gordo the wounded shark

above is Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Barry & Bully" which went up yesterday.

now we're diving into gordon brown.

c.i. covers gordo's latest big problems (a military report that says gordo and tony blair failed as leaders and put the troops at risk).

linda heard (arab news):

Word has it that Blair recently sent Gordon Brown the message that he wants the inquiry to be held behind closed doors. Brown would like nothing more but has been forced by shouts of an establishment stitch-up to compromise, promising that some sessions will be open to the public. Other Brown stipulations ensure that the real truth will remain elusive. He says the enquiry will not be mandated to apportion blame or open criminal investigations. He has implied that the investigatory committee will only have access to British citizens and documentation retained by Britain’s archives, and will not be allowed “the most sensitive information touching on Britain’s security.” In other words, nobody is to be held accountable, which means Blair can continue getting a good night’s sleep.
However, according to The Mirror, Blair and Brown are being blamed by “army bosses” for the “botched occupation” or Iraq. A 100-page leaked document titled “Stability Operations in Iraq” prepared by former military head honcho Gen. Sir Mike Jackson “attacks Mr. Blair for uncritically accepting flawed US plans for the March 2003 invasion, which led to tens of thousands of deaths, including those of 179 British troops.” The report also alleges that Brown blocked vital funding for humanitarian aid, clean water and the reconstruction of Basra, which contributed toward the loss of Iraqi hearts and minds. Shamefully, this military report is destined to remain officially secret.
Will anyone ever be brought to book for willful destruction of a country? I doubt it! The establishment, as always, will close ranks as the British public’s appetite for the unvarnished truth wanes.

and the troubles keep piling on for gordon brown. the guardian has a round up and i'll highlight 1 of the people they speak to:

Simon Jenkins: Gordon Brown's statement is desperate. It is John Major-ish, a mishmash of abstractions and cobbled together statistics as if he were manager of a Stalinist collective. Thousands, millions and billions seemed to fall from the PM's lips like spittle. Nothing he says carries substance, with buzzwords such as "guarantee", "entitlement", "right" and "power" coated in splurges of "investment".
Much of this cannot be true. What is "a mandatory job for every school-leaver unemployed for a year" or "a guarantee to local people of more power to keep their neighbourhood safe" or a "guarantee of a personal tutor for every parent" or an "enforcible entitlement to see a consultant"? Such pledges cannot be fulfilled when Downing Street has no way of bringing them about, any more than Tony Blair did when struggling with his delivery unit.
The abandonment of so-called targets is equally meaningless with no indication of what is to replace them. Such is the dirigisme of Brown's Treasury that its grants to local authorities and hospitals must be related to some indicator of performance. What else is a target? Like broadband for all and yet another innovation fund, this is not proper government but political mood music. It is the drone of a man trying to keep up his embattled spirits as he contemplates impending defeat.

repeating, i don't know who's going to win the upcoming elections. but labour or not labour, gordon's not going to be prime minister. he's wounded and bleeding and he's now a huge liability to the labour party.

it would be very smart for labour members to begin moving against him, drawing lines between him and themselves because otherwise they may see control of the government flip to the conservative party (the tories). gordon's only going to grow more unpopular as the year wears on.

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

Monday, June 29, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, one media outlet prepares to offer indepth coverage of the targeting of Iraq's LGBT community, June 30th play day frenzy builds, uh-oh-Gordo, he's in trouble again, and more.

In a week when Iraq 'dates' will be discussed non-stop, we'll start with an important one: July 5th. That's when BBC Radio 5 airs Gay Life After Saddam (7 to 8 p.m. in England -- that will be eleven to noon PST). Ashley Byrne and Gail Champion produce the special for Made in Manchester. James Chaperlard (Crain's Manchester Business) reports:

In Gay Life After Saddam, presenter Aasmah Mir finds out how life for the country's gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community (LGBT), has got worse since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. Human rights campaigners claim hundreds of LGBT people have been killed or tortured while others have fled the country fearing for their safety since Saddam was toppled from power six years ago.

Not noted in the article but among the people interviewed for the special is Nouri al-Maliki, puppet of the occupation, and his remarks should be of especial interest since he's done nothing to prevent the continued assault on Iraq's LGBT community. Note that this special is being commissioned and aired by the BBC. Did Joan Kroc's McMillions to NPR come with a codicil barring NPR from reporting on the gay community? NPR has never covered the ongoing assault on Iraq's LGBT community. June 1st, the assault was addressed on KPFK's Connect the Dots with Lila Garrett between Garrett and LA City Council member Bill Rosendahl and that's day's snapshot included the following rundown -- and this is a partial rundown:

As noted May 15th, "Ruben Vives (Los Angeles Times) reports that the Los Angeles City Council unanimously voted Wednesday to approve Council Rep Bill Rosendahl's 'resolution calling for federal legislation urging the Iraqi government to prevent the persecution of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people'." Lila noted that the segment was taped ahead of time so, for perspective, the resolution passed May 15th. This year, the targeting's been noted here first in more on the issue, you can see this snapshot, this entry and the roundtable Friday night ["Roundtable on Iraq," "Roundtabling Iraq," "the roundtable," "Iraq," "Iraq in the Kitchen," "Roundtable on Iraq," "Talking Iraq," "Iraq," "Talking Iraq roundtable" and "Iraq roundtable"] That's going back to the start of April and it is not true that the MSM has ignored it. They could do a lot more but they have covered it and where there has been no amplification is in Panhandle Media which appears to feel it's a 'niche' story to be left to the LGBT media. In April, Wisam Mohammed and Khalid al-Ansary (Reuters) and Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN), the Dallas Morning News, UPI and AFP reported on it. Michael Riley (Denver Post) covered the story and covered US House Rep Jared Polis' work on the issue (which included visiting Iraq), PDF format warning, click here for his letter to Patricia A. Butenis. Polis is quoted at his website stating, "The United States should not tolerate human rights violations of nay kind, especially by a government that Americans spend billions of taxpayer dollars each year supporting. Hopefully my trip and letters to US and Iraqi officials will help bring international attention and investigation to this terrible situation and bring an end to any such offenses." For the New York Times, Timothy Williams and Tareq Maher's "Iraq's Newly Open Gays Face Scorn and Murder" covered the topic. BBC News offered "Fears over Iraq gay killing spate." The Denver Post offered an editorial entitled "Killing of gay Iraqis shouldn't be ignored: We applaud Rep. Jared Polis for his efforts last week to shine the spotlight on the killings of homosexuals in Iraq," Nigel Morris offered "Iraqi leaders attacked over spate of homophobic murders" (Independent of London), the Telegraph of London covers the issue here. Neal Broverman (The Advocate), Jessica Green (UK's Pink News), and Doug Ireland
covered it (here's one report by Ireland at GayCityNews -- he's filed more than one report), AFP reported on it again when signs went up throughout Sadr City with statements such as "We will punish you, perverts" and "We will get you, puppies" (puppies is slang for gay men in Iraq) and Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) reported on that as well. Chris Johnson offered "Polis seeks to aid Iraqis: Says gays 'fear for their life and limb' after fact-finding trip to Baghdad" (Washington Blade), Killian Melloy (The Edge -- this is the April 2nd story that contains the State Dept stating it's not happening -- the denial) and [PDF formart warning] the April 15th "Iraq Status Report" by the US State Dept notes the killings. Amnesty International weighed in as did the International Gay and lesiban Human Rights Campaign. Jim Muir (BBC News -- text and video) reported on the targeting and the attacks. UK Gay News covered it, last week ABC News offered Mazin Faiq's "Tortured and Killed in Iraq for Being Gay" Chicago Pride and UPI covered the latest deaths last week. And AFP and Jessica Green (UK's Pink News) covered the public statement from Moqtada al-Sadr about how they needed to be "eradicated" for "depravity" and he thinks they can be 'taught' not to be gay. As for the technique, Bill Rosendahl didn't want to discuss on air Doug Ireland (ZNet) reported on that in May[.]

Though it's a partial list, NPR's not omitted. No major outlet is. ABC News, BBC, CNN, Denver Post, Dallas Morning News (a news roundup), the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, UPI and AFP are major outlets. So is NPR but it had other things to do. Now BBC's commissioned and will be airing (July 5th -- and it will stream live online) and NPR's still playing Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Matthew S. Bajko (The Edge) notes that this is being termed the "Summer of Obummer" and reviews Barack Obama's stumbles and fumbles on LGBT issues including: "In court papers the Obama administration has defended the policy, and it has also refused to issue an executive order ending discharges of LGBT service members as it determines what course of action to take." Jean Stanula (Examiner) points out that hideous policy creates many victims, including the service members' partners: "There is another group of people who are devastatingly affected by this policy as well, a group of people who are not even members of the military -- the partners of these LGBT soldiers who struggle with the same trials as military spouses, yet receive none of the support from the government, who must, in fact, remain invisible for the protection of their military partners. The husbands and wives of American soldiers receive special benefits from the government, in addition to the love and support they recieve from their communities. Some of these benefits include: receiving compensation if their husband or wife is injured or killed in the line of duty, disabled veterans who are married receive extra compensation to support their spouse, veteran's pensions, military support networks, next-of-kin notifications and more. Partners of LGBT service members are denied these benefits, even the simple benefit of expressing pride openly of their love ones." Last week, 77 members of the US House of Representatives wrote Barack about ending the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy:

