When it rains, it pours
And there's no one at the door
That's from Stevie Nicks' "One More Rock And Roll Star" which was the flipside of "Talk To Me" (single) and is on Enchanted (boxed set). I couldn't remember the title but it's been in my head all evening. C.I. told me the title a second ago on the phone and also told me, "Go check into a hotel."
Besides computer issues, which I'll get to in a moment, I'm also without power except in the kitchen. I guess a fuse blew. I flipped the breakers over and over and finally, the power in the kitchen came on. That's it. So it will be fun putting on make up tomorrow morning.
I could get a hotel room but I'm just not in the mood to put on my high heels or even a pair of flats. I've got candles and will use those. I've set the alarm on my cell phone so I should wake up on time. But applying make up will be interesting tomorrow morning. I've got . . . I don't know what I've got. When I bought my place, I didn't have time to decorate and I hired a decorator. I've got thick glass in the bathroom that's green. I wasn't "in love" with it but it is nice. But I'm thinking now that I won't even have sunlight tomorrow when I'm putting on my make up. I will have a dim green light.
Rebecca (Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude -- use links on my blogroll) lives for decorating. I just wanted it done and done by someone else. I thought I was agreeing to a stained glass window in the bathroom, and maybe that's what it is, but I was picturing little bits of different colors when I agreed to it.
C.I. said it's probably a fuse and wondered if someone would come out if I was willing to pay big? I am willing to pay anything but tomorrow. I don't want to see anyone, I don't want to put on any shoes. I'm in my sweat pants, wearing a CODEPINK t-shirt and have my hair pulled back in a pony tail. I'm just not in the mood to see anyone tonight.
It was a busy day because I'm trying to take care of several things at once at work (because I'll be taking Friday off to be in DC this weekend).
My plan was to come home, eat some wild rice while blogging and read a few chapters of Frances Moore Lappe's Democracy's Edge which Trina (see Trina's Kitchen) and C.I. (The Common Ills, but I'm guessing you knew that) can't stop singing the praises of. By the way, no italics. Mike said they don't work. I'll get to that.
I don't believe it. There was someone at the front door. It was an electrician. C.I. made some calls. I can't believe that. I'm not complaining. I just can't believe C.I., who doesn't live on the east coast, could find an electrician who would come out tonight in my area. He greeted me with, "You don't look bad."
I asked, "Who are you?" He said C.I. called and he asked where the fuse box is and went off with a flashlight. (Thank you, C.I. if you read this before I speak to you on the phone.) Ten more minutes and my rice is done. The electricity's being fixed (fingers crossed), the day's finally looking up.
So, the other thing on my "things to do list" was install the new version of Windows Explorer. I had a message pop up about that on Monday. I asked Mike and Rebecca if they were using it and they weren't so we all agreed we'd install on Wednesday and talk each other through while using it if it was hugely different from the previous version.
We weren't able to. We did install it. And it does nothing. I use Explorer as my browser. They use something else, or at least Mike does. What happened to all three of us is that the page tries to connect and tries to connect and . . . It nevver does. You can't do anything with it.
This is so hilarious: "Updates are ready for your computer." That just popped up. Like I would install more after the problems with Explorer.
So we tried playing with it and nothing. If it ever pulls up, I hope there's a thing for bookmarks. It doesn't look like there will be and, if not, I just lost all my sites I check. Whine on, Elaine, whine on.
So I'm blogging thanks to Mike who e-mailed my outlook account with a link to a Browser he never uses and I can see why. If you hit return (really "Enter" but I learned to type on a typewriter -- I am that old), you get kicked out of the posting screen. You also can't do italics. You can bold. I have one screen and one screen only which is why I'm writing things like "Trina (see Trina's Kitchen on my blogroll)" -- I can't do links with only one screen.
So it's just been a tiring night and then some. I had told C.I. on the phone that I was just going to sleep on the couch tonight. There's a huge window in the living room and I could open the drapes and it wouldn't be pitch black. I'm not big on sleeping with candles burning and I don't get as much light (sun or moon) in my bedroom. I said, "All I want to do is see if I can blog and just curl up on the couch." I'm sure I sounded both tired and pathetic. (If I'm lucky, I just sounded tired.)
C.I. said, "It is too cold for you to sleep in a room without heat." I said I'd just use extra blankets. I would have too but (fingers crossed) it will be nice to have heat instead. (In the kitchen, I've had the front burners on low, while cooking the rice on a back burner, to warm the kitchen up.) I remember in college when we all smoked -- Rebecca, C.I. and I. If we were out matches or the lighters were dead, we'd light off one of the stove's burners. Rebecca ended up with bangs one semester after she wasn't paying attention and caught some of her hair on fire. The message is don't smoke! I am joking. I quite smoking years and years ago, about four or five after college. But I don't have any problem with smokers. I'm not one of those people who does a fake cough when someone smokes. Dona smokes and it would be better if she didn't but she's an adult and she knows that. I'm never bothered when she smokes around me except during the editions of The Third Estate Sunday Review when we're all togehter because if it goes over thirty minutes, I need to open a window. That's not griping about Dona. I know she stresses out and cares about the time more than anyone (in terms of "Readers are going to be looking for content! We've got to post!") and I remember my stressful days in college. But by those last hours if it runs long, you need the windows open.
(For anyone who's missed it, Rebecca's pregnant. Until she found out she was pregnant, she was smoking. She's the only person I know who can start and stop in the snap of a finger. She really can turn it off like that. She has repeatedly.)
I had thought I would talk about the new issue of Ms. that came out this week (Winter 2007 edition). But it's not in my briefcase. I may have had it in my hands when I walked in. If so, it's somewhere in the dark. Two articles that stood out were on Afghanistan and Iran. In Iran, there's a woman who does a feminist publication in Iran. I'll try to talk about both articles either Friday or next week (unless we grab it at The Third Estate Sunday Review). I don't feel up to discussing it if I can't even get names to put it. (I have one screen and one screen only. Tab browsing is not an option in the browser Mike sent.)
Rebecca sent me an article (without a link, thanks Rebecca!) from the New York Times entitled "Libby Defense Portrays Client As a Scapegoat" by Neil A. Lewis. If I don't have Rory O'Connor on my blogroll, Mike does. Rory O'Conner (part of MediaChannel.org) is blogging on the Scooter Libby trial. The Lewis article (from today's paper) addresses the claim made in court by Scooter's lawyer (Theodore V. Wells Jr.) that Libby was scapegoated.
The claim is that, to protect Karl Rove, Libby was made the scapegoat. Do you buy that? I don't know if I buy it or not myself. But I think this trial could get interesting. Sunny and I were discussing it today. (I believe it's a headline on today's Democracy Now!) Sunny thinks Scooter's attorney is going to make a claim each day and she believes it will be at least partly true. She thinks the legal strategy (for Scooter's defense) is to float out things bit by bit in the hopes that Bully Boy will think, "We must shut him up!" -- in which case, Bully Boy will immediately issue a pardon.
I could see that happening. Not with a smart person, but with Bully Boy, I could see that happening. Pardoning in the middle of a case would be an admission of involvement and guilt to many people. Bully Boy's dumb enough to do that.
If you've forgotten why Scooter is on trial . . .
Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent. Joe Wilson is her husband. Joe Wilson was revealing that Bully Boy's claim of "evidence that Saddam Hussein recently sought yellow cake from Niger" (that's from memory and may not be exact, State of the Union speech in 2003, look it up) had already been disowned. Joe Wilson had traveled to Niger to investigate the claim and turned in a report on it. When Bully Boy continued to repeat that claim, Joe Wilson went public.
Someone decided the way to get to him was to out his wife as a CIA agent.
Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed special counsel to investigate. In the end, only Scooter was indicted. Scooter had been Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff (after being indicted, he stepped down from that post). Scooter told journalists Valerie Plame was CIA. (So the administration outed a CIA agent.) When he was questioned, under oath, by Fitzgerald, Scooter maintained journalists had told him. (He even said Tim Russert had told him which Tim Russert denies.) Judith Miller fingered Scooter as well. So, due to lying in the grand jury investigation, Scooter now faces "five felony counts of lying to investigators" (that's from Lewis' article). Lewis points out that previously Scooter's camp had argued that he had a faulty memory. They appear to have dropped that as a defense.
Again, that was in Wednesday's New York Times. No link because Rebecca just copied and pasted it an e-mail. I'm checking my e-mails to find something I can add to this weak post. C.I. forwarded me something from Feminist Majority:
In commemorating Roe v. Wade, Ms. magazine is delivering thousands of names from our "We Had Abortions" petition to President Bush, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and other U.S. Representatives and Senators. These brave women lent their names to the continuing struggle to protect our reproductive freedom. Top decision makers will see that thousands of women can personally attest to the necessity and importance of safe, legal, and accessible abortions.
Join these brave women. Send a letter to your Representative and Senators now.
We recognized that today, during a time in which local, state, and national attacks on abortion rights are not uncommon and social stigmas surrounding abortion persist, women and men still need to speak out in support of reproductive freedom.The response to the new Ms. petition has been overwhelming. Women have expressed gratitude for the opportunity to share their stories and to hear that they are not alone. Women of all ages from every state in the nation signed, showing their desire to preserve the legal right to abortion for future generations.
Our voices are making a difference.
Join us by sending a letter to your Representative and Senators.
For Women's Health and Lives,
Eleanor Smeal
Ms. Magazine, Publisher
Feminist Majority Foundation, President
There is an article about this topic in the new issue of Ms. Actually, two if you count Martha Burke's article on money spent in the 2006 election (she notes that anti-choice zealots in Michigan outspent pro-choice supporters to ban late-term abortions and the anti-choicers still lost). The other article, which may be by Eleanor Smeal, addresses the makeup of today's Surpeme Court and ponders whether Justice Kennedy could fill Sandra Day O'Connor's spot as a supporter of abortion rights? That is easily possible, my opinion, because O'Connor wasn't that strong of a supporter. (She provided the many of the loopholes for undermining Roe in various decisions including Planned Parenthood v. Casey.) Alito and Roberts, the newest judges added to the Supreme Court are both anti-choice to the extreme. (Roberts' wife belongs to the pseudo feminist group "Feminists for Life.")
Neither Alito nor Roberts should have been confirmed but the Democrats refused to fight. (Are we seeing a pattern?) Use the links to light a fire under your representatives in Congress. (If Casey Junior is one of your reps, don't even bother. In another sign of cowardice, the Democrats ran Casey Junior, over a pro-choice woman. He's anti-choice. He's DLC and he's the son of the Casey of Planned Parenthood v. Casey.)
