"Hillary Accepts Invitation To Irish American Presidential Forum" (HillaryClinton.com):
The Clinton campaign today announced that Hillary Clinton would attend the Irish American Presidential Forum. The event is an opportunity for presidential candidates to address the Irish-American voters and answer questions important to the community, including Northern Ireland and immigration.
"I'm excited to participate in this important forum. I have worked on issues important to the Irish-American community for many years and look forward to discussing my plans as President," said Clinton. "I want to thank John Dearie and the other organizers of this event for the invitation and encourage Senator Obama and Senator McCain to accept it as well. By doing so, voters will have an opportunity to examine our records and compare our plans to continue moving the peace process in Northern Ireland forward."
The campaign is working with the organizers to confirm a date and location for the forum.
Hillary traveled to Northern Ireland seven times between 1995 and 2004, and gave what Northern Irish leader and Nobel Laureate John Hume recently described as "decisive support" to the peace process in Northern Ireland. One of her key areas of focus was encouraging the emergence of women in the political process. In addition, Hillary's work at the grass roots and behind-the-scenes helped cultivate the conditions necessary for the peace to take hold and last. She became intimately familiar with the major players in the process and spoke with them often to serve as a sounding board and to push the negotiations forward. For more information on Hillary Clinton’s work on behalf of Northern Ireland, click here.
The first Irish American Presidential Forum took place in 1984.
For any who do not know, I am involved with an Irish-American and he would have a fit if I didn't note the above.
I had an e-mail asking if I was endorsing Hillary? I'm endorsing and fairness and truth and there's been none of that from Panhandle Media. (Real media's been a little better.) I voted for Mike Gravel. Hillary, as I've said before, at the top of the Democratic ticket, would mean I would vote Democratic. Barack Obama means I'm voting either Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader.
I can't vote for a fraud. When he ran for the US Senate, he revealed himself as a fraud. He was being painted as the "anti-war" senator and he told C.I. and myself that he didn't support withdrawal. Now he's campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination and, in an echo, it turns out that he's not for withdrawaing US combat troops in 16 months if elected. His then-adviser Samantha Power told the BBC just that. She explained that if he won, things would change and they'd have to re-evaluate.
I'm all prepared to vote for someone who will lead or who will work with the American people but that's not Obama. My mouth dropped when C.I. was pinning him down and making sure we both understood what Obama had just said.
I've shared this story online since 2005. I haven't forgotten that moment and I won't. I did not donate to his Senate campaign, I did not applaud his speech when I was in Boston (at the DNC convention). I do not support him. He is a fraud.
I've felt that way since that fundraiser. So, no, I will not vote for him. If he gets the nomination, I won't be voting for him.
Like C.I., I really had no interest in noting any political campaigns this year. But the Obama campaign will not stop lying (or playing the race card) and Panhandle Media is in the tank for him.
When I started writing about Hillary here, I really didn't care for her a great deal. I didn't dislike her, I just wasn't interested. My point was that the power I have is this, this site. I can complain about what others don't cover but if all I do is point the finger, then what's the point? I have a platform (a small one) and I can use it.
So that's why I started noting Hillary. But as I've been noting her, she's gotten to be a stronger candidate (in terms of communicating) and she's also taken some very strong positions. She's opposed to the mercenaries in Iraq and she's working on that issue while Obama intends to up the number of mercenaries in Iraq.
But as a woman, I couldn't stand by while she was dog piled.
It would be one thing if she was up against a worthy candidate, say Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Then I could understand some of the push. But she is a very worthy candidate and she's getting creamed by the supporters of a Whim.
That's all Obama is a Whim. A whim of a campaign. Running on whimsy. Chicken Sop for the Soul as C.I. dubbed it last year.
Gloria Steinem was correct, a woman with Barack's 'record,' would be laughed off the national stage because there is no record there.
That's why people like Ira at Common Dreams have to launch their non-stop attacks on Hillary, week after week. He's got one up today again. No surprise.
But they have to rip her apart and tear her apart just to make him look half-way decent and that should tell you a great deal.
I know C.I. intended to only cover it if it was Iraq related. I know C.I. thought that by June of 2007, Obama would start getting some criticism, that Clinton and Obama would be held to the same standard. But there have been no standards for Obama. There has been non-stop attacks on Hillary.
CounterPunch wants to write about Paula Jones. Common Dreams can't post one of their Hillary slams without one of their idiots posting the lie that Hillary killed Vince Foster.
All this crap, this stuff that the left sneered at int he 90s and today the ones repeating are the ones claiming to be left.
Yesterday, I wrote about how the attacks on her to build up Barack were similar to the attacks on Anita Hill to build up Clarence Thomas. Neither man was worthy of the post he sought. But instead of addressing that, it was tear into the woman, destroy her.
No woman can support that and have any self-respect.
Look at Red Granny, whom I delinked from. Sunny bookmarked her site and said Red Granny, who never thanked Rebecca for answering all of her questions, is now using all the tips Rebecca gave her when Rebecca responded to her e-mail. That's your typical Obama supporter. Asking for help and when it's provided, no thank you, no gratitude. They're just greedy needies. Of course, Red Granny's also a communist so why she feels the need to endorse a Democrat -- any Democrat -- is a puzzler.
As for the post-feminists, the push-up bra set, I love how they say it's about the person who's right for the job and that's feminism! I think we're supposed to insert hair toss there. It's not about that, dears, it's about whether or not a woman is given a fair chance and there is nothing fair about the non-stop attacks on Hillary.
I also agree with Dona that no feminist can support homophobia so Bambi's use of it in South Carolina rules out any feminist support for him.
Red Granny, by the way, doesn't live in California. Like most of the elderly in the closet communists, she lives in the NYC area. But Ava was telling me yesterday that when she was trying to be kind to Red Granny (before Rebecca) and explaining that there was nothing "illogical" about her (Ava) supporting Hillary and that a lot of Latinos were supporting Hillary and that the bulk of the Latinos in her state (California) were supporting Hillary, Red Granny fired back a one-line response stating Hillary had no Latino support and Barack would win California.
Of course, we all know how that turned out. Equally true is that Asian-Americans in California, as Ava and C.I. predicted would happen, overwhelmingly supported Hillary.