Although we are confident that you will remain true to your campaign promise to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell, our LGBT service members and our country's national security will continue to suffer if initial action is delayed until 2010 or 2011. We urge you to exercise the maximum discretion legally possible in administering Don't Ask, Don't Tell until Congress repeals the law. To this end, we ask that you direct the Armed Services not to initiate any investigation of service personnel to determine their sexual orientation, and that you instruct them to disregard third party accusations that do not allege violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That is, we request that you impose that no one is asked and that you ignore, as the law requires, third parties who tell. Under your leadership, Congress must then repeal and replace Don't Ask, Don't Tell with a policy of inclusion and non-discrimination. This bilateral strategy would allow our openly gay and lesbian service members to continue serving our country and demonstrate our nation's lasting commitment to justice and equality for all.
As the United States continues to work towards responsibly ending the War in Iraq and refocus on the threat from al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, our LGBT service members offer invaluable skills that enhance our country's military competence and readiness. Despite the great strain on our military's human resources, the Armed Forces have discharged almost 800 mission-critical troops and at least 59 Arabic and nine Farsi linguists under Don't Ask, Don't Tell in the last five years. This is indefensible. The financial cost alone of implementing Don't Ask, Don't Tell from Fiscal Year 1994-2003 was more than $363.8 million. Our nation's military has always held itself to the highest standards, and we must recruit and retain the greatest number of our best and brightest. To do anything less only hurts our country's military readiness and our service members.
We also want to bring to your attention the most recent examples of the failed Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy in action. New York National Guard First Lieutenant Dan Choi and Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Victor Fehrenbach are two exceptional servicemen who have dedicated their lives to defending our country and protecting the American people. Their bravery and abilities have been tested in combat, and now they face impending discharge under Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
First Lieutenant Choi, a current National Guardsman with the 1st Battalion of the 69th Infantry in Manhattan, is a West Point graduate, Arabic language specialist, and Iraq War veteran who is under investigation for refusing to lie about his identity.
Lieutenant Colonel Fehrenbach, Assistant Director of Operations for the 366th Operations Support Squadron at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho, has honorably served his country for 18 years as an F-15E pilot. He has received nine air medals, including a Medal for Heroism during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and was hand-picked to protect the airspace over Washington, D.C. after the Pentagon was attacked on September 11, 2001. Lieutenant Colonel Fehrenbach, who has flown combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan against the Taliban and al Qaeda, continues to serve while the recommendation for his honorable discharge moves forward to a review board, and eventually to the Secretary of the Air Force. Just two years away from his 20-year retirement, he stands to lose $46,000 a year in retirement and medical benefits for the rest of his life if discharged.
The American people and service members of the Armed Forces overwhelmingly support the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. According to a national Gallup poll conducted in May 2009, 69 percent of Americans, including 58 percent of Republicans, favor allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve in the military. Furthermore, a 2006 poll of 545 troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan by Zogby International and the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara revealed that 73 percent are personally comfortable with gay men and lesbian women. John Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Clinton administration, and more than 100 retired admirals and generals support this repeal, in addition to the Human Rights Campaign, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, and Knights Out, an organization of LGBT West Point alumni co-founded by First Lieutenant Choi.

That's an excerpt. The letter (in full) can be found at US House Rep Alcee L. Hasting's website and "was authored by Hastings and signed by Representatives Barney Frank (D-MA), John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Fortney "Pete" Stark (D-CA), Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Gary Ackerman (D-NY), Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Eliot Engel (D-NY), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), José Serrano (D-NY), James Moran (D-VA), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Ed Pastor (D-AZ), James Clyburn (D-SC), Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Bob Filner (D-CA), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Robert "Bobby" Scott (D-VA), Bennie Thompson (D-MS), Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), Melvin Watt (D-NC), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Jane Harman (D-CA), Lois Capps (D-CA), Donna M. Christensen (D-VI), Diana DeGette (D-CO), Bill Delahunt (D-MA), Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-MI), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Barbara Lee (D-CA), James McGovern (D-MA), Brad Sherman (D-CA), Robert Wexler (D-FL), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Shelley Berkley (D-NV), Michael Capuano (D-MA), Joseph Crowley (D-NY), Rush Holt (D-NJ), John Larson (D-CT), Grace Napolitano (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Anthony Weiner (D-NY), David Wu (D-OR), William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Mike Honda (D-CA), James Langevin (D-RI), Betty McCollum (D-MN), Diane Watson (D-CA), Tim Bishop (D-NY), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Linda Sánchez (D-CA), Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), Doris Matsui (D-CA), Gwen Moore (D-WI), Debbie Wasserman Schulz (D-FL), André Carson (D-IN), Kathy Castor (D-FL), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Donna F. Edwards (D-MD), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Marcia L. Fudge (D-OH), Phil Hare (D-IL), Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI), Laura Richardson (D-CA), Joe Sestak (D-PA), Niki Tsongas (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Alan Grayson (D-FL), Jared Polis (D-CO), Mike Quigley (D-IL), and Gregorio Sablan (D-MP)."

While there has been action in the US House of Representatives calling for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell this month, the only US Senator publicly raising the issue is Roland Burris. As his office notes:

Last week, Senator Burris met with Equality Illinois and a number of GLBT leaders in Chicago to discuss the current military policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Burris, a member of both the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs voiced his strong opposition to the current discriminatory policy. During a June 22nd press conference at Equality Illinois, Senator Burris vowed to work alongside Senator Ted Kennedy to bring an end to the military's ban on gay servicemen and women, and to make the United States Armed Services more inclusive and accepting of all the brave individuals who wear our nation's uniform.
"When we dismiss the sacrifices made by those with a different sexual orientation, we undermind the strength of our fighting forces. When we fail to recognize the brave contributions that gay and lesbian service members continue to make every single day, we diminish ourselves as much as we diminish their service," Senator Burris said. "We should end this offensive and discriminatory policy, so they can be the best soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines they can be, while living their lives openly and honestly."
This Sunday, Senator Burris will march alongside members of the GLBT community in Chicago's Pride Parade.

Charlotte Starck and KOMO-TV Staff (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) note that Burris, Illinois Govenor Pat Quinn and the state's Attorney General Lisa Madigan joined "the festivicites that have attracted hundreds of thousands in recent years" yesterday. Yesterday's events were part of the activism around the 40th anniversary of Stonewall and, for more on that, you can refer to Amy Goodman's "Stonewall Riots 40th Anniversary: A Look Back at the Uprising that Launched the Modern Gay Rights Movement," "Trans Day of Action: 'The Rebellion Is Not Over'" and "A Look at the Gay Rights Movement Beyond Marriage and the Military" (Democracy Now!).

Turning to England where Rupert Hamer (Daily Mirror) informs, "A secret report by Army bosses to be presented to the Iraq war inquiry blames Tony Blair and Gordon Brown for the botched occupation of the country. The dossier -- prepared for ex-military chief General Sir Mike Jackson -- criticize then Chancellor Mr Brown for withholding fuds to rebuild Basra for FIVE months after our troops went in. And the 100-page document attacks Mr Blair for 'uncritically' accepting flawed US plans for the March 2003 invasion, which led to tens of thousands of deaths, including those of 179 British troops." Daniel Martin (Daily Mail) adds, "In a memo to the Iraq war inquiry, they say Mr Brown's refusal as Chancellor to release vital funds for the Army played into the hands of insurgents. Its criticisms are the latest in a line of attacks from senior Army figures on Mr Brown, who was Chancellor when U.S. and British troops attacked Iraq in March 2003." Nicholas Watt (Mail & Guardian) reminds that last week was when a debate in the House of Commons forced Gordon Brown and his cabinet to back off of the inquiry being held completely in private and notes that the chance "that Blair and Brown will be cross-examined on their roles in the Iraq war during the build-up to the general election that is expected to take place next year." The debate also forced Brown and his cabinet to back off the claim that the inquiry would not apportion blame. Scottish National Party leader Angus Robertson states, "This leaked document would appear to be a damning critique of the two most senior members of the Labour government at the time -- Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. It also suggests that there may be great unease about Gordon Brown's decision to allow the inquiry to be held in secret when it wished. The whole point of this inquiry was to get to the truth about the Iraq war. People wanted an open and honest inquiry, not some establishment stich-up. This leak would appear to support the fact that by every measurement the Iraq war has been the biggest foreign policy disaster in modern times, and those responsible for it have never answered the most fundamental questions about why we were led into this mess." Meanwhile the Yorkshire Post reports, "Families of soldiers killed by roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan are suing the Ministry of Defence, claiming that the lightly-armoured Snatch Land Rovers in which they died should never have been used on the frontline. Over the past four years, dozens of our troops have been killed in this way."

Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division-Baghdad Soldier died June 28 as the result of combat related injuries. The Soldier's name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin. The names of the service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense Official Website at http://www.defenselink.mil/ . The announcements are made on the Website no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. MND-B will not release any additional details prior to notification of next of kin and official release by the DoD. The incident is currently under investigation." The announcement brings to 4317 the number of US service members killed since the start of the illegal war.

In other reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Mosul bombing today which claimed the lives of 2 police officers and a Mosul car bombing claimed the lives of 9 police officers and left eleven people injured. Reuters notes a Kirkuk roadside bombing left one person injured and, dropping back to Sunday, Ramadi roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 "member of the Sunni Iraqi Islamic Party and wounded his son".

Shootings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 police officer was shot dead in Diyala Province.

Corpses?
Reuters notes 4 corpses were discovered in Mosul today.