The electricity is on. Let me copy and paste the snapshot and go speak to the electrician.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Wednesday, January 24, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, Dahr Jamail explains the importance of war resisters, Bully Boy bombs (or, as Mike called him, "Bully Boy Butt Wipe") with his State of the Union address, the slaughter on Haifa Street continues, a Senate committee feels really proud of themselves but Russ Feingold pops their hot air, US Rep Maxine Waters speaks with Amy Goodman about this weekends demonstrations to end the war, US Rep Dennis Kucinich explains what puts him ahead of other Democratic candidates attempting to win their party's nomination for the 2008 presidential election, and Tony Blair's whimper is the whine heard round the world.
In the US, Ehren Watada is the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq and faces a court-martial on February 5th at Fort Lewis. Last week, the 'judge' (John Head) ruled on the parameters of the case. As Matt Hutaff (The Simon) reports the ruling amounts to "stripping the defendant of his constitutional rights. When Watada faces prosecution on February 5, he will be unable to assert free speech in questioning the legality of the war and is forbidden from using Nurember laws as defense. Watada's entire argument rests on the fact that troops are bound to serve honorably and follow lawful orders, and that the Iraq war is a hodepodge of neither." Paul Rockwell (San Francisco Bay Guardian) observes, "It is a sad day in American jurisprudence when a soldier of conscience is court-martialed -- not for lying, but for telling the truth; not for breaking a covenant with the military, but for upholding the rule of law in wartime." Eric Ruder (Socialist Worker) notes, "Activists in the Northwest and around the country are planning a February 5 day of action to show support for Watada, timed to coincide with the beginning of the Army's court-martial against him. Defending war resisters is a critical part of ending the war, because it gives confidence to other soldiers considering their options as Bush plans a 'surge' of 21,500 more troops to Iraq." Jim Warren (Lexington Herald-Leader) notes that among those people showing support for Watada on February 5th at Fort Lewis will be war resister Darrell Anderson who "set off on a cross-country bus tour with the Iraq Veterans Against the War organization, making stops in several cities to support war resisters."
Meanwhile, war resister Agustin Aguayo was due to be arraigned on Monday but Stars & Stripes reports that the arraingment has now been postponed until Thursday. Aguayo served in Iraq and applied for Conscientious Objector status afterwards. The military denied that and Aguayo has been appealing that. On November 21, 2006, the US Court of Appeals in Washington, DC heard Aguayo's appeal. They have not yet ruled on it. As Aaron Glantz reported on the November 20, 2006 broadcast of The KPFA Evening News, Aguayo's case was the first of it's kind hear in "a federal court since 1971". Despite the fact that the case was on appeal, the military had told Aguayo he had to redeploy to Iraq. In September, Aguayo self-checked out and turned himself in the same month. He was gone less than 30 days (September 2nd through September 26th.). However, last week, the military announced that they would be charging him with desertion. As Kevin Dougherty (Stars & Stripes) noted in November, 30 days, though not a rule, is "the standard benchmark." That charge and missing movement could, if convicted on both counts, result in Aguayo serving seven years in prison.
Interviewed by Alan Maass (Socialist Worker), Dahr Jamail noted the importance of war resisters and observed: "There are between 8,000 and 10,000 people AWOL from the military, and I imagine that number has increased dramatically over just the last week. I know it was starting to increase dramatically even before Bush made his speech. More people than ever are heading off to Canada or going underground, so that they don't have to go to Iraq and be targets. If anyone is seriously interested in ending this occupation and wants to do something to make it happen, people should follow the instruction of Lt. Ehren Watada. In his speech at the Veterans for Peace national convention in August of last year, he said that the best thing people could do is adopt the family of someone who wants to become a resister, and do what they need to do to support those families, economically and morally, so that their people don't have to go to Iraq."
Agustin Aguayo, Ehren Watada and Darrell Anderson are part of a movement of resistance within the military that also includes Kyle Snyder, Ivan Brobeck, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
In Iraq today, the Independent of London's Patrick Cockburn, speaking with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!, noted the Bully Boy's laughable speech from Tuesday evening, "He talked about chaos coming to Iraq. Well, I mean, I'm in the center of Baghdad, and it's difficult to imagine anything more chaotic. There's heavy fighting going on in an area called Haifa Street just near the Green Zone. I can hear mortars occasionally going off. It's said that there is an attempt to assassinate one of the vice presidents a few streets away from here. So we have almost total chaos in Baghad at the moment."
Bombings?
KUNA reports a bombing in Mosul that left a police officer and a civilian wounded. Reuters reports a bombing that killed four police officers and left three civilians wounded in Baghdad, a mortar attack in Baghdad that left one man wounded, and a mortar attack on City Hospital in Baghdad that killed two and left 20 wounded. Shootings?
Reuters reports that two people wounded in an attack "on a minibus carrying Shi'ite pilgrims" in Baghdad. The BBC reports that another educator has been killed in Iraq and describe Diya al-Meqoter as "a well-known professor and econcomist who presented a programme on Sharquiya television. . . He was known for supporting poor people needing loans to set up business, and he also headed Iraq's consumer association, a non-government agency which campaigned for fair pricing." RTE reports an attack on the country's minister of higher education, Abd Dhiab al-Ajili, that left one of his body guard dead "and another was shot in the head and seriously wounded."
Corpses?
KUNA reports 52 corpses discovered in Mosul (all with"scars of torture") which comes after Borzou Daragahi (Los Angeles Times) reported that the number of corpses discovered in Baghdad was decreasing.
Meanwhile the slaughter on Haifa Street in Baghdad continues. Ross Colvin and Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) repeat the US military's version of events ('insurgents, insurgents, insurgents') to explain the US military's air raid on high rises on the largely residential street; however, they also note: "A local journalist said he helped transport 37 wounded people to hospital, including women and children, in three ambulances that managed to get through the security cordon." KUNA reports: "An Iraqi security source and eyewitnesses said US helicopters had been bombing the street compound since early morning today, noting the clashes were most intense near Al-Sheikh Cemetery, which witnessed similar clashes last week. Eyewitnesses told KUNA over the phone that ambulances were rushed to the scene of the clashes." This attack is what Patrick Cockburn was describing to Amy Goodman on today's Democracy Now!
Today the US military announced today: "One Marine assigned to 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Headquarters Group and one Marine assigned to Regimental Combat Team 5 died Tuesday from wounds sustained due to enemy action while operating in Al Anbar Province" and they announced: "Insurgent small arms fire targeting a Multi-National Division – Baghdad patrol killed one Soldier near the city’s center Jan. 24."
The US military also announced that Adam L. Huryta was court-martialed on January 22nd "for assaulting a fellow soldier with a survival knife." Huryta, as the release goes, disagreed with a position he was ordered to take while an Iraqi was being questioned so he repeatedly stabbed another US soldier and, having been found guilty in the court-martial held at LSA Anaconda, Huryta has received: "eight months in jail, reduction to E-1, and a bad conduct discharge." Ponder that. Ponder that as Ehren Watada faces six years in prison if convicted and Agustin Aguayo faces seven -- neither of whom went after another US service member with a hunting knife.
On Tuesday, Bully Boy yammered on for a little less than fity-minutes as he delivered a Constitutionally mandated State of the Union speech. At one point he spoke of the need to find resolve -- possibly he lost it on one of his many vacations? (If he ever had it.) On KPFA's The Morning Show today, Andrea Lewis and Philip Maldari addressed the speech with Elizabeth de la Vega (author of United States versus George W. Bush) and US Rep Dennis Kucinich. de la Veage noted that "we heard almost the same exact statements about Iraq that we've heard since before 9-11 on the Middle East" and characterized it as "more of the same" talk about Iraq while noting her alarm over Bully Boy's words regarding Iran.
Kucinich noted his plan for ending the war which includes: "First that the US announced it will end the occupation, closes the bases and withdraws" -- using the existing funds to bring US troops back to the US, allow reconstruction contracts to be turned over to Iraqis, build and international peace keeping force, etc. On the subject of impeachment, which de la Vega has written of, Kucinich stated his "focus right now is to end the war and bring the troops home" but "I don't take issue with anything that anybody's doing to hold this administration accountable." He did note that if Bully Boy attacked Iran without Congressional authorization, he did expect there would be an impeachment.
On the issue of 'bipartisanship,' Kucinich declared, "If we have a bipartisan effort to keep the troops in Iraq, that's not the kind of bipartisanship I'm lookng for." Andrea Lewis pointed out that Kucinich is running to become the Democratic Party's 2008 presidential nominee and asked him to explain how he stands apart from other declared candidates. Kucinich responded that "the single most important decision anyone in the Oval Office will make is whether or not to commit America's young men and women to war" and, unlike other declared nominees, the American people know that Kucinich has opposed the illegal war from the start, from before it began while the others "all offered to vote for the war or they voted to fund the war" and, unlike the others, he never "bought George Bush's line."
Some did. Less and less are buying it today which explains the underwhelming response to the State of the Union speech. Al Jazeera reports that the reaction to Bully Boy's speech was 'indifference' -- Hoda Abdel Hamid: "Iraqis told me 'we don't believe in all his promises -- he's goin gto ask us to be patient, but he's not the one living under the bombs. All Iraqis can hear this morning is explosions -- there are mortars going off and there is a heavy gun battle going on just a couple of hundred metres away. This is what Iraqis are listening to."
In England the on-his-way-out-the-door Tony Blair continues to face strong calls to take British troops out of Iraq. (On Tuesday, the British consulate in Basra was attacked -- as it often is -- and two British soldiers were wounded.) The Guardian of London reports that Menzies Campbell, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, "called for the first time for a pull-out of all British forces from the country by the end of October" which Blair rejected and Campbell then went on to challenge Blair to stay for the debate. Tony Blair whimpered, left a puddle on the floor, and scurried off quickly.
In what Andrew North (BBC) has called the "first sign of disagreement" regarding Iraq, Tony Blair's cabinet and Bully Boy's appear to be odds regarding southern Iraq. The BBC reports that Zalmay Khalilzad, in an interview with them, voiced his belief that "UK forces . . . remain at their current levels in southern Iraq" despite the fact that at least "a partial withdrawal of British foces from Basra this year" has long been discussed publicly by Blair as well England's Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett.
Turning to the US Senate where a toothless, symbolic measure has passed through committee, Frederic J. Frommer (AP) reports that Senator Russ Feingold has declared, "My far, Mr. Chairman, is this is slow walking. This is not a time for legislative nuancing. This is not a time for trying to forge a compromise that everybody can be a part of. This is a time to stop the needless deaths of American troops in Iraq. We have a moral responsibility, as well as a responsibility to the lives of the American people, to start doing it now." The toothless, feckless, symbolic measure, the BBC reports, passed on a 12-9 vote.