Red Granny didn't think that would happen either.
Red Granny's an idiot and the world will be a better place when her kind dies off.
It didn't make sense in the late 60s for that generation to hide that they were communists and by the time the 70s rolled around, it was beyond senseless. But they still hide. Eric hides. The press lets him hide. When he dies, will any obit writer be brave enough to note the truth?
My generation, which did include communists, were just puzzled by that in the closet mentality. I'm very glad that today's young communsists don't worry about it. They shouldn't. It always makes me happy when I see them at protests because the elderly set, during Vietnam, would confront any young person they thought was a communist and chew them out about being 'public.'
So my point here is a lot of those closeted types are supporting Bambi. You know how candidates now have to say "I'm ___ and I support this message" or whatever the tag line is at the end of the commercials? I think endorses should have to do something similar. "I'm Red Granny endorsing Obama and I'm a communist." That sort of thing. They've had entirely too much power in Panhandle Media and they wouldn't have it if their audiences didn't think they were Democrats.
If people knew, their attitude would be, "If you're a communist, why are you endorsing a Democrat?" That would nullify the endorsement right there and should.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Tuesday, March 11, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, a commander steps down, the Senate explores where the money goes in Iraq and more.
Starting with war resistance. In June 2006, Ehren Watada, became the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to the Iraq War. He has stated it is an illegal war. He finished his service contract in December of 2006; however, the US military refuses to discharge him hoping that they can circumvent the US Constitution's ban on double-jeopardy and court-martial him again (the first court-martial ended in a mistrial -- over defense objections). UCLA's Asian American Studies Center Press's Amerasia Journal has a special edition entitled "World, War, Watada." From the AASC's press release:
"Amerasia Journal is the first and only national scholarly journal to gather, interpret, and present, from varying perspectives, the ideas and voices of Asian Americans themselves on the case of Lt. Ehren Watada and the war," writes editor and UCLA professor Russell C. Leong. In this issue, Asian Americans and South Asian Americans take stands against racial, ethnic, and religious profiling and the curtailment of their civil, cultural, and political rights. Scholars and researchers also contribute pieces that bridge the "ivory tower" of the university with the realities of war, globalization, and national identity in the twenty-first century.
This volume examines the multiple dimensions of the Lieutenant Watada case, connecting Watada to the history of Asian American resistance to injustice. From a legal perspective, Prof. Eric K. Yamamoto and Ashley Kaho'omino'aka Kaiao Obrey of the University of Hawai'i law school view Lieutenant Watada's stand as part of a "long line of resistance" within the broader context of World War II Japanese American internee draft resistance and executive branch abuses of American civil liberties in the name of national security. They also discuss the applications of the Nuremberg Principles to the Watada case.
This issue also includes letters by Mits Koshiyama, Paul Tsuneishi, and testimony prepared for the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians in July 30, 1981 by his father, Satoru Tsuneishi. Koshiyama, a Heart Mountain World War II draft resister, ends his personal letter to Lt. Ehren Watada, as follows: "Do what your conscience tells you what to do. We got punished by a prejudiced court but in the end, we prevailed."
Other contributors include writer Frank Chin, constitutional lawyer Mari Matsuda, and the Nikkei for Civil Rights and Redress September 11 Committee.
You can order it online by clicking here.
And turning to Canada, you can help US war resisters in that country -- help online as well. They were dealt a serious set-back when the Canadian Supreme Court refused to hear the appeals of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Today, Canada's Parliament remaining the best hope for safe harbor war resisters have, you can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (http://us.f366.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (http://us.f366.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (http://us.f366.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. That is the sort of thing that should receive attention but instead it's ignored.There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara 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, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, 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, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty 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 [(877) 447-4487], 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. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Meanwhile IVAW has a DC action this month:In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation. Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'." IVAW's co-chair Adam Kokesh will, of course, be participating and he explains why at his site, "But out of a strong sense of duty, some of us are trying to put our experiences to use for a good cause. Some of us couldn't live with ourselves if weren't doing everything we could to bring our brothers and sisters home as soon as possible. The environment may be unking, but that is why I will be testifying to shooting at civilians as a result of changing Rules of Engagement, abuse of detainees, and desecration of Iraqi bodies. It won't be easy but it must be done. Some of the stories are things that are difficult to admit that I was a part of, but if one more veteran realizes that they are not alone because of my testimony it will be worth it." The hearings will be broadcast throughout at the Iraq Veterans Against the War home page an on KPFA March 14th and 16th with Aimee Allison (co-host of the station's The Morning Show and co-author with David Solnit of Army Of None) and Aaron Glantz hosting and the KPFA live stream will also be available at Glantz' War Comes Home.
The message has been sent in Iraq, US Senator Patrick Leahy explained, that "anything goes -- just put it on the American tax payers' credit card." Leahy was speaking this morning at the Senate Appropriations Committee in their hearing to "Examine Waste, Fraud, and Abuse of American Tax Dollars in Iraq" -- a hearing that Senator Byron Dorgan declared was "the tip of the iceberg" and "ought to be the first of a dozen or two dozen hearings."
Appearing before the committee were David Walker (Comptroller General of the US), Claude Kicklighter (Defense Department Inspector General) and Stuart Bowen (Special Inspector General for Iraq reconstruction).
Citing the US infrastructure that needs rebuilding, repair, etc., Leahy stated that $44 billion had been spent in the "five years after we invaded Iraq" and he wanted to know of the witnesses whether they believed "there are effective" tools "in place today to prevent the loss and theft of American funds and Iraqi funds?" David Walker declared "no" and immediately moved the conversation to the topic of "we have a deficit" but Iraq is making money from their oil revenues. Leahy stated that $50 billion is what Iraq is expected to take in this year in oil revenues. Walker didn't dispute the estimate but instead explained that money the puppet government in Iraq budgets for reconstruction is not spend (Walker cited only 10% of it had been spent in the most recent examination) and that "it's not being spent for various reasons." Leahy asked Kicklighter, "Could they be doing more?" Kicklighter replied, "I think they are beginning to do more." Stuart Bowen's opinion was that the means to prevent the loss and theft of monies has gotten better but his "biggest concern on the control front is the issue of direct contracting with Iraqi firms. Those are Iraqi firms executing projects involving US funds so I continue to raise questions on that."
