So yesterday there was a for-show meeting and a for-show conference staged by the US that al-Maliki was supposed to breeze through. He didn't. But did you catch the Lemmings of the Left today? I'm thinking of two who, mid-afternoon, rushed forward to say they knew about it yesterday but didn't have time to blog on it so they were doing it now but didn't know what it meant.
Back on planet earth, C.I. was noting it at three this morning and that it wasn't what was being pushed.
"al-Maliki's talking points dive as he goes nuts in the Green Zone" (The Common Ills):
Today's primary talking point is the the puppet of the occupation, Nouri al-Maliki, has accomplished something. No, not the release of prisoners. The puppet's masters really don't give a damn about that.
As Waleed Ibrahim and Wisam Mohammed (Reuters) note, the talking point is the 'oil law' which is finally (allgedly) going from the ministry to the Parliament. (For those confused, yes, the Parliament is supposed to write their own legislation, not rubber stamp what al-Maliki's government sends them. A process that confused US Democrats in Congress all the time -- most recently with their rubber stamp for Bully Boy's illegal spying, granted as they rushed off for their summer vacations.) The 'oil law' is not the revenue sharing which the Parliament has already discussed. This is the 'privatization' (theft) of Iraqi oil that will hand as much as 70% of all proceeds over to foreign companies. Sunni Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi is already putting a damper on the spin by declaring that more talks are required.
Five hours ago . . .
"Bush hails Iraq's political deal" (BBC News):
But nothing suggests that the rebuilding of a broad-based government is necessarily any closer, the BBC's Mike Wooldridge in Baghdad says.
Mr Hashemi said he had taken part in the talks as vice-president but did not indicate his Iraqi Islamic Party was about to join the moderate Shia-Kurdish alliance.
Our Lemmings of the Left can breathe easy now. Of course, those who actually know what they're writing about were calling it out early, early this morning.
How does that happen?
Well when you're scattered all over the map, it's probably easy to lose focus. If you drop the illegal war to run after whatever the Democratic talking point is on any given day, it's probably hard to pick back up when something's breaking.
Did any thing change today as a result of for-show meeting yesterday? No.
"Sunnis cool on Iraq political deal" (Australia's Herald Sun):
SUNNI Arab politicians refused to end their boycott of Iraq's Shiite-led government today despite a broadbrush deal aimed at bridging the country's bitter sectarian divide.
That's the reality. But wasn't it nice for the Lemmings of the Left to show up mid-day to gas bag about how they didn't know what something meant?
Imagine if they put that displaced energy into ending the illegal war?
"Why Politicians Won't End the Iraq War" (Ron Jacobs, CounterPunch):
Those real reasons have much more to do with the role of Congress than the White House. It is Congress that provided Bush and Cheney with the legitimacy for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the subsequent occupation of that country. It is Congress that provided the White House with the legal ability to invade Afghanistan in 2001 and it is Congress that continues to provide the legitimacy and the funds to continue the US military actions in that country. Furthermore, it is the US Congress that legitimized the US involvement in Somalia, its continued incursions into Pakistan and its covert operations inside Iran---operations that might erupt into full scale war if we are to believe the growing number of leaks from official Washington in this regard.
Congress is not just collaborating here, it is providing the White House and Pentagon with the funds and legal ability to carry out the Project for a New American Century. This is the case no matter whether the congressional majority is Republican or Democratic. Furthermore, the occasional outbursts of opposition that we have witnessed since the November 2006 elections have not only been fruitless, they have served to provide the prowar forces with the cover of democratic legitimacy because all of the bills even mentioning a withdrawal of forces have either been defeated or watered down to the point where they would have changed nothing on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan. From where I sit, this does not appear to be an accident. Indeed, it looks more and more like this is what the Democratic leadership wanted all along--a pretend antiwar opposition to the war in Congress that would take the wind out of the movement in the streets of the United States and insure the continuation of the war in the streets of Baghdad. The next step in this plan would entail antiwar citizens involving themselves in the Democratic campaigns for president and, after the leadership quashes all attempts to make the Democratic Party the party of immediate withdrawal by marginalizing those candidates who are on record supporting just such a move and quashing any attempts to place any such demands in the party platform. This would then leave the antiwar movement with little choice but to vote for its candidate. Of course, as any observer of US party politics can foresee, that candidate will most likely be someone that is not for immediate withdrawal from Iraq and in favor of continued aggression in Afghanistan. For those of us with a sense of history, this scenario played itself out in 1968 and left many antiwar Democrats with the choice of voting for the prowar Humphrey or not voting at all.
So, what is to be done? Plain and simple, the antiwar movement must be wrested back from those who would sell it to the Democratic Party. This means, plain and simple, that antiwar actions must not champion presidential candidates at the expense of the stated goal of immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq. We must understand clearly that the only way to end US involvement in Iraq is by ending it once and for all. That means no more troops, no more CIA, no more mercenaries, and no more military actions from the air. It also means that the only monies that should be expended by the US in Iraq should be to expedite the withdrawal of all forces and for reparations once an infrastructure is created to insure those funds get to the people and communities that deserve them, not the corrupt Iraqi officials currently in control.
The only role that a political candidate should play in the antiwar movement is to endorse this position. No organization in the antiwar movement should endorse a candidate. It is up to them to endorse us. In order to precipitate this process, however, it will be necessary for the movement to gather its strength into a unified and powerful mass. Such a thing can only happen when the grassroots insists that the leadership set aside their political and personal differences and coalesce around one or two simple demands and back national actions that will demonstrate the strength and breadth of the US people's opposition to this war.
That is the reality. The Democrats are not Moses shown up to lead us all to the promised land. The Democrats have demonstrated that, at best, Iraq's a big voter turnout issue so they're not about to do anything to stop the illegal war -- that could cut down on some of their turnout! But they're treated as such, spit-shined by more than just the usual Democratic Party Hacks. (For anyone new to the site, I am a registered Democrat.)
"Don't Carpool with Nouri al-Maliki" (Alexander Cockburn, CounterPunch):
Right now I don't think the peace movement is advancing the end of the war in Iraq by a single day. In fact goodly chunks of it are effectively protracting it, by marching in lockstep with the Democratic Party whose overseers strive on an hourly basis to tamp down unseemly criticism of what the Party's congressional representatives could be doing. What they have substantively done since the Democrats took over the Congress is to have given the green light to the "surge", to continued funding for the war, to the next Pentagon budget.
Take the "netroots". The organizers of the recent Yearly [Toilet Scrubbers] event wouldn't even schedule a strategy session on ending the war in Iraq. They denied John Stauber's request that they put on the official schedule a strategy session organized by Stauber's Center for Media and Democracy, featuring speakers from Iraqi Veterans Against the War. Set that wimp-out by [WalkOn.org] next to this paragraph from a New York Times news story from DesMoines, Iowa, published August 12. "Four years after the last presidential race featured early signs of war protest, particularly in the candidacy of Howard Dean, a new phase of the debate seems to be unfolding, with antiwar groups giving the Democrats latitude to take positions short of a full and immediate withdrawal. Neither [WalkOn.].org nor its affiliated group, Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, have sought to press Democrats here in Iowa to suggest anything short of ending the war immediately."
Phyllis Bennis talks vaguely of "searching for a clear strategy", but this vagueness is no more surprising than the self-restraint of [WalkOn] and Americans Against Escalation in Iowa. Bennis resides at the Institute for Policy Studies, whose principals are well aware that any-IPS related support for a strategy deemed discomfitting to the Democratic Party's efforts to capture White House in 2008 would result in having IPS's major funders yank them back into the kennel in short order.
No offense to Phyllis Bennis, but what Cockburn's saying rings true. I could care less about Katha Pollitt (Cockburn mentions her as well), but I do have respect for Bennis' work. I also happen to think she is dead wrong in the 'response' she wrote to Cockburn. Or is that 'wrote'? Seems to me if she really wanted a dialogue, she'd have submitted her 'response' to CounterPunch. Instead, she took it elsewhere and, intentionally or not, made it appear she was teaming up with Pollitt.
Alexander Cockburn wrote about the resistance in Iraq and this resulted in Pollitt and Bennis both issuing 'responses.' In Pollitt's case, the fact that her piece was so badly written can be overlooked since she at last really wrote about Iraq. Took her long enough. If the illegal war stretches on another four years, she may pick the topic up again.
Bennis does address Iraq. But not only did I note agree with her response, I didn't enjoy it. It didn't make for a nice read and, unintentionally I am sure, reminded me of supposedly well-meaning 'liberals' in the 60s (chronological 60s) who would say, "I'm not a racist, some of my best friends are Blacks!" I strongly doubt that was her intention but that's how the section about what she chanted in the sixties (re: Vietnam) read to me.
Bennis has done serious work on Iraq and I applaud her for that loudly; however, the 'response' was not something I found applause worthy.
I also think Cockburn is correct about far too many who should be speaking out against the illegal war turning themselves into Democratic cheerleaders. If that includes Bennis, I will be disappointed because one of her strongest assets has been her ability to tell the needed truths.
But I have no interest in anyone that does that. The peace movement needs to focus on ending the illegal war, not justifying the Democrats' cowardice and, in some cases, own War Hawk lust. The Nation is the perfect example of a magazine (there are individual exceptions) that has made itself worthless by becoming a Democractic Party organ while insisting it is an independent magazine.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Monday, August 27, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces more deaths, the puppet goes into extreme paranoid mode, the number of internal refugees in Iraq increases, Allawi tries to stage a comeback, the US government funds those fighting against the US in Iraq, and more.
Starting with war resisters. In most PBS markets, the latest episode of NOW with David Branccachio began airing Friday and the first segment was an examination of how
Agustin Aguayo and James Burmeister became war resisters. Both served in Iraq and checked out from the military in Germany.
Aguayo, who holds both US and Mexican citizenship checked out to demonstrate how serious he was about being recognized as a CO (as a medic serving in Iraq, he'd refused to load his weapon). He left Germany and returned to the US via Mexico. Aguayo has fought for over three years to be recognizaed as a CO, through both the military channels and civilian courts. The second check out lasted less than thirty days before Aguayo turned himself in; however, the US military elected to court-martial him as a deserter. Throughout the pre-trial imprisonment and the court-martial Helga Aguayo, Agustin's wife, refused to be silenced and repeatedly raised attention to what was happening to her husband. She explained to Gillian Russom (CounterPunch) that what changed her opinion of the war "was seeing what it does to military families. I'm a mother [of twin daughtters], and seeing how it affects the children and the people really got to me. That made me ask questions and do research. And this war is just completely unnecessary." March 6th Agustin Aguayo was convicted in his court-martial and then sentenced. Amnesty International issued this statement: "It is evident from the statements made by Agustin Augyo, and members of his family that he is a legitimate conscintious objector whose opposition to war developed over the course of time and evolved further in response to his experiences in Iraq. Amnesty International believes that he took reasonable steps to secure relase from the army through applying for conscientious objector status. Amnesty International is of the view that the right to refuse to perform military service for reasons of conscience is protected under international human rights law. As such we consider Agustin Aguayo to be a prisoner of conscience and call for his immediate and unconditional release." Aguayo was credit for the time he was imprisoned before his court-martial (the end of September through the start of March) and was released after seven months. Earlier this month, Aguayo spoke in NYC (August 15th) at the Brecht Forum where he noted how medics in Iraq were told to treat the wounded US service members who might be able to recover to fight first. He is a member of
Iraq Veterans Against the War.
James Burmeister was a new face for American TV (he's been profiled by Canada's CBC before). Burmeister was in Germany following wounds received in Iraq after he experienced his third bombing. He had joined up when the talk was 'reconstruction' and 'rebuilding' and he believed the hype that humanitarian work was going to be done and the recruiter who told him he'd be doing just that. Instead, he found himself setting up traps for Iraqis -- leaving US property out in the open so that when Iraqis touched them that had 'violated US soveriegnty' and could be attacked. Burmeister, his wife and their young daughter set their sights on Canada where they now live in Ottawa and he attempts to be granted asylum by the Canadian government -- one that has refused to grant asylum to any war resisters (though they did during Vietnam). Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey are expected to hear in the next few weeks whether or not Canada's Supreme Court will hear their cases for refugee status. Hinzman and Hugey were the first to go public about going to Canada and they have worked their way through the 'system' (such as it is). The Supreme Court refusing to hear their cases would mean that the lower court's verdict stands and no refugee status will be granted; however, that does not mean deportation from Canada and, should they be deported from Canada, there is no law that says they must be sent back to the US.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Zamesha Dominique, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Carla Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, forty-one US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters.
Though Ronald R. Roach Jr. has not declared he's a war resister, his story does go to the way the US military attempts to track those who self-check out while denying to the press that they do. On Saturday, Mark Boshnack (The Daily Star) reported on Ronald R. Roach Jr. Friday morning arrest in New York and it contained an element common to many of the arrest stories (for those paying attention, "State police were looking for Roach for two days after receiving a request from the Army to locate him, [BCI Inv. Kevin] More said. . . . .More said he received assistance from troopers and Otsego deputies in searching the house, finding Roach hiding on a shelf near the ceiling. Roach's wife was home at the time, but she has not been charged, More said. Army spokeswoman Gini Sinclair said that Roach was with the 2nd Battalion, 8th Calvary, out of Fort Hood, Texas. He went AWOL on July 25, she said." The US military continues to pursue those who check out despite the lies that continue to tell the press and despite the fact that the press continues to repeat these lies.
Turning to Iraq, today Hannah Allem (McClatchy Newspapers) breaks the news that the US government is funding what they alternately call 'terrorists' and 'insurgents' in Al Anbar Province -- huge sums of reconstruction money have been handed over to those the US has labeled as enemies by Iraqi contractors in what amounts to little more than a security shakedown -- one that US and Iraqi officials have been aware of for some time. This has been going on since 2003 yet, surprisingly?, the US hasn't included that detail in their hype of the "Al Anbar model." Nor did Rear Adm. Mark Fox include it as he attempted to spin 'success' in yesterday's laughable press briefing (which avoided all mentions of deaths, FYI). The capital of the province is Ramadi and the city most well known to Westerners may be Falluja. So far this month, the US military has announced at least 10 deaths in Al Anbar Province, at least 17 last month. Allem notes: "Iraq's deadly insurgent groups have financed their war against U.S. troops in part with hundreds of thousands of dollars in U.S. rebuilding funds that they've extorted from Iraqi contractors in Anbar province."
If Fox was laughable on Sunday, Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch was bizarre in his Friday press briefing via video-link from Iraq. Lynch insisted that he's 'out and about' which would make him the only high ranking officer that is. He used "we" a lot when speaking of what he passes off as his interaction with Iraqi locals in Baghdad and said that they are asking him "How can we help?" If true, they would be the only ones doing so judging by polls which find a majority of Iraqis want US forces out of Iraq and a majority 'supports' attacks on US forces. So the question becomes what sort of drugs are they giving the generals?
They're giving them pretty much everything else. Sunday, Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Damien Cave (New York Times) reported that Gen. David Petraeus serves US Congressional members in the Green Zone on a junket asparagus soup and lobster tortellini. Who knew Patterson's Restaurant in London catered to the Green Zone?
While Patraeus and visiting members of the US Congress live it high on the hog, the US service members exist on MRIs or really bad fast food while that malnutrition rate among Iraqi children continues to rise. Maybe Patreause will send them a doggy bag? Stolberg and Cave describe the trips as good p.r. for Congress members who can stand up in the US Congress and declare "When I was in Iraq . . ." and the equivalent of "how I spent my sumer vacation".
Malnutrition isn't the only thing rising in Iraq. Noting an AP study, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) explained that "the death for Iraqi civilians is double what it was a year ago. Estimates show Iraq is suffering an average sixty-two deaths per day, up from thirty-three last year. Meanwhile the Iraqi Red Crescent reports the number of internally displaced Iraqis has also doubled over the course of the so-called U.S. troop surge. More than 1.1 million Iraqis are now internally-displaced, up from under four-hundred fifty thousand earlier this year." This is contrary what Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch spun to the press via video-link on Friday where he also declared no one serving under him could leave by Christmas (a question he was asked several times).