A measure so meaningless, it took three men to devise it: Carl Levin, Joe Biden, and Chuck Hagel. The lunchtime poll reads: "It's really, really, really, really-really, really not in the best interests of the United States for Bully Boy to send more troops to Iraq and if he does so they will be really, really, really, really-really, really ticked off -- so ticked off, in fact, they might just decide to take another lunchtime poll! Watch your step, Bully Boy! Blah, blah, blah." The poll was a vote on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and, CNN reports, the non-binding, toothless measure should go before the full Senate for a vote next week.
Joe Biden is of course interested in flaunting his useless nature with something far more than meaningless legislation, he also wants to run for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008. John Kerry has announced what we noted here weeks ago -- stick the fork in, he's done. One candidate who is still in the race is US Senator Hillary Clinton. Weighing in at Truthout, Cindy Sheehan recalls, "I, my sister Dede and another Gold Star Mother, Lynn Braddach, whose son, Travis Nall was killed in Iraq in 2003, met with Senator Clinton in DC in September of 2005. We poured our hearts and souls out to her. We cried as we told her of our sons and our fear for the people of Iraq and the escalating body count of our brave young people. She sat there stone-faced and walked out and told Sarah Ferguson of the Village Voice, 'My bottom line is that I don't want their sons to die in vain. . . . I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal. . . I don't think it's the right time to withdraw.' She may as well have slapped us in the face using Bloody George's line and using our sons' sacrifice to justify her war mongering. On Thursday, January 18th, Senator Clinton introduced a meaningless bill to put a cap on the number of soldiers that can be in Iraq, set at January 1st levels. It is as weak and meaningless as a nonbinding resolution -- and a politically safe move, since almost three fourts of the country oppose Bloody George. By the time she introduced her Senate bill last Thursday, over 1000 of our young people had come home in body bags and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis had died, while she was waiting for the best political time to be semi-against the war. How many of our troops are lying in Walter Reed with devastating injuries that could have been prevented if a Senate leader like Clinton had taken a moral stance instead of a political one?"
Which is a good time to offer the contrast: US Representative Maxine Waters. Appearing on Democracy Now! today, Waters discussed the proposal she and US Reps. Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey have on the table: "No more troops going to Iraq. Number two, to start to wind out of Iraq. Make sure that you work with the Iraqis for a security plan that they come up with that would include the international community and those in the region and no American soldiers in that kind of security plan. We also talk about reconstruction. We have bombed Baghdad and other parts of Iraq to smithereens. We owe it to them to be involved in a reconstruction plan that's real. Thirdly, we would leave some troops over the horizon in neighboring communities, in the event the coalition forces that are put together by the Iraqis would ask for a bit of assistance at any given time." Waters and Goodman also discussed the Saturday protest in DC and that the representative has "sent a letter to all members of Congress" encouraging them to also take part.
Information on the demonstrations can be found at CODEPINK's Bring the Peace Mandate to D.C. on J27! activities will also be taking place in communities around the country. Saturday, Laura Flanders will be broadcasting live from DC to cover the demonstrations on RadioNation with Laura Flanders. Aaron Glantz (IPS) reports on the upcoming demonstrations and notes United for Peace & Justice's Leslie Cagan stating, "The voters of this country figured out that they could use the November elections as a vehicle to voice their opposition to the war. What happened there was that the voters gave Congress a mandate to end the war in Iraq and bring the troops home." Glanz notes that in addition to events in DC, there are "large mobilisations planned for Los Angeles, Seattle and San Francisco. In addition smaller actions are planned for more than 50 cities." In DC, Saturday the rally will be held at the National Mall from eleven in the morning to one p.m. at which point a march will begin. Larry Margasak (AP) notes of the DC rally and march: "Scheduled speakers include members of Congress sponsoring anti-war measures; civili rights activist Jesse Jackson; veterans against the war; actors such as Danny Glover, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon; and a voice from the . . . [pro-peace] past, Jane Fonda."
Those in DC Saturday may want to check out Anthony Arnove, author most recently of IRAQ: The Logic of Withdrawal, who will be speaking at Busboys and Poets at 5:00 pm while those in the NYC area on Sunday should check out Joan Mellen speech at 7:30 p.m. at the 92nd Street Y (92nd Street and Lesington Avenue). Mellan, a professor at Temple University and the author of seventeen books, will be presenting a lecture on the JFK assasination . . . and beyond. Tickets are $25. Mellen's latest book is A Farewell to Justice which probes the assasination of JFK. She was a guest on Law and Disorder November 7, 2005. And the March 15, 2006 broadcast of KPFA's Guns and Butter featured her speech "How the Failure to Identify, Prosecute and Convict President Kennedy's Assassins Has Led to Today's Crisis of Democracy." You can also read a transcript of that speech here.Again, that's Sunday, January 28th, 7:30 p.m. the 92nd Street Y in NYC.
ehren watadapaul rockwellmatt hutaff
dahr jamail
agustin aguayoaaron glantz
kpfathe kpfa evening news
amy goodmandemocracy now
cindy sheehan
leslie cagan
united for peace and justice
andrea lewisphilip maldari
the morning show
joan mellen
anthony arnove
law and disorder
bonnie faulkner
guns and butter
mikey likes it
radionation with laura flanderslaura flanders
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Blogger/Blogspot problems
I'm not going to try to say much tonight because Wally and Cedric did and their posts won't even show. Wally has a post three times (same post) and it won't show. Twice he e-mailed it and once he posted directly. They get a "read only" message of some form.
The rest of us who post in the evening? Rebecca says she's taking about another half-hour to try to log in (I only just was able to log in after trying for three hours) and then she's going to call it a night. I don't blame her.
Mike says he's going to try and post no matter what. Cedric's gone ahead and posted at his backup site (that's the post that he and Wally did together and can't get to show up at their Blogger/Blogspot sites). This sort of thing is getting so old and so tired. Blogger/Blogspot's problems go on and on endlessly.
Think of it as setting up a time to spend on the phone with a friend, a time when you can both really talk. Then, minutes before the time comes, the phone line goes dead. You're stuck there waiting. You keep hoping and lifting up the phone's receiver for a dial tone. You never get one and only grow more frustrated with each passing minute.
We are used to this sort of thing happening when we're all working together on the weekends -- in fact, that's generally the norm and why it takes forever to do those editions.
Rebecca just called and said she's losing her patience. I know the feeling.
"Hillary Clinton and the Israel Lobby" (Joshua Frank, CounterPunch):
George W. Bush's position on Iran is "disturbing" and "dangerous," reads a position paper written in late 2005 by American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). One year ago the Bush administration accepted a Russian proposal to allow Iran to continue to develop nuclear energy under Russian supervision. Needless to say, AIPAC wasn't the least bit happy about the compromise.
In a letter to congressional allies, mostly Democrats, the pro-Israel organization admitted it was "concerned that the decision not to go to the Security Council, combined with the U.S. decision to support the 'Russian proposal,' indicates a disturbing shift in the Administration's policy on Iran and poses a danger to the U.S. and our allies."
Israel, however, continues to develop a substantial nuclear arsenal. In 2000, the British Broadcasting Corporation reported that Israel has likely produced enough plutonium to make up to 200 nuclear weapons. So it is safe to say that Israel's bomb-building technologies are light years ahead of Iran's budding nuclear program. Yet Israel still won't admit they have capacity to produce such deadly weapons.
Meanwhile, as AIPAC and Israel pressure the U.S. government to force the Iran issue to the UN Security Council, Israel itself stands in violation of numerous UN resolutions dealing with the occupied territories of Palestine, including UN Resolution 1402, which in part calls on Israel to withdraw its military from all Palestinian cities at once.
AIPAC's hypocrisy is nauseating. The Goliath lobbying organization wants Iran to cease to procure nukes while the crimes of Israel continue to be ignored. So who is propping up AIPAC's hypocritical position? None other than Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York.
As one of the top Democratic recipients of pro-Israel funds for the 2006 election cycle, pocketing over $83,000, Clinton now has Iran in her cross hairs.
During a Hanukkah dinner speech delivered in December 2005, hosted by Yeshiva University, Clinton prattled, "I held a series of meetings with Israeli officials [last summer], including the prime minister and the foreign minister and the head of the [Israel Defense Forces], to discuss such challenges we confront. In each of these meetings, we talked at length about the dire threat posed by the potential of a nuclear-armed Iran, not only to Israel, but also to Europe and Russia. Just this week, the new president of Iran made further outrageous comments that attacked Israel's right to exist that are simply beyond the pale of international discourse and acceptability. During my meeting with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, I was reminded vividly of the threats that Israel faces every hour of every day. It became even more clear how important it is for the United States to stand with Israel."
I like Frank (and CounterPunch) and on a night when I hadn't waited three hours to just log in, I'd have a great deal to say. Instead, I'll just note it and the snapshot.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Tuesday, January 23, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, Ehren Watada discusses his upcoming court-martial, another helicopter crashes in Iraq, calls for the unproduced NIE begin as the Bully Boy attempts to sell his escalation in and continued war on Iraq, and questions arise over his repeated alarmist talk of Iran.
In June Ehren Watada became the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. Today, he spoke to Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! about what he's facing ins February 5th court-martial at Fort Lewis. Watada explained the process by which he came to his decision: assigned to Iraq, he began doing the research required of him. (Yesterday on WBAI's Law and Disorder, Carolyn Ho walked people through her son's awakening. In addition to archived broadcasts at either link, Rebecca's written of the speech at her site.) His research provided him with information and, from that infomation, he was left the reality that the war was illegal and immoral. At which point he had to decide what to do and he tried to handle the matter privately but the military repeatedly refused to do so. Only after months of that did Watada go public. In his August Article 32 hearing (similar to a grand jury), his attornies (a military attorney and a civilian attorney) were allowed to present a defense. 'Judge' Head has disallowed that for the court-martial scheduled to be held at Fort Lewis on February 5th.
Amy Goodman asked, in light of that ruling, "what is heard in the court, that you just refused to show up?" Watada answered, "Correct. It will simply be. It will be a non-trial. It will not be a fair trial or a show of justice, in any sense. I think that they will simply say, 'Was he ordered to go? Yes. Did he go? No. Well, he’s guilty.' And that also goes for the conduct unbecoming charges: 'Did he make those statements? Can we verify that? Yes? Okay, he’s guilty.' And then it will be pretty much a disciplinary hearing -- in terms of how much punishment should we give this lieutenant." There will be strong defense offered despite the fact that Watada faces up to six years in prison if convicted of all charges. Now the military has a roll of who made the deployment and who didn't and they have transcripts and audio and video of Watada's statment. If he's not allowed to explain his reasons, it's a matter of "yes" and "no." That's really not a defense and "Judge" Head really isn't a judge. (That's me, not Watada for any 'researches' for the prosecution.)
