Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Katrina vanden Heuvel stabs her mag in the back

Who will save the nation? Not The Nation's Katrina vanden Heuvel who, though she's grasped she better start covering the illegal war finally, has slightly less common sense than a turnip possesses. vanden Heuvel wrote a (bad) piece semi-holding War Hawk George Packer accountable. Now she publishes his loose-grip-on-reality reply with no comment. C.I.'s in town and we (C.I., Mike and I) are all going out shortly, so I don't have time to tutor vanden Heuvel. I did read Packer's nonsense to C.I. who states, "Summer of 2005, in The New Yorker, he was still smearing peace activists and cheerleading the war when interviewing a man whose child had died in Iraq. On Progressive Radio with Matthew Rothschild in 2006, Packer was still an apologist. For Katrina vanden Heuvel to print that crap is inane. Packer has publicly attacked The Nation, ridiculed it for it's weak -- with few exceptions -- resistance to the illegal war. Obviously, a 'fan' letter meant more today than reality so Packer's allowed to lie yet again. Judith Miller should dash off an e-mail to Katrina next because obviously it too could be posted in a 'Look at who reads me!' kind of way. It won't help anyone's understanding but it will allow for back pats and lies to be continued." My two-cents? It's no surprise Katrina vanden Heuvel doesn't know Packer's work to even attempt to refute him, she shows very little awareness of anyone's writing. By allowing Packer . . .

Stopping. C.I.'s back to add that Packer equated protesting Vietnam with someone deciding to "hate your country" in his 2005 New Yorker piece and apparently (wrongly) 'knew' that Tom Hayden was raised in the lap of luxury.

C.I.: Pack-ass can't claim that he was quoting. He was giving print to lies and he was happy to do so as evidenced by the fact that he merely repeated them without questioning them. He did so when he likened, supposedly out of the mouth of his subject, Thomas Keane, Joe Lieberman and John McCain to non-partisans and those against the illegal war as people who played 'politics.' Who played politics, huh? The ones selling the illegal war and that includes George Packer who can try to rewrite history and Katrina vanden Heuvel may be hitting an all time low as she gives him the platform to do so. In a shameful stewardship of the magazine, Katrina's reached an all time low. I'm getting really tired of her incompetence and that article, which we've addressed at The Third Estate Sunday Review, for the record includes this sentence: "Naomi Klein, a columnist for the bitterly antiwar Nation, visited Baghdad at the same time as Barnes and found that the insurgency was mushrooming because the occupation authority was 'further opening up Iraq's economy to foreign ownership' --in other words, because Iraqis shared her own anti-globalization views." That's what Packer said in his own forum. Fortunately for him, Katrina doesn't seem to read. Namoi Klein was exactly right and George Pack-ass was exactly wrong. Way to go, Katrina, way to sell out The Nation, way to sell out the people who reported for it and, let's be clear, Naomi Klein, unlike Pack-ass, didn't go into Iraq as an embed. She risked her life doing that and her thanks for it? The editor of the US magazine that ran her article rushes to bow, scrape and kiss the feet of a War Hawk. It's shameful, it's disgusting. Katrina vanden Heuvel owes readers of The Nation an apology for posting Packer's distortions with no fact check. It is a low in a tenure of lows.

Klein's pieces actually run elsewhere. In this country, they run in The Nation which is why C.I. says "editor of the US magazine that ran". C.I. says the article is entitled "The Home Front" and ran in one of the July 2005 issues of The New Yorker. I would guess that allowing history to be rewritten also allows Katrina vanden Heuvel to avoid weighing in on the Democrats' caving in Congress. Well, I guess it's more important for her to use her post to do favors for friends than to put out a magazine worth reading.

C.I. just added that "unlike Pack-Ass, Tom Hayden and Naomi Klein made their own way. Which makes that article about supposed elitists all the more laughable. He is the John Updike of the pencil set with all the currying and scurrying that entails."