As things get worse in Iraq, the US installed puppet, Nouri al-Maliki, loses it. Yesterday, he held a press conference where he attacked . . . well everyone but his parents. He was, as Waleed Ibrahim and Wisam Mohammed (Reuters) note, supposed to be talking up the fact that he had pushed his government's plan (written by foreign oil companies) for the theft of Iraqi oil onto the legislature (Sunni Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi has already stated that it's not a sure thing and more talk is required) but instead he had yet another paranoid public episode where he attacked US Senators Carl Levin and Hillary Clinton by name. Chris Collins (McClatchy Newspapers) reminds that al-Maliki has lashed out others in the past, including the administration and former US Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad; however, he added a new target for his rage: the US military which he declared was making "big mistakes." This took place, Carol J. Williams (Los Angeles Times) informs, at "a hastily called news conference" where al-Maliki also attacked France's Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner. Kouchner visited Iraq last week in attempt to create some form of diplomatic relations between the two countries. Petter Allen (Telegraph of London) cites a Newsweek interview with Kouchner, which had just gone online, in which Kouchner explains he was on the phone with US Secretary of State and Anger Condi Rice and told her, "Listen, he's got to be replaced" and that Kouchner believes this should happen but "Bush is attached to Mr Maliki. But the government is not functioning."CNN reports the puppet issued a host of demands including that Levin and Clinton must come to their senses. He wasn't done, however. James Glanz (New York Times) observes
it's "a new level of stridency" for al-Maliki who had "previously reacted with anger to President Bush's criticism of the Iraqi government's lack of political process" al-Maliki also lashed out at the US military but not for the deaths of civilians outside Baghdad due to the ongoing airwar. Megan Greenwell (Washington Post) explains the puppet "denounced U.S. military raids in Shiite neighborhoods of Baghdad". Defending al-Sadr until his final days in office, no doubt. Greenwell also notes a second point that was supposed to be underscored by the press conference (before al-Maliki's outbursts dominated everything else) that a meeting on Sunday determined that the Iraqi government should "release an estimated 1,700 prisoners who are being detained without specific charges." On the issue of prisoners, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted today, "The number of prisoners in U.S.-run jails in Iraq has also increased by fifty-percent under the so-called surge. The U.S. military is now holding some twenty-four thousand, five-hundred prisoners --- up from sixteen thousand earlier this year. Less than three hundred are from countries other than Iraq. Military spokesperson Captain John Fleming says the primary motivator for imprisoned insurgents is economic because they don't have jobs." For those late to the party, in October of 2006, IRIN estimated the unemployment rate in Iraq had risen to 60% and that's a result of the illegal war's continued chaos and violence. With the unemployment has come inflation and Reuters studied a 12 month period (June 2005 to July 2006) and found "a 70% rate of inflation."
Steven R. Hurst (AP) reported on the AP study over the weekend and noted, "Baghdad, however, still accounts for slightly more than half of all war-related killings -- the same percentage as a year ago, according to figures compiled by The Associated Press. The tallies and trends offer a sobering snapshot after an additional 30,000 U.S. troops began campaigns in February to regain control of the Baghdad area. It also highlights one of the major themes expected in next month's Iraq progress report to Congress: some military headway, but extremist factions are far from broken. In street-level terms, it means life for average Iraqis appears to be even more perilous and unpredictable." This is underscored by Leila Fadel (Baghdad Observer, McClatchy Newspapers) reporting last week on a new word in the Iraqi vocabulary "Enaalso": "Two days ago an entire Sunni family was killed. The next day the Mahdi Army came back to kill a Shiite witness, he said. His family was spared, they live outside Iraq. 'Enaalso,' he said in Iraqi slang. It's a new Iraqi word, a phrase used to explain being turned in by an informant to a militia and then being killed. Literally it means he was 'chewed up.' It's what Iraqis now repeatedly say to explain the killings of families by militias that control their neighborhoods with fear and weapons; a word to explain the corpses that show up in the streets."
The US supported puppet is most likely on his final legs. At some point, the question may be asked why the US stood behind him so long? They believed he would push through the theft of Iraqi oil but maybe their first clue to what he could really accomplish occurred in May of 2006 when he missed the Iraq Constitional deadline to form a cabinet and gave himself an extra-constitutional extension . . . only to miss that deadline as well. CIA asset Iyad Allawi is auditioning heavily for the role of "strong man" in this illegal war production. Already three of his ministers have walked out of al-Maliki's cabinet (last Friday) and, as Democracy Now! noted Thursday, Allawyi is working with "Republican lobbying firm Barbour, Griffith, and Rogers" in an effort to become the new prime minister of Iraq. Allawi was previously interim prime minister. Walter Pincus (Washington Post) reports Allawi boasted on CNN yesterday of the hiring of the firm and that $300,000 was being spent on the effort (whose putting up the money, Allawyi refused to say). Pincus also notes that Robert D. Blackwill, who had been the Bully Boy's special envoy to Iraq, was reported to have been behind Allawi's appointment as interim prime minister and that, following the appointment, "Blackwill left the government to join Barbour Griffith" which also has Philip D. Zelikow (former "counserlor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice") as "[a] senior adviser". Along with reportedly having executed unarmed prisoners at a Baghdad police station in 2004, Allawi also used his tenure as interim prime minister to endorse death squads. In January 2005, when the US administration was publicly floating the idea of sending death squads into Iraq and surrounding countries to kill at will (and illegally), Roland Watson (Times of London) reported
Allawi to be among "the most vigorous supporters of the plan".
Staying on violence . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing resulted in 1 death (three wounded). Reuters notes a man blew himself up in a Falluja mosque and wounded eleven people.
Reuters reported on Sunday that US forces dropped bombs on a home and the result were the deaths of 5 children and 2 women; and that a female sheepherder was killed by a bombing in Kirkuk. Also on Sunday, Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reported: "The spokesman of Kurdistan's forces guards and the deputy of the Peshmerga minister, Jabbar Yaour, said that 'two American helicopters and two plane fighters bombed early Sunday morning two locations of emergency police of Kurdistan region of about 500 meters of Qara Taba village (70 kilometers north of Baquba, which is the capital of Diyala province) killing four policemen and injuring eight others . Also two police cars were destroyed. Also, Yaour said that 'Kurdish police are in north Diyala to keep peace and fight terrorism in the area with the knowledge and approval of the collation troops and central government and the bombing was by mistake'."
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports the Iraqi army shot thirteen Iraqis making a pilgrimage as they traveled to Karbala. Reuters notes that 3 were killed in the shooting, and that "Reuters photographer said he saw one pilgrim shot dead outside his hotel". CBS and AP report: "A sniper killed a Shiite pilgrim on a Baghdad bridge Monday".
On Sunday, Reuters reported that pilgrims, one woman and six people (three children included in the wounded), were shot dead in Baghdad while another woman ("female shepherd") was killed in Kirkuk by a roadside bombing. Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reported "an American patrol opened fire (a machine gun)" in Baghdad and at least one person died while six more were wounded".
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 12 corpses discovered in Baghdad.
Today, the US military announced: "A Marine assigned to Multi National Force-West died Aug. 25 and in a separate incident, another Marine died Aug. 26, while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar Province." And they announced: "Two Task Force Lightning Soldiers were killed by enemy gunfire in Salah ad Din Province, Sunday." The deaths bring the ICCC total number of US service members killed in Iraq so far this month to 74 and the total number killed in the illegal war to 3732.
On Saturday, Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) reported on the mood in one mess hall in Iraq, "In the dining hall of a U.S. Army post south of Baghdad, President Bush was on the wide-screen TV, giving a speech about the war in Iraq. The soldiers didn't look up from their chicken and mashed potatoes. As military and political leaders prepare to deliver a progress report on the conflict to Congress next month, many soldiers are increasingly disdainful of the happy talk that they say commanders on the ground and White House officials are using in their discussions about the war." On a similar note, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) shared today, "In Puerto Rico, a call for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq earned a standing ovation Saturday at a conference of more than four thousand National Guard. Speaking at the opening of the National Guard Association general conference, Puerto Rico Governor Anibal Acevedo Vila said the war in Iraq is needlessly risking the lives of U.S. troops and damaging the U.S. abroad. He said: ''The daily death toll of Americans and their allies has caused irreparable anguish here in Puerto Rico, and throughout the country. The same could be said for the people of Iraq'."
Yesterday, 2008 Democratic presidential nominee hopeful John Edwards appeared on CBS' Face The Nation where he declared of the US Congress, "I think they should not submit a single funding bill to the president for the war that doesn't have a timetable for withdrawal. And I think they should use whatever legislative tool is available to them, including filibuster."
This is similar to what 2008 Democratic presidential nominee Mike Gravel has advocated. On August 8th, he explained it on the first hour (the only guest) on NPR's The Diane Rehm Show as follows: "The Constitution's very clear: the Congress makes the laws, the Executive has to enforce and obey the laws. But you now have to set it up so that he'll veto and how do you get this passed, this law passed? Real simple. You see, they do a cloture vote. Oh one cloture vote, two, can't do it. Stop. Or an override veto. Can't do it? Stop. That's ridiculous. The rules permit to have a vote on cloture every single day, seven days a week, and all the way through this August recess which they're all taking -- and then when the bill comes back vetoed they can repeat it every single day and, I promise you, Diane, that in twenty, forty days we will have a law on the books to withdraw the troops from Iraq. Now time is fleeting. This could have been done by Labor Day and all, I mean all the troops, would come home by Christmas." Both Gravel and Edwards are former US Senators. Whether the current Congress will take the advice or not remains to be seen.
Addressing Congress' refusal to lead, Ron Jacobs (CounterPunch) observes that Congress has served to tap down on the outrage over the illegal war by becoming partners with the White House in the continuation of the illegal war just as they did when they "provided Bush and Cheney with the legitmacy for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the subsequent occupation of that country" and that the fiery speeches (which never have action behind them) serve to "provide the prowar forces with the cover of democratic legitmacy because all of the bills even mentioning a withdrawal of forces have either been defeate or water down" which may indicate "Democratic leadership wanted all along -- a pretend antiwar opposition to the war in Congress that would take the wind out of the movement in the streets of the United States and insure the continuation of the war in the streets of Baghdad." No doubt fearing (rightly) a repeat of 2004, Jacobs cautions against the peace movement allowing themselves to become a Democratic electoral movement and notes how candidates against the illegal war are being marginalized likely to leave only pro-war Dem candidates standing:
"For those of us with a sense of history, this scenario played itself out in 1968 and left many antiwar Democrats with the choice of voting for the prowar Humphrey or not voting at all. So what is to be done? Plain and simple, the antiwar movement must be wrested back from those who would sell it to the Democratic Party. This means, plain and simple, that antiwar actions must not champion presidential candidates at the expense of the stated goal of immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq." Jacobs also notes some coming events including the the Stpember 15th rallies in DC, Los Angeles (and elsewhere), the "encampment and march the week of September 22 - 29" in DC "and a number of regional protests around the date of October 27th . . . being called by a number of national organizations, including UFPJ, Troops Out Now, and ANSWER."
Events took place over the weekend. Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) notes at least 4,000 turned out in Kennebunkport, Maine for the "march to the Bush family estate" and that Cindy Sheehan and Dennis Kucinich were among those participating. Sheehan is running for the US Congress in California's eighth district and Kucinich is running for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008. Kucinich declared, "The democratic leaders can end this war now. They can go to president Bush and say Mr. Bush, we appropriated 97 billion dollars at the beginning of the summer for the war. That money can be used to bring the troops home and to set in motion the international security and peacekeeping force to stabilize Iraq. It does not take another vote. I want you to know that. The Democratic leaders have the responsiblity to end the war now." Goodman also noted "more than a thousand people marched in Newark this weekend in one of the largest demonstrations there in decades. The demonstrators were protesting the war in Iraq and violence at home."
iraqdemocracy nowamy goodmanmark boshnack
the los angeles timescarol j. williamsleila fadelmcclatchy newspapersnow with david branccaciopbs
the new york timessheryl gay stolbergjim rutenberg
damien cave
megan greenwell
the washington post
ron jacobs
Monday, August 27, 2007
Friday, August 24, 2007
Grace Paley and other items
"Feminist Author and Activist Grace Paley Dies" (Feminist Wire Daily):
The acclaimed writer, poet, feminist, and peace activist Grace Paley died on Wednesday in her home in Vermont at the age of 84 after a long struggle with breast cancer. As a writer, Paley is best known for her short stories examining the ordinary lives of women. Her Collected Stories, published in 1994, was a finalist for both the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award, and in 1993, she received the Rea Award, referred to as the Pulitzer Prize for short story writers, according to the Los Angeles Times. Paley also published several volumes of poems, and served as a poet laureate of Vermont and the first official New York State Writer. Paley’s most recent work is a collection of her and her husband Robert Nichols’ poems and short stories, published by the Feminist Press this year.
Grace Paley, Tillie Olson, Ellen Willis, Molly Ivins. A lot of strong women have passed away recently. C.I. covers the death in the snapshot today and C.I. "hates, hates, hates" covering deaths. (That may be a quote.) "Ellen Willis" was an obit C.I. did do. I knew her writing better than I knew her, I only knew her casually through C.I. But she was such a strong voice. It's depressing to lose a strong voice at any period but especially when it's a dark period, like today, when an illegal war is pushed and prolonged by the White House and the Congress does nothing to stop it.
Look at NOW, which doesn't bother to note the passing of Paley. NOW made itself useless in my book. C.I. and Ava will still support it; however, NOW is the group C.I.'s speaking of in the snapshot after quoting from Paley's "Why Peace is (More Than Ever) A Feminist Issue." NOW used to provide a button on their home page that had a dove and the slogan "Peace Is A Feminist Issue." As they geared up for their endorsement of War Hawk Hillary Clinton, they dropped the button from the main page. Now the illegal war didn't end, but it might as well have for NOW because all they gave a damn about was, "There's a female in the race!"
If anyone for NOW is allowed to speak at any national peace rally, I will be booing them. That's Kim Gandy, that's anyone. I think they've made themselves useless. I was a longtime NOW member. The Hillary Clinton endorsement was something I would've just rolled my eyes at and ignored. But that Iraq was reduced in order to push Hillary (who clearly supports continuing the illegal war) makes NOW completely useless to me.
As far as I'm concerned, they are now nothing but a group of giddy sorority sisters.
The illegal war continues and they can't do a damn thing to stop it. If they call out a Republican for supporting the war, they leave themselves open to charges of hypocrisy because they support Clinton who wants the illegal war to continue.
NOW betrayed its membership not by endorsing Hillary Clinton (actually NOWPac, not NOW endorsed Hillary), but by retreating on the illegal war.
So losing a strong voice against the war like Grace Paley does hurt. C.I. called mid-day and said something to the effect of, "I've got to write it up." I knew what C.I. was talking about, noting Paley's death (and her life). The reason? Who was noting it?
You had newspapers noting it. Where were our wonderful women's groups?
NOW apparently can't note Paley's death.
Just as soon as Katrina vanden Heuvel can figure out how to wrap the death in 'economics,' I'm sure she'll do a lovely post . . . co-authored with a man. When she and Katha Pollitt can figure out how to transform it into "Vote Democratic in 2008," they'll have magnificent posts.
A woman died. She was active in ending the current illegal war as well as Vietnam. She was active in the feminist movement. She was active in the No Nukes movement. She was an accomplished writer.
All of which would have made women of my generation say, "If women were in charge, her death would have been noted." But all these years later, a number of women are in charge. We get silence.
I know C.I. hates noting deaths ("hate, hate, hate"). So I especially appreciate the stepping up to the plate today. Didn't we see the same thing with Bully Boy's revisionist take on Vietnam? Where are our supposed leaders?
I'm really disgusted.
