Rebecca: We're doing an unplanned roundtable and participating are The Third Estate Sunday Review's Ava and Jim, me, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Trina of Trina's Kitchen, Wally of The Daily Jot, Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends, Marcia of SICKOFITRADLZ and Ruth of Ruth's Report. I wanted to invite Jim to participate and he and Betty are on the phone from C.I.'s house on the West Coast. Cedric is participating by phone and all the rest -- including C.I. -- are here at Trina's home on the East Coast. I hope I remembered everyone This is another Iraq roundtable. Ruth, why don't you explain the reason for it?
Ruth: Today at Camp Leujune in North Carolina, President Barack Obama revealed his Iraq 'plan' and C.I. covers it in today's snapshot for those who need a reference or additional information. We are seeing the usual faux lefties, the usual play-members of the 'anti-war' movement emerge with their simpering statements and we are also seeing others make statements that are very disturbing. We are not cowards and we are not idiots so it is important that we speak up at a time when alleged voices of peace refuse to do so.
Rebecca: There are several people attempting to speak right now. I'm going with Jim who is not attempting to speak because of the fact that we're going with the speech and additional comments elaborating on Ruth can come in later. Jim?
Jim: Okay, I think the way this works is we're going to talk about the speech. And, I'll start with where I'm confused. We looked to see which 'left' outlets were talking about it. The Nation has an article by Robert Dreyfuss that does call out the speech and we don't normally link to him but it's "Obama's Iraq Plan Ain't It." But Dreyfuss writes, "Obama didn't say anything about the US-Iraq accord signed last year that sets a 2011 deadline for the departure of all US forces." Is that right?
C.I.: No, that's incorrect. I don't what's going on. Maybe he couldn't make it through the speech but he is wrong. Early in the speech Barack says, "And under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011." That's not the only reference and, I believe this in the snapshot, the White House today has a set of talking points including Gates' press conference and including Barack's endorsement of the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement. I don't know Robert Dreyfuss, I have no idea why he made that claim. I can provide other examples if needed but the speech is supposed to be up at the White House website and we can link to it. Barack addressed it. That's not defending Barack. The treaty's a joke, we've all said that since before it passed the Iraqi Parliament. I am not trying to pick apart Robert Dreyfuss' analysis -- which I haven't read and wasn't aware of before Jim brought it up just now -- but I am stating that Barack mentioned the SOFA. It's in the speech.
Jim: Dreyfuss doesn't buy the SOFA either and goes on to write, "Now, of course, that deadline was always seen, by both sides, as (shall we say?) 'flexible.' Prime Minister Maliki, bowing to the rising nationalist trend in Iraq, made it seem like that he wants American forces to leave, but he doesn't. In fact, his top aides have told people in Washington that they want American troops to remain in Iraq for much longer, as long as they continue to build up Maliki's armed forces." Comment?
Ava: I'm jumping in because C.I. and I are taking notes and C.I.'s giving me a look. We have heard -- C.I. and I, Kat and Wally -- what Dreyfuss is saying, we've heard that repeatedly from members of Congress and others. Is it true? We assume it is. That's always been the speculation in DC.
Rebecca: Okay. Stan?
Stan: I looked up The Progressive. They've got nothing on the speech. They've got movie talk. Ruth Conniff offered her stale attacks on Bill Clinton. Everything about Ruth Conniff is dead on arrival. So she's at the right magazine. It's not just that they don't have anything on the speech, they've got nothing on Iraq on their main page. They really are useless.
Rebecca: World Can't Wait?
Cedric: I had them and can't get them to display.
Mike: I'm having that problem too. Cedric texted me on and I tried to. I noticed this last week too, that Fridays the site doesn't load.
Cedric: But a link for them, please. They're not going to play Barack suck up. Elaine?
Elaine: I had United for Peace and Justice and they have nothing on the speech but I did find it curious that they refuse to take part in the March 21st action but are suddenly encouraging local actions. That doesn't just strike me as counter-productive, I see it as destructive, an effort to harm what The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War are organizing. From IVAW's announcement:
IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21stAs an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.) To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.
Rebecca: I agree with you, Elaine, that does seem like United for Peace & Justice -- long hostile to A.N.S.W.E.R. and filled with Barack enablers and cheerleaders -- Carl, Tom, Leslie, etc. -- are attempting to harm the turnout for the planned March action. Typical garbage from faux 'leaders.' Speaking of faux 'leaders,' another 'anti-war' group is CODESTINK. Trina?
Trina: The surprise here is that I'm going to ask for a link. They actually did something, I was surprised as I'm sure most of you are. They call Barack's speech today a, this is a quote, "broken promise." Good for them. Of course, I-Need-Attention Benjamin has to be her usual little suck up self and supply what I will term a whorish statement. She's useless, she needs to shut the hell up and take herself a long vaction -- provided her handlers will approve it for her. But Dana Balicki has a good quote on the speech at the start and then she goes all Medea on us: "And there hasn't been any word on military bases left in Iraq that will continue to drain billions of dollars from US taxpayers at a time where that money is very much needed at home. But the withdrawal, and a time line, is a baby step forward from past policies. As citizens, it's our job to move Obama to take giant strides." That's the full quote.
Kat: I'm reading I-Need-Attention Benjamin's nonsense over Trina's shoulder. That is such garbage that if I was standing in a room with Medea, I would pie her lying ass myself. Her premise is that after George W. we should be grateful. Meada, you stupid idiot, are you trying to sound like Nancy Pelosi? Answer that question. Shame on Medea, shame on everyone for acting like George W. Bush is the baseline. Were the last eight years that we objected objecting because Bush was an underachiever? No, it was because he was a criminal. It's not good enough for the left to say, "Barack's a little better than Bush." No, Bush is a criminal. Any sane person should be a little better. A little better doesn't cut it. The country should never again suffer under anyone like W. And we don't grade by comparison. We don't take the worst occupant of the Oval Office -- worse than Nixon according to John Dean -- and use him as the baseline. That's like saying, "We had a serial killer for a president but now we just have an arsonist so let's all be happy!" No, it's unacceptable. Just like Medea's cowardly bulls**t. Call him out. Stop this sniveling and cowardice, I'm damn sick of it.
Stan: I think Kat just nailed one of our problems. We had a psychotic, crazed killer in the White House and some want to act like since Barack manages to wipe away his drool on his own, we should be grateful. That is completely screwed up. Thank you for pointing that out.
Kat: C.I. on impeachment this morning. And I'm being nodded at by C.I. to explain. Bush is a criminal who should have been impeached. If we refuse to hold him accountable -- as may happen -- we're saying Bush acted 'normal' and 'acceptable.' When we use him as a comparison for Barack, to argue that Barack's better than Bush, we are degrading ourselves as a country and as a people. That's not good enough, that's not a standard. That is embracing and okaying the crimes of George W. Bush because we are treating them as normal by being 'grateful' that Barack doesn't do them.
Ruth: And I will add that the speech resulted in a standing ovation. Kat has done a wonderful summary but I do not believe it was planned. C.I. was answering a question --
Ava: About John Walsh's "Indict Bush and Impeach Obama: Liberal Leaders Betray Antiwar Cause To Serve Dems and Obama -- Again."
Ruth: Yes. And in the reply just took off.
C.I.: It wasn't planned, the energy in the room created it. Credit the people present for it.
Rebecca: C.I.'s being modest, as usual. It really was something and Kat's right to apply it here because CODESTINK is saying that they think George W. Bush is acceptable. When they offer those wimpy, 'it's a move finally,' embarrassing statements, they are putting a "CODESTINK approved" sticker on George W. Bush. They need to think about their actions -- but thinking has never been Medea's strong suit or Jodie's.
Trina: Do we want to link? We don't have to.
Rebecca: I'm gesturing to those present and everyone's shrugging so unless Betty, Jim or Cedric have an objection, the answer will be yes. At least they called it a broken promise and we'll applaud that they've finally done something, no matter how minor, with the hope that something else will follow. If it doesn't, screw 'em. But no one can claim we didn't attempt to be fair even with a group we've grown to despise. Marcia, you also had a website to check.
Marcia: I had Antiwar.com which is a site run by a libertarian, Justin Raimondo and he has a column entitled "The Silence of the Liberals." And I want to emphasize one section of it here:
Not by a long shot. Has anyone noticed Obama's vaunted 16-month withdrawal-from-Iraq plan has already stretched into 19 months – and the "residual force" he kept talking about during the campaign, as if it were a mere afterthought, turns out to be 50,000 strong?
Originally, none of those "residuals" were supposed to be combat troops – yet now we are told "some would still be serving in combat as they conducted counterterrorism missions." You have to go all the way to the very end of this New York Times report before you discover that, according to Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell, "A limited number of those that remain will conduct combat operations against terrorists, assisting Iraqi security forces."
In short: we aren't leaving.
Marcia (Con't): It's a very strong piece and Justin had a really strong article. And, I'm blanking on what Geoff Morrell said they'd do. But didn't he list it?
Mike: Yes, yesterday's snapshot contains that. This is Morrell at the Pentagon Thursday when CNN's Barbara Starr was asking the hard questions. Morrell, "And the three basic areas where those forces would concentrate -- and, again, this is something the president and the secretary have spoken to -- are, number one, continuing to advise and assist the Iraqi security forces, continuting to advise and assist the Iraqi security forces, continue to help them train and equip, and support them in their operations. Number two, this force of whatever size it turns out to be would also conduct intelligence-driven, warrant-based combat operations against -- against terrorists, and tehy would do so assisting Iraqi security forces, who would be in the lead. And lastly, they would be required to protect American personnel and other U.S. assets in Iraq. So those are the three fundamental areas. But, you know, I've heard all this talk about it's diseingenous to say that combat forces are being drawn down; all forces are combat forces, and those that remain will be combat forces."
Betty: It's so stupid and this was the point that we all raised repeatedly -- with C.I. leading -- that it is word games. "Combat" or "non-combat." It's just a way to reclassify and keep troops on the ground. I want to insert Thomas E. Ricks speaking on Washington Unplugged, CBS News' online show, earlier this month, "But it was a false phraseology: 'combat troops.' Well, newsflash for Obama, there is no such thing as non-combat troops. There's no pacifistic branch of the US Army. Anytime you have American troops out there, there are going to be some of them fighting and dying -- in counter-terror missions against al Qaeda, if you have American advisers with Iraqi troops, they're going to be getting into fights, some Americans will be dying. So I think we're there for a long time and as long as we're there -- unlike, say, the occupations of Korea, Japan and Germany, American troops will be engaged in combat." It's word games and people are willing to play along. And they're taking his bad speech that they applauded today at face value. This is the same man who told them during the campaigns that he would put a 16-month plan into effect. He only hedged and hemmed when Hillary was out of the race. I don't know why we believe a word out of his mouth to begin with but when someone promises you 16-months and then they up it to 19, there's a problem if you can't grasp that you've been lied to and if you can't grasp that you need to be a little wary about future 'promises' from the same person.
Rebecca: Agreed. And we'll stay with Betty because she was the brave one who agreed to step into Aging Socialite's Cat Litter Box to see how they handled it.
Betty: Well Arianna stuck her as in the air, scratched her paws in the kitty litter and walked off leaving her mess to stink up the entire net. Barack's speech is being treated as news and by that I mean they offer news links to it but apparently can't actually comment on it except for the rah-rah-rah VoteVets -- a Democratic Party enabler of some time. There is no critique, there is nothing. Apparently when she feels it is time to mock special-needs children, Arianna can go full out. When it's time to speak out against politicians who sell out the people and continue the illegal war, she needs to spend several hours with her scratching post first.
Rebecca: And Mike was going to check out Iraq Veterans Against the War.
Mike: They have a strong statement and I want to emphasize this section:
We must ensure that U.S. control of Iraq, which today is accomplished primarily through military force, is not maintained over the longer term through the use of more subtle legal, financial, economic, or political means. "The Iraqi people deserve the dignity of full sovereignty and control of their own nation," says Kelly Doughery, Executive Director of IVAW and former Military Police Sergeant, "and the only way to give this to them is by the immediate and complete withdrawal of all occupying forces from Iraq – this means withdrawing all military personnel, troops, and defense contractors, closing all military bases, ceasing air operations, and removing American interests intent on controlling Iraqi oil resources."
