Sunday, January 18, 2015

Phoebe Snow's live album

"This week's playlist" (The Third Estate Sunday Review):

Never Been Gone



1) Carly Simon's Never Been Gone.

2) Prince's Controversy.

3) The Jimi Hendrix Experience's BBC Sessions.


4) Stevie Nicks' In Your Dreams.

5) The Mamas and the Papas' Deliver.

6) Phoebe Snow's Phoebe Snow Live.

7) The Doors' The Doors.

8) Bonnie Raitt's Slipstream.

9) Etta James' All The Way.

10)  Wilco's A Ghost Is Born.



Phoebe Snow was a highly gifted singer and guitarist.

She started her run of classics with the album Poetry Man which included the hit title track (which she wrote).

Her personal life included a daughter with special needs.  Parenting meant she more often turned to recording jingles.

I can remember being in Musicland (it was a music store) in 1989 and being so excited to see a new album by her, Something Real.

I got it (on cassette) and it contained one classic after another -- the title and "If I Can Just Get Through The Night" especially stood out.

Both tracks showed up on her live album in 2008.  I really think that was her finest album.  I loved what she did with "Natural Wonder" and "You're My Girl."  "The Other Girlfriend was haunting."

If you're new to Phoebe, Phoebe Snow Live is the album to begin with.  You will marvel over the singing, there was no one else like her.







"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Saturday, January 17, 2014.  Today we look at Iraq in terms of the US zooming in on Cindy Sheehan and how she is us and we are her in all the ways that are beautiful and that are ugly and, mainly, what it likely means for the 2016 elections.


Anyone can comment about movies -- they're a democratic art form.  That doesn't mean they can comment intelligently.

I have no interest in seeing Clint Eastwood's latest film.  I'm not a friend of Clint's, I'm not a fan of his films (as an actor or a director) and I don't care for the war combat genre (whose only real classics for me come from Brian De Palma: Redacted and Casualties of War).  Clint's new film is American Sniper.

I've not insulted it and have no plans to.

It's not a film I'd make or choose to see but it's not shocking that Clint was interested in the topic and I'm sure he told it cinematic manner.  We noted the film in the December 30th snapshot.  And yesterday's snapshot included IAVA's congratulations to Clint and company for their Academy Award nominations.

Good luck to Clint and company and, for those who've missed it over the ten long years Ava and I've covered TV at Third, I prefer comedies.  After comedies, I like a good thriller (Alan J. Pakula was one of the masters and no one does suspense like Brian De Palma). I'm also not interested in sitting through films where women do nothing and are discarded on the sidelines. (In fairness to Clint, the source material for his film meant it would focus on a man's journey and the setting didn't lead to much more for women than what Natalie Wood did in Rebel Without A Cause.)

I say that to explain what has been a 'controversial' position.  (Sadly for the e-mailers, I don't avoid controversy, I court it.)  I have defended the film and Clint's right to make it and that's upset a few e-mailers (who haven't seen the movie but no when their 'leaders' stir up s**t, it's their job to eat it).

My stance is an artistic stance and if that's too much for you maybe you can bury your head in the sand.

Here's a reality you might try grasping: If you didn't view the art, you don't have an opinion on what it says.

Friday, Cindy Sheehan wrote a deeply stupid post not limited to this:


Along with another glorification of the War State (Zero Dark Thirty) winning best film title at the Oscars last year and Hollywood’s long history of working with the Pentagon (or War Department) to make decades of Warnography, I was reminded about an episode in my own history.


First, the Academy has no award for Best Film Title.  Possibly, Cindy means Best Picture?

Best Picture went to Ben Affleck's Argo.

But again, when faux outrage is stirred, the sheep know to eat s**t and swallow.  Kathyrn Bigelow was made fair game by a cabal that's worked publicly and repeatedly since their attempt to destroy the Academy Award chances for Ron Howard's A Beautiful Mind.  It's cute the way this group operates and how, when they destroy, they get away with it -- or think they do.  But that's a tale for another a day -- and when we had time to trace the group's roots which go back decades.



Instead, we'll focus on Cindy's explanations and fantasies of why a film wasn't made of her life.

I don't have the time -- or interest -- in going into copyrights and authorship and the need for people to sign consent agreements to be portrayed in films -- these are legal issues that clearly escape Cindy and I'm not in the mood to spoonfeed today.

We would get lost in the weeds attempting to explain all that.

We're going to focus on film.

Cindy believes there was a possible plot to prevent her story from being told.  That two different groups of producers were attempting to keep her tied up at two different times so that her story would not be told on the big screen.

She feels this might be possible because no film was made.

It might be possible.

Anything is.


But the basics of film and the industry argue against any conspiracy.

As a woman of a certain age, Cindy's story was always going to be hard for the big screen.

She notes Susan Sarandon was attached -- or at least mentioned --  to the film proposal in 2006 and 2007.

And that's about 10 years after Susan could deliver any real audience at the box office.

That's why Susan's doing films like Tammy (where she's not the lead) and the Lifetime film playing Marilyn Monroe's mother.

I don't mean that as an insult to Susan.  We're talking realities here -- the things Cindy avoided in her post.


Susan was all wrong for the role as well.


Cindy's not stupid by any means but she doesn't project intelligence the way Susan does.

Or the way Jane Fonda does which was Mike Nichols wasn't interested in Jane for the part of Karen Silkwood (Jane had tried to get the film rights for the story on Karen Silkwood) and Meryl Streep played the role instead.


Meryl could have played Cindy.   Again, Cindy's not stupid, she's smart.  But there are types and Susan Sarandon would have been the wrong fit for Cindy.

Back when studios still thought Susan could carry a film -- she couldn't, some actors can't, some very good actors can't,  she starred in Safe Passage.  That's more or less how she would have played Cindy and it wouldn't have worked nor would it have sold tickets.


Susan has tremendous talent and cast her as the woman who unravels the secrets in a thriller or as the seductive vamp or any number of roles and she'll deliver.  But when she plays someone newly awakened it doesn't really work because, like Jane Fonda, her characters are a little bit faster than everyone else on the uptake so you don't buy them as 'awakening' to politics -- though you do buy them 'awakening' to love.


The part could have been played by Meryl (a given) or by Jessica Lange or Sally Field -- and Sally probably would have been the most effective in the role.  The role could have been played by Michelle Pfeiffer, Jodie Foster, Debra Winger, Joan Cusack, Rosanna Arquette, Melanie Griffith, Charlize Theron, etc.  Of the women listed after Field, the only one whose name only would have interested studios enough to consider the film would have been Jodie Foster.