Turning to the issue of the June 30th 'pull-out' and starting with this from Alice Fordham (Times of London), "The June 30 deadline was made in a status of forces agreement between the US and Iraq at the start of the year. A national holiday has been declared for that day, although a curfew may be imposed." That's noted in Thursday's snapshot and we're noting it again because on Friday an outlet (NYT) reported on the holiday for the first time and has since gotten credit (unearned) for being the outlet to break that news. Alice Fordahm had already reported it. Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) quotes wary Iraqi Jbory stating, "I will celebrate when I see my country living in peace. I will celebrate when there is electricity and clean water, when people go to the park and feel safe. I'll celebrate when kids on the street look clean and are wearing new clothes. I will celebrate when people can earn a living." Hala Jaber, Ali Rifat Amman and Tony Allen-Mills (Times of London) quoted Sheiak Harith al-Dhari stating, "The resistance will not subside. I expect the insurgency to increase in both strength and ferocity, at least until the total withdrawal of the occupiers. Logic dictates that as long as there is fire under the pot, then the pot will continue to boil." Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reported, "The guys with the guns and bombs and best-laid plans may think the U.S. withdrawal of combat troops from major Iraqi cities will work. But some ordinary Iraqis habor another idea." Meanwhile Thomas E. Ricks debates himself. First he argues, "Will the Iraqi be able to keep the population relatively secure? To be honest, I don't know, and no one else does." Less than 20 minutes later he offers, "Iraq is probably going to be violent for many years to come, and likely will be a closer ally of Iran than of the United States". While I would personally guess that his second argument is the likely outcome for the foreseeable future, I can say 100%, I don't know. What is known? Mike Tharp (McClatchy Newspapers) offers some reality on the pull-out: "But the Status of Forces Agreement setting the June 30 deadline leaves a lot of discretionary decisions to the Americans. Lieut. Col. Drake Johnson, 39, a liaison officer with the Iraqi police, could have termed the patrol a 'force protection' mission, not a 'combined patrol.' In that case, only Americans would've been walking the route. That's one reason on Tuesday, when Iraqis wake up, they will still see U.S. soldiers and Marines on patrol and in convoys. That's why some Iraqis -- like the one who yelled at the patrol, 'Hey, it's too bad you guys will be leaving soon!' -- may be disappointed with the profile, the footprint, that the Americans will still display in Iraq." Alice Fordham (Times of London) describes the current scene in Baghdad: "Lurid artificial flowers and tinsel decorated the police cars and balloons and streamers adorned the concrete security checkpoints of South Baghdad". Derrick Henry (New York Times) reports that Iraqi MP ("and a former national security adviser") Qassim Daoud is calling for the Status Of Forces Agreement to "be extended to 2020 or 2025."

On the 'pull-out' of US forces from some cities, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) explained this morning, "In most cases, they'll be shifted to areas encircling the places they leave. American forces will also remain in the town of Mosul for an indefinite time." And they will remain in Baghdad where their bases sprawl in and out of the city. On the encircling, we'll fall back to Friday's snapshot:As for the pull-out from Iraqi cities, Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) reveals, that instead of being in the cities, US forces will "encircle them," "put in place in the belts around those cities and in areas that are potential flashpoints of Kurdish-Arab tension. . . . The plan keeps US advisers within the cities, and in Mosul redeploys battalions that had been within the city to the surrounding areas." Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) reports that while "[t]housands of U.S. combat troops will remain at a handful of bases in Baghdad and on the outskirts of other restive cities, such as Mosul and Kirkuk, in nothern Iraq, past the June 30 deadline" and that this has US military officials worried that US service members as well as Iraqis will be put at risk in the new holding pattern Barack's created. Stop the holding pattern, just bring the troops home.



The illegal war hasn't ended. Elizabeth Baier (Minnesota Public Radio) reports, "More than 550 troops from the Minnesota Army National Guard will head to Iraq next month, where they will serve a one-year deployment as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom." Bob Von Sternberg (Minneapolis Star-Tribune) adds, "They are scheduled to return to Minnesota next April." Lindsay Wise (Houston Chronicle) reports on the Texas Army National Guard's 72 Brigade will be shipping to Iraq for a nine month tour of duty.

Turning to Iraqi oil, Tamsin Carlisle (The National) observes of the "live auction of oil contracts," "What is certain is that billions of dollar will be put on the table to develop some of the country's biggest oilfields. But little else is assured." Including the when as there has been a one day postponement. The postponing, Robert Tuttle and Anthony DiPaola (Bloomberg News) explain, is due to a sandstorm.


iraq
connect the dots with lila garrettlila garrettkpfk
the los angeles timesruben vives
michael rileythe new york timestimothy williamstareq maher the denver postbbc newsnigel morris
doug ireland
chris johnsonthe washington bladekilian melloy
the los angeles timesliz sly
jim muir
abc newsmazin faiq
mohammed tawfeeqcnn
democracy nowamy goodman
rupert hamerdaniel martinnicholas watt
mcclatchy newspaperssahar issa
laith hammoudi
mike tharp
alice fordhamthe times of london
hala jaberali rifattony allen-mills
thomas e. ricks
tamsin carlislerobert tuttleanthony dipaola
the washington posternesto londonothe new york timesderrick henry
the christian science monitorjane arraf

appreciation

c.i.'s 'i hate the war' went up last night and i want to blog some about that.

c.i. hates obits and that's reading them.

when we were in college and all living together (c.i., elaine and me), if i wasn't madly hung over, i'd grab the obits. that's what i'd look at at the paper. we got 4 papers. c.i. would be going through the international and d.c. sections. elaine would be going through international and any science or medical. i'd be reading through the obits.

and i was 1 of those people that would say, 'hey, did you know --' and start talking about what i was reading. i'm sure it was annoying.

but c.i. hates obits. hates them.

and noted, after the 1 on ellen willis in 2005, that there was absolutely no interest on c.i.'s part in writing them. there were 10 people c.i. would write an obit on if they died while the common ills was up and running.

farrah was 1 of them.

but c.i. really didn't want to write that obit.

and it was weird because c.i. had told me the 10 who would get an obit back in 2005 and, back then, farrah didn't have cancer.

i honestly think c.i. would have avoided the issue if people (reporters) had given farrah her do in their write ups. but they didn't.

and if c.i. was ticked off, c.i. was going to write.

and farrah pointed that out in 2005. when c.i. had her own cancer scare. c.i. was doing therapy and just wiped out and saying 'i just can't do it' meaning the website. and farrah said (paraphrase) 'who's going to call them out then?' and made the point that all it would take is the press lying again for c.i. to kick herself for stopping the site.

and c.i. agreed she was right.

i knew farrah through c.i., by the way. i wasn't friends with her. when i was around her, she was always very sweet and very nice but the only other thing that stands out for me is her perfume. she wore a sporty kind of zest in the 70s and then she moved over to a more musky fragrance in the 80s and then a combination of that and a floral smell. she always smelled very nice. she didn't overwhelm you with the smell. but she did layer it and she obviously cared about how she smelled.

and she smelled good.

but i know c.i. didn't want to write that and when i read it, i was reminded of when i went out to california in 2005 to be with c.i. for the treatments and how farrah said that all it would take is the press getting it wrong for c.i. to want to write something for the common ills.

farrah was right and if the media had gotten it right, c.i. probably wouldn't have written a word.

but farrah was an artist and the coverage was reducing her to a male enhancement drug or an excuse to be bitchy.

farrah didn't deserve that. she was very talented.

i remember being in the foyer of candy and aaron's spelling's home in the 80s and smoking a cigarette and farrah coming by and our both noting a disgusting man who was a threat to women. and i thought about that in the coverage because a lot of disgusting men were getting back at farrah for the fact that they were disgusting.

a 52-y.o. man was quoted in 1 story i saw, where a reporter went to a bar to get reactions on farrah's death, saying 'she looked good until a few years ago, i still would have done her.' lucky farrah!

how did that garbage get into print?

that's just disgusting.

so i'm really glad c.i. wrote about farrah's art and i'm especially glad c.i. wrote about butterflies are free. we went to florida to see farrah in that and she was amazing. and no 1, no 1, else has written about that play or what it mean to farrah.

c.i. is our online avenging angel.

amy goodman had a show you could really enjoy today. if you missed it, here are the links to the segments:

Stonewall Riots 40th Anniversary: A Look Back at the Uprising that Launched the Modern Gay Rights Movement
Trans Day of Action: “The Rebellion Is Not Over”
A Look at the Gay Rights Movement Beyond Marriage and the Military


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

Friday, June 26, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Iraqi oil garners attention, the pull-out becomes a ring around the roses, the Defense Department announces a death, Barack talks Iraq (briefly), and more.

Violence continues this morning in Iraq. Alissa J. Rubin and Campbell Robertson (New York Times) explain a Baghdad motorcycle suicide bombing which has claimed multiple lives. Nizar Latif (The National) reports the bomb was "packed with nails and ball-bearings, designed to make the blast even more deadly". CNN counts the dead to be 15 with another forty-six injured. Abdul Rahman Dhaher, Missy Ryan, Michael Christie, Tim Cocks, Sophie Hares and Bill Trott (Reuters) add, "Shredded shoes and bits of bloody clothing were scattered around the twisted frames of motorbikes. The blast site was swiftly sealed off by Iraqi soldiers and police."
The motorcyle bombing was the second in Baghdad this week. The first was Wednesday's which resulted in at least 78 deaths. That wasn't a suicide bombing, however, the bomber was said to have fled the motorcyle (used to pull explosives hidden beneath produce) before it exploded. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports the third took place Friday night in Baghdad and resulted in the death of 1 man and left three more injured. In other violence . . .
Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Mosul roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier and wounded two more. Reuters notes Thursday included a Mosul car bombing which claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldiers, a Baghdad overnight mortar attack which left four people injured and a Baghdad roaside bombing which injured two people.

Shootings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Iraqi security forces in Mosul shot dead a suspected bomber. Reuters drops back to the Thursday to note: "Gunmen wearing military uniforms attacked a convoy carrying a senior criminal judge in Mosul on Thursday, wounding one of his bodyguards, police said. The judge was not hurt."

Today the Defense Department announced a death (one MNF never reported): "Spc Casey L. Hills, 23 of Salem, Illinois died June 24 in Iraq of injuries sustained during a vehicle roll-over. He was assiagned to the 100th Battalion, 442nd Infantry Regiment, Pago Pago, American Samoa. The circumstnaces surrounding the incident are under investigation." The announcement brought the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4315.

