Laura Flanders, Kathy Kelly

The week is moving fast on my end. Last week, by the way, I highlighted a piece (on Friday) -- Helen Redmond's "Female Chauvinist Pigs?" -- that I praised and noted was from somewhere. It was from International Socialist Review. On things to read, please read Kat's "Joni Mitchell's Hissing of Summer Lawns." I love that album more than I listen to it. The Hissing of Summer Lawns has some amazing songs on it that I will find myself singing out of the blue. But I agree with Kat the problem is the "drone." The music played on the album doesn't make it for me and never has. It's a real shame because I listen to Joni Mitchell quite often but that's a CD I probably only put on once a year. (I have all of Joni on CD. Of solo artists, that's also true of Carly Simon, Peter Gabriel and one or two others.)


"Blue Grit: Laura Flanders on How 'True Democrats Take Back Politics from the Politicians'" (Democracy Now!):
LAURA FLANDERS: Well, there's been a big trend in the left and the center to say, "The way for the Democrats to win next time is to not get snookered by marriage equality and abortion rights." I say the Democrats in denial, their denial is what loses them. Let's face it. I mean, the right doesn't need any more ammunition against Hillary Clinton. What she needs to do -- she's one of the contenders -- is to woo more support on the left. The Democratic leadership is never going to be anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-racial equality enough to be able to persuade their opponents that they're on the same side or they're not a threat. But in constantly running away from their base, who, you know, whether they like it or not, are gays and lesbians, women who support abortion, people of color, they may not like it, but that's the base they’ve got, and that's the base they depend on every time it comes to an election.
AMY GOODMAN: We were just talking about Don Imus referring to Rutgers athletes, women on the basketball team, as "nappy-[headed] hos," and this demand for his resignation. You refer, in your piece, to Ann Coulter, speaking before the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., referring to John Edwards as a "f**got." Talk more about that.
LAURA FLANDERS: Well, we've seen it before. The right will raise a trial balloon, and if it's not shot down fast, it carries on. Remember Arnold Schwarzenegger talking about girlie men. He used that first against the Democrats in the California Assembly. The next thing we know, he's using the word about all Democrats on the stage of the Republican National Convention. I don't think believe that trial balloon from Coulter has burst yet, and I think that it's -- the lesson of the gay and lesbian rights movement and other movements of grassroots folks who, let’s face it, were the first people to be swift-boated in this country -- it wasn't John Kerry. Remember the "welfare queen." The communities we're talking about are the people who have learnt about how to tackle and respond to the right, and they know being nice to a bully doesn't work. You've got to fight back. You've got to stand up. And that's what these candidates have got to learn.
AMY GOODMAN: And what does Peter Pace, the general's comments about homosexuality have to do with the Democrats? What do you think of the Democrats' response to it?
LAURA FLANDERS: Well, when Hillary Clinton was asked what she thought about that, she said she would leave it for other people to decide. That is no kind of a response. You've got to stand up for what's right, and it will serve your interests. Ask somebody like the people I profile in the book, Lupe Valdez, the sheriff of Dallas. No lefty community, Dallas elected its first Latina, its first woman sheriff, its first out lesbian and its first Democrat in twenty years, when they elected a woman who had the chutzpah to stand up and say that she had respect for herself, she wanted other people to respect her, too, she was an agent of change, and she was going to serve the people as the sheriff. She's there doing the work and being exactly what she said she would be.

That's from Monday's broadcast and I wanted to highlight it but this is the first chance I've had.
I've just begun reading Blue Grit (last night) and am enjoying it. That's Laura Flanders' new book. I picked that part of the interview because I knew community members in Texas would enjoy it and because I thought it got to a few things we've been attempting to address at The Third Estate Sunday Review, specifically in "How we got to this point." One of the points we were making there was the shameful behavior which includes, as Flanders notes, Hillary's silence. But it also included this slinking off from a stereotype. "That's not true about John Edwards!" might be shouted out but there was no attempt to stand up and say (a) it's hate speech and (b) it's a stereotype.

For all the hula hoop frenzy over the nonsense of 'framing,' there has been no effort to define, just to take the easy spin (that's all framing is). Elsewhere in the article, Flanders makes a point about how the Democrats should be attempting to big tent it instead of running from gays and lesbians. That reminded me of a point C.I. made in "Roundtable" (The Third Estate Sunday Review):

Ty: Yeah that is the correct count. You basically answered something from each of the fifteen and I'm just trying to think now if there's any major point from them that you missed? We had one e-mail from a woman who identified as a lesbian and you touched on that, on Hillary and Barack's one day of silence, but could you expand on that, could you address gay rights?
C.I.: Sure and anyone else can jump in. The 'brave' ones who think they're doing the Lord's work with this debunk and that debunk don't bother to debunk the nonsense of the Democratic Party's silence on gay and lesbian issues. Larry Kramer, on Democracy Now!, spoke to that issue and it's really easy to dismiss that as "Oh, that's a gay issue." And those segretating may hope people will do so but the truth is there are a lot more people on the outs than on the ins with the Democratic Party. The desire to present their dream candidate, male, that they just know will wow 'em in the south is insulting to everyone including the south. But it's that desperate grip they have for the Big Daddy figure who's going to save them as opposed to building a working coalition. That's still the problem. Before Bill Clinton, it was quite common, in the wake of Poppy Bush's election for some to argue that the Dems would be the party of Congress but they could never have the White House. I'm referring to poli sci articles, not the popular press. And specifically thinking of two papers written by people I know. For too many with a say in determining the direction of the party, the answer, once Clinton was elected, was a charasmatic figure and not a party that could unite under truly universal principles such as fairness.

There's a lot to deal with. The intended plan (that may or may not come off) is for sites to go dark after the 2008 election. In the time between now and then, we're not trying to play nice. We're trying to raise very real issues. I really did assume there would be a drop off as a result of that (which I was fine with) but there's actually been an increase of positive e-mails at The Third Estate Sunday Review. I think that goes to the fact that a lot of people are fed up and are tired of the very real silences on issues of inclusion and fairness coming out of the leadership of the Democratic Party and too many voices. Laura Flanders hosts her show on Air America Radio, 7:00 pm to ten p.m. EST on Saturdays and Sundays. We frequently mention her at Third and that's because she's trying to accomplish something in terms of the way we understand issues.

I'm not comparing the work we do at Third to the work she does. (Nor my own, this is just online scribbles for me at my site.) Flanders is much nicer about it. We generally have her program on during Saturday editions for Third. (I have no idea what she said the last two weeks, both times have been something big going on.) She's a wonderful host and the sort that the network could build real change by building around her. As someone who had high hopes for AAR when it started, I think, as a network, they failed and they continue to do so. For every Flanders, you have a Seder or Maddow who offer nothing but party line points. I think those people do damage by denying the very real problems as they cheerlead a party. I think we saw that would be the way it was for Sam Seder without Janeane Garofalo by his side when Slimey Simon Rosenberg was interviewed (Garofalo wasn't on that broadcast) and Seder refused to question him. Callers and the show's blog were screaming about the pass Seder gave Rosenberg. That is who Seder really is. That's not news today, now most see it. He's a Party boy who won't call out. Rosenberg was a "player" (supposedly a shoe in -- to hear Seder and his blog buddies tell it -- for DNC chair), so Seder gave him a pass. It was as bad as anything the New York Times could have done and Seder could try to defend all he wanted but he blew that interview and did so on purpose. To Maddow's credit, she interviewed Rosenberg with Lizz Winstead and they didn't give Simon a pass. They were actually disturbed by Rosenberg's responses. I don't care for Maddow but I will give her credit for that.


