robert gates & dennis prager, both disgusting

For instance, while head of the CIA's analytical division and responsible for maintaining a clear line between intelligence and policymaking, Gates pushed dubious intelligence assessments on Nicaragua, the Soviet Union and Iran. Invariably, these intelligence judgments served the interests of Gates's superiors.
In December 1984, Gates even veered off into policy prescriptions, sending a secret memo to CIA Director Casey that took extreme positions on the conflict in Nicaragua, including calls for air strikes and other actions to oust the "Marxist-Leninist" regime -- just the kind of tough talk that Casey liked to hear.
Not only did Gates's behavior violate the principle of separating intelligence from policymaking, but it turned out that his alarmist assessment of Nicaragua was completely wrong. Rather than becoming a permanent "Marxist-Leninist" regime on the American mainland, the ruling Sandinistas surrendered power when they lost an election in 1990.
To some at CIA, it was never clear whether Gates was a closet true-believer in right-wing policies or a skillful apple-polisher eager to please his bosses. But Gates's bureaucratic maneuvering did serve his career well, as Casey elevated Gates in 1986 to be deputy CIA director. [For more on the Nicaragua memo, see Consortiumnews.com's "Why Trust Robert Gates on Iraq?"]
However, after the Iran-Contra scandal broke in late 1986 -- revealing widespread deception by the Reagan administration -- Gates found himself in hot water. Members of Congress suspected that Gates had misled them and he was denied the top CIA job in 1987 after Casey’s death from brain cancer.
Gates salvaged his career with the help of the senior George Bush who took Gates on as deputy national security adviser in 1989. By 1991, after the Iran-Contra scandal had cooled, Bush nominated Gates again to be CIA director.
This time, Gates's nomination faced an extraordinary uprising among CIA analysts who went public to accuse Gates of politicizing the analytical division and shaping the intelligence to fit the desires of the Reagan-Bush political team.
There were also new allegations that Gates had skirted the law by joining Casey and other Republican politicians in questionable arms deals with Iran and Iraq. [See Consortiumnews.com's "The Secret World of Robert Gates."]

the above is from robert parry's 'Gates Hearing Has New Urgency' (consortium news). i'm going to stay on this topic for a big more. this is ray mcgovern weighing in with 'A CIA Insider's Take on Gates' (common dreams):

The lame-duck Republican-led Senate Armed Services Committee seems determined to force through confirmation of Robert Gates to replace Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense. The hurry is synthetic -- and totally unnecessary.
I know, I know -- everyone but Barney the dog wants Rumsfeld out of the Pentagon tout suite. According to a Pentagon spokesman, however, Gates has commitments that would preclude his taking the reins at the Pentagon until January. So, senators, relax already. Let Rumsfeld spend December at one of his houses in Taos, while you do your homework. There is no exaggerating the importance of the Gates candidacy.
Even Democrats on the committee are saying Gates is a shoo-in barring an unexpected disclosure. But the likelihood of such a disclosure seems nil, with Gates the sole witness at his hearing Tuesday. Still, Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., who was an analyst in the State Department's intelligence bureau and now sits on the House Intelligence Committee, has called Gates' nomination ''deeply troubling'' and appealed for hearings that are "thorough and probing.''
Gates has primarily two things going for him, which hardly suffice to justify confirmation:
• The Anyone-But-Rumsfeld syndrome, which has understandable appeal. Just how much appeal was brought home to me last week, when a former colleague who worked closely with Gates during Iran-Contra said, "Despite my misgivings, I would support Satan himself in preference to Rumsfeld.''
• The Not-Enough-Evidence-To-Indict bromide offered reluctantly by Lawrence Walsh, the independent counsel who led the investigation of the Iran-Contra affair. Walsh was frustrated by Gates' remarkable inability to recall explosive information that his subordinates swore under oath they had told him ''about Oliver North's illegal activities,'' for example. (Gates' supporters still brag about his ''eidetic [institutional] memory.'') Walsh wrote:
"The statements of Gates often seemed scripted and less than candid. Nevertheless . . . a jury could find the evidence left a reasonable doubt that Gates either obstructed official inquiries or that his two demonstrably incorrect statements were deliberate lies.''
Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

now also check out the third estate sunday review's 'Editorial: Return of the Toad, Robert Gates.'

so what are the democrats going to do, duck and cover as they've pretty much done for the last 6 years? this matters and if you're interested in following it, you probably can provided you live in the area kpfa broadcasts in or you can listen online because kpfa will be broadcasting the hearings live tomorrow starting at 9:00 am on the east coast. (my time zone, you do the math if you're not in it.) here's the announcement:

KPFA Special Broadcast: Robert Gates Confirmation Hearing
Tuesday, December 5th, 06:00am
Live, gavel-to-gavel coverage of the Robert Gates Secretary of Defense confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill. With Larry Bensky, Aaron Glantz and our guest experts.


okay, now to correct something i've put up here before. we had some friends drop in tonight that we hadn't planned on and while flyboy fixed some steaks, i made a pasta salad. i won't bore you with the recipe - bore you because i'm sure there are many great recipes for pasta salad. i never think of that as cooking - but i can cook that. c.i. and i had a mutual friend who was doing a home birth years ago and her mother fixed pasta salad after the birth. i happened to be in the kitchen and since i can only cook by watching how it's done or being talked through, i was paying attention. my recipe isn't her recipe because i've adapted it over the years but i can make that. i generally use colored pasta (usually spinach based) but i can and have made it with pastas such as fettucini and angel hair. i usually add black & green olives, tomatoes, celery and, if i've got it on hand, some anchovy filets that i chop up. i use an olive oil and spice mix for the dressing.

1 of the people over tonight pointed out that i had made it and said, 'see you do cook.' i don't know that pasta salad would ever make for a meal, but, yes, i can always make pasta salad. i personally prefer it warm but i will heat it chilled.

if you missed it, hugo chavez won re-election as president of venezuela. that's good news and continues the pattern in latin america where leaders opposed to the so-called 'free' trade policies are embraced. when people in this country notice the fact that the manufacturing jobs are disappearing at an even greater rate than pre-nafta, they're seeing 1 side of it. the side that latin america has seen has been much uglier. a tag sale on public goods, steep rate increases for basic services (water, electricity, etc.) the 2nd that these public goods are sold to private companies, no 'trickle down' for most people and just a generally screwed up economy.

this is something i'd missed and it was brought up at dinner. bully boy appointed dennis prager (a right winger who scribbles op-eds and hosts hate radio) to serve on the council of the u.s. holocaust memorial museum. that alone is offensive. prager's made it more so by having a hissy fit that keith ellison, the first muslim elected to the house of representatives (in november's election) wants to be sworn in (in janurary) on the quran and not the bible. the council on american-islamic relations has objected to prager's comments. this is from the ap:

President Bush appointed Prager in August to fill the remainder of a five-year term, which expires in January 2011.
In his column last week, Prager wrote: "Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress."
Nihad Awad, CAIR's executive director, sent a letter to the council's chairman, Fred Zeidman, saying, "No one who holds such bigoted, intolerant and divisive views should be in a policymaking position at a taxpayer-funded institution that seeks to educate Americans about the destructive impact hatred has had, and continues to have, on every society."

if some 1 needs to be sworn in, they should be able to use whatever book they want. i doubt seriously that joe lieberman wants to be sworn in on the king james bible with the new testament. (then again, you never know with joe!) if someone's muslim, freedom of religion allows them to chose to be sworn in on the quran.

the fact that prager shows such intolerence demonstrates he should not be serving on the council. it's offensive that he is.

john bolton is stepping down from the united nations. for a humorous take on that see wally's 'THIS JUST IN! NOT ENOUGH ACTION FOR SWINGIN' BOLTON' and cedric's ' Bolton swings out.' and speaking of humor, don't miss betty's latest, 'Decking the Friedman.' last shout out, please read trina's 'Waldorf Salad in the Kitchen' - i think i can follow that recipe and she made it for us this weekend when we were over - it was wonderful.

here's c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Monday, December 4, 2006. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, another marker is passed -- 2900 US troops dead, the US Defense Department notes (in a whisper) that someone did die last week and wasn't "missing," a US war resister finds inspiration from a relative, and Mark Danner (New York Review of Books) suggests: "Anyone wanting to answer the question of 'how we began' in Iraq has to confront the monumental fact that the United States, the most powerful country in the world, invaded Iraq with no particular and specific idea of what it was going to do there, and then must try to explain how this could have happened."


Starting with peace news: (202) 224-3121. What is that? The phone number to the Congressional Switchboard. Today, as CODEPINK notes, is " National Call in Day to hold Congress accountable to the Mandate for Peace!" The action asks that those in the United States call the number and ask their US House Representative and their two US Senators to "bring the troops home now."

On Sunday, weighing in on Iraq's civil war, Kofi Annan (Secretary General of the United Nations) told the BBC that conditions in Iraq are "much worse". Edward Wong (New York Times) notes Annan joins others such as Colin Powell (former US Secretary of State) and Ayad Allawi (former prime minister of Iraq) in making that call. Amy Goodman writes (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) that the hair splitting over whether to use the term or not has stopped "the harangues that the media are not covering the 'positive stories' or the 'good news' -- there simply is no good news in Iraq." Goodman notes it "is definitely in a civil war. A civil war started by the U.S. invasion and fueled by the U.S. occupation."

Meanwhile, in a step usually reserved for couples in the world of entertainment, Zalmay Khalilzad and George Casey release a joint press statement. No, they're not dispelling rumors of a break up. They are announcing that, "Together we will bring peace to all Iraqis and restore dignity and security to this great nation." Well then, one-two-three-four-five-sis-seven-eight . . . Schlemeel, schlemazel, hasenfeffer incorporated. They're going do it!