Turning to the US, yesterday's Free Speech Radio News featured a report on the latest Winter Soldier by Iraq Veterans Against the War. Click here for the segment.Manuel Rueda: At home Iraq Veterans Against the War, a grassroots organization of vets opposed to US wars, continues to organize Winter Soldier hearings across the country. It´s a venue where veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan can tell stories from their war days, in a venue where veterans can tell stories from their war days in an environment that's safe and supportive. Leo Paz reports from Los Angeles. Leo Paz: Ryan Endicott is a former Marine Corporal who did multiple tours in Iraq and returned to the US in 2006. He talked about what it's like for US marines to enforce martial law in a foreign country. Ryan Endicott: Young boys 18 to 22 are having martial law over a group of people. It's complete oppression and it actually borders on the line of terrorism. I mean you strap dead bodies to your Humvee and drive around a city with it, that's terrorism. That's scaring a group of people into your beliefs -- into your belief system and structure and that's exactly what we're doing, we're terrorizing them.Leo Paz: Corporal Endicott who was in Ar Ramadi Iraq says these were not isolated incidents but daily occurrences. Ryan Endicott: Every single day, every time you kick in a door and drag a man out of his bed in the middle of the night, that's terrorism. That's not -- we're not saving people that's not liberation. You don't liberate people by -- by kicking in their doors in and arresting people by mass numbers by shooting them that's not liberation, that's occupation. Leo Paz: Some of the soldiers recalled the harsh treatment of Iraqi civilians stopped at the numerous checkpoints installed by the US throughout the country. Former Marine Corporal Christopher Gallagher compared the checkpoints in Haditha and Falluja to herding cattle. Christopher Gallagher: If any Iraqis voiced their opinion for the way they were being treated the Iraqi police -- we had a checkpoint -- would handle the situation by harassing and assaulting them. Leo Paz: According to Gallagher when the US military went door to door in the middle of the night, raiding homes to eliminate any resistance to the occupation, Iraqis held massive protests. Gallagher described the typical US response to this protest. Christopher Gallagher: In 2004 the Iraqis would hold protests in the town of Haditha against the occupation typical response for this was to have fighter jets fly over the crowd and scare them away. Leo Paz: Corporal Endicott questioned the sanitized version of war portrayed in mainstream American media. Ryan Endicott: What should be on the media is the thousands of doors that are kicked in every day and the thousands of people that are terrorized by the US soldiers that are pumped up on adrenaline and just looking to kill people. I mean there's plenty of people that joined the military just to kill people. Leo Paz: Endicott is one of many vets who denounced the indiscriminate shooting of civilians by US military. Devon Read a former Marine infantry Sgt who took part in the invasion of Iraq in 2003 saw comrades anxious to fire at whatever came in their path. He told people at winter soldier about driving through Nazaria, speeding on the way to Baghdad, on the back of a Humvee and Marines in his unit shooting randomly at people in houses. Devon Read: You know, none of the grunts that wanted to shoot people really cared about that. If it was an opportunity to shoot someone, they'd be shooting. So there's two of us on my side of the vehicle and three guys on the other side of the vehicle and we're facing outboard and suddenly the guys on the other side of the vehicle start shooting and I'm curious what the heck they're shooting at but I can't really look because I'm paying attention to my side and the other guy that's with me decides to switch sides, switches over to the other side and starts shooting also. And I finally take a moment to look and I'm looking and they're all just shooting wildly. Leo Paz: Sgt. Reed was appalled by the random gunfire and wondered how many civilians had been shot by US troops that day. Devon Read: There's, you know, people in windows way off in the distance, who really knows? Plenty of civilians with their -- poking their heads out of the window but its just someone to shoot at and there's shooting going on so no one's going to ask any questions if they start pulling the trigger too. So everyone starts shooting randomly and I talk to everyone after and none of them had any idea what they were shooting at or why. Leo Paz: Many Vietnam war vets showed up to support the IVAW and the Iraq veterans in denouncing war and violence. Ed Garza an army gunner with the 173rd airborne Brigade still has nightmares forty years after the war. Ed Garza: I remember the dead bodies and I remember seeing them and I remember we used to kill the Vietnamese and we'd put our patch on them To remind the other Vietnamese in the area that uh that we were there, the 173rd airborne. So those are some of the things I remember. Leo Paz: According to a study conducted by Iraqi doctors, and published in a British medical journal, Iraqi dead are in the hundreds of thousands since the US invasion in 2003, Afghan civilians are estimated at more than 10,000 dead. Now into the 8th year of the war, more than 5,000 soldiers have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan according to the US military. Leo Paz, FSRN.

Staying with resistance to illegal wars, Australia's The Guardian (The Worker's Weekly) carries an interview by Elsa Rassbach with war resister Andre Shepherd who is appealing for asylum in Germany after having served one tour of Iraq already.

Elsa Rassbach: Since the "war on terror" began, there have been many US soldiers who have spoken out and many who have refused to serve. But you are the first so far to apply for asylum in Germany. What are the grounds on which your application is based?

Andre Shepherd: Well, it's very simple: In the war of aggression against the Iraqi people, the United States violated not only domestic law, but international law as well. The US government has deceived not only the American public, but also the international community, the Iraqi community, as well as the military community. And the atrocities that have been committed there these past six years are great breaches of the Geneva Conventions. My applying for asylum is based on the grounds that international law has been broken and that I do not want to be forced to fight in an illegal war.

Elsa Rassbach: In your asylum application, you mention the Principles of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which were incorporated in the UN Charter. In Nuremberg, the chief US prosecutor, Robert H Jackson, stated: "To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." In opening the trial on behalf of the United States, he stated that "while this law is first applied against German aggressors, this law includes and if it is to serve a useful purpose it must condemn aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in judgment." What does Nuremberg mean to you?

Andre Shepherd: The Nuremberg statutes are the foundation of many US soldiers' refusal of the Iraq war and to some extent of the Afghanistan war. The United States with its allies after World War II crafted these laws stating that even though you've gotten orders to commit crimes against humanity, you don't have to follow them, because every person has their own conscience. That was more than 60 years ago. Today the US government seems to be under the impression that those rules do not apply to it. In invading Iraq, they did not wait for a UN mandate, they didn't let the inspectors do their job, and they made up stories about who's a real threat. This is totally violated everything stated in the Nuremberg statutes. The US Constitution states that the US is bound to our international treaties, for example with the UN. When we ignore the UN, we are violating the US Constitution, which every US soldier is sworn to uphold. And the US must also respect our own very strict laws against war crimes and torture. Since the Obama administration refuses to investigate and prosecute the previous administration, it's clear to me that the Obama administration is an accomplice to the previous administration's crimes. They're setting a very dangerous precedent for the future of the world, something I don't want to see. The German people are well aware of the history; it is here that the Nuremberg tenets were first set down. Now we have to find a way to restore those tenets, to actually respect the Nuremberg tenets as well as the Geneva Conventions. Germany needs to tell the US, "Look, you guys helped create these laws, and now you guys should abide by your own rules."

On Iraq, the second hour of NPR's The Diane Rehm Show featured Michael Hersh of Newsweek, Elise Labot of CNN and Warren Strobel of McClatchy Newspapers and Iraq was addressed early on.


Diane Rehm: Michael Hirsh, there have been bomb attacks all across the country in Iraq this week. What's going on?

Michael Hirsh: Well you have what remains of the insurgency trying to forment sectarian violence and war to get them back to -- very close to the civil war in Iraq they were at in 2006 as the US prepares for this dramatic withdrawal from Iraqi cities which is really effectively the end of George W. Bush's surge. The surge was all about putting American troops on the front-line in the cities. It worked along with other aspects of change policy. So this is a -- this is a very, very critical moment, perhaps the most critical moment since the beginning of the insurgency in Iraq War.

Diane Rehm: But why this week is it an attempt to get the US to change it's mind? is it a protest, what is it, Warren?

Warren Strobel: I think it's an attempt to portray the US withdrawal as a retreat by the insurgents. We saw similar stuff happen in Gaza a few years ago when the Israelis withdrew and Hamas was trying to do this, so that's -- that's part of it. I totally agree with Michael. I think this at least the most critical moment in Iraq since the surge began -- if not since the insurgency began. I mean this is a really, really critical point and uh it's -- we're going to see whether the Iraqi security forces all the money and training we've thrown into them can handle this.

Diane Rehm: That's a huge question, Elise.

Elise Labott: And it's not just the American troops that are leaving. They're taking with them this whole infrastructure of support and logistics and intelligence that the Iraqis have come to rely on. I mean you have intelligence satellites, cameras, bomb-sniffing dogs, medical evacuations. All of these things that the Iraqis have kind of come to rely on that they're not going to have anymore. And I think on Warren and Michael's point, it's not just about trying to portray it as a retreat, I think it's also trying to show, um, that the Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki is not suit -- able to handle this. And I think what we need to see right now is whether you're going to start to see the development of militias that we saw in 2005 when there was a lack of confidence in the government to be able to protect the people.

Michael Hirsh: There will continue to be a quiet presence of the US special forces and intelligence

Diane Rehm: Yes --

Michael Hirsh: In addition --

Diane Rehm: -- in what numbers?

Michael Hirsh: We don't know. As well as uh obviously surveillance from the skies And let's not forget either that uh, you know, Maliki has an air force, the US air force which is actually both his artillery and his air force and proved to be very effective when he first began cracking down on the militias as he did in Basra. So it's not a total withdrawal nor will it be, I believe, even when we supposedly fully pull out at the end of 2011. But it is a real, real test for Maliki's leadership and, as Warren said, the training of the Iraqi forces.

Diane Rehm: So what is the mood of the Iraqi people as the US prepares to withdraw, Elise?

Elise Labott: Well I think they're kind of ambivalent about it. On one hand they're ready to see the Americans go. I mean this is the last true symbolism of their sovereignty but at the same time, the reports that we hear from Iraq is that a lot of Iraqis aren't really looking for the United States to leave, they're worried as to whether the government can handle this and I think it is, it's going to be looking to the government to pick up the slack. They're not sure if Nouri al-Maliki is able to do it.

Warren Strobel: Well I think they wanted us to leave [laughing] until we actually started to leave. And now some at least Some people are having second thoughts.

Elise Labott: You don't know what you've got till it's gone.

Warren Strobel: Exactly. And there was this guy quoted in the paper from Sadr City, a huge Shi'ite neighborhood in Baghdad, expressing great concern about the pull-out of a specific, I guess it was a US security station maybe it was a joint-security station there, about what would happen next. I mean I agree with Michael that we're still going to have a lot of US assets there but the American ability to influence the situation has been steadily declining and it's going to decline a lot more in the coming months.