Watada declared that "there's tremendous support out there. I think it's unfortunate that we haven't been able to get into the national media as much as we wanted to. And therefore, the more east you go, the less people know about the case. And I think, just looking at how much support I've received in Washington state and back home in my home state, in Hawaii, there are a lot of people who are coming out. And not just people on one spectrum of the political ideology, but people from the mainstream. They are all coming out -- the unions, the interfaith groups, the students, universities. They are all coming out to support. And I think that's just a testament to how people feel about the war and the policies of this administration."
There is a lot of support. There is, however, very little coverage in media big or small. There are exceptions and it's usually the same group we've learned to look for coverage of what matters. Yesterday on Free Speech Radio News and The KPFA Evening News, Martha Baskin reported on the Citizens' Hearing on the Legality of U.S. Actions in Iraq held in Tacoma, Washington last Satruday and Sunday noting that while a 'judge' had "ruled that" Watada "could not raise the legality of the war in his defense" the hearing did just that attracting experts from legal and military fields, "military families and veterans". Richard Falk was heard, in the report, testifying that, "It is our role as citizens to protect those who are brave enough . . . who refuse to participate in an illegal war."
Another issue in the court-martial of Ehren Watada is whether or not journalists should participate in the proceedings as witnesses for the prosecution. Emily Howard spoke with journalists Sarah Olson and Norman Solomon yesterday on KPFA's Flashpoints. Olson will not discuss her "legal strategy." She has stated, on air, to Laura Flanders she wouldn't testify and she has played mum on that with others. However, as noted on Sunday, she has not stated that she supported Watada 100%, she has just stated that as a journalist it is her job to cover the news and her sources are sources and neither an endorsement or a rebuke.
Speaking with Howard yesterday, Olson made her strongest case yet.
She did that by first starting with Ehren Watada who is facing the court-martial and whose stand is what the military is interested in and wants to punish. ("The crux of this trial," as Howard pointed out.) Having established Watada's stand, Olson then connected it to other war resisters who had come forward by name (and noted that Flashpoints interviewed Ivan Brobeck -- they were the only outlet to do so when he returned to the US from Canada to turn himself on election day in November with an open letter to the Bully Boy). Why does whether she testifies or not in the court-martial matter?
As Olson and Solomon outlined it (very clearly) who are war resisters going to talk to? If they're under the impression that any reporter they tell their stories to will then be called before a court to testify against them, that will produce a chilling effect on free speech and prevent a free press from the ability to keep citizens informed. That is the purpose of the free press, as veteran DC journalist Helen Thomas noted on yesterday's Democracy Now!, not providing with you commercials of products that will 'enhance' your life, informing citizens so that they can make their decisions and contribute within a democracy.
Norman Solomon noted that the Pentagon is "worried about people not only thinking for themselves but speaking up" so it is "trying to intimidate" people into silence and that this is "a contradicition between the myth of the military defending our 'freedoms'" and trying to supress freedoms.
Olson, who faces six month in jail and/or a fine if she refuses to testify, declared, "When you look at the number of people who are taking steps to actively express their opposition to this war I think that is has become it has grown to a point it's not something that can be ignored or . . . can or should be ignored. And I think it's very important as journalists . . . that we are able to cover this perspective and this growing number of active dutry Iraq war vetrns and soldiers who are in opposition to this war. It's becoming more and more relevant as the days go by."
Olson is correct -- Watada is part of a movement of resistance within the military that also includes Kyle Snyder, Agustin Aguayo, Ivan Brobeck, Darrell Anderson, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Robin Long, Ryan Johnson, Chris Teske, Tim Richard and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
In Iraq . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two car bombs in Baghdad (Sheikh Omar neighborhood and Karranda neighborhood) that killed five and left 11 wounded while, in east Baghdad, an IED wounded 3 police ofiicers; in the province of Basra an explosion killed one person, and, yesterday, two British soldiers were injured in yet another rocket attack "on the British consulate downtown Baasra city".Reuters reports three Iraqi soldiers wounded in a car bombing in Sinjar, nine injured in a car bombing in Mosul, a woman dead and two children wounded from mortar attacks in Iskandariya, and six dead from mortar attacks (nine wounded) in Suwayra.
Shootings?
Yesterday a school teacher (female) was gunned down on her way to work. Today, CNN reports another attack on an educator -- a professor was gunned down on his way to work as well (northern Baghdad). The BBC reports five Iraqi police officers were shot dead in Mosul. Reuters reports that educators were attacked in Tal Afar as well -- two teachers shot dead,
that two Iraqi soldiers were shot dead in Falluja, and that two people were shot dead near Kirkuk (with another wounded).
Corpses?
Reuters reports a corpse discovered in Mussayab today and five discovered yesterday (four in Rutba and one in Iskandariya).
Also today the US military announced: "An 89TH Military Police Brigade Soldier died Monday of wounds suffered after an improvised explosive device exploded next to his vehicle north of Baghdad" and they announced: ".One Marine assigned to 1st Marine Expeditionary Force died Sunday from wounds sustained due to enemy action while operating in the Multi National Division-Baghdad area of operation, south of Baghdad. One Soldier assigned to Regimental Combat Team 5 died Monday from wounds sustained due to enemy action while operating in Al Anbar Province."
In addition to the above five Americans, employees of the Blackwater security firm, are dead.
CBS and AP report that helicopter was shot down citing an "Iraqi defense official" who states a machine gun was used to shoot the helicopter down. This echoes the Washington Post's eye witness who stated a machine gun was used to shoot down the helicopter carrying twelve US troops, Saturday in Baghdad. The US military has presented the crashes and crash landings repeatedly as though they were mechanical failures (which some may have been) but it's also true that helicopters can be shot down -- with guns, no rockets needed. That was very clear during Vietnam and it's amazing how so many in the press corps seem to either be unaware of that point or choose to ignore it as one crash after another (until recently) resulted in press 'reports' that read like military press releases (and some were).
In news of reality versus Operation Happy Talk, the press can't contain their giddyness (with few exceptions) over the supposed 'crackdown' finally going on with militias and the people in leadership (or portrayed as such) of them being caught. As has been pointed out earlier this month, the detentions (in the past) can best be termed "catch and release" (one Republican senator even denounced them as such). Commenting on one wave of Operation Happy Talk in the press, the BBC's Anderw North notes: "it is still not clear how significant the senior Mehdi Army figures now in custody are." And Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that a US led operation in the Salah Ad Din province Monday night led to the arrest of "the chief of Tikrit local council Aarif Jabbar Motar and Sheikh Khaleel Al Ejili, a member of the Muslim Scholars Association and the imam of Omar Bin AL Khattab mosque. The two men were arrested in the house of the Iraqi army intelligence officer Captain Maeen Al Dulaimi." Hammoudi also reports that one of the two arrested as they attempted to negotiate the release of both Dr. Basim Al Jishi and Sheikh Hamid Ugab and that Ugab "had been released early morning today." Was there a point to arresting him, or any of the others, besides the giddy press 'reports' that help continue Operation Happy Talk?
If so, does it counter the fact that the people's response was a 1,000 plus demonstration against these arrest? Or does it just further inflame the tensions?
Meanwhile, same topic (Operation Happy Talk versus reality), the usual War Hawks among the press have passed off escalation as the answer (see Michael R. Gordon) and few questions have been asked by others whether this was a 'strategy,' a 'technique,' or just sop tossed out to try fool the public? David Morgan (Reuters) reports: The Bush administration came under fire on Tuesday for its failure to produce a key intelligence report that casts doubt on whether the Iraqi government is capable of taking steps to ensure the success of President George W. Bush's strategy. The classified document, known as a national intelligence estimate, would represent the 16-agency espionage community's consensus views on the stability of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government and prospects for controlling sectarian violence in Iraq. U.S. intelligence chief John Negroponte's office was ordered by Congress to produce the document in late September, but is not expected to do so until after the Senate takes up two measures opposing Bush's plan to send another 21,500 troops to Iraq to try to quell the violence." That would be the report that former CIA analyst Ray McGovern (writing at Consortium News) noted: "So the White House is playing it safe, avoiding like the plague any estimate that would raise doubts about the wisdom of the decision to surge. And that is precisely what an honest estimate would do. With 'sham-dunk' former CIA director George Tenet and his accomplices no longer in place as intelligence enablers, the White House clearly prefers no NIE to one that would inevitably highlight the fecklessness of throwing 21,500 more troops into harm’s way for the dubious purpose of holding off defeat for two more years. The Old Mushroom Cloud The NIE, which leaned so far forward to support the White House’s warnings of a made-in-Iraq 'mushroom cloud,' remains the negative example par excellence of corrupted intelligence. The good news is that Tenet and his lackeys were replaced by officers who, by all indications, take their job of speaking truth to power seriously."
Finally on this topic, the Bully Boy gives his State of the Union speech tonight. In it, he is again expected to sound the alrams on Iran. But Alexandra Zavis and Greg Miller (Los Angeles Times) report that there are claims but little proof: "But there has been little sign of more advanced weaponry crossing the border, and no Iranian agents have been found. In his speech this month outlining the new U.S. strategy in Iraq, President Bush promised to "seek out and destroy" Iranian networks that he said were providing "advanced weaponry and training to our enemies." He is expected to strike a similar note in tonight's State of the Union speech. For all the aggressive rhetoric, however, the Bush administration hasprovided scant evidence to support these claims. Nor have reporters traveling with U.S. troops seen extensive signs of Iranian involvement."
In DC, the Senate Armed Services Committee went through the motions of a hearing on whether or not to confirm David Petraeus, nominated by the Bully Boy, the Lt. general would become the new commander of US troops (and Iraqis, be honest) in Iraq. BBC reports that he told the committee: "None of this will be rapid. The way ahead will be neither quick nor easy. There undoubtedly will be tough days. . . . The situation in Iraq is dire. The stakes are high. There are no easy choices. The way ahead will be very hard. . . But hard is not hopeless." Hard does not mean hopeless, Petraeus declares. (Gordo gets giddy at the thought.) And soft doesn't mean happiness, as many women could explain. He did and a song and dance and the senators acted as though they were doing a probing examination. Or maybe it was supposed to pass for 'symbolic.' The senators occassionaly asked a difficult question (Ted Kennedy) but after almost four years of a war that continues to kill Iraqis, Americans, British, . . . that just didn't cut it anymore than the 'symbolic' measure Senators Carl Levin, Joe Biden and Chuck Hagel are pushing. The most obvious question went unasked: "Why is the US in Iraq? What pupose does the US presence serve?"
As Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) reported today, US Congress Representative Maxine Waters will be attending the demonstration in DC this weekend and is urging other members of Congress to do likewise. Informations on these demonstrations in DC this weekend can be found at CODEPINK's Bring the Peace Mandate to D.C. on J27! activities will also be taking place in communities around the country. Saturday, Laura Flanders will be broadcasting live from DC to cover the demonstrations on RadioNation with Laura Flanders.
In addition Anthony Arnove, author most recently of IRAQ: The Logic of Withdrawal, will be speaking in DC this weekend on Saturday the 27th at Busboys and Poets at 5:00 pm while those in the NYC area might want to check out this Sunday event -- from The Third Estate Sunday Review's "Joan Mellen lecture on JFK assasination 1-28-07" which I meant to note last week but didn't have time (we will be noting it, Monday through Friday, in the week leading up to the Sunday event):We'll be noting this again in January, but we'll note it right now.
Author Joan Mellen will be speaking Sunday, January 28th at 7:30 p.m. in NYC at the 92nd Street Y (92nd Street and Lesington Avenue). Mellan, a professor at Temple University and the author of seventeen books, will be presenting a lecture on the JFK assasination . . . and beyond. Tickets are $25.Mellen's latest book is A Farewell to Justice which probes the assasination of JFK. She was a guest on Law and Disorder November 7, 2005. And the March 15, 2006 broadcast of KPFA's Guns and Butter featured her speech "How the Failure to Identify, Prosecute and Convict President Kennedy's Assassins Has Led to Today's Crisis of Democracy." You can also read a transcript of that speech here.
Again, that's Sunday, January 28th, 7:30 p.m. the 92nd Street Y in NYC.
iraqehren watada
amy goodman
democracy nowflashpoints
wbai
the kpfa evening newsfree speech radio newslaw and disorder
the third estate sunday review
joan mellen
anthony arnove
radionation with laura flanderslaura flanders
The rest of us who post in the evening? Rebecca says she's taking about another half-hour to try to log in (I only just was able to log in after trying for three hours) and then she's going to call it a night. I don't blame her.
Mike says he's going to try and post no matter what. Cedric's gone ahead and posted at his backup site (that's the post that he and Wally did together and can't get to show up at their Blogger/Blogspot sites). This sort of thing is getting so old and so tired. Blogger/Blogspot's problems go on and on endlessly.
Think of it as setting up a time to spend on the phone with a friend, a time when you can both really talk. Then, minutes before the time comes, the phone line goes dead. You're stuck there waiting. You keep hoping and lifting up the phone's receiver for a dial tone. You never get one and only grow more frustrated with each passing minute.
We are used to this sort of thing happening when we're all working together on the weekends -- in fact, that's generally the norm and why it takes forever to do those editions.
Rebecca just called and said she's losing her patience. I know the feeling.
"Hillary Clinton and the Israel Lobby" (Joshua Frank, CounterPunch):
George W. Bush's position on Iran is "disturbing" and "dangerous," reads a position paper written in late 2005 by American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). One year ago the Bush administration accepted a Russian proposal to allow Iran to continue to develop nuclear energy under Russian supervision. Needless to say, AIPAC wasn't the least bit happy about the compromise.
In a letter to congressional allies, mostly Democrats, the pro-Israel organization admitted it was "concerned that the decision not to go to the Security Council, combined with the U.S. decision to support the 'Russian proposal,' indicates a disturbing shift in the Administration's policy on Iran and poses a danger to the U.S. and our allies."
Israel, however, continues to develop a substantial nuclear arsenal. In 2000, the British Broadcasting Corporation reported that Israel has likely produced enough plutonium to make up to 200 nuclear weapons. So it is safe to say that Israel's bomb-building technologies are light years ahead of Iran's budding nuclear program. Yet Israel still won't admit they have capacity to produce such deadly weapons.
Meanwhile, as AIPAC and Israel pressure the U.S. government to force the Iran issue to the UN Security Council, Israel itself stands in violation of numerous UN resolutions dealing with the occupied territories of Palestine, including UN Resolution 1402, which in part calls on Israel to withdraw its military from all Palestinian cities at once.
AIPAC's hypocrisy is nauseating. The Goliath lobbying organization wants Iran to cease to procure nukes while the crimes of Israel continue to be ignored. So who is propping up AIPAC's hypocritical position? None other than Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York.
As one of the top Democratic recipients of pro-Israel funds for the 2006 election cycle, pocketing over $83,000, Clinton now has Iran in her cross hairs.
During a Hanukkah dinner speech delivered in December 2005, hosted by Yeshiva University, Clinton prattled, "I held a series of meetings with Israeli officials [last summer], including the prime minister and the foreign minister and the head of the [Israel Defense Forces], to discuss such challenges we confront. In each of these meetings, we talked at length about the dire threat posed by the potential of a nuclear-armed Iran, not only to Israel, but also to Europe and Russia. Just this week, the new president of Iran made further outrageous comments that attacked Israel's right to exist that are simply beyond the pale of international discourse and acceptability. During my meeting with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, I was reminded vividly of the threats that Israel faces every hour of every day. It became even more clear how important it is for the United States to stand with Israel."
I like Frank (and CounterPunch) and on a night when I hadn't waited three hours to just log in, I'd have a great deal to say. Instead, I'll just note it and the snapshot.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Tuesday, January 23, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, Ehren Watada discusses his upcoming court-martial, another helicopter crashes in Iraq, calls for the unproduced NIE begin as the Bully Boy attempts to sell his escalation in and continued war on Iraq, and questions arise over his repeated alarmist talk of Iran.
In June Ehren Watada became the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. Today, he spoke to Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! about what he's facing ins February 5th court-martial at Fort Lewis. Watada explained the process by which he came to his decision: assigned to Iraq, he began doing the research required of him. (Yesterday on WBAI's Law and Disorder, Carolyn Ho walked people through her son's awakening. In addition to archived broadcasts at either link, Rebecca's written of the speech at her site.) His research provided him with information and, from that infomation, he was left the reality that the war was illegal and immoral. At which point he had to decide what to do and he tried to handle the matter privately but the military repeatedly refused to do so. Only after months of that did Watada go public. In his August Article 32 hearing (similar to a grand jury), his attornies (a military attorney and a civilian attorney) were allowed to present a defense. 'Judge' Head has disallowed that for the court-martial scheduled to be held at Fort Lewis on February 5th.
Amy Goodman asked, in light of that ruling, "what is heard in the court, that you just refused to show up?" Watada answered, "Correct. It will simply be. It will be a non-trial. It will not be a fair trial or a show of justice, in any sense. I think that they will simply say, 'Was he ordered to go? Yes. Did he go? No. Well, he’s guilty.' And that also goes for the conduct unbecoming charges: 'Did he make those statements? Can we verify that? Yes? Okay, he’s guilty.' And then it will be pretty much a disciplinary hearing -- in terms of how much punishment should we give this lieutenant." There will be strong defense offered despite the fact that Watada faces up to six years in prison if convicted of all charges. Now the military has a roll of who made the deployment and who didn't and they have transcripts and audio and video of Watada's statment. If he's not allowed to explain his reasons, it's a matter of "yes" and "no." That's really not a defense and "Judge" Head really isn't a judge. (That's me, not Watada for any 'researches' for the prosecution.)
Watada declared that "there's tremendous support out there. I think it's unfortunate that we haven't been able to get into the national media as much as we wanted to. And therefore, the more east you go, the less people know about the case. And I think, just looking at how much support I've received in Washington state and back home in my home state, in Hawaii, there are a lot of people who are coming out. And not just people on one spectrum of the political ideology, but people from the mainstream. They are all coming out -- the unions, the interfaith groups, the students, universities. They are all coming out to support. And I think that's just a testament to how people feel about the war and the policies of this administration."
There is a lot of support. There is, however, very little coverage in media big or small. There are exceptions and it's usually the same group we've learned to look for coverage of what matters. Yesterday on Free Speech Radio News and The KPFA Evening News, Martha Baskin reported on the Citizens' Hearing on the Legality of U.S. Actions in Iraq held in Tacoma, Washington last Satruday and Sunday noting that while a 'judge' had "ruled that" Watada "could not raise the legality of the war in his defense" the hearing did just that attracting experts from legal and military fields, "military families and veterans". Richard Falk was heard, in the report, testifying that, "It is our role as citizens to protect those who are brave enough . . . who refuse to participate in an illegal war."
Another issue in the court-martial of Ehren Watada is whether or not journalists should participate in the proceedings as witnesses for the prosecution. Emily Howard spoke with journalists Sarah Olson and Norman Solomon yesterday on KPFA's Flashpoints. Olson will not discuss her "legal strategy." She has stated, on air, to Laura Flanders she wouldn't testify and she has played mum on that with others. However, as noted on Sunday, she has not stated that she supported Watada 100%, she has just stated that as a journalist it is her job to cover the news and her sources are sources and neither an endorsement or a rebuke.
Speaking with Howard yesterday, Olson made her strongest case yet.
She did that by first starting with Ehren Watada who is facing the court-martial and whose stand is what the military is interested in and wants to punish. ("The crux of this trial," as Howard pointed out.) Having established Watada's stand, Olson then connected it to other war resisters who had come forward by name (and noted that Flashpoints interviewed Ivan Brobeck -- they were the only outlet to do so when he returned to the US from Canada to turn himself on election day in November with an open letter to the Bully Boy). Why does whether she testifies or not in the court-martial matter?
As Olson and Solomon outlined it (very clearly) who are war resisters going to talk to? If they're under the impression that any reporter they tell their stories to will then be called before a court to testify against them, that will produce a chilling effect on free speech and prevent a free press from the ability to keep citizens informed. That is the purpose of the free press, as veteran DC journalist Helen Thomas noted on yesterday's Democracy Now!, not providing with you commercials of products that will 'enhance' your life, informing citizens so that they can make their decisions and contribute within a democracy.
Norman Solomon noted that the Pentagon is "worried about people not only thinking for themselves but speaking up" so it is "trying to intimidate" people into silence and that this is "a contradicition between the myth of the military defending our 'freedoms'" and trying to supress freedoms.
Olson, who faces six month in jail and/or a fine if she refuses to testify, declared, "When you look at the number of people who are taking steps to actively express their opposition to this war I think that is has become it has grown to a point it's not something that can be ignored or . . . can or should be ignored. And I think it's very important as journalists . . . that we are able to cover this perspective and this growing number of active dutry Iraq war vetrns and soldiers who are in opposition to this war. It's becoming more and more relevant as the days go by."