Jodie could deliver an audience large enough to make back the costs of filming and, if she and the film delivered, she could have brought in a much larger audience.

But even with Jodie, working against the film was that the role had already been played by Jane Fonda -- Sally Hyde in Coming Home, Jane won her second Best Actress Academy Award for playing a woman who awakens to the realities of war.

Sally was only one part of the story.  Jon Voight (who won a Best Actor Academy Award for his performance) played Ron Kovic with a fictional name.  Bruce Dern and Jane's marriage ends due to the war, Jon Voight's character finds his voice when he loses so many other things, there's the subplot with Vi and her brother and so much more -- including graphic sex scenes (Jane had a body double).  Don't forget the graphic sex scenes.

All of that and a beautiful, muted look via Haskell Wexler and innovations via director Hal Ashby -- he used sound like no on else before him.

It made for a film.

But The Cindy Sheehan Story, as portrayed in Peace Mom, is a TV movie, if you're trying to pull off the arc of awakening.  Probably starring Meredith Baxter.  It could also be a powerful play if you zoomed in on just the day Casey Sheehan dies and the aftermath on the family -- we're talking the immediate effects.  And that could also make for a powerful premium cable channel movie.

You have to know what the story is and where the story fits because a Lifetime TV movie is not going to sell tickets in theaters.  You're wasting everyone's time delivering a pitch for a TV movie to a film studio exec.

Cindy thinks there might have been some conspiracy.

There was most likely none at all.

Her film never had studio backing -- nor even serious interest from a studio.

Even if it had, there are projects studios get behind which get gutted all the time.  Jodie Foster and Robert Redford were supposed to star in Crisis In The Hot Zone but Redford was a dick and a vain one and Jodie walked.  The film had been in competition with Dustin Hoffman, Rene Russo and Morgan Freeman's Outbreak to see which could start shooting first.  That ended when no other name actress wanted to put up with Redford's nonsense.

Films go under all the time, they go from talk to nothing.

They can even be announced -- and advertised -- and then not get made.


faye



That's Faye Dunaway.  Height of her beauty.  Height of her box office.

And she's going to make the film Duet For One.  It's about to begin filming.

Nope.


When it was made a few years later, it would star Julie Andrews.

There was no plot to keep Faye busy, to tie her up, so no one else could use her in movies.

Joan Crawford would leave MGM for, among other reasons, the refusal to allow her to star in The Spiral Staircase despite the fact that she'd optioned the source material.  (A few years later, RKO would make the film and it would be a hit.)  Miriam Hopkins thought she'd play the lead in the film of Jezebel.  She'd played the role on Broadway, she held the rights, Jack Warner led her to believe that handing the rights over to his studio meant she'd star in the film.  Instead, Bette Davis played the role and won her second Best Actress Academy Award.  Bette Davis was led to believe she'd star as Mary Todd Lincoln but when the project moved from development towards filming, Jack Warner refused to greenlight claiming a film that told the truth would be an insult to Abraham Lincoln's memory.

Yentl is a film classic and one that director Barbra Streisand should forever feel proud of.  But as much as the film on the screen is something to be proud of, Barbra's dedication to the project is also something to be proud of. She started working on the project in 1968 and never lost faith in it, never took a "no" as the final answer and, in 1983, the film was reality.

Or look at The Dollmaker.  In 1971, Jane Fonda falls in love with Harriette Arnow's book. In 1974, she meets with the author about making the book.  She's in her grey-listed period -- where politics keep US studios from hiring her for many projects (though she still has a few offers coming in -- she turned down Chinatown and The Exorcist, among others, during this period).  When Tricky Dick resigns and realities have to be reconsidered, studios are interested again and her first leading role is in the box office hit Fun With Dick and Jane (1977).  One hit after another followed and Jane still couldn't get studio interest for the film.  So, as she herself tells it, she met with ABC in 1979, the day after she won her second Academy Award, and she (and Bruce Gilbert) proposed The Dollmaker as a movie of the week for the TV network.  ABC was all for it but there was still the issue of the script.  It would be 1983 before the TV movie was filmed and 1984 when it aired.   (Jane won an Emmy for her performance.)

To get a film made -- for the big screen or for TV or (today) the internet) -- you have to be a long distance runner.

The film frustrations Cindy Sheehan went through don't even qualify as a 1 K fun run.


Let's deal with another aspect and then we'll circle around.

Casey Sheehan died.

That was a huge loss for his family.

As someone who felt her loss was great enough to warrant a meeting with a world leader, I'm not really sure where Cindy gets off insulting Chris Kyle.

Guess what, it's not all about you, Cindy Sheehan.

I've defended Cindy here repeatedly over the years.  She's said nothing to help another mother, has she? She can't identify with Pat Smith's loss?

I've wondered about that.

And now here is she is trashing a dead man because she thinks he's racist -- or says she thinks it.


If only we were all so pure and wonderful like Cindy Sheehan?


The fact of the matter is she needs to lose the judgmental.


There's no reason for her to insult Chris Kyle.

Her view of her son is in conflict with those who served with him.

That's not surprising.

He was put through the same socialization process everyone in the military is.

So I'm not understanding why Cindy's being so awful to Chris Kyle who has a family that misses him dearly.

You're not happy that he shot Iraqis?

I'm not happy that any Iraqis were shot.

But the blame for that, for Americans, goes to the White House (then and now) and the Congress.


Casey Sheehan didn't declare war on Iraq.  Neither did Chris Kyle.

If you're offended by what Chris Kyle did, then you need to take that argument up the chain.

Stop blaming the people and start blaming those in charge.

Chris Kyle broke no law.

He said some mean spirited things about Arabs?

I don't doubt it.

And I'm not stupid enough to assume he came up with those remarks himself.  I'm fully aware that this was part of training, part of the socialization, part of the attempt to create the belief in 'the other' which allows the dehumanization necessary to kill.

Now maybe moon beams shot out of Casey Sheehan's ass like Cindy seems to think.  Maybe they didn't.  But I'm not going to insult Casey Sheehan because I'm opposed to the ongoing war.  And I'm not going to insult Chris Kyle for it either.

I don't expect Cindy to be a saint.  I do expect her to have common sense.

Her post is beneath her and goes to the reality that she has a myth about Casey with regards to Iraq and it's a myth she wills herself to believe.


Chris Kyle.could have been her son but she attacks him and berates him in a post.

She has no humanity to share and can't relate to the family of Chris Kyle on any level.

Nursing a myth takes a lot out of you.