Mike (Con't): I wanted to include that section because there's a site that never cares about Iraq -- I believe it last wrote about Iraq . . . never. But this site is pushing the angle that Kelly Doughery is on board with Barack's 'plan' and she's not.
Ava: Mike, just to be clear, you're pronouncing her last name that way because?
Mike: That's how IVAW has it.
Ava: It must be a typo. We'll leave it that way in the quote from IVAW but her name is Kelly Dougherty -- with a "t" in the last name. It's not the end of the world and typos aren't uncommon in this community but when you said "Doughery" the second time, C.I. and I were wondering what was up with that.
Rebecca: Okay, Stan, I'm tossing to you for a grade.
Stan: CODESTINK gets a thumbs up for calling it out in an action alert that works if you pull out the quotes. We graded generously. Robert Dreyfuss is the only 'front pager' at a left site who called it out. We'll give him an A+. We give that grade out to IVAW and Antiwar.com as well. The Progressive, The Huffington Post and United for Peace and Justice receive failing grades.
Rebecca: I need Ruth, Trina and Cedric to speak during this section. We're getting close to the end and I need you three to up your participation. How about your impressions of the speech or 'plan' and I want to start with Cedric because he's participating by phone.
Cedric: I was honestly hoping he would surprise us. I was hoping what had come all week before his speech would end up being some elaborate fake out on the press and he would declare something that we -- those who want to end the illegal war -- could take some pride in. Why was I thinking that? There was no reason to think that and Barack certainly has done nothing to warrant hope. But it's the six year mark next month and I was honestly hoping that he would actually do something. It was fantasy, I wasn't being reality based. But I was hoping to find something to praise and I read the speech this afternoon and there was nothing to praise in it. It was very disappointing.
Ruth: Cedric, can I ask a question?
Cedric: Sure.
Ruth: You say this was a fantasy and it seems rather elaborate. Were you thinking of "I was wrong" statements?
Cedric: Absolutely. I was. I had this whole unrealistic day dream where I would have to post, "Hey, I was completely about Barack. Glad to be. I was a fool and I missed it." I actually did entertain thoughts that I would have to write something like that. So it wasn't a passing fancy, it was rather elaborate. It wasn't reality-based but, yeah, I was hoping that somehow the war would end.
Ruth: I can understand that. I'll focus on the actual remarks in terms of what the word assembly said to me. "Today, I have come to speak to you about how the war in Iraq will end." How pompous can you be? I loved C.I. comparing it to the famous passage in Lewis Carroll's The Walrus and The Carpenter. That comparison works because that is a story geared for children and Barack gave a speech that was like he was speaking down to the country. I detected a lot of Bully Boy George W. in the speech. "Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end." That is just an annoying sentence to hear, just the word choice and the order. It grates on the ears. "Let me say this as plainly as I can". I believe that the statement which follows should make clear whether the words were plain. It was a bad speech and that section was like in a film where the leads have no chemistry so they have to keep telling the audience, "I am falling in love with you. I think we're in love. We are so happy." These are things you should be able to tell on your own. Trina:
Trina: Well, I didn't have the elaborate fantasy that Cedric did; however, there were times, brief periods of what-if in the lead up to today. Periods where I thought, "Maybe he'll surprise us." And, like Cedric, it had to do with my just wanting the illegal war to be over. It wasn't based on reality. It was more a desire to see the Iraq War ended. From the start, it was obvious nothing had changed. What worried me the most, at the end of the speech, was I couldn't tell if he believes most Americans are idiots or if he just doesn't care. The only reason that matters is because it might help for some level of understanding. But the 'plan' was a broken promise, it does nothing but continue the illegal war and it's not what 'anti-war' voters voting for him thought they were getting.
Cedric: Trina, you say a few minutes you'd have this fantasy. I was about three sentences in when I realized no fantasies were coming true. For you, when did the realization hit?
Trina: I watched it on TV and so for me the cue was the visual. He was doing that weird, snobby thing with his head. When I saw that posing, I knew nothing was going to change.
Rebecca: Jim had a question or comment -- probably for C.I. -- and I'm sliding to Jim while I try to figure out who else needs to speak. Elaine has a cold and I promised her she didn't have to worry so her one comment will be it unless she decides otherwise and she's shaking her head "no" so that's it from her. Jim?
Jim: The one area you, C.I., graded him well on was the refugees. I was wondering about that.
C.I.: Susan Rice, the US Ambassador to the UN, made a fool and ass of herself at the United Nations yesterday speaking on that subject. Barack spoke better on that section. That wasn't me saying, "Great speech, Barack."
Jim: I know that. I'm just wanting to get this on the record because someone's going to e-mail.
C.I.: I did not think that was a great speech. The section highlighted was highlighted in contrast to Susan Rice's remarks which were supposed to be reflective of the White House and were not.
Rebecca: Okay. Betty, I'm looking at Ava and C.I.'s first pages and not seeing much by you. So how about you grade Barack and I'm sorry if someone else got left out.
Betty: I agree with C.I. on the refugee thing. And just to explain that, Susan Rice -- Condi II -- was calling for Iraqi refugees to return to Iraq. It is not safe for them to return. It wasn't just stupid -- her remarks -- they were dangerous statements. So, yes, I would say it's good to know that Barack's not trying to shove all the refugees back in Iraq the way Rice was. I agree with Ruth that it was poor word choices and poor assembly for the entire speech. He really reminded me of George W. Bush. He showed up to break a promise and tried to con us. Typical of the last eight years.
Rebecca: Okay and that's going to be it. Thank you to everyone who participated. All who read, whatever your own thoughts on today's 'plan' are, please make a point to discuss it with at least one person and help get Iraq in the focus.
Jim: Jumping in quick. Rush transcript. Typos are for your reading enjoyment.
Rebecca: Thank you! I forgot that. And at all sites but The Common Ills, today's Iraq snapshot will immediately follow.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Friday, February 27, 2009. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, the US military announces another death, Barack remembers a war drags on in Iraq (even if he forgets his campaign promise), Robert Gates goes off script, Susan Rice turns herself into the United Nations laughingstock, John Walsh replies to a war enabler, and much more.
Of all the things the left and the 'left' will have to live with in the next years, chief among them will be War Hawk Susan Rice whom they refused to call out. As Mike noted last night, she's already echoing the last White House with her threats on Iran. CNN reports that in her same UN speech she "briefly" made time for Iraqi refugees: "She called on the international community to provide greater support to the millions of Iraqi refugees who have been displaced because of the war." She called on others?
How typical of Susan Rice. The US has done damn little and until the most recent fiscal year, didn't even meet their quota for allowing Iraqi refugees into this country. The international community has done for more for the Iraqi refugees. Last week, the International Oranization of Migration declared Syria was home to 80% of the Iraqi refugees. Syria, Susan Rice, not the United States. Mundher Sahwi (Azzaman) reported Wednesday that Syria was stating their resources were "strapped" as a result of "spending up to $2 billion a year on Iraqi refugees and that its efforts to persuade donor countries and international aid organizations for help have almost gone unheeded." Syria, Susan Rice says you need to do more. Susan Rice, that's who. No, we're not particularly impressed with her here in the United States either. Yes, she has a highly abusive relationship with the truth.
Quote: "And we encourage members states to help Iraq strengthen its democratic institutions, bring its displaced citizens back home . . ." Stop the tape. That's what the War Hawk said at the United Nations yesterday. The International Red Cross and Red Crescent, the United Nations, and assorted other groups and organizations have made very clear that Iraqi refugees cannot go back. But that's what Susan Rice said yesterday. And everyone's talking about it. She made a FOOL out of herself and is now the talk of the UN. She DISGRACED the country by looking like the uninformed idiot she is. (Her quote was supplied by a friend at the UN.)
On Sunday, Rebecca Webber (Parade magazine) reported on an Iraqi who was a US translator and recently left with his family: "They joined more than 4 million other Iraqis -- about one in six of the country's pre-war population -- who have fled, creating the biggest refugee crisis of the past decade. More than half of the refugees moved to safer areas in Iraq; a small number of those people live in makeshift camps. Two milliion Iraqis have left the country entirely. About 1.2 million are in Syria, half a million are in Jordan, and tens of thousands have ended up in Iraqn, Lebanon, Egypt, and Turkey, according to the most recent numbers from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)."
While Susan was lying through her teeth, Staffan de Mistura, Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Iraq, was informing the United Nations Security Council that, "We have grounds for optimism" in Iraq. He did not push or allued to a need for refugees to return. In fact, none of the speakers made idiots of themselves the way Susan Rice did. Japan, Russia, China, Vietnam, Turkey, France, Uganda and others spoke. And only the United States is being laughed at because we sent an idiot who either is so dumb she doesn't know the fact she's supposedly addressing or she just doesn't give a damn. She's been dubbed "Condi II." Her big UN appearance, fresh in her job and she's the laugh of the United Nations. Well done, Barack Obama, way to change the face of the United States.
Refugees International currently has a form at their website allowing you to send a letter to US President Obama:
Five million Iraqis have been uprooted from their homes and are living in desperate circumstances. By helping displaced Iraqis, the U.S. will help ensure a stable Iraq.
I urge you to craft a new U.S. policy to:
1. Assist Iraqi refugees.
2. Ensure a safe, voluntary return home when possible.
3. Pressure Iraq to meet its responsibilities to its own people.
4. Increase resettlement for those who can't go home.
Please show real leadership to resolve this humanitarian crisis.
Maybe point five could be added: "Please ask Susan Rice to step down before she turns the US into a big mockery"? The illegal war started in March 2003. Refugees International noted in July of last year that the US had allowed "around 10,000 refugees" to come to the US and noted "the U.S. response is incommensurate with the scope of the need. . . . While the U.S. may achieve its goal of resettling 12,000 Iraqi refugees here in the current fiscal year" it did," the needs are much greater. We ask the U.S. to reconsider resettling 105,500 refugees from Iraq and, if necessary, to reassess this number for the next few years." Last August, Aaron Brown hosted a Wide Angle (PBS) on the Iraqi refugees. (Click here for recent episodes. Here for the specific episode.)
Aaron Brown: There's much we can argue about where the Iraq War is concerned but we can't argue about this: Millions of Iraqis now live as refugees because of the war. Hundreds of thousands have come here to Jordan and many, many more ended up in Syria a few hours away. [. . .] By my thinking, it's the most underreported story of the war because the consequences won't be appreciated for years to come. They were some of Iraq's best educated people. Its lawyers, its doctors, its teachers and accountants, some of the wealthiest but also some of the poorest. Sunni and Shia and Christian -- all religions really. Before the war some of them worked for Saddam's old Baathist regime, after the invasion, some worked for the Americans. Many were just caught in between. But here, they are all the same. They can't get jobs, their children have trouble getting into schools, families get separated, people get desperate. We've seen it time and again in our stay here.
and
UNHCR's Oula Ramadan is a registration clerk in Jordan and she explains that they are seen by refugees as the only ones who might be able to help, "so they come with hope. They tell you everything about their lives in Iraq, about their stories, about what happened to them there. And when you hear about the torture, when you hear about kidnapping, about killing in the streets, about militias, you feel like there is a lot of things you don't know if you don't get into these stories." Queen Noor of Jordan discussed the issue with Aaron Brown.
Queen Noor: The social exclusion and marginalization of young people as well as their parents, I think, is a very serious problem with potentially dangerous consequences. No one can afford to have a huge number of people feeling alienated and humiliated and desperate and hopeless.
Aaron Brown: People don't want to think of the consequences of this kind of neglect, but the consequences of hopelessness are real.
Queen Noor: I believe that in host countries like Syria and Jordan, if we are not able to attend to their basic needs and help to instill a sense of hope for the future we will face an even more uncertained and dangerous future.
Aaron Brown: Are you getting the attention you need from the Western countries, from America?
Queen Noor: The industrialized countries -- many feel that the United States and Great Britain and others have a special responsibility because it was their -- their policies in Iraq that -- that resulted in -- in these humanitarian consequences. There seems to be a lack of understanding of what the humanitarian consequences might be and what ultimately the political consequences might be of these humanitarian tragedies. It has to be looked at as in all of our interests to ensure that it doesn't further destabilize a region that is already racked with so much instability -- instability that has spilled over it's borders and outside of this region for far too long now. That I think is -- is something that I worry about every day.
In August, Brown noted that the United States had then accepted only 9,000 Iraqi refugees -- which was approximately one-third of the more than 30,000 referred to the US by the UNHCR. And Susan Rice wants to stand before the UN yesterday and insist that other countries need to do more?
