Some people need to learn to say goodbye

This is from C.I.'s Tuesday snapshot:

As noted yesterday, Marilyn French has passed away. Last night Elaine called out the nonsense of the obits acting as if The Women's Room was the beginning and end of Marilyn. Elaine rightly noted that it was akin to an obit on Julie Christie focusing non-stop on Darling and ignoring her finest performance thus far (Afterglow). More to the point, it's the equivalent of an obit on Sally Field that can't shut up about Gidget or The Flying Nun. Those were popular hits. They're nothing to be ashamed of. But Field's best work includes Norma Rae, Places Of The Heart and much more. More people saw her play The Flying Nun than anything else. (And more people saw her in Smokey & the Bandit than saw her in Norma Rae.) If that's the only measure for how we judge than, by all means, keep pimping a popular book that may be as 'lasting' as any of Mary McCarthy's novels. French's work didn't end in 1977. It's appalling that standards and taste (or the lack of both) dictate that certain people pimp a page turner as opposed to Marilyn's well researched, analytical writing. Heart (Women's Space) finds a way to note the popular novel and yet not to reduce Marilyn to Judith Krantz. Heart observes, "Her work has been central to my own feminism and is, in my opinion, brilliant. She was one of only a very few feminists who really had a grasp of the broad picture; she consistently wrote of women's liberation as a struggle against all forms of coercion and abusive power, all dominance hierarchies, and as central and key to the liberation, ultimately, of all human beings, animals, the earth itself."

I wanted to note that because I do think C.I.'s comparison is even stronger than my own. The refusal of some to explore French's non-ficton work (work that resulted in much praise) is a lot like someone writing an obit on Sally Field and focusing on Gidget or The Flying Nun.

They are popular. They had the most viewers. (Back in the old days, you didn't have as many choices of what to watch and TV commanded huge audiences. Shows considered bombs in the fifties and sixties often had more people watching than some of today's top 20 rated shows.)

But is popularity how we remember an artist? Or do we applaud Sally for Norma Rae and other incredible performances?

By the same token, are we going to be so taken with a page-turner that we ignore the great works of Marilyn French?

As usual when there was an effort to note academic, well researched writing or to ignore it, the ignore order came from Gloria Steinem.

Someone needs to Gloria she's not a leader anymore. She betrayed women in 2008. Even were she a leader, it's not her business. She needs to but the hell out.

I used to wonder when Gloria would die? In a "We lose so many great people, we need her" kind of way. Now I just wonder when she will die because, until she does, she is going to screw up feminism. I'm tired of her. I'm tired of her babbles. I'm tired of her quackery passed off as fact, fad passed off as reality (see Revolution From Within for an example of fad passed off as reality).
I'm tired of defending her mainly.

It's been too many years of defending her. Too many problems. Oh, look, there's Gloria throwing ego with 60 Minutes but we all have to call and use our contacts to make sure it doesn't air. How about Gloria just not tell a reporting crew what they can and cannot film?

She's supposed to have been a good journalist once upon a time. If she was, she should damn well know that "off the record" is agreed to by both parties before anything starts. You can't, without an agreement before hand, suddenly declare something "off the record."

But we all had to pretend like it made sense of Gloria to demand that 60 Minutes stop filming and we all had to pretend like it was perfectly normal to harass friends at CBS with pleas to please not air the footage of explosive Gloria.

I'm tired of it.

I'm tired of all her nonsense and I'm tired of her eating up all the oxygen in the room.

It was one thing when she was there for women but (and C.I. and I differ somewhat on this -- however, Gloria's decision to reduce Marilyn to a writer of pulp fiction will pull C.I. closer to my side) after 2008 she really can't make that claim anymore.

She's not about women.

She's a Socialist who wants to pose as a Democrat and wants to be loved by men.

She whored it out for the Democrats over and over. 1976? It was Gloria refusing to let other women speak. It was Gloria selling out women and telling us that we had no right to make demands that we be an equal part of the delegates at the DNC conventions.

It was Gloria LYING to us.

I'm just not in the mood for her anymore.

When I think of how much time has been wasted on that woman . . .

We've had to defend her from charges that she was CIA (she accepted CIA money as a college student and did so knowingly; as a result, there have been non-stop and false rumors ever since that she was a CIA plant). We've had to defend her from one attack after another.

Most of that wasn't her fault.

But when she wants to trash other women to build up a man?

Then it's not worth my time to defend her.

It's not worth my energy.

Most importantly, all the time and energy I've expended defending her in the past turns out to have been a waste of time.

We had to defend her for dating Mort. We've had to defend for everyone. She's always had bad choices in men. (CIA Stanley, for example.)

It's just not worth it. Not when she attacks other women and does so with sexist language.

To have been a feminist for the last decades in the US has been to be forced to defend Gloria. I'm not doing it anymore.

I honestly hope she dies soon because it'll be the most liberating moment. Feminism will finally be free of her.

I'm not wishing for a painful death. But she's over 70 now. Over forty of those years have been about her sucking the oxygen out of the room and dragging the movement down.

It really is time for her to step off the stage.

The fact that she hasn't goes to how dead feminism is.

At 70, she should be someone on the edges, not treated as the leading thinker and mover. She really refused to surrender the spotlight and, in that regard, she ended up worse than Betty Friedan (and who would have thought that was possible?).

The way I see her, she's like a relative on life support that you've spent too long caring for and visiting and you think, "Just let her die and let us all have some peace."

I honestly thought that following the election, she would issue an apology for her actions. She never did.

As a result, she's dead to me. She can call on the phone and I won't donate a penny. I won't even take the call. I have no interest in ever speaking to her again or ever seeing her again.

Her desire to turn Marilyn French into who she wanted Marilyn to be (and not who Marilyn actually was) turned out to be Gloria having another tantrum and getting her way. It's gotten real old.

Future waves of feminism, a word of advice, Beware the woman who wants to be the 'princess' of the movement.



That is Steven D. Green and if you don't know about his War Crimes Trial then you are probably someone counting on Gloria Steinem to tell you what's important.



"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Wednesday, May 6, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Ehren Watada gets some legal news (and people rush to figure out what it means), closing statements are made in the War Crimes trial, Blackwater did what?, and more.

Starting with big news involving the first officer to publicly resist the Iraq War. The Seattle Times reports Lt Ehren Watada will not be subjected to double-jeopardy. Hal Bernton (Seattle Times) reported November 9, 2007: "A U.S. District Court judge on Thursday barred a second court-martial of 1st Lt. Ehren Watada while the Army officer pursues his claim that it would violate his constitutional rights. It was a legal victory for Watada, the first Army officer to face prison for refusing to deploy to Iraq." That was in November of 2007. (Not October of last year -- I have no idea where people are getting their false information.) The military has decided not to appeal that 2007 decision. However, US District Judge Benjamin Settle ruled on three of the five counts against Ehren so the Seattle Times cautions, "It is unclear if the Army plans to pursue those [two] charges." Gregg K. Kakesako (Honolulu Star-Bulletin) cites Ehren's civilian attorneys stating that the "Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today granted the Army's motion to dismiss the case." And he cites the military stating that Ehren may yet be court-martialed. Vanessa Ho (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) notes that the military is unclear what they'll do next and that James Lobsenz (one of Ehren's two civilian attorneys, the other is Kenneth Kagan) states, "We are cautiously optimistic that perhaps we've had enough litigation." In June 2006, Ehren Watada went public with his refusal to serve in the Iraq War because it was an illegal war and, as an officer, he would be responsible not only for himself but for those serving under him. In August 2006, an Article 32 hearing was held and, weeks and weeks later, the finding was released: the military would proceed with a court-martial. That court-martial took place in February of 2006. On Monday, February 5, 2007, Watada's court-martial began. It continued on Tuesday when the prosecution argued their case. Wednesday, Watada was to take the stand in his semi-defense. Semi-defense? Despite the gravity of the charges, despite the maximum number of years in prison he was facing if convicted, Judge Toilet (aka John Head) refused to let Watada explain why he would not deploy. Watada was boxed in to a yes-or-no-I-did-it type of defense which is no defense at all. Judge Toilet also refused to allow the defense to call various witnesses. Wednesday morning, Judge Toilet was suddenly concerned with the stipulation -- the same stipulation he was involved one, the same one he signed off on, the same one both the defense and the prosecution agreed to, the same stipulation Judge Toilet had explained to the military jury on Monday. Suddenly, the stipulation was a problem. Toilet tried to argue Ehren didn't understand the stipulation. Ehren understood it and was doing what he announced he would be doing the week prior to Toilet. Did Toilet not understand the stipulation?

He certainly didn't understand double-jeopardy which had already attached to the case when, sensing the prosecution was losing, Judge Toilet declared a mistrial over defense objection. Judge Settle found the double-jeopardy argument was correct and ruled accordingly in the fall of 2007. Turning to other legal issues, Steven D. Green's War Crimes trial. March 12, 2006, Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi's parents and five-year-old sister were murdered in their Iraqi home while Abeer was gang-raped in another room. Following the gang-rape, Abeer was murdered. Green is said to be the murderer of all four, a gang-rapist and the ring leader who planned the entire thing. Today the jury heard closing arguments. Evan Bright reports, "Scott Wendelsdorf just completed the Defense closing statement. 'Madness? Madness. Madness is the only way any of this could have happend'." Brett Barrouquer (AP) quotes US prosecutor Marisa Ford stating that those who took part in the attack had "forfeited their right to call themselves American soldiers". In other ways she echoed the closing arguments of US Army Capt Alex Pickands during the August 2006 Article 32 hearing held in Iraq. Pickands argued:

"Murder, not war. Rape, not war. That's what we're here talking about today. Not all that business about cold food, checkpoints, personnel assignments. Cold food didn't kill that family. Personnel assignments didn't rape and murder that 14-year-old little girl. . . . They gathered over cards and booze to come up with a plan to rape and murder that little girl. She was young and attractive. They knew where she was because they had seen her on a previous patrol. She was close. She was vulnerable."