Bowen feels its gotten better "My biggest concern on the control front is the issue of direct contracting" with Iraqis. "Those are Iraqi firms executing projects involving US funds so I continue to raise questions on that." His concerns on that, he'd explain under later questioning from Senator Dianne Feinstein, is that the the money goes to Iraqi companies: "These are US dollars and they're paying a company that we have limited input into and oversight of" and, as Feinstein noted, there are rumors that a healthy chunk of the money is paid to militias. With both Leahy and Feinstein, Bowen felt more was happening. Feinstein wanted something more concrete and asked, "Is is sufficient today? You're sort of skirting around my question. So is the answer you don't know? Is it no? What is the answer?" He didn't know but promised "our reviews that will be out this spring will provide specific details."
Has anyone been accountable for the theft or loss of US funds, Lehy wanted to know? Bowen answered, "There haven't been any to speak of." Leahy pinned him down that this was about prosecution, not incidents and Bowen clarified he was speaking of "no prosecutions" and went on to explain a case that was dismissed last week because witnesses did not show up leading Leahy to state that "they won't police their own corruption."
After a brief discussion of the Iraqi oil revenue (which Bowen placed at "closer to sixty" billion dollars for this year), Senator Patty Murray yieled her time to Senator Byron Dorgan who promised that when the officials were done answering the Senate, the second panel would have a great deal to say. It didn't really work out that way, but we'll get back to it.
Senator Dianne Feinstein mentioned the reports that US troops in Iraq have become ill from unsafe water supplied by KBR and that KBR was offshroing to avoid paying taxes, into Medicaid and into the Social Security trust. Feinstein wanted to know, "Is that true or false? Whoever wants to answer it."
Kicklighter grabbed "the water question" and stated that issue had been "brought to our attention by Senator Dorgan" but that he didn't "know the answer to the other question." Bowen offered words but no answer. Feinstein noted that is what was reported and that the "true or false is the answer". Bowen stated he didn't know. Feinstein responded, "Well it seems to me that is something you ought to look at. . . . It seems to me the very least they can do is pay taxes. . . . It's believed that the Pentagon knew KBR has exploited this loophole since at least 2004 -- is this true or false?"
No one knew the answer. There were promises of getting back later with the information. Bowen returned to the oil program (which wasn't any part of Feinstein's question) and stayed with that, "The fact is corruption has afflicted the oil program. It continues to be a problem."
David Walker wanted to add that there were "two posts of money -- there's US tax payer money and there's Iraqi money." He stated that Iraqi money had disappeared, "That was Iraqi money. Those funds were the responsibility of US citizens and so, even though they were Iraqi funds," the US should have had the responsibility of protecting the money, "we were responsible" for that duty.
What about right now, Feinstein wanted to know, what about today? No answer was supplied to her as to whether the protections are there. "Is it sufficient today? You're sort of skirting around my question. So is the answer you don't know? Is it 'no'? What is the answer?" Bowen stated that they didn't know but that "our reviews that will be out this wpring will provide specific details."
That was the first half of the hearing (Bowen agreed with Leahy that a law against War profiteering was needed). The second half was supposed to be mind blowing.
Indeed, it started strongly. "Corruption in Iraq today is rampant," Judge Radhi Hamza al-Radhi (former member of the Iraqi commission on public integrity) in his opening statement. He went on to explain that while he was in Iraq investigating corruption "my staff and their relatives have been kidnapped" and worse. He gave an example of how one of his staffers lost their eighty-year-old father who was kidnapped and his corpse discovered after a power drill had been used on him "to drill" holes. Flashing a photo of another victim of violence at the committee, al-Radhi declared of it, "Justice loses and corruption wins!"
Dorgan had explained to the first panel that al-Rahdi would be detailing how corruption was allowing US tax dollars to pay for the killing of US soldiers by being channeled to resistance fighters.
That would have been interesting. al-Radhi offered nothing on that. With the build up Dorgan gave him and al-Radhi's outrage during the opening statements, it seemed like there was promise but there wasn't and as soon as Leahy grasped that, he quickly bailed on the hearing turning it over to Dorgan.
What was the problem? There are several. First, al-Radhi cannot return to Iraq and is attempting to be granted status by the US State Department so how much he was ever going to testify to in an open hearing was always in question. Second, he delivered his own opening statement but then hid behind a translator for questions. It was hiding. Third, lousy translator.
Slumped over, looking bored, the translator wasn't 'visually exciting' so rule out the TV industry having any interest in what was said regardless. In terms of print media? The woman's skills were bad. They were really, really bad.
She will interject that she mistranslated at one point and state al-Radhi was referring to "the Ministry of Defense in Iraq actually." Was he? Defense Department would be the source of US funds. Substituting "Ministry of Defense" changes the answer (and Dorgan's question was if it was true that this was $18 billion of US monies). The woman seemed to have a problem with Arabic. Dorgan's talk about the revelations that would be forthcoming when al-Radhi testified went up in smoke the moment al-Radhi stopped speaking in English and everyone became dependent upon this really bad translator. In the midst of a line of questioning (by Dorgan) about US officials' knowledge of the corruption, al-Radhi's translation will go off into how he received a check (a story he'd already testified to) that had nothing to do with US officials or US knowledge.
As the hearing wound down, Dorgan would note two things. First, that he "hopes that one day the US State Dept will do what it should do for a man of your integrity" and grant asylum. However, I do believe Dorgan could sponsor an amendment just on al-Radhi if he was concerned about this issue. Second, he noted, "This committee room is full when apportion money but there seems to be less concern for oversight on how it is spent."
The House Armed Service's Air and Land Forces subcommittee also met today and they were discussing money as well this morning and their first panel included the Defense Department's John Young (Under Secretary of Defense fo Acquistion, Technology and Logistics) and the US Government Accountability Office's Michael Sullivan (Director for Acquisition and Sourcing Management). Sullivan declared that "the F22 is too expensive and the joint strike fighter is struggling through development . . . struggling with the design of that aircraft" due to the decision to prioritize to one thing and letting everything else fall by the wayside. Young disagreed and stated, "I believe these were valid and pragmiatic choices. People criticize it, but it's a more balanced program." Sullivan disagreed and noted a recent meeting he had with Lockhead Martin, a briefing on the issue of risk reduction. He noted Lockheed believed they had a plan but "we've seen this movie before."