Yesterday, Susan Carroll (Houston Chronicle) reported on Rand Hikmat-Mahmood and her family -- a husband, a teenage son -- who are struggling in Houston and can't find employment:
Next month, Hikmat-Mahmood's family will reach the end of their rental assistance, and they still have no job prospects. She and a growing number of refugees are finding themselves in precarious financial situations as the economy has soured, and competition for once-plentiful entry-level jobs has grown amid rising unemployment.
Resettlement organizations are still reporting success in getting refugees employed on their way to self-sufficiency. But it's taking longer, and it's more difficult. Instead of having about 90 percent of refugees in jobs within about 45 days, the time frame now is about three or four months, Jolick said.
Himat-Mahmood didn't expect that she and her husband, who both hold doctorates in political science and taught in universities in Baghdad, would find jobs on par with those they left behind after fleeing Iraq for Jordan in 2006.
But they had hopes to find something by now.
"I didn't expect the situation would be so difficult," she said.
If something doesn't turn up soon, Carroll informs, the family will have to return to Iraq. How does Susan Rice intend to help that family?
And why is someone sending them to Houston? Fort Worth would seem to be only one example of a better location in that region due to the military bases because, with US troops to remain in Iraq for some time, it seems obvious that Iraqis could be utilized in training sessions informing service members of the customs, the reactions, the lay of the land. Rand Hikmat-Mahmood and her husband are educators and used to working with adults. It would seem a natural job for them to be working on a US base (if they wanted to) providing insight into Iraq and its regional neighbors. Susan Rice, are you going to do anything about that?
While Susan Rice laughable calls for a return to an unsafe land, Mundher al-Shawfi (Azzaman) reports today that Abdulsamad Sultan, Iraq's Displacement and Migration Minister, has declared his ministry has no money and "could not afford paying the travel expenses of Iraqi refugees willing to return home." Sultan points out, "Iraqi authorities have done almost nothing to help Iraqi refugees in neighboring states despite unprecedented oil revenues in the past two years." For those who've forgotten, from the Feb. 18th snapshot: "And proving just how the al-Maliki government refuses to help the people of Iraq, Press TV reports that Iraq's Deputy Minister of Refugees and Displaced Persons, Asghar al-Moussawi is scapegoating those attempting to assist Iraqi Christians by insisting, 'To encourage a group of any particular faith to leave the country is against international law, and causes more harm than benefit to those people'." So said the Deputy Minister of a broke agency. Broke and broken.
Speaking of, Barack went to Camp Lejeune today and gave a speech. Pretty words. Let's give Barack some praise before divining into the ugly realities. He used "drawdown" repeatedly (and the White House wants that spelled as one word), more so than "withdrawal." It is a draw down that he is promising to begin. He (briefly) noted Chris Hill's many qualifications to be the US Ambassador to Iraq. And he spoke much more wisely about Iraqi refugees than did Susan Rice:
Diplomacy and assistance is also required to help the millions of displaced Iraqis. These men, women and children are a living consequence of this war and a challenge to stability in the region, and they must become a part of Iraq's reconciliation and recovery. America has a strategic interest -- and a moral responsibility -- to act. In the coming months, my administration will provide more assistance and take steps to increase international support for countries already hosting refugees; we'll cooperate with others to resettle Iraqis facing great personal risk; and we will work with the Iraqi government over time to resettle Iraqis facing great personal risk; and we will work with the Iraqi government over time to resettle refugees and displaced Iraqis within Iraq -- because there are few more powerful indicators of lasting peace than displaced citizens returning home.
"Few more powerful indicators of lasting peace than displaced citizens returning home"? So Barack's now supporting the right-of-return for all Palestinians? Good to know. (No, he's not supporting it.) Susan Rice, note Barack's words about "and we will work with the Iraqi government over time to resettle refugees and displaced Iraqis within Iraq" -- no one's laughing at him at the UN today. He's not been dubbed "Condi II."
Barack attempted to justify his breaking of his 'promise' during the campaign of 16-months withdrawal by pushing the blame onto the military commanders. Guess Barack's not "the decider." (When he introduced that element -- July 2008 -- into his talking points, Tom Hayden suffered an online meltdown but quickly recovered and returned to be Barack's "sweet ass girl.") In part of the speech, Barack attempted to speak to Iraqis directly and made assurances that really can't be made after you've indicated to the New York Times (as he did in 2007) that you'd like bases outside of Iraq -- Kuwait. When you've made that clear, your words about "no claim on your territory" aren't not going to be seen as genuine. If Barack was genuine, he should have added "or neighboring areas." Barack declared to the US military, "We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Huessein's regime -- and you got the job done. We kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a sovereign government -- and you got the job done." Uh, no.
WMD was the stated reason for the start of the illegal war and it's really beneath Barack's media image for him to lie like that. It's insulting and indicates a real lack of respect for the US military. There is no sovereign government in Iraq -- there's a puppet government that we propped up and the vice president of the United States is very aware of that and has spoken of it many times including publicly. But let's zoom in on "and you got the job done" to both. If the job's done, why aren't all US troops leaving Iraq right now?
Barack also declared that the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement will be followed and means that all US troops will be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. That is laughable to anyone with a memory. During the campaign of the general election, Barack joined Joe Biden in calling that treaty out, stated it was unconstitutional and declared he would fight any effort by Bully Boy Bush to push it through. Maybe the cobbled together speech (with poor transitions) left him doubtful? Best allusion in the speech? To Lewis Carroll's The Walrus and The Carpenter -- how appropriate that the absurd speech references Carroll who was far better social critic than was Orwell -- "Today, I have come to speak to you about how the war in Iraq will end." Of cabbages -- and kings -- And why the sea is boiling hot -- And whether pigs have wings.
Someone ripped off Barack's wings and he can't fly. The person was US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates who held a lengthy press conference at Camp Lejeune today. Status of Forces Agreement? What SOFA? Gates: "I think what he was referring to was that under the terms of the Status Of Forces Agreement, which is what we are operating under now, all US forces must be out by the end of 2011. It will require a new agreement -- or it would require a new agreement, a new negotiation -- almost certainly an Iraqi initiative -- to provide for some presence beyond the end of 2011. So in the absence of that agreement, in the absence of any negotiation for such an agreement, it is in keeping with the SOFA that, to say definitively, that we will be out at the end of 2011." Did you catch the qualifiers? Asked could the US remain in Iraq past 2011, Gates responded, "Well, I think we'll have to wait and see. I mean, it's a hypothetical. The Iraqis have not said anything about that at this point. So it remains to be seen whether they will take an initiative. I think what we should be -- my own view would be that we should be prepared to have some very modest-sized presence for training and helping them with their new equipment and providing, perhaps, intelligence support and so on beyond that. But again, it's hypothetical, because such a -- no such request has been made, and no indication that it will be at this point."
For the record, the White House is very proud of Gates' press conference and referring reporters to it. Leading everyone to ask: Did they monitor it? Do they have any idea what Gates said?
Barack stood up at the base -- in front of the world -- and said, that come 2011 all US troops out! And Gates is saying that, well, maybe they will be, and, maybe they won't be, and these things need to be negoitated, and . . .
Gates was asked about flexibility and on that he stuck to a talking points. He avoided noting that Barack has stated many times if things go badly, US forces go back in. Barack left that out of today's big speech as well. The press is running with the number 50,000 as the number of US troops left behind in Iraq after the draw down is completed. That is most likely a low-balled figure. (Friends in the administration tell me it's 60,000 -- leading me to believe it's actually 70,000.)
Until all US troops are out, they're at risk. Today the US military announced: "BAGHDAD -- A Multi-National Division–Baghdad Soldier died Feb. 26 from combat related injuries while conducting a patrol in Baghdad. The Soldier's name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin. The incident is currently under investigation." The announcement brings the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4252. And for those paying attention, since Saturday, there have been seven deaths of US service members in Iraq announced.
We'll come back to the speech but let's first note that March 21st an action takes place and organizations participating include The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War. Here's IVAW's announcement of the March action:
IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21stAs an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.) To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.
The speech was a bunch of pretty words short on facts and not bound to reality. Look for Tom Hayden to have a wet dream in print over it. Congressional Democrats have voiced differences. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the US House of Representatives, has been clear since Wendesday that she does not favor leaving such a huge number of 'non-combat' troops in Iraq -- Anne E. Kornblut and Paul Kane (Washington Post) note Pelosi and others today. Yesterday US Senator Russ Feingold issued this statement on Barack's 'withdrawal:'After years of failed Iraq policies, I am pleased by reports that President Obama plans to significantly reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq by August 2010. Our presence in Iraq has cost thousands of American and Iraqi lives, overburdened our military, fueled anti-Americanism and distracted us from the global threat posed by al Qaeda. I am concerned, however, by reports that tens of thousands of U.S. troops may remain in Iraq beyond August 2010. I question whether such a large force is needed to combat any al Qaeda affiliates in Iraq or whether it will contribute to stability in the region.
Readers of the New York Times in print get Peter Baker's "Some Democrats Say Obama's Plan Would Leave Too Many Troops in Iraq." It's apparently a very bad report that must be buried so it's been vanished online. This is not it, nor is this. Harry Reid's quoted in the article stating, "I have been one for a long time who has called for significant cutbacks in Iraq. I'm happy to listen to the secretary of defense and the president but when they talk about 50,000, that's a little higher number than I anticipated." Patty Murray states, "I want to hear what the president has to say about justifying whatever number it is that he has. I do think we have to look carefully at the numbers that are there and do it as quickly as we can." Charles Schumer declares, "Fifty thousand is more than I would have thought. We await the justification for why that would be." Only Jack Reed plays happy, of all the senators quoted, only Jack Reed wallows in his own (and Barack's) filth. It's a shame the paper has decided to bury Baker's story. Readers of the national edition will find it on A8. It was buried this morning, it still does not exist online at the New York Times; however, an NYT friend points out it is available at NYT's International Herald Tribune -- under the same headline. And for what reason would the paper toss it to an expected foreign audience and hide it from domestic online readers? "No comment."
"Non-combat." "Combat" forces are being withdrawn. Gates and Barack were on the same page with that talking point. Thomas E. Ricks (author of the new book The Gamble) appeared on CBS' Washington Unplugged (click here for just the Ricks' segment) earlier this month and explained how Barack's 'promise' came across to Americans and 'combat' troops:Thomas E. Ricks: I think there well indeed might be a clash by the end of the year. Obama's campaign promise to get American troops out of Iraq in sixteen months was a fatuous promise. When Americans heard it, what they heard was I will have no American troops dying in 16 months. But it was a false phraseology: "combat troops." Well, newsflash for Obama, there is no such thing as non-combat troops. There's no pacifistic branch of the US Army. Anytime you have American troops out there, there are going to be some of them fighting and dying -- in counter-terror missions against al Qaeda, if you have American advisers with Iraqi troops, they're going to be getting into fights, some Americans will be dying. So I think we're there for a long time and as long as we're there -- unlike, say, the occupations of Korea, Japan and Germany, American troops will be engaged in combat. General Odierno says in the book he'd like to see 35,000 troops there as late as 2015. Well into . . . it will be Obama's second term. So I think that at the end of this year, you're going to see a conflict. Obama's going to want to see troop numbers coming down. Odierno, the other big O, as they call him in Iraq, is going to say, "Wait a minute, you're holding general elections here in December, in Iraq. That's exactly the wrong time to take troops out."
Ricks' new book has been discussed at Foreign Policy and Ricks has joined in on the book discussion. Regarding the SOFA, he write that "I just don't think it is that meaningful. As I watched it come together in Baghdad, it appeared to me to simply be a way of taking the American military presence off the table as a divisive issue in Iraqi politics. That is, it was much more about 2009 than about 2011. So I make less of it than others do. I might be wrong. Yes, I know a tremendous amount of time was spent on this at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, because I kept on hearing about it as I did my interviews last year. But expenditure of words is no indication of historical significance-just look at how screamingly irrelevant NATO is becoming, despite many speeches given in Brussels and at summit conferences. Similarly, in the book I didn't discuss the much-ballyhooed war czar, Lt. Gen. Doug Lute, because I didn't see that he mattered much to the course of the war." Prior to the speech by Barack today, he offered this predicition, "So I think he will have troops fighting and dying in Iraq for many years to come. Yes, he will get the troop numbers down. But no, he won't get out." Get out of what exactly? What is Iraq today? Matthew Schofield (McClatchy Newspapers) wrestles with that question and offers (piece is clearly labeled commentary) his opinion:
Yes, Baghdad is better.