Today in court, Marisa Ford declared, "This was a planned, premeditated crime which was carried out in cold blood." Evan Bright and Brett Barrouquer have covered every day of the trial. Jill at Feministe notes the trial today. And has her facts right. Others aren't so lucky.


Gail McGowan Mellor was dispatched by The Huffington Post to cover the trial and arrived yesterday. Possibly this late arrival is why she has problems in this report? "Sex was incidental; they wanted to hurt Iraqis." Rape is not "sex" and, if that was McGowan Mellor's point, we'd be agreeing with her. That's not her point her point is that Abeer's family was hit because "the five U.S. soldiers reasoned that the family would be easy to kill and that nothing more substantial than her parents stood between them." It was about, Gail tells, hatred of Iraqis.

I'm really amazed at the late to the party check-ins who didn't even bother to do any damn research. Abeer was the target. I'm sorry Gail didn't have time to study nearly three years worth of press. Steven D. Green inappropriately touched Abeer in public -- at that military checkpoint -- and freaked her out. His constant staring had already unnevered her. After he started touching this 14-year-old girl, her parents decided to get her out of the house. Had they struck the next night, the US soldiers wouldn't have found her because she was going to live somewhere else. Do not pretend that Abeer was not the focus. Green was fixated upon her. And do not pretend that it was because of some 'easy kill' element you've just introduced into the narrative. Get a damn grip.

Evan Bright reporting on Day Four of the trial: "According to Barker, 'Cortez took a little convincing to get him to come along. He said if we were gonna have sex with the girl, he wanted to go first'." Gail McGowan Mellor wasn't present for day four and apparently didn't bother to read up on it. Cortez took a little convincing? For what? For an 'easy kill'? No, to take part in the gang-rape that Barker terms "sex." Bright reported on Friday's testimonies that Paul Cortez testified they "knew what was goin' on, we knew were were goin' down to that house to have sex with that girl, and Barker and Green seemed to know where they were going to get there."

Gail McGown Mellor is showing up late and imposing a narrative. This isn't reporting. And it needs to be called out. She's imposing her values and desires on the story while ignoring the facts. Now she can have an opinion and she can make her entire article her opinion but she better know the facts. She can argue with the facts, she can disagree with them, but she better know them. There is no indication that she knows anything. She appears to think she's 'cute' with her 'local color' piece she's turned in playing, as Bob Somerby might say, the readers for rubes.

"Four of Green's co-conpirators have been convicted by military tribunal and put away" insists Gail despite the fact that it's incorrect. She doesn't even know the trial history. She doesn't even know that, for example, Paul Cortez confessed. He wasn't convicted, he confessed. The ignorance on display is astounding until you grasp that Gail jetted in with a narrative firmly in place and was going to work it like crazy. (If you can't pick up on it, Gail's argument -- which will no doubt be even more clear in later posts from her -- is WAR CORRUPTS ALL.) Especially hilarious is where she blames the local press:

There were only twelve folks viewing the trial yesterday, five of us from the media. It's arguably not a lack of public intelligence and curiosity; it's a failure of local journalism. The Paducah Sun, which is blocks from the federal courthouse, is not supplying daily or in-depth coverage, and local broadcast news does not supply enough information on the complex case to fill a tweat. The report of one anchor was simply, "There were two witnesses today." There sure were; that was the day that two of Green's co-conspirators testified for the prosecution.

Gail was viewing it for the first day, her first day in the area, so how she knows what an anchor said last week is something she might wish to clarify. But it's not the job of the local press to cover this trial. It's not a local trial. It's an international trial. The events took place not in some city in Kentucky, they took place in Iraq. The problem isn't local news which is struggling. The problem is the outlets like the New York Times and others who could send a slew of reporters to Alaska not all that long ago but can't send one reporter to Kentucky. Wonder over that. There should be more local coverage but I've spoken to people at one local paper and at one local station and they said the issues included no amplification. If there reports were getting picked up by the networks or by other papers, they would be covering it. But they showed up for day one and saw little interest from the press. With minimal interest locally (from residents) and no amplification, it wasn't worth their resources to cover it.

Why is there minimal interest among local residents? For one thing, the case should have been infamous but never has been. Find the network report on it. Not just from Green's trial, find the network report on any of the trials. There's no reason the citizens of Paducah should be any more familiar with the case than the rest of the country. That's a point Gail ignores either out of ignorance or intentionally. What is the point of her anonymous quotes from locals? She is aware that Steven D. Green didn't grow up in or live in Paducah, isn't she? Whether she is or not, she's off spinning her yarn and facts be damned because she's smelling Midnight In The Garden of Good & Evil. Heaven save us all from bad feature writers who think they're bringing us the news.


It's really a shame because there are details in McGown Mellor's feature article that, if they are true, could make for a very strong report. But she's made it so abundantly clear that facts matter so very little that who can trust anything she provides? "Only after three years of legal maneuvering however was Green brought to trial." What? Does she have any clue what she's reporting on? Green wasn't even arrested until June 30, 2006. Three years have yet to elapse. And 'legal'? From April 3, 2008: "As a result of the fact that he had been discharged, he was set to face a civilian court and that trial was finally due to start this coming Monday; however, AP reports the trial has been delayed "by three weeks to accomodate a quilt show". No, that is not a joke." It wasn't just "legal" delaying the trial.

Meanwhile at least 17 are dead from car bombings in Baghdad today. Robert H. Reid (AP) notes 15 of them died at a market and quotes eye witness Raad Hussein stating, "The security personnel are not searching the farmers who bring their vegetables to the market. They search only private cars." Jomana Karadsheh (CNN) notes at least forty were wounded in the market bombing and quotes an eye witness stating, "The Americans are responsible for what is happening. It is because of the occupation that every day we have killings and wounded people." Ernesto Londono and Aziz Alwan (Washington Post) report the rise in violence has led to a new move by the US military: "In recent days, top American military officials issued an order barring commanders and spokesmen from using the oft-repeated phrase 'security continues to improve,' because they deemed it 'disingenuous' in light of the recent attacks, according to an American official who spoke on condition of anonymity." In other reported violence?

Bombings?

Sahar Issa and Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) report a Baghdad roadside bombing which left eight people injured, 4 Mosul roadside bombings which claimed 2 life and left five people injured. Reuters notes a truck bombing "near the Baiji oil refinery" which left three people injured.


Saturday the US military announced: "CONTINGENCY OPERATING BASE SPEICHER, TIKRIT, Iraq -- Two Multi-National Division -- North Soldiers were killed and three wounded during a small arms fire attack at a combat outpost south of Mosul early this evening. According to initial reports, an individual dressed in an Iraqi Army uniform fired on the Coalition forces and was killed in the incident. The incident is currently under investigation. The names of the deceased and wounded are being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense." Alsumaria identifies the Iraqi soldier as Hassan Al Dulaimi and notes that Abdul Qader Al Ubaidi (Defense Minister) has launched an investigation. AFMAO/PA noted the two US soldiers killed:

Name: Jake R. Velloza Hometown: Inverness, Calif. Rank: Specialist Service: U.S. Army Location of death: Operation Iraqi Freedom Name: Jeremiah P. McCleery Hometown: Portola, Calif. Rank: Specialist Service: U.S. Army Location of death: Operation Iraqi Freedom

Brent Ainsworth (Contra Costa Times) reported, "Jake Velloza was a football and baseball standout at Tomales High, where Leon Feliciano served as his football coach" and quotes Feliciano stating, "I think he knew from the first day he got into high school that he was going into the militiary. We talked about college, but he said, 'No, Coach, I want to be a Ranger doing special ops.' He was set on his goals. He was one of those young men who knew what he wanted to do and did it. Service to his country is what appealed to him." Michael Taylor (San Francisco Chronicle) spoke to his grandfather, Richard Velloza, who explained of receiving the awful news, "It was terrible all day long. Not too good. Jake was an only son. That's what makes it kind of rough." Steve Timko (Reno Gazette-Journal) speaks with Josh Rogers who was a friend of Jeremiah P. McCleery's and graduated with him in 2004 from Portola High School who says, "He was a very loyal friend. If you broke down in Reno or far away, he'd come pick you up. He always had your back." The Reno Gazette Journal also notes this statement from Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons, "I want to extend the condolences of a grateful State and a grateful Nation to the family and friends of Specialist Jeremiah McCleery. His sacrifice for freedom will never be forgotten." Katharine Q. Seelye (New York Times) notes the two men's arrival at Dover Air Force Base Monday and observes of the policy change on photographing coffins, "The first arrival of cases after the media ban was lifte on April 5 drew 35 journalists; since then, the number has dwindled, sometimes to only a single photographer for The Associated Press."

Will anything come from the investigation? Not if their work is anything like the Integrity Commission's. Sam Dagher (New York Times) reports today on the commission and the findings include:

The Integrity Commission recevied 5,031 complaints in 2008. 3,027 of the complaints went to court. Of that, there were 97 convictions.


If my math is correct that's a 3% conviction rate (3.204%). An underwhelming conviction rate. Speaking of a lack of convictions, September 16, 2007 Blackwater slaughtered Iraqis in Baghdad. At least 17 Iraqis were killed. Bill Sizemore (Virginia-Pilot) reports today that, following the slaughter, "Blackwater contractors allegedly transferred a number of machine guns to another contractor who is now charged with trying to smuggle them out of Iraq."

Sahwa ("Awakenings," "Sons Of Iraq") are being targeted by Nouri al-Maliki. In the latest development, Ahmed Rasheed and Tim Cocks (Reuters) report that a number of them "are deserting their posts because of delays in pay and a spate of arrests". One of the recent arrests was of Nulla Naem Al Jibouri whom Alsumaria reports al-Maliki states will be released on Saturday.