US House Rep Neil Abercrombie, chairing the hearing, asked, "What about the idea that you stop where you are? . . . What if the laws of physics aren't working the way you'd like it to? We've already had two tests where it didn't work. I'm told you're goign to add covering or something, but what if it isn't working?" Young disagreed, insisting "the aircraft will eventually be able to perform." Sullivan stated that there were 5,000 test flight performances as part of the program but that 800 was taken out and "as I've said, we've seen this movie before." So why is money being wasted on a plane that cannot perform? (Because the biggest consumer of the national budget is always the pork to the war industries.)
Another comittee that kind of met today was the US House's Foreign Affair's subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia with the Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight. Kind-of? They took a break early on and are still on it as I dictate this. In his opening remarks Rep Gary Ackerman would note, "Almost a year ago, the Middle East and South Asia subcommittee held a hearing on the Iraqi refugee crisis and we learned several disturbing things. We learned that the administration was doing next to nothing to assist those Iraqis who put their lives in jeopardy in order to assist the United States in our efforts in Iraq. Not only wasn't the administration helping them, they didn't even know how many Iraqis actually worked for us, so they naturally had no idea how many people needed our help. We learned that the administration was woefully unprepared to process refugees referred to us by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. We learned that it took up to five months to process a refugee referral. We learned that the United States had the capacity to process merely a few hundred refugees a month but wasn't working anywhere near even that limited community. We learned that we were telling Iraqis seeking our assitance and protection to fleee to a safe place -- like Syria -- because we weren't processing at risk populations in Iraq."
In prepared remarks Gregory Gottlieb of the Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance explained the situation for the 2.5 million internally displaced Iraqis noting that access to food had dramatically throughout the continued Iraq War with "nearly 96% of all Iraqis" obtaining their food via Iraq's public distribution system but that figure declined to 22 percent for Iraq's internal refugees in 2007 with 60% of Iraqis stating they were.
Of external Iraqi refugees, Rep Bill Delahunt observed that "they cannot return" because "the conditions do not exist for their return" -- "the conditions of the secetarian cleaning" throughout five year of war are "why they can't go home." Delahunt spoke of the ill will this is creating for the longterm and how the US State Department has admitted ("this is their language") that "hostility towards the United States makes achieving our policy goals far more difficult." Along with holding the State Dept accountable, Delahunt wanted to know, "Where's the Iraqi government on this issue? They've agreed to contribute $25 million to the budget. That's embarrassing. That's embarrassing." He further noted that this minor sum only was offered after extreme pressure was put on the Iraiq (puppet) government "and we're talking about reconcilation? Movement? And a nation?"
Before the break, Jeff Fortenberry spoke to the issue of Iraq's religious minorities and noted that there were a number of Yazidis in his home state (Nebraska) which is one of the reasons he's been following the issue closely. At his website, Fortenberry is quoted stating, "I was very pleased that the Committee held this hearing, as it gave me an opportunity to address the plight of Iraq's religious minorities, including the Yezidis, as well as Baha'is, Christians and Jews. These communities appear to be disproportionaly vulnerable to persecution by terrorist organizations and criminal elements in Iraq. They are struggling to survive and retain cherished traditions that have long enriched the historical tapestry of Iraq." Fortenberry noted the "violence against innocent civilians" and included the kidnapping of Archbishop Faraj Rahho. The Archbishop was kidnapped February 29th in Mosul. Monday, John Pontifex (Aid to the Church in Need) explained that fears were growing over the kidnapping as the kidnappers continue to state their monetary demands but refuse to allow the Archbishop to speak to the Church and that they have raised their ransom demands from $2 million to $3 million.
Staying with violence, as noted in yesterday's snapshot, 8 US service members died in Iraq yesterday. Joshua Partlow (Washington Post) explains that 5 died in Baghdad and 3 in Diyala Province -- all from bombings. [Also see Alexandra Zavis' report for the Los Angeles Times).] The deaths brought the total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 3983.
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
CNN reports 16 dead from a roadside bombing as a "bus traveled between Najaf and Basra". Deborah Haynes (Times of London) states they were "mourners travelling to Basra" and that "Eighteen people were also injured, including women and children. . . . The passengers had been returning from mourning rites for a dead relative in Najaf". Paul Tait (Reuters) quotes survivor Rahman Shaker explaining, "I saw my wife covered in blood and took her out fo the bus. There were bodies covered in bloody blankets and people screaming."
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing that wounded an Iraqi soldier, a Yousifiyah bombing that claimed 1 life ("Awakening" council member) and wounded eight more people, a Kirkuk bombing that wounded a police officer (and on Monday night four police officers were wounded in two Kirkuk bombings), an "Awakening" council member was targeted by a bombing but escaped harm however another attack (car bombing) on "Awakening" council members outside Tikrit reulted in 3 of their deaths with eight people injured.
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an armed Baghdad attack (on a "uveniles prison") that left three police officers and three prisoners wounded and that allowed five prisoners to escape, an armed clash in Mosul that claimed the lives of 4 police officers, 4 battling the police officers and 2 civilian bystanders and an armed clash in Wasit that claimed 8 lives. Meanwhile Paul Tait (Reuters) reports there are two competing stories about what happened in armed clash in Kut -- the US military version and the Iraqi military version (the truth having lost out long ago) -- with the US military claiming they stumbled upon an attack in progress and aided Iraqi forces while the Iraqi military states they were attempting to arrest someone and that led to a battle at which point the US military assisted. Of interest is who they were trying to arrest "a Medhi Army leader" -- Moqtada al-Sadr renewed his cease-fire/truce over the objections of many of his followers and one reason they were objecting to a renewal was that they felt they were under attack and targeted.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 5 corpses discovered in Baghdad and 20 corpses were discovered outside Samarra.