"Prison for a Peacemaker: Interview with Kathy Kelly" (Jack Balkwill, CounterPunch):
The war in Iraq is the longest war in US history, even longer than Vietnam when one considers the first Gulf War extending through the sanctions (with interruptions for bombing, such as Clinton's "Desert Fox"), to the illegal 2003 invasion and current occupation. So from 1991 through 2007 we have continuous war in one form or another for sixteen years.
Through it all, Kathy Kelly has promoted peace for the Iraqi people and attempted to counter the brutal sanctions that, according to UN reports, directly contributed towards the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children. She has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize three times, and spent time in prison for her actions. In this interview she tells the story of her struggle for peace, human rights, and social justice together with resulting experiences in jails and prisons in the Land of the Free.
She is interviewed by Jack Balkwill, a Vietnam Vet.
Jack Balkwill: When did you first go to Iraq, and what was your purpose?
Kathy Kelly: In January 1991, I joined the Gulf Peace Team, an international group of peace activists encamped on the Iraq side of the Iraq-Saudi border. I landed in Baghdad on the last plane allowed into the country prior to the war. Traveling by bus to the desert camp, we passed through Kerbala, in southern Iraq. Our team was mesmerized by the city's beauty. Students, gowned and graceful, sauntered along palm-tree lined University streets. Mosques shimmered in the sunlight. All of us voiced a hope that we could one day return to Kerbala.
The Gulf Peace Team camp was already humming by the time I got there. Latrines had been dug, tents were set up, food preparation and clean up tasks were assigned, and in spite of language and cultural differences people were learning about each other.
During the night, on January 16th, 1991, the U.S. began bombing Iraq. 72 of us, from 18 different countries, crawled out of our tents and huddled together, watching planes fly overhead almost once every five minutes.
As the ground war approached, there was more of a chance that we actually would be in the way of invading U.S. forces. On January 28, Iraqi authorities evacuated us to a hotel in Baghdad.
In Baghdad, there was very little electricity available. However, in the women's restroom there was a light. I went there to write and read, from time to time, and there met mothers and children.
The mothers were very friendly to me, and the children, after initial shyness, were glad to play. Sometimes I'd see them again, in the hotel's basement bomb shelter, late at night, when the bombing was more intense. Fathers held children in their arms and reassured them. But the men's faces showed unmistakable anxiety and fear.
We found an old typewriter, abandoned by journalists. It lacked a typewriter ribbon, but I had learned, in Nicaragua and in prison, that if you place a sheet of carbon paper in front of a clean sheet of paper, it will function like a typewriter ribbon. We melted a candle onto the typewriter and soon I was able to produce our team's statement about why we were in Baghdad.
An Iraqi official spotted me managing to type something and soon returned with a document he needed typed in English. We were reluctant, at first --was it right for a team claiming neutrality to assist an Iraqi government official? We asked to read the letter. It was a letter to then Secretary General of the United Nations Javier Perez de Cuellar, asking him to seek an end to bombardment of the Iraqi highway between Baghdad and the Jordanian border.
This road was the only way out for refugees and the only way in for humanitarian relief supplies. Our team had traveled on this road for some distance, en route to Baghdad, and had seen charred and smoking vehicles. Our bus drivers would swerve to miss craters in the road. It was a very dangerous route.
We agreed to type the letter, knowing that according to Geneva conventions warring parties must provide a way out for refugees to exit and a way in for humanitarian relief. The official returned with crumpled stationery, signed by a cabinet level official, and carbon paper that had been used five times over.
Imagine cabinet level correspondence being typed by an extranational from the country bombarding you, on wrinkled stationery, using an abandoned typewriter"working by candlelight.this is what Iraq's government was relying onthen imagine the support available to the Pentagon.
On January 31st, in Baghdad, a bomb hit the servant's quarters of the hotel where we were housed. Iraqi authorities again loaded us onto buses, after stamping visas into passports of 33 members who had asked to stay with families in Baghdad. They told us we would be welcome to visit Iraq some other time. We traveled by bus along a major Iraqi highway leading to the border crossing between Iraq and Jordan.
Desert Storm continued. We called it Desert Slaughter.
Many of the Gulf Peace Team members returned to their home countries to campaign for an end to the relentless bombing and destruction. Those of us who had visas for a return trip to Iraq organized, as best we could, medical relief convoys to bring desperately needed medicines into Iraq.
We hoped that we might safeguard the road between the Jordan-Iraq border and Baghdad, thinking that if authorities from the U.S. and the UK knew that ordinary citizens from their own countries were traveling along that road, delivering medical relief, they might be less inclined to consider every moving vehicle a military target. Announcing the convoy project would give us a chance to remind the U.S. war planners about the Geneva conventions.
A few of us began calling Jordanian pharmacists and charity organizations to learn more about procuring medicines for delivery to Iraq. A Jordanian businessman, Mr. Nidal Sukhtian, heard of our project and decided to donate a semi-truck full of powdered milk. He also volunteered to pay for petrol, hire a driver, and help us out with an interpreter.
Suddenly our project became much more manageable. I took responsibility to contact the media. An NBC TV correspondent decided to cover our departure. I don't remember her name, but I do remember a steady exchange of phone calls setting up the time and date for the convoy to film us loading up trucks with food and medicine and then driving back into the war zone.
The day before our planned departure, someone from the United Nations finally managed to get through to us that our convoy wasn't going to enter Iraq unless we were prepared to ram our way through a UN checkpoint. Sanctions prohibited delivery of almost all goods to Iraq, save for a short list of medical supplies and medicines.
Realizing that our powdered milk shipment could never pass the checkpoint, we divvied up a long list of tasks: offload the semi-truck and return it to the owner, find two small trucks to carry whatever we could find that was on the list, call pharmacies, find a new source for fuel, new drivers, change the press release, change the departure time, in the frenzy of activity, I completely forgot to call the NBC correspondent. She was out in the field waiting to film us, with a full camera crew, and it was raining.
I saw her that night, at the Red Crescent office, where we both had turned up to get documents that would allow us to enter Iraq. She was livid. "I will assure that you and your team never again get coverage from NBC," she said. I murmured how sorry I was. She turned, walked away, and then paused, looking over her shoulder, to add, "I shouldn't even tell you this, but offloading the truck WAS the story." My heart sank.
Had NBC covered the Scottish doctor on our team, tearful as she hauled cartons of powdered milk off of the semi-truck, had this image been beamed into living rooms across the United States, it might have "jump-started awareness about the most comprehensive sanctions ever imposed in modern history.
I still feel ashamed, even now, recalling that story. I feel shame and sorrow because throughout all the years of the long war against Iraq, offloading the truck never stopped being the story.
Just days ago, a UN report stated that one out of three children in Iraq suffers from malnutrition. A combination of sanctions, war and occupation has brought to Iraq the world's worst deterioration in child mortality rate. According to a report 'The State of the World's Children' released by UNICEF in 2007, Iraq's mortality rate for children under five was 50 per 1000 live births in 1990, and 125 in 2005, an annual average deterioration of 6.1 percent.
When the U.S.-led invasion was launched in 2003, the Bush administration pledged to cut Iraq's child mortality rate in half by 2005. Instead, the rate has worsened, now to 130 in 2006, according to Iraqi Health Ministry figures. In February, 2007, Iraq,s Ministry of Water Resources stated that only 32 percent of the Iraqi population had access to clean drinking water, and only 19 percent had access to a good sewage system.
Massive convoys should be going into Iraq, bearing all manner of humanitarian relief. They should be, but they're not, and in December 2006 donor nations cut in half the money they would commit to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees.
But let me return to 1991, because eventually in late March of that year, our team did return to Kerbala, the city that had so impressed us when we first traveled into Iraq. We stared in awe as we drove along streets devoid of palm trees, lined by wreckage and smoking ruins.
We entered the main hospital and our feet stuck to the floor because the blood was so thick. Beds were smashed; equipment was torn out of the walls. We saw clusters of badly frightened doctors. Henry Selz, who had lived in Lebanon during the civil war there, spotted bullet holes near the rooftops of buildings as we walked along a side street. One elderly woman pulled us aside and began whispering about mass graves. What had happened?
I learned in fits and starts, fitting together pieces of the horror story that still isn't completed.
Margaret Thatcher remarked once on television that after the ceasefire had been declared, Saddam Hussein's generals asked if they could keep their helicopters and the U.S. generals said, "Yes," then they asked if they could keep their attack helicopters-- again the answer was, "Yes." Those attack helicopters swiftly took off in pursuit of insurgents who were rebelling in cities all through southern Iraq: Amarah, Qut, Najaf, Nassiriyeh, Basra, Kerbala.
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, U.S. allies in the 1991 war against Iraq who were helping fund the war, had told President George Bush Sr. to keep Saddam Hussein in power because otherwise uprisings of Shi'ite people in the south could give rise to a dominant Shi'a governance in Iraq that would be sympathetic to coreligionists "next door" in Iran.
Hence the long regime of economic sanctions which kept Saddam crippled externally but strengthened internally --punitive sanctions which were always evaluated only on the basis of whether or not they prevented Saddam from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, and never with regard to how the sanctions affected innocent and vulnerable Iraqis, particularly children.