Or maybe not.


Bombings?

Reuters notes a car bomber in Mosul killed himself and left five civillians wounded.

Shootings?


AFP reports seven people were shot dead in Baquba today -- "including four employees of the department of agriculture of the Diyala province". Reuters reports four police officers were shot dead in Mosul. CBS and AP report two shooting deaths in Khalis.

Corpses?

CNN reports that a total of 84 corpses have been discovered in Baghdad alone in the last two days. Reuters reports that seven corpses were turned over to a hospital in Mosul and a corpses was found in Mahaweel.

AFP notes that almost "150 Iraqis have died over the last two days alone in sectarian and insurgent attacks." That number doesn't include unreported deaths or corpses discovered.
So, for instance, Hidaib Mejhoul's corpse isn't in the count. Mejhoul's body was discovered Saturday, he was kidnapped Thursday.

In addition, yesterday ICCC noted that the total number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war had reached 2900. This follows Saturday's announcement that "One Soldier assigned to 1st Battalion, 1st Armored Division died Dec. 1 from wounds sustained due to enemy action while operating in Al Anbar Province." And Sunday's many announcements (from "And the war drags on . . ."): "Earlier today, the US military announces today: 'A Multi-National Corps -- Iraq Soldier died from injuries sustained when the convoy he was traveling in struck an improvised explosive device near Taji, Iraq, at approximately 8:30 a.m. Saturday' and 'Two Soldiers assigned to the 13th Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) were killed by an improvised explosive device while conducting a security patrol in the Al Anbar province of Iraq Dec 2.' Since then, they've also announced: 'Baghdad Soldier was killed during combat operations in the Iraqi capital Dec. 3."and they've announced: 'Two Soldiers assigned to 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Headquarters Group and one Marine assigned to Regimental Combat Team 5 died Saturday from wounds sustained due to enemy action while operating in Al Anbar Province.'

Today? The US military announced: "Two Task Force Lightning Soldiers, assigned to 3rd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, were killed and two others were wounded from an explosion near their vehicle that occurred while they were conducting operations in Multi-National Division -- North, Dec. 3." They also announced one death in the emergency landing of a helicopter on a lake in in Iraq. CBS and AP note that the count from that crash has now risen to four marines dead (16 were reported to be onboard). CNN notes: "It was not clear if the Marine chopper went down in a lake or a river." The US military notes only that it took place in Al-Anbar province. Al Jazeera cites witness in Haditha who "said it came down in a lake, which was sealed off by US forces" while Reuters says it's Lake Qadisiya.

The military is maintaining the helicopter was not hit or even shot at. On that note, Troy Gilbert was piloting the F-16 that crashed last week. Residents who witnessed the crash stated he had died. For some reason, the US military listed him as "missing." On Sunday, the Defense Department released the following: "The Department of Defense announced today the death of an airman deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Maj. Troy L. Gilbert, 34, of Litchfield Park, Ariz, died Nov. 27 when his F-16C fighter crashed 20 miles northwest of Baghdad, Iraq." He died, according to DoD, November 27th and was identified via DNA. Which calls into the question the more than 48 hours the US military pushed that Gilbert was missing to the press while his wife (Ginger Gilbert) waited for answers. (The couple have five children.)

2900 and counting is among the costs of the war. Over 655,000 is another number -- estimate of the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the illegal war. The injured, the frightened (those living in a war zone), the ones who mourn, all part of the cost of Bully Boy's illegal war of choice. And currently, the estimated financial cost of the war is $348,000,000,000" (via the counter on Tom Hayden's website). This comes at a time when James K. Galbraith (writing for the Guardian of London) observes: "The US economy is going soft faster than the inflation hawks and growth optimists thought. . . . The US trade deficit is near all-time records. . . . That is partly why Economists for Peace and Security -- a group I chair -- opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. As far back as 2002, we understood - as the economically illiterate neo-imperialists did not - that a world system very favourable to America was on the line. And it was not, as they seemed to think, just a matter of military might. We knew that if the war undermined confidence in the power, good faith and common sense of the United States, that could lead toward disastrous changes on the financial front. Four years in and with no end in sight, that risk may finally be catching up to the almighty dollar."

In other financial costs, Julian Borger and David Pallister (Guardian of London) report that Iraq faces a less noted danger -- "being brought down by the wholesale smuggling of the nation's oil and other forms of corruption that together represent a 'second insurgency'". Borger and Pallister note that the US Special Inspector General for the Iraq Reconstruction, Stuart Bowen, has "referred 25 cases of fraud to the justice department for criminal investigations, four of which have led to conviction, and about 90 more are under investigation."

Not much 'imagination,' just a lot of crooked behaivors. Addressing the lies and myths that led the US into an illegal war of Bully Boy's choice, Mark Danner (New York Review of Books) theorizes: "[T]he War of Imagination draped all the complications and contradictions of the history and politics of a war-torn, brutalized society in an ideologically driven vision of a perfect future. Small wonder that its creators, faced with grim reality, have been so loathe to part with it. Since the first thrilling night of shock and awe, reported with breathless enthusiasm by the American television networks, the Iraq war has had at least two histories, that of the war itself and that of the American percention of it."

Exploring the British media's response to the illegal war, Dr. Piers Robinson (Great Britain's Socialist Worker) reports on a study conducted by social scientists at three universities on the pre-war and earliest days coverage -- the study "found that stories dealing with the justifications for war 'overwhelmingly reflected the official line,' with over 80 percent of stories mirroring the government position and less than 12 percent challegning it."

In the United States, Bully Boy is meeting with Abdul Aziz al-Hakim. Guy Dinmore (Financial Times of London) first met with Condi Rice and that the trip to DC has "fuelled the perception of an administration that is seeking a new direction in Iraq while tacitly admitting it is not winning the war." Or maybe the US administration is just auditioning the next puppet to be installed? The BBC notes that their correspondent, Sarah Morris, "says the meeting has attracted controversy since Mr Hakim has ties to Iran and is thought by many to have links to a militia group."

If Nouri al-Maliki, current puppet is replaced, chances are the next installed will also move only when strings are pulled. Raed Jarrar (CounterPunch) notes that al-Maliki made the decision to seek a renewal of the United Nations Security Council's occupation mandate without consulting the Iraqi parliament beforehand or advising them of what he'd done which, if it matters, is probably a violation of the Iraqi constitution. If it matters? Without US backing and stroking al-Maliki wouldn't be the current puppet, he missed the Constitutional deadline for naming his cabinet (as well as the extra-Constitutional extension he gave himself). Jarrar speaks with various members of the Iraqi parliament and Sale al-Mutlaq's comments may sum up the consensus: "This is totally unexpected. It is another example of the Prime Minister dismissing the views of the parliament and monopolizing all power."
(Jarrar discuseed this with Sandra Lupien on the November 29th broadcast of The KPFA Evening News for anyone who would like audio or additional information.)

Dahr Jamail and Ali al-Fadhily (IPS) report that, "Disquiet is arising all around because the present Iraqi government is losing support -- and so is the United States in its occupation of Iraq" and that al-Maliki's seen as a failure because, as one Iraqi shares, "He and other Dawa party leaders did not keep the promises made to the Sadr movement before the elections. . . . People are complaining that this government is not paying any attention to them and their ruined city despite the huge contracts signed for reconstruction."

Monopolizing all power includes attacking free speech which is what al-Maliki has done from early on. He has closed TV stations, implemented rules that there will be a 30 minute delay when broadcasting live from the parliament, had a laughable (and failed) "four-part" "plan" whose third part was nothing but censorship. Today, People's Daily Online reports that Nabil Ibrahim al-Dulaimi, a journalist, "was killed in front of his house while he was heading to work". On Thursday, Editor & Publisher explored some of the other issues including that "Iraq's Interior Ministry . . . formed a special unit to monitor news coverage and vowed to take legal action against journalists who failed to correct stories the ministry deemed to be incorrect." The attempts to curb the press continue.

Meanwhile, in the US, war resistor Mark Wilkerson finds inspiration and support from the past -- specifically from his great-grandfather. Writing at his website, Red, White & Blurry: My Life As An AWOL Soldier, Wilkerson explains that his grandmother passed on a letter to him, one that his great-grandfather wrote then-US-president Calvin Coolidge when his son (John F. Hemphill) died in Nicaragua. Wilkerson reproduces the letter as his site and notes:
"When I read this for the first time, I couldn't help but crying. Because through this letter, I can't help but feel that my great-grandfather would be proud of what I'm going through, and could relate with me on many levels. I feel that reading this somehow connected me again to a part of my family that I haven't been close to much lately, and I'm thankful for that. I also feel more now, than ever, that as a veteran, it is my obligation to speak out when I feel that an injustice is being done in our country today through this so-called War on Terrorism."

Mark Wilkerson self-checked out of the US military for approximately eighteen months before, August 31st, announcing at Camp Casey III that he would be turning himself in. Speaking with Dennis Bernstein on KPFA's Flashpoints the same day, Wilkerson explain that he had applied for c.o. status but been denied and told that he could not begin the rebuttal process until after he completed his second deployment in Iraq.


Wilkerson is part of a movement within the military of war resistance that also includes
Kyle Snyder, Ehren Watada, Joshua Key, Ivan Brobeck, Darrell Anderson, Ricky Clousing, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Joshua Casteel, Clifford Cornell, Agustin Aguayo, Patrick Hart, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, and Kevin Benderman. Those are only some of the names of those resisting who have gone public.Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, Soldier Say No!, the War Resisters Support Campaign, Iraq Veterans Against the War and Veterans For Peace. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.