Sunny, by the way, asked me a question about an e-mail today. Someone wondered if my reference to all the ego stroking it took to get the "Young Lions" of my generation able to speak up and out was a reference to Juan Gonzalez who was a member of the Young Lords? No. Also, I believe he was the founder of that organization. I thought I should note that here in case anyone else had that question.
I was referring to men I knew back then and men my friends knew. I was referring to a group of men who were largely White. I don't know Juan Gonzalez and I've never met him. To the best of my recollection. My memory's not as good as C.I.'s and I can imagine C.I. saying, "Don't you remember in ___ at ___ we marched with/strategized with/had dinner with Juan and . . ." I wouldn't be at all surprised if C.I. knew Juan back then. C.I. was active all over the country. Sometimes, I would go along on the trips like C.I. does now. But I largely stayed on the East Coast. Which is where Juan was active primarily, I'm sure. So there's a chance our paths crossed at some point. If he was in SDS, I'm sure our paths did cross if only in a huge group convention or something.
But I was referring to White males and had honestly forgotten the Young Lords until Sunny told me about the e-mail. That is not intended as an insult to the Young Lords. That is a sign of memory which is not as bad as Rebecca's but that was some time ago. Rebecca's always had a bad memory and freely admits to it. I think I have a pretty good memory (even today) but on the scale, not really. In college, we would both marvel over C.I.'s ability to glance at a page and have it memorized or to hear a conversation and be able to reconstruct it.
I chose "Young Lions" because these were supposed to be, these White men, the leaders kissed by fate. The reality was, ask any woman from that time involved with any, they needed a lot of hand holding, a lot of praise (a LOT of praise) and for you to stop everything pretty much (which, sadly, I did in at least two relationships) just to get them 'stage ready.' Now I might be about to give a speech on the draft, for example, and the man might be about to give a speech on another topic. But he really would expect me to ignore reviewing my notes and listen to his worries and fears that he wasn't good enough.
The plus for that, and I'm not the only one who feels that way, is that I and other women ended up having to learn to go on cold. We didn't have time for a pep talk (even to ourselves) because we were usually so exhausted from the drama. So it was just something, when it was our turn to speak or whatever, that we just did.
Then what we did was cut off compliments because heaven forbid we get too many when a Young Lion had spoken as well.
Even with my memory, I know for a fact that I was never involved with Juan Gonzalez, so I wasn't lumping him into that category. I also have never heard his name come up in relation to this when, especially as the women's movement emerged, women would get together and share their horror stories.
Dropping back to a question last week (which Sunny replied to), Rebecca was politically active in college. She was, as she will point out, two years younger (she was advanced two grades in high school and we weren't allowed to mention that in college but damned if she won't shut up about it today -- that was me teasing her, before anyone wonders). C.I. was hugely political. I was active in the peace movement and the women's movement. Compared to the two of us, it might seem Rebecca wasn't. That wasn't the case. If you needed bodies for any action, she was there. If she had to speak, she would. But she absolutely had to speak of she wouldn't. She was very quiet and shy in college. Or freshman year. A lot of that, and she's noted this at her site, came from being younger (and not wanting anyone to know -- when we found out, she was about to cry and swore us to secrecy). So while you had 18-year-olds all ready to taste adulthood, you had her at sixteen.
She carved out her own issues and, before college was over, she was the strongest speaker I knew on the issue of Palestinians. She may have carved that out because it was an issue many didn't touch on. Some ran from it because if you think it's a 'hot button' today, it was even more so back then. Some were focused on other issues. But she would speak out on that issue and she did so strongly, passionately and wonderfully.
Some people made the mistake of thinking she was vapid. She had (and has) all that blonde hair and is of course beyond 'busty.' She's got a face like an angel. So with those attributes, some were going to make snap judgements even before the shyness was factored in. But she wasn't (and isn't) vapid. The fact that, at sixteen, she held her own daily with eighteen-year-olds (full of themselves, as we all were) goes to how strong she is.
Her other big issue, in college, was the environment.
Those were her two big issues that she really was a strong voice on. That's not to say that she didn't care about the illegal war then, she did and she actively worked to end it. But it is to note that she felt more comfortable with those issues. Probably due to the fact that she was able to carve out the space on them. Besides the people who were really trying to end the illegal war, you had a lot of people who'd heard enough 'rap sessions' to fake their way through in a class setting.
I have no idea if I'm getting my point across here. But she was active and she was the most informed when it came to the environment and the Palestinians. If you asked me why on either, I couldn't tell you. I know I did wonder in college but I always felt that to ask out of curiousity might be seen, by her, as, "Why you?" Because there were a lot of people who judged her by her looks. She will tell you herself that C.I. and I stepped on egg shells around her. She was the one who could get her feelings hurt the easiest. Which probably was partly due to the fact that she was younger and partly due to the fact that she was judged by her looks.
With me in college, my big goal was never to let anyone (other than my closest friends, which included C.I. and Rebecca) see me cry. That was a really big deal to me because there was debate my first semester where a woman got flustered and began crying. I did not want that to be me. So people thought or assumed that I was the stone faced one when it came to personal criticism.
C.I.? No one (and this is still true) will ever be able to criticze C.I. more than C.I. already does. You could go up to C.I. and say the worst thing and you wouldn't be cut off. If you weren't someone who was openly hostile in the past, C.I. would say, "You may be right. Let me think about that." Which would follow with serious thought. (If you were someone who was hostile, you'd get a choice word or two in response but C.I. would still consider the comment or charge.) C.I. never took anything personally. If it was about C.I. If it was about a friend, it was a completely different story.
But with Rebecca, and she's blogged about this, she really would get hurt. You could tell her, "Oh ___ just woke up in a nasty mood and went all over campus until s/he found someone to tear into. It had nothing to do with you." She might nod but she'd still feel awful. So knowing that, I always made a point to avoid any question that she might read as, "Why you?" She got that a lot. Especially from the men she was involved with in college who all seemed taken aback when they realized that the considerable body came with a brain. She also, and this may have been the age difference (two years is a big deal at that age), was the most obvious with her feelings. Her eyes would well up immediately. In terms of politics, she had ideas for posters and banners like no one else. That's not a minor thing. She would always have the best, the strongest ideas there. She would also speak if it was required but only if it was required. She hated giving speeches back then and her palms would be sweating the whole time. You wouldn't know it to watch her give a speech but that was the case. She hated speaking so much she nearly failed a speech class that an English professor pretty much demanded she take.
She pulled it through for the final and she will tell you we (C.I., another friend and myself) pulled an all nighter with her to help her pull it off. She might tell you she was chilled out on valium her mother had given her because Rebecca's mother knew very well how nerve wracking public speaking could be for Rebecca.
One time, in college, we were discussing out experiences in terms of that. Rebecca, as I remember it, shared that she could do a cheer (she was a cheerleader in high school) because she was part of a group but the solo spot of public speaking was just unnerving. I actually enjoyed public speaking so I probably shared something along those lines. C.I.'s take was that the issue was more important. C.I. would get on the phone and beg for attendance, money, coverage, what have you. But try to get C.I. to answer a phone for personal calls. C.I. hated talking on the phone. Or hated answering it. But, for an issue, could get through anything.
I'll never forget Rebecca's comment at the end of that which was, "See Lanie, you're the normal one." "Normal" was the last thing anyone wanted to be back then. (But Rebecca didn't mean it as an insult.)
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Friday, August 24, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the US military reports another death, a US helicopter attack leaves many Iraqis dead, war resistance gets covered on PBS, activist, author, feminist, peace advocate Grace Paley passed away Wednesday, and more.
Starting with war resistance. This week's NOW with David Brancaccio (PBS, begins airing in most markets Friday nights) takes a look at war resistance:Choosing to go to war is both a government's decision and one made by individual enlistees. But changing your mind once you're in the army is a risky decision with serious consequences. On Friday, August 24 (checkyour local listings), we talk to two soldiers who went AWOL and eventually left the Army, but who took very different paths. NOW captures the moment when one man turns himself in, and when another applies for refugee status in Canada, becoming one of the 20,000 soldiers who have deserted the army since the War in Iraq began. Each describes what drove him to follow his conscience over his call to duty, and what penalties and criticism were endured as a result. "I see things differently having lived through the experience," former army medic Agustin Aguayo tells NOW. "When I returned from Iraq, after much reflection I knew deep within me I could never go back."The NOW website at www.pbs.org/now will offer more insight into the case made by conscientious objectors, as well as more stories of desertion in the ranks.In addition to the broadcast, a preview of the show is posted at YouTube. And the show will be available in various forms (audio, video, text -- though maybe not in full) at the NOW with David Brancaccio site.
Camilo Mejia is the new chair of Iraq Veterans Against the War. The decision of the new board members of IVAW were made last weekend. Tony Pecinovsky (People's Weekly World) reports on the Veterans for Peace conference and quotes Mejia explaining, "There is no greater argument against war than the experience of war itself. In the military you're not free to decide for yourself what is right and wrong. The fog of war is very real. Your main concern is staying alive" and explaining his decision to self-checkout, "I couldn't return knowing that we are committing war crimes. This war is criminal. But I'm no longer a prisoner of fear. I have hope that we can end this war." IVAW is gearing up for their big Truth in Recruting campaign. Adam Kokesh, who is co-chair of IVAW, is currently doing workshops (tonight at St. Bede's at the corner of St. Francis and San Mateo 7-9 pm PST). And Camilo Mejia tells his story in his own story of resistance in his new book Road from Ar Ramaid: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Zamesha Dominique, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Carla Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, forty-one US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters.
Turning to the jibber-jabber. The NIE was released yesterday. It is a much kinder and less explicit version of Peter W. Galbraith's "Iraq: The Way to Go" (The New York Review of Books, August 16, 2007). In the essay, Galbraith writes, "The Iraq war is lost. Of course, neither the President nor the war's intellectual architects are prepared to admit this. Nonetheless, the specter of defeat shapes their thinking in telling ways. The case for the war is no longer defined by the benefits of winning -- a stable Iraq, democracy on the march in the Middle East, the collapse of the evil Iranian and Syrian regimes -- but by the consequences of defeat." If that stance is still not clear, Alex Spillius (Telegraph of London) reports: "Frontline generals in Iraq spoke openly yesterday of the need to have a government that could function and guarantee security above all else, including democratic legitimacy. Brig Gen John Bednarek, who commands forces in Diyala province, told CNN that 'democratic institutions are not necessarily the way ahead in the long-term future'." As all the lies are dropped, the reality of the crimes being committed may be grasped. Maybe not.
Michael Ware and Thomas Evans (CNN) report that "officials now say they are willing to settle for a government that functions and can bring security." Yesterday, White House flack Gordon Johndroe declared (in Crawford, TX) that "we know that there are significant challenges ahead, especially in the political area. I would say that the strategy laid out by the President on January 10th was a strategy that provided for security first, so that there would be space for political reconciliation. The surge did not get fully operational until mid-summer. It is not surprising -- it is frustrating, but it's not surprising that the political reconciliation is lagging behind the security improvements. I think that is the way the strategy was laid out." The 'improved' security is a lie. Repeating, Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reporting earlier this month that the US military claims of 'progress' were based on numbers they would not release and that McClatchy Newspapers' figures do not track with the findings the US military has trumpeted: "U.S. officials say the number of civilian casualties in the Iraqi capital is down 50 percent. But U.S. officials declined to provide specific numbers, and statistics gathered by McClatchy Newspapers don't support the claim." But clearly the generals, the officials and the White House are all on the same page regarding the 'problems' with democracy -- pure chance, of course.
Greg Miller (Los Angeles Times) summarizes the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE): "Despite some military progress, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki is unable to govern his country effecitvely and the political situation is likely to become even more precarious in the next six to 12 months, the nation's intelligence agencies concluded in a new assessment released Thursday. The document, an update of a National Intelligence Estimate delivered in January, represents the view of all 16 U.S. spy agencies."
'Democracy' on hold or out the window . . . what to do, what to do? Bring in a 'strong man' dictator? Reuters reports that 3 "secularist ministers . . . will formally quit" the cabinet of Nour al-Maliki today and that three are from Iyad Allawi's party. Yesterday Democracy Now! noted Allawyi is working with "Republican lobbying firm Barbour, Griffith, and Rogers" in an effort to become the new prime minister of Iraq (Allawi was previously interim prime minister). CIA asset Allawi was still working with the CIA in 2003, as Jim Lobe (Foreign Policy in Focus) noted, in attempted "Iraqification" which was a popular thing in late 2003 as the White House and hand maidens of the press attempted to treat "Iraqification" as a process which would put Iraqis in control. The policy was at odds with much of the White House's aims and never got off the ground. Had it, it still wouldn't have allowed for Iraqi control. Allawi was interim Prime Minister following the start of the illegal war and, during that time, he made his 'mark' early on. Paul McGeough (Sydney Morning Herald via Common Dreams, July 2004) reported in July 2004: "Iyad Allawi, the new Prime Minister of Iraq, pulled a pistol and executed as many as six suspected insurgents at a Baghdad police station, just days before Washington handed control of the country to his interim government, according to two people who allege they witnessed the killings. They say the prisoners - handcuffed and blindfolded - were lined up against a wall in a courtyard adjacent to the maximum-security cell block in which they were held at the Al-Amariyah security center, in the city's south-western suburbs."
Never having been handed democracy, Iraqis now face the very likely prospect that the puppet (al-Maliki) will be replaced with a dictator/strong man. It's not about what the Iraqis want or desire on the US government's end, it's just more of the same. A point driven home by the announcement that Abdel-Salam Aref has died in Jordan. In 2004, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) explained, "The US-installed regime in Iraq said last night it would pay a monthly pension to a former president overthrown more than 35 years ago in a coup that brought Saddam Hussein's Baath party to power. The Iraqi Governing Council says it will pay Abdel-Rahman Aref $1,000 a month and allocate $5,000 to cover his medical bills in Jordan. Aref rose to prominence in 1963 when he was appointed army chief of staff by his elder brother, then President Abdel-Salam Aref. He was overthrown in July of 1968 in a coup that was aided by the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA also gave the Baath Party the names of some 5,000 Iraqi Communists who were then hunted down and killed or imprisoned. Following the coup, Baath party leader Ahmed Hasan al-Bakr became president, with Saddam as his right hand man."
As Peter W. Galbraith explains, there was no democracy following the start of the illegal war, not in what was imposed by the US (and the US shut out the UN). What exists is a system where the Shi'ites and Sunnis are two major groups (Sunnis the smaller of the two) and the system imposed has left one group shut out (elections would change that only to a small degree -- but they aren't happening) and the third most populous segment, the Kurds, are ready for their own country (Kurdistan). The system imposed on Iraq by the US was fatally flawed from the beginning so, it can be argued, ignorance wasn't the issue. Considering past history, a failed system that could be tossed aside quickly. Warren P. Strobel (McClatchy Newspapers) observes the the NIE's "best-case scenario" would be "Iraq's security will improve modestly over the next six to 12 months, but violence across the country will remain high. The U.S.-backed central government will grow more fragile and remain unable to govern. Shiite and Sunni Muslims will continue their bitter feuding. All sides will position themselves for an eventual American departure. In Iraq, best-case scenarios have rarely, if ever, come to pass."
Andrew Stephen (New Statesman) wonders if the Bully Boy is imploding and notes, "The conundrum, of course, is that it was precisely that dark art which got Bush into the White House in the first place. The poisonous divisiveness that gradually festered around him as a result now allows the state department, to take just one example reported in the Washington Post, to think nothing of simply ignoring an order from the president. Yet I suspect that the extent to which the Bush administration has become so shambolic will not come home to many Americans until the country returns to work on 4 September. Bush is now a truly rudderless president, with no realistic agenda left for the next 513 or so days, other than to tread water and hope for the best."
