarrassment.

i don't like hillary. i don't plan to vote for hillay. so why am i stuck defending her? because it's not enough that people use her record against her, they have to invent lies. they have to lie about her to make her look bad and they have to lie about obama to make him look like he's left. he's not left.

he's nothing but a fake and phoney.

katrina & her crowd of lunatics are pathetic.

they have to lie and distort to make their pathetic crush barack obama into a real candidate. they're like geppettos up all night polishing wood in the hopes that they can turn it into a real boy. another paul, paul street, tells it like it is 'The Obama Disease: Business Rule, "Common Ground," and "P[l]aying the Fool"' (znet):

As a part of his great post-Sixties Kumbaya project, Obama takes special pride in his "pragmatic" readiness to "reach out" to Republicans to "get things done." He inveighs against the "Tom Hayden wing of the Democratic Party" and tells progressive Democrats they would be "playing chicken with the troops" if they dared not to fund the George W. Bush administration's monumentally illegal, brazenly petro-imperialist and inherently mass-murderous occupation of Mesopotamia . He repeatedly votes to fund the criminal invasion and backs "mainstream" (pro-war) Democratic candidates against progressive antiwar candidates in the 2006 congressional primaries. After their attainment of a majority in the Congress in November of 2006, he warns Democrats against being seen as working against the remarkably unpopular and arch-criminal Cheney-Bush administration. He insists on claiming that the invasion of Iraq was launched and has been fought with the "best of [democratic] intentions."
He votes for a business-driven federal "tort reform" bill that rolls back working peoples' ability to obtain reasonable redress from misbehaving corporations. He joins Republicans in advancing the patently false claim of Wall Street and the Bush administration that Social Security is facing an imminent crisis that must be fixed through drastic measures. He sounds like Mitt Romney or Rudy Guliani in criticizing his fellow Democrats' determination to "impose" universal health care through supposedly oppressive "government mandates." He joins the more reactionary of the two business parties in supporting the expansion of the regressive North American Free Trade Agreement ( NAFTA) to Peru . He goes to NASDAQ to absurdly tell the lords of global finance that "your work [is] part of building a stronger, more vibrant, and more just America . I think the problem is that no one has asked you to play a part in the project of American renewal."

paul street tells the truth. and read it and you'll see why katrina and her boy-toys have to work so hard to spit polish obama. thank you to cedric for that because he called me and told me about the article. he also told me blogdrive has some problem. the pop-up 'win a computer' thing is bleeding all over the main page where you post. he said it took him over an hour of trying to get things up at his mirror site and that if i wasn't in the mood for a hassle, i should just skip it. so i'm going to do that. i'll cross-post tomorrow if they've fixed the problem by then.

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

Wednesday, December 5, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, Bobby Gates gets greeted with trumpets (well . . . car bombs) as he visits Iraq, realities continue to emerge about the myth of the 'great return' and more.


Starting with war resistance. December 11th the Canadian Parliament will hold public hearings on the issue of war resisters. A legislative remedy to allow war resisters to remain in Canada is necessary following the Supreme Court of Canada's November 15th announcement that they would not hear the appeals of US war resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Various war resisters hope to testify and Cindy Sheehan (OpEdNews) urges people to utilize Courage to Resist's easy to mail or e-mail resources to allow the Canadian government to know you are watching and to support organizations supporting war resisters as well as supporting war resisters:


Support actual war resisters in Canada by sending them expense money. From my friend Ryan (I gave him and his wife money to get to Canada over two years ago):

In light of the recent Supreme Court denial in Canada, I (Ryan Johnson), My wife (Jen Johnson) and Brandon Hughey need help raising funds to travel to Ottawa to attend hearings before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, where War Resisters will be giving Testimony to the committee. At these hearings the committee will be deciding on whether or not to make a provision to allow war resisters to stay in Canada. This is one of our last chances to be able to continue living in Canada. We will be leaving December 7th because the hearings are December 11th, 2007 so we need to act fast. They may try to send guys back soon and we need to have a strong War Resister Presence. We appreciate all of the support and Want to thank all of you who can help.