 And let's point out the obvious about her supposed offense regarding what Kyle wrote in his book.

Cindy does a radio show.  If she really cares about the Iraqi people why doesn't she cover Iraq?

If she really cares why, in the year long bombing of Falluja's residential neighborhoods, has she never devoted an episode to this topic?

These are War Crimes, legally defined War Crimes.

And Cindy's not calling them out, she's not using her forum to draw attention to the thousands of civilians who have been killed and wounded for the 'crime' of being in their neighborhood, for the 'crime' of being in their homes.

This is not the Islamic State.

Grasp that.

This is the Iraqi military bombing Falluja daily.

It started under Nouri al-Maliki.  September 13th, new Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi noted how wrong it was -- but stopped short of calling it a War Crime -- it is one, it's the legal definition of "collective punishment" -- and promised the bombings had stopped.  The next day they continued.

So when Cindy's going to talk about that?

I'm so tired of people who pretend they care about this or that but when they've got the chance to talk about something that matters, they don't.

Ongoing War Crimes and no one wants to call them out.  It's pretty much Human Rights Watch, Felicity Arbuthonot and this community willing to call out the War Crimes. (If you call it out or know someone who does, send a link to common_ills@yahoo.com and it will gladly be noted here.)

How damn difficult is for a citizen in, for example, the United States to call out the Iraqi government attacking civilians daily in Falluja?

I don't think it's difficult at all.

But the silence from Cindy Sheehan and others never ends.

Pick any day at random, let's go with June 18th: The bombing of Falluja's residential neighborhoods claimed the lives of 6 civilians -- two of whom were children -- with sixteen more civilians injured.


So don't come whimpering to me about some 'naughty words' that were used in a book when you don't have the guts, the spine, the compassion, the humanity to call out the year long suffering of Sunnis in Falluja as the military has repeatedly targeted the residential neighborhoods wounding and killing thousands in 2014 alone.


The United Nations refuses to release an 'official' count on deaths in Falluja and that's because they don't want to speak up about the ongoing War Crimes.

The only time they've acknowledged it seriously was when new Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi announced these bombings had ended -- then the UN had praise to offer publicly.  But the bombings didn't end, the UN didn't retract their praise or even acknowledge that the bombings continued.


Iraqi Spring MC notes 3 civilians dead and four injured on Friday from the Iraqi military's non-stop bombing of civilian areas in Falluja.

And these bombings have other impacts as well.


النازحون من منازلهم جراء القصف العشوائي المتعمد من قبل القوات الحكومية على منازل المدنيين. .




As Iraqi Spring MC notes, they add to the ever-growing refugee population in Iraq.


The silence also means others can get away with it.

Today, civilian areas in and around Baghdad were bombed by the war planes in the US-led coalition.

But let's all get upset over what Chris Kyle wrote in a sentence or two in his book.

That is the real crime -- right, Cindy Sheehan?

Not the ongoing bombings of civilians, not the never-ending war.

Yeah, you play strong and proud over your attacks on a dead man who can't defend himself and who might be a little too close to what you fear your son was like in Iraq.

Can your crazy -- can it, market it, sell it, maybe it'll make you rich.

It just won't help end any wars.  But the woman who occupied a ditch in Crawford can't be bothered with Iraq today unless it's to trash a dead soldier.


I don't have time for the crazy.

There are two ways to make The Cindy Sheehan Story -- I said we'd work back to it -- a big screen film.

The first is to deal with the tragedy of those quiet moments when Cindy's alone with her memories and has to realize if the construct she's created about Casey is accurate or not?

That sort of haunting is what got Music Box a greenlight (and when the studio paid Jane Fonda a small fortune not to act in the film and replaced her with Jessica Lange, that was about sexism and age-ism and not a conspiracy).


The other story, the one I urged to the second group of film makers Cindy whines about -- yeah, I'm going to call it whining.  I've been kind when she's misconstrued Rob Reiner who is a friend of mine.  But I'm not going to be kind here.  She's whining and doing so stupidly.  She had two different groups approach her about making a film and she never took the lead and she never fought for it but instead sat back and expected to happen when the reality is over 99% of proposed films never get made and any that do require people to champion the projects and fight.

The other story is about a woman who allowed herself to be used.

This is the reality, not the story Cindy wants to tell.  She likes to, for example, claim she was against Barack from the start.  That's a lie.  It's a known lie.  She was for Barack up until the Democratic Party primaries ended.  Common Dreams is among the websites she left comments on.  She can claim she was trying to destroy Hillary Clinton (his opponent in the 2008 primaries, for those who've forgotten).  Doesn't really matter.  Oh, wait, it does.  Had Hillary been elected president in 2008, the so-called peace movement wouldn't have folded up the tent and gone home.

But the film that would work as cinema is about a woman who really wasn't sure where she stood on the war while her son was alive.  She waivered.  And that's understandable and even something most can feel empathy towards her for.  Then she became outspoken.  This is months before her Crawford, Texas stand.

And then she's in the DFW area at a Veterans for Peace meeting and decides, since Bully Boy Bush is at his Crawford, Texas ranchette, to go down there.

It's decided to start Camp Casey.

And tons of people show up.

Most are grass-roots people who want to end the war.

But there are those who see it as political hay.

And then some anti-Semitic statements Cindy made emerge.

And let's not pretend that they were anti-Israeli government.  They weren't.  They were anti-Semitic.  Doesn't make Cindy a bad person (we won't rush to attack her the way she rushed to attack Chris Kyle), just means she needs to be a little more informed.

And that's really when they have Cindy -- and a detail not often told.

The behind the scenes players -- only some of which she's named -- rush to spin it as (a) she didn't make those comments and (b) even if she did, she's a dumb little home maker so no one should get too upset about it.

August is a dead month for the media and they were happy to let the spin settle and continue to cover the woman in the ditch outside a world leader's home, demanding to speak with him to know why her son died in Iraq.

Partisan bloggers for the Democratic Party took part in the lie that Cindy wasn't opposed to the war, she just wanted an answer.  A blogger named Jude, for example, is someone we broke with over this lie.  Jude was pimping it online -- she was always a Democratic Party house organ and not an individual blogger -- and she wasn't the only one.

And Cindy allowed it.

She walked in the narrow confines she was instructed to.

She wouldn't sell party politics but she would -- and did -- take part in the media creation of "Peace Mom."

And after the 2006 mid-terms, the Democratic Party and their various outlets and organs had no use for her.

She had helped them deliver both houses of Congress to the Democrats.

The political party had used the illegal war to drum up votes.