Is Bully Boy imploding? His laughable attempting to rewrite history this week indicates something strange. Robert Parry (Consortium News) evaluates the latest lunacy, "It is often said that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. But a much worse fate may await countries whose leaders distort and falsify history. Such countries are doomed to experience even bloodier miscalculations. That was the case with Germany after World War I when Adolf Hitler's Nazis built a political movement based in part on the myth that weak politicians in Berlin had stabbed brave German troops in the back when they were on the verge of victory. And it appears to be the case again today as President George W. Bush presents the history of the Vietnam War as a Rambo movie with the heroic narrative that if only the U.S. military had stuck it out, the war would have been won. Or, more likely, the black wall of the Vietnam War Veterans Memorial would stretch most of the way to the U.S. Capitol." And Rosa Brooks (Los Angeles Times), who has gotten nothing but hisses in these snapshots, tackles the Bully Boy's nonsense, "Some might quibble with Bush's understanding of historical causation. Yes, many innocent civilians suffered in the aftermath of the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam -- but it's more accurate to attribute their suffering to the prolongation of the war itself, rather than to the U.S. withdrawal as such. It's hard to be precise (as is the case in Iraq today, no one kept careful count of Vietnamese civilian casualties, and all sides in the conflict had an incentive to fudge the true figures), but somewhere between 1 million and 4 million civilians died as the war needlessly dragged on, many killed by U.S. weapons. Millions more were displaced. But those are details.
Bush went on to assert that 'another price to our withdrawal from Vietnam' was the rise of 'the enemy we face in today's struggle, those who came to our soil and killed thousands of citizens' on 9/11. Yup -- it's so obvious! The U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam caused the rise of Al Qaeda -- and, by extension, 'our withdrawal from Vietnam' ultimately turned Iraq into 'the central front' in 'the war on terror'." At a time when many left voices played dumb, stayed silent, Rosa Brooks addressed Bully Boy's nonsense, challenged it and put into perspective.
More willing to do that would go along way towards ending the illegal war.
The NIE is not the only report making the news. Another report, this time from an aid agency, also gives a grim picture. James Glanz and Stephen Farrell (New York Times) report that the Bully Boy's escalation has led to an escalation in the amount of Iraqi refugees. Citing figures by the Iraqi Red Crescent, the reporters declare "the total number of internally displaced Iraqis has more than doubled, to 1.1 million from 499,000, since the buildup [of troops -- the escalation] started in February."
Turning to some of today's violence, Carol J. Williams (Los Angeles Times) reports a US helicopter attack on Iraqis in western Baghdad that resulted in the deaths of "at least 18" Iraqis, that the US is claiming the helicopter attack was prompted by an attack from 'insurgents' but eye witnesses note it's the same thing as usual -- due to the heat some people sleep on their roofs and that's what was going on during the "predawn" attack by the US -- and that between 2 and 4 women were killed in the attack. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports, "The U.S. military said in a press release that after ground troops came under attack helicopters were brought and 18 'enemy combatants were killed'. The military later amended the release putting the death toll at only 8. The military said armed men on rooftops were spotted. A military spokesman said no civilians were killed."
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing that claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier (two more injured).
Shootings?
Reuters reports "two construction workers" were shot dead in Diwaniya, a barber was shot dead in in Hawija and 1 police officer was shot dead in Numaniya. CBS and AP report, "Sixty suspected al Qaeda in Iraq fighters hit national police facilities in a coordinated attack in Samarra, sparking two hours of fighting that saw three people killed and more than a dozen insurgents captured, Iraqi police said Friday. One policeman, a woman and an 11-year-old girl were killed in the fighting in the city 60 miles north of Baghdad, and nine others were injured. There were no details on insurgent casualties, but police arrested 14 suspects, the spokesman said on condition of anonymity."
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 9 corpses discovered in Baghdad and 1 corpse discovered in Hawija. Reuters notes a corpse discovered in Diwaniya..
Today the US military announced: "One Task Force Lightning Soldier died Aug. 24 as a result of injuries sustained from an explosion earlier in the day while conducting operations in Salah ad Din Province. Four Soldiers were also wounded and transported to a Coalition medical facility for treatment." The current numbers at ICCC are 3725 US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war with 67 for the month thus far. Reuters' count is also 3725 and they note "Britain 168 [and] Other nations 129".
Finally, author and activist Grace Paley died Wednesday. In Sisterhood is Forever: The Women's Anthology for a New Millennium (ed. Robin Morgan, 2003), Paley contributed "Why Peace is (More Than Ever) A Feminist Issue":
Today's wars are about oil. But alternate energies exist now -- solar, wind -- for every important energy-using activity in our lives. The only human work that cannot be done without oil is war.
So men lead us to war for enough oil to continue to go to war for oil.
I'm now sure that these men can't stop themselves anymore -- even those who say they want to. There are too many interesting weapons. Besides, theirs is a habit of centuries, eons. They will not break that habit themselves.
For ourselves, for our girl and boy children, women will have to organize as we have done before -- and also as we have never done before -- to break that habit for them, once and for all.
Peace is a feminist issue, still and always, even if one women's group chose to walk away from that reality in order to justify an endorsement of Hillary Clinton. As Juan Gonzales (Democracy Now!) noted today, "Since the 1960s, Paley was very active in the antiwar, feminist, and anti-nuclear movements. She helped found the Greenwich Village Peace Center in 1961. Eight years later she went on a peace mission to Hanoi. In 1974, she attended the World Peace Conference in Moscow. In 1980, she helped organize the Women's Pentagon Action. And in 1985, Paley visited Nicaragua and El Salvador, after having campaigned against the US government's policies towards those countries. She was also one of the 'White House Eleven,' who were arrested in 1978 for unfurling an anti-nuclear banner on the White House lawn." Feminist Wire Daily writes that "Paley was known as much for her political activism on behalf of peace and women's rights as her literary accomplishments. Paley was jailed several times for her opposition to the Vietnam War, and traveled to Hanoi on a peace mission to negotiate for the release of American prisoners in 1969. She helped found the Women's Pentagon Action and the Greenwich Village Peace Center. . . . Most recently, she actively opposed the war in Iraq." When Paley went to NYC for the "Women on War" event in April 2003, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) interviewed her and the program aired some of that interview today:
AMY GOODMAN: Well, you were recently named the poet laureate of Vermont. It's very interesting. You're named by the governor, who is a Republican governor. Can you talk about how you relate to him in your meeting with him?
GRACE PALEY: Well, first of all, he really -- he didn't -- well, he had to sign the paper, but I was chosen by a group of other poets, a couple of whom had been laureates, like Galway Kinnell and Ellen Voigt, and a couple of other people who had to make a choice. I don't even think I was the best one, but that's beside the point. Still, there -- you know, there's time for others. And then I had to meet with him. He wanted to meet with me and talk to me, but before he really signed on. And I -- he knew a lot about me, and I said, well, I wasn't going to change very much, you know? I'd probably be the same person I was, no matter what. And we talked awhile about this fact. And he really -- and then he signed it. That's all.
AMY GOODMAN: Governor James Douglas?
GRACE PALEY: Yes. He's a Republican. He has a very mild manner, and I don't know whether that's the part of the Republicans of Vermont or what, but he's a Republican. I mean, there's no question about it.
AMY GOODMAN: But in terms of your poetry, more significantly, here he is naming you poet laureate, whether he chose you or not --
GRACE PALEY: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: -- he is for the war, and you're opposed.
GRACE PALEY: Yeah, right. Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: And you have been using your poetry a lot in the last few months to express that view.
GRACE PALEY: Well, I would do that, no matter what. I mean, this is what I'm about, and this is how I live my life. It's -- I don't even -- I wouldn't understand how to do otherwise.
Interviewed by Phyllis Exkhaus and Judith Mahoney Pasternak (War Resister League) at the start of this century, Paley reflected on what the peace movement accomplished: "Well, I think it did two things. It acted as an education in resistance and nonviolence. And probably the education in nonviolent direct action couldn't have been learned without a war. It had to take a war for people to learn that things could be defied and resisted. I think that was an important legacy of the peace movement."
Elaine Woo (Los Angeles Times) reports on Paley's work on the issue of draft resistance and notes "she also was an inveterate street-corner leafleteer and protest marcher who supported or helped found the Greenwich Village Peace Center, the War Resisters League, Women's Pentagon Action and the Feminist Press." The Feminist Press published Here And Somewhere Else (Two By Two) in March of this year which paired Paley's work with Robert Nichols (her second and surviving husband).
In the December 1998 issue of The Progressive, Anne-Marie Cusac noted a passage by Paely that stood out: "One of the things that art is about, for me, is justice. Now, that isn't a matter of opinion, really. That isn't to say, 'I'm going to show these people right or wrong' or whatever. But what art is about -- and this is what justice is about, although you'll have your own interpretations -- is the illumination of what isn't known, the lighting up of what is under a rock, of what has been hidden."
In 2002, she was among those signing "Not In Our Name: A Statement Of Conscience Against War And Repression." Meredith Tax remembers Paley at Women's WORLD: "Grace and I became close during the PEN Congress of 1986, during which we organized a meeting to protest the inadequate number of women speakers, which took over the ballroom of the Essex House Hotel and led to the formation of a Women's Committee in PEN American Center. Grace and I were co chairs of that committee until she moved to Vermont, and she became founding Chair of Women's World in 1994. Grace was the kindest and most generous person I have ever known. This is unusual in a writer, especially one of her quality, because writers tend to husband their inner resources for their work, but Grace had so many inner resources that she could afford to be generous. She gave unstining love to her family and friends, took speaking engagements at any whistlestop, often without pay, organized antiwar and antinuclear and women's demonstrations, worked endlessly against nuclear armaments, did draft counseling, protested on behalf of the environment, free expression, and a just peace betwen Israel and Palestine."
In addition, Matthew Rothschild interviewed Paley for Progressive Radio and Neda Ulaby (NPR) provides an audio overview of Paley's life and work. In terms of writing, "My Father Addresses Me On The Facts Of Old Age" (June 17, 2002) is available online at The New Yorker.
iraqcamilo mejia
iraq veterans against the war
democracy nowamy goodman
juan gonzalez
the new york timesstephen farrell
the los angeles timescarol j. williamsleila fadelmcclatchy newspapers
the washington post
The acclaimed writer, poet, feminist, and peace activist Grace Paley died on Wednesday in her home in Vermont at the age of 84 after a long struggle with breast cancer. As a writer, Paley is best known for her short stories examining the ordinary lives of women. Her Collected Stories, published in 1994, was a finalist for both the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award, and in 1993, she received the Rea Award, referred to as the Pulitzer Prize for short story writers, according to the Los Angeles Times. Paley also published several volumes of poems, and served as a poet laureate of Vermont and the first official New York State Writer. Paley’s most recent work is a collection of her and her husband Robert Nichols’ poems and short stories, published by the Feminist Press this year.
Grace Paley, Tillie Olson, Ellen Willis, Molly Ivins. A lot of strong women have passed away recently. C.I. covers the death in the snapshot today and C.I. "hates, hates, hates" covering deaths. (That may be a quote.) "Ellen Willis" was an obit C.I. did do. I knew her writing better than I knew her, I only knew her casually through C.I. But she was such a strong voice. It's depressing to lose a strong voice at any period but especially when it's a dark period, like today, when an illegal war is pushed and prolonged by the White House and the Congress does nothing to stop it.
Look at NOW, which doesn't bother to note the passing of Paley. NOW made itself useless in my book. C.I. and Ava will still support it; however, NOW is the group C.I.'s speaking of in the snapshot after quoting from Paley's "Why Peace is (More Than Ever) A Feminist Issue." NOW used to provide a button on their home page that had a dove and the slogan "Peace Is A Feminist Issue." As they geared up for their endorsement of War Hawk Hillary Clinton, they dropped the button from the main page. Now the illegal war didn't end, but it might as well have for NOW because all they gave a damn about was, "There's a female in the race!"
If anyone for NOW is allowed to speak at any national peace rally, I will be booing them. That's Kim Gandy, that's anyone. I think they've made themselves useless. I was a longtime NOW member. The Hillary Clinton endorsement was something I would've just rolled my eyes at and ignored. But that Iraq was reduced in order to push Hillary (who clearly supports continuing the illegal war) makes NOW completely useless to me.
As far as I'm concerned, they are now nothing but a group of giddy sorority sisters.
The illegal war continues and they can't do a damn thing to stop it. If they call out a Republican for supporting the war, they leave themselves open to charges of hypocrisy because they support Clinton who wants the illegal war to continue.
NOW betrayed its membership not by endorsing Hillary Clinton (actually NOWPac, not NOW endorsed Hillary), but by retreating on the illegal war.
So losing a strong voice against the war like Grace Paley does hurt. C.I. called mid-day and said something to the effect of, "I've got to write it up." I knew what C.I. was talking about, noting Paley's death (and her life). The reason? Who was noting it?
You had newspapers noting it. Where were our wonderful women's groups?
NOW apparently can't note Paley's death.
Just as soon as Katrina vanden Heuvel can figure out how to wrap the death in 'economics,' I'm sure she'll do a lovely post . . . co-authored with a man. When she and Katha Pollitt can figure out how to transform it into "Vote Democratic in 2008," they'll have magnificent posts.
A woman died. She was active in ending the current illegal war as well as Vietnam. She was active in the feminist movement. She was active in the No Nukes movement. She was an accomplished writer.
All of which would have made women of my generation say, "If women were in charge, her death would have been noted." But all these years later, a number of women are in charge. We get silence.
I know C.I. hates noting deaths ("hate, hate, hate"). So I especially appreciate the stepping up to the plate today. Didn't we see the same thing with Bully Boy's revisionist take on Vietnam? Where are our supposed leaders?
I'm really disgusted.
Sunny, by the way, asked me a question about an e-mail today. Someone wondered if my reference to all the ego stroking it took to get the "Young Lions" of my generation able to speak up and out was a reference to Juan Gonzalez who was a member of the Young Lords? No. Also, I believe he was the founder of that organization. I thought I should note that here in case anyone else had that question.
I was referring to men I knew back then and men my friends knew. I was referring to a group of men who were largely White. I don't know Juan Gonzalez and I've never met him. To the best of my recollection. My memory's not as good as C.I.'s and I can imagine C.I. saying, "Don't you remember in ___ at ___ we marched with/strategized with/had dinner with Juan and . . ." I wouldn't be at all surprised if C.I. knew Juan back then. C.I. was active all over the country. Sometimes, I would go along on the trips like C.I. does now. But I largely stayed on the East Coast. Which is where Juan was active primarily, I'm sure. So there's a chance our paths crossed at some point. If he was in SDS, I'm sure our paths did cross if only in a huge group convention or something.
But I was referring to White males and had honestly forgotten the Young Lords until Sunny told me about the e-mail. That is not intended as an insult to the Young Lords. That is a sign of memory which is not as bad as Rebecca's but that was some time ago. Rebecca's always had a bad memory and freely admits to it. I think I have a pretty good memory (even today) but on the scale, not really. In college, we would both marvel over C.I.'s ability to glance at a page and have it memorized or to hear a conversation and be able to reconstruct it.
I chose "Young Lions" because these were supposed to be, these White men, the leaders kissed by fate. The reality was, ask any woman from that time involved with any, they needed a lot of hand holding, a lot of praise (a LOT of praise) and for you to stop everything pretty much (which, sadly, I did in at least two relationships) just to get them 'stage ready.' Now I might be about to give a speech on the draft, for example, and the man might be about to give a speech on another topic. But he really would expect me to ignore reviewing my notes and listen to his worries and fears that he wasn't good enough.
The plus for that, and I'm not the only one who feels that way, is that I and other women ended up having to learn to go on cold. We didn't have time for a pep talk (even to ourselves) because we were usually so exhausted from the drama. So it was just something, when it was our turn to speak or whatever, that we just did.
Then what we did was cut off compliments because heaven forbid we get too many when a Young Lion had spoken as well.
Even with my memory, I know for a fact that I was never involved with Juan Gonzalez, so I wasn't lumping him into that category. I also have never heard his name come up in relation to this when, especially as the women's movement emerged, women would get together and share their horror stories.