That's going to be it. Mike and I were both blogging while C.I. was returning phone calls and it's already past nine so we need to head out.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Wednesday, May 23, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, on the 12th day that 3 US soldiers have been missing it appears 1 of the 3 may have been discovered, Democrats scramble in Congress, the US military announces the deaths of more service members, and a German professor feels the need to tell the American people how stupid they are when it appears the professor is the one with comprehension issues.

Today is day twelve since 3 US soldiers went missing following an attack that killed 4 US soldiers and 1 Iraqi translator. The US military has issued many statements that said very little (but what is there to say when it appears the attack took place as a result of where command stationed the soldiers and the time duration the soldiers were left in place). Though the search for the 3 continues today, one may have been discovered.
Steven R. Hurst (AP) reports that Iraqi police believe they have found one of the missing soldiers, that he is a corpse they found in the Euphrates River today. Paul Tait (Reuters) reports: "The half-naked body had bullet wounds and bore signs of torture. Captain Muthanna al-Maamouri, a police spokesman in the provincial capital Hilla, said there were wounds to the torso and shaved head of the body, which was wearing U.S. Army-issue pants and boots and had a tattoo on the left arm. 'This is one of the missing soldiers,' he said." The US military has yet to confirm that. Howard Schneider and Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) note that the body is now being examined by the US military.

Meanwhile, in the United States, Congressional Democrats attempt to deal with the fact that leadership has caved.
US News and World Reports observes that "their concession to the White House has angered anti-war activists and lawmakers, who are now expected to oppose the legislation." This is the legislation that, despite some denials from leadership, leadership crafted. It removes the non-binding, toothless calls for withdrawal and even the appearance of substance while giving Bully Boy everything he asked for and stacking up pork such as relief for those suffering from Hurricane Katrina, a slight spike in the minimum wage and funding children's health care. Nancy Pelosi is the US Speaker of the House so it's a bit hard to swallow many of her statements. Carl Hulse (New York Times) quotes her stating of the new legislation, "I would never vote for such a thing." Shailagh Murray (Washington Post) quotes Pelosi declaring, "I'm not likely to vote for something that doesn't have a timetable." Two questions here. First, how does a party push through legislation without the Speaker's approval? Second, why did she allow Steny Hoyer (House majority leader -- whom she outranks) to take to the airwaves yesterday declaring the sell out to be "an agreement"? US Senator Russ Feingold issued a statement yesterday and we'll note this from it, "I cannot support a bill that contains nothing more than toothless benchmarks and that allows the President to continue what may be the greatest foreign policy blunder in our nation's history. There has been a lot of tough talk from members of Congress about wanting to end this war, but it looks like the desire for political comfort won out over real action. Congress should have stood strong, acknowledged the will of the American people, and insisted on a bill requiring a real change of course in Iraq." As did Dennis Kucinich, US House Rep and 2008 presidential candidate, "If this is true, and I hope it is not, it tells American workers that the only way they will get an increase in wages is to continue to support funding the war which is taking the lives of their sons and daughters. First blood for oil. Now a minimum wage for maximum blood. Aren't the American people giving enough blood for this war without having to give more to have a wage increase? What's happened to our country? We are losing our moral compass. We're losing our sense of justice. We're losing touch with the difference between right and wrong. We do not have to fund this war. We must leave Iraq now. Support our troops and bring them home. HR 1234 is a plan to end the war and stabilize Iraq and give Iraqis control of their oil. We must take a new path. We must take a path of truth and justice." Kucinich will hold a press conference tomorrow (Thursday) on this topic at the Cannon Terrace and be joined by Antonia Juhasz and Denice Lombar (US Labor Against the War). Today, he spoke on the House floor about the privatization of Iraqi oil (from "This war is about oil. We must not be party to the Administration's blatant attempt to set the stage for multinational oil companies to take over Iraq's oil resources. The Administration set several benchmarks for the Iraqi government, including passage of the 'Hydrocarbon Law' by the Iraqi Parliament.
And many inside the beltway are contemplating linking funding for the war in Iraq to the completion of these benchmarks, including passage of the 'Hydrocarbon Law' by the Iraqi Parliament. The Administration has once again misled Congress by mislabeling the draft law as an oil revenues distribution law, just as the Administration misled Congress about the Iraq war. The war in Iraq is a stain on American history. Let us not further besmirch our nation by participating in the outrageous exploitation of a nation which is in shambles due to U.S. intervention."