Their actions are helping to end to the war as are the actions of others demanding an end to the illegal war. Today on WBAI's Law and Disorder, co-host Michael Ratner spoke with Marjorie Cohn (president of the National Lawyers Guild) about the need to press Congress but also the need to do much more. Cohn agreed and noted that the advances of the Civil Rights era weren't a gift that a generous Congress just decided to offer, they resulted from demands, protests and activism. Mike will be addressing the broadcast later today at his site Mikey Likes It! (The four hosts of the program are Ratner, Dalia Hashad, Heidi Boghosian and Michael Smith.)

And finally, tomorrow on KPFA (airwaves and online):

KPFA Special Broadcast: Robert Gates Confirmation HearingTuesday, December 5th, 06:00amLive, gavel-to-gavel coverage of the Robert Gates Secretary of Defense confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill. With Larry Bensky, Aaron Glantz and our guest experts.

This will also be carried at the Pacifica website. For more background on Gates see Consortium News and for Robert Parry's latest click here. Gates shouldn't be back-patted and glad-handed with his history. Danny Schechter the News Dissector notes: "Sadly, I saw John Kerry on CNN say he will vote for Gates because the country doesn't need a debate now on his appointment as the new Rummy Dummy. Huh?"

written on breaks

On the November 30 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, host Rush Limbaugh proclaimed: My "cat's taught me more about women, than anything my whole life" because his pet cat "comes to me when she wants to be fed," and "[s]he's smart enough to know she can't feed herself. She's actually [a] very smart cat. She gets loved. She gets adoration. She gets petted. She gets fed. And she doesn't have to do anything for it." Limbaugh has previously stated, on the March 1, 2005, edition of his show, that "[w]omen still live longer than men because their lives are easier"; on January 10, he suggested that some women "would love to be hired as eye candy."
Later the same day on MSNBC's Tucker, guest host Joe Scarborough, in a conversation about the November 29 appearance on ABC's The View by actor Danny DeVito in which DeVito referred to President Bush as "numbnuts," stated, "[W]e're getting so much politics on The View. Shouldn't this be a program at this time of the year about how to make Christmas balls out of popcorn and pine cones?" After Huffington Post media editor Rachel Sklar replied to Scarborough's statement by saying, "I'm just going to forget you said that," Scarborough added, "[I]t is a dayside show for women ... come on."

that's from media matters' 'Limbaugh said he learned about women from his cat, which "gets loved," "petted," and "fed" and "doesn't have to do anything for it".'

on limbaugh, 2 more things his cat doesn't do.

1) ask him to split the oxycotin stash.

2) ask him if he'd consider losing weight.

presumably, he also learned about sex from his cat?

as for joe scarborough, who is his own form of disgust, if any 1 missed it 'too political' has to do with rosie being openly lesbian and not playing like that side of her life doesn't exist.

it has energized the view. getting rid of meredith made it watchable. but with the homophobic star jones out the door and rosie as the anchor, it really is something people are talking about. when i go to t's shop, all the women getting their nails done and their hair done are talking about.
they're not complaining. they're not saying, 'oh too political!' they can't get enough of the show.

and that's not a surprise. women don't like being talked down to. we're not pets.

and what's with that popcorn and pinecombs b.s.? i don't do crafts. i've never done crafts. it sounds like the sort of b.s. scarborough's former law partner would say though, doesn't it?

women at t's shop love the view. and if you think it's lively on the tv screen, you should walk in when t's got it on. every woman there has an opinion she wants to express. funny thing, none of the opinions are about popcorn or pinecombs.

t had told me she had to turn the tv to the view a month or 2 ago. it was just too popular. but i didn't get that until i dropped in tuesday and saw it with my own eyes.

what it reminded me of, the reaction, was the movie tootsie, when dustin hoffman's dorothy michaels is suddenly just energizing all these women and making them feel empowered. it was like those scenes in that movie. as soon as a commercial came on, forget about listening to anything because every 1 was giving her opinion immediately.

i'd be surprised if there ratings were down but what they have right now, regardless of audience size, is a very dedicated following.

it's never really had that before. it was a joke, mad tv and saturday night live made fun of it constantly and that always seemed a little unfair because it was really like picking on the kid who has so many problems.

but now, with the xenophobic meredith gone and the homophobic star evicted, the show's come to life. what's the republican woman's name? elizabeth? she's pretty much booed when she speaks in t's shop. none of the women like her. but they love the show and they love rosie.

rosie was loved before in a warm embrace kind of way because she was sweet. that's probably 1 side of her but she's got more than 1 side and they're really impressed with her on the view today. i think that's partly due to the times.

when rosie shot to tv fame, clinton was president. the country was better off then. but now, the country's pissed off. look at the opinion polls. they're as disgusted with the crap as rosie is. she's the perfect fit and she does reach a lot of viewers.

the show was supposed to be about 5 women (if you count barbara walters who isn't on every show) discussing the topics of the day. that didn't usually happen because meridith was so boring and so self-involved. they also usually ganged up on the youngest woman (debbie and lisa come to mind) telling them that they didn't know yet, they weren't old enough, blah, blah, blah. that was a turn off to me and i wasn't a young woman.

but no 1 sees that day after day and enjoys it, or not many.

then you had pompous star with her 'i'm a lawyer' crap. well, honey, go practice it. (i'm swiping that from t.)

there were times, in the old days, where you would and just feel lisa about to crater because between star and meredith (and sometimes joy, they could dog pile and did), she was just ripped apart and silenced. her opinions were trashed, she was disrespected.

it's really interesting because when meredith was leading slams on women of the left (and i'm thinking of 1 time in particular when i was visiting c.i. and some 1 from abc called and said 'turn on the tv' and we both watched in horror and disgust - barbara walters came on the next day to apologize for that, that's how bad it was) little boy joey scarborough wasn't overly concerned. now he was in congress then (and the aid that died in his local office was still alive, but we're not supposed to mention that, right?) but he didn't issue any statement.

meredith is just human trash. i did watch today for years but i don't watch it now. i know too much dirt on the human trash can and i have no respect for her. she is just a disgusting human being prone to tantrums and screaming matches.

she's not a feminist and she's not supportive of women. she's just disgusting. i hope she and matt lauer get into a boxing match on air. (matt better be prepared to lose.)

that's the thing with certain career women. they want to trade on their queen bee success and get soft press off it but they're not feminists and they're just the most reactionary voices of hate in the world.

they want every 1 to look at their personal success and see it as 'empowerment.' but empowerment doesn't include screaming for a war and trashing those who don't go along.

as soon as the ratings tank for today (they may have already, but they will tank), the spin will be that she looks 'too old' on air. it has nothing to do with age, it has to do with her hatefulness coming across the airwaves. she has 1 of the worst reps in the p.r. business and a woman who used to work for me has a no-meredith policy. she will not have anything to do with that woman because the stories are too well known.

but she's a 'jack welch girl.' that's probably why she got hired. she's exactly like him. election night in 2000, she would have been snarling in the control room, 'call it for bush!' just like he was.

flyboy and i are at mike's for the study group. i'm writing this on smoke breaks and have started and stopped twice in the above so, if it leaps around, that's why.

this is from editor & publisher's 'Nora Ephron Slams George Will's 'Civility' Column:'

Columnist George Will has accused U.S. Sen.-Elect Jim Webb (D-Va.) of bad manners, which led to a strong blog response on the Huffington Post by writer Nora Ephron.According to press reports, President Bush asked Webb at a reception for new Congresspeople how his son -- currently serving in Iraq -- is doing. Webb replied that he hoped U.S. troops would be home soon. Bush said that wasn't what he asked, and again queried Webb about how his son was. Webb said that that was between him and his son.
[. . .]
Ephron, the author and filmmaker, responded: "Washington is a place where politics is just something you do all day. You lie, you send kids to war, you give them inadequate equipment, they're wounded and permanently maimed, they die, whatever. Then night falls, and you actually think you get to pretend that none of it matters. 'How's your boy?' That, according to George Will, is a civil and caring question, one parent to another? It seems to me that it's exactly the sort of guy talk that passes for conversation in Bushworld, just one-up from the frat-boy banter that is usually so seductive to Bush's guests.

good for nora ephron. of course, little joey would probably prefer she make popcorn balls and pine combs. (so he can pad his briefs?) little joey may live in a world where women don't have any thoughts about the world around them, but, if so, he's the sicko living in a fantasy world.

here's c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

December 1, 2006. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, early numbers for November indicate a dramatic rise (another dramatic rise) in the number of civilian deaths, does the puppet of the occupation feel the EARTH . . . MOVE . .. under his feet (nod to Carole King "I Feel The Earth Move"), and the James Baker Circle Jerk continues to raise eyebrows.

Alastair Macdonald (Reuters) reports that the Iraq Interior Ministry has released their statistics for November's death toll in Iraq, 1,850 -- and increase of 44% from their count of 1,289 for October. Macdonald reminds, "Although it does not appear to encompass all violent deaths in Iraq, the Interior Ministry's statistical series has reflected trends".

And for the living? Not much better as Dahr Jamail discussed with Nora Barrows-Friedman on KPFA's Flashpoints yesterday. Dahr explained how the violence was so common, the attacks so rampant, that for fear of their safety, many Iraqis no longer sent their children off to school (approximately 30% was the number given). On the topic of the daily violence and the people effected, Isam Rasheed (Alive in Baghdad) provides a video report from a clinic in Adhamiya where Ahmed Hameed (cigarette vendor) explains how a car bombing resulted in his hand and leg being lost, "I was working and someone left a car bomb. It blew up shortly after they had left. I woke up and found myself thrown against a wall beside my friend Shukri."; Shukri Abdul (owner of the Al-Areesh restaurant) then explains being outside his restaurant speking with an ice vendor when the car bomb went off "And I can remember landing on the ground. I was blown into the air, and when I landed, everything piled on top of me, the pots & corrugated metals." Shurki Abdul also lost his arm and foot and experienced severe damage to his back. This is the daily reality and, as Dahr pointed out, the only area under US control was the Green Zone section of Baghdad but now even the Bremer walls that wall off the section do not translate as 'safe.' Dahr spoke of speaking with a US marine stationed in Ramadi where he was part of 200 US forces expected to provide order to a city of 400,000.