Elise Labott: I think you also started to see the US and the Iraqis working to implement of the US withdrawing from the cities but maybe trying to fudge the lines of what the city constitutes so that some forces could stay but at the same time technically they're outside of the cities. And the US acknowledges that it's very difficult because it's time for the Iraqis to stand up on their own. The longer the Americans are there, the Iraqis are going to become dependent on them they need to be seen as leaving for the Iraqis to step up.

Diane Rehm: What about rebuilding those cities? To what extent might that begin to take place? And do the Iraqis themselves have to go about doing that? Where do they get money, Michael?

Michael Hirsh: Well I mean obviously the oil, their oil industry is back on line to some degree. Accompanying this development of US withdrawal you finally have serious interest by US oil companies and wri-- agree to contracts that they have been unwilling to do up until now because of the violence. So they'll be getting additional revenues from that but this is -- this is also a very good test for Maliki. One is security, the other is rebuilding. You still have long periods of blackouts in Baghdad. You know, six years or more into this, you have very, very poor infrastructure and a lot of unhappiness among the Iraqis.

Diane Rehm: Michael Hersh of Newsweek, Elise Labot of CNN, Warren Strobel of McClatchy.


As for the pull-out from Iraqi cities, Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) reveals, that instead of being in the cities, US forces will "encircle them," "put in place in the belts around those cities and in areas that are potential flashpoints of Kurdish-Arab tension. . . . The plan keeps US advisers within the cities, and in Mosul redeploys battalions that had been within the city to the surrounding areas." Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) reports that while "[t]housands of U.S. combat troops will remain at a handful of bases in Baghdad and on the outskirts of other restive cities, such as Mosul and Kirkuk, in nothern Iraq, past the June 30 deadline" and that this has US military officials worried that US service members as well as Iraqis will be put at risk in the new holding pattern Barack's created. Stop the holding pattern, just bring the troops home.


At the White House today, President Barack Obama met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and he spoke about Iraq when NPR's Don Gonyea asked about Iraq's "upsurge in violence; a lot of bombings, a lot of deaths, does that give you any second thoughts on the coming deadline to pull the combat troops from the cities?"


Barack Obama: On Iraq, obviously any time there's a bombing in Iraq we are concerned. Any time there's loss of innocent life or the loss of military personnel, we grieve for their families and it makes us pay attention. I will tell you if you look at the overall trend, despite some of these high-profile bombings, Iraq's security situation has continued to dramatically improve. And when I speak to General [Ray] Odierno and Chris Hill, our ambassador in Iraq, they continue to be overall very positive about the trend lines in Iraq. I think there's still some work to do. I think the Maliki government is not only going to have to continue to strengthen its security forces, but it's also going to have to engage in the kind of political give and take leading up the national elections that we've been talking about for quite some time. And I haven't seen as much political progress in Iraq, negotiations between the Sunni, the Shia, and the Kurds, as I would like to see.
So there are always going to be -- let me not say "always" -- there will continue to be incidents of violence inside of Iraq for some time. They are at a much, much lower level than they were in the past. I think the biggest challenge right now is going to be less those attacks by remnants of al Qaeda in Iraq or other insurgent groups, and the bigger challenge is going to be, can the Shia, the Sunni, and the Kurds resolve some of these major political issues having to do with federalism, having to do with boundaries, having to do with how oil revenues are shared. If those issues get resolved, then I think you will see a further normalization of the security atmosphere inside of Iraq.

Later at the White House, spokesmodel Robert Gibbs was asked to clarify Barack's statement ("express some of the things the president is hoping for and what is he intending to do about that?") and he responded, "Well -- I mean -- Obviously, he's met continually with Ambassador Hill. Obviously, the stops -- or the meetings -- that we made during the stop in Baghdad on the -- I guess that was in late March, early April -- Obviously, without getting specific, there continues to be progress in terms of political reconciliation in terms of oil and hydrocarbons that, as move throughout a year -- a very important year -- of elections in Iraq, again, proving that it will take the steps necessary to govern its country." Interesting and telling that Gibbs would go straight to the theft-of-Iraqi-oil law.

Staying with oil, when you're caught serving up US government propaganda at the start of the week, you'd think you'd keep your head low for the rest of the week. Not only do your talking points end up on the US government propaganda outlet Voice of America (and all its spin-offs with "Radio Free . . ." in the title), but you're rah-rah Nouri talking point is slapped down by Anthony Shadid (Washington Post) and public events slap down your 'Western companies aren't going to do oil business in Iraq!'. But apparently you woke up yesterday begging for a beating which is why Timothy Williams offers up "Warily Moving Ahead on Oil Contracts" in this morning's New York Times. In the real world, AP offers a list of the Big Oil countries rushing in to bid on Iraqi oil and we'll note their first eight countries on the list:UNITED STATES: Chevron, ConocoPhilips, Exxon Mobil, Hess Corp., Marathon International Petroleum Ltd., and Occidental Petroleum Corp. United Kingdom: BP Group PLC. Japan: Inpex Holdings Inc., Japex and Nippon Oil Corp. Australia: BHP Billiton Ltd. and Woodside Petroleum Ltd. China: China's CNOOC Ltd., CNPC International Ltd., Sinochem International Co. Ltd., and Sinopec Shanghai Petrochemical co. Ltd. Italy: Edison International SPA and Eni. Russia: JSC Lukoil and JSC Gazprom Neft. France: Total SA. Anthony DiPaola (Bloomberg News) explains that Exxon and Shell are foaming at the bit and they are only 8 "of the world's top 10 non-state oil producers" who are rushing to cash in on Iraq oil. Sinan Salaheddin's "Big Oil poised for return to Iraq" (AP) explains the basics. While Timothy Williams played the violins for Big Oil on Monday and begged for a greater theft of Iraqi oil, Ahmed M. Jiyad (UPI) details what the contracts actually allow and concludes, "Considering the above and their possible implications it seems these model related to the first bidding round do not and could not deliver the best interest for the Iraqi people, and probably this explains the growing opposition to them." Reuters explains, "Here are some facts about Iraq's oil industry" in this report which points out: "Iraq's oil has been coveted by foreign powers for decades." Also of interest, Christopher Helman's "Cashing In On Iraqi Oil" (Forbes). Earlier this month, IVAW's Aaron Hughes reported on his trip to Erbil for the International Labor Conference in Iraq at US Labor Against War at which a resolution was passed "against the draft oil and gas law" :The conference was set up to bring together the major labor constituencies from across Iraq to form a confederation based on worker rights. At the end of our second day, the eve of the conference, workers from fifteen of Iraq's eighteen provinces began to arrive. There were representatives from Iraq's oil and gas industry, its port union, the electrical generation and distribution industry, construction, public sector, transportation, communications, education, rail roads, service and health care industries, machinists and metal working sector, the petro-chemical industry, civil engineers, writers and journalists, food oil workers, tailors and students.The historical nature of the conference was clear. This opportunity for the international community and the workers across Iraq to show solidarity was long overdue. After the United States invaded Iraq and set up the provisional government, a new constitution was drafted that included worker rights. However, at the same time, Paul Bremer, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, retained Saddam Hussein's labor laws.
[. . .]
Leading by exmaple is the Iraq Federation of Oil Unions (IFOU) lead by its president Hassan Juma'a Awad, which exploded in size over the past four years to over 25,000 members. It is the strongest and most powerful union in Iraq and is also extremely militant in regards to workers rights. For example, the union has protested, gone on strike, and used direct non-violent tactics to force the British occupation forces to stand down and furthermore drove the US contractor KBR from the oil fields near Basra.

In their 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices (from February 25, 2009), the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor notes:"The constitution provides the right to form and join unions and professional associations, subject to regulating law. Labor Law 150 of 1987, enacted by the Saddam government, ...declared virtually all public sector workers to be government 'executives,' and therefore legally ineligible to form or to join unions, a move that, in effect, eliminated unions and the right of association from the public sector. In the private sector, the extant 1987 Trade Union Organization Law ...was also intended, in practice, to remove the right of association from a majority of private sector workers, because most private sector businesses employ fewer than 50 workers. Decree 8750 of 2005, which cancelled unions' leadership boards, froze their assets, and formed an inter-ministerial committee to administer unions' assets and assess their capacity to resume activity, also inhibited union activity. The laws and decree do not prohibit anti-union discrimination by employers or others. In addition to this oppressive legal and regulatory framework, violence and insecurity, high unemployment, and maladapted labor organizational structures inhibited the exercise of labor rights."Throughout the conference, in moments here and there, over sips of tea, in the hallway between talks, over a meal of lamb and rice, or in the marble floored lobby I had the opportunity to speak with the different labor leaders. Their stories were hopeful and humble. They were filled with courageous acts of resistance against the many odds stacked against them. Their government does not legally recognize unions and organizing in the public sector (seventy percent of the economy) is illegal. Union assets are frozen and confiscated. The US military has raided union leaders' homes and occupied factories and plants. The local militias target union leaders and female workers. Despite these odds, the unions are organizing, growing and winning.

Last week, Andy Rowell (Oil Change) noted the Independent's report on the "public fury" in Iraq as "the country is handing over control of its fields to foreign companies." And you can also refer to an article by Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal). Rowell also notes a cartoon by Peter Brookes (Times of London) about the Iraq inquiry in England and concludes, "Whether the inquiry is in secret or public, one thing is certain an inquiry is unlikely to tell us whether Iraq was ever about oil." The Great Britain's Socialist Worker observes, "The row over the transparency, or otherwise, of the inquiry into the war on Iraq has exposed the continuing influence of Tony Blair on the Labour Party -- and the weakness of Gordon Brown. Blair put pressure on Brown to ensure that the inquiry into the war would be held in private." They conclude that testimony and evidence should be submitted by peace activists and they should "hold protests at MPs' surgeries to demand that the warmongers are brought to justice."