That's a long excerpt but it's a long interview. One worth reading and I'll leave it at that for tonight except to recommend that you read Ava and C.I.'s "TV: The not-so-universal White Boy blues" which is really amazing.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Wednesday, April 11, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, Crazy John McCain intends to continue running for the GOP presidential nomination until the men in white coats cart him away, The Savannah Morning News merges with the US military, the International Red Cross issues a report that doesn't contain the preferred amount of happy talk, and the refugee crisis grows.


Today the US military announced: "An MND-B Soldier died and two others were wounded when an improvised explosive device detonated near their patrol in an eastern section of the Iraqi captial April 11." And they announced: "One MDN-B Soldier died and another was wounded after their unit came under attack in the southern portion of the Iraqi capital April 10." This brings the total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 3294 with 47 for the month of April alone, reports ICCC.

We're starting with the above for a reason, Crazy John McCain. Last week, Crazy John McCain took The John McCain Showboat Express to Baghdad and became a topic of ridicule for his boldface lies that things were getting better in Iraq and that he could walk freely through a Baghdad street. Robert Knigh ( Flashpoints, Monday, April 2nd) described the 'free walk' this way: "McCain, in defiance of various independent reports that Iraq's daily death toll actually increased last month, nevertheless declared that the so-called 'surge' was 'making progress' and that Americans were 'not getting the full picture of what is happening in Iraq'; however a zoom out from McCain's photo op shows that he was actually surounded by orbiting F16 fighter planes, three Black Hawk attack helicopters, 2 Apache gun ships, more than 100 US troops, snipers and armed vehicles, a flak jacket and personal body armour. The presidential contender and Congressional comedian concluded his celebration of April Fool's Day by declaring with a straight face that 'There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods today. These and other indicators and reasons for cautious optimism about the effects of the new strategy'."

Crazy John McCain lost some of his luster over that and went on CBS' 60 Minutes Sunday where Scott Pelly asked him about the claims he'd made re: Iraq and Senator Crazy responded, "Of course I'm going to misspeak and I've done it on numerous occasions and I probably will do in the future. I regret that when I divert attention to something that I've said from my message but you know that's just life, and I'm happy frankly with the way I operate, otherwise it would be a lot less fun." Never deny a crazy their fun. Speaking at the Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, Virginia, Crazy John McCain was at it again, kissing ass and telling lies and he asserted that he was speaking "to an audience that can discern truth from falsehood in a politician's appraisal of the war," then went on to dub the illegal war as "necessary and winnable" and attempted to drum up sympathy by stating his Crazy Walk through Baghdad left him at the mercy of "a hostile press corps". Crazy spoke of "memorable progress and measurable progress" and some probably fell for the crap. Those who did probably have forgotten the outline General John P. Abizaid presented on March 14, 2006 (link goes to Centcom, click here). He's also bragging about Baghdad where, as AFP notes, "the International Committee of the Red Cross said in a new report that the operation had not yet stabilised Baghdad." His bragging comes as Bruce Rolfsen (Air Force Times) notes "more than 850 wounded and injured service men" and service women "out of war zones during March, according to the Air Force. In February, the Air Force flew out 767 patients.

Senator Crazy went on to declare that the armed battle included a "struggle for the soul of Islam" sounding as insane as the Bully Boy when he originally used the term "crusade." Senator Crazy was, no doubt, amusing himself again with thoughts of bombs being dropped, rockets launched, bullets shot all for a "struggle for the soul of Islam." Senator Crazy remains the undeclared GOP candidate for the 2008 presidential nomination and with all the crazy remarks he makes, it's easy for the electorate to miss some of them. When Scott Pelly (60 Minutes) pointed out that the majority of US citizens want and wondered to Crazy when Crazy would "start doing what the majority of the American people want?"

Well again, I disagree with what the majority of the American people want.

A memorable, if not winning, campaign slogan if ever there was one. Crazy John McCain is running for president on the premise that, his words, "I disagree with what the majority of the American people want." Vote Insane! Vote McCain!

Staying with the crazies, the Giddiest Gabor in the Green Zone, little Willie Caldwell, grabbed his feather boa and marched before reporters to declare, "They're arming the insurgents, dahling." With the five Iranian diplomats still not released (and US military command announcing today that they weren't going to be), Little Willie strutted and made broad statements. Or, as the BBC put it, "accused." AFP also uses the (accurate) terminology, noting that Little Willie "accused the Iranians of training Iraqi groups on how to assemble explosively-formed projecticles -- a type of armour-piercing roadside bomb that has caused many coalition casualties." Lauren Frayer, AP's frequent embed, paid to write for a living, somehow fails to utilize "accused" once; however, she did take down good stenography for Little Willie and deploy the term "said" eight times in a 300 plus word 'report' (324 -- check my math).

In other Press Shames, Joe Strupp (Editor & Publisher) reports what's what at The Savannah Morning News these days. On their front page, they are now running a column by Major General Rick Lynch -- at least it may be by him. The paper's editor, Susan Catron, asked of the names at the end of Lynch's opinion column offers happily, "I can't tell if they wrote it or not." Catron also reveals that the paper is not paying the general for his column. Hmmm.

The editor can't state for the record whether or not the column was written by the general and this weekly column (carried on the front page) requires no payment to the writer? For many, that would be enough to raise red flags but Catron's still recovering from the mighty Sunday comics war that so drained the paper's resources

Strupp reveals that the newspaper staff believes (and they are right) that if the column belongs anywhere, it is "on the opinion page . . . Is this appropriate for a 50,000-reader newspaper that purports to be free from government influence? Staff members feel it has undermined the newspaper's credibility and independence."

Turning to news of attempts to increase leisure time, AP reports that the US "White House is considering naming a high-powered official to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and report directly to President Bush".

There seems to be some confusion here so let's turn to the US Constitution, Article II, section 2 which reads:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

If anyone's confused (and apparently the White House is) the role being discussed is a Constitutionally mandated role for the occupant of the Oval Office. It's really not something that can be "delegated." Possibly Bully Boy's all tuckered out from his vacation in Crawford? Mimi Kennedy (writing at Truthout) notes that Camp Casey was in full swing in Crawford last weekend with the Bully Boy in town. Kennedy reports that Friday was spent at the checkpoint singing "We Shall Overcome" and chanting "We are here with Cindy/We're here to ask/What noble Cause/We are here with Cindy now" dying Easter eggs and singing; with Saturday revolving around Pink Police actions. On the topic of CODEPINK, they have redesigned their website adding many new features and one of the new campaigns revolves around the video "Toy Soldiers" -- watching it and passing it on.

Cindy Sheehan will be speaking in Indiana Thursday. The South Bend Tribune reports she will deliver "Speaking Peace to Power" at 10:30 Thursday morning on the campus of Saint Mary's College (auditorium in Madeleva Hall). The event is free and open to the public. On last weekend, Cindy (writing at BuzzFlash) notes, "At our five acres of Camp Casey, we also announced phase two of our development from a protest camp to a peace facility. The Camp Casey Peace Institute is partnering with Farm Hands to create a therapeutic farm for Vets and their families and active duty soldiers. We are having our first build on Memorial Day Weekend to put up our lodge building."

Staying with peace news, we'll turn to US war resisters. Meghan Eves (Canada's Eye Weekly) takes a close look at three war resisters who are among the 300 attempting to find refuge in Canada. Eves notes that Jeremy Hinzman was the first to apply for refugee status and that Hinzman's currently appealing the rejection by the Immigration and Refugee Board "to the Federal Court of Appeals but no date has been set"; that Joshua Key, his wife Brandi and their four children await the response of the Federal Court of Canada on his appeal (all war resisters have been refused refugee status by the Immigration and Refugee Board) and notes his book The Deserter's Tale, and Dean Walcott who self-checked out and went to Canada at the end of last year (December 2006) -- someone could pass it on to Paul von Zielbauer that Walcott and Key both suffer from PTSD.