Olson is correct -- Watada is part of a movement of resistance within the military that also includes Kyle Snyder, Agustin Aguayo, Ivan Brobeck, Darrell Anderson, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Robin Long, Ryan Johnson, Chris Teske, Tim Richard and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
In Iraq . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two car bombs in Baghdad (Sheikh Omar neighborhood and Karranda neighborhood) that killed five and left 11 wounded while, in east Baghdad, an IED wounded 3 police ofiicers; in the province of Basra an explosion killed one person, and, yesterday, two British soldiers were injured in yet another rocket attack "on the British consulate downtown Baasra city".Reuters reports three Iraqi soldiers wounded in a car bombing in Sinjar, nine injured in a car bombing in Mosul, a woman dead and two children wounded from mortar attacks in Iskandariya, and six dead from mortar attacks (nine wounded) in Suwayra.
Shootings?
Yesterday a school teacher (female) was gunned down on her way to work. Today, CNN reports another attack on an educator -- a professor was gunned down on his way to work as well (northern Baghdad). The BBC reports five Iraqi police officers were shot dead in Mosul. Reuters reports that educators were attacked in Tal Afar as well -- two teachers shot dead,
that two Iraqi soldiers were shot dead in Falluja, and that two people were shot dead near Kirkuk (with another wounded).
Corpses?
Reuters reports a corpse discovered in Mussayab today and five discovered yesterday (four in Rutba and one in Iskandariya).
Also today the US military announced: "An 89TH Military Police Brigade Soldier died Monday of wounds suffered after an improvised explosive device exploded next to his vehicle north of Baghdad" and they announced: ".One Marine assigned to 1st Marine Expeditionary Force died Sunday from wounds sustained due to enemy action while operating in the Multi National Division-Baghdad area of operation, south of Baghdad. One Soldier assigned to Regimental Combat Team 5 died Monday from wounds sustained due to enemy action while operating in Al Anbar Province."
In addition to the above five Americans, employees of the Blackwater security firm, are dead.
CBS and AP report that helicopter was shot down citing an "Iraqi defense official" who states a machine gun was used to shoot the helicopter down. This echoes the Washington Post's eye witness who stated a machine gun was used to shoot down the helicopter carrying twelve US troops, Saturday in Baghdad. The US military has presented the crashes and crash landings repeatedly as though they were mechanical failures (which some may have been) but it's also true that helicopters can be shot down -- with guns, no rockets needed. That was very clear during Vietnam and it's amazing how so many in the press corps seem to either be unaware of that point or choose to ignore it as one crash after another (until recently) resulted in press 'reports' that read like military press releases (and some were).
In news of reality versus Operation Happy Talk, the press can't contain their giddyness (with few exceptions) over the supposed 'crackdown' finally going on with militias and the people in leadership (or portrayed as such) of them being caught. As has been pointed out earlier this month, the detentions (in the past) can best be termed "catch and release" (one Republican senator even denounced them as such). Commenting on one wave of Operation Happy Talk in the press, the BBC's Anderw North notes: "it is still not clear how significant the senior Mehdi Army figures now in custody are." And Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that a US led operation in the Salah Ad Din province Monday night led to the arrest of "the chief of Tikrit local council Aarif Jabbar Motar and Sheikh Khaleel Al Ejili, a member of the Muslim Scholars Association and the imam of Omar Bin AL Khattab mosque. The two men were arrested in the house of the Iraqi army intelligence officer Captain Maeen Al Dulaimi." Hammoudi also reports that one of the two arrested as they attempted to negotiate the release of both Dr. Basim Al Jishi and Sheikh Hamid Ugab and that Ugab "had been released early morning today." Was there a point to arresting him, or any of the others, besides the giddy press 'reports' that help continue Operation Happy Talk?
If so, does it counter the fact that the people's response was a 1,000 plus demonstration against these arrest? Or does it just further inflame the tensions?
Meanwhile, same topic (Operation Happy Talk versus reality), the usual War Hawks among the press have passed off escalation as the answer (see Michael R. Gordon) and few questions have been asked by others whether this was a 'strategy,' a 'technique,' or just sop tossed out to try fool the public? David Morgan (Reuters) reports: The Bush administration came under fire on Tuesday for its failure to produce a key intelligence report that casts doubt on whether the Iraqi government is capable of taking steps to ensure the success of President George W. Bush's strategy. The classified document, known as a national intelligence estimate, would represent the 16-agency espionage community's consensus views on the stability of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government and prospects for controlling sectarian violence in Iraq. U.S. intelligence chief John Negroponte's office was ordered by Congress to produce the document in late September, but is not expected to do so until after the Senate takes up two measures opposing Bush's plan to send another 21,500 troops to Iraq to try to quell the violence." That would be the report that former CIA analyst Ray McGovern (writing at Consortium News) noted: "So the White House is playing it safe, avoiding like the plague any estimate that would raise doubts about the wisdom of the decision to surge. And that is precisely what an honest estimate would do. With 'sham-dunk' former CIA director George Tenet and his accomplices no longer in place as intelligence enablers, the White House clearly prefers no NIE to one that would inevitably highlight the fecklessness of throwing 21,500 more troops into harm’s way for the dubious purpose of holding off defeat for two more years. The Old Mushroom Cloud The NIE, which leaned so far forward to support the White House’s warnings of a made-in-Iraq 'mushroom cloud,' remains the negative example par excellence of corrupted intelligence. The good news is that Tenet and his lackeys were replaced by officers who, by all indications, take their job of speaking truth to power seriously."
Finally on this topic, the Bully Boy gives his State of the Union speech tonight. In it, he is again expected to sound the alrams on Iran. But Alexandra Zavis and Greg Miller (Los Angeles Times) report that there are claims but little proof: "But there has been little sign of more advanced weaponry crossing the border, and no Iranian agents have been found. In his speech this month outlining the new U.S. strategy in Iraq, President Bush promised to "seek out and destroy" Iranian networks that he said were providing "advanced weaponry and training to our enemies." He is expected to strike a similar note in tonight's State of the Union speech. For all the aggressive rhetoric, however, the Bush administration hasprovided scant evidence to support these claims. Nor have reporters traveling with U.S. troops seen extensive signs of Iranian involvement."
In DC, the Senate Armed Services Committee went through the motions of a hearing on whether or not to confirm David Petraeus, nominated by the Bully Boy, the Lt. general would become the new commander of US troops (and Iraqis, be honest) in Iraq. BBC reports that he told the committee: "None of this will be rapid. The way ahead will be neither quick nor easy. There undoubtedly will be tough days. . . . The situation in Iraq is dire. The stakes are high. There are no easy choices. The way ahead will be very hard. . . But hard is not hopeless." Hard does not mean hopeless, Petraeus declares. (Gordo gets giddy at the thought.) And soft doesn't mean happiness, as many women could explain. He did and a song and dance and the senators acted as though they were doing a probing examination. Or maybe it was supposed to pass for 'symbolic.' The senators occassionaly asked a difficult question (Ted Kennedy) but after almost four years of a war that continues to kill Iraqis, Americans, British, . . . that just didn't cut it anymore than the 'symbolic' measure Senators Carl Levin, Joe Biden and Chuck Hagel are pushing. The most obvious question went unasked: "Why is the US in Iraq? What pupose does the US presence serve?"
As Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) reported today, US Congress Representative Maxine Waters will be attending the demonstration in DC this weekend and is urging other members of Congress to do likewise. Informations on these demonstrations in DC this weekend can be found at CODEPINK's Bring the Peace Mandate to D.C. on J27! activities will also be taking place in communities around the country. Saturday, Laura Flanders will be broadcasting live from DC to cover the demonstrations on RadioNation with Laura Flanders.
In addition Anthony Arnove, author most recently of IRAQ: The Logic of Withdrawal, will be speaking in DC this weekend on Saturday the 27th at Busboys and Poets at 5:00 pm while those in the NYC area might want to check out this Sunday event -- from The Third Estate Sunday Review's "Joan Mellen lecture on JFK assasination 1-28-07" which I meant to note last week but didn't have time (we will be noting it, Monday through Friday, in the week leading up to the Sunday event):We'll be noting this again in January, but we'll note it right now.
Author Joan Mellen will be speaking Sunday, January 28th at 7:30 p.m. in NYC at the 92nd Street Y (92nd Street and Lesington Avenue). Mellan, a professor at Temple University and the author of seventeen books, will be presenting a lecture on the JFK assasination . . . and beyond. Tickets are $25.Mellen's latest book is A Farewell to Justice which probes the assasination of JFK. She was a guest on Law and Disorder November 7, 2005. And the March 15, 2006 broadcast of KPFA's Guns and Butter featured her speech "How the Failure to Identify, Prosecute and Convict President Kennedy's Assassins Has Led to Today's Crisis of Democracy." You can also read a transcript of that speech here.
Again, that's Sunday, January 28th, 7:30 p.m. the 92nd Street Y in NYC.
iraqehren watada
amy goodman
democracy nowflashpoints
wbai
the kpfa evening newsfree speech radio newslaw and disorder
the third estate sunday review
joan mellen
anthony arnove
radionation with laura flanderslaura flanders
Monday, January 22, 2007
Jeff Cohen, Mike Whitney
That's Isaiah's latest comic to the left, "Bully Boy's Baby War Steps." Bully Boy, in a wet diaper, crawling around baby-talking, "I-ran, I-ran, I-ran." This is how it starts, with him chattering away. You can be sure "Iran" will figure into the State of the Union speech tomorrow. Please visit Mikey Likes It! for Mike's thoughts.
"Can Indy Media Stop the Corporate Media's Hillary Bandwagon?" (Jeff Cohen, Common Dreams):
Prominent pundits seem ecstatic over Hillary Clinton's entry into the presidential race just days after Barack Obama’s media-created candidacy became official. Media talking heads are having so much fun lately they don't seem to notice that our political system is failing to address ever-worsening problems' social, environmental, fiscal and imperial.
Indeed, our country's political decline in recent decades has been abetted by the decline in mainstream media. The same media outlets that were complicit in the disastrous Iraq war are bent on turning politics into an insular celebrity club in which only they get to anoint frontrunners.
If the torch of leadership passes from Bush I to Clinton I to Bush II to Clinton II, it will be a loss for our country -- but a victory for a corrupt Beltway press corps that abhors fresh ideas, especially those that challenge its power and privilege. It was a frightened national press corps that vilified the netroots supporters of Democratic outsider Ned Lamont in defense of pro-war warhorse Joe Lieberman.