US House Rep Lynn Woolsey predicts much less support for this bill and believes leadership will have to count on cross-over votes from Republicans for it to pass.
She tells Mike Soraghan (The Hill), "The anti-war Democrats have reached their tipping point. It's going to take Republican votes to pass it."

As Democrats cave, those who stand up find themselves punished. From "
Legal Defense Fund for Adam Kokesh:"

Dear Friend of
Iraq Veterans Against the War,
My name is Adam Kokesh and I need your help. Because of my involvement in IVAW, I have been singled out and called for a military hearing to be made an example of for those of us who have spoken out against the war. I have been an active member of IVAW for a mere four months, but have already garnered enough attention to be perceived as a threat by those using our military to maintain political support for the occupation of Iraq.
I was honorably discharged after serving over six years, and two tours in Iraq, last November. I am part of the Inactive Ready Reserve until June 18, 2007, less than a month away. After my discharge, I moved to Washington, DC to get a Masters in Political Management at GWU, and joined IVAW. I have since appeared on behalf of IVAW speaking at concerts, universities, and high schools. I have written about my views on the occupation and my military experience for the IVAW website and on my
Most notably, I participated in Operation First Casualty on March 19th. This was a mock combat patrol through Washington, DC in order to bring home the truth of the occupation of Iraq, because the first casualty of war is the truth. I appeared in my uniform, without my name, without rank, and without the patch that says US MARINES. I received an email of warning about possible violations of the UCMJ for appearing in uniform at a political event. Instead of ignoring it like everyone I know who has received similar emails, I wrote a strongly worded reply admonishing the Major who was "investigating" me for wasting time on such trivial matters. The text of that email is posted
I soon received a package from the Marine Corps informing me of a separation hearing to re-separate me with an Other Than Honorable Discharge. A scan of the complete package can be seen here. I have sought private counsel for this hearing, as is my right. I intend to bring as many witnesses as possible to testify to both the character of my service and the nature of my involvement with IVAW. The Marine Corps only made it known to us today that the hearing will be held on June 4, in a mere 13 days. They have also decided to activate me for the hearing and hold it in Kansas City, home of the Marine Corps Mobilization Command.
This case is important because the intimidation of servicemen and women who speak out will suppress the truth about the Iraq occupation. With the help of IVAW, I intend to fight this to the end and stand up for the rights of all members of our armed forces. Please support this effort by mailing a check made out to IVAW with "Adam Kokesh Legal Defense Fund" in the memo to PO Box 8296, Philadelphia, PA 19101 or by going
here, clicking on "Donate Now" and including "Adam Kokesh Legal Defense Fund" in the Special Project Support window. Please feel free to email me with any questions or comments.
Adam Kokesh
Unlike Congress,
Iraq Veterans Against the War are working to end the illegal war. And they continue to show support for resisters within the military such as Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Augstin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder , Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Joshua Key, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake and Kevin Benderman. In total, forty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at
Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.

On a day when
at least 104 Iraqis were killed or found dead, ending the illegal war is more important then Congressional leadership appears to grasp.


Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad mortar attack near the Al Bishara hospital the took 3 lives and left fourteen wounded, a mortar attack on Baghdad's National Theater wounded one person, a Baghdad explosion killed 1 Iraq solider and left 3 more wounded, a bombing in Mandali that killed 8 people and left twenty-four wounded and a mortar attack in Kanan that left three wounded. Reuters raises the death toll of the Mandali bombing from 8 to 20 and notes a Samarra bombing that claimed the lives of 5 police officers, a Mosul mortar attack that wounded eight people, a Jbela car bombing that killed 3 and left fifteen wounded, a Khan Bani Saad mortar attack in which 3 children lost their lives.


Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a clash between unidentified assailants and Iraq and US forces in Baghdad's Sinak market led to the deaths of 5 innocent civilians with seventeen more wounded, while Col. Talal Kareem was shot dead elsewhere in Baghdad, 2 Iraqi soldiers were wounded from gunfire in south Baghdad, Salim Hassan Abbas was shot dead "near the ministry of the Labor and Social Affairs," and a police officer shot dead in Al Muqdadiyah. Reuters notes a Kurdistan Democratic Party member and a police officer both shot dead in Mosul (the officer's wife was wounded).


Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 30 corpses were discoved in Baghdad and 1 in Al Khalis. Reuters notes the corpse of an iman discovered in Sunni Arab Buhriz, 3 corpses discovered in Baiji, and five corpses discovered in Ramadi.

Today the
US military announced: "Two Marines assigned to Multi National Force-West were killed May 22 while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar Province." And they announced: "Two Task Force Lightning Soldiers were killed in Baghdad Province, Tuesday when an explosion occurred near their vehicle." And they announced: "An MND-B Soldier was killed when his patrol was attacked with small arms fire in a western section of the Iraqi capital May 22." And they announced: "Three Multinational Division Center Soldiers were killed and two were wounded in action when their patrol was struck by multiple improvised explosive devices May 21. An interpreter was also wounded in the attack."

And why does the war drag on? Because of 'helpful' voices like Nivien Saleh who,
writing at CounterPunch, lectures in a way that may make Arizona institutions proud but should make those opposed to the war shiver. "Let me elaborate on these two points," the professor offers even though no one asked, "starting with the idea, at home in numerous Internet blogs, that Iraqis are to blame for their fate." Unlike the professor, I don't have all the time in the world to surf blogs. I'm focused on trying to end the war. But I don't need to surf to know where that 'logic' came from -- the White House, Congress, the laughable but much applauded by the press Hamilton-Baker Study (aka The Iraq Circle Jerk). Blogers make for easy strawmen and strawwomen, they are not the ones who advanced this argument. But it's quite a bit easier to tear into (unnamed) bloggers than it is to go after the true architects of the Blame Iraqis push. Saleh then goes on to share, "Well the number of those whose lives have been lost is far greater than 3,200." Yes, it is. And the total count for US service members who have died in Iraq since the start of the illegal war is 3431. That is greater than 3,200. But Saleh, who apparent doesn't feel too concerned about getting the number of US service members who have died correct, wants to lecture about the number of Iraqis who have died and the number she elects to go with is the laughable "more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians" when the reality is that The Lancet Study last year revealed that it was over 655,000. While that is "more than 100,000," the professor's lecture is marred by the fact that she has little grasp on reality or the facts. The US military and administration originally announced that they would not keep figures on the Iraqi dead. That's the biggest reason that Americans have no idea how many have died. Now, as Nancy Youseff revealed the last week that Knight-Ridder was still Knight-Ridder, the US military does in fact keep a tally. That tally, like their salaries, are paid for with US tax dollars and there should have been a huge outcry that the government reveal those numbers. Instead, nothing. So many Americans have no idea how many have died. Many outlets back away from The Lancet's figures (in fact, the professor refuses to use them as well) and what you're left with is one mainstream outlet says X number have died, another says Y, another says it's impossible to estimate and the American public, as a whole, is left confused which, indeed, was the intent of the administration when they made the decision not to keep a public record of the number of Iraqis who have died. The professor misses that point as well but possibly we should all be grateful she didn't pin that on (unnamed) bloggers as well? The professor writes as someone late to the party, who brought no gift and is keen on ignoring most guests while she attempts to discern the power circle and cozy up to that. A student turning in such a paper could (and should) expect to have it returned heavily marked up for the various elements that her sweeping generalizations overlook. We'll get back to that in a moment. But, for now, let's make the very important point that when you go to any country and start making claims about the people of that country, you are in danger of stereotyping. The American people are not as dumb or as uncaring as the professor needs for them to be in order for her points to be accurate. As she tears apart the American people, while avoiding calling out the organs of power (White House, Congress, the press, think tanks, et al) who sold the war, you grasp that the strongest indictment of American in her paper may be the fact that Northern Arizona University considers her work to sufficiently academic. That, and that alone, is the only (indirect) indictment made her in explosions of words which, for the record, demonstrate that even those opposed to the war can traffic in Nazi symbolism in an attempt to make a point as evidenced by her opening paragraph.