Key, Hinzman and Walcott are part of a movment of resistance within the military that also includes Ehren Watada, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder , Corey Glass, Ricky Clousing, Mark Wilkerson, Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia, Patrick Hart, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake 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.


Turning to Iraq, yesterday on Flashpoints, Emily Howard spoke with Darh Jamail about the Doha conference and Iraq. On Iraq, Jamail noted the growing Iraqi refugee problem and how nothing was being done about it. They discussed his recent article at IPS on the topic of refugees and Jamail spoke of how when attacks were on going, the lucky ones were able to buy themselves or a relative out but, having exhausted their money with that, they were left to wander around or live in refugee tents. Those who could afford to get out, such as doctors, have already left. Dahr spoke of how the problem now was that a country was now in a situation where the people trained and needed for basic needs (electricity, water, etc.) are now leaving. Writing today at IPS, Jamail interviews Iraqi refugees now in Damascus including 68-year-old Abdul Abdulla who recalls of his family's time in Baghdad prior to leaving, "We stay in our homes, but even then some people have been pulled out of their own houses. These death squads arrived after (former U.S. ambassador John) Negorponte arrived. And the Iraqi Government is definitely involved because they depend on them (militias)."

Reuters reports that the International Red Cross has declared that "The suffering that Iraqi men, women and children are enduring today is unbearable and unacceptable" (ICRC director of operations Pierre Kraehenbuehl). BBC reports, "Four years after the US-led invasion, the ICRC says the conflict is inflicting immense suffering, and calls for greater protection of civilians." The ICRC issued their report in Geneva today.

The (PDF format) report is entitled "Civilians Without Protection: The ever-worsening humanitarina crisis in Iraq" and notes:

Civilians bear the brunt of the relentless violence and the extremely poor security conditions that are disrupting the lives and livelihoods of millions. Every day, dozens of people are killed and many more wounded. The plight of Iraqi civilians is a daily reminder of the fact that there has long been a failure to respect their lives and dignity. Shottings, bombings, abudctions, murders, military operations and other forms of violence are forcing thousands of people to flee their homes and seek safety elsewhere in Iraq or in neighboring countries. The hundreds of thousands of displaced people scattered across Iraq find it particularly difficult to cope with the ongoing crisis, as do the families who generously agree to host them.

The report addresses a number of issues including the medical care situation with the 'brain drain' and the violence causing many medical professionals to leave the country at a time when Iraqi hospitals are overcrowed. The report also notes this with regards to the water situation in Iraq:

Both the quantity and quality of drinking water in Iraq remain insufficient despite limited improvements in some areas, mainly in the south. Water is often contaminated owing to the poor repair of sewage and water-supply networks and the discharge of untreated sewage into rivers, which are the main source of drinking waters. Electricity and fuel shortages and the poor maintenance of infrastructure mean that there is no regular and reliable supply of clean water and that sewage is often not properly demanded.

On the subject of prisoners, "Tens of thousands of people are currently being detained by the Iraq authorities and the multinational forces in Iraq" -- often without any news of the prisoners being passed on to their families.

In addition to the above, Robert Fisk (Independent of London) reports on the latest efforts to turn Baghdad into a series of "gated communities" -- part of the 220 page plan FM 3024 -- which is based on the fact that the easy areas can be 'secured' and then the 'security' can be spread out wider. More logically, as Fisk notes, is the greater of spreading out and depending on Iraqi soldiers, the less loyalty to the US forces and the greater the ties to Iraqis. (Meaning the Shi'ite or Sunni trained officers is more apt to blow off US orders than turn against an Iraqi who may be a threat to the US but is not seen as an Iraqi threat.)

Bombings?

CBS and AP report a Hilla bombing that killed a police officer and left three more wounded, a Mosul bombing that killed a police officers, wounded two more police officers and left six other people injured. Reuters notes mortar attacks in Baghdad that killed one and left 4 others wounded.

Shootings?

Reuters reports two police officers shot dead outside their homes in Kut, Abdul Abbas Hashim ("general director in the Electricity Ministry" shot dead in Baghdad.

Corpses?

Reuters reports 11 corpses discovered in Baghdad and 9 in Mosul.



iraq
robert knightflashpoints
joshua key
dahr jamail
cindy sheehan
dean walcottcodepink

Joshua Frank, NYT tries to manage public opinion

The illustration is Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Veto" and he had no idea how right he would turn out to be. I'd e-mailed him about it and he wrote that he really thought he was scraping the bottom of the barrel but figured tossing Condi in would make it a little funny. He did it on Saturday and it went up Sunday. Sunday was when Carl Levin proved how spineless he was and you can pair Isaiah's comic with Cedric's "Their own worst enemy " and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! DEMS DESTROY THEMSELVES! " from today.


"Democrats for War" (Joshua Frank, CounterPunch):
The precipitous decline of antiwar sentiment within the Democratic Party has been on grand display over the past few months. The majority of leading Democrats say they oppose the war in Iraq, but still refuse to cut funding. And when Bush vetoes the pork-swollen appropriations bill, which he's promised to do, the Democrats have pledged to compromise, rewrite the bill, and grant President Bush exactly what he wants: more cash and no timetable for troop withdraw from Iraq.
"We're not going to cut off funding for the troops,'' said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin over the weekend on ABC's This Week. "But what we should do, and we're going to do, is continue to press this president to put some pressure on the Iraqi leaders to reach a political settlement.''
Levin also stated that Democrats would take out language calling for troop withdrawal, but reiterated that they would not "vote to cut funding, period." Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York defended Levin as well as the Party's forthcoming concession, "We will try to come up with a way by talking with the White House, trying to compromise with the White House that both supports the troops and yet changes the strategy in Iraq,'' Schumer said on the Fox News Sunday.
The Democrats may not have enough votes to overturn a Bush veto, but they certainly have enough to filibuster the war-funding bill, which at this point is the only way to stop this god-awful disaster. One brave Democrat could take a stand, filibuster, and 40 more senators could then abstain from breaking the filibuster. That is all it would take. Bush would then have to be the one to compromise and produce a plan that was acceptable to the 41 Senate Democrats who want to end the war.

That's just an excerpt but the Democrats have caved again. Do they want to win? Do they know how? Their spineless measures weren't going to end the war, despite the lies. But didn't they push them as something they were proud of? Even so, they won't even fight for them. Do they fight for anything? I am so sick of the cowards that supposedly represent the Democratic Party. They couldn't lose any more if they didn't even show up. That was the game plan before January 2007, if you've forgotten. Filibuster a Supreme Court nominee? Heavens no! With a good portion of the public agains the Patriot Act, they couldn't rouse themselves to fight its renewal. They do nothing. The excuse before was, "We don't have the power! We're the minority party!" No, you're the big cry babies that wants votes and monies but doesn't want to work for them and people are getting sick of it. I may revisit this tomorrow. I'll leave it at that for now.