For the coming election season to be fact-based and reality-based instead of just power-based, independent media (online and off) will have to play a bigger role in shaping the debate and correcting the record. For example, a recent San Francisco Chronicle news report (headlined "Obama Emerges as Clinton’s Rival for Dems' Left") asserted that Hillary Clinton was "widely regarded as the left's most influential voice inside the now-revered Clinton White House."
Widely regarded? Actually, progressives see Hillary Clinton as having been consistently wrong on the war and a host of other issues, especially trade. Her absurdly bureaucratic healthcare proposal in 1993 -- shaped by and for big insurance companies – was a slap in the face of unions, Congress members and grassroots forces who’d built a movement for simple, nonprofit national health insurance: in effect, enhanced Medicare for All. She helped set back the cause of universal coverage for years.
And far from being "revered," many Democratic activists see the Clinton era as one of decline in which Democrats lost their strong majorities in the U.S. Senate, U.S. House, governorships and state legislatures. It's simple math http://www.commondreams.org/views/040900-104.htm.
The 2008 presidential election is shaping up as a test of the power and capacity of new independent media vs. old conglomerate-dominated media. And a test of grassroots/netroots politics vs. corporatized Democratic politics.
To answer Cohen's question, "no." Indymedia can't stop Hillary Clinton because they can't be serious. They can gas bag as well as any chat & chewer, but they can't be serious. Hillary Clinton is defeatable but that would require more than what independent media offers -- they could, for instance, examine her health care efforts. They might pay special attention, for example, to an article in the New York Times by Robin Toner from 1992.
But instead of addressing the realities, they'll offer sexist language (kind of like was done by independent media when Katie Couric became the anchor of The CBS Evening News) and end up pulling everyone back into The Clinton Dramas that took up most of the nineties. Can they do anything? They'd have to be able to offer something and the reality is that they have little to offer. (If you doubt that, read "Phoning It In, Sailing Along.") The most they'll probably be able to do, if recent history is a clue, would be provide a top ten list -- a little wordier than David Letterman's top ten lists and lacking the humor.
For an alternative take you can read Bob Somerby's latest. Sunny saw it and said, "He's just pulled his own threads again." (He has. But in terms of tone, it's the sort of writing that made him someone worth reading.) "Alternative take" means Bob Somerby is providing an alternative take on Hillary Clinton.
There was an e-mail about The Third Estate Sunday Review's "Roundtable." It stated it understood why I wasn't speaking during parts but noted Mike wasn't and that Dona missed that fact. No, she didn't. Mike spoke more than in the transcript version up at the site. We were e-mailed the notes Ava and C.I. took and told to look at what we'd said and note what was most important to us. That's because Dona and Jim didn't want anyone to lose their most important point. Mike had a very long section that I asked him to remove.
I do work with vets and I wasn't going to address anything that might be one of their issues without their permission. I had one story that I thought was worth sharing but I wasn't sure if it was okay. I had called the man and left a message. I thought it would illustrate something perfectly; however, it wasn't mine to offer without his permission. I didn't offer it. When he did get my message and call, the roundtable was already finished.
Mike, in the section I asked him to pull, was dealing with three hypotheticals, offering examples. He came up with all three on his own. One, however, was similar to what I was sitting on. Because Mike and I are involved, I didn't want their to be any confusion -- I didn't want it to even appear that I had passed on something. I explained that I would prefer it if the hypotheticals went because one was similar to a patients. I wish I could have said, "Pull the ___ one." Doing that, however, would have revealed. So I just asked him if he could pull it. He pulled the entire section (and I thank him for that). I would've asked the same thing of Rebecca because people know we are best friends from way back and there might have been some suspicion. If C.I., who's a friend from way back, had thought up the hypothetical, or even shared a similar story (C.I. talks to many vets), it wouldn't have been a problem because the vets in my current group all know C.I. and would have known that C.I. was bringing up something else. But I have two new members in the current group and I'm especially careful about new members.
Mike had a wonderful, lengthy exchange in the roundtable. I told him that I felt bad for even asking but he was kind enough not to ask any questions and just pulled that entire section.
"A Fool's Errand in Baghdad" (Mike Whitney, CounterPunch):
Let's assume for a moment, that Dick Cheney is the driving force behind the plan to surge in Iraq. Does anyone really believe that the vice president is genuinely concerned about the safety of the Iraqi people?
And, yet, the media still insists that the purpose of the troop-increase is to improve security in Baghdad. Nothing could be further from the truth. The wellbeing of the Iraqi people has never been a factor in the administration's decision-making and it isn't now.
The real purpose of the surge is to pacify Baghdad in order to rebuild confidence among the supporters of the war. Bush needs to prove that he can restore security so the oil giants can make their move and begin developing the world's second largest reserves of petroleum. In a matter of weeks, the al-Maliki government will pass the new hydrocarbon laws which will "issue tenders and signing contracts" to the major American oil companies. This will allow the looting of Iraq's oil under internationally-recognized legal agreements. But if the fighting persists, it'll all be for nothing. No one is going to invest capital to develop oil fields if the country is in the throes of a civil war. So Bush needs to put more boots on the ground and make one last-ditch effort to crush the resistance. And, he needs to do it fast.
It's clearly an act of desperation and few believe he'll be able to succeed. In fact, last week, a number of retired generals appeared before a senate sub-committee on Capital Hill and blasted the strategy as shortsighted and ill conceived. Marine General Joseph Hoar growled that, "The addition of 21,000 troops is too little too lateIt won't work (The administration has shown) "a shocking failure to understand the social and political forces that influence events in the Middle East."
That outlines it perfectly. The war is lost. It has been obvious for some time that the war is lost. This is just an effort by Bully Boy to try to create a new photo op that will provide the desperate-to-believe crowd with a bit of hope.
Five suggested readings (I'm the worst about doing shout outs and usually only remember after I've posted): Ruth's "Ruth's Report," Trina's "Cajun Chicken Wings," Betty's "Thomas Friedman plays at being Chauncey Gardiner" and a joint-post, Cedric's "White House confessions (humor)" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! NEW POLLS WORRY THE WHITE HOUSE!".
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Monday, January 22, 2007. Chaos and violence continue with over 100 Iraqis reported dead, Bully Boy tanks again in the polls (on a 'reality' show, we could vote him off the island by now), the people prove they don't need the approval of 'judge' to argue Ehren Watada's case in a citizen tribunal on the illegal war held this past weekend, Kurdish forces make like many Iraqis in the military and self-check out, and -- what do you know -- with an eye witness who talked to the press this weekend an unnamed US military flack finally grunts - yeah, maybe they do shoot down US helicopters in Iraq.
Starting with US war resister Ehren Watada, On February 5th, Watada faces a court-martial. "Judge" Head has 'ruled' that Ehren Watada cannot explain the reasons he reached his decision to deploy to Iraq, he cannot explain which orders he honored in his refusal to fight in an illegal war and he cannot really present his case. Saturday and Sunday, Citizens' Hearing on the Legality of U.S. Actions in Iraq was held in Tacoma, Washington and there, in a hearing by, for and of the people, the arguments could be made and were.
Among those testifying were Ann Wright (retired from the State Department, retired US army colonel) who was asked about the duty of Ehren Watada
Ann Wright: Now that's kind of the heart of it all, isn't it? The conduct becoming an officer? The ability to think. The ability to take care of your troops, to keep them out of harm's way, to explore with your chain of command what's going on, why are you having to do certain things? Trusting in your chain of command that you're asking questions that your seniors are asking, are asking, are asking . . .
And I think what we we see in the case of Lt. Watada is that the entire chain of command has failed starting with the four-star generals that were the advisors to the Secretary of Defense and the president, with General Myers, the chief of staff, [. . .] who was such a weak chairman of the Joint Chiefs that he did not question it, he was a toady of the Bush administration.
We did have one four-star general who spoke out -- General Shinseki, chief of staff of the army -- who questioned. He actually didn't question the war, he questioned the number of troops -- how the war was going to be prosecuted. Our generals in the chain of command have not acted as they should have and it's just kind of gone all the way down. The questioning that really goes up and down in the military because there is a dynamic part of the military it's just not one monolythic group there's a lot of debate going on in the scenes and behind the scenes. [. . .]
For the Lt. to be the one that is carrying the load on questioning the war is a little unfair. There should have been people much higher up that were questioning, as they are now, the retired generals are questioning, but that's a little late. [. . .]
It's hard to question sometimes even though you know it's your responsibility and your obligation to do it. But we see here that we've got very few people in the military who are openly questioning but then you look at the polls in newspapers that are being taken of the service members in Iraq and, what is it, 75% of them say we shouldn't be there. So there is an underground movement of the military itself. They're not the ones that can stop wars from beginning but they're the ones that ultimately are the ground fodder for it and what they start saying, "It's not worth my life anymore" that's when these things will start slowing down. And then it's up to us as civilians be going to our Congress to demand that the Congress stop funding the war. If you want to support the troops bring them home, stop the funding of the war.
Amy Rolph (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) reports that David Krieger ("chairman of the tribunal") opened Saturday's proceedings by noting, "We believe that Lt. Watada's contentions about the illegality of the war deserve a full and fair hearing." The Associated Press reported over 400 people were present on Saturday alone. Also appearing was Ehren Watada. Hal Bernton (Seattle Times) reports that Watada declared "Judge" Head's decision to disallow a defense in the court-martial to be "a travesty of justice. That it is a violation of our most sacred due process, and indeed it is un-American." Rolph notes that US war resister Darrell Anderson was also among those offering testimony about what he witnessed in Iraq and the "training that dehumanizes Iraqis". Though arguments can't be made in the court-martial, they were made in in Tacoma. John Nichols (The Nation) blogs at The Notion that: "It appears that the prosecutors do not want to provide Watada with an open and fair forum in which to explain his arguments against the war." Of course, what the prosecution wants or doesn't only matters if the "Judge" rules and he did so when he released his decision on Tuesday of last week.
In a speech given at the Church Center for the UN on December 8th by Watada's mother, Carolyn Ho, (broadcast on WBAI's Law and Disorder today) she explained how her son began researching Iraq in June of 2005 (one year prior to his going public), the basic research to get to know the country he was going to be deployed to, and, as he studied and studied, he came across the shaping of intelligence, the Downing Street Memos exposing that intel was being fixed, the phoney WMDs claims . . . In January of 2006, she received a call from her son who explained that he had decided he wouldn't deploy to Iraq when the time came. On June 7, 2006, Carolyn Ho recounted, "the day before his 28th birthday, he went public and announced his decision not to deploy when the unit went to Iraq." Key point: "I don't believe that my son has committed any crime and that he should be serving any time,"
Also on Saturday, Ehren Watada spoke at the Kitsap Unitarian Universalist Fellowship in Bremerton. David Vognar (Kitsap Sun) reports that over 70 people turned out to hear Watada explain how. in June, he came to be the first US officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq -- Watada threw the responsibility back to the people noting, "It is the American people who have the power to end this war, but only if they have the will to do so."