Turning to p.r., Bruce Dixon (Black Agenda Report) weighs in on the 'Save Darfur' War Hawks and their machinary:

African tragedies, observed Ugandan scholar and Columbia University professor Mahmood Mamdani in a March 20 presentation at Howard University, usually occur in the dead of night, outside the sight, concern or hearing of the Western public. The exception to this, he noted, has been Darfur. No armchair observer, Mamdani has traveled and worked extensively in Darfur as a consultant to the African Union in its attempts to peacefully resolve the conflict there.
Mamdani called Save Darfur "the most successful piece of single issue organizing since the Vietnam era antiwar movement, really more successful than the antiwar movement." But Save Darfur, with slogans like "boots on the ground," "out of Iraq, into Darfur" and persistent demands for the creation of "no fly zones" is far from being an antiwar movement.
As BAR pointed in a 2007 article, Ten Reasons Why "Save Darfur" is a PR Scam to Justify the Next US Oil and Resource Wars in Africa, Save Darfur is no grassroots movement either.
[. . .]
Mamdani explained the unique appeal of the Save Darfur Movement to US audiences by noting that unlike US responsibility for the one million Iraqi dead over the last six years, the Save Darfur Movement does not demand that we understand Darfur's history, ethnography, or the complexities of the current conflict there, or acknowledge any culpability of our own. Unlike the killings in Iraq, Save Darfur does not demand that Americans respond as citizens, with a need to account for responsibilities and actions, but merely as human beings with a need to feel powerful and justified. Save Darfur, Mamdani argued, has de-historicized and de-politicized the conflict for its American audience, presenting them with a simple morality play in which they can be the heroes.
Everybody wants to be a hero. Nobody wants to be a citizen.
And what could be more heroically self-justifying and self-affirming than intervening on the side of the angels in the picture of straight-up racial conflict presented to us by the Save Darfur Movement? The trouble is, it's an utterly false picture. The historic and present uses and definitions of race in America are not nearly the same as those in Africa. Most of Darfur's janjaweed who committed atrocities against civilians in Darfur are as black as those they murdered, and just as indigenous. The prosecutors at the International Criminal Court who recently indicted the Sudanese president are accountable only to the wealthy nations of the UN Security Council, not to anybody on the African continent. And the casualty figures thrown out by Save Darfur are wildly inflated.

From 'Save Darfur' to more dumbness. Ask J-Som of Liberal Rapture who stumbles across this piece by Chris Hedges (link goes to Information Clearing House) and feels the need to add, "What does gall me about Hedges' work now is that he is saying what we, the dukes and duchesses of minor blogland, have been saying for well over a year. It grates on my nerves and ego to have a bigger player come in very late in the game and announce things like: [. . .]" And where there is dumb there is Carolyn/Caro of MakeThemAccountable (as Rebecca pointed out already this week). In the comments, Carolyn huffs to J-Som, "We won't forget we heard you speak the truth of Obama first. Some of us were immune to the hopium." If you hear J-Som before Chris Hedges, it's only an indication of how little you read.

Carolyn is this century's Tina Yothers who shows up to deliver her single line ("Yeah!") over and over whenever stupidity is expressed. J-Som and Carolyn, meet the real world: Chris Hedges has been calling out Barack all along. Your stupidity makes everything you write suspect. How could you not know that Chris Hedges called Barack out?

How could you not know that Chris Hedges was ridiculed by Tom Hayden for refusing to hop on the Barack bandwagon, ridiculed and mocked? How could you not know that, unlike all the other chicken s**t (Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Eddie Vedder, Janeane Garofalo, Ani DiFranco, Patti Smith, the list is endless) who once stood with Ralph Nader only to run like crazy when the Blame-Ralph movement started, Chris continued to stand with Ralph. Chris endorsed Ralph in the 2008 presidential race.

But J-Som and Carolyn aren't concerned with facts. They just want to write whatever they want. It's stupid and it makes them both come off as either grossly ignorant or total liars. Carolyn especially has a problem -- a repeat problem. There's no harm in highlighting Chris Hedges' article and stating, "I don't know where he stood in 2008 . . ." There is harm in assigning to Chris a position he didn't hold. Chris has spoken out about Obama through Obama's race for the Democratic nomination, throughout the general election and after Barack was elected. You sort of expect J-Som and Carolyn to next stumble across an article by John Pilger and to type up, "Oh, now, he speaks out!" (Pilger has spoken out against the lies of Barack for some time.) I do know Chris Hedges, as disclosed before. And he's been held accountable here in the past. I made the decision that I would not critique him in a negative manner when I found out he was going to endorse Ralph because I knew he was already being slammed by the Cult of St. Barack. The slamming continued beyond the election. And we don't need the likes of J-Soms and Carolyn rewriting history out of ignorance or malice.


iraq
ehren watadahal bernton
gregg k. kakesako
evan brightbrett barrouquere
the washington posternesto londonoaziz alwanmark kukis
jomana karadsheh
the new york timessam dagherkatharine q. seeylemichael taylorthe san francisco chronicle
brent ainsworthmark kukissteve timko
alsumaira
bruce dixon
chris hedges

Dennis Loo, Doug Henwood

"Shut Down Guantanamo! D.C. Action, April 30" (Dennis Loo, World Can't Wait):
They tell us:
We will extract confessions from you.
We know that you know what we want.
We will tell you what we know about you and your co-conspirators and what we know that you know.
We will tell you again and again and again and again until you tell us what we have told you so that we may know the truth.[ii]
We will pour jugs of water onto your face till you choke and struggle against your binds, to purify you.
We will tell you that if you don’t talk that you will surely die.
We will put you in coffin-sized boxes for hours.
We will throw you against the walls. Repeatedly.
We will strip you naked and sic dogs upon you.
We will deny you sleep for days upon days.
We will tell you that we will not ever stop until you have made your peace with us and confess freely and fully.
We will slap you and beat you until you tell us what we want.
We are, you must know, a merciful people, a kind people, a just, and a moral people.

Dennis Loo remains, for me, the best writer on torture today and I really enjoyed the piece above because he broke to do these single sentence statements that whizz by like flash cards and, like flash cards, leave an impression. He's written many article the typical way and I am sure he's reached many people that way (I know he's reached me); however, it is good to shake things up and I think his approach above was an interesting change.

I wish I could be like Loo and go into the torture but it just disgusts me. It just turns my stomach and I'm not old enough to remember WWII but I am old enough to remember some of the WWII shows (that aired long after the war ended) which were all about how wonderful the US was for not torturting.

What is Petraeus Heroes going to look like on TV in 20 years? O-Troop? How are those shows going to play out?

"Zionist Lobby Targets Another Tenured Professor" (Doug Henwood, Information Clearing House):
May 05, 2009 "Counterpunch" -- Doug Henwood: We're now joined by William Robinson, who is a Professor of Sociology at the University of California in Santa Barbara, someone I met about six or seven years ago at a conference and, although I've disagreed with him on some issues, I though he's a serious and thoughtful guy. I was very distressed to learn, reading Insider Higher Ed, the website, today that he's being persecuted by the Zionist lobby for an e-mail that he sent around to some of his students. Welcome William Robinson, tell us the story of what you sent and what's been happening.
William Robinson: Yes, good afternoon to everyone. I included some material which was highly critical of the Israeli invasion of Gaza as part of the reading material for a course on globalization and global affairs, and this was in January. And I am now facing charges, here at the university, of anti-semitism and violating the faculty code of conduct because two students in the course - there were eighty students - these two submitted a formal letter of complaint that they found offensive the material condemning the invasion of Gaza. The students immediately withdrew from the course, I don't even know them personally. And what is particularly egregious about this case is not that the students submitted a complaint - any student is allowed to do that - but rather that the university took the complaint seriously and is actually prosecuting me...
DH: You have tenure right?
WR: Yes, I am tenured, I am a full time professor...
DH: So in theory you're protected against persecution for your beliefs.
WR: No, in theory, I have total, I and even if I don't have tenure, have academic freedom, and this is in total violation of my academic freedom and of all of the principles of academic freedom, and of the university's own charter on academic freedom, and the American Association of University Professors principles and procedures on academic freedom, so there is absolutely no basis for any of this. What's going on, and I want to explain, behind the scenes we have been able to find out - students on campus and faculty have formed a Committee to Defend Academic Freedom which is taking up this issue, and by the way, there is a blog that they put up with all of this information, which at some point I would like to give your listeners - but we have found out that the Anti-Defamation League, which, as you know, and your listeners probably know, is an organization which, at one time, did very good and very important work in denouncing anti-Semitism, but since then has become a, basically, a mouthpiece for the Israeli government, a defender of the policies and practices of the Israeli state, and goes after and attacks anyone that criticizes those policies. So these students did not even accuse me of doing anything which we would consider anti-Semitism - discrimination against Jews, against the Jewish religion and so forth - they said openly and outright that the professor introduces material which criticized the state of Israel and that equals anti-semitism.
DH: Now, I think some people found offensive that you had likened Israeli behavior to the Nazis. Is that an issue?
WR: Well I didn't do that. What I did was I forwarded several items from the world media, from the internet media. One item was an article written by a Jewish journalist in a Jewish newspaper here in the United States, and it was criticizing the invasion of Gaza...

C.I. told me about this interview and I can't remember if it aired this weekend or last but here are two links if you'd like to listen to it:

Behind the News with Doug Henwood - May 2, 2009 at 10:00am
Behind the News with Doug Henwood - April 18, 2009 at 10:00am

It should be one of those two. My guess would be the May 2nd one.

Regardless, you'll have an interesting hour to listen to. In one of them (maybe the same one), there's an interesting conversation about labor. In terms of the bias within the unions against other members and the need to overcome it. There's also some comments on how Wal-Mart workers sometimes do not grasp that labor is not an individual problem that each person should pursue addressing on their own.