Still, there are hundreds of Iraqi soldiers in the crowded streets, armed and armored, checking parked car after parked car. Manning checkpoints that bring traffic to a standstill. Piled into the beds of pickup trucks, thickets of AK-47 rifles pointing out.
The blast this morning was close, a block away. It was right around 7 a.m. I was asleep. A boom, the rattle of the windows, the slight contraction of the chest that comes when a blast is near. This used to be how I'd wake every morning here.
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Thursday Mosul bombing that resulted in two Iraqi service members being wounded.
Turning to war resistance news, AP reports that war resister Cliff Cornell, who turned himself in Feb. 10th at Fort Stewart, has been charged with desertion. James Branum is his attorney. PDF format warning, Branum recently wrote an article for On Watch (go through this link if PDF won't display) which Susan Basein has updated. The article is entitled "AWOL from the Army" and explains in the introduction:
This article is intended to provide an overview of the process that a lawyer or a lay military counselor would use in assisting a soldier who is AWOL (absent without leave), or considering going AWOL, from the US Army. While some of the ideas discussed here would be applicable to other branches of the military, it is imperative to understand that many of the procedures discussed below are unique to the Army and that anyone who is assisting a servicemember from another branch should get the latest information on AWOL/UA (unauthorized absence) policies from the sources listed in the addendum to this article.
We'll note another section, "VI. Mitigation and how to prepare it:"
In all AWOL cases, be it PCF or non-PCF eligible soldiers, mitigation is the key to getting your client the best outcome possible. Mitigation is a very broad concept, including almost anything that would help to explain why an offense should not be punished or should be punished with less severity than might otherwise be justified. Generally anything that would be grounds for a discharge (physical or mental health issues, family hardship, etc.) would be appropriate as mitigation, along with anything that would otherwise generate sympathy or understanding by the decision-makers in a case (e.g., command mistreatment of a soldier, failure of a command to stop mistreatment by fellow soldiers, etc.).
Cliff Cornell has explained in a PSA (see December 19, 2007 snapshot for more on the PSA), "My first sergeant who's my higher supervisor, he got up in front of a formation and basically told us there was like two guys who applied for [CO] status. He got up there and told us those two guys who applied for it and that he didn't want anyone else to apply for it because we was going to Iraq whether we liked it or not." Cornell hails from Arkansas and self checked-out of the military January 8, 2005. Kristoffer Walker is the 28-year-old Iraq War veteran who announced he would not return to Iraq. Green Bay Post-Gazette reports, "Army Spc. Kristoffer Walker is trying to hire an attorney with experience dealing with the military in the wake of his decision not to return to his unit in Iraq."
Meanwhile Antony DiMaggio (CounterPunch) explores the sameness at the White House and notes:
Despite the public's long-standing opposition to the war and support for a short timetable for withdrawal, Obama and his generals continue to defy public wishes as they debate whether the occupation will continue for another three years, six years, or indefinitely into the future. Much of the justification for this obstinacy is based on manipulation of available intelligence and from deceptively simplistic arguments that the 2007 troop surge "worked." Detailed analysis reveals that this deception is wide-ranging, as support for the surge spans across liberal and conservative mainstream media outlets.
The escalation ("surge") did not work. Those unhappy with the spin need to take it up with Barack who refused to answer that question repeatedly. Then he's saying the "surge" worked. Barack popularized that myth. (We can -- and have -- offered a detailed explanation of how the "surge" failed. We can also shorthand it: Bush started the "surge" so that the "benchmarks" could be reached -- they were not reached. Therefore the objective of the "surge" was not achieved. The "surge" was a failure.) That's a reality. More realities were in John Walsh's "Indict Bush and Impeach Obama: Liberal Leaders Betray Antiwar Cause To Serve Dems and Obama -- Again" (Dissident Voice) and even more in his reply to PDA hack Laura Bonham (see yesterday's snapshot for more on Bohham). This is Walsh reply to Bonham:John Walsh said on February 26th, 2009 at 12:51pm #"P"DA is complicit in war.In response to Laura Bonham's claim that "P"DA is principled and consistent on the question of war, I have to ask, Is she kidding? Or whom does she think she is kidding?"P"DA supported John Kerry in 2004 when he ran on a prowar platform."P"DA supported Barack Obama in 2008 - even as he called for a 100,000 increase in men and women in the active duty army and marines and even as he called to step up the war on Afghanistan and Pakistan.So far as I know, "P"DA will not be joining the March 21 national mobilization in DC against what the mainstream media call Obama's war.Obama has been bombing Pakistan, an act of war, without any Congressional declaration of war, an impeachable offense. "P"DA has not called for impeachment.If Bush were doing any of this "P"DA would be yelling at the top of its lungs. But I hear only quiet when Obama does these things -- perhaps a few statements on the web site to cover their ass, but no action at all.As Eugene McCarthy, echoing Daniel Webster, said of the war on Vietnam, it went on because too many placed party over principle. That is exactly what "P"DA is doing.john walsh
Meanwhile in labor news, David Bacon offers "Strawberry Workers in Santa Maria" (Political Affairs Magazine -- photos and text) which follows Guillermina Arzola of San Sebastian del Monte in Oaxaca as he and other immigrant workers toil in Santa Maria, California in the berry fields. As always, Bacon illuminates the realities in this 'hot-button' issue that tends to reduce the humanity at other outlets (intentionally or not -- but I'm not feeling very generous this morning so I'll say intentionally). These are very moving photos. David Bacon's latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press).
Public broadcasting notes. NOW on PBS begins airing tonight on many PBS stations (check local listings) and they explore "Retirement at Risk:"In this struggling economy, boomers are rightfully worried about the funds they were counting on to carry them through the rest of their lives. Will they be able to afford their own retirement?NOW turns to two experts for help and insight: Amy Domini, a pioneer in the field of socially responsible investing; and journalist Dan Gross, who covers the economy for Slate and Newsweek.Read an excerpt from Daniel Gross' new book: "Dumb Money: How Our Greatest Financial Minds Bankrupted the Nation"Washington Week also begins airing tonight on many PBS stations and I hesitate to say it but it has the makings of being a show worth watching this week. Dan Balz (Washington Post), Peter Baker (New York Times) and Martha Raddatz (ABC News) will be on. Baker has been covering Barack's plan for 'withdrawal' and Martha, of course, famously told Washington Week viewers last month what was going to take place. From the last Washington Week for January -- Ava and I noted it here:Martha Raddatz: They laid out plans or started to lay out plans for the sixteen-month withdrawal, which President Obama says he wants, or the three-year withdrawal which is the Status Of Forces Agreement that the US has gone into with the Iraqis. And they talked about the risks with each of those. Ray Odierno, who is the general in charge of Iraqi forces, said, 'If you run out in sixteen months -- if you get out in sixteen months, there are risks. The security gains could go down the tube. If you wait three years, there are other risks because you can't get forces into Afghanistan as quickly.' So President Obama made no decisions. Again, he's going to meet with Joint Chiefs next week and probably will make a military decision. But also a key there is how many troops he leaves behind. That's something we're not talking about so much, he's not talking about so much. This residual force that could be 50, 60, 70,000 troops even if he withdraws --Gwen Ifill: That's not exactly getting out of Iraq.Martha Raddatz: Not exactly getting out completely.Washington Week also notes that Jim Lehrer will have an exclusive interview with Barack Obama on this evening's NewsHour.Moving over to broadcast TV (CBS) Sunday, on 60 Minutes:The Man Who KnewHarry Markopolos repeatedly told the Securities and Exchange Commission that Bernie Madoff's investment fund was a fraud. He was ignored, however, and investors lost billions of dollars. Steve Kroft reports.
Mexico's WarDrug-cartel fueled violence has turned into a war in Mexico, with thousands of deaths and the government battling well-armed gangs whose military-quality weapons come mostly from U.S. dealers. CNN's Anderson Cooper reports.
Bobby JindalHe's been called the Republican Obama and some think he may run for the presidency some day. But his opposition speech after the president's address to Congress this week caused some to say he's too young and inexperienced. Morley Safer profiles the governor of Louisiana.
60 Minutes, Sunday, March 1, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
Wrapping up, Liza Minelli tells Liz Smith, "If you've got one foot in yesterday, and one foot in tomorrow, you're pissing all over today!" I know and like Liza and that's our entry point for a friend at wowOwow (which previews Liz's interview with Liza for Parade -- see your Sunday paper if it's one of the many that carries Parade or use link and Liz is now a contributing editor for Parade) who has asked twice this week that something be noted. wowOwow was mentioned in the New York Times this week as a result of the New York Post dumping Liz Smith's column (apparently under the belief that words confuse Post readers). Liz's columns will now appear at wowOwow (and across the country, she remains syndicated, in various newspapers). Joni Evans explained, "Beginning next week Liz Smith will be posting more news, hot gossip and opinions all the time on wowOwow -- free from the constraints of newspaper deadlines. Thursday" that's yesterday "will be the last Liz Smith column for The New York Post -- the first time in 33 years that Liz Smith's column will not be in a New York newspaper. This sad news for the New York print business is spectacular news for us. Our fabulous and beloved Diva of Dish will be here on wowOwow, posting exclusive-to-Liz breaking celebrity news as it happens. It will, occassionally, be highlighted with audio and film and all the tools of an Internet entrepreneur." Marlo Thomas, Cynthia McFadden, Joan Ganz Cooney, Joan Juliet Buck, Sheila Nevins and others try their hand at a Liz Smith type item at wowOwow today. For strangers who ask that something to be noted, even friends get put on hold. Again, I've been asked to note this all week and haven't had the time. It's better to note it today because Liz Smith hasn't died, she hasn't retired and, as she says today, in her first column free from the Post, "I have decided it is quite exhilarating to be fired, at the age of 86, from a job you've had for 14 yeras. Fortunately, I seem to be healthy so I'm forging ahead. I do want to say that I am in love all over again with ABC-TV's Bill Ritter, guardian of the six and 11 PM news in NYC, because in discussing the end of my affair with the New York Post tabloid, he described me as 'Eighty-six -- going on 40!' It was almost worth losing a salary and a daily tenure of 33 years in New York newspapers just to hear those words." We used to Liza as an entry point, we'll use someone else I know as an exit. Dee Dee Myers is the author of Why Women Should Rule the World -- just out in softcover after being a bestseller in hardcover -- and at wowOwow she elaborates on the book's topic and on Elena Kagan being named the US solicitor general:
The simple fact is: Men and women often experience the world differently. And that experience influences what we buy, what we read and what we watch, who we vote for and how we lead. It shapes our priorities and values. It makes us who we are. And when we include -- and respect -- these different points of view, we broaden the dialogue, expand the scope of inquiry, change the way we think. We make business more efficient. We make government more responsive. We get better science, better schools and better courts. It matters that there will be a woman in the solicitor general's office. And in the secretary of state's office. And in the speaker's office. And in countless other offices across the country. It matters not only because the women can do their jobs as well as their male predecessors. It also matters because they see things differently. Even if those differences start with something as simple as a tampon.
iraq
cbs newswashington unplugged
thomas e. ricks
cliff cornell
jim branum
david bacon
the newshour60 minutespbswashington weeknow on pbsdan baltzpeter bakermartha raddatzthe new york timespeter baker
the washington postanne e. kornblutpaul kane
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Dennis Loo II
"The Water Line: Morality, the Rule of Law, and Leadership II " (Dennis Loo, World Can't Wait):
No mass sentiment, no matter how widespread and strongly felt, can find concrete and effective expression unless it is organized, focused and led. People who blame the American people for their apathy and conclude that the public is principally (or wholly) at fault for Bush and Cheney’s reign and our current crises fail to recognize that all societies (and any group of any kind) need leadership.
The adage, “If the people lead, the leaders will follow” misses a critical fact. For the people to lead, that is, for the unusual circumstance to occur of the public by-passing the existing leaders and forcing the existing leaders to abide by the public’s wishes, leaders from among the public’s ranks must step forward as new and substitute leaders leading the rest of the people. To expect otherwise would be like asking an arrow whose point has been broken off to stick to a target.
