1st, do not upgrade to the new windows' explorer. we did tonight and it is a nightmare. the page never loads and slows your computer down on top of that.
i knew the gang was headed to d.c. but i put in a call to kat and she only got my message i left on her voice mail. i told her 'call me. i'm going to sleep, i don't care what time, but call me.' which she kindly did. i know she hates explorer so she used something else. she uses crazy broswer and flyboy and installed that tonight. i can't believe we downloaded the new explorer on all 3 computers here. big mistake. repeat: do not install it. it must still have bugs and you won't be able to do anything.
you can't even close it. i tried to using the control, alt, delete keys that bring up that box. so i highlighted explorer ('not responding' was right next to it, no shit). right after i clicked on it, i got that tool box over and over and the computer froze.
it was 1 nightmare after another.
maybe bill gates has so much money now that he doesn't care if the new explorer is a piece of crap?
on the plus side, i had time to cook. my recipes that i can make are highly limited. if it's a breakfast food, i can do it. any kind of eggs, etc. after that i know a few dishes that elaine and c.i. have shown me over the years. but 1 thing i always knew how to do was make meatloaf.
i make pretty good 1s, if i do say so myself.
tonight i made the 1 i make with sausage, bell peppers, red onions, white onions, green onions (i like onions), bread crumbs, mushrooms, rice, paprika, tomato sauce (made with fresh ingredients), garlic and white pepper.
i'm not a stickler, but when possible, i use ground chicken or ground turkey. tonight i just used pork sausage.
flyboy loved it. he loves anything he doesn't have to cook. i'm just not a cook. if he could eat key lime pie, i'd make dinner every night.
so it was his night off as a result of my making meatloaf. we had baked potatoes with that and some green beans with almonds. (on the latter, don't get excited. that was just popping a frozen bag into a bowl and then into the microwave.)
flyboy can cook. the 1st time we were married, he knew probably 5 dishes. when he realized i wasn't going to cook every night, he learned a few more and now ruth's always showing him something. he jokes that i have burned things in the past on purpose to have my easy out excuse. i wish i had thought that far ahead.
but most of the time we order out.
ruth keeps saying 'thank you' because we didn't want her and elijah driving out here so we got a driver to take them back and forth. so let me say 'thank you' to ruth who shows monday through friday with a dish she's made that i usually pig out on and don't share. from there, she usually goes into the kitchen at lunch and will either show flyboy a new recipe or sit there so he can ask to be sure he's doing it right.
i love ruth. i did not ask her to do this. she insisted and showed up the day after she learned i was pregnant. she is a great friend and i am so lucky to have a friend like that. she keeps pointing out that when the babysitter who was supposed to watch elijah (her grandson) bailed at the last minute before she and her best friend from college (treva) were due to take a summer vacation together, i showed up and said, 'go, i'll watch him.'
i did do that. i did that gladly because she really hadn't had a vacation like that since her husband passed away. i was not going to let her miss that. but like i told her again today, i wasn't driving back and forth. i stayed at her house all week.
with this being winter and with her bound and determined to be here for support, flyboy and i both agreed we didn't want her driving in this weather. we knew if it got really bad, she'd just drive slow and still try to come out here. so it just made sense to get a driver so she wouldn't have to do that.
ruth has made me laugh so much. even on days when my body is adjusting to what i call 'the never ending expansion.' we went to the doctor yesterday, my 1st time out since i got the news.
sherry wondered if i was nervous?
i was never so nervous in my life. i wasn't driving but even when i'm not driving, i'm always cursing every other drive on the road. i'll reach over and honk the horn from the passenger side. flyboy always hates it when he's driving and i do that.
but yesterday, i was aware of every car on the road and thinking not 'speed up!' but 'is that 1 getting too close?'
i'm a hypochondriac now when it comes to driving. i see crashes where there are none.
when ruth and i were talking today, i pointed out that i was scared to death of elijah. he is a wonderful boy. i love him and he loves me (children love everybody). but when ruth was heading off with treva, i had a big smile plastered on my face and was holding elijah so we could wave bye-bye to them but i was thinking, 'this kid is going to kick my ass.'
that didn't end up happening. he made it very clear that he wasn't happy with me and pretty much avoided me for hours. then he seemed to realize he was stuck with me and put up with me. seriously, that's what he did. then, as the days went by (ruth watches him during the day because his parents both work), he warmed up to me. but before then i got these looks of 'she is so stupid' whenever i didn't do something the way his grandmother did it.
for instance, they listen to pacifica radio. when they do that, ruth usually takes notes and he draws or colors. i wasn't taking notes! that was a major thing with him! when i finally understood what i wasn't doing, he was cool with me. he really is a wonderful little boy. and his parents and all of ruth's children and grandchildren made it so easy. they refused to let me eat dinner alone. they were always inviting me over. (and credit elijah's parents because they barely knew me. they knew i was ruth's friends and they knew she needed this vacation. so they were fine with letting me watch their son.)
he's so big now. that was almost a year ago and it's hard to believe that's all when i look at him. his favorite part of the day is when he and flyboy go for a walk on the beach. he's always excited about that and if you look out the window, you can see him running on his way back. he'll try to walk but he'll break out in a run, then stop and walk, then run. he can't wait to get back inside and tell what he saw.
so, there is a point, if it weren't for ruth's trip with treva last year, i'd be plagued with doubt and worries right now. instead, thanks to elijah who is so laid back, i'm probably under concerned about what the baby will be like.
elizabeth de la vega is in the snapshot and i just found this by her. from 'Lying and Spying: How the Administration Slip-Slides Away' (common dreams):
I hope I can be forgiven if animal images kept coming into my mind during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week. On the eve of the first such hearing to be held by the newly-elected Democratic majority, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales sent a letter to Committee Chairmen Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) announcing that, henceforth, the President's Terrorist Surveillance Program would be conducted under the supervision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Listening to Alberto Gonzales "answering" questions about this development during the hearing, the thoughts I kept having were of seals and snakes: Had the administration really flip-flopped on warrantless electronic surveillance -- like, say, a seal -- or was it merely attempting to slither away -- like, say, a snake?
Unfortunately, it appears to be the latter. As with so many of its other activities -- pre-invasion intelligence fraud, detention of enemy combatants, systematic torture -- the closer the Bush administration comes to intersecting with the law and with Congress on its illegal spying, in the words of Paul Simon, "the more you're slip-slidin' away."
Well, Where Have We Been?
Unbeknownst to the American people and Congress -- the phrase that should begin so many stories about the Bush administration -- the President, starting in late 2001, authorized a secret domestic surveillance program to be run by the National Security Agency (NSA). By the time the secret wiretapping was revealed in a New York Times article on December 16, 2005, George W. Bush had issued more than 30 orders authorizing surveillance for what the administration claimed were foreign intelligence purposes, without ever attempting to comply with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA"). A law Congress enacted in 1978 to prevent the Executive Branch from conducting such surveillance without any court supervision whatsoever, FISA was simultaneously to provide a more expeditious procedure than that required for a standard search warrant.
In the four years between the inception of the program and its revelation, the Bush administration affirmatively concealed its existence, with the President, famously, even going so far as to preemptively -- and falsely -- announce that "any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed by the way."
Even worse, in that time span, Attorney General John Ashcroft and then Alberto Gonzales successfully negotiated with Congress four rounds of requested changes to FISA, the very statute they were routinely violating. Not once during the faux debate about security and civil liberty generated by the amendments they sought did the administration advise Congress in any official or unofficial way that it was violating the statute on a daily basis; nor did it seek revisions that would address the problems it later claimed existed.
last thoughts. if russ feingold won't run for president (he says he won't), i don't see any 1 yet who impresses me but dennis kucinich. i could vote for kucinich without holding my nose. i can't say that about any other declared candidate yet.
joe biden? wasn't he stick of used gum 20 years ago? hillary? don't trust her. don't trust her to end the war, don't trust her not to sell out the voters. obama? get some experience under your belt (and a spine) and then we'll talk. who else is there? the governor of iowa (or former)? tom v.? does any 1 seem to hate iraqis as much as tom? if you find some 1 let me know. he's all 'we baby them!' if kucinich is still in it at primary time (and i have no reason to doubt he wouldn't be), i could vote for him without hating myself the day after.
in 2004, my concern with him was the abortion issue. he had been anti-choice (or portrayed that way) earlier in his career. i needed a bit more at that time to feel comfortable. he's got 3 more years of being pro-choice right now and i don't question his postion.
he was against the war from the start and gets credit for that.
he did challenge bully boy and the press when he ran for president last time. the press tried to marginalize him and he didn't just go along saying 'kick me in my ass again, please.'
he's done a lot of strong work (including before he got into congress) and, at a time when the country's turned against the war, when something like 2/3s of the american people oppose bully boy's proposed escalation, you've got senate dems wasting every 1's time with toothless symbolism. dennis kucinich has a plan and didn't need to wait to be led to it.
he has been a leader. he hasn't waited for winds to change to figure out what was going on.
so i respect that.
some 1 else may join the race and i may end up being for them. (i have no problem endorsing when i make up my mind.) but what i'd say for today is that if you are following the 2008 race already (no reason you should be), check out dennis kucinich. learn about him. he may not be for you and that's fine if he isn't. but make the decision yourself.
don't let the press make it for you. they did that with him and others last time. don't let them play you for a fool.
here's c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Wednesday, January 24, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, Dahr Jamail explains the importance of war resisters, Bully Boy bombs (or, as Mike called him, "Bully Boy Butt Wipe") with his State of the Union address, the slaughter on Haifa Street continues, a Senate committee feels really proud of themselves but Russ Feingold pops their hot air, US Rep Maxine Waters speaks with Amy Goodman about this weekends demonstrations to end the war, US Rep Dennis Kucinich explains what puts him ahead of other Democratic candidates attempting to win their party's nomination for the 2008 presidential election, and Tony Blair's whimper is the whine heard round the world.
In the US, Ehren Watada is the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq and faces a court-martial on February 5th at Fort Lewis. Last week, the 'judge' (John Head) ruled on the parameters of the case. As Matt Hutaff (The Simon) reports the ruling amounts to "stripping the defendant of his constitutional rights. When Watada faces prosecution on February 5, he will be unable to assert free speech in questioning the legality of the war and is forbidden from using Nurember laws as defense. Watada's entire argument rests on the fact that troops are bound to serve honorably and follow lawful orders, and that the Iraq war is a hodepodge of neither." Paul Rockwell (San Francisco Bay Guardian) observes, "It is a sad day in American jurisprudence when a soldier of conscience is court-martialed -- not for lying, but for telling the truth; not for breaking a covenant with the military, but for upholding the rule of law in wartime." Eric Ruder (Socialist Worker) notes, "Activists in the Northwest and around the country are planning a February 5 day of action to show support for Watada, timed to coincide with the beginning of the Army's court-martial against him. Defending war resisters is a critical part of ending the war, because it gives confidence to other soldiers considering their options as Bush plans a 'surge' of 21,500 more troops to Iraq." Jim Warren (Lexington Herald-Leader) notes that among those people showing support for Watada on February 5th at Fort Lewis will be war resister Darrell Anderson who "set off on a cross-country bus tour with the Iraq Veterans Against the War organization, making stops in several cities to support war resisters."
Meanwhile, war resister Agustin Aguayo was due to be arraigned on Monday but Stars & Stripes reports that the arraingment has now been postponed until Thursday. Aguayo served in Iraq and applied for Conscientious Objector status afterwards. The military denied that and Aguayo has been appealing that. On November 21, 2006, the US Court of Appeals in Washington, DC heard Aguayo's appeal. They have not yet ruled on it. As Aaron Glantz reported on the November 20, 2006 broadcast of The KPFA Evening News, Aguayo's case was the first of it's kind hear in "a federal court since 1971". Despite the fact that the case was on appeal, the military had told Aguayo he had to redeploy to Iraq. In September, Aguayo self-checked out and turned himself in the same month. He was gone less than 30 days (September 2nd through September 26th.). However, last week, the military announced that they would be charging him with desertion. As Kevin Dougherty (Stars & Stripes) noted in November, 30 days, though not a rule, is "the standard benchmark." That charge and missing movement could, if convicted on both counts, result in Aguayo serving seven years in prison.
Interviewed by Alan Maass (Socialist Worker), Dahr Jamail noted the importance of war resisters and observed: "There are between 8,000 and 10,000 people AWOL from the military, and I imagine that number has increased dramatically over just the last week. I know it was starting to increase dramatically even before Bush made his speech. More people than ever are heading off to Canada or going underground, so that they don't have to go to Iraq and be targets. If anyone is seriously interested in ending this occupation and wants to do something to make it happen, people should follow the instruction of Lt. Ehren Watada. In his speech at the Veterans for Peace national convention in August of last year, he said that the best thing people could do is adopt the family of someone who wants to become a resister, and do what they need to do to support those families, economically and morally, so that their people don't have to go to Iraq."
Agustin Aguayo, Ehren Watada and Darrell Anderson are part of a movement of resistance within the military that also includes Kyle Snyder, Ivan Brobeck, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
In Iraq today, the Independent of London's Patrick Cockburn, speaking with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!, noted the Bully Boy's laughable speech from Tuesday evening, "He talked about chaos coming to Iraq. Well, I mean, I'm in the center of Baghdad, and it's difficult to imagine anything more chaotic. There's heavy fighting going on in an area called Haifa Street just near the Green Zone. I can hear mortars occasionally going off. It's said that there is an attempt to assassinate one of the vice presidents a few streets away from here. So we have almost total chaos in Baghad at the moment."
Bombings?
KUNA reports a bombing in Mosul that left a police officer and a civilian wounded. Reuters reports a bombing that killed four police officers and left three civilians wounded in Baghdad, a mortar attack in Baghdad that left one man wounded, and a mortar attack on City Hospital in Baghdad that killed two and left 20 wounded. Shootings?