Watada is part of a movement of resistance within the military that also includes Kyle Snyder, Agustin Aguayo, Ivan Brobeck, Darrell Anderson, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Mark Wilkerson, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Robin Long, Ryan Johnson, Chris Teske, Tim Richard and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Saturday, Patricia Sullivan (Washington Post) reported on the January 15th death of Oliver V. Hirsh:
In 1968, Mr. Hirsch was a 22-year-old enlistee from Bethesda, stationed at Almaden Air Force Station in California, where he was a radar instructor and held the rank of sergeant. He joined eight other military men, representing the four branches of the services, who publicly refused to go to Vietnam and chained themselves to ministers at a chuch in Northern California. Their arrests for desertion were a media spectacle, with polic cutting their chains and removing them from a Communion service. The incident also served as one of the early indications that opposition to the war came not just from campuses but also from soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen who were serving in the ranks.
Hirsh was among the war resisters sharing their experiences in David Zeiger's Sir! No Sir! which is now available with bonus footage including Camilio Mejia, Cindy Sheehan and Jane Fonda discussing "the movement then and now." (Also note the DVD of the film is available free of charge to active duty and deployed soldiers.)
Yesterday was also a signifcant day for war resisters. Patrick Maloney (Canada's London Free Press) noted that Sunday was the thirty year anniversary of Jimmy Carter's pardoning of draft dodgers: "An estimated 50,000 came to Canada, of whom about half remain. Now, in a quiet echo of an earlier generation's anti-war sentiment, the War Resisters Support Campaign is noticing growing interest in Canada as a haven for U.S. soldiers destined for Iraq."
Today, Dan Balz and Jon Cohen (Washington Post) report on the latest Washington Post poll (Washington Post-ABC News) which finds "48 percent of Americans calling the war the single most important issue they want Bush and the Congress to deal with this year. No other issue rises out of the single digits. The poll also found that the public trust congressional Democrats over Bush to deal with the conflict by a margin of 60 percent to 33 percent." And symbolic measures won't build that trust for the Democratic Party, nor will doing nothing. Someone might also want to share those results with independent media -- it will no doubt be a surprise for a great many who ignored Iraq throughout 2006 -- as well as those who tried to sneak it into some fawning coverage of some politician.
In Iraq today . .
Bombings?
Assel Kami (Reuters) reports "[t]wo simultaneous car bombs" which struck "a busy market in central Baghdad." BBC reports 88 dead with 160 more injured. Some of those injured will not recover (die) and some of the dead have likely not been recovered which is why Kami earlier reported 67 dead and 142 injured bu noted "the death toll of 67 could rise." CBS and AP note the immediate aftermath: "body parts strewn on the bloodstained pavement, along with DVDs and compact discs as black smoke rose into the sky." AFP quotes one of their photographers: "There were so many victims they were piled up on wooden market carts, the wounded on top of the dead, and hauled to ambulances and police vehicles. Improvised rescue workers made their way through the carnage amid the cries of those wounded." Mohammed al Awsy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that an "interiro ministry source" states that one car involved was left running with the driver of the car telling "people nearby that he was just buying things and would return very soon."
Al Jazeera notes: "A few hours later at least 12 people were killed and more than 40 were wounded when a bomb exploded in a market in the village of Khalis, near Baquba." AFP reports it as a "bomb placed in a vegetable cart" combined with a mortar attack. Reuters notes that already the death toll on the Khalis bombing has risen -- 14 people dead. Sinan Salaheddin (AP) reports a mortar attack "on a primary school in the Sunni stronghold neighborhood of Dora in southern Baghdad, killing a woman waiting for her child and wounding eight students". Reuters notes a boming in Mosul that took the life of a woman left four people wounded (two were Iraqi soldiers and they note: "Two more soliders were killed when troops went to the scene to recover the casualties.") and they note a mortar attack "on a house in the Amil district in southwestern Baghdad" that claimed one life and left another wounded.
Shootings?
CBS and AP report that a teacher "was on her way to work at a girls' school" in western Baghdad when she was shot dead and the man driving the car she was in was also wounded. Meanwhile, CNN reports that a police officer and a police acadmy lecturer were shot dead on their way "home in eastern Baghdad." Sinan Salaheddin (AP) reports three shootings -- in Baghdad a "Sunni tribal chieftain" was shot dead in one attack and an employee of a cell phone company was shot dead in another while, in Mosul, an attack left an oil employee dead. Mohammed al Awsy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports "a liquor shop owner [Christian] in AL JAMAAIAT area 8km west of basra" was shot dead today "after some clerics in basra warned the liquor shop owners that they should stop selling liquor in basra."
Corpses?
CNN reports 29 corpses were discovered in Baghdad today.
In addition, Mohammed al Awsy (McClatchy Newspaper) reports that an attack or attempted kidnapping took place when "unknown gunmen tried to storm inside the house of the deputy governor of diyala ABDUL AZIZ AL JUBORI" -- two body guards were wounded "but the deputay governor was not inside the house." A kidnapping took place in Baqubua, Reuters reports: "Khaled al-Sanjari, a local government offical in Baquba," was kidnapped "while he was on his way to work" and the kidnappers "set the office on fire".
As Damien Cave (New York Times) and Borzou Daragahi (Los Angeles Times) reported this morning, at least 27 US troops died over the weekend in Iraq. The 27 number stops with the two marines who died Sunday in Al-Anbar Province. On Saturday, a US helicopter was shot dead. Everyone on board died, all were American soldiers. The BBC notes today that AFP and CNN have reported (today) that an anonymous US military official has stated it's possible that the helicopter was shot down by "a shoulder-fire missile". This after denying -- as they've done with every crash -- that anything was shot down (they've even insisted -- Willie Caldwell, the Giddiest Gabor in the Green Zone, has been especially insistant -- that only coalition forces have those capablities in Iraq -- so note that "a shoulder-fire missile" is possible, according to the US military). Ernesto London (Washington Post) reported Sunday (actually Saturday -- which is when the article first made it online, it was "20 dead" in the headline, now downgraded to 19) that Arkan al-Mujamai told the paper "that the helicopter was shot down by a group of Sunni Muslim insurgents, one of whom is his uncle." al-Mujamai stated that "a heavy machine gun" was used.
The 27 deaths include an attack in Karbala. Leila Fadel and Hussam Ali (McClatchy Newspapers) report: "On Saturday, a civil affairs team of American soldiers sat with local leaders in Karbala's provincial headquarters to discuss security . . . A convoy of seven white GMC Suburbans sped toward the building, breezing through checkpoints, with the men wearing American and Iraqi military uniforms and flashing American ID cards, Iraqi officials said. The force stopped at the police directorate in Karbala and took weapons but gave no reason, said police spokesman Capt. Muthana Ahmed in Babel province. A call was made to the provincial headquarters to inform them an American convoy was on its way, said the governnor of Karbala, Akeel al-Khazaali. But the Americans stationed inside the building . . . had not been informed" because this wasn't a military patrol and, in the attack that followed (grenades, mortars, gunfire), 5 US troops were killed and 3 more wounded. If you've forgotten, a tremendous amount of money was spent on new Iraqi uniforms and a huge publicity push came with that stating that no longer would the resistance or militias be able to impersonate -- that's disproven today and was always disproven because those uniforms don't come off some Mosul sewing machine, they're taken by people working within the forces. Today, the US military announced: "A Task Force Lightning Soldier assigned to 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, was killed Monday when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle while conducting combat operations in Ninewa province.
On WBAI's Law & Disorder, a discussion by Anthony Arnove and Michael Schwartz was also broadcast today. Many topics were covered. [Mike will be covering this tonight at Mikey Likes It!; Ruth and Rebecca passed on L&D and held the phone up for quotes included.] They spoke, in particular, about the racism at play -- which includes the attitude of those 'sorry' Iraqis who just don't appreciate the illegal invasion the US administration has 'gifted' them with, that those 'bad' and 'backward' Iraqis are just lacking abilities since they can't 'build' a 'democracy' in the midst of the US' illegal occupation, and the racism that forgets who created the secetarian divide (the US). The racism -- that urge to cast 'the other' -- is why they US administration believes that they can recruit more Iraqis to 'pacify' Baghdad and Al-Anbar Province. Schwartz noted that as soon as US troops aren't assinged with Iraqi troops, Iraqi troops melt into the area and disappear -- the desertion rate from the Iraqi army that's rarely noted, especially now when Bully Boy's escalation depends on believing the lie that more US troops on the ground will solve the trick. The admiinstration also believe they can bring the Kurds easily into the Iraqi military. Leila Fadel and Yaseen Taha (McClatchy Newspapers) reported at the end of last week that it wasn't working out quite that way: "Kurdish soldiers from northern Iraq, who are mostly Sunnis but not Arabs, are deserting the army to avoid the civil war in Baghdad, a conflict they consider someone else's problem" and they quote Anward Dolani ("former peshmerga commander who leads the brigade that's being tranferred to Baghdad") declaring: "The soldiers don't know the Arabic language, the Arab tradition, and they don't have any experience fighting terror." If the news of the Kurdish troops doesn't convey how no one wants to fight the illegal US war, Dahr Jamail and Ali al-Fadhily (IPS) report on the latest in souther Iraq where "Shia Arab tribes in the south" are joining the resistance. Jamail and al-Fadhily quote Jassim al-Assadi declaring: "People here have always hated the U.S. and British occupation of Iraq and remembered their grandfathers who fought the British troops with the simplest weapons."
Anthony Arnove, author most recently of IRAQ: The Logic of Withdrawal, will be speaking in DC this weekend:
*January 27, 5 pm, Washington, DC (with Kelly Dougherty) Busboys and Poets http://www.busboysandpoets.com/blog_events.htm
Arnove will be among many in DC on the 27th. From CODEPINK:
Bring the Peace Mandate to D.C. on J27!
On Election Day voters delivered an unmistakable mandate for peace. Now it's time for action. Join CODEPINK in a national march to D.C. on January 27-29, to send a strong, clear message to Congress and the Bush Administration: The people of this country want the war and occupation in Iraq to end and we want the troops home now! See our latest actions, and click here for details.
iraq
ehren watada
dahr jamailali al-fadhilydarrell anderson
anthony arnove
david zeiger
sir! no sir!
john nicholshal bernton
leila fadel
dan balz
jon cohen
wbailaw and disorderthe washington post
borzou daragahi
the new york timesdamien cave
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
mikey likes it
ruths report
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)