I want to note Cedric's "Naomi Wolf wins Dumbest on the Face of the Planet" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! BACKLASH NAOMI WOLF!" because it is funny but it's true. Naomi Wolf finds a new way to disgrace herself every day and her latest is to pimp "cocooning." Michelle's a 'feminist' because she's cocooning. Naomi obviously never read Backlash. Imagine that, airhead Naomi forgetting to crack a book. She's praising Michelle for leaving a hospital job and becoming a 'fashion plate' and not working.

It's not feminism. Naomi Wolf is an embarrassment and someone needs to call her out. At this point if the dreaded non-feminist from the 90s attacked Naomi, I might cheer her on.


"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Tuesday, May 5, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the defense rest in Steven D. Green's War Crimes trial, the UNHCR does NOT recommend Iraqi refugees return to Iraq, Sahwa remains under attack, and more.

Starting with the War Crimes trial. March 12, 2006, Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi's parents and five-year-old sister were murdered in their Iraqi home while Abeer was gang-raped in another room. Following the gang-rape, Abeer was murdered. These were War Crimes committed by US soldiers and four have already faced a court and been sentenced. Steven D. Green's trial is ongoing. Friday night, Heart (Women's Space) posted some of her 2006 coverage of the War Crimes and among the comments, we'll note this by Khazeema:

Nobody how much we talk about this case, my littlesister Abeer wont come back. The american troops raped, tortured and killed her, and they could do it just because they were AMERICANS. Bu believe me.. Steven D Green and his buddies who raped and killed Abeer Hamza Qassim Al-Janabi they will get their punishment.. If they wont in this life, they will defenatly in the next life…. Some day they will die either, and then they will realise what they have done… and what they did is beyond doubt something which wont be forgive..
And to my dear sister Abeer Qassim Hamza Al-Janabi.. You will always be in my heart, I have wept for you scince your death, but at least - ya habibti - Allah is big, and he will take revenge for you.. Inshallah you are a shaheed, and your murders will suffer in hell for what they did to you.. WE WILL NEVER FORGET YOU SISTER… Lailaha il Allah..

Last week, Steven D. Green's trial began in a Kentucky federal court. Of the first day, Australia's ABC reported: "The girl's brother then testified about how he came home from school to find his house on fire and his family dead. Mohammed al-Janabi, now 15, stood outside crying with his younger brother but did not go in until after the bodies were removed. 'I saw blood on walls,' he said through an interpreter, 'I saw flesh and my father's brain was scattered there'." Yesterday the prosecution rested. Evan Bright reported that Noah Galloway was the last witness for the prosecution which rested their case before noon. At 1:30, the defense began presenting its side and Lt Col Karen Marrs took the stand to offer testimony as the psychiatric nurse practioner familiar with Green. She described him as "On edge and angry." Bright notes, "The defense MAY have one witness tomorrow before resting and moving on to closing statements. Expect a guilty/not guilty verdict by Wednesday, before moving to opening statements." Today the defense rested. Brett Barrouquere (AP) reports that a deposition of James Gregory was shown to the jury for an hour because Gregory couldn't show up at the court due to . . . getting married. How that played to the jury is anyone's guess but when the defendant is potentially facing the death penalty and someone chooses to blow off testifying in person, that does send a message. Christopher Barnes actually showed up and took the witness stand. Barnes made comments about "they" and "them" and how awful they were. US Attorney Marisa J. Ford cut through that nonsense by asking, "You didn't rape any 14-year-old girls? You didn't kill any Iraqi civilians, did you?" (No and no.) Justin Watt testified and his remarks should receive attention and examination. (We'll see if they do.) Tomorrow the jury hears closing arguments.


Meanwhile, Spencer Ackerman (Washington Independent), still a hack and reality challenged, laps up the statement from Nouri al-Maliki's flack about 'no extensions' for US troops to remain in Iraqi cities past June 30th deadline, he forgets/doesn't know (idiot) that the extension already took place in Baghdad. Poor tiny hack. From the April 27th snapshot: "Rod Nordland (New York Times) broke that story in today's paper and noted that Iraq and the US are going to focus on Mosul in talks about US troops remaining in some Iraqi cities. Nordland reveals they will remain in Baghdad (he says 'parts of Baghdad' -- that means they will be in Baghdad and Baghdad is a city) and that Camp Victory ['Camps Victory, Liberty, Striker and Slayer, plus the prison known as Camp Cropper'] and 'Camp Prosperity' will not be closed or turned over to Iraq according to Iraqi Maj Gen Muhammad al-Askari. The SOFA 'requires' that they be closed or turned over but al-Askari says they're making exceptions even though the SOFA 'requires' otherwise. For the mammoth Camp Victory, it is in Baghdad and out of Baghdad, for example, so al-Askari says they consider it out of Baghdad." There's your reality Spensy, accept it or plan to grab an adjoining padded room with Patrick Cockburn. Fortunately there's so much stupidity going around, Spensy may be able to sneak by.

Take the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees which made a stupid move that they should have known would be immediately misunderstood. Let's start with the misunderstanding. Mark Leon Goldberg (UN Dispatch) goes for the gold in the Stupidity Olympics as he pants, "I think you can file this one under 'good news' in the sense that the UNCHR believes the situation in certain Iraqi regions is stable enough for the return of refugees." No, that's not what it was stating. The UNHCR was stupid enough with what they said but Goldberg had to go even further. And, to really go for the gold, he then quoted "the Washington Post" -- or thought he did. It was Reuters, Goldberg. Your clue was the byline "By Laura MacInnis[,] Reuters." It wasn't the Post. When someone can't even grasp what publication they're reading, maybe it's not at all surprising that they can't grasp the meaning of the words they read? Mark Leon Goldberg is a stupid, stupid man.

The UNHCR did not recommend the return of external refugees to Iraq. That would be more idiotic than Mark Leon Goldberg. Violence is again on the rise in Iraq. The UNHCR made a stupid decision to say that external refugees "from Al-Anbar, ecompassing much of the country's western territory, and the south should be assessed on individual merit." What does that mean? It's the strongest the UNHCR was allowed to issue at the risk of two other UN agencies publicly calling UNHCR and it's 'tight' relationship' with Nouri al-Maliki out. (Today's statement has been argued about within the UN for over two weeks.) The statement specifically states, "The agency stressed that improvement in the situation in Iraq is not yet sufficient enough to promote or encourage massive returns and it recommended that refugees already benefiting from international protection should retain their status." How much clearer does it have to be for Mark Leon Goldberg? Someone needs to explain to him that his stupidity is deadly. You DO NOT tell refugees to return when it's not safe to do so. And if the UN doesn't say it's safe to return (and they didn't say it was safe to return), you do not say that they did.

The UNHCR statement never should have been issued but Nouri and his government have been pressuring and, let's all be honest, the United Nations has never had any independent standing in Iraq. NEVER. That's why their idiotic doctor didn't just take part in the Baghdad's government's press conference last fall but actively blamed Iraqi women for the yearly cholera outbreak.

They are not encouraging any groups to return. They are encouraging that some be judged on appeals by 'individual merit' and not the blanket category of refugees. Apparently the UNHCR suffers from some delusion that the blanket category was somehow assisting Iraqis in garnering asylum. Not in the US, not in the European Union, not in Australia. Those countries have done as little as possible. But even with this cateogry of people, the UNHCR stresses that there is a split and that those who are "religious and ethnic minorities; Iraqis perceived as opposing armed groups or political factions; UN and non-governmental organization (NGO) workers; human rights activists; and homosexuals" should be given "favourable consideration" regardless of whether or nto they are fron Anbar. And if you didn't grasp just how weak the UNHCR is, note that the "at risk" grouping included UN workers.

We'll stay with those categories for a bit. "Abu Muslim likens his work to that of a surgeon, cutting out diseased parts of a body to save it from cancer." What? That's from Nizar Latif (The National) reporting on the excutioner of gays and lesbians in Iraq. The executionor explains, "We see this [homosexuality] as a serious illness in the community that has been spreading rapidly among the yough after it was brought in from the outside by American soldiers. These are not the habits of Iraq or our community and we must eliminate them." Doesn't he sound like some crazed Nazi inventing excuses for slaughtering the Jews? Yes, he does. And like the Nazis, he uses an ahistorical 'background' because actual history doesn't back him up. Real history does not allow him to persecute and murder. So he lies and goes along with his government's lies. He brags to Latif about the "ermission from key community leaders" he has stating, "We had approval from the main Iraqi tribes here to liquidate those [men] copying the ways of women. Our aim is not to destabilize the security situation. Our aim is to help stabilise society." Again, this is the Nazis. (And, yes, the Nazis also targeted gays and lesbians.) And why the hell should the US remain in Iraq at this point?

Truly. These are the people the US government installed and the ones the US forces on the ground keep in place. And these people are killing and slaughtering. Not only that, but then they try to blame human behavior (that they see as 'wicked') on US soldiers. Iraq's never going to be a free country until the US leaves and these thugs are forced out by the Iraqi people. Iraq was a tolerant society before the US wanted to 'whip' the population 'into shape' quickly in order to purse the tag sale on Iraqi assets.