Reuters reports that two people wounded in an attack "on a minibus carrying Shi'ite pilgrims" in Baghdad. The BBC reports that another educator has been killed in Iraq and describe Diya al-Meqoter as "a well-known professor and econcomist who presented a programme on Sharquiya television. . . He was known for supporting poor people needing loans to set up business, and he also headed Iraq's consumer association, a non-government agency which campaigned for fair pricing." RTE reports an attack on the country's minister of higher education, Abd Dhiab al-Ajili, that left one of his body guard dead "and another was shot in the head and seriously wounded."
Corpses?
KUNA reports 52 corpses discovered in Mosul (all with"scars of torture") which comes after Borzou Daragahi (Los Angeles Times) reported that the number of corpses discovered in Baghdad was decreasing.
Meanwhile the slaughter on Haifa Street in Baghdad continues. Ross Colvin and Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) repeat the US military's version of events ('insurgents, insurgents, insurgents') to explain the US military's air raid on high rises on the largely residential street; however, they also note: "A local journalist said he helped transport 37 wounded people to hospital, including women and children, in three ambulances that managed to get through the security cordon." KUNA reports: "An Iraqi security source and eyewitnesses said US helicopters had been bombing the street compound since early morning today, noting the clashes were most intense near Al-Sheikh Cemetery, which witnessed similar clashes last week. Eyewitnesses told KUNA over the phone that ambulances were rushed to the scene of the clashes." This attack is what Patrick Cockburn was describing to Amy Goodman on today's Democracy Now!
Today the US military announced today: "One Marine assigned to 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Headquarters Group and one Marine assigned to Regimental Combat Team 5 died Tuesday from wounds sustained due to enemy action while operating in Al Anbar Province" and they announced: "Insurgent small arms fire targeting a Multi-National Division – Baghdad patrol killed one Soldier near the city’s center Jan. 24."
The US military also announced that Adam L. Huryta was court-martialed on January 22nd "for assaulting a fellow soldier with a survival knife." Huryta, as the release goes, disagreed with a position he was ordered to take while an Iraqi was being questioned so he repeatedly stabbed another US soldier and, having been found guilty in the court-martial held at LSA Anaconda, Huryta has received: "eight months in jail, reduction to E-1, and a bad conduct discharge." Ponder that. Ponder that as Ehren Watada faces six years in prison if convicted and Agustin Aguayo faces seven -- neither of whom went after another US service member with a hunting knife.
On Tuesday, Bully Boy yammered on for a little less than fity-minutes as he delivered a Constitutionally mandated State of the Union speech. At one point he spoke of the need to find resolve -- possibly he lost it on one of his many vacations? (If he ever had it.) On KPFA's The Morning Show today, Andrea Lewis and Philip Maldari addressed the speech with Elizabeth de la Vega (author of United States versus George W. Bush) and US Rep Dennis Kucinich. de la Veage noted that "we heard almost the same exact statements about Iraq that we've heard since before 9-11 on the Middle East" and characterized it as "more of the same" talk about Iraq while noting her alarm over Bully Boy's words regarding Iran.
Kucinich noted his plan for ending the war which includes: "First that the US announced it will end the occupation, closes the bases and withdraws" -- using the existing funds to bring US troops back to the US, allow reconstruction contracts to be turned over to Iraqis, build and international peace keeping force, etc. On the subject of impeachment, which de la Vega has written of, Kucinich stated his "focus right now is to end the war and bring the troops home" but "I don't take issue with anything that anybody's doing to hold this administration accountable." He did note that if Bully Boy attacked Iran without Congressional authorization, he did expect there would be an impeachment.
On the issue of 'bipartisanship,' Kucinich declared, "If we have a bipartisan effort to keep the troops in Iraq, that's not the kind of bipartisanship I'm lookng for." Andrea Lewis pointed out that Kucinich is running to become the Democratic Party's 2008 presidential nominee and asked him to explain how he stands apart from other declared candidates. Kucinich responded that "the single most important decision anyone in the Oval Office will make is whether or not to commit America's young men and women to war" and, unlike other declared nominees, the American people know that Kucinich has opposed the illegal war from the start, from before it began while the others "all offered to vote for the war or they voted to fund the war" and, unlike the others, he never "bought George Bush's line."
Some did. Less and less are buying it today which explains the underwhelming response to the State of the Union speech. Al Jazeera reports that the reaction to Bully Boy's speech was 'indifference' -- Hoda Abdel Hamid: "Iraqis told me 'we don't believe in all his promises -- he's goin gto ask us to be patient, but he's not the one living under the bombs. All Iraqis can hear this morning is explosions -- there are mortars going off and there is a heavy gun battle going on just a couple of hundred metres away. This is what Iraqis are listening to."
In England the on-his-way-out-the-door Tony Blair continues to face strong calls to take British troops out of Iraq. (On Tuesday, the British consulate in Basra was attacked -- as it often is -- and two British soldiers were wounded.) The Guardian of London reports that Menzies Campbell, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, "called for the first time for a pull-out of all British forces from the country by the end of October" which Blair rejected and Campbell then went on to challenge Blair to stay for the debate. Tony Blair whimpered, left a puddle on the floor, and scurried off quickly.
In what Andrew North (BBC) has called the "first sign of disagreement" regarding Iraq, Tony Blair's cabinet and Bully Boy's appear to be odds regarding southern Iraq. The BBC reports that Zalmay Khalilzad, in an interview with them, voiced his belief that "UK forces . . . remain at their current levels in southern Iraq" despite the fact that at least "a partial withdrawal of British foces from Basra this year" has long been discussed publicly by Blair as well England's Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett.
Turning to the US Senate where a toothless, symbolic measure has passed through committee, Frederic J. Frommer (AP) reports that Senator Russ Feingold has declared, "My far, Mr. Chairman, is this is slow walking. This is not a time for legislative nuancing. This is not a time for trying to forge a compromise that everybody can be a part of. This is a time to stop the needless deaths of American troops in Iraq. We have a moral responsibility, as well as a responsibility to the lives of the American people, to start doing it now." The toothless, feckless, symbolic measure, the BBC reports, passed on a 12-9 vote.
A measure so meaningless, it took three men to devise it: Carl Levin, Joe Biden, and Chuck Hagel. The lunchtime poll reads: "It's really, really, really, really-really, really not in the best interests of the United States for Bully Boy to send more troops to Iraq and if he does so they will be really, really, really, really-really, really ticked off -- so ticked off, in fact, they might just decide to take another lunchtime poll! Watch your step, Bully Boy! Blah, blah, blah." The poll was a vote on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and, CNN reports, the non-binding, toothless measure should go before the full Senate for a vote next week.
Joe Biden is of course interested in flaunting his useless nature with something far more than meaningless legislation, he also wants to run for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008. John Kerry has announced what we noted here weeks ago -- stick the fork in, he's done. One candidate who is still in the race is US Senator Hillary Clinton. Weighing in at Truthout, Cindy Sheehan recalls, "I, my sister Dede and another Gold Star Mother, Lynn Braddach, whose son, Travis Nall was killed in Iraq in 2003, met with Senator Clinton in DC in September of 2005. We poured our hearts and souls out to her. We cried as we told her of our sons and our fear for the people of Iraq and the escalating body count of our brave young people. She sat there stone-faced and walked out and told Sarah Ferguson of the Village Voice, 'My bottom line is that I don't want their sons to die in vain. . . . I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal. . . I don't think it's the right time to withdraw.' She may as well have slapped us in the face using Bloody George's line and using our sons' sacrifice to justify her war mongering. On Thursday, January 18th, Senator Clinton introduced a meaningless bill to put a cap on the number of soldiers that can be in Iraq, set at January 1st levels. It is as weak and meaningless as a nonbinding resolution -- and a politically safe move, since almost three fourts of the country oppose Bloody George. By the time she introduced her Senate bill last Thursday, over 1000 of our young people had come home in body bags and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis had died, while she was waiting for the best political time to be semi-against the war. How many of our troops are lying in Walter Reed with devastating injuries that could have been prevented if a Senate leader like Clinton had taken a moral stance instead of a political one?"
Which is a good time to offer the contrast: US Representative Maxine Waters. Appearing on Democracy Now! today, Waters discussed the proposal she and US Reps. Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey have on the table: "No more troops going to Iraq. Number two, to start to wind out of Iraq. Make sure that you work with the Iraqis for a security plan that they come up with that would include the international community and those in the region and no American soldiers in that kind of security plan. We also talk about reconstruction. We have bombed Baghdad and other parts of Iraq to smithereens. We owe it to them to be involved in a reconstruction plan that's real. Thirdly, we would leave some troops over the horizon in neighboring communities, in the event the coalition forces that are put together by the Iraqis would ask for a bit of assistance at any given time." Waters and Goodman also discussed the Saturday protest in DC and that the representative has "sent a letter to all members of Congress" encouraging them to also take part.
Information on the demonstrations can be found at CODEPINK's Bring the Peace Mandate to D.C. on J27! activities will also be taking place in communities around the country. Saturday, Laura Flanders will be broadcasting live from DC to cover the demonstrations on RadioNation with Laura Flanders. Aaron Glantz (IPS) reports on the upcoming demonstrations and notes United for Peace & Justice's Leslie Cagan stating, "The voters of this country figured out that they could use the November elections as a vehicle to voice their opposition to the war. What happened there was that the voters gave Congress a mandate to end the war in Iraq and bring the troops home." Glanz notes that in addition to events in DC, there are "large mobilisations planned for Los Angeles, Seattle and San Francisco. In addition smaller actions are planned for more than 50 cities." In DC, Saturday the rally will be held at the National Mall from eleven in the morning to one p.m. at which point a march will begin. Larry Margasak (AP) notes of the DC rally and march: "Scheduled speakers include members of Congress sponsoring anti-war measures; civili rights activist Jesse Jackson; veterans against the war; actors such as Danny Glover, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon; and a voice from the . . . [pro-peace] past, Jane Fonda."
Those in DC Saturday may want to check out Anthony Arnove, author most recently of IRAQ: The Logic of Withdrawal, who will be speaking at Busboys and Poets at 5:00 pm while those in the NYC area on Sunday should check out Joan Mellen speech at 7:30 p.m. at the 92nd Street Y (92nd Street and Lesington Avenue). Mellan, a professor at Temple University and the author of seventeen books, will be presenting a lecture on the JFK assasination . . . and beyond. Tickets are $25. Mellen's latest book is A Farewell to Justice which probes the assasination of JFK. She was a guest on Law and Disorder November 7, 2005. And the March 15, 2006 broadcast of KPFA's Guns and Butter featured her speech "How the Failure to Identify, Prosecute and Convict President Kennedy's Assassins Has Led to Today's Crisis of Democracy." You can also read a transcript of that speech here.Again, that's Sunday, January 28th, 7:30 p.m. the 92nd Street Y in NYC.
1/23/2007
what will become of sarah olson!!!!!!!!!
so every 1 has problems logging in today. i understand the snapshot was sent 2 hours before it hit. who knows what blogger/blogspot's problems are. i do know that for 3 hours and 12 minutes repeated attempts to log into this account were unsuccessful.
on the snapshot, c.i.'s very kind. (c.i. is always a kind person.) i'm not kind. sarah olson did do a better job on Flashpoints (monday night) than she has anywhere else and credit emily with doing the interview.
so here's what's going on, sarah olson is saying she shouldn't have to testify in the court-martial of ehren watada. she's saying that on to laura flanders, amy goodman, matthew rothcshild, aaron glants, emily howard, reporters for the san francisco chronicle, ...
about the only 1 she's not wanting to talk to is the military.
and with her speaking to emily howard was norman solomon who, unless i remember wrong, was all for judith miller testifying. there's no on & off switch.
it was a mistake for people to say miller should be forced to testify. it was a mistake for olson to be asked to testify.
emily howard (and maybe olson and solomon) made it a better interview than anything that's been done before.
but it's still not the main story and she's still not declaring 'i will not testify.' it's still that pathetic woman michelle pfeiffer's catwoman encounters, the 1 she tells (in batman returns), 'you make me sick, always waiting for some batman to rescue you.'
i really think the whole thing has hit the sell-by-date even as a joke.
sarah olson did sound like an adult speaking to emily howard and it was a relief not to hear the stumbling that made her come off like a stoned teenager. but really, be like gregg kakesako and be quiet already.
in the movie, i'd cast lou diamond phillips as watada (not asian-american but there's a slight resmemblance -- very slight -- and i always had the hots for l.d.p.) and 1 of the nobodies from the body wash operattas as olson.
the whole thing is starting to become as laughable as sally field's character in that movie with paul newman (absence of malice).
it's still the cliff hanging installments of what-will-olson-do-next!!!! she didn't say to howard, 'i will not testify.'
it's jill carroll's embarrassing moments magnified 10 fold because with carroll the paper wanted to make some bucks off her and didn't care if they disgraced her name in the process. sarah olson is participating willingly (with her new press image).
the interview with emily howard was the best but is emily howard going to follow her around everywhere to make sure she comes off like a reporter and not dazed & stoned?
probably not.