The professor spews, "Washington's pundits, politicians, and bureaucrats, point fingers at each other, deflecting responsibility for the invasion from themselves towards their counterparts. As they do so, the various mistakes that were committed prior to the war are coming to light. The government and its neoconservative allies were war hungry. The CIA did poor research. Journalists that supplied the Washington, DC, 'beltway bubble' with news swallowed information that came from the White House without checking alternative sources. Members of Congress forgot the lessons of the Gulf of Tonkin and yielded decisions over war and peace to the president. Citizens failed to demand of their leaders and their media that they provide good analysis." Why should the media provide good analysis when the professor can't?

Originally airing two Fridays ago, an episode of
Bill Moyers Journal dealt with this when historian Marilyn Young (co-editor of Iraq and the Lessons of Vietnam) debunked the lies of the administration and explained how the lies still got traction, all this time later. From Ava and my "TV: The 'boys' are back in town" (The Third Estate Sunday Review):

A clip is shown of The Charlie Rose Show where Condi Rice lies through her teeth and sidesteps every question while Rose allows one lie after another to go unchallenged. Moyers thought it was great journalism, Young didn't and pointed out that Condi continues to get away with lying in public "because she remains a person of authority; because she is absolutely amazingly implacable in her re-statement, statement and re-statement of half-truths and outright lies. And that kind of certainty in one's own authority and the correctness of one's own position can look very persuasive, especially on TV, especially when you're not pressed." (Our emphasis.)Moyers attempted to rush to his protege's rescue insisting, "Charlie did keep coming back to her, trying to get her to talk about this" but Young cut him off with, "What he came back to over and over again was an exit strategy. And she said, as they've all been saying, there is no plan B. We're going to succeed with plan A."Who was right?Young.She brilliantly demolished every one of Condi's lies. The 'we were all wrong' myth sailed over Rose's head as Condi lied that "it wasn't just America's intelligence services, of course, that thought that he had weapons of mass destruction; this was a worldwide intelligence problem, because the UN thought he had weapons of mass destruction." Rose just sat there. Young noted (to Moyers), "The Germans looked into it and said, you know what? Your information is wrong, it's useless. So there were other intelligence services involved, but they disagreed with ours, which she didn't say. Then she said the U.N. thought there were WMD's. But that's for people with really bad short term memory loss. Because Hans Blix, who was in the U.N. as inspector, was quite persuaded that in fact, there were no weapons of mass destruction."Condi told Rose, "The United States is in Iraq because the Iraqi Government asked us to be there and they asked us (inaudible) a UN Security Council mandate." Rose didn't challenge it. Young offered reality (to Moyers), "The most extraordinary one, though, the really one that just takes my breath away, is where she says we're in Iraq because the Iraqi government invited us there. And we're there under a U.N. mandate. Saddam Hussein certainly didn't invite us in. And the UN mandate that she refers to, it's a resolution, it's not a mandate-- it says, after all, we're all agreed that everyone should help in the reconstruction of Iraq. That's all. It's not a mandate for occupation, at all."

That goes to the reality of how the war was sold and how it still is sold and there's no need to rush to blame (unnamed) bloggers or the American people -- which the professor does while letting those in power off with a pass. Strangely, while arguing that the US places too much importance upon Americans, the professor starts off her essay noting a lamp shade made from Jewish skin but instead of exploring the Holocaust, she's off wondering about the German government, her grandparents, etc. Possibly, one who wants to lecture Americans on the importance of acknowledging the victims of war (something that many Americans do although they might not make the professor's TV screen), the professor shows no interest in the victims of the Holocaust. The above was addressed at the request of
Mike and his poli sci professor (thanks to both). And those wondering why this community does not rush to shore up the temporarily brave should refer to Rebecca's "we don't stand up for cowards."

antonia juhasz