So if you though they were ending the Iraq War in 2007, you were a damn fool.

They weren't going to end it, not when they had a presidential election two years out that they could win by harnessing the outrage over the Iraq War and turning it into votes.

Cindy betrayed herself in various little ways.

But none of that prepared her for the betrayal she would face from others.

You can make that film as a comedy or as a thriller.  You can use Frank Capra's Meet John Doe as your backdrop -- they share many of the same plot points.

And it's a movie that could put people in the seats because it's not just the story of Cindy, it's the story of American in the last fifteen or so years.

In one way or another, like Cindy, we all did small steps of self-betrayal.  We kidded ourselves that it was for 'the greater good.'  We kidded ourselves that, when we were silent, it was helping the movement.

Whether you think Occupy was a movement or not, the lack of criticism -- serious criticism -- allowed whatever it was to peter out quickly and Occupy is no more despite the hopes and dreams of a bunch of elderly radicals in NYC.

But we did that in the peace movement or the anti-war movement.  We pretended it was okay that those with divided loyalties -- at best (you can't serve the peace movement and a corporatist, War Hawk political party at the same time) -- were in the forefront.

We created our own free speech pens and sat out so much time in them.


It set the stage for the next presidential election, "2008: The Year of Living Hormonally (Year in Review)."

A time when all good Democrats must not call out Barack for putting homophobes on stage at campaign events, a time where all good Democrats must not note that after the Iraq War started in 2003, Barack was a public supporter of it -- yes, 'anti-war' Barack got on board.


We 'built' that.  And we created the stage for the events Joan Didion so aptly described (link goes to New York Review of Books podcast):


What troubled had nothing to do with the candidate himself.
It had to do instead with the reaction he evoked.
Close to the heart of it was the way in which only the very young were decreed of capable of truly appreciating the candidate. Again and again, perfectly sentient adults cited the clinching of arguments made on the candidate's behalf by their children -- by quite small children. Again and again, we were told that this was a generational thing, we couldn't understand. In a flash we were sent back to high school, and we couldn't sit with the popular kids, we didn't get it. The "Style" section of The New York Times yesterday morning mentioned the Obama t-shirts that "makes irony look old."
Irony was now out.
Naivete translated into "hope" was now in.
Innocence, even when it looked like ignorance, was now prized.


By then, some had begun speaking out.  Cindy was among those.  But she and I and many, many others helped set the stage for what came after by biting our tongues when we should have been speaking out.  By thinking silence on an issue meant helping the larger issues.

I've known all my life Naomi Klein was the child of a war resister.  I know Naomi's father and knew him before she was born.

But as Naomi refused -- refused -- to speak out on war resisters, I stayed silent for years.

She had no right to.  She owed it to the community to speak out, to pay it forward.

And yet she'd plug her books and plug her articles and act ditzy on Al Franken's radio show ('Oh, you can't say s**t on the radio in America? Giggle, giggle, I'm practically a bra-less starlet!').

At one point when I said I was going public, it was conveyed to me that Naomi feared going public would mean she would lose entry to the United States, be put on some sort of list.

That was nutty but okay, I bit my tongue.

And I did it far too long.  When there was serious media attention on war resisters in the early days, I should've outed Naomi as a child of a Vietnam war resister, an American who went to Canada.  That would have forced her to address the issues in all the interviews she was giving, it would have raised the profile of war resisters, it would have put a human face on it and it would have argued: 'Canada, you have a figure of global prominence in Naomi Klein and you have her as a citizen because you welcomed war resisters in the past.  Do so again.'

We all lied and that's how we arrived at the point we're at now.

And we're still lying because people don't want to tell you how Hillary probably wins if she runs for president.

She wins because we're so f**king ugly on the left now.

We're an eye sore.

Large segments of the country are repulsed by it and this allows the neoliberals to argue that we need to drop the 'purity tests' and we need to be 'rationale' and Hillary's the candidate for us and blah blah blah.

The pendulum swings back and forth not because the country is bi-polar but because the middle and the apathetic (which does comprise the bulk of the United States population) grow outraged over the excesses of the right when they're in power and over the excesses of the left when they're in power.

Both segments seem to think they have a right to dictate to the American people how they should live their lives and the voters reject that repeatedly over and over.

We could have stood for something beyond partisan politics in the last six years but we didn't.

And now it's likely Hillary Clinton in the White House or a Republican and, honestly, aren't the two really just the same damn thing?




 




Thursday, January 15, 2015

Don't ever take advice from Edwin Lyngar

What will we do with the fanatics?

Edwin Lyngar has a piece of filth up at Salon where he argues that the left needs to lie and pull dirty tricks.

That's exactly what's destroyed the left.

Big surprise, Lyngar is recent left.

He's another one of those fixated conservatives -- like David Brock -- who claim to have seen the light but if they really had they wouldn't be preaching that the left needs to do dirty tricks.

These people are welcome to come over to the left but we should never put them in charge of anything or take advice from them.

They failed on the right for a reason.



"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Wednesday, January 14, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, support for the US bombings of Iraq begin to fade within the Iraqi government, both the Iraqi government and the US government attempt to harvest the corpses of children for their own propaganda purposes, and much more.



Monday in Berkeley, there was a protest which included a chant, "Yemini lives matter, Afghan lives matter, Iraqi lives matter, Pakistan lives matter!"

We're noting the protest mainly because Tuesday's Flashpoints (KPFA) featured a report on the protest that Dennis Bernstein and others with Flashpoint did.  The protest was at UC Berkeley School of Law.


Stephanie Tang: The Bush regime opened this torture chamber at Guantanamo not just to imprison captives after 9/11 as it expanded it's military adventures into the Middle East.  The Bush regime opened Guantanamo  to send a message to the world that the US could operate with impunity, outside the norms of international law.  Obama made his first promise upon taking office that he would close this immoral hellhole of a prison. He's had 6 years to close it.  He has had 6 years to punish those who ordered the torture and forever repudiate indefinite detention and secret renditions as American policy.  But Obama has done none of this.  We are here from the World Cant Wait, the National Lawyers Guild, CodePink and other people who care about justice, who stand up for justice and we demand the closure of Guantanamo immediately We demand the accountability that can only mean prosecuting the war criminals from George Bush and Dick Cheney on down.  This is the only way that torture will not become a permanent part of the arsenal of the US power spreading around the world.  Torture is a war crime it is never acceptable or legal under any circumstances. This is clear in international law and US law.  The third reason we're here today is particular to the University of California and it's law school  at Boalt Hall.  There is a War Criminal on the faculty here. John Yoo is a tenured professor. He wrote the memos that enabled the Bush-Cheney regime to establish their formal official torture program. John Yoo continues to publicly promote that program, defined it and, therefore, he is still doing harm.