(for any worrying that c.i. and i disagree on this, we've disagreed on many things over the years. it doesn't harm our friendship. c.i. knows how i feel - though may be surprised that i've written about it tonight - and it's not a problem.)
i forget whether or not she's blonde, sarah olson, but i keep expecting her to show up for a sit down with matt lauer any minute to be yet another 'blonde in danger' piece.
this is what is called 'junk news.' now project censored won't have the guts to call it that (because olson's friend norman solomon is beating the drums for her) but that's all it is. project censored could take any lefty outlet (print or broadcast) and demonstrate how much time is given to olson and how much time is given to watada.
who's the real story here?
when the real story is not covered as the real story, it's junk news.
c.i. likes john nichols and i pointed that out and asked, 'do you think that factors in?' (c.i.'s considering that.) but i thought john nichols' piece was worthless and i felt the same about marc cooper's. (let me add nichols may have written something worthwhile. doesn't strike me as that way. that's my opinion.)
the magazine that has no desire to cover ehren watada sure has plenty of time to cover sarah olson.
and i also find it (this is what will have c.i. rolling the eyes) laughable that norman solomon doesn't write about ehren watada until sarah olson is part of the story.
war made easy? wasn't that the title?
so how do you not write about war resisters?
i think it's embarrassing that a war restister (watada) gets no coverage but when they can write about their own profession (journalism), suddenly they've got opinions to share.
really, just shut up, all of you useless asses. shut the hell up.
you've been cowardly or negligent and you've helped no 1.
suddenly, there's a report in danger and you must rush in!
get over yourselves.
especially if you're 1 of the idiots who said judith miller should testify but sarah olson shouldn't step into a court and affirm that what she reported was accurate. that's all they're asking to do but you'd think she was being asked to out a source the way they keep going on about her.
sarah olson is not the story and her tired whine is boring.
c.i. is a very sympathetic person, always has been. (it's what my mother-in-law always notes about c.i. rooting for the underdog.) i'm sympathetic to people who deserve sympathy.
a silly reporter who thinks she's the story isn't the story and isn't sympathetic.
why is gregg kakesako not giving 8 million interviews? he's a real journalist. he knows who the story is and who it isn't.
and this 'judy miller must testify! sarah olson musn't!' b.s. is old and tired.
as for c.i.'s point that if she goes to jail, she loses income but the bills keep coming in the whole time she's in jail, my attitude is 'so?'
really, so. sounds like a professional problem. hit up all the 1s rushing to 'donate' by writing articles about her.
nora barrows-friedman is a real reporter. if she was being asked to testify and wasn't allowed to, you better believe she'd be sounding off.
you better believe she would say 'i'm not going to do it' and would then go on to tell you why ehren was important. she wouldn't need emily howard to guide her.
if sarah olson wants to say 'i will not testify' loudly and clearly with no hedging or going back on her word later, i'd support her right not to testify.
but i'm real sick of the same cowards who didn't have time to cover ehren watada suddenly showing up to cover sarah olson.
ehren watada needed support. his father did at least 3 tours speaking out and was available for interviews that entire time. philip maldari interviewed him on kpfa and i believe there was an interview on the los angeles station. every 1 else in broadcast seemed willing to ignore the man.
marc cooper didn't rush in a sympathetic article about him (or about carolyn ho).
matthew rothschild didn't either, nor john nichols.
they didn't do a sympathetic article for carolyn ho.
and they've yet to write about ehren watada. (marc cooper's sidebar isn't an 'article' and it's disgraceful after cooper's gone for 'color' by including in the actual article some 1's idea that ehren is a coward.)
they're all a bunch of bullshit artists in independent media. they pretend like they give a damn and then katrina vanden heuvel's off writing about ipods or giving yet another 10 point list to the democrats of what she thinks they should do.
here's a list katrina should write for herself:
1) remember that i am an editor & publisher, not marianne williams so i need to gush far less.
2) remember that a war is going on. slap the forehead daily exclaiming 'war is going on' - repeatedly if necessary.
3) remember that it's lonely being the token so hire women to write for the magazine.
4) war resisters are brave people - repeat this affirmation: 'i will stop hating them for having courage and instead learn from their example.'
5) cover war resisters. tell katha to put her valentine's day column on hold and write about a war resister.
6) issue an edict to every 1 writing for the mag - no more of that shit about 'blue' states and 'red' states. it is a lie and it offends our readers in the south as well as people with family and friends in the south.
7) remember that i am not the center of the universe.
8) remember that i do not live in the center of the universe.
9) stop going to think tank meetings and consider being truly indepndent by quitting think tank participation and membership.
10) grasp that after my own family's 'daddy/granddaddy's dyin' who's got the will?' moment in court, i'm really not the 1 to be writing about economic justice.
c.i. makes the case for olson and more in 'Watada, Olson, press.' you can read that if you disagree with me but you should read it regardless.
here's c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Tuesday, January 23, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, Ehren Watada discusses his upcoming court-martial, another helicopter crashes in Iraq, calls for the unproduced NIE begin as the Bully Boy attempts to sell his escalation in and continued war on Iraq, and questions arise over his repeated alarmist talk of Iran.
In June Ehren Watada became the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. Today, he spoke to Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! about what he's facing ins February 5th court-martial at Fort Lewis. Watada explained the process by which he came to his decision: assigned to Iraq, he began doing the research required of him. (Yesterday on WBAI's Law and Disorder, Carolyn Ho walked people through her son's awakening. In addition to archived broadcasts at either link, Rebecca's written of the speech at her site.) His research provided him with information and, from that infomation, he was left the reality that the war was illegal and immoral. At which point he had to decide what to do and he tried to handle the matter privately but the military repeatedly refused to do so. Only after months of that did Watada go public. In his August Article 32 hearing (similar to a grand jury), his attornies (a military attorney and a civilian attorney) were allowed to present a defense. 'Judge' Head has disallowed that for the court-martial scheduled to be held at Fort Lewis on February 5th.
Amy Goodman asked, in light of that ruling, "what is heard in the court, that you just refused to show up?" Watada answered, "Correct. It will simply be. It will be a non-trial. It will not be a fair trial or a show of justice, in any sense. I think that they will simply say, 'Was he ordered to go? Yes. Did he go? No. Well, he’s guilty.' And that also goes for the conduct unbecoming charges: 'Did he make those statements? Can we verify that? Yes? Okay, he’s guilty.' And then it will be pretty much a disciplinary hearing -- in terms of how much punishment should we give this lieutenant." There will be strong defense offered despite the fact that Watada faces up to six years in prison if convicted of all charges. Now the military has a roll of who made the deployment and who didn't and they have transcripts and audio and video of Watada's statment. If he's not allowed to explain his reasons, it's a matter of "yes" and "no." That's really not a defense and "Judge" Head really isn't a judge. (That's me, not Watada for any 'researches' for the prosecution.)
Watada declared that "there's tremendous support out there. I think it's unfortunate that we haven't been able to get into the national media as much as we wanted to. And therefore, the more east you go, the less people know about the case. And I think, just looking at how much support I've received in Washington state and back home in my home state, in Hawaii, there are a lot of people who are coming out. And not just people on one spectrum of the political ideology, but people from the mainstream. They are all coming out -- the unions, the interfaith groups, the students, universities. They are all coming out to support. And I think that's just a testament to how people feel about the war and the policies of this administration."
There is a lot of support. There is, however, very little coverage in media big or small. There are exceptions and it's usually the same group we've learned to look for coverage of what matters. Yesterday on Free Speech Radio News and The KPFA Evening News, Martha Baskin reported on the Citizens' Hearing on the Legality of U.S. Actions in Iraq held in Tacoma, Washington last Satruday and Sunday noting that while a 'judge' had "ruled that" Watada "could not raise the legality of the war in his defense" the hearing did just that attracting experts from legal and military fields, "military families and veterans". Richard Falk was heard, in the report, testifying that, "It is our role as citizens to protect those who are brave enough . . . who refuse to participate in an illegal war."
Another issue in the court-martial of Ehren Watada is whether or not journalists should participate in the proceedings as witnesses for the prosecution. Emily Howard spoke with journalists Sarah Olson and Norman Solomon yesterday on KPFA's Flashpoints. Olson will not discuss her "legal strategy." She has stated, on air, to Laura Flanders she wouldn't testify and she has played mum on that with others. However, as noted on Sunday, she has not stated that she supported Watada 100%, she has just stated that as a journalist it is her job to cover the news and her sources are sources and neither an endorsement or a rebuke.
Speaking with Howard yesterday, Olson made her strongest case yet.
She did that by first starting with Ehren Watada who is facing the court-martial and whose stand is what the military is interested in and wants to punish. ("The crux of this trial," as Howard pointed out.) Having established Watada's stand, Olson then connected it to other war resisters who had come forward by name (and noted that Flashpoints interviewed Ivan Brobeck -- they were the only outlet to do so when he returned to the US from Canada to turn himself on election day in November with an open letter to the Bully Boy). Why does whether she testifies or not in the court-martial matter?
As Olson and Solomon outlined it (very clearly) who are war resisters going to talk to? If they're under the impression that any reporter they tell their stories to will then be called before a court to testify against them, that will produce a chilling effect on free speech and prevent a free press from the ability to keep citizens informed. That is the purpose of the free press, as veteran DC journalist Helen Thomas noted on yesterday's Democracy Now!, not providing with you commercials of products that will 'enhance' your life, informing citizens so that they can make their decisions and contribute within a democracy.
Norman Solomon noted that the Pentagon is "worried about people not only thinking for themselves but speaking up" so it is "trying to intimidate" people into silence and that this is "a contradicition between the myth of the military defending our 'freedoms'" and trying to supress freedoms.
Olson, who faces six month in jail and/or a fine if she refuses to testify, declared, "When you look at the number of people who are taking steps to actively express their opposition to this war I think that is has become it has grown to a point it's not something that can be ignored or . . . can or should be ignored. And I think it's very important as journalists . . . that we are able to cover this perspective and this growing number of active dutry Iraq war vetrns and soldiers who are in opposition to this war. It's becoming more and more relevant as the days go by."
Olson is correct -- Watada is part of a movement of resistance within the military that also includes Kyle Snyder, Agustin Aguayo, Ivan Brobeck, Darrell Anderson, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Robin Long, Ryan Johnson, Chris Teske, Tim Richard and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
In Iraq . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two car bombs in Baghdad (Sheikh Omar neighborhood and Karranda neighborhood) that killed five and left 11 wounded while, in east Baghdad, an IED wounded 3 police ofiicers; in the province of Basra an explosion killed one person, and, yesterday, two British soldiers were injured in yet another rocket attack "on the British consulate downtown Baasra city".Reuters reports three Iraqi soldiers wounded in a car bombing in Sinjar, nine injured in a car bombing in Mosul, a woman dead and two children wounded from mortar attacks in Iskandariya, and six dead from mortar attacks (nine wounded) in Suwayra.
Shootings?
Yesterday a school teacher (female) was gunned down on her way to work. Today, CNN reports another attack on an educator -- a professor was gunned down on his way to work as well (northern Baghdad). The BBC reports five Iraqi police officers were shot dead in Mosul. Reuters reports that educators were attacked in Tal Afar as well -- two teachers shot dead,
that two Iraqi soldiers were shot dead in Falluja, and that two people were shot dead near Kirkuk (with another wounded).
Corpses?
Reuters reports a corpse discovered in Mussayab today and five discovered yesterday (four in Rutba and one in Iskandariya).
Also today the US military announced: "An 89TH Military Police Brigade Soldier died Monday of wounds suffered after an improvised explosive device exploded next to his vehicle north of Baghdad" and they announced: ".One Marine assigned to 1st Marine Expeditionary Force died Sunday from wounds sustained due to enemy action while operating in the Multi National Division-Baghdad area of operation, south of Baghdad. One Soldier assigned to Regimental Combat Team 5 died Monday from wounds sustained due to enemy action while operating in Al Anbar Province."
In addition to the above five Americans, employees of the Blackwater security firm, are dead.
CBS and AP report that helicopter was shot down citing an "Iraqi defense official" who states a machine gun was used to shoot the helicopter down. This echoes the Washington Post's eye witness who stated a machine gun was used to shoot down the helicopter carrying twelve US troops, Saturday in Baghdad. The US military has presented the crashes and crash landings repeatedly as though they were mechanical failures (which some may have been) but it's also true that helicopters can be shot down -- with guns, no rockets needed. That was very clear during Vietnam and it's amazing how so many in the press corps seem to either be unaware of that point or choose to ignore it as one crash after another (until recently) resulted in press 'reports' that read like military press releases (and some were).
In news of reality versus Operation Happy Talk, the press can't contain their giddyness (with few exceptions) over the supposed 'crackdown' finally going on with militias and the people in leadership (or portrayed as such) of them being caught. As has been pointed out earlier this month, the detentions (in the past) can best be termed "catch and release" (one Republican senator even denounced them as such). Commenting on one wave of Operation Happy Talk in the press, the BBC's Anderw North notes: "it is still not clear how significant the senior Mehdi Army figures now in custody are." And Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that a US led operation in the Salah Ad Din province Monday night led to the arrest of "the chief of Tikrit local council Aarif Jabbar Motar and Sheikh Khaleel Al Ejili, a member of the Muslim Scholars Association and the imam of Omar Bin AL Khattab mosque. The two men were arrested in the house of the Iraqi army intelligence officer Captain Maeen Al Dulaimi." Hammoudi also reports that one of the two arrested as they attempted to negotiate the release of both Dr. Basim Al Jishi and Sheikh Hamid Ugab and that Ugab "had been released early morning today." Was there a point to arresting him, or any of the others, besides the giddy press 'reports' that help continue Operation Happy Talk?
If so, does it counter the fact that the people's response was a 1,000 plus demonstration against these arrest? Or does it just further inflame the tensions?
Meanwhile, same topic (Operation Happy Talk versus reality), the usual War Hawks among the press have passed off escalation as the answer (see Michael R. Gordon) and few questions have been asked by others whether this was a 'strategy,' a 'technique,' or just sop tossed out to try fool the public? David Morgan (Reuters) reports: The Bush administration came under fire on Tuesday for its failure to produce a key intelligence report that casts doubt on whether the Iraqi government is capable of taking steps to ensure the success of President George W. Bush's strategy. The classified document, known as a national intelligence estimate, would represent the 16-agency espionage community's consensus views on the stability of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government and prospects for controlling sectarian violence in Iraq. U.S. intelligence chief John Negroponte's office was ordered by Congress to produce the document in late September, but is not expected to do so until after the Senate takes up two measures opposing Bush's plan to send another 21,500 troops to Iraq to try to quell the violence." That would be the report that former CIA analyst Ray McGovern (writing at Consortium News) noted: "So the White House is playing it safe, avoiding like the plague any estimate that would raise doubts about the wisdom of the decision to surge. And that is precisely what an honest estimate would do. With 'sham-dunk' former CIA director George Tenet and his accomplices no longer in place as intelligence enablers, the White House clearly prefers no NIE to one that would inevitably highlight the fecklessness of throwing 21,500 more troops into harm’s way for the dubious purpose of holding off defeat for two more years. The Old Mushroom Cloud The NIE, which leaned so far forward to support the White House’s warnings of a made-in-Iraq 'mushroom cloud,' remains the negative example par excellence of corrupted intelligence. The good news is that Tenet and his lackeys were replaced by officers who, by all indications, take their job of speaking truth to power seriously."