Meanwhile, Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) reports CENTCOM commander Admiral William Fallon "stepped down Tuesday, weeks after telling a magazine reporter that he was the key person stopping an overzelaous Bush administration from going to war." Reuters quotes from a resignation letter: "The current embarrassing situation and public perception of differences between my views and administration policy and the distraction this causes from the mission make this the right thing to do." Andrew Gray and David Morgan (Reuters) cite the Esquire article, state that "Fallon cooperated with the author during the article's preparation but strongly criticized the story after it appeared" and that US Secretary of Defense Robert "Gates said the perception that Fallon was at odds with the administration was not linked just to the article."
Finally in US political campaign news, Peter Canellos (Boston Globe) notes that Samantha Power's recent revelation (to the BBC and while she was still US Senator Barack Obama's senior foreign policy advisor) that Obama's pledge to pull US combat troops out of Iraq -- if elected president -- within 16 months of being sworn in as president wasn't really a pledge raises questions:
The first is the obvious one: whether he truly intends to follow through on what he's been saying. For most of the campaign, Obama has gotten good mileage out of the idea that he says what he believes while Clinton's plans are hedged to allow for extra maneuverability. But in Obama's effort to stay to Clinton's left on Iraq and NAFTA, he may have gone further than he wanted, or could deliver.When Clinton, during the Ohio debate, promised to opt out of the trade deal if Canada and Mexico didn't agree to changes, Obama quickly agreed. He later referred to using "the hammer of potential opt-out" to enhance environmental and labor requirements in NAFTA.Obama may well believe that, and he may intend to stick with his timetable for a withdrawal from Iraq no matter what happens. But if so, he needs to make sure that all his advisers remain with the program.
iraq
ehren watada
dee knight
iraq veterans against the war
aimeee allisondavid solnit
aaron glantz
kpfa
mcclatchy newspapersnancy a. youssefthe los angeles timesalexandra zavis
the washington postjoshua partlow
peter canellos
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Monday, March 10, 2008
Samantha Power, Hillary Clinton, Isaiah
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Kamikaze Sammy"
That's Isaiah's latest comic and I think he's captured Samantha Power perfectly. If you're lost, it's not your fault. You can read "Editorial: The Whores of Indymedia" but there's not much else you can count on because Panhandle Media -- always in the tank for Bambi -- is working overtime to 'protect' the voters from the truth that Barack Obama's senior foreign policy advisor Power (she was that then, she hadn't resigned) told the BBC that Obama's promise in commercials and speeches that he would pull out all US combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of being voted into the White House was just sop tossed out to the masses and Obama would decide what he'd do about Iraq only after he got into the White House.
Yes, he can! Because Panhandle Media allows him too. For an amazingly well written look at how Panhandle Media works it for Bambi, see Ava and C.I.'s "TV: Goodman and Rose 'honoring' bad TV past" and let me also praise "'Baby Jessica' Valenti (Dona)" which is a solo piece (epic!) by Dona.
While I'm praising, Kat's "Kat's Korner: Jack's not snoozing" went up yesterday and I love it. I laughed so hard at the first two sentences (I'm mentioned in the first one). Jack Johnson's new CD is entitled Sleep Through The Static and it is really amazing. I would like to write about it at some point this week. Just FYI, this is the CD Kat thought about reviewing in February but was afraid that there might not be anything that grabbed her attention in March.
Returning to the topic of Bambi lying.
"MEMO: Obama's Iraq Plan: Just Words" (HillaryClinton.com):
To: Interested Parties
From: The Clinton Campaign
Date: March 8, 2008
RE: Obama's Iraq Plan: Just Words
Once again, it looks like Senator Obama is telling voters one thing while his campaign says those words should not to be mistaken for serious action.
After months of speeches from Senator Obama promising a hard end date to the Iraq war, his top foreign policy adviser that counseled his campaign during that period is on the record saying that Senator Obama will "not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator."
Voters already have serious questions about whether Senator Obama is ready to be Commander-in-Chief. Now there are questions about whether he's serious about the Iraq plan he's discussed for the last year on the campaign trail.
Senator Obama has made hard end dates about Iraq a centerpiece of his campaign and has repeatedly attacked Senator Clinton for not being clear about her intentions with regard to troop withdrawal.
It turns out those attacks and speeches were just words. And if you can't trust Senator Obama's words, what's left?
This latest incident is part of a larger pattern where Senator Obama doesn't deliver on the promises he makes on the campaign trail -- whether it's his 2004 Senate race or his 2008 White House campaign.
In 2003, Senator Obama said he was for a single payer health system, but now opposes plans that cover every American. He promised to repeal the Patriot Act, but then voted to extend it. He promised to normalize relations with Cuba, but flip-flopped when he started running for president.
In 2008, Senator Obama rails against NAFTA in Ohio while his top economic advisor assures the Canadians his rhetoric is just "political positioning." He promises to opt in to public financing if the GOP nominee does, but then breaks that pledge in real time. He promises to withdraw from Iraq within 16 months, and now his top foreign policy adviser says that he's not relying on the plan.
With a short record to run on, Senator Obama's entire campaign is based on the speeches he makes on the campaign trail. So when he and his advisers dismiss the plans he touts on the stump, it undermines his entire candidacy.
Americans have heard plenty of speeches. It's time they got serious solutions and that's what Hillary is going to deliver when she is President.
I realize that it must be shocking for some. When Bambi was running for the US Senate, I was there as well. When I was dragging C.I. along to that fundraiser, we were both excited and had completely bought the press that Bambi was "anti-war" and we were so excited and so eager to write checks for his campaign. He gave a so-so, weak-ass speech and then he mingled. He was being treated with kid gloves and fawned over. He was not fawned over by C.I. One of us asked him (maybe both at the same time) about withdrawal. He wasn't for it. I was stunned and C.I. took up the questioning to make sure we were understanding. So I do know that for those who believed in Bambi, it must be shocking to learn that he has his public face and what he shows the inner circle. But that is reality and you do get over the shock. I did.
I'm surprised there was a snapshot today because C.I. is sick as a dog. (Though Ava swears C.I. looks "gorgeous." I'm sure that's true. The only person I ever knew who could pull off sick. Brings out the cheekbones even more on C.I.) (It's a stomach bug or the flu.) They and Kat are on the road speaking and I bring all that up because what I'm about to write should be considered being from C.I. and myself. It's a topic we've been talking about for about eight or nine days now. C.I. was going to try to write something tonight and I said, "You're sick, don't bother. I'll grab it at my site."