Dropping back to a question last week (which Sunny replied to), Rebecca was politically active in college. She was, as she will point out, two years younger (she was advanced two grades in high school and we weren't allowed to mention that in college but damned if she won't shut up about it today -- that was me teasing her, before anyone wonders). C.I. was hugely political. I was active in the peace movement and the women's movement. Compared to the two of us, it might seem Rebecca wasn't. That wasn't the case. If you needed bodies for any action, she was there. If she had to speak, she would. But she absolutely had to speak of she wouldn't. She was very quiet and shy in college. Or freshman year. A lot of that, and she's noted this at her site, came from being younger (and not wanting anyone to know -- when we found out, she was about to cry and swore us to secrecy). So while you had 18-year-olds all ready to taste adulthood, you had her at sixteen.
She carved out her own issues and, before college was over, she was the strongest speaker I knew on the issue of Palestinians. She may have carved that out because it was an issue many didn't touch on. Some ran from it because if you think it's a 'hot button' today, it was even more so back then. Some were focused on other issues. But she would speak out on that issue and she did so strongly, passionately and wonderfully.
Some people made the mistake of thinking she was vapid. She had (and has) all that blonde hair and is of course beyond 'busty.' She's got a face like an angel. So with those attributes, some were going to make snap judgements even before the shyness was factored in. But she wasn't (and isn't) vapid. The fact that, at sixteen, she held her own daily with eighteen-year-olds (full of themselves, as we all were) goes to how strong she is.
Her other big issue, in college, was the environment.
Those were her two big issues that she really was a strong voice on. That's not to say that she didn't care about the illegal war then, she did and she actively worked to end it. But it is to note that she felt more comfortable with those issues. Probably due to the fact that she was able to carve out the space on them. Besides the people who were really trying to end the illegal war, you had a lot of people who'd heard enough 'rap sessions' to fake their way through in a class setting.
I have no idea if I'm getting my point across here. But she was active and she was the most informed when it came to the environment and the Palestinians. If you asked me why on either, I couldn't tell you. I know I did wonder in college but I always felt that to ask out of curiousity might be seen, by her, as, "Why you?" Because there were a lot of people who judged her by her looks. She will tell you herself that C.I. and I stepped on egg shells around her. She was the one who could get her feelings hurt the easiest. Which probably was partly due to the fact that she was younger and partly due to the fact that she was judged by her looks.
With me in college, my big goal was never to let anyone (other than my closest friends, which included C.I. and Rebecca) see me cry. That was a really big deal to me because there was debate my first semester where a woman got flustered and began crying. I did not want that to be me. So people thought or assumed that I was the stone faced one when it came to personal criticism.
C.I.? No one (and this is still true) will ever be able to criticze C.I. more than C.I. already does. You could go up to C.I. and say the worst thing and you wouldn't be cut off. If you weren't someone who was openly hostile in the past, C.I. would say, "You may be right. Let me think about that." Which would follow with serious thought. (If you were someone who was hostile, you'd get a choice word or two in response but C.I. would still consider the comment or charge.) C.I. never took anything personally. If it was about C.I. If it was about a friend, it was a completely different story.
But with Rebecca, and she's blogged about this, she really would get hurt. You could tell her, "Oh ___ just woke up in a nasty mood and went all over campus until s/he found someone to tear into. It had nothing to do with you." She might nod but she'd still feel awful. So knowing that, I always made a point to avoid any question that she might read as, "Why you?" She got that a lot. Especially from the men she was involved with in college who all seemed taken aback when they realized that the considerable body came with a brain. She also, and this may have been the age difference (two years is a big deal at that age), was the most obvious with her feelings. Her eyes would well up immediately. In terms of politics, she had ideas for posters and banners like no one else. That's not a minor thing. She would always have the best, the strongest ideas there. She would also speak if it was required but only if it was required. She hated giving speeches back then and her palms would be sweating the whole time. You wouldn't know it to watch her give a speech but that was the case. She hated speaking so much she nearly failed a speech class that an English professor pretty much demanded she take.
She pulled it through for the final and she will tell you we (C.I., another friend and myself) pulled an all nighter with her to help her pull it off. She might tell you she was chilled out on valium her mother had given her because Rebecca's mother knew very well how nerve wracking public speaking could be for Rebecca.
One time, in college, we were discussing out experiences in terms of that. Rebecca, as I remember it, shared that she could do a cheer (she was a cheerleader in high school) because she was part of a group but the solo spot of public speaking was just unnerving. I actually enjoyed public speaking so I probably shared something along those lines. C.I.'s take was that the issue was more important. C.I. would get on the phone and beg for attendance, money, coverage, what have you. But try to get C.I. to answer a phone for personal calls. C.I. hated talking on the phone. Or hated answering it. But, for an issue, could get through anything.
I'll never forget Rebecca's comment at the end of that which was, "See Lanie, you're the normal one." "Normal" was the last thing anyone wanted to be back then. (But Rebecca didn't mean it as an insult.)
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Friday, August 24, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the US military reports another death, a US helicopter attack leaves many Iraqis dead, war resistance gets covered on PBS, activist, author, feminist, peace advocate Grace Paley passed away Wednesday, and more.
Starting with war resistance. This week's NOW with David Brancaccio (PBS, begins airing in most markets Friday nights) takes a look at war resistance:Choosing to go to war is both a government's decision and one made by individual enlistees. But changing your mind once you're in the army is a risky decision with serious consequences. On Friday, August 24 (checkyour local listings), we talk to two soldiers who went AWOL and eventually left the Army, but who took very different paths. NOW captures the moment when one man turns himself in, and when another applies for refugee status in Canada, becoming one of the 20,000 soldiers who have deserted the army since the War in Iraq began. Each describes what drove him to follow his conscience over his call to duty, and what penalties and criticism were endured as a result. "I see things differently having lived through the experience," former army medic Agustin Aguayo tells NOW. "When I returned from Iraq, after much reflection I knew deep within me I could never go back."The NOW website at www.pbs.org/now will offer more insight into the case made by conscientious objectors, as well as more stories of desertion in the ranks.In addition to the broadcast, a preview of the show is posted at YouTube. And the show will be available in various forms (audio, video, text -- though maybe not in full) at the NOW with David Brancaccio site.
Camilo Mejia is the new chair of Iraq Veterans Against the War. The decision of the new board members of IVAW were made last weekend. Tony Pecinovsky (People's Weekly World) reports on the Veterans for Peace conference and quotes Mejia explaining, "There is no greater argument against war than the experience of war itself. In the military you're not free to decide for yourself what is right and wrong. The fog of war is very real. Your main concern is staying alive" and explaining his decision to self-checkout, "I couldn't return knowing that we are committing war crimes. This war is criminal. But I'm no longer a prisoner of fear. I have hope that we can end this war." IVAW is gearing up for their big Truth in Recruting campaign. Adam Kokesh, who is co-chair of IVAW, is currently doing workshops (tonight at St. Bede's at the corner of St. Francis and San Mateo 7-9 pm PST). And Camilo Mejia tells his story in his own story of resistance in his new book Road from Ar Ramaid: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Zamesha Dominique, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Carla Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, forty-one US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters.
Turning to the jibber-jabber. The NIE was released yesterday. It is a much kinder and less explicit version of Peter W. Galbraith's "Iraq: The Way to Go" (The New York Review of Books, August 16, 2007). In the essay, Galbraith writes, "The Iraq war is lost. Of course, neither the President nor the war's intellectual architects are prepared to admit this. Nonetheless, the specter of defeat shapes their thinking in telling ways. The case for the war is no longer defined by the benefits of winning -- a stable Iraq, democracy on the march in the Middle East, the collapse of the evil Iranian and Syrian regimes -- but by the consequences of defeat." If that stance is still not clear, Alex Spillius (Telegraph of London) reports: "Frontline generals in Iraq spoke openly yesterday of the need to have a government that could function and guarantee security above all else, including democratic legitimacy. Brig Gen John Bednarek, who commands forces in Diyala province, told CNN that 'democratic institutions are not necessarily the way ahead in the long-term future'." As all the lies are dropped, the reality of the crimes being committed may be grasped. Maybe not.
Michael Ware and Thomas Evans (CNN) report that "officials now say they are willing to settle for a government that functions and can bring security." Yesterday, White House flack Gordon Johndroe declared (in Crawford, TX) that "we know that there are significant challenges ahead, especially in the political area. I would say that the strategy laid out by the President on January 10th was a strategy that provided for security first, so that there would be space for political reconciliation. The surge did not get fully operational until mid-summer. It is not surprising -- it is frustrating, but it's not surprising that the political reconciliation is lagging behind the security improvements. I think that is the way the strategy was laid out." The 'improved' security is a lie. Repeating, Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reporting earlier this month that the US military claims of 'progress' were based on numbers they would not release and that McClatchy Newspapers' figures do not track with the findings the US military has trumpeted: "U.S. officials say the number of civilian casualties in the Iraqi capital is down 50 percent. But U.S. officials declined to provide specific numbers, and statistics gathered by McClatchy Newspapers don't support the claim." But clearly the generals, the officials and the White House are all on the same page regarding the 'problems' with democracy -- pure chance, of course.
Greg Miller (Los Angeles Times) summarizes the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE): "Despite some military progress, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki is unable to govern his country effecitvely and the political situation is likely to become even more precarious in the next six to 12 months, the nation's intelligence agencies concluded in a new assessment released Thursday. The document, an update of a National Intelligence Estimate delivered in January, represents the view of all 16 U.S. spy agencies."
'Democracy' on hold or out the window . . . what to do, what to do? Bring in a 'strong man' dictator? Reuters reports that 3 "secularist ministers . . . will formally quit" the cabinet of Nour al-Maliki today and that three are from Iyad Allawi's party. Yesterday Democracy Now! noted Allawyi is working with "Republican lobbying firm Barbour, Griffith, and Rogers" in an effort to become the new prime minister of Iraq (Allawi was previously interim prime minister). CIA asset Allawi was still working with the CIA in 2003, as Jim Lobe (Foreign Policy in Focus) noted, in attempted "Iraqification" which was a popular thing in late 2003 as the White House and hand maidens of the press attempted to treat "Iraqification" as a process which would put Iraqis in control. The policy was at odds with much of the White House's aims and never got off the ground. Had it, it still wouldn't have allowed for Iraqi control. Allawi was interim Prime Minister following the start of the illegal war and, during that time, he made his 'mark' early on. Paul McGeough (Sydney Morning Herald via Common Dreams, July 2004) reported in July 2004: "Iyad Allawi, the new Prime Minister of Iraq, pulled a pistol and executed as many as six suspected insurgents at a Baghdad police station, just days before Washington handed control of the country to his interim government, according to two people who allege they witnessed the killings. They say the prisoners - handcuffed and blindfolded - were lined up against a wall in a courtyard adjacent to the maximum-security cell block in which they were held at the Al-Amariyah security center, in the city's south-western suburbs."
Never having been handed democracy, Iraqis now face the very likely prospect that the puppet (al-Maliki) will be replaced with a dictator/strong man. It's not about what the Iraqis want or desire on the US government's end, it's just more of the same. A point driven home by the announcement that Abdel-Salam Aref has died in Jordan. In 2004, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) explained, "The US-installed regime in Iraq said last night it would pay a monthly pension to a former president overthrown more than 35 years ago in a coup that brought Saddam Hussein's Baath party to power. The Iraqi Governing Council says it will pay Abdel-Rahman Aref $1,000 a month and allocate $5,000 to cover his medical bills in Jordan. Aref rose to prominence in 1963 when he was appointed army chief of staff by his elder brother, then President Abdel-Salam Aref. He was overthrown in July of 1968 in a coup that was aided by the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA also gave the Baath Party the names of some 5,000 Iraqi Communists who were then hunted down and killed or imprisoned. Following the coup, Baath party leader Ahmed Hasan al-Bakr became president, with Saddam as his right hand man."
As Peter W. Galbraith explains, there was no democracy following the start of the illegal war, not in what was imposed by the US (and the US shut out the UN). What exists is a system where the Shi'ites and Sunnis are two major groups (Sunnis the smaller of the two) and the system imposed has left one group shut out (elections would change that only to a small degree -- but they aren't happening) and the third most populous segment, the Kurds, are ready for their own country (Kurdistan). The system imposed on Iraq by the US was fatally flawed from the beginning so, it can be argued, ignorance wasn't the issue. Considering past history, a failed system that could be tossed aside quickly. Warren P. Strobel (McClatchy Newspapers) observes the the NIE's "best-case scenario" would be "Iraq's security will improve modestly over the next six to 12 months, but violence across the country will remain high. The U.S.-backed central government will grow more fragile and remain unable to govern. Shiite and Sunni Muslims will continue their bitter feuding. All sides will position themselves for an eventual American departure. In Iraq, best-case scenarios have rarely, if ever, come to pass."
Andrew Stephen (New Statesman) wonders if the Bully Boy is imploding and notes, "The conundrum, of course, is that it was precisely that dark art which got Bush into the White House in the first place. The poisonous divisiveness that gradually festered around him as a result now allows the state department, to take just one example reported in the Washington Post, to think nothing of simply ignoring an order from the president. Yet I suspect that the extent to which the Bush administration has become so shambolic will not come home to many Americans until the country returns to work on 4 September. Bush is now a truly rudderless president, with no realistic agenda left for the next 513 or so days, other than to tread water and hope for the best."
Is Bully Boy imploding? His laughable attempting to rewrite history this week indicates something strange. Robert Parry (Consortium News) evaluates the latest lunacy, "It is often said that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. But a much worse fate may await countries whose leaders distort and falsify history. Such countries are doomed to experience even bloodier miscalculations. That was the case with Germany after World War I when Adolf Hitler's Nazis built a political movement based in part on the myth that weak politicians in Berlin had stabbed brave German troops in the back when they were on the verge of victory. And it appears to be the case again today as President George W. Bush presents the history of the Vietnam War as a Rambo movie with the heroic narrative that if only the U.S. military had stuck it out, the war would have been won. Or, more likely, the black wall of the Vietnam War Veterans Memorial would stretch most of the way to the U.S. Capitol." And Rosa Brooks (Los Angeles Times), who has gotten nothing but hisses in these snapshots, tackles the Bully Boy's nonsense, "Some might quibble with Bush's understanding of historical causation. Yes, many innocent civilians suffered in the aftermath of the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam -- but it's more accurate to attribute their suffering to the prolongation of the war itself, rather than to the U.S. withdrawal as such. It's hard to be precise (as is the case in Iraq today, no one kept careful count of Vietnamese civilian casualties, and all sides in the conflict had an incentive to fudge the true figures), but somewhere between 1 million and 4 million civilians died as the war needlessly dragged on, many killed by U.S. weapons. Millions more were displaced. But those are details.
Bush went on to assert that 'another price to our withdrawal from Vietnam' was the rise of 'the enemy we face in today's struggle, those who came to our soil and killed thousands of citizens' on 9/11. Yup -- it's so obvious! The U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam caused the rise of Al Qaeda -- and, by extension, 'our withdrawal from Vietnam' ultimately turned Iraq into 'the central front' in 'the war on terror'." At a time when many left voices played dumb, stayed silent, Rosa Brooks addressed Bully Boy's nonsense, challenged it and put into perspective.
More willing to do that would go along way towards ending the illegal war.
The NIE is not the only report making the news. Another report, this time from an aid agency, also gives a grim picture. James Glanz and Stephen Farrell (New York Times) report that the Bully Boy's escalation has led to an escalation in the amount of Iraqi refugees. Citing figures by the Iraqi Red Crescent, the reporters declare "the total number of internally displaced Iraqis has more than doubled, to 1.1 million from 499,000, since the buildup [of troops -- the escalation] started in February."
Turning to some of today's violence, Carol J. Williams (Los Angeles Times) reports a US helicopter attack on Iraqis in western Baghdad that resulted in the deaths of "at least 18" Iraqis, that the US is claiming the helicopter attack was prompted by an attack from 'insurgents' but eye witnesses note it's the same thing as usual -- due to the heat some people sleep on their roofs and that's what was going on during the "predawn" attack by the US -- and that between 2 and 4 women were killed in the attack. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports, "The U.S. military said in a press release that after ground troops came under attack helicopters were brought and 18 'enemy combatants were killed'. The military later amended the release putting the death toll at only 8. The military said armed men on rooftops were spotted. A military spokesman said no civilians were killed."