Finally on this topic, the Bully Boy gives his State of the Union speech tonight. In it, he is again expected to sound the alrams on Iran. But Alexandra Zavis and Greg Miller (Los Angeles Times) report that there are claims but little proof: "But there has been little sign of more advanced weaponry crossing the border, and no Iranian agents have been found. In his speech this month outlining the new U.S. strategy in Iraq, President Bush promised to "seek out and destroy" Iranian networks that he said were providing "advanced weaponry and training to our enemies." He is expected to strike a similar note in tonight's State of the Union speech. For all the aggressive rhetoric, however, the Bush administration hasprovided scant evidence to support these claims. Nor have reporters traveling with U.S. troops seen extensive signs of Iranian involvement."
In DC, the Senate Armed Services Committee went through the motions of a hearing on whether or not to confirm David Petraeus, nominated by the Bully Boy, the Lt. general would become the new commander of US troops (and Iraqis, be honest) in Iraq. BBC reports that he told the committee: "None of this will be rapid. The way ahead will be neither quick nor easy. There undoubtedly will be tough days. . . . The situation in Iraq is dire. The stakes are high. There are no easy choices. The way ahead will be very hard. . . But hard is not hopeless." Hard does not mean hopeless, Petraeus declares. (Gordo gets giddy at the thought.) And soft doesn't mean happiness, as many women could explain. He did and a song and dance and the senators acted as though they were doing a probing examination. Or maybe it was supposed to pass for 'symbolic.' The senators occassionaly asked a difficult question (Ted Kennedy) but after almost four years of a war that continues to kill Iraqis, Americans, British, . . . that just didn't cut it anymore than the 'symbolic' measure Senators Carl Levin, Joe Biden and Chuck Hagel are pushing. The most obvious question went unasked: "Why is the US in Iraq? What pupose does the US presence serve?"
As Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) reported today, US Congress Representative Maxine Waters will be attending the demonstration in DC this weekend and is urging other members of Congress to do likewise. Informations on these demonstrations in DC this weekend can be found at CODEPINK's Bring the Peace Mandate to D.C. on J27! activities will also be taking place in communities around the country. Saturday, Laura Flanders will be broadcasting live from DC to cover the demonstrations on RadioNation with Laura Flanders.
In addition Anthony Arnove, author most recently of IRAQ: The Logic of Withdrawal, will be speaking in DC this weekend on Saturday the 27th at Busboys and Poets at 5:00 pm while those in the NYC area might want to check out this Sunday event -- from The Third Estate Sunday Review's "Joan Mellen lecture on JFK assasination 1-28-07" which I meant to note last week but didn't have time (we will be noting it, Monday through Friday, in the week leading up to the Sunday event):
We'll be noting this again in January, but we'll note it right now. Author Joan Mellen will be speaking Sunday, January 28th at 7:30 p.m. in NYC at the 92nd Street Y (92nd Street and Lesington Avenue). Mellan, a professor at Temple University and the author of seventeen books, will be presenting a lecture on the JFK assasination . . . and beyond. Tickets are $25.Mellen's latest book is A Farewell to Justice which probes the assasination of JFK. She was a guest on Law and Disorder November 7, 2005. And the March 15, 2006 broadcast of KPFA's Guns and Butter featured her speech "How the Failure to Identify, Prosecute and Convict President Kennedy's Assassins Has Led to Today's Crisis of Democracy." You can also read a transcript of that speech here.
Again, that's Sunday, January 28th, 7:30 p.m. the 92nd Street Y in NYC.
on the snapshot, c.i.'s very kind. (c.i. is always a kind person.) i'm not kind. sarah olson did do a better job on Flashpoints (monday night) than she has anywhere else and credit emily with doing the interview.
so here's what's going on, sarah olson is saying she shouldn't have to testify in the court-martial of ehren watada. she's saying that on to laura flanders, amy goodman, matthew rothcshild, aaron glants, emily howard, reporters for the san francisco chronicle, ...
about the only 1 she's not wanting to talk to is the military.
and with her speaking to emily howard was norman solomon who, unless i remember wrong, was all for judith miller testifying. there's no on & off switch.
it was a mistake for people to say miller should be forced to testify. it was a mistake for olson to be asked to testify.
emily howard (and maybe olson and solomon) made it a better interview than anything that's been done before.
but it's still not the main story and she's still not declaring 'i will not testify.' it's still that pathetic woman michelle pfeiffer's catwoman encounters, the 1 she tells (in batman returns), 'you make me sick, always waiting for some batman to rescue you.'
i really think the whole thing has hit the sell-by-date even as a joke.
sarah olson did sound like an adult speaking to emily howard and it was a relief not to hear the stumbling that made her come off like a stoned teenager. but really, be like gregg kakesako and be quiet already.
in the movie, i'd cast lou diamond phillips as watada (not asian-american but there's a slight resmemblance -- very slight -- and i always had the hots for l.d.p.) and 1 of the nobodies from the body wash operattas as olson.
the whole thing is starting to become as laughable as sally field's character in that movie with paul newman (absence of malice).
it's still the cliff hanging installments of what-will-olson-do-next!!!! she didn't say to howard, 'i will not testify.'
it's jill carroll's embarrassing moments magnified 10 fold because with carroll the paper wanted to make some bucks off her and didn't care if they disgraced her name in the process. sarah olson is participating willingly (with her new press image).
the interview with emily howard was the best but is emily howard going to follow her around everywhere to make sure she comes off like a reporter and not dazed & stoned?
probably not.
(for any worrying that c.i. and i disagree on this, we've disagreed on many things over the years. it doesn't harm our friendship. c.i. knows how i feel - though may be surprised that i've written about it tonight - and it's not a problem.)
i forget whether or not she's blonde, sarah olson, but i keep expecting her to show up for a sit down with matt lauer any minute to be yet another 'blonde in danger' piece.
this is what is called 'junk news.' now project censored won't have the guts to call it that (because olson's friend norman solomon is beating the drums for her) but that's all it is. project censored could take any lefty outlet (print or broadcast) and demonstrate how much time is given to olson and how much time is given to watada.
who's the real story here?
when the real story is not covered as the real story, it's junk news.
c.i. likes john nichols and i pointed that out and asked, 'do you think that factors in?' (c.i.'s considering that.) but i thought john nichols' piece was worthless and i felt the same about marc cooper's. (let me add nichols may have written something worthwhile. doesn't strike me as that way. that's my opinion.)
the magazine that has no desire to cover ehren watada sure has plenty of time to cover sarah olson.
and i also find it (this is what will have c.i. rolling the eyes) laughable that norman solomon doesn't write about ehren watada until sarah olson is part of the story.
war made easy? wasn't that the title?
so how do you not write about war resisters?
i think it's embarrassing that a war restister (watada) gets no coverage but when they can write about their own profession (journalism), suddenly they've got opinions to share.
really, just shut up, all of you useless asses. shut the hell up.
you've been cowardly or negligent and you've helped no 1.
suddenly, there's a report in danger and you must rush in!
get over yourselves.
especially if you're 1 of the idiots who said judith miller should testify but sarah olson shouldn't step into a court and affirm that what she reported was accurate. that's all they're asking to do but you'd think she was being asked to out a source the way they keep going on about her.
sarah olson is not the story and her tired whine is boring.
c.i. is a very sympathetic person, always has been. (it's what my mother-in-law always notes about c.i. rooting for the underdog.) i'm sympathetic to people who deserve sympathy.
a silly reporter who thinks she's the story isn't the story and isn't sympathetic.
why is gregg kakesako not giving 8 million interviews? he's a real journalist. he knows who the story is and who it isn't.
and this 'judy miller must testify! sarah olson musn't!' b.s. is old and tired.
as for c.i.'s point that if she goes to jail, she loses income but the bills keep coming in the whole time she's in jail, my attitude is 'so?'
really, so. sounds like a professional problem. hit up all the 1s rushing to 'donate' by writing articles about her.
nora barrows-friedman is a real reporter. if she was being asked to testify and wasn't allowed to, you better believe she'd be sounding off.
you better believe she would say 'i'm not going to do it' and would then go on to tell you why ehren was important. she wouldn't need emily howard to guide her.
if sarah olson wants to say 'i will not testify' loudly and clearly with no hedging or going back on her word later, i'd support her right not to testify.
but i'm real sick of the same cowards who didn't have time to cover ehren watada suddenly showing up to cover sarah olson.
ehren watada needed support. his father did at least 3 tours speaking out and was available for interviews that entire time. philip maldari interviewed him on kpfa and i believe there was an interview on the los angeles station. every 1 else in broadcast seemed willing to ignore the man.
marc cooper didn't rush in a sympathetic article about him (or about carolyn ho).
matthew rothschild didn't either, nor john nichols.
they didn't do a sympathetic article for carolyn ho.
and they've yet to write about ehren watada. (marc cooper's sidebar isn't an 'article' and it's disgraceful after cooper's gone for 'color' by including in the actual article some 1's idea that ehren is a coward.)
they're all a bunch of bullshit artists in independent media. they pretend like they give a damn and then katrina vanden heuvel's off writing about ipods or giving yet another 10 point list to the democrats of what she thinks they should do.
here's a list katrina should write for herself:
1) remember that i am an editor & publisher, not marianne williams so i need to gush far less.
2) remember that a war is going on. slap the forehead daily exclaiming 'war is going on' - repeatedly if necessary.
3) remember that it's lonely being the token so hire women to write for the magazine.
4) war resisters are brave people - repeat this affirmation: 'i will stop hating them for having courage and instead learn from their example.'
5) cover war resisters. tell katha to put her valentine's day column on hold and write about a war resister.
6) issue an edict to every 1 writing for the mag - no more of that shit about 'blue' states and 'red' states. it is a lie and it offends our readers in the south as well as people with family and friends in the south.
7) remember that i am not the center of the universe.
8) remember that i do not live in the center of the universe.
9) stop going to think tank meetings and consider being truly indepndent by quitting think tank participation and membership.
10) grasp that after my own family's 'daddy/granddaddy's dyin' who's got the will?' moment in court, i'm really not the 1 to be writing about economic justice.
c.i. makes the case for olson and more in 'Watada, Olson, press.' you can read that if you disagree with me but you should read it regardless.
here's c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Tuesday, January 23, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, Ehren Watada discusses his upcoming court-martial, another helicopter crashes in Iraq, calls for the unproduced NIE begin as the Bully Boy attempts to sell his escalation in and continued war on Iraq, and questions arise over his repeated alarmist talk of Iran.
In June Ehren Watada became the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. Today, he spoke to Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! about what he's facing ins February 5th court-martial at Fort Lewis. Watada explained the process by which he came to his decision: assigned to Iraq, he began doing the research required of him. (Yesterday on WBAI's Law and Disorder, Carolyn Ho walked people through her son's awakening. In addition to archived broadcasts at either link, Rebecca's written of the speech at her site.) His research provided him with information and, from that infomation, he was left the reality that the war was illegal and immoral. At which point he had to decide what to do and he tried to handle the matter privately but the military repeatedly refused to do so. Only after months of that did Watada go public. In his August Article 32 hearing (similar to a grand jury), his attornies (a military attorney and a civilian attorney) were allowed to present a defense. 'Judge' Head has disallowed that for the court-martial scheduled to be held at Fort Lewis on February 5th.
Amy Goodman asked, in light of that ruling, "what is heard in the court, that you just refused to show up?" Watada answered, "Correct. It will simply be. It will be a non-trial. It will not be a fair trial or a show of justice, in any sense. I think that they will simply say, 'Was he ordered to go? Yes. Did he go? No. Well, he’s guilty.' And that also goes for the conduct unbecoming charges: 'Did he make those statements? Can we verify that? Yes? Okay, he’s guilty.' And then it will be pretty much a disciplinary hearing -- in terms of how much punishment should we give this lieutenant." There will be strong defense offered despite the fact that Watada faces up to six years in prison if convicted of all charges. Now the military has a roll of who made the deployment and who didn't and they have transcripts and audio and video of Watada's statment. If he's not allowed to explain his reasons, it's a matter of "yes" and "no." That's really not a defense and "Judge" Head really isn't a judge. (That's me, not Watada for any 'researches' for the prosecution.)
Watada declared that "there's tremendous support out there. I think it's unfortunate that we haven't been able to get into the national media as much as we wanted to. And therefore, the more east you go, the less people know about the case. And I think, just looking at how much support I've received in Washington state and back home in my home state, in Hawaii, there are a lot of people who are coming out. And not just people on one spectrum of the political ideology, but people from the mainstream. They are all coming out -- the unions, the interfaith groups, the students, universities. They are all coming out to support. And I think that's just a testament to how people feel about the war and the policies of this administration."
There is a lot of support. There is, however, very little coverage in media big or small. There are exceptions and it's usually the same group we've learned to look for coverage of what matters. Yesterday on Free Speech Radio News and The KPFA Evening News, Martha Baskin reported on the Citizens' Hearing on the Legality of U.S. Actions in Iraq held in Tacoma, Washington last Satruday and Sunday noting that while a 'judge' had "ruled that" Watada "could not raise the legality of the war in his defense" the hearing did just that attracting experts from legal and military fields, "military families and veterans". Richard Falk was heard, in the report, testifying that, "It is our role as citizens to protect those who are brave enough . . . who refuse to participate in an illegal war."