Not interested in the oil and despite foreign forces and foreign media leaving the country, Sister Maria Hanna has no intention of leaving. She explains to Carmen Blanco (Catholic Spirit), "I am committed to staying in Iraq for those who remain: the poor, the vulnerable, the widows and their chilren." Blanco adds, "Sister Hanna, a member of the Dominican Sisters of St. Catherine of Siena in Mosul, Iraq, visited Washington in June to talk about her work and to give Catholic agencies and organizations an update on current conditions in the country. She has set goals to build schools and hospitals for those remaining in Iraq and to give hope to all Iraqis."

TV notes. Coming up on NOW on PBS:American streets are littered with foreclosed houses, but one daring advocate says these homes shouldn't go to waste. He encourages and facilitates homeless squatting. It's an idea that addresses two issues at once - homelessness and foreclosed homes -- and it's also illegal.This week, NOW travels to Miami to meet with Max Rameau, an advocate for the homeless. Rameau's organization, Take Back the Land, identifies empty homes that are still livable, and tries to find responsible families willing to take the enormous legal risks of moving in.Rameau, who considers his mission an act of civil disobedience, says it's immoral to keep homes vacant while there are human beings living on the street. But while these squatters have morality in their hearts, they don't have the law on their side.With the faltering economy separating so many people from their homes, what's society's responsibility to those short on shelter?That and other PBS programming noted begin airing on many PBS stations tonight, check local listings. Only on PBS can you get crap like Gwen gas bagging with three men and one woman in 2009 and have that junk be considered 'appropriate' and 'diverse'. On Washington Week, Gloria Borger (US News & World Reports, CNN) is the lone woman. Pete Williams (NBC), David Sanger (NYT) and John Dickerson (Slate, CBS News) are the men. To actually see women address the week's issues, join Bonnie Erbe who sits down with Sam Bennett, Victoria Lipnic, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Tara Setmayer and Genevieve Wood on PBS' To The Contrary. Check local listings. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers:
The Cheaters 60 Mintes and The Washington Post reveal how online poker players suspecting cheating were forced to successfully ferret out the cheaters themselves. That's because managers of the mostly-unregulated $18 billion Internet gambling industry failed to respond to their complaints. Steve Kroft and The Washington Post's Gilbert Gaul report. Watch Video
Mind Reading Neuroscience has learned so much about how we think and the brain activity linked to certain thoughts that it is now possible - on a very basic scale - to read a person's mind. Lesley Stahl reports. Watch Video
Gorongosa American Greg Carr is using his great wealth to try to help some of the poorest people in Africa by attracting more tourists to their neighborhood - the beautiful national park of Gorongosa in Mozambique. Scott Pelley reports. Watch Video
60 Minutes, Sunday, June 28, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

On this week's White House plant in the press conference, please check out this video from Newsy. The Hurt Locker opens in Los Angeles and New York today and opens July 10th in San Francisco, Dallas, Chicago, Atlanta, Austin, Oahu, Portland, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, San Diego, Minneapolis, Denver, Toronto and DC. Kenneth Turan gives it a rave review in "The Hurt Locker" (Los Angeles Times):

"The Hurt Locker" has the killer impact of the explosive devices that are the heart of its plot: It simply blows you apart and doesn't bother putting you back together again. Overwhelmingly tense, overflowing with crackling verisimilitude, it's both the film about the war in Iraq that we've been waiting for and the kind of unqualified triumph that's been long expected from director Kathryn Bigelow.



iraq
free speech radio newsleo paziraq veterans against the wardevon readchristopher gallagherryan endicott
the washington postanthony shadid
jane arraf
ernesto londono
us labor against the war
aaron hughes
gina chonthe wall street journal
ahmed m. jiyadanthony dipaolacarmen blanco
60 minutescbs newsto the contrarybonnie erbenow on pbsnprthe diane rehm showpbs
the los angeles timeskenneth turankathryn bigelow

the laughs keep coming with gordo!

Few politicians would challenge the contention that Gordon Brown’s decision to bring back Peter Mandelson was a masterstroke that has helped to sustain him in office.
On the night that James Purnell’s shock resignation put Mr Brown’s premiership in great peril, it was Lord Mandelson who rang the other Blairites, including David Miliband, to make sure that they would not follow suit. And it was the Business Secretary who steadied the ship in the days that followed.
It is known that he talked to former ministers such as Hazel Blears to dissuade them from rocking the boat further.
Tony Blair always said that the new Labour project would be completed when the Labour Party had learnt to love Mr Mandelson.

that's from philip webster's 'Gordon Brown praises Lord Mandelson, the man who saved his skin' (the times of london). i didn't realize gordo would be in the news cycle but, hey, when you got a good joke, you repeat it and that's what the news does. lord mandelson, for those who don't know, is the 1 who ran to gordo and told him tony blair would not NOT NOT be testifying in public. tim shipman (the daily mail) notes that in his article:


Lord Mandelson stitched up a deal with Gordon Brown for a tame Iraq inquiry to protect Tony Blair, it is claimed today.
The Business Secretary persuaded the Premier to pick a panel of establishment figures who would probe the conflict in secret – in exchange for his support heading off a Cabinet coup against Mr Brown.
But with the original plans blown out of the water following a public outcry, the Government yesterday engineered yet another U-turn.

gordo has no power and is not in control. he's just doing what he's told and has to because mandelson may have saved gordo's position but he's wounded and bleeding and all the sharks circling can smell the blood.

if you use the link for tim shipman's article, note the photo of mandelson and tony blair together and what a striking woman tony blair makes. (i really did think that was a woman at 1st.)

the iraq inquiry has to be as public as possible and anika bourley (the telegraph and argus) reports on 1 mp who agrees:

A Bradford MP who opposed the Iraq war is heading up a Commons campaign to ensure full details of the inquiry are made public.
Marsha Singh has tabled a Commons petition which said the Government must ensure transparency, allowing full details to be heard in the open unless they impact on national security.

i really am appalled that there hasn't been real coverage of this in the u.s. the rest of the world has been following the developments but in the u.s. we are oblivious and, thing is, we can't pretend like it's a language barrier because we speak the same language. then again, maybe we can call it a language barrier? in england, they speak proper english.

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

Thursday, June 25, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military brass continues its attempts to censor a Stars and Stripes reporter, Congress holds a hearing to see if the VA is ready to issue payments under the new GI Bill, and more.


Starting in the US where Barack Obama likes a scripted press conference. As noted yesterday, Dana Milbank (Washington Post) broke the story on Arianna-toy Nico Pitney being a plant in Barack's press conference. As Cedric and Wally noted in their joint-post yesterday, CBS News' Peter Maer raised the issue to portly Robert Gibbs in yesterday's White House press briefing.

PETER MAER: All right. I've got a procedural question about yesterday's news conference. What led to your decision to plant a designated hitter right here to ask the President a question? And what kind of a message do you think that sends to the American people and to the world about the kind of free-flow and pure questioning that's been expected at presidential news conferences? MR. GIBBS: Well, I think it did nothing more than underscore that free-flow. Peter, that was a question from an Iranian in Iran, using the same type of manner and method to get that information as, I guess, many of you and virtually every one of your outlets has done, because in this country we enjoy the freedom of the press.In Iran, as many of you know, your colleagues have been dismissed. They've been kicked out. Some of them have been rounded up. There aren't journalists that can speak for the Iranian people. What the President did was take a question from an Iranian. That's, I think, the very powerful message that that sent just yesterday. PETER MAER: Couldn't he have accomplished that without you guys escorting someone through here and planting him the room? MR. GIBBS: Did you get a question yesterday from an Iranian that you had hoped to asked the President? PETER MAER: No, I did not. MR. GIBBS: Well, then I guess the answer to that would have been, no. PETER MAER: Is this going to become a regular feature of President Obama's news conference, that you all are going to bring people in here that you select to ask questions? MR. GIBBS: Well, let's understand -- let's be clear, Peter. I think you understand this, so -- but I'll repeat it for your benefit. There was no guarantee that the questioner would be picked. There was no idea of what the exact question would be. I'll let you down easily: A number of questions that we went though in prep you all asked. Iran dominated the news conference, not surprisingly. But Peter, I think it was important and the President thought it was important to take a question using the very same methods, again, that many of you all are using to report information on the ground. I don't have any -- I won't make any apologies for that.

Today Peter Baker (New York Times) attempts to cover the story and misses the major point. He tries to cover his based. He gets the Arianna Huffington to self-importantly blather -- between cobbling together George Clooney quotes to pass off as his 'writing' and between posting 'jokes' about special-needs children -- on with remarks like: "This was an exciting moment for new media and citizen engagement. It's a pity so many in traditional media didn't get it." No, it's a pity that an Aging Socialite whose husband decided to come out of the closet dumped her on the rest of the (unsuspecting) world.

Let's break it down for the dithering, money grubbing, wanna-be Gabor whose face appears assembled out of bits of chicken fat. The US is engaged in three wars currently -- Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the undeclared war on Pakistan. Iraq is non-stop violence these days. It was SHAMEFUL and it was EMBARRASSING that the president of the United States was setting up questions but even more distressing than that was WHAT the question was about: Iran. How nice of Huff & Puff to allow Barry O to gas bag on a topic that's not about his own performance, not about his own obligations and allows him to offer more 'inspirational' words. How nice of Huff & Puff to give Barry a foot rub as opposed to hold his tootsie to the fire.

Citizen engagement, which Arianna knows nothing about -- serving off brands to guests, that she knows about -- would have been little Nico breaking from the script and asking a question that put Barack on the spot. Arianna knows damn well if this was a George W. Bush moment, she'd be screaming her head off. Instead, today's she's her own Jeff Gannon. And how nice of Huff & Puff to prove that they don't give a damn about Iraq. The website could have brought that issue into the press conference. It chose not to do so. Remember that the next time Arianna tries to pretend she cares about anything other than the cold hard cash. Drop a twenty on the dresser and thank her for her time, she's done.