Dahr noted that move to pull forces out of Ramadi and the rest of the Al-Anbar Province in order to send them to Baghdad to secure the capital. Earlier this week, Dafna Linzer and Thomas E. Ricks (Washington Post) reported on a Marine Corps intelligence report entitled "State of Insurgency in Al-Anbar" which tagged the area "a failed province," one that was beyond US control. Also earlier this week, Jonathan Karl (ABC News) reported that, in an effort to 'secure' the capital -- 'crackdown' in any version didn't, the Pentagon is weighing pulling the 30,000 US troops out of the province and redeploying them to Baghdad.

Also addressed by Dahr was the issue of the realignmment on the ground in Iraq's parliament where new alliances are being formed with Muqtada al-Sadr's group and Dahr wondered exactly how much longer the puppet, Nouri al-Maliki, would be in place? CBS and AP report that Tariq al-Hashemi, one of Iraq's two vice-presidents, has stated "he wanted to see al-Maliki's government gone and another 'understanding' for a new coalition put in place with guarantees that ensure collective decision making" while Salam Zikam Ali al-Zubaie (handmaiden to the puppet) has said the fault lies with the presidency (a ceremonial position) and not with the prime minister he (al-Zuabaie) serves under. If the memo Stephen Hadley penned November 8th is taken at all seriously don't be surprised to discover US monies are being tossed around right now in an attempt to ensure that new coalitions will be to the US administration's liking. Tom Hayden (Huffington Post) examines the events and notes "the sudden move by al-Sadr's Shiite bloc, which pulled out of the Baghdad government over al-Maliki's meeting with Bush, provides the anti-occupation coalition with significant, perhaps decisive, power, if they choose to bring down al-Maliki's shaky coalition." [Hayden's earlier reports on the al-Maliki upset are: "U.S. Retreat from Iraq? The Secret Story" and followed that with "Documents Reveal Secret Talks Between U.S. and Iraqi Armed Resistance."]

Did someone say shaky?


Bombings?
Thomas Wagner and Sinan Salaheddin (AP) report a double car bombing claimed one life and left six family members wounded in the Sadiyah section of Baghdad; while mortar rounds "near Muqdadiya" killed three and left 14 wounded; and, in Kirkuk, a car bomb took two lives and left three wounded. CBS and AP note a car bomb in Baghdad ("near a fruit and vegetable market") that killed two and left 16 more wounded. AFP notes, "A bomb exploded in the centre of Baghdad on the east side of the Tigris river, killing three people and wouding 16, while another car bomb killed three people on the outskirts of the capital."

Shootings?

Alastair Macdonald and Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) report: "Machinegun fire rained from U.S. helicopters in central Baghdad . . . the Interior Ministry said one soldier had been killed and nine people wounded, including five soldiers." Reuters reports three people were killed by gunfire (two police officers, one civilian) in Samawa.

Corpses?

Reuters reports that 20 corpses were discovered in Baghdad and fourteen in Mosul while noting the fourteen had been kidnapped on Thursday.

Kidnappings?Thomas Wagner and Sinan Salaheddin (AP) report that, Thursday, "Hadib Majhoul, chairman of the popular Talaba soccer club" was kidnapped.

In addition, the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division - Baghdad Soldier was killed during combatoperations here Nov. 30." The death brings to 2,888 the total number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war according to ICCC's count and CNN's as well. Twelve away from the 2900 mark.

This as Antonella Cinelli (Reuters) reports that "Italy pulled its last remaining troops out of Iraq on Friday, lowering the tricolour flag at its base in the south of a country where 32 of its soldiers have died since the contingent arrived in June 2003."

Meanwhile, although the Iraq Study Group has released its findings, people continue to ponder the James Baker Circle Jerk. As noted by Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) today, the James Baker Circle Jerk is rumored to call for a 2008 'withdrawal' that is not, in fact, a withdrawal. It's a continuation of the air war that Norman Solomon has been describing for months now. It's also the James Baker Circle Jerk stroking themselves on the public dollar. The onanistic nonsense not only revolves around the air war, it also pushes embedding US forces with Iraqi police squads and forces.

For those who've forgotten how Patrick McCaffrey died and the battle his mother Nadia McCaffrey has had to fight to force the US government to get honest could see the 'suggestion' as worthy of suggesting. (Patrick McCaffrey and Andre Tyson, with the US National Guard, were killed in Iraq. The US government told the families that the two men were killed by 'insurgents.' In reality, they were killed, June 22, 2004, by Iraqi security forces they were training.)

Addressing the James Baker Circle Jerk on this week's CounterSpin, Gary Younge (Guardian of London; The Nation) observed to Steve Rendall,, "The fact that this study group was necessary itself highlights a flaw in American politics. Democracy should have been able to deal with this, not an appointed study group." As Younge explained the responsibility the group was tasked with was Congress' own responsibility . . . until they outsourced it.

In peace news, Aaron Glantz (IPS) reports that the revelations of the US government spying on peace activists is not slowly plans for the march in Washington, DC January 27th. Among the groups spied on were CODEPINK, United For Peace and Justice, Veterans for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Military Families Speak Out, the War Resisters League and the American Friends Service Committee.

The War Resisters League will be presenting Sir! No Sir! tomorrow (Saturday, December 2nd) at both seven pm and nine-thirty pm. This kicks off the War Resisters League and the Brecht Forum's Screenpeace: An Antiwar Film Festival that will hold screenings of other films on Fridays during January.


In other activism news, Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) are asking for a National "Mandate for Peace" Call-in Day, Monday, December 4th. To sign the petition click here. To phone your rep and senators, you can dial 202-224-3121. PDA notes: "On Election Day, voters said enough is enough -- we want a new direction. Let's make sure Congress hears it again by jamming the switchboards on Dec. 4 with our pleas to bring our troops home immediately."

jonathan cook, robert parry

Priorities: Every day HRW has to choose which of the many abuses of international law taking place around the world it highlights. It manages to record only a tiny fraction of them. The assumption of many outsiders may be that it focuses on only the most egregious examples. That would be wrong.
The simple truth is that the worse a state's track record on human rights, the easier ride it gets, relatively speaking, from human rights organisations. That is both because, if abuses are repeated often enough, they become so commonplace as to go unremarked, and because, if the abuses are wide-ranging and systematic, only a small number of the offences will be noted.
Israel, unlike the Palestinians, benefits in both these respects. After four decades of reporting on Israel's occupation of the Palestinians, HRW has covered all of Israel's many human rights-abusing practices at least once before. The result is that after a while most violations get ignored. Why issue another report on house demolitions or "targeted assassinations", even though they are occurring all the time? And, how to record the individual violations of tens of thousands of Palestinians' rights every day at checkpoints? One report on the checkpoints once every few years has to suffice instead.
In Israel's case, there is an added reluctance on the part of organisations like HRW to tackle the extent and nature of Israel's trampling of Palestinian rights. Constant press releases denouncing Israel would provoke accusations, as they do already, that Israel is being singled out -- and with it, the implication that anti-Semitism lies behind the special treatment.
So HRW chooses instead to equivocate. It ignores most Israeli violations and highlights every Palestinian infraction, however minor. This way it makes a pact with the devil: it achieves the balance that protects it from criticism but only by sacrificing the principles of equity and justice.
In its press release, for example, HRW treats the recent appeal to Palestinians to exercise their right to protect their neighbours, and to act in soldarity with non-violent resistance to occupation, as no different from the dozens of known violations committed by the Israeli army of abducting Palestinian civilians as human shields to protect its troops.
Women vounteering to surround a mosque become the equivalent of the notorious incident in January 2003 when 21-year-old Samer Sharif was handcuffed to the hood of an army Jeep and driven towards stone-throwing youngsters in Nablus as Israeli soldiers fired their guns from behind his head.
According to HRW's approach to international law, the two incidents are comparable.

the above is from jonathan cook's 'Palestinians Are Being Denied the Right of Non-Violent Resistance?' (counterpunch). it's about human rights watch, the group i loathe. the enablers of the slaughter, my opinion. they could make a real difference if they were interested in truth telling, but they aren't. cook outlines it brilliantly.

and on the topic of brilliantly, robert parry, regardless of how the gates' hearing turns out, can look back and say, 'i told 'em.' he can't force any 1 to listen. he can't force congress to find a spine. he can tell his truth. and he's done that and is doing that.

flyboy and i were reading his latest earlier and flyboy was teasing me about the time i could have met him if i hadn't been so tongue tied.

i'd probably run the other way if i saw him on the street today. and there's a reason for that.

i didn't get iran-contra. the hearings were about to start and it was complicated (to say the least) and the media was doing an ass poor job in covering it. i did what i usually do in situations like that, pick up the phone and call c.i.: 'what is this all about?' c.i. talked me through and then a few days later i had an envelope full of clippings (highlighted, c.i. knows i can be lazy) and i started noticing that the ones that made the most sense and were easiest to comprehend were by the same guy, robert parry.

as i repeatedly prove, especially this week, i'm not big on bylines. i can read some 1 over and over with different pieces and not notice. or read and try to remember but then forget. but i did remember parry and when i saw a book by him, i grabbed it. i've read all of his books and if you haven't, your loss.