Another issue in the court-martial of Ehren Watada is whether or not journalists should participate in the proceedings as witnesses for the prosecution. Emily Howard spoke with journalists Sarah Olson and Norman Solomon yesterday on KPFA's Flashpoints. Olson will not discuss her "legal strategy." She has stated, on air, to Laura Flanders she wouldn't testify and she has played mum on that with others. However, as noted on Sunday, she has not stated that she supported Watada 100%, she has just stated that as a journalist it is her job to cover the news and her sources are sources and neither an endorsement or a rebuke.
Speaking with Howard yesterday, Olson made her strongest case yet.
She did that by first starting with Ehren Watada who is facing the court-martial and whose stand is what the military is interested in and wants to punish. ("The crux of this trial," as Howard pointed out.) Having established Watada's stand, Olson then connected it to other war resisters who had come forward by name (and noted that Flashpoints interviewed Ivan Brobeck -- they were the only outlet to do so when he returned to the US from Canada to turn himself on election day in November with an open letter to the Bully Boy). Why does whether she testifies or not in the court-martial matter?
As Olson and Solomon outlined it (very clearly) who are war resisters going to talk to? If they're under the impression that any reporter they tell their stories to will then be called before a court to testify against them, that will produce a chilling effect on free speech and prevent a free press from the ability to keep citizens informed. That is the purpose of the free press, as veteran DC journalist Helen Thomas noted on yesterday's Democracy Now!, not providing with you commercials of products that will 'enhance' your life, informing citizens so that they can make their decisions and contribute within a democracy.
Norman Solomon noted that the Pentagon is "worried about people not only thinking for themselves but speaking up" so it is "trying to intimidate" people into silence and that this is "a contradicition between the myth of the military defending our 'freedoms'" and trying to supress freedoms.
Olson, who faces six month in jail and/or a fine if she refuses to testify, declared, "When you look at the number of people who are taking steps to actively express their opposition to this war I think that is has become it has grown to a point it's not something that can be ignored or . . . can or should be ignored. And I think it's very important as journalists . . . that we are able to cover this perspective and this growing number of active dutry Iraq war vetrns and soldiers who are in opposition to this war. It's becoming more and more relevant as the days go by."
Olson is correct -- Watada is part of a movement of resistance within the military that also includes Kyle Snyder, Agustin Aguayo, Ivan Brobeck, Darrell Anderson, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Robin Long, Ryan Johnson, Chris Teske, Tim Richard and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
In Iraq . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two car bombs in Baghdad (Sheikh Omar neighborhood and Karranda neighborhood) that killed five and left 11 wounded while, in east Baghdad, an IED wounded 3 police ofiicers; in the province of Basra an explosion killed one person, and, yesterday, two British soldiers were injured in yet another rocket attack "on the British consulate downtown Baasra city".Reuters reports three Iraqi soldiers wounded in a car bombing in Sinjar, nine injured in a car bombing in Mosul, a woman dead and two children wounded from mortar attacks in Iskandariya, and six dead from mortar attacks (nine wounded) in Suwayra.
Shootings?
Yesterday a school teacher (female) was gunned down on her way to work. Today, CNN reports another attack on an educator -- a professor was gunned down on his way to work as well (northern Baghdad). The BBC reports five Iraqi police officers were shot dead in Mosul. Reuters reports that educators were attacked in Tal Afar as well -- two teachers shot dead,
that two Iraqi soldiers were shot dead in Falluja, and that two people were shot dead near Kirkuk (with another wounded).
Corpses?
Reuters reports a corpse discovered in Mussayab today and five discovered yesterday (four in Rutba and one in Iskandariya).
Also today the US military announced: "An 89TH Military Police Brigade Soldier died Monday of wounds suffered after an improvised explosive device exploded next to his vehicle north of Baghdad" and they announced: ".One Marine assigned to 1st Marine Expeditionary Force died Sunday from wounds sustained due to enemy action while operating in the Multi National Division-Baghdad area of operation, south of Baghdad. One Soldier assigned to Regimental Combat Team 5 died Monday from wounds sustained due to enemy action while operating in Al Anbar Province."
In addition to the above five Americans, employees of the Blackwater security firm, are dead.
CBS and AP report that helicopter was shot down citing an "Iraqi defense official" who states a machine gun was used to shoot the helicopter down. This echoes the Washington Post's eye witness who stated a machine gun was used to shoot down the helicopter carrying twelve US troops, Saturday in Baghdad. The US military has presented the crashes and crash landings repeatedly as though they were mechanical failures (which some may have been) but it's also true that helicopters can be shot down -- with guns, no rockets needed. That was very clear during Vietnam and it's amazing how so many in the press corps seem to either be unaware of that point or choose to ignore it as one crash after another (until recently) resulted in press 'reports' that read like military press releases (and some were).
In news of reality versus Operation Happy Talk, the press can't contain their giddyness (with few exceptions) over the supposed 'crackdown' finally going on with militias and the people in leadership (or portrayed as such) of them being caught. As has been pointed out earlier this month, the detentions (in the past) can best be termed "catch and release" (one Republican senator even denounced them as such). Commenting on one wave of Operation Happy Talk in the press, the BBC's Anderw North notes: "it is still not clear how significant the senior Mehdi Army figures now in custody are." And Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that a US led operation in the Salah Ad Din province Monday night led to the arrest of "the chief of Tikrit local council Aarif Jabbar Motar and Sheikh Khaleel Al Ejili, a member of the Muslim Scholars Association and the imam of Omar Bin AL Khattab mosque. The two men were arrested in the house of the Iraqi army intelligence officer Captain Maeen Al Dulaimi." Hammoudi also reports that one of the two arrested as they attempted to negotiate the release of both Dr. Basim Al Jishi and Sheikh Hamid Ugab and that Ugab "had been released early morning today." Was there a point to arresting him, or any of the others, besides the giddy press 'reports' that help continue Operation Happy Talk?
If so, does it counter the fact that the people's response was a 1,000 plus demonstration against these arrest? Or does it just further inflame the tensions?
Meanwhile, same topic (Operation Happy Talk versus reality), the usual War Hawks among the press have passed off escalation as the answer (see Michael R. Gordon) and few questions have been asked by others whether this was a 'strategy,' a 'technique,' or just sop tossed out to try fool the public? David Morgan (Reuters) reports: The Bush administration came under fire on Tuesday for its failure to produce a key intelligence report that casts doubt on whether the Iraqi government is capable of taking steps to ensure the success of President George W. Bush's strategy. The classified document, known as a national intelligence estimate, would represent the 16-agency espionage community's consensus views on the stability of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government and prospects for controlling sectarian violence in Iraq. U.S. intelligence chief John Negroponte's office was ordered by Congress to produce the document in late September, but is not expected to do so until after the Senate takes up two measures opposing Bush's plan to send another 21,500 troops to Iraq to try to quell the violence." That would be the report that former CIA analyst Ray McGovern (writing at Consortium News) noted: "So the White House is playing it safe, avoiding like the plague any estimate that would raise doubts about the wisdom of the decision to surge. And that is precisely what an honest estimate would do. With 'sham-dunk' former CIA director George Tenet and his accomplices no longer in place as intelligence enablers, the White House clearly prefers no NIE to one that would inevitably highlight the fecklessness of throwing 21,500 more troops into harm’s way for the dubious purpose of holding off defeat for two more years. The Old Mushroom Cloud The NIE, which leaned so far forward to support the White House’s warnings of a made-in-Iraq 'mushroom cloud,' remains the negative example par excellence of corrupted intelligence. The good news is that Tenet and his lackeys were replaced by officers who, by all indications, take their job of speaking truth to power seriously."
Finally on this topic, the Bully Boy gives his State of the Union speech tonight. In it, he is again expected to sound the alrams on Iran. But Alexandra Zavis and Greg Miller (Los Angeles Times) report that there are claims but little proof: "But there has been little sign of more advanced weaponry crossing the border, and no Iranian agents have been found. In his speech this month outlining the new U.S. strategy in Iraq, President Bush promised to "seek out and destroy" Iranian networks that he said were providing "advanced weaponry and training to our enemies." He is expected to strike a similar note in tonight's State of the Union speech. For all the aggressive rhetoric, however, the Bush administration hasprovided scant evidence to support these claims. Nor have reporters traveling with U.S. troops seen extensive signs of Iranian involvement."
In DC, the Senate Armed Services Committee went through the motions of a hearing on whether or not to confirm David Petraeus, nominated by the Bully Boy, the Lt. general would become the new commander of US troops (and Iraqis, be honest) in Iraq. BBC reports that he told the committee: "None of this will be rapid. The way ahead will be neither quick nor easy. There undoubtedly will be tough days. . . . The situation in Iraq is dire. The stakes are high. There are no easy choices. The way ahead will be very hard. . . But hard is not hopeless." Hard does not mean hopeless, Petraeus declares. (Gordo gets giddy at the thought.) And soft doesn't mean happiness, as many women could explain. He did and a song and dance and the senators acted as though they were doing a probing examination. Or maybe it was supposed to pass for 'symbolic.' The senators occassionaly asked a difficult question (Ted Kennedy) but after almost four years of a war that continues to kill Iraqis, Americans, British, . . . that just didn't cut it anymore than the 'symbolic' measure Senators Carl Levin, Joe Biden and Chuck Hagel are pushing. The most obvious question went unasked: "Why is the US in Iraq? What pupose does the US presence serve?"
As Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) reported today, US Congress Representative Maxine Waters will be attending the demonstration in DC this weekend and is urging other members of Congress to do likewise. Informations on these demonstrations in DC this weekend can be found at CODEPINK's Bring the Peace Mandate to D.C. on J27! activities will also be taking place in communities around the country. Saturday, Laura Flanders will be broadcasting live from DC to cover the demonstrations on RadioNation with Laura Flanders.
In addition Anthony Arnove, author most recently of IRAQ: The Logic of Withdrawal, will be speaking in DC this weekend on Saturday the 27th at Busboys and Poets at 5:00 pm while those in the NYC area might want to check out this Sunday event -- from The Third Estate Sunday Review's "Joan Mellen lecture on JFK assasination 1-28-07" which I meant to note last week but didn't have time (we will be noting it, Monday through Friday, in the week leading up to the Sunday event):
We'll be noting this again in January, but we'll note it right now. Author Joan Mellen will be speaking Sunday, January 28th at 7:30 p.m. in NYC at the 92nd Street Y (92nd Street and Lesington Avenue). Mellan, a professor at Temple University and the author of seventeen books, will be presenting a lecture on the JFK assasination . . . and beyond. Tickets are $25.Mellen's latest book is A Farewell to Justice which probes the assasination of JFK. She was a guest on Law and Disorder November 7, 2005. And the March 15, 2006 broadcast of KPFA's Guns and Butter featured her speech "How the Failure to Identify, Prosecute and Convict President Kennedy's Assassins Has Led to Today's Crisis of Democracy." You can also read a transcript of that speech here.
Again, that's Sunday, January 28th, 7:30 p.m. the 92nd Street Y in NYC.
1/22/2007
law and disorder, ehren watada, ray mcgovern
okay, ruth and i were listening to WBAI's Law and Disorder today and mike's covering the 1st half and i'm grabbing the 2nd part.
that's the segment that featured a speech by carolyn ho. she spoke of how, 'my journey runs alongsid what occured with my son's in some respects.' she then explained how. carolyn ho is ehren watada's mother. ehren didn't start out thinking the war in iraq was wrong. he probably didn't think much of it. then he was assigned, and he's lieutenant, to go to iraq. that meant he was responsible for himself as well for those serving under him. when your an officer and you're given a new assignment, you are supposed to brush up on it, to make sure you know what's going on and that way, when you are asked questions by people serving below you, you're able to answer those questions.
think of it as preparing for a presentation or speech but with the added responsibility that a lot of people are counting on you. so carolyn spoke of how ehren began boning up on iraq, finding out all that he could. as he did that, he began to notice things, the failure to discover wmd, the downing street memos (telling that intel was being fixed by the american government) to make a case for war where there was none.
as he looked at all of that, he realized he couldn't serve in iraq. he would be responsible for himself, as well all are, but he would also be responsible for those serving under him. as much as it is his job to give them orders, it is his job to be responsible for them. he's barely out of childhood himself, but the military has younger than him and the whole thing works similar to
in loco parentis. so while others have taken brave stands before, where his case is different is that he was also responsible for those serving under him.
if he was just about a check and following orders, he could have gone. but he took the responsibilty seriously.
as he had his own awakening about the war, so did carolyn ho have 1 about her son. she talked about how when he 1st told her that he had decided he wasn't going, her immediate reaction was to tell him not to take this stand. she knew he would be mocked, threatened and much worse.
she had to realize that (a) he was going to do what he was going to do and (b) she couldn't protect him from what he felt was the right thing to do.
carolyn ho never thought the decision was wrong because she believed he should just follow orders. she was worried about the response to his decision. (she had good reason to worry and that's why it's all the sadder that independent media doesn't seem to care too much about his case) .
but she realized she needed to support him because that's what he needed.
she talked about learning about his strong record not from her son but from an article. i had no idea who she was talking about and had to ask c.i. it was john kifner and timothy egan's 'Officer Faces Court-Martial for Refusing to Deply to Iraq' the july 23rd, 2006 edition of the new york times. that was after he had gone public in june. she learned his decision in january of 2006. and they had plenty of time to talk about his military service before that as well. but he never bragged on himself or told her how highly he was evaluated.
it was a pretty powerful speech and she spoke of the need for mothers to step up.
i want to jump off it for a 2nd to respond to an e-mail i received on watada. i'll assume the person is reachable and has just gotten bad information. he writes (knew it was a he, didn't you?) that if ehren believes in his stand, he shouldn't have a problem with being court-martialed.
he also says he's heard about ehren's 'whining.' i haven't heard any whining but i could have missed it. so i asked c.i. who follows this very closely. c.i. said just saturday, ehren was again saying he would take whatever punishment. that's not a whiner.
now c.i., i and others have argued he shouldn't be court-martialed. ehren's lawyer and ehren object to not being able to present a defense. so to the e-mailer, if you were ever on trial for something, wouldn't you want to explain your reasons for your actions?
let's be clear to that ehren could probably still stop the court-martial today. the military tried to talk him out of it. carolyn ho spoke about how they kept trying to pressure him, kept telling him, just get on the next plane and we'll forget any of this happened.
he's an officer in the u.s. military. you better believe the military would prefer this go away because people are talking and will continue to talk within the military. does that mean some 1 says, 'ehren did it, i'm going to too!' no. it probably means it makes them wonder what they're fighting for? (they don't know because bully boy's lies have all been exposed.)
so he hasn't whined. he has told his story. he's doing a heroic thing.
if you doubt that, you might want to check out carolyn ho's speech before believing what some 1's passed on to you.
carolyn ho also noted that ann wright testifed at the article 32 hearing in august and said, to questions of what would happen to the military, 'oh that's a lot of nonsense, people have been making protests all along and the military still continues just fine. so what the lieutenant is doing is not going to contribute to the demise of the military.'
i'm fading fast. let me note 3 things to check out, trina's "Cajun Chicken Wings," betty's latest chapter "Thomas Friedman plays at being Chauncey Gardiner," and ruth's latest "Ruth's Report."
bully boy cooked the intel to get the troops into iraq. where is it for the escalation? ray
mcgovern addresses that in 'Show Me the Intelligence!' (consortium news):
Have you noticed? Neither President George W. Bush nor Vice President Dick Cheney have cited any U.S. intelligence assessments to support their fateful decision to send 21,500 more troops to referee the civil war in Iraq.