Friday the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom issued their latest report, the 2009 Annual Report on religious freedom violations around the world. Commission Chair Felice Gaer explained of the "countries of particular concern" Friday, "Iraq and Nigeria are new to that list. Iraq was added last December and Nigeria today. Nina Shea explained this:

is a crucial year in Iraq, with provincial councils changing hands, national elections expected before year's end, and the US military beginning its drawdown. In December, an extensive report on religious freedoms in Iraq, based on travel, interviews, briefings, meetings and other activities was released by the commission and we recommended then that, for the first time since 2003, that the State Department designate Iraq as a country of particular concern.
This CPC recommendation was based on the ongoing severe abuses of religious freedom in the country and the government's toleration of these abuses, particularly against Iraq's smallest and most vulnerable religious minorities, including Chaldo-Assyrians and other Christians, Sabean-Mandeans and Yazidis. As described in this year's annual report, the concerns outlined by the commission in December persist as these vulnerable minorities have, in recent years, experienced targeted intimidation and violence, including killings, beatings, abductions and rapes, forced conversions, forced marriages, forced displacement from their homes and businesses and violent attacks on their houses of worship and religious leaders. Despite the overall drop in violence in the country, these incidents continued in 2008 and 2009 including in this month. The cumulative effect of this has created a serious threat to these ancient communities' very existence in Iraq. And the statistics are staggering. About half the Christian populations have left the country or been killed -- and that's starting from a total of 1.4 million. About ninety percent of the Mandean community report that they have left or been killed. This jeopardizes Iraq's future as a pluralistic, diverse and free society. In addition, the commission is concerned about the continued attacks and tense relations between Shia and Sunni Iraqis, as well as other continued, egregious, religiously motivated report on page 54 where we have extensive recommendations on Iraq. The commission urges the US government to take a number of specific steps to ensure, inter alia, the prevention of abuses against religious minorities is a top priority. We call for the training and deployment of police for these vulnerable minorities, that the KRG uphold minority rights in their area and that the situation of internally displaced persons and refugees is effectively addressed.

Shea took two questions on Iraq and noted that the USCIRF had long critiqued the constitution:

We are very concerned by the contradiction within the Iraqi Constitution. On the one hand, religious freedom for everyone is stated -- and for minority groups -- and on the other hand, there can be no law that contradicts Islam. So there is a possibility that there isn't a right to have individual choice in religious freedom or to manifest your beliefs publicly. It's very questionable. So we wanted to know what the -- I think there's some language about the consensus on the agreed upon tenets of Islam -- that no law can contradict the agreed upon tenets of islam. But there really, in fact, is no consensus on Islam. There is two main branches of Islam in Iraq -- Sunnis and Shiites. There are different schools. There are different commentaries on those schools. So there's many different points of view, so the constitution is ont clear and it leaves in doubt the extent of religious freedom particularly for minorities. The main problem we're seeing, though, is the extremists. Not government violence, but extremist violence. And the failure of the government to protect or allow these minorities to develop and flourish and remain in Iraq. So many of them -- half of them -- have left. And many of them continue to be in the region. The United States has been very dilatory in addressing this problem. It appears no, that they're not going back in great numbers. And I think the United States has a responsibility to -- and we make recommendations for this -- that the United States has a responsibility to support these people and to help them find refuge either in the United States or elsewhere.

The 269 page report is entitled [PDF format warning] Annual Report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom and Iraq is pages 43 through 60. We'll note the recommendations on human rights (and wonder why the administration requires someone else suggesting them):

* appoint and immediately dispatch a Special Envoy for Human Rights in Iraq to Embassy Baghdad, reporting directly to the Secretary of State, to serve as the United States' lead human rights official in Iraq; to lead an Embassy human rights working group, including the senior coordinators on ARticle 140 issues, on corruption, and on the rule of law, as well as other relevant officials including those focusing on minority issues; and to coordinate U.S. efforts to promote and protect human rights in Iraq; and

* appoint immediately one or more U.S. advisors under the Department of State's Iraq Reconstruction Management Office to serve as liaisons to the Iraqi Ministry of Human Rights.

To address past and current reports of human rights violations in Iraq, the U.S. government should urge the Iraqi government at the highest levels to:

* undertake transparent and effective investigations of human rights abuses, including those stemming from sectarian, religiously-motivated, or other violence by Iraqi security forces, political factions, militias or any other para-state actors affiliated with or otherwise linked to the Iraqi government or regional or local governments, and bring the perpetrators to justice;

* cooperate with international investigations of such abuses; and

* create and fully fund the independent national Human Rights Commission provided for in the Iraqi Constitution and ensure that this Commission is non-sectarian, that is has a mandate to investigate and individual complaints, and that its functions and operations are based on the UN's Paris Principles.

Multiple links can be found at this page of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. The above alone goes to why the UNHCR had no business issuing any statement (not even to appease al-Maliki and his desire to interest foreign investment). Equally true is that this 'downturn' was one month (January) and each month since has seen an increase in violence with last month reaching 2008 levels. Equally important, things are always highly fluid in Iraq. Indpedent journalist Dahr Jamail (via Countercurrents) observes:

Indicative of the rapidly deteriorating situation in Iraq, on May 1 the US military reported the death of a Naval petty officer who was killed "on April 30 while conducting combat operations in Fallujah, Iraq." The Department of Defense report went on to explain that the sailor "was deployed with an East Coast based Navy SEAL team." That same day, the military announced the deaths of two marines "killed while conducting combat operations against enemy forces here April 30." The dateline for the latter press release is "AL ANBAR PROVINCE, Iraq." Apparently, all is not well in Fallujah and al-Anbar province. The US military, having met the fiercest resistance throughout their occupation of Iraq in these areas, is once again conducting combat operations there.
The fact that the US military has largely hung the Sahwa out to dry, exposing the 100,000 strong Sunni militia to the ire of the Maliki government for ongoing assassinations and detentions, has taken the lid off the volcano that the Sahwa were keeping from erupting. Let us remember - it was the Sahwa who kept al-Qaeda in Iraq in check, not the US military or the Iraqi military. As members of the Sahwa continue to leave their security posts due to lack of pay and being targeted by the Iraqi government, they are returning to the resistance from which most of them had emerged to join the militia.
Let us also be clear about the fact that the Sahwa allied themselves with the US military so as to protect themselves from the Shia-dominated sectarian government of Prime Minister Maliki.
I asked a good friend of mine in Baghdad to interview a Sahwa leader in the Adhamiya district of Baghdad a few days ago. The leader asked to be identified as Abu Ahmed. He is 40 years old, married, has four children, and had this to say, "I would like to say that the Iraqi Government, and especially Mr. Maliki, are continuing to target us. They have been doing this from the beginning, and they continue to do this against the Sahwa. The reason is because we are Sunni and the Iraqi government are a sectarian government."
Abu Ahmed said he and his fellow Sahwa members support the immediate withdrawal of all occupation forces "and then we can change our government by ourselves and build a nationalist government to replace this current sectarian government."
He then added, succinctly, "Our purpose is to end the occupation, end al-Qaeda, and make a new Iraq that is safe."

Which goes to why the US needs and it also goes to all the hogwash about al-Maliki winning in the provincial elections (held in 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces January 31st). al-Maliki won nothing, he wasn't a candidate. And the way to read those results wasn't "Yea! Nouri!" it was that Iraq's rejecting sectarianism and, pay attention, that's a huge danger for Nouri. Nouri was only installed by the US because he was on the 'right' side of the sectarian divide. The results of the election have been spun repeatedly and in Nouri's favor when reality has never indicated any such thing.

Sahwa was again targeted today in Baghdad.

Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing which left three people wounded and 3 Mosul roadside bombings which left three people wounded.

Shootings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 police officer shot dead in Mosul. Reuters notes 1 "civilian" shot dead in Mosul and 1 "official from the oil police" wounded in a Kirkuk shooting and, in Baghdad, 1 Sahwa ("Awakening," "Sons Of Iraq") shot dead and his brother arrested.

Corpses?
Reuters notes 1 corpse discovered in Kirkuk.

April 23rd, as twin bombings rocked Baghdad, Nouri's mouthpieces announced they'd arrested the mythical Abu Omar al-Baghdadi. Corinne Reilly (McClatchy Newspapers) notes that despite repeated claims since, no one really knows all this time later, "Iraqi officials have claimed to have captured or killed Baghdadi several times before, and they've been wrong every time. U.S. military officials have said in the past that they think that Baghdadi may be a fictional character meant to give a local face to a foreign-led terrorist organization. So far this time, the Iraqis haven't backtracked. But they also have yet to provide any proof they have him, except for one grainy headshot broadcast on state television this week. It's anyone's guess as to how officials might prove Baghdadi is who they say he is, however."