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing that claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier (two more injured).
Shootings?
Reuters reports "two construction workers" were shot dead in Diwaniya, a barber was shot dead in in Hawija and 1 police officer was shot dead in Numaniya. CBS and AP report, "Sixty suspected al Qaeda in Iraq fighters hit national police facilities in a coordinated attack in Samarra, sparking two hours of fighting that saw three people killed and more than a dozen insurgents captured, Iraqi police said Friday. One policeman, a woman and an 11-year-old girl were killed in the fighting in the city 60 miles north of Baghdad, and nine others were injured. There were no details on insurgent casualties, but police arrested 14 suspects, the spokesman said on condition of anonymity."
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 9 corpses discovered in Baghdad and 1 corpse discovered in Hawija. Reuters notes a corpse discovered in Diwaniya..
Today the US military announced: "One Task Force Lightning Soldier died Aug. 24 as a result of injuries sustained from an explosion earlier in the day while conducting operations in Salah ad Din Province. Four Soldiers were also wounded and transported to a Coalition medical facility for treatment." The current numbers at ICCC are 3725 US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war with 67 for the month thus far. Reuters' count is also 3725 and they note "Britain 168 [and] Other nations 129".
Finally, author and activist Grace Paley died Wednesday. In Sisterhood is Forever: The Women's Anthology for a New Millennium (ed. Robin Morgan, 2003), Paley contributed "Why Peace is (More Than Ever) A Feminist Issue":
Today's wars are about oil. But alternate energies exist now -- solar, wind -- for every important energy-using activity in our lives. The only human work that cannot be done without oil is war.
So men lead us to war for enough oil to continue to go to war for oil.
I'm now sure that these men can't stop themselves anymore -- even those who say they want to. There are too many interesting weapons. Besides, theirs is a habit of centuries, eons. They will not break that habit themselves.
For ourselves, for our girl and boy children, women will have to organize as we have done before -- and also as we have never done before -- to break that habit for them, once and for all.
Peace is a feminist issue, still and always, even if one women's group chose to walk away from that reality in order to justify an endorsement of Hillary Clinton. As Juan Gonzales (Democracy Now!) noted today, "Since the 1960s, Paley was very active in the antiwar, feminist, and anti-nuclear movements. She helped found the Greenwich Village Peace Center in 1961. Eight years later she went on a peace mission to Hanoi. In 1974, she attended the World Peace Conference in Moscow. In 1980, she helped organize the Women's Pentagon Action. And in 1985, Paley visited Nicaragua and El Salvador, after having campaigned against the US government's policies towards those countries. She was also one of the 'White House Eleven,' who were arrested in 1978 for unfurling an anti-nuclear banner on the White House lawn." Feminist Wire Daily writes that "Paley was known as much for her political activism on behalf of peace and women's rights as her literary accomplishments. Paley was jailed several times for her opposition to the Vietnam War, and traveled to Hanoi on a peace mission to negotiate for the release of American prisoners in 1969. She helped found the Women's Pentagon Action and the Greenwich Village Peace Center. . . . Most recently, she actively opposed the war in Iraq." When Paley went to NYC for the "Women on War" event in April 2003, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) interviewed her and the program aired some of that interview today:
AMY GOODMAN: Well, you were recently named the poet laureate of Vermont. It's very interesting. You're named by the governor, who is a Republican governor. Can you talk about how you relate to him in your meeting with him?
GRACE PALEY: Well, first of all, he really -- he didn't -- well, he had to sign the paper, but I was chosen by a group of other poets, a couple of whom had been laureates, like Galway Kinnell and Ellen Voigt, and a couple of other people who had to make a choice. I don't even think I was the best one, but that's beside the point. Still, there -- you know, there's time for others. And then I had to meet with him. He wanted to meet with me and talk to me, but before he really signed on. And I -- he knew a lot about me, and I said, well, I wasn't going to change very much, you know? I'd probably be the same person I was, no matter what. And we talked awhile about this fact. And he really -- and then he signed it. That's all.
AMY GOODMAN: Governor James Douglas?
GRACE PALEY: Yes. He's a Republican. He has a very mild manner, and I don't know whether that's the part of the Republicans of Vermont or what, but he's a Republican. I mean, there's no question about it.
AMY GOODMAN: But in terms of your poetry, more significantly, here he is naming you poet laureate, whether he chose you or not --
GRACE PALEY: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: -- he is for the war, and you're opposed.
GRACE PALEY: Yeah, right. Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: And you have been using your poetry a lot in the last few months to express that view.
GRACE PALEY: Well, I would do that, no matter what. I mean, this is what I'm about, and this is how I live my life. It's -- I don't even -- I wouldn't understand how to do otherwise.
Interviewed by Phyllis Exkhaus and Judith Mahoney Pasternak (War Resister League) at the start of this century, Paley reflected on what the peace movement accomplished: "Well, I think it did two things. It acted as an education in resistance and nonviolence. And probably the education in nonviolent direct action couldn't have been learned without a war. It had to take a war for people to learn that things could be defied and resisted. I think that was an important legacy of the peace movement."
Elaine Woo (Los Angeles Times) reports on Paley's work on the issue of draft resistance and notes "she also was an inveterate street-corner leafleteer and protest marcher who supported or helped found the Greenwich Village Peace Center, the War Resisters League, Women's Pentagon Action and the Feminist Press." The Feminist Press published Here And Somewhere Else (Two By Two) in March of this year which paired Paley's work with Robert Nichols (her second and surviving husband).
In the December 1998 issue of The Progressive, Anne-Marie Cusac noted a passage by Paely that stood out: "One of the things that art is about, for me, is justice. Now, that isn't a matter of opinion, really. That isn't to say, 'I'm going to show these people right or wrong' or whatever. But what art is about -- and this is what justice is about, although you'll have your own interpretations -- is the illumination of what isn't known, the lighting up of what is under a rock, of what has been hidden."
In 2002, she was among those signing "Not In Our Name: A Statement Of Conscience Against War And Repression." Meredith Tax remembers Paley at Women's WORLD: "Grace and I became close during the PEN Congress of 1986, during which we organized a meeting to protest the inadequate number of women speakers, which took over the ballroom of the Essex House Hotel and led to the formation of a Women's Committee in PEN American Center. Grace and I were co chairs of that committee until she moved to Vermont, and she became founding Chair of Women's World in 1994. Grace was the kindest and most generous person I have ever known. This is unusual in a writer, especially one of her quality, because writers tend to husband their inner resources for their work, but Grace had so many inner resources that she could afford to be generous. She gave unstining love to her family and friends, took speaking engagements at any whistlestop, often without pay, organized antiwar and antinuclear and women's demonstrations, worked endlessly against nuclear armaments, did draft counseling, protested on behalf of the environment, free expression, and a just peace betwen Israel and Palestine."
In addition, Matthew Rothschild interviewed Paley for Progressive Radio and Neda Ulaby (NPR) provides an audio overview of Paley's life and work. In terms of writing, "My Father Addresses Me On The Facts Of Old Age" (June 17, 2002) is available online at The New Yorker.
iraqcamilo mejia
iraq veterans against the war
democracy nowamy goodman
juan gonzalez
the new york timesstephen farrell
the los angeles timescarol j. williamsleila fadelmcclatchy newspapers
the washington post
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Matthew Rothschild, John Nicholds, Katha Pollitt
In the snapshot today, C.I. makes the point (rightly) that the soft 'left' running from calling Bully Boy out on his revisions of Vietnam are the reason we're in the mess we are. They were silent in real time as well, as Vietnam was rewritten for popular consumption.
Matt Rothschild hit hard on the topic today and he's being slammed by a lot of people who don't seem to grasp what's what.
Bully Boy is not making a historical analogy to Vietnam, Bully Boy is rewriting history. He can compare Iraq to Vietnam (and has before, such as when he commented on Thomas Friedman's column), what he can't do is rewrite history.
The rewrite is all over the place in his statements. Bully Boy lied when he said withdrawal from Vietnam led to a host of problems because, as with Cambodia, most of those problems resulted from US intervention/war.
Had the US not decided to prop up a segment that never represented the people (South Vietnam then, Prisoner of the Green Zone al-Maliki today), whatever was going to happen would have happened. Instead the US went into Vietnam (long before Tonkin) and began arming one side in a conflict they had no business in.
After the US pulled out, any violence that came was worse than what would have happened had the US stayed out. Had the US stayed out, the US would not have murdered so many Vietnamese. Had the US stayed out, the propped up South Vietnam would have had to surrender much sooner.
Cambodia? The US decided to arm South Vietnamese to go and fight there with US support. It was a disaster for the South Vietnamese who fled leaving behind the US equipment. But it did enough damage to create the instability that led to the blood bath.
With Cambodia, Laos or Vietnam, what the right-wingers posting in reply to Matthew Rothschild don't grasp is that one set of people aren't better? They really don't care about any set but they toss out the ones after withdrawal to use as examples. The bloody and illegal war killed millions, created the instability in the region (as planned) and the longer the US stayed, the more pressure was created in the sense of a powder keg that would blow.
It's the same thing today with Iraq.
I laughed out loud when I read C.I.'s comment in the snapshot about M*A*S*H. As someone who does work with high schoolers (I do a volunteer group with at risk female high schoolers), I agree John Nichols wasted his time and everyone else with his piece on Korea. "Vietnam" registers somewhat with young people. It's "way back" before they were born, but it does register. Korea?
But there's John Nichols offering up a defense on an issue that young people today, for the most part, aren't going to give a damn about. By zooming in on Korea, he also sends (unintentionally perhaps) the message that the comments about Vietnam must be correct.
He is wasting everyone's time.
The house is on fire and instead of grabbing a pail of water, Nichols stops to give a historical overview of the Great Chicago Fire. That's what the Korea post is and if he didn't take the argument there because it was easier, he's hopelessly out of touch with the young people of today.
While visiting, I saw that Katha Pollitt had some more thoughts on Cindy Sheehan's run. She felt maybe there was a tiny bit of worth in the run. Not much. Just a tiny bit.
"If Cindy Sheehan wants to make an anti-war gesture, running against Nancy Pelosi is one way to do it, so good luck to her," Pollitt oh-so generously writes. That's the Sisterhood of Pollitt. What a huge embarrassment she's become. At best, she offered clever word play. A lot of flash, no substance was her hallmark.
Now she can't even manage flash.
But who does Katha Pollitt think she is writing a "Dear Cindy" post telling another woman not to run? Equally important, why does Pollitt believe Sheehan thinks she can't win?
Is Pollitt counseling Sheehan over the phone because I'm not aware of it. Or maybe she's become a pyschic?
I would assume if Sheehan's running she thinks there's some chance she might win.
So the real question here is why and how does Pollitt think feminism is telling a woman she can't do something she thinks she can or that the thing to do is tell women not to dream?
That's not how I learned feminism. I learned that a woman could go for anything she wanted. I learned that you might not support another woman's journey but, if you were a feminist, you didn't throw roadblocks in her way.
That's what Katha Pollitt's doing. She's like any pundit in the MSM going on Meet the Press offering tired, conventional and, yes, sexist 'wisdom.'
Of course, another issue is why Pollitt presents herself as an expert on the Bay Area since she doesn't live there (and is not well liked there among most feminists after her months of nonsense or, for that matter, her 2006 attack on CODEPINK)?
The really big question is why Katha Pollitt is so obsessed with Cindy Sheehan?
I thought marriage was supposed to have made Pollitt happier but, instead, it's just made her brain all mushy.
She knows nothing about the Bay Area and she knows nothing about Pelosi's record. I would guess that I spend more time in the Bay Area each year than does Katha Pollitt and I also have many good friends (including C.I., Kat, Ava, Dona, Jess, Ty and Jim) living there.
Katha Pollitt is aware that Pelosi might be a 'strong' Congress member for the Mid-West; however, she's far to the right of the district she currently represents?
Katha Pollitt's latest 'solution' is that people should go after Blue Dogs in other races because they do not represent the Democratic Party? What about when a Congress member refuses to represent her district? Pelosi is not represneting her district on any number of issues (reproductive rights, gay and lesbian issues, the illegal war, impeachment . . .). So if a Congress member is to the right of the district, is Pollitt arguing -- while arguing "Go after the Blue Dogs!" -- that a district has no valid complaint?
It all comes down to the fact that she is not about feminism and she's not about democracy. She is about being a Democratic Cheerleader so she and The Nation are a perfect fit.
Here's the thing though, I've seen this game before and so has The Nation. They hype readers and when the readers wake up (because squishy leaders they applauded get into office and gain more power), the circulation drops off quickly. If the Dems are swept into office in 2008 without The Nation holding their feet to the fire and the Dems do nothing (like they are doing nothing right now), the fallout effects the magazine as well.
So that's the good news. If they exist for no reason except to be a Democratic Party organ (and under the 'leadership' of Katrina vanden Heuvel, that's all they can exist as) then the good news is The Nation may finally go under.
The Nation may finally collapse in a few years. They'll have no more squishy, used to be Republicans to support them and bail them out. That group is dying off (mainly because they are so old). They'll have to then live or die by the subscribers and with print taking a hit and with them serving the Democratic Party and not readers, The Nation may be spending this time in constructing their own coffin.
Possibly not, but we can all hope and long for the day when the Party Hacks either has to go directly onto the DNC payroll or attempt to learn new skills that they can market.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Wednesday, August 22, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, over 80 Iraqis are reported today, the US military announces deaths as well including those dead from a helicopter crash, Bully Boy demonstrates -- even before Karl Rove departs on Aug. 31st. -- that he doesn't need a brain and wouldn't use it if he had one, while Nouri al-Maliki hears voices and sees enemies and conspiracies all around him . . .
Starting with war resistance. Camilo Mejia does a reading from his book Road from Ar Ramaid: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia at Different Drummer tomorrow (Thursday) at 6:30 pm. Friday he has events in Syracuse (click here and check out the sidebar). Today, Deepa Fernades interviewed him on WBAI's Wakeupcall Radio.
Deepa Fernades: Can you just talk us through that . . . Those moments of deciding? Of realizing "Okay, I really don't have any other option but the military?" What was going through your mind? Did you actually think, "This is crazy. And what am I signing up for"?
Camilo Mejia: Not really because -- Well, first of all, I would disagree now days that there are no options. I think there are some options. I think we need to fight for more options. But young people really don't need to join the military to get themselves, you know, out of poverty and to get themselves educated. But that was my mentality, certainly that was my mentality when I joined the military.
An important point and one that Iraq Veterans Against the War, of which Mejia was just elected to the board (as chair), will be making with a new campaign: September 17th IVAW will kick off Truth in Recruiting. It's also a point driven home in Army of None, a new book by Aimee Allison and David Solnit -- from Seven Stories press, available at book stores, online, and via Courage to Resist where you can support both the book and a strong organization. In their book, Allison and Solnit offer an easy to comprehend and inspiring look at counter-recruiting including hands on details. Mejia was mentioning how important it is for students to know there are other opportunities besides the military and the authors Allison and Solnit stress that in their book, the need to provide more "information on job-training programs, college financial aid, and youth service projects." There are other opportunities -- however, the US government doesn't spend millions and billions of dollars a year promoting that. The authors also note the opt-out portion of No Child Left Behind and since fall semesters are starting -- parents have exactly six weeks after the fall semester starts to put in writing that the US military is not to be provided with information about their children. This must be done at the start of each school year.
On A12 of today's New York Times, Sarah Arbuzzese reports on the huge drop in the number of African-Americans enlisting in the US military noting "the share of blacks among active-duty recruits declined to 13 percent in 2006 from 20 percent in 2001" and that the Army has seen the most dramatic decline (from 23% of the 2006 Army population to 13%), then the Marines (from 12% to 8%) and then the Navy and Air Forces. African-Americans have been opposed to the illegal war from the start in large numbers and Abruzzese notes that the most recent polling showed 83% of Afican-Americans say "the United States should have stayed out of Iraq." So counter-recruiting efforts are important and do have effects. Many veterans assist and lead those efforts and IVAW, again, will be launching a campaign next month.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Zamesha Dominique, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Carla Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, forty-one US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters.