If mass sentiment remains unfocused and unorganized, and the existing government leaders refuse to abide by the popular will, the government can effectively prevent the popular will from being done. In 2006 the American electorate swept the GOP majority out of Congress because the people wanted the Iraq war to end and the Bush White House held to account. The Democratic controlled Congress not only didn’t do these things, they actually gave Bush more money for the illegitimate wars than Bush asked for and legalized after the fact the felonious crimes Bush had been caught committing!
What can stop political leaders from refusing to abide by public sentiment when the mass media refuses to reveal the full and true nature of popular sentiment and act as flacks for the political leadership class?
That's Dennis Loo and that's the second part of a three-part essay. I highlighted him last night so I'm calling this "Dennis Loo II." Again, I don't agree with the above. I understand what he's saying; but I think the people are at fault.
I do not think that we had a more aware public going into 2008 than we'd seen since the sixties. People were talking about who was making money off the war and other very real issues. But what happened?
They went for Barack. They went for him because their 'leaders' told them to. They went for him because their 'leaders' lied. I mean, look at the ridiculous FAIR. At least once a month in 2008, Ava and C.I. were explaining to you how that ridiculous organiation wasn't following its own guidelines. Now, yes, Ava and C.I. are highly intelligent; however, this wasn't one incident they picked up on. These were repeated incidents. That FAIR wasn't following the guidelines and standards they set for others should have been obvious to all.
It shouldn't have taken C.I. calling them out for not protesting Ralph Nader being shut out of the debates (as they'd done in election cycles prior) for them to finally launch a lame action alert (in complete response to C.I. laying it out with links to their past work on the subject).
Non-FAIR, another example. Do we believe in public financing? If we are left, yes, we do. Barack kicked it to the curb. How do you forget that? You don't.
The public allowed themselves to be lied to. If you've been drilled for years to be a media critic over and over, you should be able to do that when your beggar media fails you. But now we have another War Hawk and one who also doesn't listen to the people.
Great. We're not back where we started from, we're worse off and the reason is because huge sections of the population are afraid to criticque Barack. That includes a noted writer who is a friend of C.I.'s and had the best critique of Barack. But waited and waited and waited to offer it and already has another but feels that there needs to be a pause (even though it's been months) or else it will be non-stop attacks.
People are afraid to speak the truth. Imagine if we have another 9-11. Right now, without one, people are afraid to speak the truth.
So, I'm sorry Dennis Loo, I love your essays and am enjoying the series but people need to take accountability.
Okay tonight is a theme post. Betty wrote about "Stevie Nicks" Monday and I got that post assigned. (We all had a post assigned.)
I think Betty really captured Stevie in her post. The music is elemental and romantic and when she spoke of a storm moving in and how she and her brother would open the windows and blast Stevie, it really captured what makes Stevie's music so alive.
For some longterm fans, the question is Stevie solo or with the Mac?
I say solo. I wouldn't have said that before. But on albums, I say solo.
I think Buckingham's given far too much control over the Mac albums. I think he betrayed Stevie by speeding her voice up on the last studio album. I also think he tends to get all his garbage on an album and others (now just Stevie) have to fight for space.
With Christine McVie gone, it's becom especially irritating. Christine is a talented songwriter and singer. But the thing I notice most is how with her gone, the background vocals aren't worth noting.
I prefer Stevie on CD solo. Even at her worst, I'd prefer her solo. (Worst? I hated Street Angel for years.) I hope she does another solo album before the decade ends. There isn't a great deal of time. She and the Mac are either just starting a tour or about to so it's doubtful she'll do another CD.
That's actually very depressing, grasping that a decade's almost gone by and we only got one solo album from Stevie.
An American original and one of a kind.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Wednesday, February 25, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Barack Obama is expected to announce a 'plan' for Iraq by week's end, a manhunt is underweigh in Iraq, Jack Straw faces intense criticism, the non-withdrawal 'withdrawal,' and more.
Appearing on NBC's Today Show this morning, US Vice President Joe Biden spoke with Matt Lauer and the issue of Iraq was raised at the end of the exchange when Lauer brought up the reports that US President Barack Obama would be announcing a draw down plan for some troops which would be done over a nineteen-month period:
Matt Lauer: Now you guys ran on a pledge to withdraw all US combat troops within 16 months. I'm not going to split hairs on the three months, I don't think anybody will, but I want to get these troop numbers down. That would not be a withdrawal of all combat troops, would it?
Joe Biden: Look, the president's going to make an announcement on Friday -- I believe it's Friday -- or very soon on this very point, Matt. And I'd rather have him speak to that and he'll speak to it in detail. I think the American public will be -- understand exactly what we're doing and they will be pleased.
Matt Lauer: But are we going -- are you keeping a campaign promise or breaking a campaign promise?
Joe Biden: We're keeping a campaign committment.
The question was necessary because, as Ross Colvin (Reuters) notes, "When former President George W. Bush addressed the U.S. Congress in January 2008 he gave three pages of his speech to the Iraq war. On Tuesday night his successor Barack Obama spoke a single sentence." That was Barack's 52-minute speech last night, where he yet again made clear that the Iraq War isn't a topic he wants to be pinned down on despite the White House running to reporters all yesterday insisting Iraq would be part of the speech. And his inattention to the topic is being registering. Gordon Lubold and Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) report, "One Iraqi official says the US and Iraq have not yet begun negotiations on the size of the residual force, adding that the Obama administration, currently focused on the American economy and ramping up operations in Afghanistan, was far less engaged with Iraq policy than the previous administration." Yesterday on CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, David Martin reported on the expected announcements regarding the draw down in Iraq, noting the speculation of insiders that Barack has elected to go with a 19-month timeline to withdraw "combat" troops from Iraq.David Martin: But there would still be tens of thousands of troops in Iraq, perhaps as many as 50,000. They would be formed into so-called 'training and assistance' brigades to support the Iraqi army and police but they would still be capable of conducting combat operations and would be able to call in strikes from carrier or land-based aircraft.
And, yes, there would be. ABC News' Martha Raddatz was raising that issue back in January on PBS' Washington Week -- Ava and I noted it here:Martha Raddatz: They laid out plans or started to lay out plans for the sixteen-month withdrawal, which President Obama says he wants, or the three-year withdrawal which is the Status Of Forces Agreement that the US has gone into with the Iraqis. And they talked about the risks with each of those. Ray Odierno, who is the general in charge of Iraqi forces, said, 'If you run out in sixteen months -- if you get out in sixteen months, there are risks. The security gains could go down the tube. If you wait three years, there are other risks because you can't get forces into Afghanistan as quickly.' So President Obama made no decisions. Again, he's going to meet with Joint Chiefs next week and probably will make a military decision. But also a key there is how many troops he leaves behind. That's something we're not talking about so much, he's not talking about so much. This residual force that could be 50, 60, 70,000 troops even if he withdraws --Gwen Ifill: That's not exactly getting out of Iraq.Martha Raddatz: Not exactly getting out completely.This morning, Elisabeth Bumiller and Peter Baker (New York Times) reported that "defense officials said they did not know how many combat troops would stay behind in new missions as trainers, advisers or counterterrorism forces, at least some of whom would still be effectively in combat roles. Military planners have said that in order to meet withdrawal deadlines, they would reassign some combat troops to training and support of the Iraqis, even though the troops would still be armed and go on combat patrols with their Iraqi counterparts." Ann Scott Tyson and Anne E. Kornblut (Washington Post) note that the possible Friday announcement could take place in North Carolina (Barack will be visiting bases) and that the 19-months being tossed around is "three months later than promised during his campaign". Depending on the news outlet, the estimates for the number of US troops currently on the ground in Iraq goes from approximately 142,000 (Ann Scott Tyson and Anne E. Kornblut as well as David Martin go with that figure) to 147,000 (especially popular with AFP and Scottish outlets). (Yes, the Pentagon should have a running count to clear the issue up.) Matt Lauer can decide he's not going to make an issue out of it -- as he demonstrated -- but he's a morning talk show host. He's not been elected by anyone to speak on behalf of Americans. He may be fine and dandy with three extra months (that will not even lead to a withdrawal) but let's be clear that three months could mean 44 dead Americans. That is the number of US service members who have died in Iraq in the last three months (February isn't done yet so the number could rise). Matt's fond of taking Jack along on interviews with Barack. If Jack Lauer were over in Iraq, possibly the thought of 44 more deaths might be of interest to Matt. You don't play the lotto with human lives. So, yes, three months do matter.
Military Families Speak Out's Elaine Brower (writing at World Can't Wait) has a son who is on his third tour of Iraq. It matters.
This is wrong. The occupation is wrong, and those of us in the anti-war movement have been screaming this at the top of our lungs for the last 6 years, even before the first boots were on the ground in Iraq. Even before the campaign of "shock and awe" even lit up the skies above innocent people. What the hell are we thinking?
Because it isn't Bush and Cheney, those loathsome characters we so love to hate that isn't doing this, it's OK? That because it isn't Don Rumsfeld, that warmongering war criminal of a pig, it's OK? Because the face of the occupation is now Barack Obama it's OK?
Well I have a newsflash, it's NOT OK! We have in our infinite wisdom killed over 1 million Iraqis, displaced 2 million, destroyed hospitals, mosques, historical sites, homes, agricultural, stolen natural resources, orphaned children, made widows, killed entire families, sent over 4,200 soldiers to their deaths, severly wounded another 50,000, not including those who have PTSD and are committing suicide in record-breaking amounts, and we think we shouldn't be out in the streets demanding an end to this now? Why is that?
It also matter that Barack left an impression with the American people as to his 'plan' -- left that impression throughout his primary and general campaigns (which is what Matt was trying to get to on Today this morning). Thomas E. Ricks (author of The Gamble) appeared on CBS' Washington Unplugged (click here for just the Ricks' segment) two Fridays ago and explained how Barack's 'promise' came across to Americans:Thomas E. Ricks: I think there well indeed might be a clash by the end of the year. Obama's campaign promise to get American troops out of Iraq in sixteen months was a fatuous promise. When Americans heard it, what they heard was 'I will have no American troops dying in 16 months.' But it was a false phraseology: "combat troops." Well, newsflash for Obama, there is no such thing as non-combat troops. There's no pacifistic branch of the US Army. Anytime you have American troops out there, there are going to be some of them fighting and dying -- in counter-terror missions against al Qaeda, if you have American advisers with Iraqi troops, they're going to be getting into fights, some Americans will be dying. So I think we're there for a long time and as long as we're there -- unlike, say, the occupations of Korea, Japan and Germany, American troops will be engaged in combat. General Odierno says in the book he'd like to see 35,000 troops there as late as 2015. Well into . . . it will be Obama's second term. So I think that at the end of this year, you're going to see a conflict. Obama's going to want to see troop numbers coming down. Odierno, the other big O, as they call him in Iraq, is going to say, "Wait a minute, you're holding general elections here in December, in Iraq. That's exactly the wrong time to take troops out."
Barack deliberately misled the American people -- a large faction was willing to be misled and wanted to be. Equally true is that, when pressed (he was rarely pressed), he would admit that he would not just stop withdrawing troops but reverse the direction (send more troops back in) depending upon 'the situation on the ground.' That was his policy -- outlined best to the New York Times -- in the transcript of the interview, not the bad write up and it was covered at length in the November 2, 2007 snapshot -- and it can be boiled down as: "My concerns is if you draw down in response too rapidly, draw down in response to American political pressure, instead of as the Iraqis take over area, then there are other ares of Iraq that don't have a government presence that desperately need one, and rather than bring our forces home we should be moving into those areas. When we have all of Iraq with a security presence, that is significant enough to make a difference, then we can start drawing down . . . " And that quote? It's actually from Col Thomas Hammes (retired) and he explained the 'plan' on The NewsHour (PBS -- link has video and text) back in December 23, 2005. No, there's not a bit of difference between Barack and Bush.
And that was noticeable in November 2007. Tom Hayden showed up making like Helen Morgan and singing "The Man I Love" over the write-up Michael Gordon and Jeff Zeleny did. Then, when the transcript was pointed out to him, he was a bit more somber and had one of those You-listen-to-me-Barack moments. (They fade quickly. And Billie Holiday also recorded a strong version of "The Man I Love," I just find it more apt to compare Tom-Tom to Helen Morgan.) It was always there: The bases around -- but not in -- Iraq, the need for a 'residual presence' even after 'withdrawal,' admitting he'd send US troops back into Iraq in the midst of 'withdrawal' dickering over terms to maintain 'combat troops' had been removed -- in fact, let's provide an example of that:
Obama: But they aren't necessarily military missions. NYT: But how do you go back into Iraq without military forces? Obama: No, no, no, no, no. You conflated three things. The latter two that you are talked about are not military missions. Let's just be clear about that. NYT: An armed escort is not a military mission?