This is a far cry from October 2002, when a formal National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) was rushed through in order to trick Congress into giving its nihil obstat for the attack on Iraq. Why no intelligence justification this time around? Because there is none. Having successfully cooked intelligence four years ago to get authorization for war, the Bush administration has zero incentive to try a repeat performance. Nor is there any sign that the new Democratic chairmen of the Senate and House intelligence committees will even think to ask the intelligence community to state its views on the likely effect of the planned "surge" in troop strength. This, even though an NIE on Iraq has been "almost ready" for months. For the Bush administration, it has been difficult enough whipping its fickle but ultimately malleable generals into line. The civilian intelligence chiefs have proven more resistant.
So the White House is playing it safe, avoiding like the plague any estimate that would raise doubts about the wisdom of the decision to surge. And that is precisely what an honest estimate would do.
With "sham-dunk" former CIA director George Tenet and his accomplices no longer in place as intelligence enablers, the White House clearly prefers no NIE to one that would inevitably highlight the fecklessness of throwing 21,500 more troops into harm’s way for the dubious purpose of holding off defeat for two more years. The Old Mushroom Cloud The NIE, which leaned so far forward to support the White House’s warnings of a made-in-Iraq "mushroom cloud," remains the negative example par excellence of corrupted intelligence. The good news is that Tenet and his lackeys were replaced by officers who, by all indications, take their job of speaking truth to power seriously.
Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Analysis, Tom Fingar, is a State Department professional not given to professionally selling out. And his boss, John Negroponte, is too smart to end his government career by following the example of his servile predecessors in conjuring up "intelligence" to please the President--not even for a Presidential Medal of Freedom. Unvarnished NIEs sent to the White House by the Negroponte/Fingar team have not shied away from unwelcome conclusions undercutting administration claims, and have gone over like proverbial lead balloons. An estimate on Iran completed in early 2005, for example, concluded that the Iranians will not be able to produce a nuclear weapon before "early to mid-next decade," exposing Cheney's fanciful claims of more proximate danger.
And an NIE produced in April ‘06 on global terrorism concluded that the invasion of Iraq led to a marked increase in terrorism, belying administration claims that the invasion and occupation had made us "safer." Worse still from the administration's point of view, patriotic truth-tellers (aka leakers) inside the government apparently decided that administration rhetoric on both of these key issues had deliberately misled the American people, who were entitled to know the truth. The two unwelcome estimates meant two strikes on Negroponte.
Then the White House learned of an impending strike-three--this one an NIE assessing the future in Iraq and apparently casting doubt on the advisability of U.S. escalation. In a classic Cheneyesque pre-emptive strike, the estimate was put on hold; Negroponte was given a pink slip and assigned back to the State Department. There are rumors that Fingar is clearing out his desk as well.
okay, i'm going to bed. here's c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Monday, January 22, 2007. Chaos and violence continue with over 100 Iraqis reported dead, Bully Boy tanks again in the polls (on a 'reality' show, we could vote him off the island by now), the people prove they don't need the approval of 'judge' to argue Ehren Watada's case in a citizen tribunal on the illegal war held this past weekend, Kurdish forces make like many Iraqis in the military and self-check out, and -- what do you know -- with an eye witness who talked to the press this weekend an unnamed US military flack finally grunts - yeah, maybe they do shoot down US helicopters in Iraq.
Starting with US war resister Ehren Watada, On February 5th, Watada faces a court-martial. "Judge" Head has 'ruled' that Ehren Watada cannot explain the reasons he reached his decision to deploy to Iraq, he cannot explain which orders he honored in his refusal to fight in an illegal war and he cannot really present his case. Saturday and Sunday, Citizens' Hearing on the Legality of U.S. Actions in Iraq was held in Tacoma, Washington and there, in a hearing by, for and of the people, the arguments could be made and were.
Among those testifying were Ann Wright (retired from the State Department, retired US army colonel) who was asked about the duty of Ehren Watada
Ann Wright: Now that's kind of the heart of it all, isn't it? The conduct becoming an officer? The ability to think. The ability to take care of your troops, to keep them out of harm's way, to explore with your chain of command what's going on, why are you having to do certain things? Trusting in your chain of command that you're asking questions that your seniors are asking, are asking, are asking . . .
And I think what we we see in the case of Lt. Watada is that the entire chain of command has failed starting with the four-star generals that were the advisors to the Secretary of Defense and the president, with General Myers, the chief of staff, [. . .] who was such a weak chairman of the Joint Chiefs that he did not question it, he was a toady of the Bush administration.
We did have one four-star general who spoke out -- General Shinseki, chief of staff of the army -- who questioned. He actually didn't question the war, he questioned the number of troops -- how the war was going to be prosecuted. Our generals in the chain of command have not acted as they should have and it's just kind of gone all the way down. The questioning that really goes up and down in the military because there is a dynamic part of the military it's just not one monolythic group there's a lot of debate going on in the scenes and behind the scenes. [. . .]
For the Lt. to be the one that is carrying the load on questioning the war is a little unfair. There should have been people much higher up that were questioning, as they are now, the retired generals are questioning, but that's a little late. [. . .]
It's hard to question sometimes even though you know it's your responsibility and your obligation to do it. But we see here that we've got very few people in the military who are openly questioning but then you look at the polls in newspapers that are being taken of the service members in Iraq and, what is it, 75% of them say we shouldn't be there. So there is an underground movement of the military itself. They're not the ones that can stop wars from beginning but they're the ones that ultimately are the ground fodder for it and what they start saying, "It's not worth my life anymore" that's when these things will start slowing down. And then it's up to us as civilians be going to our Congress to demand that the Congress stop funding the war. If you want to support the troops bring them home, stop the funding of the war.
Amy Rolph (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) reports that David Krieger ("chairman of the tribunal") opened Saturday's proceedings by noting, "We believe that Lt. Watada's contentions about the illegality of the war deserve a full and fair hearing." The Associated Press reported over 400 people were present on Saturday alone. Also appearing was Ehren Watada. Hal Bernton (Seattle Times) reports that Watada declared "Judge" Head's decision to disallow a defense in the court-martial to be "a travesty of justice. That it is a violation of our most sacred due process, and indeed it is un-American." Rolph notes that US war resister Darrell Anderson was also among those offering testimony about what he witnessed in Iraq and the "training that dehumanizes Iraqis". Though arguments can't be made in the court-martial, they were made in in Tacoma. John Nichols (The Nation) blogs at The Notion that: "It appears that the prosecutors do not want to provide Watada with an open and fair forum in which to explain his arguments against the war." Of course, what the prosecution wants or doesn't only matters if the "Judge" rules and he did so when he released his decision on Tuesday of last week.
In a speech given at the Church Center for the UN on December 8th by Watada's mother, Carolyn Ho, (broadcast on WBAI's Law and Disorder today) she explained how her son began researching Iraq in June of 2005 (one year prior to his going public), the basic research to get to know the country he was going to be deployed to, and, as he studied and studied, he came across the shaping of intelligence, the Downing Street Memos exposing that intel was being fixed, the phoney WMDs claims . . . In January of 2006, she received a call from her son who explained that he had decided he wouldn't deploy to Iraq when the time came. On June 7, 2006, Carolyn Ho recounted, "the day before his 28th birthday, he went public and announced his decision not to deploy when the unit went to Iraq." Key point: "I don't believe that my son has committed any crime and that he should be serving any time,"
Also on Saturday, Ehren Watada spoke at the Kitsap Unitarian Universalist Fellowship in Bremerton. David Vognar (Kitsap Sun) reports that over 70 people turned out to hear Watada explain how. in June, he came to be the first US officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq -- Watada threw the responsibility back to the people noting, "It is the American people who have the power to end this war, but only if they have the will to do so."
Watada is part of a movement of resistance within the military that also includes Kyle Snyder, Agustin Aguayo, Ivan Brobeck, Darrell Anderson, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Robin Long, Ryan Johnson, Chris Teske, Tim Richard and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Saturday, Patricia Sullivan (Washington Post) reported on the January 15th death of Oliver V. Hirsh:
In 1968, Mr. Hirsch was a 22-year-old enlistee from Bethesda, stationed at Almaden Air Force Station in California, where he was a radar instructor and held the rank of sergeant. He joined eight other military men, representing the four branches of the services, who publicly refused to go to Vietnam and chained themselves to ministers at a chuch in Northern California. Their arrests for desertion were a media spectacle, with polic cutting their chains and removing them from a Communion service. The incident also served as one of the early indications that opposition to the war came not just from campuses but also from soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen who were serving in the ranks.
Hirsh was among the war resisters sharing their experiences in David Zeiger's Sir! No Sir! which is now available with bonus footage including Camilio Mejia, Cindy Sheehan and Jane Fonda discussing "the movement then and now." (Also note the DVD of the film is available free of charge to active duty and deployed soldiers.)
Yesterday was also a signifcant day for war resisters. Patrick Maloney (Canada's London Free Press) noted that Sunday was the thirty year anniversary of Jimmy Carter's pardoning of draft dodgers: "An estimated 50,000 came to Canada, of whom about half remain. Now, in a quiet echo of an earlier generation's anti-war sentiment, the War Resisters Support Campaign is noticing growing interest in Canada as a haven for U.S. soldiers destined for Iraq."
Today, Dan Balz and Jon Cohen (Washington Post) report on the latest Washington Post poll (Washington Post-ABC News) which finds "48 percent of Americans calling the war the single most important issue they want Bush and the Congress to deal with this year. No other issue rises out of the single digits. The poll also found that the public trust congressional Democrats over Bush to deal with the conflict by a margin of 60 percent to 33 percent." And symbolic measures won't build that trust for the Democratic Party, nor will doing nothing. Someone might also want to share those results with independent media -- it will no doubt be a surprise for a great many who ignored Iraq throughout 2006 -- as well as those who tried to sneak it into some fawning coverage of some politician.
In Iraq today . .
Bombings?
Assel Kami (Reuters) reports "[t]wo simultaneous car bombs" which struck "a busy market in central Baghdad." BBC reports 88 dead with 160 more injured. Some of those injured will not recover (die) and some of the dead have likely not been recovered which is why Kami earlier reported 67 dead and 142 injured bu noted "the death toll of 67 could rise." CBS and AP note the immediate aftermath: "body parts strewn on the bloodstained pavement, along with DVDs and compact discs as black smoke rose into the sky." AFP quotes one of their photographers: "There were so many victims they were piled up on wooden market carts, the wounded on top of the dead, and hauled to ambulances and police vehicles. Improvised rescue workers made their way through the carnage amid the cries of those wounded." Mohammed al Awsy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that an "interiro ministry source" states that one car involved was left running with the driver of the car telling "people nearby that he was just buying things and would return very soon."
Al Jazeera notes: "A few hours later at least 12 people were killed and more than 40 were wounded when a bomb exploded in a market in the village of Khalis, near Baquba." AFP reports it as a "bomb placed in a vegetable cart" combined with a mortar attack. Reuters notes that already the death toll on the Khalis bombing has risen -- 14 people dead. Sinan Salaheddin (AP) reports a mortar attack "on a primary school in the Sunni stronghold neighborhood of Dora in southern Baghdad, killing a woman waiting for her child and wounding eight students". Reuters notes a boming in Mosul that took the life of a woman left four people wounded (two were Iraqi soldiers and they note: "Two more soliders were killed when troops went to the scene to recover the casualties.") and they note a mortar attack "on a house in the Amil district in southwestern Baghdad" that claimed one life and left another wounded.
Shootings?
CBS and AP report that a teacher "was on her way to work at a girls' school" in western Baghdad when she was shot dead and the man driving the car she was in was also wounded. Meanwhile, CNN reports that a police officer and a police acadmy lecturer were shot dead on their way "home in eastern Baghdad." Sinan Salaheddin (AP) reports three shootings -- in Baghdad a "Sunni tribal chieftain" was shot dead in one attack and an employee of a cell phone company was shot dead in another while, in Mosul, an attack left an oil employee dead. Mohammed al Awsy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports "a liquor shop owner [Christian] in AL JAMAAIAT area 8km west of basra" was shot dead today "after some clerics in basra warned the liquor shop owners that they should stop selling liquor in basra."