Turning to Iraq, having already made clear (via the Sunni shut out of the alleged 'alliance') that the White House defined 'benchmarks' two and sixteen were out the window, Nouri al-Maliki made it even more clear that the Sunnis are not welcome in 'liberated' Iraq. KUNA reports that a list has been issued "of wanted people" which includes the names of those "currently involved in financing attacks against the MNF" according to the Interior Ministry's Abdel-Karim Khalaf who has the title "Lieutenant General". The Interior Ministry has long been accused of being run by thugs who are set upon driving Sunnis out but apparently they now have the means and capabilities to track down those "financing attacks" or, at least, to pretend they do in order to continue targeting Sunnis.
On the heels of US Senators Carl Levin and John Warner's announcement that the Iraqi prime minister's "last chance" had arrived, Bully Boy attempted a show stopping performance today by dusting off his Dark Lady lp, popped it on the turntable and sang along with Cher about just being "a Dixie girl who prays/ Some day she'll be a Delta queen/ Find a good man . . . " Possibly that was his way of entertaining the VFW? Speaking of the puppet of the occupation, Nouri al-Maliki, Bully Boy pronounced him "a good guy, a good man". But it wasn't all spangles and head tosses, Bully Boy also wanted to give a history lesson and, suffice to say, he's no Howard Zinn. Mangling every known fact to humanity, Bully Boy came off like a college student dependent upon the "gentleman's C" which, for the record, was how he got through college. As Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted today, Bully Boy's declaring withdrawal from Iraq will cause the violence that followed when the US withdrew from Vietnam -- violence in Camobia and Laos as well as Vietnam. On the issue of Cambodia, in a speech in June, John Pilger addressed Cambodia, "I've made a number of documentaries about Cambodia. The first was Year Zero: The Silent Death of Cambodia. It describes the American bombing that provided the catalyst for the rise of Pol Pot. What Nixon and Kissinger had started, Pol Pot completed -- CIA files alone leave no doubt of that. . . . The [US] troops were withdrawn from Vietnam after four long years. And during that time the United States killed more people in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos with bombs than were killed in the preceding years. And that's what's happening in Iraq." There's Bully Boy's actual historical comparison -- the one he won't make. To read Pilger's speech click here for Dissident Voice, click here for Democracy Now! which offers it in audio, video and text. As Saul Landau (CounterPunch) has noted of the US and Cambodia, "Between March 1969 and May 1970, Kissinger ordered some 3,600 B 52 raids on Cambodia. Kissinger later lied to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee saying he had selected only 'unpopulated' areas of Cambodia for bombing. Somehow, between 600,000 to 800,000 civilians died in these 'unpopulated' areas. This carnage occurred before Pol Pot won power. . . . Kissinger's undeclared war against Cambodia also included overthrowing the government of Prince Norodom Sihanouk. A pro U.S. military coup produced an ineffective regime and subsequently led to the seizure of power by the Khmer Rouge." "Bush is rewriting history -- never his best subject," notes Matthew Rothschild (The Progressive) who also notes, "he's counting the victims of the Khmer Rouge, who came to power only after the U.S. ruined Cambodia. And he's not counting the three million people the U.S. killed in Southeast Asia during the war. Just as he's not counting the 70,000 to 700,000 civilian Iraqis his war has killed, or the one in ten who have been forced to leave their homes."
David Jackson and Matt Kelley (USA Today) cite Vietnam historian Stanley Karnow saying the "historical analogies . . . don't track" because "Vietnam was not a bunch of sectarian groups fighting each other. . . . Does he think we should have stayed in Vietnam?" "We" would not, of course, include Bully Boy who joined the National Guard to stay out of Vietnam and couldn't even complete his duties there. (Note, in the 90s, Bully Boy would make comments indicating he was against the US involvement in Vietnam. That may have been the closest he ever came to making sense.) Joe Allen (ISR) noted Stanley Karnow referring to the invasion of Laos as Tricky Dick and Crooked Hank (Kissinger)'s "drastic new initiative" to distract from losing to the North Vietnamese with Allen noting: "In February 1971, 150,000 South Vietnamese troops invaded Laos in an operation called Lam Son 719. The U.S. Air Force flew 8,000 ariel sorties in support of the invasion. They advanced about a dozen miles into Laos without much opposition, then they were hit with a major counteroffensive by five divisions of the North Vietnamese Army. It immediately became a major rout, with the South Vietnamese Army fleeing back to South Vietnam . . . The Laos debacle proved that even with U.S. air and logistical support, the South Vietnamese Army was a useless fighting force. There was a rapid disintegration of the U.S. position in Vietnam during the remaining two years of the war." (That's from part three of Joe Allen's Vietnam series, click here for part one and here for part two.) Matthew Davis (BBC) analyzes the false comparison and quotes "Iraq analyst at King's College, London" James Denselow: "This smacks of spin, a last throw of the dice designed to pre-empt the anti-war lobby and justify the US's continued presence. This is an issue of how America goes to war, and how it gets out of it. It is rare for a leader in a democracy to take a country into war, and to take the country out." Click here for Thom Shanker's laughable 'Bully Boy is right and look Council on Foreign Relations and a host of War Hawks say so!" And no link to The Nation because John Nichols is apparently representing the entire magazine and most of the timid left who refuse to call out the Vietnam nonsense (Nichols zooms in Korea. Way to go, we'll all go home and watch M*A*S*H!). This is how the Vietnam revisionary history took hold to begin with, people smart enough to know it needed calling out refusing to do so. (In fairness, Nichols is apparently the only working at the magazine today.) Check instead the piece by Ron Fullwoood (OpEdNews). Or The UnCapitalist Journal which notes, "Incapable of admitting utter catastrophe in waging a 21st Century war of aggression that has left the U.S. armed forces debilitated and incapable of effectively fighting even a single theater war against a real enemy, and unable to face up to the wreck visited upon the fiscal house of the nation by irresponsible tax cuts for the rich coupled with unending, uncontrolled costs of vaporous war against a stateless band of criminal maniacs, the President of the United States of America is about to go all the way back and blame Richard Milhouse Nixon for this miserable failure of a Presidency."
Though the puppet has made no known comment on Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia, Carol J. Williams (Los Angeles Times) reports he's spitting mad over talk that he needs to go declaring, "No one has the right to place timetables on the Iraq government. It was elected by its people." Setting the issue of the election aside, al-Maliki wasn't elected by the people and should have been tossed out in May of 2006 by the Iraq Constitution since he failed to meet the deadline to put together his cabinet (after missing it, for those who've forgotten, al-Maliki tossed out the Constitutional deadline and created his own deadline -- which he also missed). Paul Tait and Mohammad Zargham (Reuters) report that al-Maliki declared of US criticism (the reporters note it wasn't "clear if he was referring to Bush or [US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan] Crocker"), "These statements do not concern us a lot. We will find many around the world who will support us in our endeavour." Really? Because the puppet was whining (when the US Congress was speaking of withdrawal at the end of spring) that the US forces couldn't leave (though poll after poll demonstrates the Iraqi people want them to). The puppet who never met a conspiracy he couldn't latch on to also began seeing a plot caused by the trip he's currently on, "Those who make such statements are bothered by our visit to Syria. We will pay no attention. We care for our people and our constitution and can find friends elsewhere." "Our"? It's his trip. Is the "we" also al-Maliki speaking of himself in the plural form? While al-Maliki gives a performance to rival Mary Todd Lincoln, Robert H. Reid (AP) reports that members of Iraq's Parliament "lack the votes to replace him" (maybe not) and that the White House fears no one else "could do a better job". So Iraq's stuck with al-Maliki the way the Democratically controlled US Congress tries to stick the American people with Bully Boy? Further calling Reid's reporting skills into question, he cites War Hawk Kenny Pollack -- who's been so 'right' about everything from the start (that was sarcasm). Jonathan Steele (Guardian of London via ICH) observes of al-Maliki's outburst, "In one sense, the crisis only confirms what has been clear for months. Whoever sits in the Green Zone in nominal charge of Iraq's government has little power or authority beyond its walls. Bush's political project for Iraq looks more fragile than ever."
Fragile? In some of today's violence . . .
Bombings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad car bombing claimed 1 life (five wounded), a Baghdad mortar attack that wounded two, a truck bombing in the Salahuddin Province that killed 12 (twenty-five wounded), a car bombing in Tikrit that claimed 1 life (police officer, three more wounded), a Kirkuk car bombing that wounded one police officer and a roadside bombing near Flaifel left four members wounded. Reuters reports 6 killed (thrity-five wounded) in a motorcycle bombing in Muqdadiya, 20 dead (fifty wounded) in a tanker bombing in Baiji. The Baiji truck bombing death toll rose to 45 dead (eighty wounded), CBS and AP report. Carol J. Williams (Los Angeles Times) notes the death toll has climbed to 51 and that it "leveled" Baiji's "main police station" as well as causing "neighboring buildings" to collapse while noting the toll contains "such high casualties because most residents do their shopping in late morning and the station was located on a main commerical street."
Shootings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Ahmed Hassan was shot dead in Al Riath.
Stabbings?
Reuters reports, "Armed men stabbed a female professor to death in the Shi'ite city of Kufa".
Corpses?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 15 corpses discovered in Baghdad. Counting corpses that is 88 deaths and that's not all of the deaths today.
The US military announced: "Fourteen Task Force Lightning Soldiers died when the aircraft they were riding went down in northern Iraq Wednesday. Two UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters were on a night operation when one of the aircraft crashed. That helicopter had been carrying four crewmembers and 10 passengers. Initial indications are that the aircraft experienced a mechanical malfunction." Megan Greenwell (Washington Post) notes at least 63 helicopters have crashed (my term) in the illegal war with at least 36 being "struck by enemy fire". CBS and AP note that the deadliest helicopter crash in the illegal war took place on January 26, 2005 "when a CH-53 Sea Stallion transport helicopter went down in a sandstorm in western Iraq, killing 31 U.S. troops." Like that helicopter crash, this one too "is under investigation." The January 26th helicopter crashed outside Ar Rutbah.
The US military wasn't done -- they announced: "A Multi-National Division-Baghdad Soldier was killed and three others were wounded during combat operations in an area west of the Iraqi capital Aug. 22." Today's deaths brought the total number of US service members killed in the illegal war to 3722 with 64 of those from the month of August thus far (ICCC).
And finally, in media news, Jeff Zeleny and the New York Times have smeared the peace movement with a big-old-fat lie. Yesterday, Senator Barack Obama (and 2008 Democratic presidential hopeful) delivered a speech to the VFW where he declared, "The graves of our veterans are hallowed ground. When men and women who die in service to this country are laid to rest, there must be no protests near the funerals. Its' wrong and it needs to stop." Obama was referring to the 'vangical fringe that is the gay hating Fred Phelps crowd. The extreme right wing set. As Cedric's "New York Times lies again!" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! NEW YORK TIMES LIES ABOUT PEACE MOVEMENT!" noted yesterday, somehow New York Times' Jeff Zeleny heard that and decided Obama was talking about the peace movement: "He also said it was wrong for anti-war activists to protest at military funerals, declaring: 'It needs to stop'." The print version of the story ran in this morning's paper on A11 and does not contain the error/lie; however, the story is still up online at the paper's website and has not been corrected. How many times is the Times going to smear the peace movement during this illegal war?
iraqcamilo mejia
iraq veterans against the war
wbai
deepa fernandeskpfk
john pilger
democracy nowamy goodman
matthew rothschild
the washington postmegan greenwell
mcclatchy newspapers
the los angeles times
the new york times
jeff zeleny
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
Matt Rothschild hit hard on the topic today and he's being slammed by a lot of people who don't seem to grasp what's what.
Bully Boy is not making a historical analogy to Vietnam, Bully Boy is rewriting history. He can compare Iraq to Vietnam (and has before, such as when he commented on Thomas Friedman's column), what he can't do is rewrite history.
The rewrite is all over the place in his statements. Bully Boy lied when he said withdrawal from Vietnam led to a host of problems because, as with Cambodia, most of those problems resulted from US intervention/war.
Had the US not decided to prop up a segment that never represented the people (South Vietnam then, Prisoner of the Green Zone al-Maliki today), whatever was going to happen would have happened. Instead the US went into Vietnam (long before Tonkin) and began arming one side in a conflict they had no business in.
After the US pulled out, any violence that came was worse than what would have happened had the US stayed out. Had the US stayed out, the US would not have murdered so many Vietnamese. Had the US stayed out, the propped up South Vietnam would have had to surrender much sooner.
Cambodia? The US decided to arm South Vietnamese to go and fight there with US support. It was a disaster for the South Vietnamese who fled leaving behind the US equipment. But it did enough damage to create the instability that led to the blood bath.
With Cambodia, Laos or Vietnam, what the right-wingers posting in reply to Matthew Rothschild don't grasp is that one set of people aren't better? They really don't care about any set but they toss out the ones after withdrawal to use as examples. The bloody and illegal war killed millions, created the instability in the region (as planned) and the longer the US stayed, the more pressure was created in the sense of a powder keg that would blow.
It's the same thing today with Iraq.
I laughed out loud when I read C.I.'s comment in the snapshot about M*A*S*H. As someone who does work with high schoolers (I do a volunteer group with at risk female high schoolers), I agree John Nichols wasted his time and everyone else with his piece on Korea. "Vietnam" registers somewhat with young people. It's "way back" before they were born, but it does register. Korea?
But there's John Nichols offering up a defense on an issue that young people today, for the most part, aren't going to give a damn about. By zooming in on Korea, he also sends (unintentionally perhaps) the message that the comments about Vietnam must be correct.
He is wasting everyone's time.
The house is on fire and instead of grabbing a pail of water, Nichols stops to give a historical overview of the Great Chicago Fire. That's what the Korea post is and if he didn't take the argument there because it was easier, he's hopelessly out of touch with the young people of today.
While visiting, I saw that Katha Pollitt had some more thoughts on Cindy Sheehan's run. She felt maybe there was a tiny bit of worth in the run. Not much. Just a tiny bit.
"If Cindy Sheehan wants to make an anti-war gesture, running against Nancy Pelosi is one way to do it, so good luck to her," Pollitt oh-so generously writes. That's the Sisterhood of Pollitt. What a huge embarrassment she's become. At best, she offered clever word play. A lot of flash, no substance was her hallmark.
Now she can't even manage flash.
But who does Katha Pollitt think she is writing a "Dear Cindy" post telling another woman not to run? Equally important, why does Pollitt believe Sheehan thinks she can't win?
Is Pollitt counseling Sheehan over the phone because I'm not aware of it. Or maybe she's become a pyschic?
I would assume if Sheehan's running she thinks there's some chance she might win.
So the real question here is why and how does Pollitt think feminism is telling a woman she can't do something she thinks she can or that the thing to do is tell women not to dream?
That's not how I learned feminism. I learned that a woman could go for anything she wanted. I learned that you might not support another woman's journey but, if you were a feminist, you didn't throw roadblocks in her way.
That's what Katha Pollitt's doing. She's like any pundit in the MSM going on Meet the Press offering tired, conventional and, yes, sexist 'wisdom.'
Of course, another issue is why Pollitt presents herself as an expert on the Bay Area since she doesn't live there (and is not well liked there among most feminists after her months of nonsense or, for that matter, her 2006 attack on CODEPINK)?
The really big question is why Katha Pollitt is so obsessed with Cindy Sheehan?
I thought marriage was supposed to have made Pollitt happier but, instead, it's just made her brain all mushy.
She knows nothing about the Bay Area and she knows nothing about Pelosi's record. I would guess that I spend more time in the Bay Area each year than does Katha Pollitt and I also have many good friends (including C.I., Kat, Ava, Dona, Jess, Ty and Jim) living there.