The report also featured an alumni informing the dean's office, "I came here in 1959 because there was a wonderful man on the faculty named Frank Newman, a great supporter of human rights became dean and became a justice and he would never permit someone like John Yoo to speak in front of his class -- let alone become a professor.  And I think that it's important  to understand that the reputation of this law school is based on people like Frank Newman and that the reputation, if it's going to be based on people like John Yoo people aren't going to come here."


Moving to Iraq,  Ben Ariel (Israel National News) reports that Iraq has donated $28 million to the Arab League for the Palestinians.  In response, the following Tweet was posted:






  • And this Tweet as well:









  • What are they Tweeting about?

    16 children have died in Iraq from exposure to the cold.  Al-Shorfa reports that they died in central and northern Iraq according to Iraq's human rights commission member Masroor Aswad who couldn't wait to harness a tragedy by claiming all the dead children were homeless as a result of the Islamic State.  A claim, of course, that he can't back up nor can the press truly investigate.

    Of course, that reality didn't stop the US State Dept from presenting a claim as fact and spreading it.

    Meanwhile, USAID wants to trumpet, "USG agencies have supported the Iraq humanitarian response with nearly $218.4 million in FY 2014 and FY 2015 funding. This includes nearly $10.2 million in FY 2015 assistance from USAID/OFDA for programs providing life-saving assistance to vulnerable Iraqis."


    16 children are dead and for the governments of Iraq and the United States, this is 'wonderful' because they can use it to attack the Islamic State.

    So eager are they to use these deaths, they fail to factor in how it looks to the rest of the world.

    As the Tweets note, Iraq's got plenty of millions to give . . . to those outside of Iraq.  While Iraqi children freeze to death, Haider al-Abadi cuts a charity check for $28 million.

    And the US?

    $218.4 million in humanitarian aid . . . spread out over the last fiscal year and the current one.  So that's roughly $109 million a year.

    But Pierre Bienaime (Business Insider) notes, "According to Defense News, the US donated $300 million in military equipment to Iraq in 2014, and will deliver 6 M1 Abrams tanks and 50 humvees to the Baghdad government at no cost."  And that's just one aspect of the millions and millions of military aid the US government provided Iraq with.  But only $109 million to help the refugees.
     
    The US government funds violence full out but when it comes to humanitarian causes they play cheap and the world sees it.

    Despite this, they have the gall to attempt to use the deaths of 16 children -- deaths that could have been prevented had the US government or the Iraqi government not been so cheap and shown so little value?

    They don't only fail to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, they spark a global outrage as they make clear how little value they place on human lives.


    Meanwhile, the two greedy factions turn on each other as the 'plan' of US President Barack Obama -- bomb from the air and bomb some more -- produces little-to-no results.

    Ahmed Rasheed and Ned Parker (Reuters) report that Barack's envoy John Allen, retired US general, heard complaints yesterday and today from figures including Iraq's Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi and Speaker of Parliament Salim al-Jubouri.   The latter is a Sunni and his comments that the US government is not doing enough militarily can be seen as going to the refusal to arm Sunni tribes in the fight against the Islamic State.

    Alsumaria reports that US Gen John Allen declared today that the US government would not be arming Sunni tribe leaders.  It is up to the Ministry of Defense, Allen insisted, to arm the Sunnis.


    Again, this is not a minor issue for al-Jabouri.  He raised it last month with US Senator John McCain.  From the December 27th snapshot:


    As we noted Friday morning, US Senator John McCain was in Iraq and scheduled to meet with Speaker of Parliament Salim al-Jubouri.  Anadolu Agency reports they did meet and that Jubouri asked for the US to arm :100,000 Sunni tribesmen living in four regions that are controlled by the ISIL."

    From McCain's Twitter feed:







    Again, though the request the Speaker made to McCain is not being factored into the coverage today of the criticism, the reality is this request is the spine of the criticism being made by al-Jabouri.

    As for Iraq's Prime Minister?

    He's been making complaints publicly prior to meeting with Allen on Tuesday.  As AFP reported at the start of the week, the Prime Minister slammed the coalition the US government has put together declaring it was taking too long to provide "military support" to the Iraq military.

    Rasheed and Parker note today, "A statement from Abadi's office after the talks said US-led alliance should 'increase the tempo of the effective air strikes on Islamic State positions', and also called for the training program for Iraqi security forces to be expanded."


    After the meeting, Haider tried to put a smiley face on it with the following Tweet:





    Productive meeting w/ Gen Allen and . Agreed to expand Coalition airstrikes and training & arming of ISF 





    Adding to these problems, the White House has lost a powerful ally in Iraq.  Press TV reports:

    The head of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq has dismissed the US-led coalition’s sincerity in its fight against the ISIL terrorists, saying Iraqis can defend their country on their own.
    “People of Iraq have the ability to liberate their homeland from the terrorists of ISIL and there is no need of foreign interference and international or American forces,” said Ammar al-Hakim.


    Ammar al-Hakim is someone factions in the US government have long supported to be Prime Minister.  He has charmed many US officials visiting Iraq as well as many foreign correspondents. He's managed, within the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, to fill the shoes of his late father.  He's emerged as a very powerful Shi'ite leader. And now he's saying the US military is no use to Iraq.


    This rejection comes on the heels of Moqtada al-Sadr making similar remarks.  While movement leader and cleric Moqtada was never an ally of the White House, Haider al-Abadi is or was.  And Moqtada has called for the US military to butt out of Iraq.
    So one faction of Shi'ites, represented by Haider, complain that the US government isn't doing enough, another faction, represented by Ammar, claim that the US military is not needed and still another faction, represented by Moqtada, call for the US military to get out of Iraq.
    Meanwhile a Sunni segment, represented by Salim, complain about the US government's failure to arm Sunni tribal leaders.  
    And the Kurds?  
    Always taken for granted by the US government which has spent decades manipulating them.  Now the Kurds, tired of waiting for White House support, looks to Germany for arms (the way Sunnis are looking to Jordan).  
    It would appear all the time Barack has wasted 'building' a 'coalition' to drop bombs on Iraq should have been spent on diplomacy because the support he thought he had within the Iraqi government?  The support he needs to continue bombing Iraq?  It appears to be fading.

    And, again, Alsumaria reports that US Gen John Allen declared today that the US government would not be arming Sunni tribe leaders.  It is up to the Ministry of Defense, Allen insisted, to arm the Sunnis.