Corpses?
CNN reports 29 corpses were discovered in Baghdad today.
In addition, Mohammed al Awsy (McClatchy Newspaper) reports that an attack or attempted kidnapping took place when "unknown gunmen tried to storm inside the house of the deputy governor of diyala ABDUL AZIZ AL JUBORI" -- two body guards were wounded "but the deputay governor was not inside the house." A kidnapping took place in Baqubua, Reuters reports: "Khaled al-Sanjari, a local government offical in Baquba," was kidnapped "while he was on his way to work" and the kidnappers "set the office on fire".
As Damien Cave (New York Times) and Borzou Daragahi (Los Angeles Times) reported this morning, at least 27 US troops died over the weekend in Iraq. The 27 number stops with the two marines who died Sunday in Al-Anbar Province. On Saturday, a US helicopter was shot dead. Everyone on board died, all were American soldiers. The BBC notes today that AFP and CNN have reported (today) that an anonymous US military official has stated it's possible that the helicopter was shot down by "a shoulder-fire missile". This after denying -- as they've done with every crash -- that anything was shot down (they've even insisted -- Willie Caldwell, the Giddiest Gabor in the Green Zone, has been especially insistant -- that only coalition forces have those capablities in Iraq -- so note that "a shoulder-fire missile" is possible, according to the US military). Ernesto London (Washington Post) reported Sunday (actually Saturday -- which is when the article first made it online, it was "20 dead" in the headline, now downgraded to 19) that Arkan al-Mujamai told the paper "that the helicopter was shot down by a group of Sunni Muslim insurgents, one of whom is his uncle." al-Mujamai stated that "a heavy machine gun" was used.
The 27 deaths include an attack in Karbala. Leila Fadel and Hussam Ali (McClatchy Newspapers) report: "On Saturday, a civil affairs team of American soldiers sat with local leaders in Karbala's provincial headquarters to discuss security . . . A convoy of seven white GMC Suburbans sped toward the building, breezing through checkpoints, with the men wearing American and Iraqi military uniforms and flashing American ID cards, Iraqi officials said. The force stopped at the police directorate in Karbala and took weapons but gave no reason, said police spokesman Capt. Muthana Ahmed in Babel province. A call was made to the provincial headquarters to inform them an American convoy was on its way, said the governnor of Karbala, Akeel al-Khazaali. But the Americans stationed inside the building . . . had not been informed" because this wasn't a military patrol and, in the attack that followed (grenades, mortars, gunfire), 5 US troops were killed and 3 more wounded. If you've forgotten, a tremendous amount of money was spent on new Iraqi uniforms and a huge publicity push came with that stating that no longer would the resistance or militias be able to impersonate -- that's disproven today and was always disproven because those uniforms don't come off some Mosul sewing machine, they're taken by people working within the forces. Today, the US military announced: "A Task Force Lightning Soldier assigned to 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, was killed Monday when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle while conducting combat operations in Ninewa province.
On WBAI's Law & Disorder, a discussion by Anthony Arnove and Michael Schwartz was also broadcast today. Many topics were covered. [Mike will be covering this tonight at Mikey Likes It!; Ruth and Rebecca passed on L&D and held the phone up for quotes included.] They spoke, in particular, about the racism at play -- which includes the attitude of those 'sorry' Iraqis who just don't appreciate the illegal invasion the US administration has 'gifted' them with, that those 'bad' and 'backward' Iraqis are just lacking abilities since they can't 'build' a 'democracy' in the midst of the US' illegal occupation, and the racism that forgets who created the secetarian divide (the US). The racism -- that urge to cast 'the other' -- is why they US administration believes that they can recruit more Iraqis to 'pacify' Baghdad and Al-Anbar Province. Schwartz noted that as soon as US troops aren't assinged with Iraqi troops, Iraqi troops melt into the area and disappear -- the desertion rate from the Iraqi army that's rarely noted, especially now when Bully Boy's escalation depends on believing the lie that more US troops on the ground will solve the trick. The admiinstration also believe they can bring the Kurds easily into the Iraqi military. Leila Fadel and Yaseen Taha (McClatchy Newspapers) reported at the end of last week that it wasn't working out quite that way: "Kurdish soldiers from northern Iraq, who are mostly Sunnis but not Arabs, are deserting the army to avoid the civil war in Baghdad, a conflict they consider someone else's problem" and they quote Anward Dolani ("former peshmerga commander who leads the brigade that's being tranferred to Baghdad") declaring: "The soldiers don't know the Arabic language, the Arab tradition, and they don't have any experience fighting terror." If the news of the Kurdish troops doesn't convey how no one wants to fight the illegal US war, Dahr Jamail and Ali al-Fadhily (IPS) report on the latest in souther Iraq where "Shia Arab tribes in the south" are joining the resistance. Jamail and al-Fadhily quote Jassim al-Assadi declaring: "People here have always hated the U.S. and British occupation of Iraq and remembered their grandfathers who fought the British troops with the simplest weapons."
Anthony Arnove, author most recently of IRAQ: The Logic of Withdrawal, will be speaking in DC this weekend:
*January 27, 5 pm, Washington, DC (with Kelly Dougherty) Busboys and Poets http://www.busboysandpoets.com/blog_events.htm
Arnove will be among many in DC on the 27th. From CODEPINK:
Bring the Peace Mandate to D.C. on J27!
On Election Day voters delivered an unmistakable mandate for peace. Now it's time for action. Join CODEPINK in a national march to D.C. on January 27-29, to send a strong, clear message to Congress and the Bush Administration: The people of this country want the war and occupation in Iraq to end and we want the troops home now! See our latest actions, and click here for details.
that's the segment that featured a speech by carolyn ho. she spoke of how, 'my journey runs alongsid what occured with my son's in some respects.' she then explained how. carolyn ho is ehren watada's mother. ehren didn't start out thinking the war in iraq was wrong. he probably didn't think much of it. then he was assigned, and he's lieutenant, to go to iraq. that meant he was responsible for himself as well for those serving under him. when your an officer and you're given a new assignment, you are supposed to brush up on it, to make sure you know what's going on and that way, when you are asked questions by people serving below you, you're able to answer those questions.
think of it as preparing for a presentation or speech but with the added responsibility that a lot of people are counting on you. so carolyn spoke of how ehren began boning up on iraq, finding out all that he could. as he did that, he began to notice things, the failure to discover wmd, the downing street memos (telling that intel was being fixed by the american government) to make a case for war where there was none.
as he looked at all of that, he realized he couldn't serve in iraq. he would be responsible for himself, as well all are, but he would also be responsible for those serving under him. as much as it is his job to give them orders, it is his job to be responsible for them. he's barely out of childhood himself, but the military has younger than him and the whole thing works similar to
in loco parentis. so while others have taken brave stands before, where his case is different is that he was also responsible for those serving under him.
if he was just about a check and following orders, he could have gone. but he took the responsibilty seriously.
as he had his own awakening about the war, so did carolyn ho have 1 about her son. she talked about how when he 1st told her that he had decided he wasn't going, her immediate reaction was to tell him not to take this stand. she knew he would be mocked, threatened and much worse.
she had to realize that (a) he was going to do what he was going to do and (b) she couldn't protect him from what he felt was the right thing to do.
carolyn ho never thought the decision was wrong because she believed he should just follow orders. she was worried about the response to his decision. (she had good reason to worry and that's why it's all the sadder that independent media doesn't seem to care too much about his case) .
but she realized she needed to support him because that's what he needed.
she talked about learning about his strong record not from her son but from an article. i had no idea who she was talking about and had to ask c.i. it was john kifner and timothy egan's 'Officer Faces Court-Martial for Refusing to Deply to Iraq' the july 23rd, 2006 edition of the new york times. that was after he had gone public in june. she learned his decision in january of 2006. and they had plenty of time to talk about his military service before that as well. but he never bragged on himself or told her how highly he was evaluated.
it was a pretty powerful speech and she spoke of the need for mothers to step up.
i want to jump off it for a 2nd to respond to an e-mail i received on watada. i'll assume the person is reachable and has just gotten bad information. he writes (knew it was a he, didn't you?) that if ehren believes in his stand, he shouldn't have a problem with being court-martialed.
he also says he's heard about ehren's 'whining.' i haven't heard any whining but i could have missed it. so i asked c.i. who follows this very closely. c.i. said just saturday, ehren was again saying he would take whatever punishment. that's not a whiner.
now c.i., i and others have argued he shouldn't be court-martialed. ehren's lawyer and ehren object to not being able to present a defense. so to the e-mailer, if you were ever on trial for something, wouldn't you want to explain your reasons for your actions?
let's be clear to that ehren could probably still stop the court-martial today. the military tried to talk him out of it. carolyn ho spoke about how they kept trying to pressure him, kept telling him, just get on the next plane and we'll forget any of this happened.
he's an officer in the u.s. military. you better believe the military would prefer this go away because people are talking and will continue to talk within the military. does that mean some 1 says, 'ehren did it, i'm going to too!' no. it probably means it makes them wonder what they're fighting for? (they don't know because bully boy's lies have all been exposed.)
so he hasn't whined. he has told his story. he's doing a heroic thing.
if you doubt that, you might want to check out carolyn ho's speech before believing what some 1's passed on to you.
carolyn ho also noted that ann wright testifed at the article 32 hearing in august and said, to questions of what would happen to the military, 'oh that's a lot of nonsense, people have been making protests all along and the military still continues just fine. so what the lieutenant is doing is not going to contribute to the demise of the military.'
i'm fading fast. let me note 3 things to check out, trina's "Cajun Chicken Wings," betty's latest chapter "Thomas Friedman plays at being Chauncey Gardiner," and ruth's latest "Ruth's Report."
bully boy cooked the intel to get the troops into iraq. where is it for the escalation? ray
mcgovern addresses that in 'Show Me the Intelligence!' (consortium news):
Have you noticed? Neither President George W. Bush nor Vice President Dick Cheney have cited any U.S. intelligence assessments to support their fateful decision to send 21,500 more troops to referee the civil war in Iraq.
This is a far cry from October 2002, when a formal National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) was rushed through in order to trick Congress into giving its nihil obstat for the attack on Iraq. Why no intelligence justification this time around? Because there is none. Having successfully cooked intelligence four years ago to get authorization for war, the Bush administration has zero incentive to try a repeat performance. Nor is there any sign that the new Democratic chairmen of the Senate and House intelligence committees will even think to ask the intelligence community to state its views on the likely effect of the planned "surge" in troop strength. This, even though an NIE on Iraq has been "almost ready" for months. For the Bush administration, it has been difficult enough whipping its fickle but ultimately malleable generals into line. The civilian intelligence chiefs have proven more resistant.
So the White House is playing it safe, avoiding like the plague any estimate that would raise doubts about the wisdom of the decision to surge. And that is precisely what an honest estimate would do.
With "sham-dunk" former CIA director George Tenet and his accomplices no longer in place as intelligence enablers, the White House clearly prefers no NIE to one that would inevitably highlight the fecklessness of throwing 21,500 more troops into harm’s way for the dubious purpose of holding off defeat for two more years. The Old Mushroom Cloud The NIE, which leaned so far forward to support the White House’s warnings of a made-in-Iraq "mushroom cloud," remains the negative example par excellence of corrupted intelligence. The good news is that Tenet and his lackeys were replaced by officers who, by all indications, take their job of speaking truth to power seriously.
Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Analysis, Tom Fingar, is a State Department professional not given to professionally selling out. And his boss, John Negroponte, is too smart to end his government career by following the example of his servile predecessors in conjuring up "intelligence" to please the President--not even for a Presidential Medal of Freedom. Unvarnished NIEs sent to the White House by the Negroponte/Fingar team have not shied away from unwelcome conclusions undercutting administration claims, and have gone over like proverbial lead balloons. An estimate on Iran completed in early 2005, for example, concluded that the Iranians will not be able to produce a nuclear weapon before "early to mid-next decade," exposing Cheney's fanciful claims of more proximate danger.
And an NIE produced in April ‘06 on global terrorism concluded that the invasion of Iraq led to a marked increase in terrorism, belying administration claims that the invasion and occupation had made us "safer." Worse still from the administration's point of view, patriotic truth-tellers (aka leakers) inside the government apparently decided that administration rhetoric on both of these key issues had deliberately misled the American people, who were entitled to know the truth. The two unwelcome estimates meant two strikes on Negroponte.
Then the White House learned of an impending strike-three--this one an NIE assessing the future in Iraq and apparently casting doubt on the advisability of U.S. escalation. In a classic Cheneyesque pre-emptive strike, the estimate was put on hold; Negroponte was given a pink slip and assigned back to the State Department. There are rumors that Fingar is clearing out his desk as well.
okay, i'm going to bed. here's c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Monday, January 22, 2007. Chaos and violence continue with over 100 Iraqis reported dead, Bully Boy tanks again in the polls (on a 'reality' show, we could vote him off the island by now), the people prove they don't need the approval of 'judge' to argue Ehren Watada's case in a citizen tribunal on the illegal war held this past weekend, Kurdish forces make like many Iraqis in the military and self-check out, and -- what do you know -- with an eye witness who talked to the press this weekend an unnamed US military flack finally grunts - yeah, maybe they do shoot down US helicopters in Iraq.
Starting with US war resister Ehren Watada, On February 5th, Watada faces a court-martial. "Judge" Head has 'ruled' that Ehren Watada cannot explain the reasons he reached his decision to deploy to Iraq, he cannot explain which orders he honored in his refusal to fight in an illegal war and he cannot really present his case. Saturday and Sunday, Citizens' Hearing on the Legality of U.S. Actions in Iraq was held in Tacoma, Washington and there, in a hearing by, for and of the people, the arguments could be made and were.