Turning to corruption news [James Glanz, Eric Schmitt and Choe Sang-hun's "3 Koreans Convicted Of Bribery In Iraq"], in a shocking development, billions of US tax dollars have vanished in Iraq and the latest scandal involves $70 million that a foreign government was allowed to 'oversee.' This 'oversight' was in a direct violation of the program as it was repeatedly explained to the US Congress and the American people.Appearing before the The Commission on Wartime Contracting February 2nd, the Department of Defense's Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble explained CERP (Commander's Emergency Response Program) funds, "CERP funds are appropriated through the DoD and allocted through each major command's sector of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Up to $500,000 can be allocated to individual CERP projects, and CERP beneficiaries often receive payments in cash. We have also identified occasions where soldiers with limited contracting experience were responsible for administering CERP funds. In some instances, there appeared to be scant, if any, oversight of the manner in which funds were expended. Complicating matters further is the fact that payment of bribes and gratuities to government officials is a common business practice in some Southwest Asia nations. Taken in combination, these factors result in an environment conducive to bribery and corruption."Gimble identified the CERP funds as being under the control of the US command. This was the repeated pattern when officials appeared before the Congress. In reality, South Korea was allowed to administer CERP funds with no US oversight and their military now stands accused of running a scam which utilized more than $70,000,000 US tax payer dollars. In April, a Seoul military court found three officers of the country's military guilty of running a bribery and extortion scam utilizing the CERP funds.The CERP funds have been repeatedly addressed by witnesses appearing before the US Congress and yet the Congress was repeatedly informed the process was the US tax payer pays the money and the US military officials use the funds for various Iraqi projects. Never once did anyone reveal that foreign states were being given US tax payer monies. The September 10, 2008 House Armed Services Committee hearing found Chair Ike Skelton pursuing the issue of the CERP funds with DoD's Under Secreatry of Defense for Policy Eric S. Edelman and explaining the process as Congress intended it.Ike Skelton: The department's understanding of the allowed usage of CERP funds seems to have undergone a rather dramatic change since Congress first authorized it. The intent of the program was originally to meet urgent humanitarian needs in Iraq through small projects undertaken under the initative of brigade and battalion commanders. Am I correct?Edelman: Yes, sir.Ike Skelton: Thank you. The answer was "yes." Last year the Department of Defense has used millions of CERP dollars to build hotels for foreign visitors, spent $900,000 on a mural at the Baghdad International Airport and, as I understand this second piece of art, that CERP funds were used for. I'm not sure that the American tax payer would appreciate that knowing full well that Iraq has a lot of money in the bank from oil revenues and it is my understanding that Iraq has announced that they're going to build the world's largest ferris wheel. And if they have money to build the world's largest ferris wheel why are we funding murals and hotels with money that should be used by the local battallion commander. This falls in the purview of plans and policy ambassador.Edelman: No, no, it's absolutely right and I'll shae the stage here -- I'll share the stage quite willing with uh, with Admiral Winnefeld with whom I've actually been involved in discussions with for some weeks about how we provide some additional guidance to the field and some additional requirements to make sure that CERP is appropriately spent.Edelman then tries to stall and Skelton cuts him off with, "Remember you're talking to the American taxpayer." Edelman then replies that it is a fair question. He says CERP is important because it's flexible. It's important because they're just throwing around, if you ask me. They're playing big spender on our dime.Skelton: The issue raises two serious questions of course. Number one is they have a lot of money of their own. And number two the choice of the type of projects that are being paid for. I would like to ask Mr. Secretary if our committee could receive a list of expenditures of $100,000 or more within the last year. Could you do that for us at your convience please?Edelman: We'll work with our colleagues in the controller's office and - and . . . to try and get you --Skelton: That would be very helpful.October 30, 2008, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction released a report on Iraqi spending. The 232 page report [PDF format warning] was posted online and received attention for being the product of, Inspector General Stuart W. Bowen Jr. words, "seven audit reports and three inspections". The report noted many things such as, "The recent Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2009 imposed a ceiling of $2 million on the amount of CERP money that DoD could allocate to a single project. The new NDAA futher requires the Secretary of Defense to approve CERP projects costing over $1 million, certifying thereby that the project will meet Iraq's urgent humanitarian relief or reconstruction needs." South Korea was not mentioned in the entire 232 page despite the new revelations that, "The Americans gave the [South Korean] Zaytun unit wide latitude within its northern area of operation [in Iraq]. The unit largely controlled the disbursement of $74 million of American reconstruciton money through the Commanders' Emregency Response Program, or CERP."In addition, while US outlets worked overtime to sneer at the notion that the Iraq War was about, or had anything to do with, oil, "Korean leaders explicitly told their people that the deployment [to Iraq] would help their country gain oil contracts." Attempts to insist that no American money was stolen is insane (though South Korea's government has attempted to do just that). If I use $350 of your money without your permission -- for even two seconds and return every bit of it -- I have stolen from you. It's basic. If a citizen did what the Korean military officials did, they'd be prosecuted for theft (and they should be). Meanwhile, in Iraq, AFP reports that the Kurdistan Regional Government has announced they will hold their parliamentary elections July 25th.

In the US, Carolyn Lochhead (San Francisco Chronicle) sees stirrings in Congress over the 'emerency' war supplemental Barack's requestion. Lochhead notes US House Rep David Obey, chair of the Appropriations Committee, states that at the end of the year there will be some serious questions. In addition:

Echoing fights with former President Bush over Iraq, Obey included language requiring the Obama administration to issue a progress report on five benchmarks to Congress before its next budget request in February 2010. Funding is not conditioned on meeting the benchmarks:
1. The level of political consensus and unity of purpose to confront the political and security challenges facing the region; 2. The level of government corruption and actions taken to eliminate it; 3. The performance of security forces with respect to counterinsurgency operations; 4. The performance of intelligence agencies in cooperating fully with the U.S. and not undermining the security of our troops and our objectives in the region; and 5. The ability of the government to control the territory within their borders."

The previous benchmarks were never met and Congress never cut off funding. All this time later, they still haven't been met. Even provincial elections have still not been held (14 of Iraq's 18 provinces is not "provincial elections" any more that a national election in the US would be 42 states voting and eight being excluded).

As noted yesterday, Marilyn French has passed away. Last night Elaine called out the nonsense of the obits acting as if The Women's Room was the beginning and end of Marilyn. Elaine rightly noted that it was akin to an obit on Julie Christie focusing non-stop on Darling and ignoring her finest performance thus far (Afterglow). More to the point, it's the equivalent of an obit on Sally Field that can't shut up about Gidget or The Flying Nun. Those were popular hits. They're nothing to be ashamed of. But Field's best work includes Norma Rae, Places Of The Heart and much more. More people saw her play The Flying Nun than anything else. (And more people saw her in Smokey & the Bandit than saw her in Norma Rae.) If that's the only measure for how we judge than, by all means, keep pimping a popular book that may be as 'lasting' as any of Mary McCarthy's novels. French's work didn't end in 1977. It's appalling that standards and taste (or the lack of both) dictate that certain people pimp a page turner as opposed to Marilyn's well researched, analytical writing. Heart (Women's Space) finds a way to note the popular novel and yet not to reduce Marilyn to Judith Krantz. Heart observes, "Her work has been central to my own feminism and is, in my opinion, brilliant. She was one of only a very few feminists who really had a grasp of the broad picture; she consistently wrote of women's liberation as a struggle against all forms of coercion and abusive power, all dominance hierarchies, and as central and key to the liberation, ultimately, of all human beings, animals, the earth itself."


iraq
evan brightbrett barrouquere
the new york timesrod norland
dahr jamail
james glanzeric schmittchoe sang-hun
mcclatchy newspaperslaith hammoudi
corinne reilly
carolyn lochheadthe san francisco chronicle

Marilyn French

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Useless Blogger"



You could (I would) compile a list of "useless writers" and I would include Carol Jenkins on that list. That's because I just read her writing on Marilyn French.

A friend called the office repeatedly today and I was always in sessions. I finally spoke with her at lunch and she was telling me that Marilyn French had passed away. We both knew Marilyn and we spoke of her briefly and noted what a loss her death was.

"Especially now" was a phrase my friend kept repeating. I finished my lunch and did the rest of my sessions. Then, as the day was winding down, I thought about how C.I. was on the road speaking and very likely didn't even know the news.

I called Kat's phone because I knew it would be easier to get a hold of her. She said C.I. was dictating the snapshot and I asked her to pass a note to C.I. that someone we knew had passed away. Then C.I. was on the phone and I explained who it was. C.I. said she'd call back in about twenty minutes.

She did and read off what she'd roughed out after having the obit on Feminist Wire Daily read to her. I thought C.I. said it beautifully.

Then I look to see if Women's Media Center is covering the Steven D. Green War Crimes trial yet (answer: NO!) and see that Carol Jenkins has written a really bad obit on Marilyn.

If Julie Christie's obit revolved around Darling, I would be hugely offended. (I know Julie.) Darling was a huge moment for her; however, it was not her firing on all cylindars, doing her finest work. I would argue Afterglow is her finest work.

I would further argue that emphasizing her popular success in her first major role was also a form of ageism and a refusal to acknowledge that maturing women have a stronger grasp on their talents and that wisdom means a great deal more than a fresh face.

But there's Carol Jenkins raving over The Women's Room. That novel wasn't Marilyn's life work. It was a popular book and it did many wonderful things; however, the 1977 book was not her life's work.

What Carol Jenkins has done is sleight every thing Marilyn worked on. She doesn't even mention The War Against Women which was a book that garnered Marilyn much praise from serious critics and which was part of a period that saw other bestsellers such as Backlash: The Undeclared War Against Women by Susan Faludi, Revolution From Within by Gloria Steinem and Naomi Wolf's The Beauty Myth. It was a powerful period for women and Carol Jeninks can't even note it. That's very sad.

When C.I. read to me what she was going to include the snapshot, I was (happily) surprised that it was The War Against Women. She asked me to check it after the snapshot went up to see if the quotes were correct. C.I. was doing them from memory and upset so they might be incorrect, she feared.

The excerpt is from the book and that was the only one she could recall at that time. But she wasn't sure if she was recalling it correctly. She did recall it correctly. I did look for her. (If it had been wrong, she would have gladly noted in tomorrow's snapshot, "I was wrong" -- and gladly because it would have been another reason to note Marilyn.) I did think C.I. was wrong about the critical review she cites. On the front of my softcover copy, it quotes Gloria Steinem. I flipped over to the back cover and saw the top quote was the New York Times. Not the New York Times Book Review. I also saw the quote was incorrect. I wasn't surprised because I know the death was going to upset C.I. (who mentioned back in February that Marilyn would most likely be the next big passing). I flipped inside the book for page 189 and saw the excerpt C.I. used was correct and then I was about to put the book back on the shelf when I glanced at the back cover and saw that they quoted the New York Times and . . . they quoted the New York Times Book Review. The critical praise C.I. quoted was correct and correctly attributed.

Marilyn French's passing is a personal loss for me but it's also a huge loss in the world of letters. Marilyn grew as a writer each year. She was not a faded writer who saw a moment of brilliance in 1977. She was a critical writer who grew more sure footed and more inspired with every year.

The Women's Room is being republished this year. Possibly that's why some keep stressing it? Possibly due to who will profit from it? But it's not a book I'd read again. If I wanted to read Marilyn, I'd read something from this decade and the nineties. The woman who wrote The Women's Room was a sliver, a shadow of the woman she became.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Monday, May 4, 2009. Chaos and violence contine, the prosecution rests in the Steven D. Green trial, a Sahwa leader is arrested and the response is further tensions, Barack wants more money for his illegal wars, Moqtada al-Sadr surfaces (winter is officially over), Marilyn French has passed away, and more.