Katha Pollitt is aware that Pelosi might be a 'strong' Congress member for the Mid-West; however, she's far to the right of the district she currently represents?
Katha Pollitt's latest 'solution' is that people should go after Blue Dogs in other races because they do not represent the Democratic Party? What about when a Congress member refuses to represent her district? Pelosi is not represneting her district on any number of issues (reproductive rights, gay and lesbian issues, the illegal war, impeachment . . .). So if a Congress member is to the right of the district, is Pollitt arguing -- while arguing "Go after the Blue Dogs!" -- that a district has no valid complaint?
It all comes down to the fact that she is not about feminism and she's not about democracy. She is about being a Democratic Cheerleader so she and The Nation are a perfect fit.
Here's the thing though, I've seen this game before and so has The Nation. They hype readers and when the readers wake up (because squishy leaders they applauded get into office and gain more power), the circulation drops off quickly. If the Dems are swept into office in 2008 without The Nation holding their feet to the fire and the Dems do nothing (like they are doing nothing right now), the fallout effects the magazine as well.
So that's the good news. If they exist for no reason except to be a Democratic Party organ (and under the 'leadership' of Katrina vanden Heuvel, that's all they can exist as) then the good news is The Nation may finally go under.
The Nation may finally collapse in a few years. They'll have no more squishy, used to be Republicans to support them and bail them out. That group is dying off (mainly because they are so old). They'll have to then live or die by the subscribers and with print taking a hit and with them serving the Democratic Party and not readers, The Nation may be spending this time in constructing their own coffin.
Possibly not, but we can all hope and long for the day when the Party Hacks either has to go directly onto the DNC payroll or attempt to learn new skills that they can market.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Wednesday, August 22, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, over 80 Iraqis are reported today, the US military announces deaths as well including those dead from a helicopter crash, Bully Boy demonstrates -- even before Karl Rove departs on Aug. 31st. -- that he doesn't need a brain and wouldn't use it if he had one, while Nouri al-Maliki hears voices and sees enemies and conspiracies all around him . . .
Starting with war resistance. Camilo Mejia does a reading from his book Road from Ar Ramaid: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia at Different Drummer tomorrow (Thursday) at 6:30 pm. Friday he has events in Syracuse (click here and check out the sidebar). Today, Deepa Fernades interviewed him on WBAI's Wakeupcall Radio.
Deepa Fernades: Can you just talk us through that . . . Those moments of deciding? Of realizing "Okay, I really don't have any other option but the military?" What was going through your mind? Did you actually think, "This is crazy. And what am I signing up for"?
Camilo Mejia: Not really because -- Well, first of all, I would disagree now days that there are no options. I think there are some options. I think we need to fight for more options. But young people really don't need to join the military to get themselves, you know, out of poverty and to get themselves educated. But that was my mentality, certainly that was my mentality when I joined the military.
An important point and one that Iraq Veterans Against the War, of which Mejia was just elected to the board (as chair), will be making with a new campaign: September 17th IVAW will kick off Truth in Recruiting. It's also a point driven home in Army of None, a new book by Aimee Allison and David Solnit -- from Seven Stories press, available at book stores, online, and via Courage to Resist where you can support both the book and a strong organization. In their book, Allison and Solnit offer an easy to comprehend and inspiring look at counter-recruiting including hands on details. Mejia was mentioning how important it is for students to know there are other opportunities besides the military and the authors Allison and Solnit stress that in their book, the need to provide more "information on job-training programs, college financial aid, and youth service projects." There are other opportunities -- however, the US government doesn't spend millions and billions of dollars a year promoting that. The authors also note the opt-out portion of No Child Left Behind and since fall semesters are starting -- parents have exactly six weeks after the fall semester starts to put in writing that the US military is not to be provided with information about their children. This must be done at the start of each school year.
On A12 of today's New York Times, Sarah Arbuzzese reports on the huge drop in the number of African-Americans enlisting in the US military noting "the share of blacks among active-duty recruits declined to 13 percent in 2006 from 20 percent in 2001" and that the Army has seen the most dramatic decline (from 23% of the 2006 Army population to 13%), then the Marines (from 12% to 8%) and then the Navy and Air Forces. African-Americans have been opposed to the illegal war from the start in large numbers and Abruzzese notes that the most recent polling showed 83% of Afican-Americans say "the United States should have stayed out of Iraq." So counter-recruiting efforts are important and do have effects. Many veterans assist and lead those efforts and IVAW, again, will be launching a campaign next month.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Zamesha Dominique, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Carla Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, forty-one US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters.
Turning to Iraq, having already made clear (via the Sunni shut out of the alleged 'alliance') that the White House defined 'benchmarks' two and sixteen were out the window, Nouri al-Maliki made it even more clear that the Sunnis are not welcome in 'liberated' Iraq. KUNA reports that a list has been issued "of wanted people" which includes the names of those "currently involved in financing attacks against the MNF" according to the Interior Ministry's Abdel-Karim Khalaf who has the title "Lieutenant General". The Interior Ministry has long been accused of being run by thugs who are set upon driving Sunnis out but apparently they now have the means and capabilities to track down those "financing attacks" or, at least, to pretend they do in order to continue targeting Sunnis.
On the heels of US Senators Carl Levin and John Warner's announcement that the Iraqi prime minister's "last chance" had arrived, Bully Boy attempted a show stopping performance today by dusting off his Dark Lady lp, popped it on the turntable and sang along with Cher about just being "a Dixie girl who prays/ Some day she'll be a Delta queen/ Find a good man . . . " Possibly that was his way of entertaining the VFW? Speaking of the puppet of the occupation, Nouri al-Maliki, Bully Boy pronounced him "a good guy, a good man". But it wasn't all spangles and head tosses, Bully Boy also wanted to give a history lesson and, suffice to say, he's no Howard Zinn. Mangling every known fact to humanity, Bully Boy came off like a college student dependent upon the "gentleman's C" which, for the record, was how he got through college. As Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted today, Bully Boy's declaring withdrawal from Iraq will cause the violence that followed when the US withdrew from Vietnam -- violence in Camobia and Laos as well as Vietnam. On the issue of Cambodia, in a speech in June, John Pilger addressed Cambodia, "I've made a number of documentaries about Cambodia. The first was Year Zero: The Silent Death of Cambodia. It describes the American bombing that provided the catalyst for the rise of Pol Pot. What Nixon and Kissinger had started, Pol Pot completed -- CIA files alone leave no doubt of that. . . . The [US] troops were withdrawn from Vietnam after four long years. And during that time the United States killed more people in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos with bombs than were killed in the preceding years. And that's what's happening in Iraq." There's Bully Boy's actual historical comparison -- the one he won't make. To read Pilger's speech click here for Dissident Voice, click here for Democracy Now! which offers it in audio, video and text. As Saul Landau (CounterPunch) has noted of the US and Cambodia, "Between March 1969 and May 1970, Kissinger ordered some 3,600 B 52 raids on Cambodia. Kissinger later lied to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee saying he had selected only 'unpopulated' areas of Cambodia for bombing. Somehow, between 600,000 to 800,000 civilians died in these 'unpopulated' areas. This carnage occurred before Pol Pot won power. . . . Kissinger's undeclared war against Cambodia also included overthrowing the government of Prince Norodom Sihanouk. A pro U.S. military coup produced an ineffective regime and subsequently led to the seizure of power by the Khmer Rouge." "Bush is rewriting history -- never his best subject," notes Matthew Rothschild (The Progressive) who also notes, "he's counting the victims of the Khmer Rouge, who came to power only after the U.S. ruined Cambodia. And he's not counting the three million people the U.S. killed in Southeast Asia during the war. Just as he's not counting the 70,000 to 700,000 civilian Iraqis his war has killed, or the one in ten who have been forced to leave their homes."
David Jackson and Matt Kelley (USA Today) cite Vietnam historian Stanley Karnow saying the "historical analogies . . . don't track" because "Vietnam was not a bunch of sectarian groups fighting each other. . . . Does he think we should have stayed in Vietnam?" "We" would not, of course, include Bully Boy who joined the National Guard to stay out of Vietnam and couldn't even complete his duties there. (Note, in the 90s, Bully Boy would make comments indicating he was against the US involvement in Vietnam. That may have been the closest he ever came to making sense.) Joe Allen (ISR) noted Stanley Karnow referring to the invasion of Laos as Tricky Dick and Crooked Hank (Kissinger)'s "drastic new initiative" to distract from losing to the North Vietnamese with Allen noting: "In February 1971, 150,000 South Vietnamese troops invaded Laos in an operation called Lam Son 719. The U.S. Air Force flew 8,000 ariel sorties in support of the invasion. They advanced about a dozen miles into Laos without much opposition, then they were hit with a major counteroffensive by five divisions of the North Vietnamese Army. It immediately became a major rout, with the South Vietnamese Army fleeing back to South Vietnam . . . The Laos debacle proved that even with U.S. air and logistical support, the South Vietnamese Army was a useless fighting force. There was a rapid disintegration of the U.S. position in Vietnam during the remaining two years of the war." (That's from part three of Joe Allen's Vietnam series, click here for part one and here for part two.) Matthew Davis (BBC) analyzes the false comparison and quotes "Iraq analyst at King's College, London" James Denselow: "This smacks of spin, a last throw of the dice designed to pre-empt the anti-war lobby and justify the US's continued presence. This is an issue of how America goes to war, and how it gets out of it. It is rare for a leader in a democracy to take a country into war, and to take the country out." Click here for Thom Shanker's laughable 'Bully Boy is right and look Council on Foreign Relations and a host of War Hawks say so!" And no link to The Nation because John Nichols is apparently representing the entire magazine and most of the timid left who refuse to call out the Vietnam nonsense (Nichols zooms in Korea. Way to go, we'll all go home and watch M*A*S*H!). This is how the Vietnam revisionary history took hold to begin with, people smart enough to know it needed calling out refusing to do so. (In fairness, Nichols is apparently the only working at the magazine today.) Check instead the piece by Ron Fullwoood (OpEdNews). Or The UnCapitalist Journal which notes, "Incapable of admitting utter catastrophe in waging a 21st Century war of aggression that has left the U.S. armed forces debilitated and incapable of effectively fighting even a single theater war against a real enemy, and unable to face up to the wreck visited upon the fiscal house of the nation by irresponsible tax cuts for the rich coupled with unending, uncontrolled costs of vaporous war against a stateless band of criminal maniacs, the President of the United States of America is about to go all the way back and blame Richard Milhouse Nixon for this miserable failure of a Presidency."
Though the puppet has made no known comment on Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia, Carol J. Williams (Los Angeles Times) reports he's spitting mad over talk that he needs to go declaring, "No one has the right to place timetables on the Iraq government. It was elected by its people." Setting the issue of the election aside, al-Maliki wasn't elected by the people and should have been tossed out in May of 2006 by the Iraq Constitution since he failed to meet the deadline to put together his cabinet (after missing it, for those who've forgotten, al-Maliki tossed out the Constitutional deadline and created his own deadline -- which he also missed). Paul Tait and Mohammad Zargham (Reuters) report that al-Maliki declared of US criticism (the reporters note it wasn't "clear if he was referring to Bush or [US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan] Crocker"), "These statements do not concern us a lot. We will find many around the world who will support us in our endeavour." Really? Because the puppet was whining (when the US Congress was speaking of withdrawal at the end of spring) that the US forces couldn't leave (though poll after poll demonstrates the Iraqi people want them to). The puppet who never met a conspiracy he couldn't latch on to also began seeing a plot caused by the trip he's currently on, "Those who make such statements are bothered by our visit to Syria. We will pay no attention. We care for our people and our constitution and can find friends elsewhere." "Our"? It's his trip. Is the "we" also al-Maliki speaking of himself in the plural form? While al-Maliki gives a performance to rival Mary Todd Lincoln, Robert H. Reid (AP) reports that members of Iraq's Parliament "lack the votes to replace him" (maybe not) and that the White House fears no one else "could do a better job". So Iraq's stuck with al-Maliki the way the Democratically controlled US Congress tries to stick the American people with Bully Boy? Further calling Reid's reporting skills into question, he cites War Hawk Kenny Pollack -- who's been so 'right' about everything from the start (that was sarcasm). Jonathan Steele (Guardian of London via ICH) observes of al-Maliki's outburst, "In one sense, the crisis only confirms what has been clear for months. Whoever sits in the Green Zone in nominal charge of Iraq's government has little power or authority beyond its walls. Bush's political project for Iraq looks more fragile than ever."
Fragile? In some of today's violence . . .
Bombings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad car bombing claimed 1 life (five wounded), a Baghdad mortar attack that wounded two, a truck bombing in the Salahuddin Province that killed 12 (twenty-five wounded), a car bombing in Tikrit that claimed 1 life (police officer, three more wounded), a Kirkuk car bombing that wounded one police officer and a roadside bombing near Flaifel left four members wounded. Reuters reports 6 killed (thrity-five wounded) in a motorcycle bombing in Muqdadiya, 20 dead (fifty wounded) in a tanker bombing in Baiji. The Baiji truck bombing death toll rose to 45 dead (eighty wounded), CBS and AP report. Carol J. Williams (Los Angeles Times) notes the death toll has climbed to 51 and that it "leveled" Baiji's "main police station" as well as causing "neighboring buildings" to collapse while noting the toll contains "such high casualties because most residents do their shopping in late morning and the station was located on a main commerical street."
Shootings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Ahmed Hassan was shot dead in Al Riath.
Stabbings?
Reuters reports, "Armed men stabbed a female professor to death in the Shi'ite city of Kufa".
Corpses?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 15 corpses discovered in Baghdad. Counting corpses that is 88 deaths and that's not all of the deaths today.
The US military announced: "Fourteen Task Force Lightning Soldiers died when the aircraft they were riding went down in northern Iraq Wednesday. Two UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters were on a night operation when one of the aircraft crashed. That helicopter had been carrying four crewmembers and 10 passengers. Initial indications are that the aircraft experienced a mechanical malfunction." Megan Greenwell (Washington Post) notes at least 63 helicopters have crashed (my term) in the illegal war with at least 36 being "struck by enemy fire". CBS and AP note that the deadliest helicopter crash in the illegal war took place on January 26, 2005 "when a CH-53 Sea Stallion transport helicopter went down in a sandstorm in western Iraq, killing 31 U.S. troops." Like that helicopter crash, this one too "is under investigation." The January 26th helicopter crashed outside Ar Rutbah.
The US military wasn't done -- they announced: "A Multi-National Division-Baghdad Soldier was killed and three others were wounded during combat operations in an area west of the Iraqi capital Aug. 22." Today's deaths brought the total number of US service members killed in the illegal war to 3722 with 64 of those from the month of August thus far (ICCC).
And finally, in media news, Jeff Zeleny and the New York Times have smeared the peace movement with a big-old-fat lie. Yesterday, Senator Barack Obama (and 2008 Democratic presidential hopeful) delivered a speech to the VFW where he declared, "The graves of our veterans are hallowed ground. When men and women who die in service to this country are laid to rest, there must be no protests near the funerals. Its' wrong and it needs to stop." Obama was referring to the 'vangical fringe that is the gay hating Fred Phelps crowd. The extreme right wing set. As Cedric's "New York Times lies again!" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! NEW YORK TIMES LIES ABOUT PEACE MOVEMENT!" noted yesterday, somehow New York Times' Jeff Zeleny heard that and decided Obama was talking about the peace movement: "He also said it was wrong for anti-war activists to protest at military funerals, declaring: 'It needs to stop'." The print version of the story ran in this morning's paper on A11 and does not contain the error/lie; however, the story is still up online at the paper's website and has not been corrected. How many times is the Times going to smear the peace movement during this illegal war?
iraqcamilo mejia
iraq veterans against the war
wbai
deepa fernandeskpfk
john pilger
democracy nowamy goodman
matthew rothschild
the washington postmegan greenwell
mcclatchy newspapers
the los angeles times
the new york times
jeff zeleny
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)