"NYT: 'Nothing to worry about, think of something else!'" (The Common Ills):
So let's talk Paul von Zielbauer's free floating article (no dateline for one thing, exists in an unnamed land found far, far from the real world) entitled "Army Is Cracking Down on Deserters." Further down the first column, von Zeilbauer gives a definition of "deserter" and though it's little help to anyone in this community, it should be shared with little Tommy Zeller Junior who wrongly and falsely called Ehren Watada a "deserter" in an online piece that the paper refused to correct despite numerous complaints. Little Junior was writing at the Times blog and, if nothing else, his crappy little piece exposed the fact that the Times' blog may claim to include comments; however, it really doesn't. Those trying to leave a comment found out only some type of comments were allowed. You could trash Watada, you could certainly praise Little Junior (something that real life offers little chances of) but you could not point out that Little Junior was wrong -- even something as simple as: "Ehren Watada does not meet the legal definition of a deserter" (Portland) would wait in vain for the comment to ever appear. Now the paper could have excused the lack of correction with "We allow comments!" But, of course, they didn't. A factual inaccuracy in an article could not be pointed out.
So possibly the definition would help Little Junior. von Zeilbauer may not grasp it but the definition really doesn't matter. Here it is:
Soldiers considered absent without leave, or AWOL, which presumes they plan to return, are classified as deserters and dropped from a unit's roll after 30 days.
Though Watada wasn't (and couldn't be) charged with desertion (he reported to his assigned task every day at Fort Lewis and still does), Agustin Aguayo was charged with desertion. Aguayo turned himself and turned himself in less than 30 days after he self-checked out. It's a rule of thumb, it's not binding (the definition).Who else is helped with the crap?
Ignorance is helped and if the paper couldn't do their part to disinform and misinform readers they never would have gotten the bail out that saved them all those years ago.
This article is the perfect example of why they were saved (imagine what kind of a world it would have been -- it certainly would have prevented the official record including the lies that Hiroshima was anything to be proud of). What's happened is that the US military has been forced to admit that there numbers of desertions were wrong. NPR caught them out, von Zeilbaur wrote the story for the Times. (We noted von Zeilbauer's story here). The US military was undercounting.While the big story was the number of self-check outs, the US military clamped down on reality by 'miscounting' (undercounting) and would have continued to use that official (mis)figure to silence the discussion. (With the Times, you don't need a figure to silence discussion, you just need to yell "BOO!" or threaten litigation.) So while Ann Wright, Jeffry House, Kyle Snyder or anyone paying even the least bit of attention could have told you the official numbers were wrong and that the number of self-checks outs was immense and climbing, the US military kept trotting out the same (mis)figure and everyone fell into line accepting their marching orders (this includes many in little media as well). It was like the split yesterday in Edward Wong's two articles -- in the hard news he had to rely on what the US military officially said, in the lighter section he could discuss what he had seen with his own eyes and, for those who have forgotten, the latter fits the definition of real reporting.
So the military got caught out and had to issue the correction. That means that, as von Zielbauer writes, explaining that desertions are at "more than 1 percent of the active-duty force," that they are "in a sustained upswing again after ebbing in 2003, the first year of the Iraq war."Little bits of reality make into the sham of reporting. Tiny, little morsels. Some careful readers may even question von Zielbauer's reporting that prosecution of deserters has been on the rise due to the fact that desertion was higher. That might read about that and wonder, "Well if the US military only discovered, after NPR pointed it out, that their rates were wrong and if they had repeatedly down played the number with one flack even calling them 'insignificant,' how would the US military have known the numbers had risen?" Shhh, you're not supposed to notice that, von Zielbauer certainly doesn't.
The US military issued false data and reality is that those involved in compiling the data knew it was false (as did many issuing public statements).
So now the truth is out and the reality that the long ignored story of self-check outs has been one of the biggest stories (largely unreported) of last year, the year before . . . What's the Times to do? What they were saved to do: manage the public opinion.
Yes, self-check outs are happening in a significant number but, von Zielbauer rushes to reassure, this is not about any opposition to the war. Why, he offers an example of a doctor explaining that a soldier in Alaska chopped off his own thumb to avoid deploying. For the record, maiming yourself does allow you to avoid service, but it's not classified as desertion. It wasn't in Vietnam when you could shoot yourself in order to return to the US.

I meant to note this yesterday and forgot until after I had posted. It's so strong, you'll see it on my links by the end of the week. I kept thinking Sunny would find something and say, "Oh, someone else is calling this nonsense out!" She didn't. (I didn't but Sunny can find nearly anything online.) That NYT article, which some 'lefty' sites have linked to without a critique offered, is nothing but an attempt to manage public opinion. Maybe if it happens repeatedly, someone will call it out. As I remember it, it was C.I. who called out the paper's selling of nuclear energy as a "green" measure. Now you may remember FAIR doing that a few months back. C.I. did it at the start of 2005. The paper manages public opinion and if that is news to you, educate yourself. Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal are two strong examples of critics of the paper who don't scream, "Mean to Democrats!" The two both get exactly what the paper does, what it has always done and will always do. So here they went this week, trying to manage public opinion with: "Yes, desertions are up, but it's only because the troops have PTSD. They want to serve in this war. They really want that." Desertions are up because people do not want to fight Bully Boy's illegal war. PTSD can be found in those who self-checked out and in those who were discharged (or are on leave). But it was a pretty little distraction, wasn't it? Somewhere George and Martha were at their breakfast table and one of them said, "Desertion is up." "What!" "Oh, don't worry, honey, it's not anyone refusing to serve in an illegal war. It's just some people who need medical help." It's crap and thankfully C.I. called it out.

That's all she wrote tonight, I am tired and just want to listen to some music and relax.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills)
Tuesday, April 10, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, Sara Rich continues to tell her daughter's story, the same Congress that won't end the war doesn't listen to the story of Suzanne Swift, and the lies that led to an illegal war are explored.


Starting with the final section of Robert Knight's "Knight Report" on yesterday's Flashpoints:

Meanwhile, there's little indication from London or Washington that the occupation will end any time soon. In London a confidential planning document drawn up by the Defence Ministry, called the "Operational Tour Plot," was obtained by the London Telegeraph which today disclosed that British troops will be serving in Iraq and throughout the Arab gulf at least until 2012. And finally in Washington, Congressional Democrats made it perfectly clear they have no serious intention of bringing the war in Iraq to an end before they can capitalize on it in time for the 2008 presidential elections. After a week's recess and backtracking on the non-binding and loophole laden timeline legislation which permits the Bush administration to continue the war in until the next presidential term Democratic leaders retreated even further than they did during the legislative debate. Among the retreaters Senator Carl Levin, the chair of the Armed Services Committee told ABC's This Week that, "We're not going to vote to cut funding." He said that after a veto "There's a number of options. Either we can keep the benchmarks part of the bill without saying that the troops must begin to come back and if that doesn't work what we will leave will be benchmarks for instance which would require the president to certify to the American people that the Iraqis are meeting the benchmarks for political settlement which they have set themselves." And that's some of the news of this Monday April 9, 2007 from exile in New York, I'm Robert Knight for Flashpoints.

Flashpoints is archived at its own website and at KPFA (which right now is having archive problems and has archived nothing since early Monday morning) and airs live from 5:00 pm to 6:00 pm, Monday through Friday online and over the airwaves of KPFA, KFCF, KPFB and other stations. (A full transcription of Robert Knight's "Knight Report" appears in Hilda's Mix today.) Knight was speaking, first, of the news from the UK. Sean Rayment (Telegraph of London) notes approximately half "of the country's armed services have now served in Iraq since the war began in March 2003" and that the revelations that UK forces will be in Iraq through 2012 and that report is "in marked contrast to a statement made by Tony Blair in Feburary giving the impression that British troops would remain in Ira for less than two years." On the earlier issue of the Democrats caving, as Joshua Frank (CounterPunch) notes, "The Democrats may not have enough votes to overturn a Bush veto, but they certainly have enough to filibuster the war-funding bill, which at this point is the only way to stop this god-awful disaster. One brave Democrat could take a stand, filibuster, and 40 more senators could then abstain from breaking the filibuster. That is all it would take. Bush would then have to be the one to compromise and produce a plan that was acceptable to the 41 Senate Democrats who want to end the war. But of course, we are more likely to see Dick Cheney drinking margaritas with Cindy Sheehan on the White House lawn before we'd witness this scenario play out." Tabassum Zakaria and Richard Cowan (Reuters) report that Bully Boy has "invited congressional leaders of both parties to the White House next week" to discuss the non-binding, toothless Congressional measure. That is the same measure he has stated he intends to veto and that Senator Carl Levin says, if he vetos, Democrats will immediately rush to fall in line (no power of the purse for Levin).

From the madness of the governments
To the vengeance of the sea
Everything is eclipsed
By the shape of destiny
So love me now
Hell is coming
Could you do it now?
Hell is here
Little soldier, little insect
You know war, it has no heart
It will kill you in the sunshine
Or just as happily in the dark
-- "No One Would Riot For Less" written by Conor Oberst, off Bright Eyes' Cassadaga

Turning to the topic of war resistance, Paul Rockwell (CounterPunch) offers an open letter to Major General Charles Jacoby Jr. where he reviews the court-martial of Ehren Watada. In June 2006, Watada became the first officer to refuse to deploy to Iraq. In February of this year, he became the first officer to be court-martialed for refusing to deploy. Rockwell notes that the court-martial ended in a mistrial over the objection of the defense, argues that "now is a good time to drop all the charges against the Lieutenant, to bring closure to a trial that, in my opinion, should never have taken place" and concludes that "history will vindicate the courage of Lt. Ehren Watada." Pretrial motions are currently scheduled for May 20th through 21st and the court-martial for July 16th. Watada is represented by the Seattle based Carney Bradley Spellman and his attorneys are Kenneth Kagan and James Lobsenz.