Currently at Newt Gingrich's former girlfriend's website it's tabloid city. New media? That smut's been available in the supermarkets for years, usually under the banner of Weekly World News.

In the real world, Iraq was rocked by violence again today. CNN observes, "Violence is unnerving Iraqis, with attacks increasing as the United States works toward withdrawing combat troops." Susan Webb (People's Weekly World) notes, "The killing spree began June 20 with a series of car bombings and other attacks in several cities, including a massive suicide truck bombing that killed 82 people in a mainly Shiite town near the northern city of Kirkuk, a scene of ongoing ethnic strife." Al Jazeera notes, "At least seven people have died in a new wave of attacks in Iraq amid funerals for some of the victims of a bomb explosion in a busy Baghdad market the previous day." The number's risen to at least nine dead with twenty-eight Iraqis injured. Today's reported violence?

Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 police officer and left another injured, a Baghdad mortar attack left two people injured, another Baghdad roadside bombing resulted in two police officers being wounded, a Baghdad car bombing left five people injured and a Baghdad roadside bombing resulted in 2 deaths with four injured, a Mosul car bombing which left thirteen people injured and a Falluja roadside bombing which claimed the lives of 5 police officers. Reuters notes two Baghdad roadside bombings resulted in nine US soldiers being injured and a Baghdad bus bombing which left three Iraqi civilians injured..

Shootings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an armed clash in Mosul which left three police officers injured and 1 16-year-old boy male was shot in Mosul.

Dropping back to yesterday's Baghdad bombing whose death toll continued to rise after yesterday's snapshot. Saif Hameed and Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) inform the bombing "killed at least 78 people Wednesday and wounded 145, highlighting the danger of Iraq slipping back into violence after the deadline for U.S. combat troops to leave its cities -- now less than a week away." Jim Lehrer (PBS' NewsHour -- link has text, audio and video) explained yesterday, "The blast tore through a market in Sadr City, the capital's main Shiite district." Ernesto Londono and Zaid Sabah (Washington Post) add this context, "The blast, the second in Iraq in less than a week to kill more than 70 people, happened six days before the June 30 deadline for U.S. troops to retreat from urban outposts, the first of three withdrawal deadlines mandated under a security agreement." Alice Fordham (Times of London) adds, "The June 30 deadline was made in a status of forces agreement between the US and Iraq at the start of the year. A national holiday has been declared for that day, although a curfew may be imposed." Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) provides these numbers: "About 300 Iraqi civilians have lost their lives so far in June; more than 330 were killed in May. Eight U.S. soldiers have lost their lives so far in June, while 25 died in May, according to Defense Department figures." Shortly before yesterday's Baghdad bombing took place, Dept of Defense spokesperson Geoff Morrell was holding a press briefing and declaring, "I think -- well . . . First of all, we saw a horrific bombing take place south of Kirkuk over the weeken which was rather unusual given where it took place. It was also unusual just in terms of the trend that we've been seeing lately. Security incidents -- despite that awful attack -- remain at all-time lows since March 2003." BOOM!!! would be the sound of the bombing in Baghdad before Morrell finished his press conference. Alissa J. Rubin and Duraid Adnan (New York Times) offer, "A number of political observers here say they now believe that the attacks are intended to discredit Iraq's prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. He has taken credit for improving security, but the stance carries considerable political risk when violence breaks out." And taking credit apparently translates as "bullying the press," Mike Tharp and Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) note that the harassment of the press continued yesterday in the wake of the bombings, "An Iraqi journalist, who asked not to be named because he feared reprisal, said that Iraqi officials refused to let him and other reporters into local hospitals to try to interview witnesses, family members and victims." Puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki is the self-styled new Saddam. Anthony Shadid (Washington Post) offers a must-read report which looks at the thug the US chose to install: "Although Iraq's parliamenatry elections are not until January, the campaign has begun, and Maliki has shown a determination to fight with a tenacity and ruthlessness borrowed from the handbook of Iraq's last strongman, Saddam Hussein. From Diyala, where men under Maliki's command have arrested and threatened to detain a host of his rivals, to Basra, where security forces have swept up scores of his opponents since January, the message is: cooperate or risk his wratch. Although Iraq's sectarian war has largely ended, and the Sunnis feel they lost, another struggle for power, perhaps no less perilous, has begun in earnest. Maliki has resorted to a more traditional notion of politics in which violence is simply another form of leverage. His goal is simple -- to ensure he emerges as prime minister again after the vote."

Thug Nouri isn't the only one attempting to censor the press in Iraq. Tuesday's snapshot noted the efforts of the US military to prevent Stars and Stripes reporter Heath Druzin from reporting (those efforts are censorship). This is from Joe Strupp's "UPDATED: Reporter Barred from Iraq Embed -- MRE Blasts Move -- Sends Protest Letter to Gates, Petraeus" (Editor & Publisher):The president of the Military Reporters and Editors group has blasted the move in an email to E&P. "Asserting that Stars and Stripes 'refused to highlight' good news in Iraq that the U.S. military wanted to emphasize, Army officials have barred a Stripes reporter from embedding with a unit of the 1st Cavalry Division that is attempting to secure the violent city of Mosul," the report says. It adds that Stripes reporter Heath Druzin, who covered operations of the division's 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team in February and March, would not be permitted to rejoin the unit for another reporting tour. It also adds that military officials cited a March 8 story Druzin wrote that stated many Iraqi residents of Mosul would like the American soldiers to leave and return security tasks to Iraqi forces.New West Boise's Jill Kuraitis has worked with Druzin and she offers, "In my opinion, it's a serious matter when the delivery of accurate and timely news is denied to the American people who always deserve the truth in accordance with our founding principles. We are funding the war with our tax dollars, which makes us even more deserving of the information. Druzin is a professional trained to do exactly what he is doing, and his efforts to be accurate should not be impeded, nor his priorities manipulated." Mark Prendergast is a professional journalist whose outlets have included the Washington Post and the New York Timesand he also teaches journalism (St. John's University). In December 2008 it was announced he would be the new ombudsperson at Stars and Stripes. He weighs in on the censorship efforts:


The unit's commander, Col. Gary Volesky, simply does not want Druzin back. The various reasons offered by Volesky and his public affairs officer, Maj. Ramona Bellard, involve Druzin's personality, professionalism, reluctance to discuss story ideas and that he "refused to highlight" aspects of the Mosul campaign that they wanted him to promote (See Editorial Director Terry Leonard's point-by-point rebuttal, "Army denies Stripes reporter access to combat team in Mosul," article, June 24).
In a raft of e-mail correspondence between Stars and Stripes and the military that began May 11, the colonel and the major emphasized that their problem was not with the newspaper but with Druzin -- another Stripes reporter would be welcome in Mosul, they said. (Army officials in Baghdad offered to let Druzin embed somewhere else.)
In other words, they made it personal. And that is wrong, in just about every way.
Before I go any further, let me say that while I do not know Col. Volesky personally, his public record of service to his country bespeaks a soldier's soldier, one who presently bears huge responsibility in carrying out an extraordinarily tough, dangerous and complex mission in Mosul.
Now serving his third tour in Iraq, Volesky has received the Silver Star, the Bronze Star three times, the Purple Heart, and the Combat Infantryman Badge (twice). He has an advanced degree in Near Eastern Studies from Princeton, studied Arabic at the Defense Language Institute, attended the Command and General Staff College and the Air War College, and once held the post of Chief of Infantry Doctrine at the United States Infantry School. And did I mention he's a Ranger?
Even reporters in Baghdad hold him in high regard, according to Thomas E. Ricks, the veteran military affairs reporter for The Washington Post.
But for all that, Col. Volesky is way wrong on this one.
According to both standard journalism practice and Defense Department policy, military commanders do not get to say which reporters get assigned where, whether they work for Stars and Stripes, The New York Times, MSNBC, the Huffington Post or the Podunk Gazette.
Editors do.
And whether Volesky, Bellard, the soldiers of the 1st Cavalry, the people of Mosul or the readers of Stars and Stripes think Druzin is a good reporter or a bad reporter is a matter of opinion outside the legal and policy framework that governs military-media relations and the assignment of reporters.
In that regard, the only opinion that counts, by practice and by law, is that of Druzin's editors. And they are standing by him and his performance in Iraq. And they want him back in Mosul.

As he notes, it's really not the military brass' decision which reporter an outlet sends. Not noted, but equally true, it's appalling in this alleged 'change' government going on in the US that this matter has been allowed to fester. The White House could have taken care of this with one phone call. That it chose not to says a great deal about it and goes to why they feel the need to staff press conferences with ringers.

Many years ago (the 90s) a friend who was nervous about a taping was on the phone as she waited and watched a segment preceding her own. As someone in the audience ran off at the mouth to Orpah (standing there with the microphone), my friend said over the phone to me, "Someone needs to tell Little Miss Voice of a Generation, sit down." It's hard not to feel that way when reading Erik Leaver and Daniel Atzmon's latest at Foreign Policy In Focus. Specifically: "On November 17, 2008, when Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari and U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker signed an agreement for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, citizens from both countries applauded." Little Miss Voice of a Generation, sit down. Not only did Iraqis not applaud but many Americans didn't either. The treaty masquerading as a SOFA was hugely unpopular in Iraq which is why so many MPs skipped the vote. Skipped the vote on Thanksgiving Day. November 16th was when Nouri's cabinet voted . . . and ten cabinet members skipped that vote. As for it being about withdrawal? Mary Beth Sheridan (Washington Post) reported in real time that "the Iraqi cabinet on Sunday approved a bilateral agreement allowing U.S. troops to remain in this country for three more years." That's all the SOFA did. The UN mandate (covering the occupation) would expire on December 31st. A new agreement was needed (or the UN mandate renewed) or else US forces (as Joe Biden had noted repeatedly) would be forced to leave Iraq. Even then-White House spokesperson Dana Perino didn't try to inflate it the way it would eventually be inflated. November 17th she declared, "One of the points that we conceded was that we would establish these aspirational dates." Aspirational. As opposed to "actual." Learn the terminology.