there's a wish or desire to act like iran-contra didn't happen. it did.

most of the media ignored it so it's not a big surprise that they continue to do so.

today? it matters. when lee hamilton poses as 'democrat' and gives a 'bi-partisan' air to the laughable baker-hamiliton jerk off on iraq, you're only surprised if you don't realize how he refused to pursue iran-contra. he didn't want to know, he didn't want to probe. he just wanted to get along.

the country suffered then, it suffers now.

and the failure to punish the criminals of iran-contra has a lot to do with why this country is in the mess it is today.

gates does not deserve to be approved. so that's my intro to the latest, robert parry's 'Bob Gates & Locking You Up Forever' (consortium news):

As the next Defense Secretary, Robert M. Gates will be in charge of a new star-chamber legal system that can lock up indefinitely "unlawful enemy combatants" and "any person" accused of aiding them. Yet, despite these extraordinary new powers, his confirmation is being treated more like a coronation than a time for tough questions.
Not since 2003 when Secretary of State Colin Powell wowed Official Washington with his United Nations speech on Iraq's WMD has there been such an awed consensus about any public figure as there has been for former CIA Director Gates, who is almost universally praised for his intelligence, experience and down-to-earth style.
But there are serious unresolved questions about Gates's past that the American people might want resolved before he is entrusted with the awesome new powers that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 puts in the hands of the Defense Secretary.
In 1991, for reasons mostly of political expediency and personal friendship, Gates’s last confirmation process for CIA director never got to the bottom of allegations linking Gates to some of the most serious national security scandals of the 1980s, including illegal involvement in arms deals with Iran and Iraq.
In his memoir, From the Shadows, Gates revealed why the inquiries were cut short when he thanked his friend, Sen. David Boren, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, for shepherding him through the confirmation process.
"David took it as a personal challenge to get me confirmed," Gates wrote.
Boren's chief of staff who helped limit the investigation of Gates in 1991 was George Tenet, whose actions earned him the gratitude of then-President George H.W. Bush, who a decade later urged his son, President George W. Bush, to keep Tenet on as CIA director.
Amid all this cozy back-scratching, Gates's alleged involvement in illicit contacts between senior Republicans and Iranian representatives during the 1980 hostage crisis was never seriously vetted. Neither was Gates's alleged participation in arranging secret arms shipments to Iraq's Saddam Hussein in the early 1980s.
Though Boren promised to pursue the so-called Iraq-gate allegations against Gates, the Oklahoma senator never did.
Then, regarding a purported Gates meeting with a key Israeli intelligence officer who had linked Gates to both the 1980 Iran-hostage scandal and the later Iraq-gate operations, Gates denied that the meeting ever took place. To prove it, Gates supplied Boren and Tenet with an airtight alibi -- for the wrong day.
In 1991, when I pointed out this date discrepancy to the Senate Intelligence Committee staff, they agreed that they had the wrong day but then told me that they had simply decided to take Gates at his word that he had not met the Israeli intelligence officer, Ari Ben-Menashe.
New Evidence
Since 1991, however, new evidence has emerged supporting the plausibility of Ben-Menashe's claims.

we're going to do something on this topic at the third estate sunday review this weekend. not like robert parry, he's the expert on this. but the issue does matter and jim called today about the picture in the new york times. it gave ty an idea for an illustration that they're going to work on (no, harry reid won't be in it, they're going in a different direction).

yes, i'm working with them this weekend. flyboy told me there was no way i would be taking off the weekend. (he wasn't griping. he actually enjoys listening on those and we all keep waiting for him to toss something in.) i am going to take off christmas weekend off.

closing with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot' and there's a lot of information. as you read it, notice how quickly the mainstream press sidelines iraq to run after the 'officials':

November 30, 2006. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, the Baker-Hamiliton Love-Fest sucks up more headlines than the addled-brain panel deserves, shifts on the political ground occur but the media's too busy being whimpering little dogs chasing after their master to note reality, and peace organizations call for a show of support for war resisters and for some action.


Starting with yesterday's The KPFA Evening News where Sandra Lupien spoke with Global Exchange's Raed Jarrar who explained that some members of Iraq's parliament were under the impression that they would be discussing the possibility of renewing the UN mandate for US forces next week and were unaware that the puppet of the occupation had already 'addressed' that (on Tuesday). Jarrar discussed how what support there was for the puppet had faded as it had been apparent how ineffectual Nouri al-Maliki was, how he's now seen as a failure and how hope is pretty much destroyed.

Raed Jarrar: Let me add one thing, during the last three days some major developments are happening. Yesterday one of the secular groups pulled out of the government -- a group called Reconciliation and Liberation Front, they pulled out from the government. And today a southern group pulled out from the government. And tommorow it's a big possiblity that a number of secular and Sunni and Shia are planning to pull out from the government as well and form this newly, form a front under the name Iraq Salvation Government or the National Iraqi Salvation Front or something.

So all of these things are happening now, at the same time that Maliki is meeting with Bush, so it seems the Iraqi political map is going to change radically within the next few days or
weeks.

Staying with that topic (the one the New York Times may trip over and discover tomorrow), CNN reports that Muqtada al-Sadr announced a possible new political alliance with Sunnis and Christians. Calling the group" you know this is coming "'a national front,' the head of al-Sadr's bloc in Parliament -- Falah Hassan Shanshel -- said the groups would target the U.N. Security Council's decision to extend the mandate of 160,000 multinational force in Iraq for another year."

Meanwhile, the Iraq Study Group has issued their findings: (1) All US troops should be brought home immediately; (2) Reparations shall be paid by the US government to Iraq through the United Nations; (3) The US Congress should immediately begin impeachments hearings; (4) A War Crimes Tribunal should hear testimony into the destruction of Falluja; (5) Dexter Filkins shall be charged with crimes against humanity for his 'reporting' on Falluja and, in fact, all of his reporting on or from Iraq.

The findings were published today by the original Iraq Study Group, not the lame Lee Hamilton-James Baker Circle Jerk. The findings are signed by the original chairs: Nina, Tony and Mike. And if the findings seem more democratic than those of the James Baker Circle Jerk, well one was of the people, the other was created to provide cover for the US administration.

Turning to news of the James Baker Circle Jerk. They did not recommend withdrawal. David E. Sanger and David S. Cloud (New York Times) reported in this morning's paper that the James Baker Circle Jerk would recommend that 15 combat brigades be stationed at bases in Iraq or neighboring countries and the James Baker Circle Jerk would not endorse withdrawal of US troops. The James Baker Circle Jerk hopefully checked with "neighboring countries" because, as many will remember, Turkey got aid from the US while hemming and hawwing and, woops, what do you know, their air space would not be used for Bully Boy's illegal war. The James Baker Circle Jerk was a way for him to tap into the Saudi monies he's always tapped into and greed merchants like Lee Hamilton got to go along for the ride. At 75-years-old, there may be nothing left for him to do but stand around open mouthed. But then the James Baker Circle Jerk was never about the "best and brightest." It was, instead, the tired, the corrupt and the cronies.

The Davids are back with their update to say, "Our sources were right." Yes, in what passes for bravery at the Times, all that sucking up allows them their exclusives about reports that will be released. So they've twice wasted everyone's time stroking their sources off on in print while real issues went uncovered and critical abilities (which are supposed to be in a journalist's bag of tricks) again get shoved to the curb. They've chased after Bully Boy, they've chased after the James Baker Circle Jerk.

They just can't find Iraq with a seeing eye dog and an escort. (Should that read a heavily armed escorts? It should.) As Tom Hayden (The Huffington Post) noted Tuesday, on potential findings of the cover group, "It only postpones the inevitable, the need to exit Iraq before the blood of war sills over into the national presidential election."

Let's leave the James Baker Circle Jerk to the boys (and Sandy Day O'Connor) and instead focus on reality. The BBC reports that two Iraqi women were killed in Baquba on Wednesday by US forces which follows by one day the killing of "five girls . . . by US tank fire in Ramadi." This comes at a time when the ICRC issues a statement ending with: "The ICRC calls again upon all parties to the conflict to respect the rules of international humanitarian law and to spare civilians and civilian property. In addition, it urges all those who can make use of their moral and political influence on the ground to call for respect of human life and dignity." "All parties." Yes, the Red Cross/Red Crescent would be referring to "all parties" which does include foreign fighters such as the US.

Meanwhile Al Jazeera reports Bully Boy has stated no troops are leaving, that they'll remain till his "job is complete" which apparently means his Blood Lust has yet to be satisfied, after three years, and more will need to die as a result.

A lot is being made of the brief meeting (Brief Encounter?) between Bully Boy and Nouri al-Maliki that finally took place on Thursday. 'A 'speedy handover' (of Iraq forces) to the puppet!' pants CBS and AP. Did no one read the memo yesterday? The memo was published (online) by the New York Times. Did anyone bother to read it? What did Stephen Hadley write about ways that the puppet could look strong? Handing him "additional control over Iraq forces, although we must recognize that in the immediate time frame, we would likely be able to give him more authority over existing forces, not more forces."

Apparently there was no point in the Times publishing that memo, even those who read it appear to act as though they hadn't.

AFP notes Bully Boy wanted to put an end to the "speculation" that the US might attempt "some kind of graceful exit out of Iraq." No word on whether Bully Boy belched after that remark but the lack of grace hardly needs underscoring after three years of an illegal war.