Ehren Watada is part of a movement of resistance within the military that also includes Joshua Key, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder , Corey Glass, Ricky Clousing, Mark Wilkerson, Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia, Dean Walcott, Patrick Hart, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake 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.


At a rally to show support for Ehren Watada, Sara Rich (AfterDowningStreet.org) writes, she and her daughter Suzanne Swift turned out to show their support and Swift asked, "Mom, where are the kids my age? Where is my generation?" Rich goes on to tell her daughter's story, sexually abused and harassed for the apparent 'crime' of thinking a woman could serve in the military, Swift was betrayed by the very system she attempted to defend. As Rich explains, her daughter did not self-check out because of an objection to the war but to save herself when the military refused to do so. Rich: "Confronting imminent redeployment she went AWOL. Later the Army would contend that she went AWOL because of her mother's political beliefs. I only wished it was that. If it was because of my political beliefs she never would have gone to Iraq the first place. Then they tried to say it was because of her own anti war beliefs. That would have been a dream come true. But the truth was that my daughter went AWOL out of pure fear; fear of what her command had done to her in the first deployment and rejection of being treated like a 'deployment whore' again. This was not a decision it was a reaction."

Though Suzanne Swift's reaction was perfectly normal, even before you get to the fact that she suffers from PTSD, not only was she abandoned by the military command that damn well should have prevented what she went through, the US Congress -- all those brave talking Senators, male and female -- sat on their collective asses which apparently kept their lips from moving. The military conducted a whitewash investigation (that still found validity and confirmation in some of Swift's charges), her offer was sign a paper saying she lied or face a court-martial. Swift was court-martialed, stripped of her rank, sentenced to 30 days and then placed back in the same system that not only did not refuse to ensure her safety, but failed to after she sought help. To repeat, Congress sat on its collective ass. That's Hillary Clinton, that's Carl Levin, that's Barbara Boxer, that's Russ Feingold, that's Susan Collins, that's Mr. uber-goodness Joe Lieberman.

Rich concludes, "It is amazing to me how much we have to be thankful to the Army for. They tried to break my daughter down and shut her up, and in the process created a strong advocate for women around the world. Imagine if they had done the right thing and protected from MLester in the first place or given her an immediate medical discharge when our attorney contacted Ft. Lewis right after she went AWOL and was diagnosed with PTSD. How simple and right it could have been. But the US military did not understand what they were doing or Suzanne's fortitude." A number of Congressional members who are also attempting to campaign for president have issued the "If only we knew then what we know now . . ." junk to excuse their support for an illegal war. What's their excuse for doing nothing about Suzanne Swift? She should have received an honorable discharge. Congress should have immediately initiated hearings into what women serving in Iraq are actually having to endure. It's not too late for that nor is it too late to push for Swift to get the honorable discharge she more than deserves.

Rich offers that the people her daughter's age are waking up to the realities and will be showing up at protests in greater numbers. In Iraq yesterday, hundreds of thousands participated in a Najaf rally against the occupation of the nation by foreign forces. Hiba Dawood (Free Speech Radio News) reported by speaking with Iraqis (an apparently novel and new thing to do when you consider how few others bothered to do so) taking part in the protest. One man noted 4 years have passed since the occupation of Iraq and what happened? Hundreds of thousands were killed, hundreds of thousands were wounded and arrested. They humiliate the Iraqi homes every day. The Constitution says that the Iraqi homes are protected but they invade homes anytime they want. We have to always remember Abu Ghraib and the abuses that has happened there including the sexual abuse against Iraqi women and the killing of those Iraqi women with their families." Ahmed Ali states: "The demands in this demonstration are different than the ones we had in 2005, for example. Then people demanded the condemnation of Saddm Hussein and called for the total and immediate departure of the occupation forces. Today, we demand that there should be at least a timetable set up for troops to leave. Our other demand is that want people in the occupying countries in the removal of their military forces from Iraq."


Following yesterday's cry for foreign forces to leave, the war drug on with all the violence that entails.

Bombings?

AFP reports: "A woman veiled in black and strapped with explosives blew herself up outside a police station in Iraq on Tuesday, killing 16 people, many of them volunteering to joing the polic eforce" in Muqdadiyah. CNN reports a Baghdad bombing targeting Baghdad Univeristy that killed at least six college students and left 11 more injured. CBS and AP report that "a rocket slammed into a schoolyard basketball court, killing a 6-year-old boy. AP Television News videotape showed children's backpacks and books still open on classroom desks, covered with shattered glass and debris. Blood was pooled on the dusty tile floor." -- the count given is 17 wounded. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two other mortar attacks in Baghdad that resulted in one death and four wounded.


Shootings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) notes an Iraqi soldier was shot in Kirkuk and, in Baghdad, an ongoing clash between Iraqis and US & Iraqi forces has left one Iraqi soldier dead and four injured and that "an eyewitness" says "one American reconnaissance aircraft was shot down." CNN notes that the US military states that "minor damage" was done to a helicopter which did not, according to the US military, crash.

Corpses?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 9 corpses discovered in Baghdad.

Today the US military announced: "Three MND-B Soldiers died and another was wounded when an improvised explosive device and secondary explosion detonated near their patrol in a southeastern section of the Iraqi capital April 9. " And they announced: "A Soldier assigned to Multi-National Force-West died Monday while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar Province." On the tenth day of April, ICCC is reporting that 45 US service membrs have died in Iraq so far this month. 3292 since the start of the illegal war. 3292 dead. Why?

The mythical mushroom cloud that Condi and Bully Boy pushed? The 16 words in the State of the Union 2003 address (a Constitutional duty of the office of president): "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." That lie was explored today by Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!), La Repubblica's Carlo Bonini and the Washington Post's Peter Eisner -- excerpt:


Amy Goodman: So we're back to the day that President Bush made his statement within the State of the Union address about Saddam Hussein's attempt to get uranium from Africa.

Peter Eisner, what role did the CIA play in this statement?

Peter Eisner: The CIA actually had attempted to block the statement by President Bush relating uranium purchases in Niger. And, in fact, three months before the State of the Union message, on October 7, 2002 -- strangely, the same day that Rocco Martino handed over the documents to Elisabetta Burba -- President Bush was scheduled to deliver a speech in Cincinnati, and the draft of that speech said pretty much what he ended up saying in the State of the Union message. That was, that the British had found that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium in Africa. The CIA was given routinely a copy of that text in advance and argued that that sentence about uranium should be removed. There was quite an argument between the lower CIA officials and White House staff, including Stephen Hadley, at the time the assistant National Security Advisor, now the National Security Advisor, once Condoleezza Rice became Secretary of State. Finally, George Tenet, the head of the CIA, had to intercede on October 7 and demand that the White House remove the sentence describing uranium purchases in Niger. It was quite a dust-up. As a result of that, the White House, burned, decided that in the interim it would not provide advanced text of presidential speeches to the CIA to avoid having to withdraw information that it didn't want to withdraw. So, the day before the State of the Union message, no one at the CIA had seen the text of the State of the Union message, until the night before. Someone just mildly passed a draft text to George Tenet during a meeting, which was not the normal procedure for vetting a document. And basically everyone at the CIA was surprised when President Bush uttered that statement, which had already been excised three months earlier. The response by the White House staff was, "Whoops! We forgot."

Amy Goodman: And yet, what happened? This was still before the President's address?

Peter Eisner: Well, in effect, George Tenet, the head of the CIA, the day before, received the text, handed it off to an aide, and nobody took a look at it. It could have been stopped, but usually, you know, days before, as the text is being prepared, written, analyzed, someone would look at it. In this case, they didn't, although the Bush administration did have allies elsewhere in the CIA that were kind of giving them cover to be able to make this statement, while a vast majority, I would say, of the intelligence community in the United States did not believe for an instant that Iraq was trying to buy uranium or that Iraq was trying to restart its nuclear program.