Among those testifying were Ann Wright (retired from the State Department, retired US army colonel) who was asked about the duty of Ehren Watada
Ann Wright: Now that's kind of the heart of it all, isn't it? The conduct becoming an officer? The ability to think. The ability to take care of your troops, to keep them out of harm's way, to explore with your chain of command what's going on, why are you having to do certain things? Trusting in your chain of command that you're asking questions that your seniors are asking, are asking, are asking . . .
And I think what we we see in the case of Lt. Watada is that the entire chain of command has failed starting with the four-star generals that were the advisors to the Secretary of Defense and the president, with General Myers, the chief of staff, [. . .] who was such a weak chairman of the Joint Chiefs that he did not question it, he was a toady of the Bush administration.
We did have one four-star general who spoke out -- General Shinseki, chief of staff of the army -- who questioned. He actually didn't question the war, he questioned the number of troops -- how the war was going to be prosecuted. Our generals in the chain of command have not acted as they should have and it's just kind of gone all the way down. The questioning that really goes up and down in the military because there is a dynamic part of the military it's just not one monolythic group there's a lot of debate going on in the scenes and behind the scenes. [. . .]
For the Lt. to be the one that is carrying the load on questioning the war is a little unfair. There should have been people much higher up that were questioning, as they are now, the retired generals are questioning, but that's a little late. [. . .]
It's hard to question sometimes even though you know it's your responsibility and your obligation to do it. But we see here that we've got very few people in the military who are openly questioning but then you look at the polls in newspapers that are being taken of the service members in Iraq and, what is it, 75% of them say we shouldn't be there. So there is an underground movement of the military itself. They're not the ones that can stop wars from beginning but they're the ones that ultimately are the ground fodder for it and what they start saying, "It's not worth my life anymore" that's when these things will start slowing down. And then it's up to us as civilians be going to our Congress to demand that the Congress stop funding the war. If you want to support the troops bring them home, stop the funding of the war.
Amy Rolph (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) reports that David Krieger ("chairman of the tribunal") opened Saturday's proceedings by noting, "We believe that Lt. Watada's contentions about the illegality of the war deserve a full and fair hearing." The Associated Press reported over 400 people were present on Saturday alone. Also appearing was Ehren Watada. Hal Bernton (Seattle Times) reports that Watada declared "Judge" Head's decision to disallow a defense in the court-martial to be "a travesty of justice. That it is a violation of our most sacred due process, and indeed it is un-American." Rolph notes that US war resister Darrell Anderson was also among those offering testimony about what he witnessed in Iraq and the "training that dehumanizes Iraqis". Though arguments can't be made in the court-martial, they were made in in Tacoma. John Nichols (The Nation) blogs at The Notion that: "It appears that the prosecutors do not want to provide Watada with an open and fair forum in which to explain his arguments against the war." Of course, what the prosecution wants or doesn't only matters if the "Judge" rules and he did so when he released his decision on Tuesday of last week.
In a speech given at the Church Center for the UN on December 8th by Watada's mother, Carolyn Ho, (broadcast on WBAI's Law and Disorder today) she explained how her son began researching Iraq in June of 2005 (one year prior to his going public), the basic research to get to know the country he was going to be deployed to, and, as he studied and studied, he came across the shaping of intelligence, the Downing Street Memos exposing that intel was being fixed, the phoney WMDs claims . . . In January of 2006, she received a call from her son who explained that he had decided he wouldn't deploy to Iraq when the time came. On June 7, 2006, Carolyn Ho recounted, "the day before his 28th birthday, he went public and announced his decision not to deploy when the unit went to Iraq." Key point: "I don't believe that my son has committed any crime and that he should be serving any time,"
Also on Saturday, Ehren Watada spoke at the Kitsap Unitarian Universalist Fellowship in Bremerton. David Vognar (Kitsap Sun) reports that over 70 people turned out to hear Watada explain how. in June, he came to be the first US officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq -- Watada threw the responsibility back to the people noting, "It is the American people who have the power to end this war, but only if they have the will to do so."
Watada is part of a movement of resistance within the military that also includes Kyle Snyder, Agustin Aguayo, Ivan Brobeck, Darrell Anderson, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Robin Long, Ryan Johnson, Chris Teske, Tim Richard and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Saturday, Patricia Sullivan (Washington Post) reported on the January 15th death of Oliver V. Hirsh:
In 1968, Mr. Hirsch was a 22-year-old enlistee from Bethesda, stationed at Almaden Air Force Station in California, where he was a radar instructor and held the rank of sergeant. He joined eight other military men, representing the four branches of the services, who publicly refused to go to Vietnam and chained themselves to ministers at a chuch in Northern California. Their arrests for desertion were a media spectacle, with polic cutting their chains and removing them from a Communion service. The incident also served as one of the early indications that opposition to the war came not just from campuses but also from soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen who were serving in the ranks.
Hirsh was among the war resisters sharing their experiences in David Zeiger's Sir! No Sir! which is now available with bonus footage including Camilio Mejia, Cindy Sheehan and Jane Fonda discussing "the movement then and now." (Also note the DVD of the film is available free of charge to active duty and deployed soldiers.)
Yesterday was also a signifcant day for war resisters. Patrick Maloney (Canada's London Free Press) noted that Sunday was the thirty year anniversary of Jimmy Carter's pardoning of draft dodgers: "An estimated 50,000 came to Canada, of whom about half remain. Now, in a quiet echo of an earlier generation's anti-war sentiment, the War Resisters Support Campaign is noticing growing interest in Canada as a haven for U.S. soldiers destined for Iraq."
Today, Dan Balz and Jon Cohen (Washington Post) report on the latest Washington Post poll (Washington Post-ABC News) which finds "48 percent of Americans calling the war the single most important issue they want Bush and the Congress to deal with this year. No other issue rises out of the single digits. The poll also found that the public trust congressional Democrats over Bush to deal with the conflict by a margin of 60 percent to 33 percent." And symbolic measures won't build that trust for the Democratic Party, nor will doing nothing. Someone might also want to share those results with independent media -- it will no doubt be a surprise for a great many who ignored Iraq throughout 2006 -- as well as those who tried to sneak it into some fawning coverage of some politician.
In Iraq today . .
Bombings?
Assel Kami (Reuters) reports "[t]wo simultaneous car bombs" which struck "a busy market in central Baghdad." BBC reports 88 dead with 160 more injured. Some of those injured will not recover (die) and some of the dead have likely not been recovered which is why Kami earlier reported 67 dead and 142 injured bu noted "the death toll of 67 could rise." CBS and AP note the immediate aftermath: "body parts strewn on the bloodstained pavement, along with DVDs and compact discs as black smoke rose into the sky." AFP quotes one of their photographers: "There were so many victims they were piled up on wooden market carts, the wounded on top of the dead, and hauled to ambulances and police vehicles. Improvised rescue workers made their way through the carnage amid the cries of those wounded." Mohammed al Awsy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that an "interiro ministry source" states that one car involved was left running with the driver of the car telling "people nearby that he was just buying things and would return very soon."
Al Jazeera notes: "A few hours later at least 12 people were killed and more than 40 were wounded when a bomb exploded in a market in the village of Khalis, near Baquba." AFP reports it as a "bomb placed in a vegetable cart" combined with a mortar attack. Reuters notes that already the death toll on the Khalis bombing has risen -- 14 people dead. Sinan Salaheddin (AP) reports a mortar attack "on a primary school in the Sunni stronghold neighborhood of Dora in southern Baghdad, killing a woman waiting for her child and wounding eight students". Reuters notes a boming in Mosul that took the life of a woman left four people wounded (two were Iraqi soldiers and they note: "Two more soliders were killed when troops went to the scene to recover the casualties.") and they note a mortar attack "on a house in the Amil district in southwestern Baghdad" that claimed one life and left another wounded.
Shootings?
CBS and AP report that a teacher "was on her way to work at a girls' school" in western Baghdad when she was shot dead and the man driving the car she was in was also wounded. Meanwhile, CNN reports that a police officer and a police acadmy lecturer were shot dead on their way "home in eastern Baghdad." Sinan Salaheddin (AP) reports three shootings -- in Baghdad a "Sunni tribal chieftain" was shot dead in one attack and an employee of a cell phone company was shot dead in another while, in Mosul, an attack left an oil employee dead. Mohammed al Awsy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports "a liquor shop owner [Christian] in AL JAMAAIAT area 8km west of basra" was shot dead today "after some clerics in basra warned the liquor shop owners that they should stop selling liquor in basra."
Corpses?
CNN reports 29 corpses were discovered in Baghdad today.
In addition, Mohammed al Awsy (McClatchy Newspaper) reports that an attack or attempted kidnapping took place when "unknown gunmen tried to storm inside the house of the deputy governor of diyala ABDUL AZIZ AL JUBORI" -- two body guards were wounded "but the deputay governor was not inside the house." A kidnapping took place in Baqubua, Reuters reports: "Khaled al-Sanjari, a local government offical in Baquba," was kidnapped "while he was on his way to work" and the kidnappers "set the office on fire".
As Damien Cave (New York Times) and Borzou Daragahi (Los Angeles Times) reported this morning, at least 27 US troops died over the weekend in Iraq. The 27 number stops with the two marines who died Sunday in Al-Anbar Province. On Saturday, a US helicopter was shot dead. Everyone on board died, all were American soldiers. The BBC notes today that AFP and CNN have reported (today) that an anonymous US military official has stated it's possible that the helicopter was shot down by "a shoulder-fire missile". This after denying -- as they've done with every crash -- that anything was shot down (they've even insisted -- Willie Caldwell, the Giddiest Gabor in the Green Zone, has been especially insistant -- that only coalition forces have those capablities in Iraq -- so note that "a shoulder-fire missile" is possible, according to the US military). Ernesto London (Washington Post) reported Sunday (actually Saturday -- which is when the article first made it online, it was "20 dead" in the headline, now downgraded to 19) that Arkan al-Mujamai told the paper "that the helicopter was shot down by a group of Sunni Muslim insurgents, one of whom is his uncle." al-Mujamai stated that "a heavy machine gun" was used.
The 27 deaths include an attack in Karbala. Leila Fadel and Hussam Ali (McClatchy Newspapers) report: "On Saturday, a civil affairs team of American soldiers sat with local leaders in Karbala's provincial headquarters to discuss security . . . A convoy of seven white GMC Suburbans sped toward the building, breezing through checkpoints, with the men wearing American and Iraqi military uniforms and flashing American ID cards, Iraqi officials said. The force stopped at the police directorate in Karbala and took weapons but gave no reason, said police spokesman Capt. Muthana Ahmed in Babel province. A call was made to the provincial headquarters to inform them an American convoy was on its way, said the governnor of Karbala, Akeel al-Khazaali. But the Americans stationed inside the building . . . had not been informed" because this wasn't a military patrol and, in the attack that followed (grenades, mortars, gunfire), 5 US troops were killed and 3 more wounded. If you've forgotten, a tremendous amount of money was spent on new Iraqi uniforms and a huge publicity push came with that stating that no longer would the resistance or militias be able to impersonate -- that's disproven today and was always disproven because those uniforms don't come off some Mosul sewing machine, they're taken by people working within the forces. Today, the US military announced: "A Task Force Lightning Soldier assigned to 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, was killed Monday when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle while conducting combat operations in Ninewa province.
On WBAI's Law & Disorder, a discussion by Anthony Arnove and Michael Schwartz was also broadcast today. Many topics were covered. [Mike will be covering this tonight at Mikey Likes It!; Ruth and Rebecca passed on L&D and held the phone up for quotes included.] They spoke, in particular, about the racism at play -- which includes the attitude of those 'sorry' Iraqis who just don't appreciate the illegal invasion the US administration has 'gifted' them with, that those 'bad' and 'backward' Iraqis are just lacking abilities since they can't 'build' a 'democracy' in the midst of the US' illegal occupation, and the racism that forgets who created the secetarian divide (the US). The racism -- that urge to cast 'the other' -- is why they US administration believes that they can recruit more Iraqis to 'pacify' Baghdad and Al-Anbar Province. Schwartz noted that as soon as US troops aren't assinged with Iraqi troops, Iraqi troops melt into the area and disappear -- the desertion rate from the Iraqi army that's rarely noted, especially now when Bully Boy's escalation depends on believing the lie that more US troops on the ground will solve the trick. The admiinstration also believe they can bring the Kurds easily into the Iraqi military. Leila Fadel and Yaseen Taha (McClatchy Newspapers) reported at the end of last week that it wasn't working out quite that way: "Kurdish soldiers from northern Iraq, who are mostly Sunnis but not Arabs, are deserting the army to avoid the civil war in Baghdad, a conflict they consider someone else's problem" and they quote Anward Dolani ("former peshmerga commander who leads the brigade that's being tranferred to Baghdad") declaring: "The soldiers don't know the Arabic language, the Arab tradition, and they don't have any experience fighting terror." If the news of the Kurdish troops doesn't convey how no one wants to fight the illegal US war, Dahr Jamail and Ali al-Fadhily (IPS) report on the latest in souther Iraq where "Shia Arab tribes in the south" are joining the resistance. Jamail and al-Fadhily quote Jassim al-Assadi declaring: "People here have always hated the U.S. and British occupation of Iraq and remembered their grandfathers who fought the British troops with the simplest weapons."
Anthony Arnove, author most recently of IRAQ: The Logic of Withdrawal, will be speaking in DC this weekend:
*January 27, 5 pm, Washington, DC (with Kelly Dougherty) Busboys and Poets http://www.busboysandpoets.com/blog_events.htm
Arnove will be among many in DC on the 27th. From CODEPINK:
Bring the Peace Mandate to D.C. on J27!
On Election Day voters delivered an unmistakable mandate for peace. Now it's time for action. Join CODEPINK in a national march to D.C. on January 27-29, to send a strong, clear message to Congress and the Bush Administration: The people of this country want the war and occupation in Iraq to end and we want the troops home now! See our latest actions, and click here for details.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)