Again, it was known. From that day's snapshot:
Though Obama says he wants "to be clear," he refuses to answer that yes or no question and the interview is over."
So let's be clear that the 'anti-war' Obama told the paper he would send troops back into Iraq. Furthermore, when asked if he would be willing to do that unilaterally, he attempts to beg off with, "We're talking too speculatively right now for me to answer." But this is his heavily pimped September (non)plan, dusted off again, with a shiny new binder. The story is that Barack Obama will NOT bring all US troops home. Even if the illegal war ended, Obama would still keep troops stationed in Iraq (although he'd really, really love it US forces could be stationed in Kuwait exclusively), he would still use them to train (the police0 and still use them to protect the US fortress/embassy and still use them to conduct counter-terrorism actions.
If any of the above surprises you, you can scream at the media (and should) but it's also time for you to take a little accountability for your own willful ignorance. Moving to some calling out the nonsense today and starting with Chris Floyd (via CounterPunch) who was one of the few calling it out when it mattered:
It would be surperflous in us to point out that a plan to "end" a war which includes the continued garrisoning of up to 50,000 troops in a hostile land is, in reality, a continuation of that war, not its cessation. To produce such a plan and claim that it "ends" a war is the precise equivalent of, say, relieving one's bladder on the back of one's neighbor and telling him that the liquid is actually life-giving rain.
But this is exactly what we are going to get from the Obama Administration in Iraq. Word has now come from on high -- that is, from "senior administration officials" using "respectable newspapers" as a wholly uncritical conduit for government spin -- that President Obama has reached a grand compromise with his generals (or rather, the generals and Pentagon poobahs he has inherited -- and eagerly retained -- from George W. Bush) on a plan to withdraw some American troops from the country that the United States destroyed in an unprovoked war of aggression.
Meanwhile John Walsh (Dissident Voice) notes how cozy and familiar with the right-wing Katrina vanden Heuvel (editor and publisher of The Nation magazine) and Leslie Cagan (pension drawer in retirement pretending to lead an 'anti-war' movement):
Vanden Heuvel's most recent piece in The Nation runs under a title in the form of a query, "Obama's War?" Whose war does she think it is anyway? Even the mainstream media calls it Obama's war -- sans question mark. Her piece ran shortly after Obama ordered 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan and almost a month after both Afghan and Pakistani civilians were first bombed at Obama's orders. She concludes her piece, after citing the deployment of additional troops, "Up to this point the Afghan war belonged to George W. Bush, but Obama's escalation threatens to make it his own. There's still time to change direction. President Obama don't make this your war"! (Emphasis mine. If escalation of the AfPak war (the war on Afghanistan and Pakistan) only "threatens" to make the war Obama's, what will it take to give him ownership?)
Having supported Obama during the election when he was very clear about his coming Crusade in Afghanistan and having made no demands in exchange for their support, the liberals are now reduced, their leverage gone, to begging for a change in course. Pity, pathos, disgust or a sense of betrayal -- it is hard to know what to feel when one encounters this stuff.
Similarly Cagan's United for Peace and Justice, dominated by the "Progressive" Democrats of America ("P"DA) and the "Communist" Party of the U.S.A ("C"PUSA) -- more or less the same thing, not because "P"DA is radical but because the "C"PUSA is not -- has been all too silent on Obama's AfPak War. As a result there have been discordant rumblings among the rank and file about UFPJ's failure to call a national demonstration against the wars flaring from Iraq to Pakistan and refusal to join the only one called, that by ANSWER (Act Now To Stop War and End Racism) for March 21.
The March 21st action around the corner and organizations participating include The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War. Here's IVAW's announcement of the March action:
IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21stAs an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.) To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.
Meanwhile Michael Collins (Dissident Voice) asks why aren't the Iraqi people consulted on this issue: "Who asked the Iraqi people about the withdrawal schedule? As the self-proclaimed proponents for democracy and human rights, shouldn't the United States inquire as to the will of the people before initiating any policy changes? . . . Relying on the ever-shifting positions of a very unpopular Iraqi government is useless in assessing the will of the Iraqi people. The only way to determine their will is through a national election."
No democracy, no real justice system. The latter is being found out by Mohammad al-Daini, a Sunni member of the Iraqi Parliament. As Marc Santora (New York Times) reported this morning, al-Daini was publicly accused Sunday of various crimes including bombing Parliament in 2007 and MP Saleh al-Mulaq is calling for "a full investigation fo the Shiite leaders of government for their links to violence" and states, "Let's begin a real effort to disclose information about those involved in killings and sectarian displacement. Then we will discover that there are leaders inside the political process who took part in these events." Ahmed Rasheed and Wisam Mohammed (Reuters) report that al-Daini was due to land in Jordan this morning; however, al-Maliki's government ordered that the plane return to Iraq which it did. The reporters also note that Parliament voted to lift his legal immunity (as an MP, he did have legal immunity). Tina Susman and Raheem Salman (Los Angeles Times) report that "Daini's whereabouts remain a mystery as the political clamor over his alleged crimes, everything from murder to gold heists, escalates and threatens to rev up sectarian polarization in parliament. The plainclothes security guard who escorted Daini, a Sunni Arab politician, off the plane was part of his personal security contingent, as were the security officers who drove away with him shortly before a nationwide manhunt began."
In other news . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing which left six people injured, a Mosul car bombing that resulted in the death of the driver and a Mosul grenade attack that injured two people.
Shootings?
Reuters notes that Tuesday night in Kirkuk "a prominent business man" was shot dead.
Kidnappings?
Reuters notes that "three employees of Iraq's state-run Northern Oil Company' and one other person were kidnapped in Rashad today.
Yesterday's snapshot noted the death of a US soldier. Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) was the first reporter with a US paper to file on it (as Ruth pointed out last night): "A U.S. soldier and an Iraqi interpreter were killed today and three American troops were injured when gunmen, who officials said wore Iraqi police uniforms, fired on them in the northern city of Mosul. It was the third time since November that men in Iraqi security forces uniforms have attacked American forces in Nineveh province." Those waking up with today's New York Times could read Marc Santora's print article on the incident where he sketched out what was known and what was supsected. The Kansas City Star has to run an article by Brian Murphy (AP) because, despite being a McClatchy outlet, there was no McClatchy story to carry. Meanwhile Matthew D. LePlante (Salt Lake Tribune) reports the passing of a local resident:
The students in Micheal Alleman's class didn't take kindly to the news.It was the middle of the school year, and the popular fifth-grade teacher was leaving his career as an educator to join the Army. He told the class he wanted to be like the nation's first president, who left his career as a Virginia planter to take up arms against the British monarchy."He said that George Washington was his hero," said Samantha Larkin, 11, a student in Alleman's class at Nibley Elementary School in Cache County, last year. "But it was a little bit confusing to us."On Tuesday, Alleman's former students were among those in several Utah communities coming to terms with a revelation that was even more difficult to accept: The teacher-turned-soldier had been killed in Iraq.
Along with Michael Alleman, Michael L. Mayne and Zachary Norman were killed in Iraq on Monday. WTHR-TV notes Indianapolis reaction to Zachary Norman's death:
"It was sad for his instructors and I know sad for his family. At three o'clock today there is a gonna be a moment of silence for him as students dismiss. We will ask students to do the moment of silence and to think about the sacrifices that Zach and other veterans have made for our freedom," said Cheri O'Day, Ben Davis High School.
Ben Davis will also add Zachary Nordmeyer's name to a wall of honor for its graduates that have died in the line of duty. Nordmeyer becomes the 18th former student who made the ultimate sacrifice.
Saturday, May 12, 2007 an al-Taqa attack on US soldiers took place resulting in 4 US soldiers and 1 Iraqi translator being killed immediately and three US soldiers missing. The three missing were Jospeh Anzack, Byron Fouty and Alex Jimenez. In May of 2007 (23rd), the family of Joseph Anzack was informed his body had been identifed. Still missing were Byron Fouty and Alex Jimenez. July 11, 2008 the press reported (citing Byron Fouty's step-father for confirmation) that the remains of both soldiers had been identified. That afternoon the US Dept of Defense released a statement: "The Department of Defense today announced the deaths of two soldiers previously listed as "Missing-Captured" while supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. On July 10, the Armed Forces Medical Examiner positively identified human remains recovered in Iraq July 9 to be those of two soldiers who had been previously listed as 'Missing-Captured.' . . . Jimenez and Fouty were part of a patrol that was ambushed by enemy forces south of Baghdad on May 12, 2007. They were assigned to the 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), Fort Drum, N.Y. The Department of Defense previously announced the names of soldiers killed in the attack. They were Pfc. Joseph J. Anzack, Jr., 20, of Torrance, Calif.; Sgt. 1st Class James D. Connell, Jr., 40, of Lake City, Tenn.; Pfc. Daniel W. Courneya, 19, of Nashville, Mich.; Cpl. Christopher E. Murphy, 21, of Lynchburg, Va.; and Sgt. Anthony J. Schober, 23, of Reno, Nev." Last night, Mike highlighted Brian MacQuarrie (Boston Globe, Feb. 18, 2009) article on Byron Fouty and Alex Jimenez' families holding a service at Arlington National Cemetary:
One stone will mark the resting place for Jimenez, 25, and Fouty, 19.Rest, also, could come for two families who endured nearly 14 months of agony until, after a massive manhunt involving 4,000 troops, the bodies of the soldiers were discovered at last on July 8, 2008. A native of Pembroke, Mass., Private Matthew Bean, died after being shot by a sniper during the search.The remains that could be identified had already been buried: Jimenez's in Farmingdale, N.Y., near his mother's home; Fouty's in Fort Sam Houston, Texas.A second funeral, however, proved no easier for parents and loved ones living with recurring, excruciating thoughts of the suffering that their soldiers probably endured."It's very difficult, because we know that part of him is in there," said Jimenez's mother, Maria Duran of Queens, N.Y., as she nodded toward the casket during a wake the previous night.
In England yesterday there was huge news and one of the few US outlets to cover the story today is the Dallas Morning News which notes, "Britain's justice secretary overturned an order Tuesday that would have forced the government to make public the formal minutes of two contentious Cabinet discussions held before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. The minutes detail advice the Cabinet was receiving on the legality of the Iraq war." That secretary is Jack Straw and Gary Slapper (Times of London) declares he "has violated a key principle of the British constitution. The principle is nemo judex in sua causa: no-one should be aj udge in his own case. Mr Straw stands personally to gain by continuing secrecy of the cabinet papers. The war in Iraq has been described by Lord Bingham of Cornhill, the former senior law lord, as "a serious violation of international law". The British public has a legitimate interest in knowing how its government came to have entered it. Jack Straw was Foreign Secretary at the key time." At the UK's Military Families Against the War, Rose Gentle (whose son Gordon Gentle died in Iraq) asks:
What is the point of a freedom of information act if there is a escape clause in it just for government? Do they have something to hide?
They did say when the troops where out that they would have an Inquiry into the war. Will people ever trust a government again?
All we want to know is why our troops where sent in to Iraq -- this country has the right to know what is in those minutes. I have the right to know why my son was sent there to die. We all know it definitely wasn't for WMD -- lets hope one day their kids or grand kids don't go to a war looking for WMD
Sam Coates (Times of London) reveals Straw, by his own words, is "considering a clampdown on freedom of information laws".
iraq
matt lauergwen ifillpbswashington weekcbs newswashington unpluggedthe cbs evening news with katie couricthe new york timeselisabeth bumiller
marc santorapeter bakerthomas e. ricks
the washington postann scott tysonanne e. kornblut
the los angeles timestina susman
chris floyd
john walsh
michael d. laplante
gary slapper
ross colvin
mikey likes itruths report
No mass sentiment, no matter how widespread and strongly felt, can find concrete and effective expression unless it is organized, focused and led. People who blame the American people for their apathy and conclude that the public is principally (or wholly) at fault for Bush and Cheney’s reign and our current crises fail to recognize that all societies (and any group of any kind) need leadership.