    That decision not to arm is a decision to choose sides in a battle while supposedly insisting that Iraq's government focus on being inclusive.


    The White House continues to choose sides -- as it did throughout Nouri's second term.

    The decisions they made then allowed Nouri to brutalize the Iraqi people and created the current problem.
     
    Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal (Asharq Al-Awsat) reminds everyone of the roots of the Islamic State in Iraq:

     The group started recruiting disgruntled former soldiers from Saddam Hussein’s disbanded army and played on the grievances of the Iraqi Sunni population, which was angered by Maliki’s sectarian policies and his giving free rein to armed Shi’ite militias to persecute Sunnis. This eventually led to popular uprisings in some of the country’s Sunni-dominated areas, where the people called for Maliki’s resignation and their full civil rights as Iraqi citizens. Maliki duly responded by violently quashing the uprisings, which led to thousands of Iraqis from Sunni tribes either being killed or driven from their homes, especially in the western Anbar province, which forms the main entry point into Syria. And here comes the next twist in the story: due to the lack of any international pressure on Maliki, this new group, now calling itself the Islamic State of Iraq, gained a safe haven in Anbar province, whose residents had fought its precursor, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, so fiercely. The organization then began to form sleeper cells in Sunni-dominated areas, especially in Mosul, and to recruit former members of Saddam Hussein’s army and fighters from the Naqshbandi Army, whose senior members include former Saddam aide Izzat Al-Douri. 


    There was no international pressure on Nouri -- certainly not from the White House.

    And today the White House pursues the same strategy of blindly backing Haider despite the fact that Shi'ite militias, under Haider, target, hunt and kill Sunnis.  No pressure from the White House over that, no concerns.  Nothing.

    It's hard to see how doing the exact same thing -- but with a new puppet named Haider al-Abadi -- will help Iraq or stop the violence.

    Yesterday, Hamza Mustafa (Asharq Al-Awsat) reported:


    Iraqi President Fuad Masoum and Parliament Speaker Salim Al-Jabouri met on Tuesday in Baghdad to discuss a comprehensive national unity and reconciliation plan to bring together Iraq’s disparate ethnic and confessional communities.
    Presidential spokesman Khaled Shuwani told Asharq Al-Awsat both men had agreed during their meeting that “it was time to transform the issue of national unity from being one of slogans to a full-fledged national project taking into account social, political, economic, and security factors, in order to promote peaceful coexistence between Iraq’s various factions.” 

    Mustafa noted that Iraqi Vice President Ayad Allawi was also working on a unity plan.  Masoum is a Kurd, Salim, we've already noted is Sunni.  Allawi is a Shi'ite but he represented a hope for an inclusive Iraq as head of the non-sectarian political slate Iraqiya.


    But Allawi appears to be the only Shi'ite working on this.  And the conspicuous absence of Haider al-Abadi in this conversation is rather telling.


    Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) notes 129 deaths from violence across Iraq today.












    Wednesday, January 14, 2015

    Which deaths matter?

    Chris Floyd notes that some dead are more valuable to the press than others:


    In other words, the unilateral, illegal bombing campaign of the Peace Prize Laureate killed dozens of victims of Islamic extremism. But unlike the Charlie Hebdo case, there is no worldwide mourning for these nobodies, these brown nobodies from the back of beyond. Islamic State denied their "free speech" by imprisoning them; then Barack Obama ended it entirely, by killing them. An excellent example of bipartisanship in action, where both sides find common ground and work together! Then again, we see a lot of that in the Terror War.


    It's amazing how, even now, so many refuse to call Barack out.


    "Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
    Tuesday, January 13, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, fear motivates many, Sunnis continue to be targeted, an Iraqi priest bucks the Pope, and much more.


    Today, Chris Hayes (MSNBC's All In with Chris Hayes) noted, "France's lower house of Parliament voted 488 to one to extend French airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq.  488 to one.  I recognize those kinds of margins -- the sort of margin the PATRIOT Act passed by and the authorization for the use of military force to invade Afghanistan."

    Chris Hayes was grouping fear based decisions (and argued in the program that the answer needed now is not more violence but more thought and examination).  Of the fear, Al Jazeera America notes:

    The vote came one week after the most deadly attacks on civilians in France in decades. On Jan. 8, Ahmed Coulibaly, a man claiming allegiance to ISIL, killed a policewoman and then took several hostages at a kosher grocery store near Paris. Coulibaly and four hostages were killed during a raid by police. That attack was linked to one conducted on Jan. 7 by Said and Cherif Kouachi, two brothers whom Coulibaly had known for years, who killed 12 people at a newspaper office and claimed that they were affiliated with Al-Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen.


    Chris Hayes is far from the only one calling out blind fear.  At Brookings, Daniel L. Byman and Jeremy Shapiro also try to slow the race to fear:

    Despite these fears and the real danger that motivates them, the Syrian and Iraqi foreign fighter threat can easily be exaggerated. Previous cases and information emerging from Syria suggest several mitigating effects that may reduce—but hardly eliminate—the potential terrorist threat from foreign fighters who have gone to Syria. Those mitigating factors include:
    • Many die, blowing themselves up in suicide attacks or perishing quickly in firefights with opposing forces.
    • Many never return home, but continue fighting in the conflict zone or at the next battle for jihad.
    • Many of the foreign fighters quickly become disillusioned, and a number even return to their home country without engaging in further violence.
    • Others are arrested or disrupted by intelligence services. Indeed, becoming a foreign fighter—particularly with today’s heavy use of social media—makes a terrorist far more likely to come to the attention of security services.


    The danger posed by returning foreign fighters is real, but American and European security services have tools that they can successfully deploy to mitigate the threat. These tools will have to be adapted to the new context in Syria and Iraq, but they will remain useful and effective.


    If people were a little more level headed, maybe they'd question US President Barack Obama's so-called 'plan' for Iraq?

    Al Arabiya News notes US Senator John McCain told CNN that the US needed to provide Iraq with "more boots on the ground" and "I mean intelligence. I mean forward air controllers. I mean trainers. I mean more air assets. I mean across the board an increase."

    Well that's a thought.  There should be others.

    Like, before any other moves are made, how about looking at what's happening?

    Barack said back in June that the crises in Iraq required a political solution.

    But the White House has done damn little to encourage any political solutions.

    They have allowed Iraq to grow ever closer to Iran.  What does that mean?