Carlo Bonini is the co-author of Collusion: International Espionage and the War on Terror. Peter Eisner is the co-author of The Italian Letter: How the Bush Administration Used a Fake Letter to Build the Cases for War in Iraq. Amy Goodman is the co-author of Static: Government Liars, Media Cheerleaders and the People Who Fight Back and she will be speaking at Faneuil Hall in Boston next Monday (April 16th) with Howard Zinn -- event begins at 7:00 pm.

iraq
flashpoints
robert knight
free speech radio news
ehren watada
suzanne swift
amy goodman
democracy now
peter eisner
the washington post
howard zinn
Bright Eyes

Cindy Sheehan, Saul Landau

A ton of e-mails and Sunny was kind enough to print them up and highlight the most important portions. "Roundtable" (The Third Estate Sunday Review) resulted in three types of e-mails.

The first was about Rebecca (Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude) and how did I know? Also was I upset? No. Rebecca's reaction was perfectly normal. For those who missed the roundtable, Rebecca was a little upset that I started this website without telling her. I believe she'll be discussing that this week. It was a normal reaction and completely understandable. She went on a lengthy vaction (over six weeks) and I was filling in for her. She had been after me to start a site forever. She returned and was very excited that my filling in for her had to have given me the "bug." I side stepped her question and didn't tell her I'd already started a site. I did so the day before the interview with Mike (Mikey Likes It!) and C.I. (The Common Ills) helped me set it up. C.I. was the only one who knew. But she was returning from her vacation and trying to catch up with all that happened while she was gone and that would have made anyone feel like they were being left out. I told her Saturday night I was sorry for the way it made her feel. She's over it (has been for some time) and says she didn't need an apology but as one of my oldest friends, I feel she was owed it. (I should note that I suspected she was mad and mentioned it to C.I. When I would ask Rebecca myself, she would insist nothing was wrong. It was three days, in 2005, when she was upset/miffed.)

Second question was regarding Jess (The Third Estate Sunday Review) and his reaction. I support, we all support, Jess 100%. His parents do not deserve that nonsense and Bob Somerby needs to grow up.

Third, a number of e-mails point out that C.I. and I debunk BS' attempt at logic. Give C.I. more credit than I. I was saying whatever I could think of and I was very offended as I realized (a) how offended Jess was and (b) how offensive BS' nonsense was. C.I. was ticked off as well but always able to laser in, just zero in, on the main points. You don't want to make C.I. made in an argument. You can have a discussion and even an argument and it will go along fairly smoothly, but make C.I. mad and boom-boom-boom, ticking off all the fallacies in someone's logic. And that's what happening. When C.I. starts deconstructing the flaw of blaming so-called "hippies" for the 1968 result by pointing out that party bosses picked the nominee and that he never ran in a primary, C.I.'s just knocking them over the home plate. Had the roundtable gone on, I know C.I. would have had a bit more to say. But, for instance, pulling out The Progressive's editorial endorsement of McCarthy (Eugene McCarthy), who remembers that? I didn't. But as soon as C.I. said it, it all came back. So thank you to so many for your kind comments but when I'm mad I close down. I'm surprised I got anything out. When you hurt someone close to C.I., you better duck because you're going to get everything thrown at you. C.I. did a wonderful job, I was just along for the ride.

Those were the three main points I saw. If I missed something, please e-mail again.

"Iraq War Protester Marches to Bush's Ranch" (Steve Holland, Reuters via Truthout):
Iraq war protester Cindy Sheehan urged President George W. Bush to "end this madness" in Iraq on Friday in a march toward Bush's ranch.
Sheehan, a vocal protester of the war since her soldier son, Casey, was killed in Iraq in 2004, also expressed disappointment with Democrats in charge of the U.S. Congress for failing to stop the war.
Sheehan took advantage of a heavy media presence covering Bush's Easter weekend by leading an anti-war protest of about three dozen people in a march to the security checkpoint outside Bush's ranch.
Sheehan asked police at the security checkpoint for permission to go see Bush and was told no. She and her group set up an altar with candles on top and she read aloud some of the names of the more than 3,200 American soldiers killed in Iraq.
She said her message to Bush was for him to "end this madness" in Iraq before more people are killed.
"There are hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq and America who are dead forever, and there are families who are destroyed forever because of George Bush's policies," she told reporters.

Cindy Sheehan doesn't stop. I feel awful because I didn't even think, the entire weekend, Bully Boy's in Crawford so Cindy Sheehan must be as well. Friday night was fun because of the Iraq discussion group. Cindy Sheehan was brought up in that, her peace awards. But I don't believe anyone mentioned Camp Casey was this past weekend. I know I didn't. Mike had begged, literally begged, C.I. to stay over. (C.I. was in the area and one of the stops on the speaking tour was Mike's college class.) C.I. agreed and we were all up very late, listening to music, discussing the illegal war and other topics. It was a very wonderful night, that lasted far into the morning. I did go to sleep. Probably around four in the morning and slept in. Mike and C.I. stayed up all night talking and C.I. had to catch a flight shortly after. So I do wish the weekend had gone easier. I know the roundtable, specifically that Jess was so upset, really upset C.I. who doesn't like for anyone close to be hurt.

"Whining Imperialists" (Saul Landau, CounterPunch):
Two kinds of imperial whining have come to pervade foreign policy discussion. One relates to Bush's overextending the military so they cannot deploy to other places desperately needing their lethal capacity.
Others fixate on "American credibility." If we withdraw, an October 22, 2006 Washington Post editorial declared, we forego our "moral obligation." After all the U.S. military and Iraqi sacrifices, the U.S. must not allow a collapse, which would occur "without the prop of 140,000 [now 170,000] U.S. troops."
By leaving, this argument posits, we open the door to greater horror in this poor land. Bush might have made a mistake to invade and occupy, but we as a nation owe it to the Iraqis to keep our troops there until the Iraqis themselves can assume security responsibilities.
Some moralist-realists admit that as many as 650,000 Iraqi civilians have died since the March 2003 US invasion. (Lancet, October 11, 2006) Nor do they dispute claims by Caritas Internationalis and Caritas Iraq (a confederation of 162 Catholic relief, development, and social service organizations), showing that malnutrition rates have risen in Iraq from 19 percent before the U.S.-led invasion to a national average of 28 percent four years later. (March 16, 2007) Caritas also claims that the causes of rising hunger relate to high levels of insecurity, collapsed healthcare and other infrastructure, increased polarization between different sects and tribes, and rising poverty.
They report that over 11 percent of Iraqi babies are born underweight, compared with a figure of 4 percent in 2003. Before March 2003, Iraq already had significant infant mortality due to malnutrition because of the 13 years of UN -- pushed by Washington -- sanctions. In addition to the hundreds of thousands of dead, wounded and displaced, approximately one of every eight Iraqis has fled to Syria, Jordan, Iran and nearby states.
Given these brutal facts of life in Iraq under U.S. occupation, moral responsibility somehow translates into U.S. soldiers continuing to wreak even more havoc.

I read this and thought it really does come back to "Should This Marriage Be Saved? (C.I.)" all this time later. Why do people still think that US forces can improve the situation? What are they holding out for at this late date? How long can you fool yourself? I really fear that a small portion (30%) are going to go through this entire illegal war, through the aftermath of the end, and on to their graves believeing all the lies.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Monday, April 9, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, Iraqis march in Najaf, Democratic leadership caves again, and Winnie Ng told the truth.


Yesterday, Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr called followers to take to the streets and protest the occupation of Iraq by foreign fighters. Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted this morning, "Hundreds of thousands of Shiites are staging a massive anti-U.S. demonstration in the holy city of Najaf to call for the withdrawal of US troops. Shiites from around Iraq have traveled to Najaf to take part in the protest to mark the fouth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad. The Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr urged Iraqis to stop cooperating with U.S. forces." CBS and AP report that the Najaf rally lasted three hours, chants included "Get out, get out occupier!" and "Yes, Yes to Moqtada! Occupiers should leave Iraq!", that Iraqi soldiers -- wearing their uniforms -- "joined the crowd," and that US military flack and apparently fact challenged Steven Boylan pointed to the demonstrations against the United States and sighed that it couldn't have happened "four years ago" -- apparently alleging that Saddam Hussein would not have tolerated anti-US demonstrations. Boylan wasn't the only having trouble with the truth. Khaled Farhan (Reuters) reports that White House National Security Council spokesperson Gordon Johndroe also hailed the protest against the US forces as a sign of freedom and anticipates "much more progress". Saad Fakhrildeen and Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) report that US and Israeli flags were burned in the protests. File it under "Spin that." As AFP notes of the difference in the demonstrations four years later, "Gone are the euphoric April 9 cheers of 'Good, Good, Bush' praising US President George W Bush for ousting the regime. Angry chants of 'Down with Bush' are a frequent background to brutal Shiite and Sunni sectarian strife."