While Bully Boy demonstrates his lack of grace, common sense, et al, AFP reports that South Korea is pulling their 2,300 troops out of Iraq by the end of 2007. KUNA reports that: "The government also accepted the ruling party's proposal to draw up an action plan for the all-out withdrwal by June 2007, according to Yonhap News Agency." The so-called 'coalition' gets increasingly smaller. Meanwhile, Nouri al-Maliki announces, according to Reuters, that Iraqi troops can take over control in June 2007. Predictions from the Puppet who couldn't meet the Constitutionally mandated deadline for selecting his cabinet? The man who went on to miss the 'bonus' time he gave himself to select the cabinet?

As the press rushes to cover the circle jerk or the Bully Boy, Dave Clark (AFP) reports: "Baghdad's overlowing morgues have welcomed another grim daily harvest of bullet-riddled coprses".

Bombings?

DPA reports three Iraq police officers were killed by a roadside bomb in al-Mosayyab and three more were left wounded. Dave Clark (AFP) reports that mortar attacks wounded 13 in Samawa.

Shootings?


Thomas Wagner and Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) report that, in Basra, Nasir Gatami ("deputy of the local chapter of a group called Sunni Endowment) and three of his bodyguards were shot dead. The BBC raises the number of bodyguards killed to six. Dave Clark (AFP) reports six shot dead in sectarian conflict in Baquba while a police officer was shot dead in Falluja.


Corpses?

The BBC reports that "At least 80 bodies" were discovered in Iraq "in the past 24 hours." The Daily Telegraph notes that 58 of those corpses were discovered in Baghdad.


That's the reality of Iraq -- some of it. What managed to get reported by the ones not confusing the James Baker Circle Jerk or the Bully Boy's travel itineray with the Beatles landing at JFK. Worshipful fans don't generally make for solid reporters and, for those noticing how Iraq has been sidelined by "Follow The Officials!", that's tragically clear.

Not tomorrow, but the Friday after next, December 8th, Courage to Resist will beging three days of public action:

Military resisters, their families, veterans and concerned community members call for public action Dec. 8-10th!
It's time for us to escalate public pressure and action in support of the growing movement of thousands of courageous men and women GI's who have in many different ways followed the their conscience, upholding international law, taking a principled stand against unjust, illegal war and occupation and stood up for their rights. Widespread public support and pressure will help create true support for courageous troops facing isolation and repression, and help protect their civil liberties and human rights. We call for the following:1) Support for War Objectors 2) Protect the Right to Conscientious Objection 3) Protect the Liberties & Human Rights of GI's 4) Sanctuary for War Objectors. We urge you to join us December 8-10th for a weekend of action in supportof GI Resistance and GI Rights!
GET INVOLVED TODAY! HERE'S HOW..
Participating Groups and Individuals
Downloadable Organizing Kit

And United for Peace and Justice notes:

It takes courage to say that you will not fight -- especially if you are a soldier. As more members of the U.S. military step forward for peace, the peace movement must step forward to support them.
Large numbers are now refusing to serve: The Department of Defense estimates that there are about 8,000 AWOL service members. The GI Rights Hotline (800-394-9544) is currently receiving about 3,000 calls a month.
Most importantly, a growing number of soldiers are speaking out, against the illegality and immorality of the Iraq war and the orders they are being told to carry out. These brave men and women are risking jail time and their futures to stand up against the war. Click here to find out how you can support them.


On Monday, WBAI's Law and Disorder interviewed Jonathan Hutto with Appeal for Redress which is gathering signatures calling for Congress to bring the troops. Signatures of those currently serving in the military. Michael Ratner, Heidi Boghosian, Dalia Hashad and Michael Smith spoke about the historical importance of this and how the rights for those serving were won, not given and Hutto stated that currently they have "a little over 1200" signatures.

War resisters also include Kyle Snyder, Ehren Watada, Joshua Key, Ivan Brobeck, Darrell Anderson, Ricky Clousing, Mark Wilkerson, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Joshua Casteel, Clifford Cornell, Agustin Aguayo, Patrick Hart, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, and Kevin Benderman. Those are only some of the names of those resisting who have gone public.Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, Soldier Say No!, the War Resisters Support Campaign, Iraq Veterans Against the War and Veterans For Peace. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.

bully boy gets stood up, ray mcgovern & more

first, mia e-mailed to tell me kpfb was not an a.m. station. she was very kind about it. my apologies.

she also shared her favorite thing was with archive clips of gloria steinem, medea benjamin and others. it aired tuesday. that must have been during the time i went out to grab some take out for dinner. i wish i had caught that.

listening online means i don't have reception in my car. none of the pacifica stations are on satellite radio, are they?

but i listened yesterday and today and never found myself bored so it's amazing that i missed something that i really wish i'd heard. it shows how much they have to offer - a lot more than they aired, they would need hours and hours, days and days, and weeks and weeks for that.

so these 2 days a year where they give us a taste are really worth catching. they're entertaining, educational and inspiring.

i think my favorite today was dorothy healey. she was new to me. she had a really interesting life (she died in august). what a long and amazing life.

and what an amazing job pacifica did with the archive broadcast. as i type, the program on malcom x is about to go off. there have been so many amazing moments.

this is from martha raddatz' 'Diplomatic Embarrassment or Simple Schedule Clarification?' (abc news):

The White House tried to play down the significance of President Bush's meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki being delayed, but it is a huge embarrassment for the president to have a foreign leader cancel a meeting, especially one who has 150,000 American troops in his country.
Bush and Maliki both arrived in Amman today to look for a way to bring the spiraling violence in Iraq under control. They were expected to meet with Jordan's King Abdullah, but only Abdullah and Bush appeared in a photo opportunity with reporters.
After Maliki abruptly cancelled his appearance at the scheduled meeting, the White House insisted this was not a snub.

bully boy traveled all that way for a 3-way and it got called off. poor bully boy. snubbed in front of the whole world. cedric's 'Bully Boy's mystery date goes bust' and wally's 'THIS JUST IN! BULLY BOY GETS STOOD UP BY A "DUD"!' take a comic look at this.

now today, during the section of the pacifica archives where they played portions of larry bensky's interview with oliver north from 1991, larry said that the robert gates hearings will be covered by pacifica but all may not carry it. kpfa (or for me, kpfb) will. (and if you listen to kpfa and have a buffering problem repeatedly or drop out, switch over to kpfb, the stream's available on kpfa's web page by clicking on 'other streams.'

is he going to be rubber stamped? i think so. there was a photo of him standing with harry reid in today's new york times. harry looked pleased and gates looked fat. why do i think it will be a rubber stamp? dems aren't talking to the press about it. even with samuel alito, whose butt they really kissed, they had floated some stuff to the press ahead of the hearings. since nothing's really being floated, i think they're going to roll over.

while it's true that they don't have the majority until the next congress is sworn in come january, it's also true that it appears they're still waiting for the day when it's 'safe' to fight.

this is from ray mcgovern's 'Gates, Hadley: More of the Same' (consortium news):

Initial press reports on information provided to the Senate by Robert Gates, President George W. Bush's nominee for the post of defense secretary, show Gates hewing very closely to the rhetoric of his predecessor. Gates is more parrot than innovator in his responses to a questionnaire given him by the Senate Armed Services Committee, which takes up his nomination on Dec. 5.
None of this surprises those of us who for decades have watched Gates make career after career out of trimming his sails to the prevailing winds. No one should expect Gates to depart one iota from the position of the President, who said Nov. 28, "I'm not going to pull the troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete." In answering the senators' questions, Gates insisted that an early pullout would risk "leaving Iraq in chaos [with] dangerous consequences both in the region and globally for many years to come."
No surprise either in Gates' strong endorsement of spending billions more on--and prematurely deploying--the missile defense system that was Rumsfeld's pet project. Even if it can be made to work (and this has yet to be demonstrated), the system is of highly dubious utility in preventing the kinds of terrorist attacks that appear far more likely than a nuclear-tipped missile from a "rogue" state like North Korea or Iran--if they ever succeed in developing one.
Gates lumps the two together, saying, "North Korea and Iran continue to develop longer range missiles and are determined to pursue weapons of mass destruction." In attributing this intention to Iran, Gates demonstrates that he has lost none of his verve as master-practitioner of what we intelligence alumni call "faith-based intelligence." Among serious intelligence analysts, especially in the Department of Energy, where the expertise lies, the jury is out on whether Iran is embarked on a weapons-related nuclear program--and, if so, how soon it might have a deliverable nuclear weapon. And the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), led by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mohamed ElBaradei, also keeps saying existing evidence permits no hard and fast conclusions.
In prejudging that key issue, Gates has elevated the status of Iranian intentions, in Rumsfeldian parlance, from a "known unknown" to a "known known." In doing so, he has thrown in his lot with the neo-conservatives, whose record of accuracy in such judgments leaves much to be desired, and who--after a pre-election lull--have been revving up for another try at prevailing on the President to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. Gates' position on Iran’s nuclear weapons plans suggests he will not put up much resistance to importuning by Vice President Dick Cheney and the neo-cons--not to mention the Israelis--that Iran's fledgling nuclear program must be nipped in the bud.
In what is known so far of the information in the completed questionnaire, Gates made one departure from long established White House policy. Very much in tune with the admonishment of his patron Jim Baker that talking directly with adversaries is not "appeasement," Gates implicitly criticized the opposition to negotiating with the likes of Syria and Iran, stressing that such talks could come "as part of an international conference" of the kind the Baker/Hamilton group is said to be suggesting.