November 27th, Parliament passed it -- leading the White House to finally release the document to the American public (another reason there wasn't mass celebration on November 17th -- does any editor at Foreign Policy In Focus actually have any duties that fall under the role of "editor"?). Parliament passed it. 149 members voted. And how many MPs are there? 275. And Leaver and Atzmon want to act as if the SOFA led to celebrations?

Maybe they have to because Phyllis Bennis embarrassed herself at every forum (including FPIF) acting the fool. She was thrilled, she was excited and she knew nothing, absolutely nothing. When Barack adopted Bush's SOFA, Phyllis was thrilled and even made the blood curling statement that it didn't matter to her if 'withdrawal' took a few months more. Doesn't matter to her? Well she's not serving in Iraq and she has no family serving in Iraq and, apparently, she also lacks both empathy and sympathy. So possibly the distasteful opening of Leaver and Atzmon's article is required because FPIF readers have been hyped on the b.s. treaty and lied to about the treaty?

If you can hold your nose through that opening paragraph, you've got the strongest analysis FPIF has provided on the SOFA or on what Barack's actually doing in Iraq:

The failure to fully comply with the withdrawal agreement indicates the United States is looking to withdraw from Iraq in name only, as it appears that up to 50,000 military personnel will remain after the deadline.
The United States claims it's adhering to the agreement, known as the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), even with so many troops being left in the cities. But the United States is changing semantics instead of policy. For example, there are no plans to transfer the 3,000 American troops stationed within Baghdad at Forward Operating Base Falcon, because commanders have determined that despite its location, it's not within the city.
The original intent of moving troops out of the cities was to reduce the U.S. military role and send the message to Iraqis that the United States would be leaving the country soon. But troops that are no longer sleeping in the cities will still take part in operations within Iraqi cities; they will serve in "support" and "advisory" roles, rather than combat functions. Such "reclassification" of troops as military trainers is another example of how the United States is circumventing the terms of the SOFA agreement.

To get the SOFA through the Parliament, a last minute agreement (and plenty of US strong arming) was made that the Iraqi people would be allowed to vote on the treaty in a national referendum which was supposed to take place next month. It will not take place next month and has now been pushed back to January. In 2008, the White House strong armed to get their way, in 2009 the White House strong arms to get its way. No change you can believe in.

Turning to the topic of the VA, Steve Vogel (Washington Post) reports:

The number of unprocessed disability claims has grown by nearly 100,000 since the beginning of the year and totaled 916,625 as of Saturday, a rise driven in part by increasing numbers of veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Rep. John Hall (D-N.Y.), who last week chaired a House Veterans' Affairs subcommittee meeting titled "Can VA Manage One Million Claims?," said the department needs "a cultural and management sea change." Veterans "are waiting to have their claims and appeals processed," Hall said at the hearing last Thursday. "They are waiting for compensation. They are waiting for medical assistance and rehabilitation." That hearing took place Thursday evening and was noted in the June 19th snapshot.

"Any change, any legislative change increases the risk to August 1st," declared the VA's Director from the Office of Education Service Keith Wilson. "There's no question about it. We wouldn't know the full impact until we could sit down and evaluate what the volume of individuals would be."

He was appearing this afternoon before the House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity and replying to US House Rep John Boozman's question about the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which "has those killed on active duty into Chapter Thirty Two, I'm sorry, Chapter Thirty Three would something like that would that cause delay in payment?" Wilson stated anything would. The meeting was about the Post-9-11 GI Bill which requires new payments starting August 1st. US House Rep Harry Teague chaired the subcommittee (filling in for Stephanie Herseth Sandlin) and noted in his opening remarks:

Today we will continue with our series of oversight hearings on the VA's implementation plans for the Post 9-11 GI Bill. It is important that we continue to provide the VA the opportunities to update the subcommittee on their implementation effort for the short-term and long-term solutions. This hearing will also give the VA the opportunity to ask for Congressional assistance if it is required. Since the passage of the Post-9-11 GI Bill, many items of concern have been raised about this very complicated program. I'm sure our Chair and Ranking Member will agree that this Subcommittee will continue to seek answers to the implementation but also veteran outreach, university partnerships and other items of concern. While there was tremendous Congressional support for the passage of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, responsiblity does not end after a bill is signed into law. As our panelists know, this Subcommittee will continue to work with the adminsitration to ensure that our veterans receive their educational benefits in a timely manner.

Ranking Member Boozman noted this was the fifth hearing providing oversight on the implementation of the bill and encouraged the VA to come forward with problems as they arise so they can be addressed.

August 1st is the start date in order to begin making payments for the fall 2009 semesters. These payments, like other government payments, will be issued via computer programs so today's hearing focused on the IT aspects of it.

Keith Wilson was the only witness appearing before the Subcommittee today. He was accompanied by the VA's Stephen W. Warren and Mark Krause. (Warren handled the slide presentation -- he provided the narration of the steps on the flow chart, etc.) Wilson stated that there were two strategies, short-term and long-term. The programs will handle processing and delivering (addressing) the payments and allowing payments to be calculated. This system, however, vanishes December 2010 when a new system replaces it. (That system hasn't been developed yet and will be created with SPAWAR Systems Center.)

Keith Wilson: On May 1, 2009, VA began accepting applications to determine eligibility for the Post- 9-11 GI Bill. We've received more than 75,000 applications, and the RPOs have fully processed approximately 35,000 of these claims. On July 6, 2009, we will start accepting enrollment certifications from school certifying officials and begin processing claims for payment. The first payments will be released by US Treasury Department on August 3, 2009. Approximately 530 claims examiners have been hired under term appointments to support the implementation of the short-term strategy. All employees completed training of Phase 1 of the short-term solutions on June 15th. Phase 2 training started on June 8th and is expected to be complete no later than July 3rd. VA authorized the RPOs to hire 230 additional claims examiners. All of the employees are expected to be on board by August 31, 2009.

Those are hard numbers and in the above and when asked questions, Wilson actually had answers. A rare thing for a witness from the VA. Wilson referenced the VA's GI Bill website as a resource. For those with limited internet access or who would prefer the human interaction, the toll free number is 1-888-GI-BILL-1 or 1-888-442-4551. The Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) has a webpage that gives you a historical overview and also allows you to locate a VFW service officer who can assist veterans with the application process. Those are resource provided by the VFW and they're a resource many veterans may need to consider utilizing because, at present, Wilson stated they were surprised that the applications coming in are not as high as expected (at present, the VA is able to process more applications each day than it is receiving, according to Wilson). Teague noted his surprise at the low number of applicants and suggested stronger outreach efforts may be needed.

US House Rep Harry Teague: You may recall that with the leadership of Ranking Member Boozman, Congress authorized the VA to conduct mass media outreach services. Today I have not been made aware of the VA using mass media as an outreach option. Will you be using mass media such as television or radio to advertise the new GI Bill benefit?

Keith Wilson: We will. We have, underway right now, a acquistion process to bring a, uh, professional media firm on board specifically for that purpose.

One reason for the delay may be that next week the VA will be providing a list of an estimated 700 colleges who will be part of the Yellow Ribbon Program. Wilson explained those colleges would have "a matching contribution program between VA and IHLs to assist eligible veterans in covering tuition expenses that exceed the highest public in-state undergraduate tuition rate." How much is covered is an issue even in good economic times and some may be waiting on the VA to release that date before beginning the application process.

Also on veterans, Daniel Suddeath (News and Tribune) reports that US Rep Baron Hill's bill Health Care for Members of the Armed Forces Exposed to Chemical Hazards Act was introduced because of the long, long wait veterans suffering from the effects of Agent Oragne had to go through and he "doesn't want to wait 30 years to address similar problems encountered by veterans of the Iraq War." On the issue of Congress, Kat covered a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing (on Iran) last night.

Farrah Fawcett has passed away and that is a huge loss. 20/20 tonight will feature Barbara Walters reporting on Fawcett's life.

Independent journalist David Bacon, whose latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press). , is one of the last labor reporters left in the US. This is the opening to his latest report, "CRIMINALS BECAUSE WE WORKED" (Political Affairs):VERNON, CA (6/18/09) -- The production lines at Overhill Farms move very quickly. Every day for eighteen years Bohemia Agustiano stood in front of the "banda" for eight or nine hours, putting pieces of frozen chicken, rice and vegetables onto plates as they passed in a blur before her. Making the same motions over and over for such a long time, her feet in one place on the concrete floor, had its price. Pains began shooting through her hands and wrists, up her arms to her shoulders.Complaining also had a price, however. "I was reluctant to say anything because of my need," she says. "I have four children. So I preferred to stay hurt, and take pills for it, than to go out on disability." Finally, though, it got too much. She couldn't sleep without pain constantly waking her, and she was moving through a haze of exhaustion. So she went to the company doctor. "He said my nerves were inflamed, and sent me to therapy," she recalls. "I know I have repetitive stress syndrome, but I asked him not to put me on restricted duty, because there is no easy work in production and I knew the company would just send me home. He put me on restrictions anyway, and that's what happened. It didn't change anything, and eventually I had to go back to my job. It still hurts to work." It might seem hard to understand that a job like this is worth trying to keep. But being out of work is worse. On May 31 254 people, including Agustiano, were fired. Their crime? According to Overhill Farms, they had bad Social Security numbers. Behind this accusation is the unspoken assumption that the workers' numbers are no good because they have no legal immigration status. Every day Agustiano and the fired workers are out in front of the company's two plants on East Vernon Avenue, in an industrial enclave in southeast Los Angeles, trying to fight their way back onto those speeding production lines.

iraqthe los angeles timesned parkersaif hameed
the new york times
alissa j. rubinduraid adnanthe washington postanthony shadid
dana milbank
the times of londonalice fordhammcclatchy newspapersmike tharpsahar issa
gina chonthe wall street journal
ernesto londono
joe struppjill kuraitisstars and stripes
david bacon