The adage, “If the people lead, the leaders will follow” misses a critical fact. For the people to lead, that is, for the unusual circumstance to occur of the public by-passing the existing leaders and forcing the existing leaders to abide by the public’s wishes, leaders from among the public’s ranks must step forward as new and substitute leaders leading the rest of the people. To expect otherwise would be like asking an arrow whose point has been broken off to stick to a target.
If mass sentiment remains unfocused and unorganized, and the existing government leaders refuse to abide by the popular will, the government can effectively prevent the popular will from being done. In 2006 the American electorate swept the GOP majority out of Congress because the people wanted the Iraq war to end and the Bush White House held to account. The Democratic controlled Congress not only didn’t do these things, they actually gave Bush more money for the illegitimate wars than Bush asked for and legalized after the fact the felonious crimes Bush had been caught committing!
What can stop political leaders from refusing to abide by public sentiment when the mass media refuses to reveal the full and true nature of popular sentiment and act as flacks for the political leadership class?
That's Dennis Loo and that's the second part of a three-part essay. I highlighted him last night so I'm calling this "Dennis Loo II." Again, I don't agree with the above. I understand what he's saying; but I think the people are at fault.
I do not think that we had a more aware public going into 2008 than we'd seen since the sixties. People were talking about who was making money off the war and other very real issues. But what happened?
They went for Barack. They went for him because their 'leaders' told them to. They went for him because their 'leaders' lied. I mean, look at the ridiculous FAIR. At least once a month in 2008, Ava and C.I. were explaining to you how that ridiculous organiation wasn't following its own guidelines. Now, yes, Ava and C.I. are highly intelligent; however, this wasn't one incident they picked up on. These were repeated incidents. That FAIR wasn't following the guidelines and standards they set for others should have been obvious to all.
It shouldn't have taken C.I. calling them out for not protesting Ralph Nader being shut out of the debates (as they'd done in election cycles prior) for them to finally launch a lame action alert (in complete response to C.I. laying it out with links to their past work on the subject).
Non-FAIR, another example. Do we believe in public financing? If we are left, yes, we do. Barack kicked it to the curb. How do you forget that? You don't.
The public allowed themselves to be lied to. If you've been drilled for years to be a media critic over and over, you should be able to do that when your beggar media fails you. But now we have another War Hawk and one who also doesn't listen to the people.
Great. We're not back where we started from, we're worse off and the reason is because huge sections of the population are afraid to criticque Barack. That includes a noted writer who is a friend of C.I.'s and had the best critique of Barack. But waited and waited and waited to offer it and already has another but feels that there needs to be a pause (even though it's been months) or else it will be non-stop attacks.
People are afraid to speak the truth. Imagine if we have another 9-11. Right now, without one, people are afraid to speak the truth.
So, I'm sorry Dennis Loo, I love your essays and am enjoying the series but people need to take accountability.
Okay tonight is a theme post. Betty wrote about "Stevie Nicks" Monday and I got that post assigned. (We all had a post assigned.)
I think Betty really captured Stevie in her post. The music is elemental and romantic and when she spoke of a storm moving in and how she and her brother would open the windows and blast Stevie, it really captured what makes Stevie's music so alive.
For some longterm fans, the question is Stevie solo or with the Mac?
I say solo. I wouldn't have said that before. But on albums, I say solo.
I think Buckingham's given far too much control over the Mac albums. I think he betrayed Stevie by speeding her voice up on the last studio album. I also think he tends to get all his garbage on an album and others (now just Stevie) have to fight for space.
With Christine McVie gone, it's becom especially irritating. Christine is a talented songwriter and singer. But the thing I notice most is how with her gone, the background vocals aren't worth noting.
I prefer Stevie on CD solo. Even at her worst, I'd prefer her solo. (Worst? I hated Street Angel for years.) I hope she does another solo album before the decade ends. There isn't a great deal of time. She and the Mac are either just starting a tour or about to so it's doubtful she'll do another CD.
That's actually very depressing, grasping that a decade's almost gone by and we only got one solo album from Stevie.
An American original and one of a kind.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Wednesday, February 25, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Barack Obama is expected to announce a 'plan' for Iraq by week's end, a manhunt is underweigh in Iraq, Jack Straw faces intense criticism, the non-withdrawal 'withdrawal,' and more.
Appearing on NBC's Today Show this morning, US Vice President Joe Biden spoke with Matt Lauer and the issue of Iraq was raised at the end of the exchange when Lauer brought up the reports that US President Barack Obama would be announcing a draw down plan for some troops which would be done over a nineteen-month period:
Matt Lauer: Now you guys ran on a pledge to withdraw all US combat troops within 16 months. I'm not going to split hairs on the three months, I don't think anybody will, but I want to get these troop numbers down. That would not be a withdrawal of all combat troops, would it?
Joe Biden: Look, the president's going to make an announcement on Friday -- I believe it's Friday -- or very soon on this very point, Matt. And I'd rather have him speak to that and he'll speak to it in detail. I think the American public will be -- understand exactly what we're doing and they will be pleased.
Matt Lauer: But are we going -- are you keeping a campaign promise or breaking a campaign promise?
Joe Biden: We're keeping a campaign committment.
The question was necessary because, as Ross Colvin (Reuters) notes, "When former President George W. Bush addressed the U.S. Congress in January 2008 he gave three pages of his speech to the Iraq war. On Tuesday night his successor Barack Obama spoke a single sentence." That was Barack's 52-minute speech last night, where he yet again made clear that the Iraq War isn't a topic he wants to be pinned down on despite the White House running to reporters all yesterday insisting Iraq would be part of the speech. And his inattention to the topic is being registering. Gordon Lubold and Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) report, "One Iraqi official says the US and Iraq have not yet begun negotiations on the size of the residual force, adding that the Obama administration, currently focused on the American economy and ramping up operations in Afghanistan, was far less engaged with Iraq policy than the previous administration." Yesterday on CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, David Martin reported on the expected announcements regarding the draw down in Iraq, noting the speculation of insiders that Barack has elected to go with a 19-month timeline to withdraw "combat" troops from Iraq.David Martin: But there would still be tens of thousands of troops in Iraq, perhaps as many as 50,000. They would be formed into so-called 'training and assistance' brigades to support the Iraqi army and police but they would still be capable of conducting combat operations and would be able to call in strikes from carrier or land-based aircraft.
And, yes, there would be. ABC News' Martha Raddatz was raising that issue back in January on PBS' Washington Week -- Ava and I noted it here:Martha Raddatz: They laid out plans or started to lay out plans for the sixteen-month withdrawal, which President Obama says he wants, or the three-year withdrawal which is the Status Of Forces Agreement that the US has gone into with the Iraqis. And they talked about the risks with each of those. Ray Odierno, who is the general in charge of Iraqi forces, said, 'If you run out in sixteen months -- if you get out in sixteen months, there are risks. The security gains could go down the tube. If you wait three years, there are other risks because you can't get forces into Afghanistan as quickly.' So President Obama made no decisions. Again, he's going to meet with Joint Chiefs next week and probably will make a military decision. But also a key there is how many troops he leaves behind. That's something we're not talking about so much, he's not talking about so much. This residual force that could be 50, 60, 70,000 troops even if he withdraws --Gwen Ifill: That's not exactly getting out of Iraq.Martha Raddatz: Not exactly getting out completely.This morning, Elisabeth Bumiller and Peter Baker (New York Times) reported that "defense officials said they did not know how many combat troops would stay behind in new missions as trainers, advisers or counterterrorism forces, at least some of whom would still be effectively in combat roles. Military planners have said that in order to meet withdrawal deadlines, they would reassign some combat troops to training and support of the Iraqis, even though the troops would still be armed and go on combat patrols with their Iraqi counterparts." Ann Scott Tyson and Anne E. Kornblut (Washington Post) note that the possible Friday announcement could take place in North Carolina (Barack will be visiting bases) and that the 19-months being tossed around is "three months later than promised during his campaign". Depending on the news outlet, the estimates for the number of US troops currently on the ground in Iraq goes from approximately 142,000 (Ann Scott Tyson and Anne E. Kornblut as well as David Martin go with that figure) to 147,000 (especially popular with AFP and Scottish outlets). (Yes, the Pentagon should have a running count to clear the issue up.) Matt Lauer can decide he's not going to make an issue out of it -- as he demonstrated -- but he's a morning talk show host. He's not been elected by anyone to speak on behalf of Americans. He may be fine and dandy with three extra months (that will not even lead to a withdrawal) but let's be clear that three months could mean 44 dead Americans. That is the number of US service members who have died in Iraq in the last three months (February isn't done yet so the number could rise). Matt's fond of taking Jack along on interviews with Barack. If Jack Lauer were over in Iraq, possibly the thought of 44 more deaths might be of interest to Matt. You don't play the lotto with human lives. So, yes, three months do matter.
Military Families Speak Out's Elaine Brower (writing at World Can't Wait) has a son who is on his third tour of Iraq. It matters.
This is wrong. The occupation is wrong, and those of us in the anti-war movement have been screaming this at the top of our lungs for the last 6 years, even before the first boots were on the ground in Iraq. Even before the campaign of "shock and awe" even lit up the skies above innocent people. What the hell are we thinking?
Because it isn't Bush and Cheney, those loathsome characters we so love to hate that isn't doing this, it's OK? That because it isn't Don Rumsfeld, that warmongering war criminal of a pig, it's OK? Because the face of the occupation is now Barack Obama it's OK?
Well I have a newsflash, it's NOT OK! We have in our infinite wisdom killed over 1 million Iraqis, displaced 2 million, destroyed hospitals, mosques, historical sites, homes, agricultural, stolen natural resources, orphaned children, made widows, killed entire families, sent over 4,200 soldiers to their deaths, severly wounded another 50,000, not including those who have PTSD and are committing suicide in record-breaking amounts, and we think we shouldn't be out in the streets demanding an end to this now? Why is that?
It also matter that Barack left an impression with the American people as to his 'plan' -- left that impression throughout his primary and general campaigns (which is what Matt was trying to get to on Today this morning). Thomas E. Ricks (author of The Gamble) appeared on CBS' Washington Unplugged (click here for just the Ricks' segment) two Fridays ago and explained how Barack's 'promise' came across to Americans:Thomas E. Ricks: I think there well indeed might be a clash by the end of the year. Obama's campaign promise to get American troops out of Iraq in sixteen months was a fatuous promise. When Americans heard it, what they heard was 'I will have no American troops dying in 16 months.' But it was a false phraseology: "combat troops." Well, newsflash for Obama, there is no such thing as non-combat troops. There's no pacifistic branch of the US Army. Anytime you have American troops out there, there are going to be some of them fighting and dying -- in counter-terror missions against al Qaeda, if you have American advisers with Iraqi troops, they're going to be getting into fights, some Americans will be dying. So I think we're there for a long time and as long as we're there -- unlike, say, the occupations of Korea, Japan and Germany, American troops will be engaged in combat. General Odierno says in the book he'd like to see 35,000 troops there as late as 2015. Well into . . . it will be Obama's second term. So I think that at the end of this year, you're going to see a conflict. Obama's going to want to see troop numbers coming down. Odierno, the other big O, as they call him in Iraq, is going to say, "Wait a minute, you're holding general elections here in December, in Iraq. That's exactly the wrong time to take troops out."
Barack deliberately misled the American people -- a large faction was willing to be misled and wanted to be. Equally true is that, when pressed (he was rarely pressed), he would admit that he would not just stop withdrawing troops but reverse the direction (send more troops back in) depending upon 'the situation on the ground.' That was his policy -- outlined best to the New York Times -- in the transcript of the interview, not the bad write up and it was covered at length in the November 2, 2007 snapshot -- and it can be boiled down as: "My concerns is if you draw down in response too rapidly, draw down in response to American political pressure, instead of as the Iraqis take over area, then there are other ares of Iraq that don't have a government presence that desperately need one, and rather than bring our forces home we should be moving into those areas. When we have all of Iraq with a security presence, that is significant enough to make a difference, then we can start drawing down . . . " And that quote? It's actually from Col Thomas Hammes (retired) and he explained the 'plan' on The NewsHour (PBS -- link has video and text) back in December 23, 2005. No, there's not a bit of difference between Barack and Bush.