    Scott Peterson (Christian Science Monitor) explains one meaning:

    The Iranian strategy has resurrected Iraq's Shiite militias and deployed them effectively against IS on some front lines, those same militia contributed to tens of thousands of deaths at the peak of Iraq’s sectarian battles from 2006-2008.
    Officials of Iraq’s Sunni minority say human rights abuses by the Shiite militias are as rampant now as they were 5 years ago. And they grate at the number of banners strung up with Iranian revolutionary slogans – against Israel, for example, or to support religious pilgrims – along with images of Iran’s previous and current supreme leaders, Ayatollahs Ruhollah Khomeini and Ali Khamenei.

    This picks up on the report Amnesty International issued in November:


    Shi’a militias, supported and armed by the government of Iraq, have abducted and killed scores of Sunni civilians in recent months and enjoy total impunity for these war crimes, said Amnesty International in a new briefing published today.
    Absolute Impunity: Militia Rule in Iraq provides harrowing details of sectarian attacks carried out by increasingly powerful Shi’a militias in Baghdad, Samarra and Kirkuk, apparently in revenge for attacks by the armed group that calls itself the Islamic State (IS). Scores of unidentified bodies have been discovered across the country handcuffed and with gunshot wounds to the head, indicating a pattern of deliberate execution-style killings.
    “By granting its blessing to militias who routinely commit such abhorrent abuses, the Iraqi government is sanctioning war crimes and fuelling a dangerous cycle of sectarian violence that is tearing the country apart. Iraqi government support for militia rule must end now,” said Donatella Rovera, Amnesty International’s Senior Crisis Response Adviser.
    The fate of many of those abducted by Shi'a militias weeks and months ago remains unknown. Some captives were killed even after their families had paid ransoms of $80,000 and more to secure their release. 


    That same month, Human Rights Watch's Tirana Hassan reported on the Shi'ite militias for Foreign Policy:

    The Khorasani Brigade is a relatively recent addition to the network of Shiite militias in Iraq -- and despite a similar sounding name, has no connection to the Khorasan Group, the alleged al Qaeda-affiliated organization that was the target of U.S. airstrikes in Syria in September. The Khorasani Brigade is just one of dozens of similar militias that are essentially running their own show in parts of the country. These Shiite militias are supplied with weapons and equipment from the central government in Baghdad, which is now being assisted by a U.S.-led military alliance in its fight against the Islamic State.
    These militias' actions will only exacerbate Iraq's existing sectarian tensions. The country is no stranger to sectarian violence: Its Shiite population suffered for decades under the oppressive rule of Saddam Hussein, and after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 the country spiraled into a cycle of revenge violence, culminating in a bloody civil war in 2006 and 2007. Many accused the largely autocratic rule of former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of fueling sectarian flames.
    While the Iraqi central government has virtually no formal authority over the militias, who act as a law unto themselves, some key politicians in Baghdad have strong alliances to individual militias. In October, Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi appointed Mohammed Salem al-Ghabban -- a prominent member of the Badr Organization, a Shiite political group that controls one of the largest and most infamous militias -- as interior minister. 

    Despite being almost completely unaccountable to any official ministry, the Shiite militias have been tasked by the government with a key role in the war against the Islamic State. Yet what we saw in Yengija laid bare the costs of relying on these groups. Beyond the main road, an entire neighborhood of two-story homes was razed and flattened, with concrete slab roofs heaped atop piles of rubble. Personal belongings, children's toys, and furniture peeked out from under the debris, a poignant reminder of the Sunni Arab families who, until recently, had lived there. All these families had fled in August when the militia started battling the Islamic State fighters in the surrounding area.


    So Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Christian Science Monitor know the current government run by new prime minister Haider al-Abadi is allowing Shi'ites to target and kill Sunnis but the White House doesn't?

    The White House is just completely unaware of what's going on?


    There are people being injured and being killed, targeted, and the White House just keeps backing Haider al-Abadi and looking the other way.

    Seems to me Barack did that before, didn't he?

    Oh, yeah, with Nouri al-Maliki.

    He looked the other way repeatedly.

    How'd that work out again?

    It took Iraq to the precipice.

    Where's the political solution?

    It won't be found among the Sunni politicians being targeted by the 'new' government of Iraq.



    BRussells Tribunal notes the following:



    Mr Al-Zaidi was arrested by Iraqi security forces at 18.00 hrs., on Friday January 9th in Al-Shatrah city in southern Iraq. Uday Al-Zaidi is internationally renowned for his courageous and outspoken advocacy against the sectarian cleansing in Iraq which began with the onset of the “divide and rule” policy of the US-UK invasion, continued under the occupation, their Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki and now under his replacement of August 2014, Haider Al-Abadi.
    The urgency and gravity of the situation cannot be over-stressed, especially as it has been learned that the Iraqi authorities refuse to disclose Mr Al-Zaidi’s whereabouts thus, in contravention of all international legal norms, he is denied access to legal representation.
    In an interview with Al Jazeera (15th December 2014) he described graphically, at length, the reality of the humanitarian catastrophe resulting from the government’s brutal systematic sectarian edicts.
    Afterwards he said that he was “expecting” anything as a result. Warned to take extreme care in his movements, he determined to attend the funeral of a friend and was arrested.
    His witness to Iraq’s ongoing tragedy has been tireless and international. On 19 March 2013 he received the BRussells Resistance Award.
    In May 2011, invited by the Madrid-based Spanish Campaign Against the Occupation and for the Sovereignty of Iraq, talking at venues in a number of cities he showed visuals, the reality of:  “…  killing of children, raping of women and men, secret prisons, daily humiliations”, of families assassinated by U.S bombs over eight grinding years. “An image is worth a thousand words. These images show what the occupation has done for us”, he said.
    “Since 2003, there have been a million deaths and four million orphans …  Iraq is a wealthy country. But its people, us, have to dig in the garbage to try and survive.”
    He also called for an end to the corruption under Prime Minister al-Maliki – and returned to Iraq.

    In January that year in Iraq he addressed the dishonour of the Iraqi people manifested by a government: “ … representing their groups, militias and parties, and their masters abroad.” He talked of the “defilements” of Iraq in ever deepening crisis” and “tyranny.”
    Nouri Al-Maliki is now Vice President of Iraq.
     Sabah Al-Mukhtar, President of the Arab Lawyers Association and Vice President of the Geneva International Centre for Justice states starkly of Mr Al-Zaidi’s detention:
    “This is a very serious matter. They will slaughter him.”
    Representation to the Iraqi government at the highest level is incumbent on all those to whom humanity and human rights is utmost priority. No time can be wasted. Rivers of blood have bled, literally, from Iraqi feet and bodies, from Abu Ghraib to the innumerable secret prisons. Delay will near certainly be death.