Hillary Clinton is this decade's Anita Hill. For those who saw the hideous Clarence Thomas confirmed to the Supreme Court, that's not surprising. Similar tactics are being used again.
Anita Hill was sexually harassed by Thomas. When he was nominated to the bench (by the current Bully Boy's father), Hill was among the women willing to come forward. She testified to the Senate and they didn't call any of the other witnesses.
The reason was partly the right-wing attack machine and the media in general; however, it was more than just that. It was also that our men in 'power' just didn't give a damn.
The charge against Hill was how dare she stand in the way of a Black man! It's the charge that gets floated against Hillary and, in fact, Barack's speech in Mississippi today was pretty much saying that. It wouldn't matter if Hillary was African-American or White. Anita Hill is African-American and the response was never, "What about the African-American woman." It was just what Thomas, as a man, was supposedly entitled to. He's gone on to wrong every race -- including his own -- on the bench so that should have put to the rest the race card.
But it hasn't. C.I. missed Tom Hayden's insane column endorsing Bambi other than the opening. When C.I. finally got around to reading it in full, we discussed it and thought it was cute that Tom wants 'cred' for some work with Latinos but he rendered women invisible in that piece except to piss on White women (Gloria Steinem in particular) and to applaud the "Black women" (he didn't use African-American) who were for Bambi. Apparently, all the other women -- including African-American women not for Bambi -- can piss off.
Tom's one of those guys who really wanted to be Black in the sixties, thought it would make him authentic but all he needed to do to be authentic was be authentic. That was too much work for him so fantasies were better for our 'activist.'
So we were talking about that crap in Tom's column and started talking about the response from our left and 'left' males when Clarence Thomas was headed to the bench. An arch conservative, nominated by a Bush, with sexual harassment charges in the air. You might think the left mounted a huge challenge to Thomas?
They didn't. They took the attitude that Thomas was entitled to sit on the bench because he'd been historically wronged. Again, no such thinking went into their attitudes towards Anita Hill.
That really doesn't get noted much today. When it does get noted that it wasn't just the right-wing echo chamber, the blames usually pushed off upon generic African-American men -- as a group. That's not reality. While some African-American males did shut out Hill and support Thomas, so did a lot of the White males and many were in Panhandle Media then and still are.
They were either silent or they stated outright that Thomas had to be seated on the bench. Some would argue that if Thomas wasn't seated, then the slot for an African-American (male) would be lost. Marshall was a real judge with an amazing mind and, yes, African-American but it's rather insulting to imply that his race was all he had to offer and that a mental midget like Thomas could fill or even hold the space. That certainly hasn't been what's happened since Thomas made it onto the bench.
But the crap that Tom throws out in that lousy column and that the hideous Jessica Valenti tosses out, we've heard it all before. We heard it during Hill-Thomas.
Who is this woman to stand in the historic way of a Black man!
That was the cry then and it's the cry now. But the same loons (hey, Bobby Scheer) weren't interested in women then, were they. In Hill's case, she was African-African but it didn't matter. What this is really about it that none of those men -- and include Tom Hayden in this -- value women. They never have.
As they've claimed Hillary played the gender card, they've rushed to insist (lie) that Barack hasn't been playing the race card all along.
Some of that insisting is honestly because they refuse to see the race card. When Barack plays it, they want to be down, they want to shoot hoops and have a posse! Anything that they can pin off as "gender," they will. They loathe women. They like to pretend otherwise, but look at them and their lives.
Robert Parry has no woman at his site. Robert Scheer's got a male posse going on. He reposts columns by women, but the original stuff is all by men. He doesn't like women. Tom, of course, has nevr valued women. (Except individual women who've walked out on him.)
So when Hillary on the campaign trail is speaking and her eyes moisten, they're screaming, "Gender!" Search their writing -- such as it is -- for anything on Duncan Hunter's public tears or any moment when the Bully Boy teared up. They didn't write about it. They either felt sorry for the man or they didn't notice the moments. But when a woman's eyes go moist, suddenly they're screaming their heads off.
Maybe it's guilt? Maybe they're remembering all the trashy ways they've treated women over the years. (The left male 'voices' have more than earned their own little You'll Never Make Love In This Town Again tell-all about the way they've treated women over the last decades.)
With Hillary, we're seeing the same side choosing by those men that we did during the Thomas-Hill hearings. "Lynched," "bamboozeld," etc. All those terms showed up then as well. It's amazing that so many White men on the left are so sensitive to the historical oppression of African-American males but never recognize the oppression of any woman (regardless of race). Probably recognizing would mean owning it up to it.
Maybe you're a sleeze who used to taunt your wife that she wasn't sexy enough, that her breasts weren't large enough? Maybe she used to binge on peanut butter to try to compensate for all the times you'd tell her Jessica Lange had a better body?
Maybe you didn't just verbally attack and undermine her, maybe you also physically abused her. Sorry to break it to anyone, but a number of lefty males have been guilty of domestic abuse. Again, the left males have more than earned their own You'll Never Make Love In This Town Again.
Supposedly, their admiration for Barack was that he would end the illegal war and they'd say, "He's promised to pull out all combat troops within 16 months of taking office!" We find out that's a lie and they all go silent, don't they?
There's a reason for that. It was never about Iraq. It was about their hatred of women (and their fear is beneath the hatred).
Many of your lefty male voices over 40 have been domestic abusers, womanizers and shown no respect to women their entire lives. It must be very frightening for them that Hillary Clinton is so close to becoming president. If they were involved with her, they could just destroy her (or try to) the way they've spent so much of their own lives destroying the women around them.
It really was exposed, this hatred of women, with Anita Hill. It wasn't about race. Hill is African-American. It was about hatred of women. They're very lucky that so many who trust them today don't know about their behavior during Hill-Thomas, let alone in their own personal lives.
Their non-stop attacks on Hillary are just another example of the way they've treated women all along. Telling them that their lives weren't "real" (often while living of their spouse's money) or that their lives before didn't matter, were meaningless. (Even when their lives before provided the money that allows the lazy ass men of the left to pursue their own dreams.)