And that was noticeable in November 2007. Tom Hayden showed up making like Helen Morgan and singing "The Man I Love" over the write-up Michael Gordon and Jeff Zeleny did. Then, when the transcript was pointed out to him, he was a bit more somber and had one of those You-listen-to-me-Barack moments. (They fade quickly. And Billie Holiday also recorded a strong version of "The Man I Love," I just find it more apt to compare Tom-Tom to Helen Morgan.) It was always there: The bases around -- but not in -- Iraq, the need for a 'residual presence' even after 'withdrawal,' admitting he'd send US troops back into Iraq in the midst of 'withdrawal' dickering over terms to maintain 'combat troops' had been removed -- in fact, let's provide an example of that:
Obama: But they aren't necessarily military missions. NYT: But how do you go back into Iraq without military forces? Obama: No, no, no, no, no. You conflated three things. The latter two that you are talked about are not military missions. Let's just be clear about that. NYT: An armed escort is not a military mission?
Again, it was known. From that day's snapshot:
Though Obama says he wants "to be clear," he refuses to answer that yes or no question and the interview is over."
So let's be clear that the 'anti-war' Obama told the paper he would send troops back into Iraq. Furthermore, when asked if he would be willing to do that unilaterally, he attempts to beg off with, "We're talking too speculatively right now for me to answer." But this is his heavily pimped September (non)plan, dusted off again, with a shiny new binder. The story is that Barack Obama will NOT bring all US troops home. Even if the illegal war ended, Obama would still keep troops stationed in Iraq (although he'd really, really love it US forces could be stationed in Kuwait exclusively), he would still use them to train (the police0 and still use them to protect the US fortress/embassy and still use them to conduct counter-terrorism actions.
If any of the above surprises you, you can scream at the media (and should) but it's also time for you to take a little accountability for your own willful ignorance. Moving to some calling out the nonsense today and starting with Chris Floyd (via CounterPunch) who was one of the few calling it out when it mattered:
It would be surperflous in us to point out that a plan to "end" a war which includes the continued garrisoning of up to 50,000 troops in a hostile land is, in reality, a continuation of that war, not its cessation. To produce such a plan and claim that it "ends" a war is the precise equivalent of, say, relieving one's bladder on the back of one's neighbor and telling him that the liquid is actually life-giving rain.
But this is exactly what we are going to get from the Obama Administration in Iraq. Word has now come from on high -- that is, from "senior administration officials" using "respectable newspapers" as a wholly uncritical conduit for government spin -- that President Obama has reached a grand compromise with his generals (or rather, the generals and Pentagon poobahs he has inherited -- and eagerly retained -- from George W. Bush) on a plan to withdraw some American troops from the country that the United States destroyed in an unprovoked war of aggression.
Meanwhile John Walsh (Dissident Voice) notes how cozy and familiar with the right-wing Katrina vanden Heuvel (editor and publisher of The Nation magazine) and Leslie Cagan (pension drawer in retirement pretending to lead an 'anti-war' movement):
Vanden Heuvel's most recent piece in The Nation runs under a title in the form of a query, "Obama's War?" Whose war does she think it is anyway? Even the mainstream media calls it Obama's war -- sans question mark. Her piece ran shortly after Obama ordered 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan and almost a month after both Afghan and Pakistani civilians were first bombed at Obama's orders. She concludes her piece, after citing the deployment of additional troops, "Up to this point the Afghan war belonged to George W. Bush, but Obama's escalation threatens to make it his own. There's still time to change direction. President Obama don't make this your war"! (Emphasis mine. If escalation of the AfPak war (the war on Afghanistan and Pakistan) only "threatens" to make the war Obama's, what will it take to give him ownership?)
Having supported Obama during the election when he was very clear about his coming Crusade in Afghanistan and having made no demands in exchange for their support, the liberals are now reduced, their leverage gone, to begging for a change in course. Pity, pathos, disgust or a sense of betrayal -- it is hard to know what to feel when one encounters this stuff.
Similarly Cagan's United for Peace and Justice, dominated by the "Progressive" Democrats of America ("P"DA) and the "Communist" Party of the U.S.A ("C"PUSA) -- more or less the same thing, not because "P"DA is radical but because the "C"PUSA is not -- has been all too silent on Obama's AfPak War. As a result there have been discordant rumblings among the rank and file about UFPJ's failure to call a national demonstration against the wars flaring from Iraq to Pakistan and refusal to join the only one called, that by ANSWER (Act Now To Stop War and End Racism) for March 21.
The March 21st action around the corner and organizations participating include The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War. Here's IVAW's announcement of the March action:
IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21stAs an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.) To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.
Meanwhile Michael Collins (Dissident Voice) asks why aren't the Iraqi people consulted on this issue: "Who asked the Iraqi people about the withdrawal schedule? As the self-proclaimed proponents for democracy and human rights, shouldn't the United States inquire as to the will of the people before initiating any policy changes? . . . Relying on the ever-shifting positions of a very unpopular Iraqi government is useless in assessing the will of the Iraqi people. The only way to determine their will is through a national election."
No democracy, no real justice system. The latter is being found out by Mohammad al-Daini, a Sunni member of the Iraqi Parliament. As Marc Santora (New York Times) reported this morning, al-Daini was publicly accused Sunday of various crimes including bombing Parliament in 2007 and MP Saleh al-Mulaq is calling for "a full investigation fo the Shiite leaders of government for their links to violence" and states, "Let's begin a real effort to disclose information about those involved in killings and sectarian displacement. Then we will discover that there are leaders inside the political process who took part in these events." Ahmed Rasheed and Wisam Mohammed (Reuters) report that al-Daini was due to land in Jordan this morning; however, al-Maliki's government ordered that the plane return to Iraq which it did. The reporters also note that Parliament voted to lift his legal immunity (as an MP, he did have legal immunity). Tina Susman and Raheem Salman (Los Angeles Times) report that "Daini's whereabouts remain a mystery as the political clamor over his alleged crimes, everything from murder to gold heists, escalates and threatens to rev up sectarian polarization in parliament. The plainclothes security guard who escorted Daini, a Sunni Arab politician, off the plane was part of his personal security contingent, as were the security officers who drove away with him shortly before a nationwide manhunt began."
In other news . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing which left six people injured, a Mosul car bombing that resulted in the death of the driver and a Mosul grenade attack that injured two people.
Shootings?
Reuters notes that Tuesday night in Kirkuk "a prominent business man" was shot dead.
Kidnappings?
Reuters notes that "three employees of Iraq's state-run Northern Oil Company' and one other person were kidnapped in Rashad today.
Yesterday's snapshot noted the death of a US soldier. Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) was the first reporter with a US paper to file on it (as Ruth pointed out last night): "A U.S. soldier and an Iraqi interpreter were killed today and three American troops were injured when gunmen, who officials said wore Iraqi police uniforms, fired on them in the northern city of Mosul. It was the third time since November that men in Iraqi security forces uniforms have attacked American forces in Nineveh province." Those waking up with today's New York Times could read Marc Santora's print article on the incident where he sketched out what was known and what was supsected. The Kansas City Star has to run an article by Brian Murphy (AP) because, despite being a McClatchy outlet, there was no McClatchy story to carry. Meanwhile Matthew D. LePlante (Salt Lake Tribune) reports the passing of a local resident:
The students in Micheal Alleman's class didn't take kindly to the news.It was the middle of the school year, and the popular fifth-grade teacher was leaving his career as an educator to join the Army. He told the class he wanted to be like the nation's first president, who left his career as a Virginia planter to take up arms against the British monarchy."He said that George Washington was his hero," said Samantha Larkin, 11, a student in Alleman's class at Nibley Elementary School in Cache County, last year. "But it was a little bit confusing to us."On Tuesday, Alleman's former students were among those in several Utah communities coming to terms with a revelation that was even more difficult to accept: The teacher-turned-soldier had been killed in Iraq.
Along with Michael Alleman, Michael L. Mayne and Zachary Norman were killed in Iraq on Monday. WTHR-TV notes Indianapolis reaction to Zachary Norman's death:
"It was sad for his instructors and I know sad for his family. At three o'clock today there is a gonna be a moment of silence for him as students dismiss. We will ask students to do the moment of silence and to think about the sacrifices that Zach and other veterans have made for our freedom," said Cheri O'Day, Ben Davis High School.
Ben Davis will also add Zachary Nordmeyer's name to a wall of honor for its graduates that have died in the line of duty. Nordmeyer becomes the 18th former student who made the ultimate sacrifice.
Saturday, May 12, 2007 an al-Taqa attack on US soldiers took place resulting in 4 US soldiers and 1 Iraqi translator being killed immediately and three US soldiers missing. The three missing were Jospeh Anzack, Byron Fouty and Alex Jimenez. In May of 2007 (23rd), the family of Joseph Anzack was informed his body had been identifed. Still missing were Byron Fouty and Alex Jimenez. July 11, 2008 the press reported (citing Byron Fouty's step-father for confirmation) that the remains of both soldiers had been identified. That afternoon the US Dept of Defense released a statement: "The Department of Defense today announced the deaths of two soldiers previously listed as "Missing-Captured" while supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. On July 10, the Armed Forces Medical Examiner positively identified human remains recovered in Iraq July 9 to be those of two soldiers who had been previously listed as 'Missing-Captured.' . . . Jimenez and Fouty were part of a patrol that was ambushed by enemy forces south of Baghdad on May 12, 2007. They were assigned to the 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), Fort Drum, N.Y. The Department of Defense previously announced the names of soldiers killed in the attack. They were Pfc. Joseph J. Anzack, Jr., 20, of Torrance, Calif.; Sgt. 1st Class James D. Connell, Jr., 40, of Lake City, Tenn.; Pfc. Daniel W. Courneya, 19, of Nashville, Mich.; Cpl. Christopher E. Murphy, 21, of Lynchburg, Va.; and Sgt. Anthony J. Schober, 23, of Reno, Nev." Last night, Mike highlighted Brian MacQuarrie (Boston Globe, Feb. 18, 2009) article on Byron Fouty and Alex Jimenez' families holding a service at Arlington National Cemetary:
One stone will mark the resting place for Jimenez, 25, and Fouty, 19.Rest, also, could come for two families who endured nearly 14 months of agony until, after a massive manhunt involving 4,000 troops, the bodies of the soldiers were discovered at last on July 8, 2008. A native of Pembroke, Mass., Private Matthew Bean, died after being shot by a sniper during the search.The remains that could be identified had already been buried: Jimenez's in Farmingdale, N.Y., near his mother's home; Fouty's in Fort Sam Houston, Texas.A second funeral, however, proved no easier for parents and loved ones living with recurring, excruciating thoughts of the suffering that their soldiers probably endured."It's very difficult, because we know that part of him is in there," said Jimenez's mother, Maria Duran of Queens, N.Y., as she nodded toward the casket during a wake the previous night.
In England yesterday there was huge news and one of the few US outlets to cover the story today is the Dallas Morning News which notes, "Britain's justice secretary overturned an order Tuesday that would have forced the government to make public the formal minutes of two contentious Cabinet discussions held before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. The minutes detail advice the Cabinet was receiving on the legality of the Iraq war." That secretary is Jack Straw and Gary Slapper (Times of London) declares he "has violated a key principle of the British constitution. The principle is nemo judex in sua causa: no-one should be aj udge in his own case. Mr Straw stands personally to gain by continuing secrecy of the cabinet papers. The war in Iraq has been described by Lord Bingham of Cornhill, the former senior law lord, as "a serious violation of international law". The British public has a legitimate interest in knowing how its government came to have entered it. Jack Straw was Foreign Secretary at the key time." At the UK's Military Families Against the War, Rose Gentle (whose son Gordon Gentle died in Iraq) asks:
What is the point of a freedom of information act if there is a escape clause in it just for government? Do they have something to hide?
They did say when the troops where out that they would have an Inquiry into the war. Will people ever trust a government again?
All we want to know is why our troops where sent in to Iraq -- this country has the right to know what is in those minutes. I have the right to know why my son was sent there to die. We all know it definitely wasn't for WMD -- lets hope one day their kids or grand kids don't go to a war looking for WMD
Sam Coates (Times of London) reveals Straw, by his own words, is "considering a clampdown on freedom of information laws".
iraq
matt lauergwen ifillpbswashington weekcbs newswashington unpluggedthe cbs evening news with katie couricthe new york timeselisabeth bumiller
marc santorapeter bakerthomas e. ricks
the washington postann scott tysonanne e. kornblut
the los angeles timestina susman
chris floyd
john walsh
michael d. laplante
gary slapper
ross colvin
mikey likes itruths report
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)