Checks/money orders can be sent for Ryan, Jen and Brandon to:312 Tower Rd Nelson, BC V1L3K6

One of the war resisters in Canada is Kimberly Rivera who lives there now with her husband and two children. At her site, she reflects, "Its funny how Recruiters work, every year in high school they are allowed to set up a table in the lunch room and discuss your future as a Soldier or what have you and every school had a ROTC program. I was never in ROTC or have I ever thought of becoming a soldier, on several occassions I had the recruiters approach me and ask me what my plans where and I told them I am just 16 i don't need to disclosing info about my self to strangers, and because i was under age of 17 they didn't talk to me further that year. How ever in my junior and senior year they were calling my house with school rosters that they get from the schools. And each recruiter is assigned to a certain school." She recounts her experiences in Iraq, how her husband Mario found out information online, and how they made the decision to move to Canada and shares "we crossed the broader on Feb 18th 2007 i missed my cycle in febuary and in march and late april i started having sever pain and heavy clotting and was depressed because i know that i misscaried it last about 2 weeks." Now the Rivera family is trying to make a life for themselves and Canada's Parliament can do the right thing, they can step up and address the issue in a number of ways.


There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, 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, Blake LeMoine, 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, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty 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. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).


The voice of war resister Camilo Mejia is featured in Rebel Voices -- playing now through December 16th at Culture Project and based on Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove's best-selling book Voices of a People's History of the United States. It features dramatic readings of historical voices such as war resister Mejia, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, Malcom X and others will be featured. Musician Allison Mooerer will head the permanent cast while those confirmed to be performing on selected nights are Ally Sheedy (actress and poet, best known for films such as High Art, The Breakfast Club, Maid to Order, the two Short Circuit films, St. Elmo's Fire, War Games, and, along with Nicky Katt, has good buzz on the forthcoming Harold), Eve Ensler who wrote the theater classic The Vagina Monologues (no, it's not too soon to call that a classic), actor David Strathaim (L.A. Confidential, The Firm, Bob Roberts, Dolores Claiborne and The Bourne Ultimatum), actor and playwright Wallace Shawn (The Princess Bride, Clueless -- film and TV series, Gregory and Chicken Little), actress Lili Taylor (Dogfight, Shortcuts, Say Anything, Household Saints, I Shot Andy Warhol, Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle, State of Mind) and actor, director and activist Danny Glover (The Color Purple, Beloved, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Rainmaker, Places In The Heart, Dreamgirls, Shooter and who recently appeared on Democracy Now! addressing the US militarization of Africa) The directors are Will Pomerantz and Rob Urbinati with Urbinati collaborating with Zinn and Arnove on the play. Tickets are $21 for previews and $41 for regular performances (beginning with the Nov. 18th opening night). The theater is located at 55 Mercer Street and tickets can be purchased there, over the phone (212-352-3101) or online here and here. More information can be found at Culture Project.

Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:

In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan

March 13th through 15th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation.

"I think you heard about Cholera infections in Iraq," writes an Iraqi correspondent at Inside Iraq (McClatchy Newspapers). "If you read the statistic you will be astonished that this wounded country is able to withstand in front of this outbreak disease in spite of all the probems that surround it. When this disease showed for the first time in north of Iraq I thought that this disease will spread in our country like the fire spread in dry stalks." The reporter goes on to share a story of a woman in Baghdad who ended up with cholera but her relatives feared the "shame on our family" if she was taken to the hospital and placed "under quarantine" so, instead, the woman ended up dying. Cholera was first detected back in August and in Kirkuk. By mid-September cholera was showing up in "twenty one districts of Northern Iraq" according to the World Health Organization. On Sunday, David Smith (UK Observer) provided an update noting that the factors were in place to "create an epidemic" with 101 cases in Baghdad. Yesterday, AAAS Science and Techonology Policy Fellow Mark D. Drapeau (at the New York Times) observed that cholera "doesn't respect borders" and that includes who is at risk in Iraq: anyone. Children, adults, foreign forces, anyone. Drapeau argues, "Cholera is a grave threat for the American project in Iraq, but also an opportunity to capture the hearts and minds of the population." No, not really. The ship sailed on that long ago. More importantly, a people under threat -- and that's what it is to live under an occupation -- usually includes a healthy number of people who will assume that outbreaks of whatever are launched upon them by the occupiers. Cesar Chelala (Qatar's Gulf Times) quotes Oxfam's Jeremy Hobbs declaring, "The terrible violence in Iraq has masked the ongoing humanitarian crisis. Malnutrition amongst children has dramatically increased and basic services, ruined by years of wars and sanctions, cannot meet the needs of the Iraqi people. Millions of Iraqis have been forced to flee the violence, either to another part of Iraq or abroad. Many of those are living in dire poverty."