    It is also incumbent upon the UN and all other relevant international organizations that pressure be brought on the Iraqi Authorities for Mr Al-Zaidi’s immediate release. Prime Minister Al-Abadi’s personal responsibility for Mr Al-Zaidi’s safety is paramount. His release could be a turning point for Iraq.  Any other outcome a further slide into the abyss, with human rights and international law counting for even less than their woeful international post-invasion standing.
    1.http://warresisters.wordpress.com/iraq-reports-analysis-and-interviews-on-movement-building-now/“we-will-protest-until-the-occupiers-leave-”-an-interview-with-uday-al-zaidi/


    --

    Dirk Adriaensens
    Member BRussells Tribunal Executive Committee



    No one asks the White House about these types of issue.

    It's just not done.

    And it wasn't done in Nouri's second term.

    Which goes a long way towards explaining why Barack thought he could get away with backing Nouri for so long.

    There's no effort to build a political solution in Iraq.

    Did Barack get distracted?

    Or did he never really give a damn about Iraq becoming a cohesive and unified country?

    Today, the outgoing US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel spoke to troops at Whiteman Air Force Base:




    Q: Good morning, sir. My name's Sergeant Hooper. I'm with the 495th Fighter Group.

    SEC. HAGEL: Where are you from?

    Q: I'm originally from Pleasant Hill, Missouri.
    My question today has to do with the campaign, the continued fight against ISIL. Do you foresee the campaign going from an air campaign to possibly putting more boots on the ground?

    SEC. HAGEL: Thank you. It's a good question.
    I start in answering your question this way. What's going on in Iraq, in Syria, but if you take the larger sweep of the Middle East and North Africa, it's complicated for many reasons.

      The people in those areas, let's take Iraq, because that is a functioning government. They are going to have to sort this out. We can help them. We are helping them. We will help them. We've got a coalition of over sixty countries that are fighting ISIL and helping those governments and those countries and those people fight ISIL. Our physical presence in Iraq, as you all know, is very limited: to training, to equipping, to assisting.




    No, I'm sorry, it's not limited "to training, to equipping, to assisting."

    Among other things, the presence also backs and provides cover for another prime minister who is overseeing the slaughter Sunnis.


    Meanwhile, Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) reports 105 dead across Iraq from violence and 61 more injured.


    Turning to the topic of Christian refugees (a number of whom are also Sunnis), a benefit concert will take place at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Paris in Tempe, Arizona:



    "I Am Here" mass and concert

    Sunday, January 25 at 4:30pm

    Music Director Kim Scoggin and the OLMC Music Ministry presents the "I Am Here" mass and concert, Sunday, January 25th. Mass at 4:30pm, concert immediately following. Guests include Tom Booth, Ike Ndolo, Joyce Coronel, Fr. Felix Shabi, and special guest Suzy Vulcana (from American Idol). A free will offering will be taken. Proceeds from the concert to benefit the persecuted Chaldean Christians in Iraq.
    Fr. Felix Shabi, a native of Iraq and corbishop of the Chaldean Catholic Church in Arizona, will celebrate 4:30pm mass on Sunday, January 25. The OLMC CD release concert will follow the mass. The plight of the persecuted Chaldean Catholics by ISIS will be explained by Joyce Coronel.
    Proceeds from the concert will go directly to Iraq to help the persecuted Catholic faithful. This will be an evening full of praise, worship and gratitude for our rich Catholic faith!
    The OLMC CD "I Am" will be on sale for $15.00. Cash, Check, Debit and Credit Cards accepted.




    The Catholic Sun reports on how the planned concert came about:


    Kim Scoggin, music director at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Parish, decided to do something about it. She’s planned a Jan. 25 concert at the parish featuring well-known Catholic musicians Tom Booth, Ike Ndolo and the OLMC choir. Proceeds from the concert will go toward assisting the Chaldean Catholics who remain in Irbil.
    Scoggin said she was listening to Immaculate Heart Radio when she heard Patrick Madrid interview Bishop Sarhad Y. Jammo about the situation. Bishop Jammo leads the St. Peter Chaldean Catholic Diocese headquartered in El Cajon, Calif. Scoggin had already decided she wanted to take action to help the displaced Christians, but the bishop’s words galvanized her.

    The Iraqi Christian Relief Council notes "approximately one million Assyrian Christians have been forced to become refugees inside and outside of Iraq" since the start of the illegal war.  Christian Caryl (Foreign Policy) offers one million Iraqis "lived in Iraq at the start of the war, [but] only about 250,000 remain in the country today."

    This has gone out throughout the never ending Iraq War.  For those who wrongly think it's a recent development, journalist and former Human Rights Watch researcher Daniel Williams offered a history lesson at the Washington Post last September:

    No, it is because, for Christians in Iraq, the past three months have been the climax of 11 years of hell. We Americans have short memories (that goes for you, too, in the “Bush Was Right” crowd), but it’s worth noting that Christians began having serious problems within a year after the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. Sometimes it was the work of al-Qaeda, sometimes Sunni insurgents pining for the return of Sunni control of Iraq. Sometimes it was Shiite militias fighting the Sunnis but finding time to persecute Christians.

    First came assaults on stores that sold alcohol. Then, in August 2004, bombs were placed outside five churches in Baghdad and Mosul. Eleven people died. Two more churches were bombed in November, and Christians began to flee to Kurdistan, Jordan and Syria. Since then, at least 60 churches in the country have been bombed. The latest was in Baghdad on Christmas Day last year.


    The Christian refugees include people like Father Noel Gorgis who is now with St. Peters Chaldean Church in El Cajon, California.  Iraq's Patriarch Louis Raphael I Sako has insisted that Father Noel -- and other Iraqi priests who have left Iraq -- must return to Iraq.   KUSI explains, "Last week, Pope Francis agreed with Father Noel and said he and other priests do not need to comply with Sako's order."

    The structure of the Catholic Church means that Pope Francis' decree should have settled the matter and ended the dispute; however, Tony Perry (Los Angeles Times) reports that Sako is not respecting either the decree or the authority of the Pope and has declared, "We have been there for 2,000 years.  We have a mission and a role, and if a future exists for the Chaldean Church, it is not in the diaspora but in Iraq.  If all the families leave, and even the priests, the entire history and Chaldean Christian patrimony will vanish."  Perry notes that there are 14 Chaldean priests currently seeking refuge in the US.











    the los angeles times