2 new readers asked a question each.

g.s. wondered why my links aren't exact (the underlines beneath them when you read)? g.s., i have very long fingernails and if i'm on my laptop it's a big problem because my 'mouse' is a little red stick in the center of the keyboard. but even when i'm my computer with a tower, monitor and keyboard, getting the link just right isn't big on my agenda.

sonia askes what i'd pick as the best movie of 2006? if i can include a documentary, sir! no sir! because it's amazing. if you haven't seen it, please check it out. it moves so quickly, it is not boring. you'll love it.

if i can't include a documentary? i don't think there's 1. there's a movie i want to see this month and if it turns out to be as good as it looks, it will probably be my choice. i have been watching brokeback mountain a lot lately. i saw that in 2005 but it came out on dvd in 2006. that's the only thing that i've been impressed with. i'm really getting into the way the camera frames the scenery and considering if there's a message beyond 'oh, pretty!' (i think there is). i also think jake gyllenhaal is amazingly hot.

he and michelle williams give amazing performances. i can watch brokeback over and over.

before i go further, i know c.i. does not have the time to do entries all the time. i also know that speaking today and tomorrow especially means no time. but an amazing taxi cab story. i said, 'oh you should write about that this week.' c.i. said, 'isn't that thomas friedman-esque? "my cab driver said ..." well isn't it?' it is. but the conversation, about the illegal war, was the sort thomas friedman would never write up.

i told flyboy about it and he agreed that it was worth writing up. he also passed on something his mother-in-law wanted me to note. this came up at 1 of her dinners, a woman who knew c.i. brought up some of the speaking trips. she made some comment like 'well, i guess some people will do anything for money.' my mother-in-law was offended. (she knows c.i. and they get along. old money.) she told that woman she didn't know what she was talking about and corrected her on it. she asked flyboy to get me to note that ('because you know it will never go up at the common ills'). c.i. doesn't get paid for speaking. c.i. doesn't take money for it, doesn't let any 1 pay for travel or for hotels. that all comes out of c.i.'s pocket. it's been that way since feb. 2003.

c.i. hasn't just made it a focal point of life, c.i.'s refused money for it.

that's not a surprise to me because that's how c.i. is, outside of the birthday, it's a struggle to even get c.i. to let you pay for a meal. 1 of the guys i dated in college was a sculpter. he had sold something, his 1st piece sold, and he invited a number of friends out to celebrate. i was ordering like i would at any meal. c.i. and elaine just had a glass of tea each. as soon as it was over, elaine and c.i. split and i found later that was because they were starving. i didn't understand that and they explained that the 1st check was wonderful but he really didn't need to blow it. (and he did end up doing that.) they weren't comfortable having a meal on him. i was but i always remind myself we were dating and sleeping together.

but there were probably 13 people there and they weren't sleeping with him. (as far as i know!) all of them except elaine and c.i. were eating like it was their last supper. it's something that probably didn't occur to them, that this check would hopefully be 1 of many but they wouldn't be rolling in every day.

but i think the rest of us, including me, were thinking 'oh money.' elaine and c.i. never had to worry about and both prefer to pay their own way. and they keep track on the meals they buy. they don't get in a fight over the check but you will hear, 'no, you got it last time.' i never know who got it last time. once i started working, i was able to pay my own way as well. but i still love big presents and they both do not. they'd prefer you get something small. it has to do with the way they were raised. if you get either of them a big gift they're less pleased than if you picked up something small.

that's why, now that elaine and mike are dating, i always tell him, 'call me before you get her anything.' elaine would be even more appalled at mike buying a big gift due to the fact that he's in college. with me, she'll just roll her eyes. but mike's a college student and works hard at his part-time job. if he went out and blew a check on her, she'd feel bad for days.

with both elaine and c.i., i think they appreciate the freedom. they can't be bought. and they aren't dependent upon any 1.

flyboy surprised me with a new stereo. it was his contribution to the remodeling. now i can afford that myself but, yeah, i did freak out. i was thrilled. i'm not at all 'don't buy me anything big!' hopefully, our child will probably be more like elaine and c.i. because he or she will grow up with it and not be dreaming of the big presents.

sherry and i've been talking about that in e-mails, adoption, and in case any 1 else was wondering, we are going through legal channels. a friend knew of an adoption that was coming up and i appreciated her heads up but i don't want to be accused of being madonna! so we're going the slow route. we're assuming 12 or so months from now. but, yes, we are going to be adopting (and have started the process) but, no, we won't be baby shopping. we'll do it legally, legal by the laws of the united states not 'oh, well it's legal by that country's laws.'

now for a highlight. i really don't want to write about this but will at the end. this is norman g. finkelstein's 'Rush to Judgment: Human Rights Watch Must Retract Its Shameful Press Release' (counterpunch):

How has Human Rights Watch responded to the challenge? It criticized Israel for destroying Gaza's only electrical plant, and also called on Israel to "investigate" why its forces were targeting Palestinian medical personnel in Gaza and to "investigate" the Beit Hanoun massacre.
On the other hand, it accused Palestinians of committing a "war crime" after they captured an Israeli soldier and offered to exchange him for Palestinian women and children held in Israeli jails. (Israel was holding 10,000 Palestinians prisoner.) It demanded that Palestinians "bring an immediate end to the lawlessness and vigilante violence" in Gaza. (Compare Amira Hass's words.) It issued a 101-page report chastising the Palestinian Authority for failing to protect women and girls. It called on the Palestinian Authority to take "immediate steps to halt" Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel.
Were this record not shameful enough, HRW crossed a new threshold at the end of November.
After Palestinians spontaneously responded to that "unknown voice on a cell phone" by putting their own bare bodies in harm's way, HRW rushed to issue a press release warning that Palestinians might be committing a "war crime" and might be guilty of "human shielding." ("Civilians Must Not Be Used to Shield Homes Against Military Attacks")

finkelstein wants you to e-mail and ask them to retract their press release ('Email HRW Middle East director Sarah Leah Whitson--whitsos@hrw.org - and HRW executive director Kenneth
Roth -- RothK@hrw.org.'). that's why i didn't want to write about it. i really like finkelstein and he's smarter than i am, so if you want to write, please do.

i just don't think it will make any difference. i hate human rights watch. so much that c.i. will call and say, 'will you be upset if i highlight this?' (c.i.'s highlighted them once or twice and both times asked my permission. c.i. wouldn't dream of calling me to ask me not to highlight something and if i called to check something, i would be told, as i always have been, 'it's your site, you highlight what you want.') but i just hate human rights watch. somewhere at the third estate sunday review, we mention them. i've always said they're all about appeasing critics. then roth gave a comment to the nation that basically read like 'we don't give a damn what the left thinks of us but we have to watch out for the right-wing.' that's how they act as well. i think their 'findings' are tilted not just to the right but in favor of the israeli government. i have no use for them.

i think they're timid and biased 'reports' allow others to remain complacent and stupid. i don't see them concerned with human rights, i see them as concerned with pleasing the right wing fringe that worships the israeli government. if you're really concerned with human rights, you should be making waves, not sailing happily along. i'm sick of them.

i think norman (don't make me look up his last name again) is very smart (he's also kind of hot) so he probably knows better about whether they'll respond or not to complaints. i just don't care for the organization at all.

if they'd tell the truth and not shade it, i think they'd really be able to help the issue but there's no bravery, just appeasement.


here's c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Wedensday, November 29, 2006. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq; a classified US assessment, jotted down in memo form by Stephen Hadley, finds the puppet of the occupation untrustworthy; whack-a-mole continues to be the game of choice for US military heads, and the big meet up in Jordan hits a snag right out of the box.

Starting with the memo:

We returned from Iraq convinced we need to determine if Prime Minister Maliki is both willing and able to rise above the sectarian agendas being promoted by others. Do we and Prime Minister Maliki share the same vision for Iraq? If so, is he able to curb those who seek Shia hegemony or the reassertion of Sunni power? The answers to these questions are key in determining whether we have the right strategy in Iraq.
Maliki reiterated a vision of Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish partnership, and in my one-on-one meeting with him, he impressed me as a leader who wanted to be strong but was having difficulty figuring out how to do so. Maliki pointed to incidents, such as the use of Iraqi forces in Shia Karbala, to demonstrate his even hand. Perhaps because he is frustrated over his limited ability to command Iraqi forces against terrorists and insurgents, Maliki has been trying to show strength by standing up to the coalition. Hence the public spats with us over benchmarks and the Sadr City roadblocks.
Despite Maliki's reassuring words, repeated reports from our commanders on the ground contributed to our concerns about Maliki's government. Reports of nondelivery of services to Sunni areas, intervention by the prime minister's office to stop military action against Shia targets and to encourage them against Sunni ones, removal of Iraq's most effective commanders on a sectarian basis and efforts to ensure Shia majorities in all ministries -- when combined with the escalation of Jaish al-Mahdi's (JAM) [the Arabic name for the Mahdi Army] killings -- all suggest a campaign to consolidate Shia power in Baghdad.

Michael R. Gordon (New York Times) reports that author of the memo is National Securtiy Adviser Stephen J. Hadley and that Hadley wrote the memo November 8, 2006. The memo was based on conclusions Hadley drew while visiting the Green Zone on October 30th, a visit John F. Burns and David E. Sanger (New York Times) noted was spoken of "only in the vaguest of terms". The memo's distrust of Nouri al-Maliki and its suggestions fly in the face of what Geroge W. Casey Jr. was publicly pushing immediately prior to Hadley's visit. As Amit R. Paley (Washington Post) reported the US' military commander's claims of Iraqi security forces 'success' was doubted by American troops on the ground.