When I think of all the young men today, children of 'left' male voices, many who grew up with their mothers, I wonder what it would be like if they found out the truths about their 'noble' fathers?
Most of their ex-wives have gone out of the way to be kind and not go through what happened during the marriage. Not when the children were young and not now that they are adults.
The children are like a lot of their audience today, kidding themselves that the attacks on Hillary are about Iraq. They aren't. If they were about Iraq, all those 'voices' would have been tearing Barack about today. They don't do that. They just batter and abuse women.
It's a real shame that women were nice about what happened. It's a real shame that Ms. has gotten so nice. Ms. magazine needs to return to its roots of holding all men accountable. But we've seen a reluctance to do that for about three decades now. It's why The Nation magazine got away with publishing 491 men in 2007 and only 149 women without being called out.
By the way, the examples I picked didn't just pop into my head. They are examples of what some of our 'trusted' male 'voices' did, all of it. The belitting a woman and telling her Jessica Lange had a better body, telling his own wife that and doing so just to prove what a price he was, just to try to destroy her self-confidence. If left male 'voices' of a certain age were to read this, they'd shudder. If you're a left male 'voice' and are reading this and wondering, "Does she know?" The answer is, yes, I do. Women talk to each other. Even when we draw the veil to the world at large about the s**t you did to us, we still talk to each other about it.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Monday, March 10, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Barack Obama's 'pledge' wasn't a pledge but watch Panhandle Media play dumb, the US military announces the deaths of US service members today, reconstruction and more.
Starting with war resistance. "The most common hostility that I faced was the ostracism of many of my peers: the young soldiers of the same rank as I," Aidan Delgado explained to Dewey Hammond last August in an interview timed for the release of his book d The Sutras Of Abu Ghraib: Notes From A Conscientious Objector In Iraq. As the book title notes, Delgado is a CO and Hammond asks him, "At what pointfor you did it become clear that being a soldier could not coexist with being Buddhist?"
Aidan Delgado: After enlistment, during Basic and Advanced training, I began to study and became far more serious about Buddhism but I still felt that there was some way to allow the ideals of being a soldier and the ideals of being a Buddhist to coexist. When I deployed to Iraq and had all the abstractions peeled away, saw what it truly meant to be a soldier, was when I finally decided that Buddhism and militarism were incompatible. That is not to imply that it was a sudden "revelation" on my part; to the contrary, it was the final stage of a long process of questioning and maturation on my part. I didn't suddenly decide that war was wrong when I deployed to Iraq, I knew it already intellectually, but it took the direct experience of war to make it real for me and give me the courage to oppose it.
.
All war resisters show courage by resisting and war resisters in Canada could use some people backing them up. They were dealt a serious set-back when the Canadian Supreme Court refused to hear the appeals of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Today, Canada's Parliament remaining the best hope for safe harbor war resisters have, you can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (http://us.f366.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (http://us.f366.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (http://us.f366.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. That is the sort of thing that should receive attention but instead it's ignored.There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara 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, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, 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, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty 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 [(877) 447-4487], 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. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).Meanwhile IVAW has a DC action this month:In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & AfghanistanMarch 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation. Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'." IVAW's co-chair Adam Kokesh will, of course, be participating and he explains why at his site, "But out of a strong sense of duty, some of us are trying to put our experiences to use for a good cause. Some of us couldn't live with ourselves if weren't doing everything we could to bring our brothers and sisters home as soon as possible. The environment may be unking, but that is why I will be testifying to shooting at civilians as a result of changing Rules of Engagement, abuse of detainees, and desecration of Iraqi bodies. It won't be easy but it must be done. Some of the stories are things that are difficult to admit that I was a part of, but if one more veteran realizes that they are not alone because of my testimony it will be worth it." The hearings will be broadcast throughout at the Iraq Veterans Against the War home page an on KPFA March 14th and 16th with Aimee Allison (co-host of the station's The Morning Show and co-author with David Solnit of Army Of None) and Aaron Glantz hosting and the KPFA live stream will also be available at Glantz' War Comes Home.
Over the weekend, Michael McGuire (The Evening Sun) reports, that IVAW's Daniel Black "spoke about his military experiences to a small group in the community room at the Guernsey Memorial Library in Norwich. Thursday, he gave a talk to students at Hartwick College sponsored by the Iraq-Iran Group of the Coalition for Democracy of Central New York." Mason Kerns (Des Moines Register) reports that IVAW was among those protesting Karl Rove at the Univeristy of Iowa (Rove gave a speech there over the weekend) while April West (The Lawrentian) reports that IVAW's John Knox spoke on the Lawrence University campus at the invitation of the Multicultural Affairs Committee and he "discussed the demographics of those in the Army as well as recruiters' tactics. The bulk of new army recruits' parents make a combined $30,000 - 50,000 a year and are from Texas, he said. Knox described an exponential correlation in which the more money a family makes the less likely they are to have children in the Army." Justin Hughes (Golden Gate [X]Press) reports that IVAW's Michael Blake joined with Iraqi journalist Salam Talib to speak at San Francisco State University with Blake explaining, "We are using Iraq to project power throughout the Middle East. . . . These guys are getting filthy stinking rich off this war while everyone else is suffering. From their perspective, the war is going very well."
From whose perspective is it okay to tell the voters a known lie?
Stephen Sackur: You said that he'll revisit it [the decision to pull troops] when he goes to the White House. So what the American public thinks is a commitment to get combat forces out within sixteen months, isn't a commitment is it?
Samantha Power: You can't make a commitment in whatever month we're in now, in March of 2008 about what circumstances are going to be like in January 2009. We can'te ven tell what Bush is up to in terms of troops pauses and so forth. He will of course not rely upon some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or as a US Senator.