In Iraq on March 12, 2006, Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi's parents and five-year-old sister were murdered while she was gang-raped in another room. Following the gang-rape, Abeer was murdered. The War Crimes were committed by US soldiers and four have already faced justice: James Barker entered a guilty plea and was sentenced to 90 years, Paul Cortez also copped a guilty plea and was sentenced to 100 years, Jesse V. Spielman was convicted (no plea) and sentenced to 110 years and Bryan Howard had a plea agreement which resulted in 27 months of imprisonment. The only one accused and not tried was Steven Dale Green who had already left the US military when the truth came out and had to be tried in a civilian court. Green's trial began last week at the United States District Court Western District of Kentucky. The man who has been described as the "ringleader" and fingered as the one who killed all four, a participant in the gang-rape of Abeer and the one who thought up the criminal conspiracy is somehow pleading 'non-guilty' at the same time his attorneys do not dispute the charges but ask that the 'context' of his actions be considered.

Today the prosecution finished presenting their case. Brett Barrouquere (AP) reports Blake Huggins and Noah Galloway were witnesses for the prosecution today and both testified that Green told them he had committed the War Crimes shortly before his federal arrest June 30, 2006. Barrouquere quotes Huggins stating, "He had mentioned to me that he and a group of guys walked into a house, killed a family and raped a young girl. He just kind of mentioned it to me." Galloway testified that Green was aware the federal authorities were after him, that he knew he would be arrested shortly and that he confessed to all of it including being the one who shot dead all four family members. Barrouquere has been covering the developments in this story for nearly three years -- one of the few can make that claim. The trial is also being covered by an 18-year-old high school senior, Evan Bright, who reported on Friday's testimonies which included the ridiculous statements by War Criminal Paul Cortez who declared that we "knew what was goin' on, we knew were were goin' down to that house to have sex with that girl, and Barker and Green seemed to know where they were going to get there." A) Green knew because he had cased the home the same as he had repeatedly touched Abeer when she came through the military checkpoint. That is why her parents were arranging to get her out of the house as quickly as possible. Had the soldiers attempted their actions the following night, Abeer wouldn't have been home. She was to leave the morning after she died. As for "have sex with that girl," "that girl" has a name and "have sex" isn't rape. Cortez may have confessed at his own hearing but his remarks in Green's trial demonstrate no understanding of his crimes and no remorse for them. He also is either a liar or has cognitive issues. He, Barker and Green took part in the gang-rape of Abeer. But he told the jury in Green's trial Friday that killing her and the family "that wasn't . . . the intention. Sh . . . stuff just went crazy . . ." Really? That wasn't the intention? And what did Cortez think would happen? They'd break into an Iraqi home, hold a family at gun point while gang-raping the fourteen-year-old daughter and then just leave?

He wants everyone to believe that the family wouldn't have gone to the local police? Maybe he believes that but others didn't and that's obvious by the fact that after Abeer was murdered, her body was set on fire in an attempt to destroy the evidence. After they murdered her, they suddenly thought the police might be involved but gang-rape, excuse me, "have sex with" apparently was no big deal in their minds. Cortez might also want to ask why they went to so much trouble to remove evidence from their own bodies of the gang-rape? Evan Bright reported this on Jesse Spielman's testimony:


He testified to seeing Green unbuttoning his pants and getting down between Abeer's legs and raping her, after which he took a pillow and put it over Abeer's head and fired an AK47 into the pillow, killing her. At this, the defendant was spotted looking down. He then watched Barker pour a liquid onto her body. While her body was burning, he added clothes and blankets to fuel the flames, "to destroy evidence," he said. He continued, describing Cortez & Barker washing their chests and genitalia back at TCP2, and how he himself threw the AK47 into the canal. When asked why he didn't turn his squad members in, he "didn't feel right, telling on people [he] served with."

Cortez knew to wash his "chests and genitalia" and that's was due to the gang-rape. Cortez didn't fire a weapon. For those who fear that Cortez didn't think anything out in advance, they can refer to Evan Bright reporting on Day Four of the trial:

According to Barker, "Cortez took a little convincing to get him to come along. He said if we were gonna have sex with the girl, he wanted to go first." He testified to ushering the 5-year-old girl and father into the house, and then separating 14-year-old Abeer from her family. He said that he held Abeer's hands down while Cortez raped her in mere seconds, while Green shot the remaining three family members. When Cortez was finished, they switched places, with Abeer screaming and crying the entire time. Afterwards, Green raped her, and then shot her.

See, he did put some thought into it and his thought was, if they're going to gang-rape a fourteen-year-old girl, he wanted to go first. As offensive as these War Criminals are, equally offenisve is the silence that's surrounded this trial as so many have bent over backwards to avoid covering or even mentioning it. We interviewed Evan Bright for Third yesterday and, in reply to how many reporters were covering the trail, he explained, "3-4. On Monday, opening statements day, there were 6-8. I'm here with Brett Barrouquere of the AP and Jim Frederick of Time Magazine who's writing a book on Bravo company. The people who only came for opening statements are Andy Wolfson from the Courier Journal, someone from Reuters, Mira Oberman the midwest correspondent from the 'Agence France-Press'... the French press."

Related, Feminist Wire Daily notes:

Marilyn French, a feminist author best known for her novel, "The Women's Room," died over the weekend in New York. According to the Telegraph UK, French once said "My goal in life is to change the entire social and economic structure of Western civilization, to make it a feminist world." Gloria Steinem described the novel in an interview: "It was about the lives of women who were supposed to live the lives of their husbands, supposed to marry an identity rather than become one themselves, to live secondary lives….It expressed the experience of a huge number of women and let them know that they were not alone and not crazy," reported the Manila Bulletin. French also published Beyond Power: On Women, Men, and Morals (1985) The War Against Women (1992), and From Eve to Dawn: A History of Women (2002), among other titles.
The above explains a great deal. First, Marilyn would be covering the trial. Second, The Women's Room was a popular novel and it certainly helped get the word out on feminist concepts and was turned into a breakthrough mini-series by ABC whose cast included: Patty Duke, Mare Winningham, Colleen Dewhurst, Lee Remick, Tyne Daly, Ted Danson, Gregory Harrison among others. But the emphasis on a popular novel?

"Chilling, well-documented . . . A sobering reminder that the situation of women may still be so universally abysmal that if any other ethnic, national or religious group were attacked, dominated and maimed at the same rate, it could be said to constitute a state of emergency or war". That's the New York Times Book Review and it's not for The Women's Room. That's reviewing her 1992 The War Against Women. That was a very important book and a best seller. In 1992. It's very sad that a popular novel published in 1977 is the crux of the obit. As though French did nothing after? From Eve to Dawn: A History of Women in Three Volumes is a major work, published in 2002. It's really telling that instead of noting her life's work an obit wants to emphasize a popular novel that was turned into a TV mini-series. It's all about popularity, apparently, and not at all about knowledge. Those of us who knew Marilyn appreciated her in life and mourn her now. Though the obit implies her best moment was in 1977, her life was an endless journey and her talents and skills only increased with each year. She will be sorely missed. From page 189 of The War Against Women:

So powerful and pervasive is the taboo against blaming men-as-a-class in our society that even social scientists who deplore male violence against women perpetuate a sense of male blamelessness for these acts. Male language generally -- the language used by those who work in military, engineering, computer, and or other "masculine" enterprises -- is characterized by a lack of agency. Like the nuclear strategy analysts discussed earlier, social scientists who write about male violence toward women and whose work may be aimed at ameliorating the situation for what is happening, that "things" happen as it were by themselves, or that both parties are equally responsible.

Think about the above not only in the statements made by those participating in the War Crimes of gang-rape and murder, but think about in terms of all the men and women who refuse to use their power to draw attention to the federal trial going on right now in Kentucky.

Drawing attention to himself is something that Jalal Talabani specializes in. From the April 20th snapshot: " Alsumaria broke the news that Jalal Talabani, the current president of Iraq, has decided he will run for the office again when his term expires in December. Saturday March 14th, Talabani was telling the world he wouldn't run and apparently sealing that decision by declaring the following Monday, to Sabah, that, 'The ideal of a united Kurdistan is just a dream written in poetry. I do not deny that they are poems devoted to the notion of a united Kurdistan. But we can not continue to dream'." Apparently his announcement did not garner him enough attention. Which would explain his announcement over the weekend. Ma'ad Fayad (Asharq Alawsat Newspaper) reports Talabani is stating he will retire when his term ends in December. Yes, this is a reversal. And it comes as Talabani and fellow Kurd Massoud Barzani (Barzani is President of the Kurdistan Regional Government and a political rival of Talabani's) make a joint announcement. Reuters reports they stood side-by-side today and announced that the Constitution will be followed regarding oil rich Kirkuk, that the KRG will not give up their claim even if a 'trade' is offered. They are calling for the Constitution to be followed. (A referendrum was to have been held. It has still not been held in violation of Iraq's Constitution.)