Dire poverty. A characteristic of those Iraqi refugees being tricked into returning from Syria. Hamza Hendai (AP) reports that Iraqi state television is broadcasting propaganda messages aimed at Iraqi refugees with tag lines such as "How sweet it is to return to Iraq". Yesterday on NPR's Morning Edition, Deborah Amos reported the reality revealed from refugees returning to Iraq: "many are going back because it is too difficult to stay in Syria. In October, Syria made it harder for Iraqis to enter the country. About 1,000 return to Iraq every day, but at least 500 cross into Syria daily -- running from kidnappings, bombings or personal threats. Falah Jaber, an Iraqi sociologist, says that those who have been personally targeted by violence will be the last ones to consider going home" and quoted Jaber stating, "What we have seen this far is just a trickle. We have one and a half million" external refugees so "the return of 30,000 is not yet a pro-return case." Jamie Tarabay (Morning Edition) broadcast the thoughts of Suad Moahmmed who explained, "We were kicked out of our home in Dora. They took my house and furniture" and, upon returning, discovered that a militia leader had sold the home. [The Red Crescent notes that the number of internal refugees has dipped from 2.3 million to 2.19 million.] Next month, as IRIN reported yesterday, Iraqis will discover that the items available to them will drop from ten to five and that the remaining five will be distributed in lower numbers. The food rations that Iraqis need just to struggle through are being cut because the (puppet) government wants to do the White House's bidding. Children's milk is not being reduced, it is being CUT OUT all together. This at a time when you have at least 28% of Iraqi children suffering from malnutrition and when over 11% of infants are underweight. This is criminal. The rations cards were something Paul Bremer tried to stamp out but couldn't. It took an allegedly independent puppet government to betray the already suffering children of Iraq. And these are the people that the White House says must be supported. Of course they say that, the White House wants to do away with the rations as well. But that's the sort of 'leadership' in the puppet government of Iraq: the already suffering children, living in a war zone, can suffer a lot more because the puppet government has other priorities (which we will no doubt learn, a year or so from now, included lining their own pockets).

And, in other bad news, the US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, went to Iraq. Iraq trumpets greeted him -- if car and roadside bombings can pass for trumpets.

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing wounded two police officers, a Baghdad car bombing claimed 14 lives with at least thirty-three more wounded, a Mosul car bombing claimed 1 life and left seven more injured, a Diyala car bombing at a Baquba bus station claimed 5 lives leaving twelve more wounded and Biji roadside bombing claimed 1 life. Reuters reports a car bombing targeting Brig. Gen Kakamen Hameed that left him and nine other people wounded in Kirkuk and also killed 2 people (inlcuding one of Hameed's bodyguards).

Shootings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports "a Kurd security officer" was shot dead in Tuz Khurmatu. Reuters notes a sheikh was shot dead Kut.

Corpses?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 corpses were discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes a corpse discovered in Dhuluiya.

Today the US military announced: "Two Multi-National Division-North Soldiers were killed as a result of injuries sustained from a complex attack involving an improvised explosive device and small arms fire while conducting operations in Salah ad Din province, Dec. 4." And today they announced: "A Multi-National Division – North Soldier died Dec. 5 as a result of wounds sustained from an attack involving an improvised explosive device and small-arms fire while conducting operations in Salah ad Din province Dec. 4." And late yesterday, they announced: "A U.S. Soldier was killed as a result of injuries sustained from a vehicle explosion during a vehicle recovery operation in Al Anbar province Dec. 3. "