Turning to the topic of war resistance, Dave Zirin discussed with Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) today one of the more famous war resisters, Muhammad Ali: "And, you know, going back to that Kinshasa fight, I think it's a great example of the redemptive power of Muhammad Ali, because by that time he was somebody who, you know, had returned to the world of boxing, had fought off through the Supreme Court a five-year prison sentence given down to him by the federal courts, an outrageously high sentence for a draft resister at the time, and by the end, after that fight, he was named 'Sportsman of the Year' by Sports Illustrated. So he makes this amazing journey from being the most vilified, hated athlete in the history of the United States -- and I don't think there's any contention about that -- to becoming a figure of reconciliation, who was invited by Gerald Ford to the White House to shake hands. And that's the thing about Ali, is that he was always bound up in the rhythms of the social movements of the day." Denying the social movement today in the New York Times, Paul von Zielbauer writes that self-check outs result soley from PTSD and the military lowering the standards of who is recruited -- no one, to read von Zielbauer's clampdown of an article, ever self-checks out because they are opposed to the war and he gets that point across, in article noting the increase in court-martials, by refusing to speak to any one who has been court-martialed or to any one who self-checked out and went to Canada. Someone who does suffer from PTSD and did self-check out because he turned against the illegal war after serving in Iraq is Joshua Key.

Last month, three men claiming to be Canadian police visited the home of Winne Ng who provided housing for Joshua, Brandi and their children early on when they went to Canada. Winnie Ng maintained that they identified as Canadian police but she suspected they were the US military. The three men were looking for Joshua Key and asking questions about him. Jeffry House, Key's attorney, immediately contacted the military which has not yet -- one month later -- bothered to return his calls. That certainly gives the impression that the US military was not interested in speaking to Key. But what of Winnie Ng who one 'helper' suggested might be lying? The Candian police swore none of their police officers had visited her home. It was suggested, by 'helpful' that Ng might have made it up or be lying.

Winnie Ng was not lying. At the end of last week, The Toronto Globe and Mail reported that Canadian police were now admitting one of their police officers visited Ng's home. In addition, who accompanied them? Two US military members. The Canadian police maintains that the two men were never presented as police officers. That claim is as believable as their earlier claim that they knew nothing about, that no police officer visited Ng's home, go down the list. Ng told the truth. It's the Canadian police which continues to change their stories. In one of the few moments of truth in his article, von Zielbauer notes that the military is upping their quest for those who self-check out. Until futher information is furnished, the possibility that the US military was there no to speak with Joshua Key but to attempt to take him back to the US remains a strong one.


Joshua Key is part of a movement of resistance within the military that also includes
Ehren Watada, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder , Corey Glass, Ricky Clousing, Mark Wilkerson, Agustin Aguayo, Camilo Mejia, Dean Walcott, Patrick Hart, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake 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 US Congressional news, how does one cave after Democratic leadership in both houses pass non-binding, toothless legislation, that does not enforce ALL US troops leaving Iraq and that funds all of Bully Boy's requests and then some? Count on the Democratic leadership to find a way. As Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) observed today, "Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, a key Democratic leader has given new indications Democrats are prepared to back down on their call to cut off war funding if President Bush vetoes a bill calling for a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Speaking on ABC Sunday, Armed Services Committee chair Senator Carl Levin said: 'We're not going to vote to cut funding, period.' Levin said a veto would lead Democrats to consider removing language calling for the withdrawal of troops." Guest Laura Flanders, host of RadioNation with Laura Flanders and author most recently of Blue Grit, noted that the Democratic leadership "had to be dragged kicking and screaming" to the topic of the illegal war and spoke at length of how the right-wing fuels the Republican Party while the Democratic Party is more inclined to run from their own base. (This is one of the themes of her new book Blue Grit, another theme is the power driving change is on the ground in local areas, not in DC.) More on Democratic leadership caving can found at BayouBuzz which also notes US Senator Charles Schumer's caving remarks. While Democratic leadership caves in the face of a threatened veto (one they knew of all along), Evelyn Pringle (CounterPunch) observes that "what is clear, is that Bush plans to leave our troops dying in a war without end indefinitely, and therefore, its up to American citizens to rescue these young men and women in the only way possible, by insisting that Congress cut off funding for Iraq to force Bush to get them out of that hellhole."

And in Iraq today?


Bombings?CBS and AP report a Baghdad mortar attack that left one person dead and two more wounded. Reuters notes: "A roadside bomb wounded four civilians when it exploded near a U.S. military vehicle in the southern city of Diwaniya."
Shootings?

Reuters notes two people (thought to be on their way to take part in the Najaf protest) were shot dead after they left Iskandariya, that Jalal al-Daini ("tribal leader") was shot dead in Khalis and that two suspect "al Qaeda militants" were shot dead by the police in Hit. CBS and AP note a civilian and a police officer were shot dead in Baghdad while clashes in Burnitz left at least 30 injured.


Corpses?

Reuters reports 17 corpses discovered in Baghdad, 1 near Kirkuk and 1 in Mahaweel. Note that frequent embed Lauren Frayer (AP) reports 25 corpses discovered in Iraq. That would make the total count 35. What? Frayer gives 7 for the corpses discovered in Baghdad and trumpets that the 7 (a wrong number) is "only the second time the number of sectarian assassination and torture victims had dipped that low in the course of the Baghdad security operation". Lay back in your stupidity Frayer, luxuriate in it, and ignore the snickers.


This past weekend, as Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted, the US military announced
the deaths of 10 US service members.


And on the troops who will be sent to Iraq shortly, Peter Spiegel (Los Angeles Times) reports that the four Army National Guard brigades being sent to Iraq ("entire Guard units") are "alerts to brigades in Arkansas, Indiana, Ohio and Oklahoma involves about 13,000 soldiers, who will begin their return to combat in December. The staggered deployments will extend into early next year. All four brigades had served in Iraq or Afghanistan in 2004 and 2005." On Camp Pendleton the news is being closely watched since recent returnees (last month) were informed they were now stateside and that, for the next six months, the US military would be pulling from east coast.

Meanwhile, the long praised (and softballed) Kurish region may soon receive more critical reporting. AFP reports: "The United States criticized Iraqi Kurdish leader Massud Barzani Monday for threatening to fuel Kurdish separatist fervor in Turkey amid a spike in tensions between the neighbors."

Finally, at Micah's request, we're reposting something from Friday's snapshot. While listening to Talk Back with Hugh Hamilton on WBAI today, Micah heard a caller bring up last week's disclosures but was unsure of them. Micah reports a follow up caller (Micah wasn't able to get on air) mentioned that the topic was discussed on Hardball; however, he (both callers were male) was unaware of print coverage and one caller seemed to think a report was being released this week. (Host Hugh Hamilton knew nothing of the government report and repeatedly asked if it even covered anything new -- yes, it did cover something new.) The report was released last Thursday. The Washington Post did a lengthy piece on it and others covered it as well. From Friday's snapshot:

Turning to other lies of war, R. Jeffrey Smith (Washington Post) reports today that a US Defense Department report (declassifired yesterday and written by Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble) states the obvious -- in 2002 the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency both knew the claims that Saddam Hussein had a links to al Qaeda were incorrect. Smith notes the report was released yesterday, "on the same day that Vice President Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, repeated his allegation that al-Qaeda was operating inside Iraq 'before we ever launched' the war". Dick Cheney's remarks are not merely 'incorrect,' they are lies. Peter Speigel (Los Angeles Times) reports that "The Defense Intelligence Agency and the CIA each 'published reports that disavowed any "mature, symbiotic" cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda,' the inspector general's report found." AP notes that US Senator Carl Levin "requested that the Pentagon declassify the report prepared by acting Defense Department Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble. In a statement Thursday, Levin said the declassified document showed why a Defense Department investigation had concluded that some Pentagon prewar intelligence work was inappropriate."



iraq
the new york timespaul von zielbauerjoshua key
democracy now
r. jeffrey smith
the washington post
laura flandersradionation with laura flanders