While Talabani's not sure what he wants to do, it appears obvious that some want to target Sahwa. Reuters noted Saturday 1 person was killed in a clash at a "Sunni Arab militia checkpoint in Yusufiya". That was Sahwa checkpoint. Sahwa is more popularly known as "Awakening" Councils or "Sons Of Iraq." They are resistance fighters that the US put on the US tax payer payroll because, as then US Ambassador Ryan Crocker and General David Petraeus explained repeatedly to Congress in April of 2008, it meant they would stop attacking US troops. Today they're under attack and that includes Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reporting yesterday that a Baghdad sticky bombing targeting Sahwa which left three people injured, But they're also under attack from the central government in Baghdad. Sunday saw three of their "leading members" arrested by US and Iraqi forces today, Al Jazeera reports, for actions against US service members before they went on the US payroll. Reuters notes one arrested leader and identifies him as Nadhim al-Jubouri (the other two, according to Reuters, are his two brothers): "Ahmed Karim, the deputy governor of Salahuddin province, said Jubouri was accused in killings that took place in the largely Shi'ite town of Dujail during the height of Iraq's sectarian conflict in 2006-2007." There is talk and speculation, including by Nouri al-Maliki, puppet of the occupation, that Karim was arrested on a warrant that was several years old. No one has yet to point out that such warrants have been filed away and used repeatedly for political reasons throughout the Iraq War. Hameed Rasheed and Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) observe, "Awakening leaders have been squeezed from all sides in recent months, with Iraqi authorities carrying out a series of arrests against them and Al Qaeda in Iraq continuing to target them with bombs. Late last month, Jibouri escaped a suicide attack at a mosque in the town where he was also an imam. The bomber, who detonated an explosives vest, killed five people and wounded 18, including one of Jibouri's now-detained brothers. In an interview with The Times the day after the explosion, Jibouri blamed the attack on the insurgents he had abandoned when he agreed to join the Awakening, called the Sons of Iraq by the U.S. military." There is fall out among the Sahwa over the arrests. James Hider (Times of London) reports, "Now leaders of the militias, who still guard their communities against al-Qaeda attacks, are accusing the Government of trying to undermine them, playing into the hands of the terrorists." Hidger quotes Mullah Jebori stating, "We signed a ceasefire agreement with American forces, just as we signed an agreement to grant us immunity from the courts, even if we killed half the American army or shot down a plane. The case has been raised because I was in armed groups before ... The complaints have been raised against us because we were in armed groups falsely accused of killing and kidnapping." Saturday Ali Rifat, Hala Jaber and Sarah Baxter (Times of London) reported. "The resistance council recently issued a call to disaffected Sons of Iraq to take up arms against US and Iraqi troops after the government of Nouri al-Maliki failed to integrate them into the national security forces. Many fighters have abandoned their security posts, allowing militant groups to fill the gap. Abu Omar, the leader of an Awakening militia in northern Baghdad, said more than 50 out of 175 fighters had quit."

Last Wednesday there was an attempted arrest of govenrment officials in Baghdad and a shooting spree resulted. For some reason, it took until Sunday for that to be reported.
Sam Dagher's "Gunfight Breaks Out as Iraqi Soldiers Try to Arrest Trade Officials" (New York Times) reported Sunday on the an armed clash Wednesday as al-Maliki's forces attempted to arrest nine people at the country's Ministery of Trade. One person was arrested (Muahmmad Hannoun). Falah al-Sudani is the agency's minister and he was, at that point, in Basra. Where the British recently left. And, like so many the US placed in charge of Iraq, Iraqi al-Sudani holds dual citizenship (British being the second one) and there was fear that he would make it out of the country. Last night Ahmed Rasheed and Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) report, "[MP and head of the Integrity Committee, Sabah al-] Saedi said ministry guards prevented forces from entering the building and fired shots in the air to scare them. They responded by also firing in the air, security officials said."

Independent journalist Dahr Jamail has a book coming out in July from Haymarket Books on resistance in the military. Today at Dissident Voice, he tackles the subject of those who destroy their own sciences and betray every ethic of their profession (think Monty McFatty and her 'lovely' sister who lies domestically):

The US military has sent shock troops, which also donned helmets and flak jackets -- anthropologists, sociologists and social psychologists, with their own troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. By the end of 2007, American scholars in these fields were embedding with the military in Afghanistan and Iraq as part of a Pentagon program called Human Terrain System (HTS), which evolved shortly thereafter into a $40 million program that embedded four or five person groups of scholars in the aforementioned fields in all 26 US combat brigades that were busily occupying Iraq and Afghanistan.
Two years prior to this, the CIA had quietly started recruiting social scientists by advertising in academic journals, offering salaries of up to $400,000. The military's goals for the HTS was to have them gather and disseminate information about Iraqi and Afghani cultures. These embedded scholars, contracted through companies like CACI International, work in the project that is described by CACI as "designed to improve the gathering, understanding, operational application, and sharing of local population knowledge" among combat teams.
This new form of psychological warfare is deeply disturbing. Throughout my five years of reporting on the occupation of Iraq, when I've asked Iraqis what they feel the most damaging aspect of the occupation is, I have been told that the occupation is "shredding the fabric of Iraqi society and culture."

Nouri al-Maliki is attempting to manage the population with pretty words. Alsumaria reports, "Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki stressed that timelines of US Forces withdrawal from Iraq are definite and not subject to any amendments. Thus, Al Maliki contradicted all reports evoking the possibility of extending US military presence in Iraq on account of violence spike in Baghdad streets." al-Maliki's hoping to avoid an ouster before the next round of Parliamentary elections (supposed to take place in December but looking like January or February). What he will or will not say after those elections will certainly be interesting. He's facing more pressure in recent days but we'll note this from CNN before we get to that, "Baghdad still expects its security forces to take responsibility for Iraqi cities after U.S. troops leave, and does not plan to request an extension, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said." The popular position in Iraq has always been US troops out. It's a position that Moqtada al-Sadr has always ridden to popularity. The long hidden al-Sadr surfaced in recent days in Turkey. David Blair (Telegraph of London) notes:Turkey has a vital interest in bringing stability to neighbouring Iraq and curbing Iranian influence. Mr Sadr met both Recep Tayyip Erodgan, the Turkish prime minister, and President Abdullah Gul in Ankara on Friday.The talks concentrated on "security in Iraq and the promotion of links between the parties", according to Anatolia, a Turkish news agency

Marcia noted Moqtada al-Sadr visit to Turkey Friday night. Today's Zaman reports, "Diplomatic sources said Sadr came to Ankara as part of Turkey's policy of maintaining contact with all groups in Iraq. The United States views the Shiite leader's visit positively, said the sources. Al-Sadr's talks in Ankara focused on the 'political process' as Iraq heads towards general elections in December 2009. The request for the visit came from al-Sadr, according to sources. The Shiite leader is also due to head a meeting of his supporters in İstanbul before he leaves Turkey". The French government notes that Nouri is in France: "This visit is once again representative of the renewal of our political and economic ties with Iraq, initiated by the two visits Bernard Kouchner made to Iraq in August 2007 and June 2008, and endorsed by the French President's visit on February 10.
Since then the frequency of exchanges has increased greatly, characterized by the joint economic commission co-chaired by Christine Lagarde and the Iraqi Oil Minister which was held on March 24 in Paris, the visit by the Iraqi Minister of Defense on March 25 and the official visit by the Iraqi Vice President Adel Abd al-Mahdi on April 13-16.
Prime Minister al-Maliki will be accompanied by a major delegation including, in particular, the Deputy Prime Minister, Barhem Saleh, as well as the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Commerce, the Minister of Interior and the government spokesperson.
Discussions will take place with the French President, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs. These will give new impetus to our political dialogue and bilateral relations, and will provide an opportunity to discuss the major regional challenges."

Jeff Leys (CounterPunch) notes, "President Obama's 2009 supplemental spending request to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is currently before Congress. The House Appropriations Committee will "mark up" (finalize its version) of a war funding bill at a committee hearing on May 7th. The full House will likely vote on the bill the following week. The objective is to have the bill finalized and to Obama for signature by Memorial Day. President Obama is seeking an additional $75.8 billion in war funds for this fiscal year. It is possible that Congress will add to this amount before final passage. If Congress enacts Obama's request, total war spending will come to $144.6 billion for Fiscal Year 2009 (which ends on September 30, with Fiscal Year 2010 beginning on October 1). This compares to the $186 billion war spending in 2008. Obama's proposed war budget for 2010 is $130 billion." Today the costs rose. Reuters reports, "Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives will seek passage in coming weeks of $94.2 billion in emergency money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and other programs, including $2 billion more to prepare for an influenza pandemic." Liz Peek (wowOwow) analyzes the government pork here.
Like the spending, the violence continued today . . .

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports twin Baghdad car bombings which claimed 4 lives and left seven injured, a Baghdad sticky bombing which wounded three oil tanker drivers, a Baghdad grenade attack which claimed the lives of 4 police officers and left three more wounded, a Mosul roadside bombing which wounded one person,and a Diyala province roadside bombing which claimed 1 life and left six more people injured (they were wedding goers).

Shootings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Mosul checkpoint shooting in which one police officer was shot dead. Reuters notes 1 "official with the Sunni Arab Islamic Party" was shot (injured, not dead) in Khaldiay and 1 Iraqi soldier was killed, two Iraqi soldiers were injured and an 'insurgent' was injured as well during an armed clash in Ramadi at a military checkpoint.

Corpses?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Mosul.

Saturday the US military announced: "CONTINGENCY OPERATING BASE SPEICHER, TIKRIT, Iraq -- Two Multi-National Division -- North Soldiers were killed and three wounded during a small arms fire attack at a combat outpost south of Mosul early this evening. According to initial reports, an individual dressed in an Iraqi Army uniform fired on the Coalition forces and was killed in the incident. The incident is currently under investigation. The names of the deceased and wounded are being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense." The announcement brought to 4284 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war.

Lastly, in England the illegal war is back in the news as a claim is put foward that the UK was pulled into an illegal war. Duncan Gardham (Telegraph of London) reports:


The comments, made by Nigel Inkster, who was deputy director of MI6 at the time, make clear there were reservations over the war at a very senior level within the Secret Intelligence Service. MI6 was blamed for the failure of intelligence that took Britain to war after helping produce a dossier in which Tony Blair claimed that Iraq was ready to use weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes. The dossier, said to have been "sexed up" by Downing Street, also mentioned controversial intelligence that Saddam Hussain was seeking uranium from Niger.In a speech at the Institute for Public Policy Research, Mr Inkster blamed weakness at the Foreign Office for allowing Britain to get dragged into a war over which officials had serious doubts. "The Foreign Office no longer does foreign policy," Mr Inkster said. "It acts as a platform for a multiplicity of UK departments and the lack of a clearly articulated sense of our strategic location in the world explains how we got dragged into a war with Iraq which was always against our better judgment."
iraq
brett barrouquere
evan bright
dahr jamail
mcclatchy newspapershussein kadhimthe los angeles timesliz slyhameed rasheed
todays zamantimes of londonsarah baxterali rifathala jaber
the new york timessam dagher
the telegraph of londonduncan gardham