Turning to US politics, yesterday Democratic contenders for the 2008 presidential nomination (except Bill Richardson) took part in the NPR 'debate' that was pretty embarrassing. Click here for audio (and transcript link) and here for just transcript. First thing you may have noticed is that Iraq fell off the radar. That's not the first debate this has happened but Barack Obama didn't even appear jazzed to use his "I was against the war before it started" (while refusing to note his change of position beginning in 2004). What's happening? The public hasn't lost interest in the illegal war. In fact the latest poll found it the issue most noted by respondents -- you could take the second and third most cited issues (economy and healthcare), add them together and Iraq would still outrank them. But the media has lost interest. Commenting on a new report by Media Lens, John Pilger (New Statesman) summarizes, "Like the reported 'success' of the US 'surge' in Iraq, the Soviet equivalent allowed 'poor peasants [to work] the land peacefully'. Like the Americans and British in Iraq and Afghanistan, Soviet troops were liberators who became peacekeepers and always acted in 'self-defence'. The BBC's Mark Urban's revelation of the "first real evidence that President Bush's grand design of toppling a dictator and forcing a democracy into the heart of the Middle East could work" (Newsnight, 12 April 2005) is almost word for word that of Soviet commentators claiming benign and noble intent behind Moscow's actions in Afghanistan. The BBC's Paul Wood, in thrall to the 101st Airborne, reported that the Americans 'must win here if they are to leave Iraq . . . There is much still to do.' That precisely was the Soviet line." That really does summarize the nonsense of the 'debate.' Mike Gravel, naming one specific answer he didn't have, stated, "I don't have an answer to be able to persuade the American people that they are the solution, not their leaders. I wish I had the answer to convince them of that." The worst moment -- a tough call -- probably involved when this was declared: "Oh, come on. You know what you want to do on that. You want to impeach people." That was aimed at Dennis Kucinich. Which candidate decided to freak out Kucinich? No candidate. That was Steve Inskeep of NPR. And, no, he didn't speak to other candidates like that. Exactly what did NPR think of that? If that's NPR 'tude, it certainly wasn't spread out to the other candidates. More importantly, Kucinich doesn't want to "impeach people." He's introduced a resolution to impeach Dick Cheney and he thinks the Bully Boy needs to be impeached. "People" certainly sounds 'wilder.' 'Oh, that crazy Dennis, he just wants to impeach us all!' Steve Inskeep embarrassed himself and so did Ruth Conniff for failing to note that in her commentary (at The Progressive) or to note that Iraq -- the most cited issue by voters -- wasn't addressed seriously in the debate which, again, lasted two hours. Two hours and they couldn't explore Iraq. NPR needs to take a look at themselves. Were the 'moderators' unaware the Iraq War was still going on? That is shameful even before you note that NPR is 'public radio.' The public ranks Iraq as the most important issue, it's a damn shame the fools at NPR don't.

Staying on politics, we'll close with the opening of Sharon Smith's latest commentary at CounterPunch:

The December 17th issue of the liberal Nation magazine contains an article penned by former California Senator Tom Hayden, purporting to offer antiwar voters a glimpse of hope for mainstream relevance in the coming election year-which will certainly be a contest between two pro-war candidates from the two corporate political parties. Hayden's article, "How the Peace Movement Can Win: A Field Guide," exudes confidence that antiwar activists have a role to play in spreading a message of peace as the presidential primaries begin on January 3rd.
Hayden acknowledges that, even as a Congressional majority over the last year, Democrats have provided little more than an "echo" for the Bush administration. He also admits that leading Democratic presidential contenders refuse to guarantee troop withdrawal before 2013, arguing, "The platform of 'out by 2013' may be a sufficient difference from the Republicans for some, but it won't satisfy the most committed antiwar voters." He notes that all the leading candidates vaguely assert the need, as Hillary Clinton does, for "a smaller American force left behind dedicated to training Iraqis and counter-terrorism."
Nevertheless, Hayden's "Field Guide" exhorts antiwar activists to get out the vote for 2008-for whichever candidate becomes the anointed Democratic nominee. "Only in this way," Hayden argues without evidence, "will the peace movement succeed in expanding and intensifying antiwar feeling to a degree that will compel the politicians to abandon their six-year timetable for a far shorter one."