The memo covers a number of topics. Mainly it attempts to chart how the puppet can be propped up if he agrees to continue to following orders from the US administration (such as "support the renewal of the UN mandate for multinational forces" -- done yesterday -- through the end of 2007 as Sandra Lupien noted on yesterday's The KPFA Evening News). If that is the case, US tax dollars can be used to prop up political parties that do not support Moktada al-Sadr and thereby sideline al-Sadr from the process. ("This bloc would not require a new election, but would rather involve a realignment of political actors within the Parliament.") Mainly the memo's concerned with appearances, ways to make it appear the puppet is independent and strong. Such as: "Encourage Zal [Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador] to move into the background and let Maliki take more credit for positive developments." As noted in previous snapshots, Zalmay-Take-Me-Away is on his way out. His supposed 'success' in Afghanistan began to implode in front of the world shortly after he was shipped to Iraq to create more 'success.' Reality didn't wait and Zalmay is on the way out.

The memo offers that al-Maliki can appear 'strong' if the US administration will: "Seek ways to strengthen Maliki immediately by giving him additional control over Iraq forces, although we musr tecognize that in the immediate time frame, we would likely be able to give him more authority over existing forces, not more forces" While pushing appearances, Hadley makes it very clear that al-Maliki is extremely out of touchand that he has one self-presentation "when he talks with Americans" and another at other times. Hadley writes: "But the reality on the streets of Baghdad suggest Maliki is either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions, or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action."

The memo reveals the doubts, all the times after, that the US administration still has of their puppet. Mark Silva (Chicago Tribune) reports that Tony Snow Job issued a statement of Bully Boy's confidence in al-Maliki which should make the puppet shudder if he's aware of "Heck of a job, Brownie." [Or of November 1st, when Bully Boy was singing Rummy's praises. As Ron Hutcheson (McClatchy Newspapers) reported: "Rumsfeld's ouster came a week after Bush told a small group of reporters that he wanted the defense secretary to stay on the job until end of his presidency."]


Silva also speaks with a nameless administration official who states that the memo is about raising questions and it "doesn't mean you're casting judgment" which is either cover up or the nameless hasn't read the memo. The third step Hadley outlines that al-Maliki "should take" is to "Shake up his cabinet by appointing nonsectarian, capable technocrats in key service (and security) ministries."

For those paying attention months ago, al-Maliki's claimed that was happening. He began saying it was happening after he finally got a cabinet semi together. He missed the Constitutional deadline as well as his own appointed deadline. When he finally had a 'cabinet' it was short three positions. As soon as those were filled, al-Maliki began making repeated noises about a 'shake up' that has still not taken place. That was telling when Hadley visited in October, it was telling when Hadley wrote the memo on November 8th and, as November draws to a close, it's even more telling.


As Tony Snow Job tries to spin the memo, the US administration still attempts to deny the reality of the civil war that has been raging in Iraq. Shatha al-Awsy (McClatchy Newspapers) registers quite clearly what she has seen in the last year in the neighborhood she lived, the neighbors who left as strangers began showing up, the talk of impending attacks, the need to build a secret passage way between her home and her parents, the night when violence was only streets away, her baby crying from the mortar rounds falling and her promise to herself to leave if they made it through tomorrow.

In the face of such reality, the US administration continues to deny Iraq is in a civil war. James Coomarasamy (BBC) reports that Stephen Hadley, of all people, "has said the Iraqi government does not see it in those terms, while the president himself described the latest attacks as part of an ongoing campaign by al-Qaeda militants." The same Hadley who wrote "the reality on the streets of Baghdad suggests Maliki is either ignorant of what is going on"? Meanwhile, Diala Saadeh (Reuters) reports Colin Powell, former US Secretary of State, has stated, "I would call it a civil war. . . I have been using it (civil war) because I like to face the reality." (Like your blot?) On CBS' The Early Show, Bob Schieffer (host of Face the Nation) offered, "This is not a memo that was leaked by some Democrat in Congress. This is something that obviously came from someone within the administration itself. It shows that the situation in Iraq is the kind of chaos that has been described by others at every level, political and military. It paints a picture that is unlike what we have been hearing from the administration. We've been hearing that things are getting better and so on and so forth, that al-Maliki is doing his best. Now this memo raises questions about those statements."

As CNN reports, ahead of the Jordan meeting with Bully Boy, Nouri al-Maliki has seen "his support erode on two fronts Wednesday as a White House memo questioned his leadership and a powerful political bloc suspended participation in Iraq's government." The suspension of participation was made quite clear Friday when al-Sadr's bloc stated that if al-Maliki went to Jordan to meet with the puppet, they would be pulling their support for al-Maliki.

Thomas Wagner and Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) report that "the 30 lawmakers and six Cabinet members" in the Sadr bloc "said their boycott was necessary because the meeting" between Bully Boy and al-Maliki "constituted a 'provocation to the feelings of the Iraqi people and a violation of their constitutional rights'." As Amy Goodman noted on Democracy Now! today, the bloc announced they were boycotting because "Bush is a criminal who killed a lot of Iraqis and we do not want him to interfere in Iraq's affairs" but prefer that the puppet instead do business with the U.N. Security Council. Deb Riechmann (AP) reports that the meet up in Amman, Jordan that was due to start today (Bully Boy & puppet) has now been put off with the US administration declaring it would take place "on Thuresday."

Meanwhile the city of Baquba is "shutdown" by violence. "Shutdown"? The sequel to 'crackdown'? (Which Baghdad is still under.) AP reports bombing raids by US aircraft while "the univeristy, public schools and many stores remained closed" and the deaths of five Iraqi police officers.


Bombings?

AP reports a roadside bomb in Bahgdad left three Iraqis dead and 11 more wounded and
"[t]wo mortar rounds also exploded near the Health Ministry, wounding two soliders" in the heavily fortified Green Zone. Reuters notes: two car bombs in Iraq (one in central Baghdad, the other in southwestern Baghdad) that left two police officers dead and five Iraqis wounded;
a car bomb in Samarra that killed six police officers; a car bomb in Mosul that left one civilian dead and 23 more injured; On the car bomb in Samarra, AP notes that it was a coordinated attack using the car bomb and guns and reports that four police officers were killed and four more wounded.

Shootings?

AP reports that the Green Zone in Baghdad was ringed with gunfire "for most of the morning." AFP reports that four guards of the Pensions Department in central Baghdad were shot dead while on duty.

Corpses?

Reuters notes that the corpse "of a teacher with gunshot wounds" was discovered in Diwaniya today.

Today, the US military announced: "A Task Force Lightning Soldier assigned to 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, was killed when an improvised explosive device exploded near his vehicle while conducting operations in Salah ad Din Province Tuesday. A second Soldier from this unit was wounded and transported to a CoalitionForces' medical treatment facility."; and they also announced: "One Soldier assigned to Regimental Combat Team 7 died today from wounds sustained due to enemy action while operating in Al Anbar Province." Al-Anbar Province? Before we move on, let's note that the count for US troops who have died in Iraq this month thus far is 65. (Which doesn't include Major Troy L. Gilbert whose plane crashed this week and who is classified as missing by the US military while other press reports report he died in the crash or following the crash.)

We're going to flash back to the August 3rd United States Senate Armed Services Committee hearing when the following exchange took place:

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

Is the situation in Ramadi under control, McCain repeatedly asked?

Ramadi is in Al-Anbar and the entire province is not "under control" (nor could it be).

As Edward Wong (New York Times) reported, "American troops killed five girls, including at least one baby" on Tuesday in Al-Anbar Province. Andrew Buncombe and Nick Paton Walsh (Independent of London) report that in addition to the five dead, "Fighting broke out in the city of Ramadi, considered a stronghold of the anti-US insurgency, after a US patrol discovered a roadside bomb in the Hamaniyah section of the city."

This comes as Jonathan Karl (ABC News) reports that the "Pentagon officials are considering a major strategic shift in Iraq, to move U.S. forces out of the dangerous Sunni-dominated al-Anbar province and join the fight to secure Baghdad." Has Al-Anbar Province been 'pacified'? No (and it won't be). As the four year anniversary of the illegal war comes ever closer, the US military is still attempting to impose order on Baghdad -- the only area that's ever been 'safe,' the area that's now been under a 'crackdown' (in all its variations) since June. And nothing's stopped the chaos and violence.

So the 'answer,' for the US government, is the same 'answer' they always have, what John McCain labeled "whack-a-mole." Writing in the Guardian of London, Dilip Hiro proposes another answer: "Now, a revived proposal should have the American and British troops withdraw in stages from Iraq and hand over the stabilization task to a combined force of Muslim countries under UN command. Stationing a Muslim stabilization force in Iraq would dispel the intense alienation that exists now between Iraqis and the Anglo-American troops. The brown-skinned Muslim troops would be seen praying in the same mosques as Iraqis, and they would have an innate understanding of the social and cultural mores of the local people since they come from societies similar to that in Iraq. Unlike the Anglo-American troops, they would not be advancing an agenda like planting a Jeffersonian model of democracy or seeking preference in exploiting Iraqi oil."

Instead, Reuters reports, the 'answer' remains to 'shift' "a couple of battalions" here and there. It hasn't worked, it won't work. But the US adminstration refuses to face reality. Which is why CNN reports that "the U.S. military plans to move at least three more battalions of American soldiers into the Iraqi captial". And which is why the illegal war continues to drag on.

Remember, the Pacifica's Archives is on day two of a two-day special: Pacifica Radio Archives Presents Voices For Peace And Non-Violence. It is airing on all Pacifica stations (KPFA, KFCF, KPFT, WBAI, KPFK, WPFW), many affiliates and online. The special started today and pulls from the fifty plus years of archives. (Donations made during this two day period go to preserve the archives.) Among the voices heard since yesterday MLK, Coretta Scott King, Rosa Parks, Camilo Mejia, Medea Benjamin, Lena Horne, Fannie Lou Hamer, Gloria Steinem, Flo Kennedy, Gore Vidal, Kurt Vonnegut, Jane Fonda, Bette Davis, Ruth Gordon, Malcolm X, Angela Y. Davis, and many others.