We noted the above on Friday. The then foreign policy advisor to Barack Obama, Samantha Power, speaking to the BCC. Most haven't noted the story (the list includes The Nation, Common Dreams, The Progressive among others, see The Third Estate Sunday Review's "Editorial: The Whores of Indymedia" ). AP noted it. Gideon Rachman (Financial Times of London) lies but notes not only did Power say it on the BBC, Power also stated similar things to Rachman last week. Rachman's lie is that Samantha Power was against the illegal war before it started. As John R. MacArthur (Common Deams) noted in 2005 -- before so many War Hawks started going in for Extreme Makeovers -- the "humanists such as [George] Packer, [Samantha] Power, and Michael Ignatieff signed on with the neo-conservative crowd for a 'democracy-building' project in Iraq". David Corn (Mother Jones) embarrasses himself (but give him credit, like Rachman, for not pretending the BBC interview never took place -- many others pretended it didn't take place). Corn excuses Power's remarks but they don't need any excuse. She spoke the truth, it's Corn who's spinning claiming that all it means is "a campaign proposal is just that: a proposal." Since Corny's among the crowd 'jazzed' by the 'youth' for Bambi, Corny should be aware that what his 'seasoned' and non-reasoned (remember his attacks on Gary Webb?) 'insider' status allows him to 'know' is not a known to people turning out at Obama's rallies and hearing him pledge to pull all combat troops out of Iraq in 16 months. What it is, and Corn knows this, is a lie -- a big fat lie. Samantha Power revealed it as such in her interview with the BBC and Corn quotes from it selectively. He really needs to be ashamed of himself. It's the sort of crap that makes Mother Jones just another whore in Panhandle Media and they really ought to be ashamed because more than any other outlet, they used to march to their own drum. Now they've got their hands out begging like every other cheap hustler. Barack Obama has declared in ads and speeches that he will withdraw troops 16 months from being sworn in.
Kristen Senz (The Union Leader) reported that in November, "If elected, Obama vowed to end the war in Iraq within 16 months". Does David Corn think Senz misunderstood? Use the link, it goes to Barack Obama's site which reposted that article under the heading "Change We Can Believe In." "Believe in me" says Bambi. He's got no record to run on, so he's run on personality and told everyone he has 'judgement' and can be 'trusted.' But he's lying. Need more from "Change We Can Believe In"? Barack's campaign has posted Peter Hecht (Sacramento Bee) reporting Bambi declared, "As president I will end the war in Iraq. I will bring the troops home. They will be home in 16 months. . . . America, San Francisco. Our moment is now. You can't wait any longer. Our moment to bring about change is now." Sounds like a promise because that's what he wants people to hear it as. On October 2nd (again, link goes to Bambi's campaign site) his campaign posted his speech that day which included Barack declaring, "The first thing we ahve to do is end this war. . . . I will remove one or two brigades a month, and get all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months." That's pretty damn clear unless your name is David Corn. December 18th, campaigning in Iowa, he declared that if he was "the Democratic nominee, I will offer a clear choice. My opponent won't be able to say that I ever supported the war in Iraq, or that I don't support a clear timetable to bring out troops home." He also stated in that speech, "So when you consider who to caucus for, I ask you to consider myjudgement and vision for new American leadership. Leadership that brings our combat brigades out of Iraq in 16 months, renews American diplomacy, finishes . . ." Get the point?
He's campaigned on this over and over in speeches and commercials. Tom Hayden has assumed it was a real pledge. He's written column after column praising Bambi. You better believe others have taken Bambi at his word. At the Barack Obama campaign website it reads here that "In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as president. Bring Our Troops Home Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat briages out of Iraq within 16 months." Will is the verb in the final sentence (written by Bambi's campaign and posted on his website). While David Corn embarrasses himself, NBC' Domenico Montanaro (reporting on the same press call Corn did) explains that "when (now former) top Obama foreign policy adviser Samantha Power told BBC that Obama 'will, of course, not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator,' the Clinton campaign found something tangible to seize on."
And the Hillary Clinton campaign released "MEMO: Obama's Iraq Plan: Just Words" which opens with, "Once again, it looks like Senator Obama is telling voters one thing while his campaign says those words should not be mistaken for serious action. After months of speeches from Senator Obama promising a hard end date to the Iraq war, his top foreign policy adviser that counseled his campaign during that period is on the record saying that Senator Obama will 'not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator. Voters already have serious questions about whether Senator Obama is ready to be Commander-in-Chief. Now there are questions about whether he's seriou about the Iraq plan he's discussed for the last year on the campaign trail. . . . It turns out those attacks and speeched were just words. And if you can't trust Senator Obama's words, what's left?" Nothing. And certainly nothing that indicates the illegal war's ending.
While Bambi tries to figure out what he thinks today, people are dying. In fact, 8 US service members appear to have died today. Nancy A. Youssef and Hannah Allam (McClatchy Newspapers) report that at a time when most outlets are aware of 5 dead. Deborah Haynes (Times of London) reports, "Five American soldiers were killed and three wounded when a suicide bomber blew himself up in the middle of a foot patrol in Baghdad today, in the deadliest strike against the US military in the city since last June." And that was when it was five (the other three dead are not the three wounded in the bombing we're focusing on right now.) CBS and AP note that an Iraqi interpreter was also injured in the bombing. CNN offers, "The explosion marks the deadliest attack against the US military since five soldiers were killed January 28 in a roadside bombing in Mosul." Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) explains, "Iraqi police said a man with explosives strapped to his waist walked up to the soldiers during a foot patrol int he upscale Mansour meighborhood and blew him self up. The blast also killed an Iraqi civilian and injured 11 other Iraqis, police and hospital officials said." That brings the total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 3980. But, as noted before, Youssef and Allam write that 8 died today and they report 3 more "died while on a patrol in Diyala province, the official said. He asked not to be identified as he isn't an official spokesman." Now might be a good time to note that Rear Admr. Gregory Smith declared yesterday in his Iraq press conference, "I would not look at the last few weeks as an increase or a trend of an increase."
In other reported violence today . . .
Bombings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad truck bombing that claimed the life of 1 person and left five more wounded, a Baghdad mortar attack wounded two people, a Baghdad roadside bombing wounded two people, a Baghdad car bombing claimed 1 life and left four people wounded a Diyala Province bombing that claimed the lives of 2 police officers and left twenty people wounded, a Diyala Province roadside bombing that claimed the life of an Iraqi soldier and wounded two others in the Iraqi military and a bombing targeting the Sulaimaniyah Palace Hotel which claimed the life of 1 guard and left thirty-four people injured. Reuters reports a Diyala Province bombing today credited to "female suicide bomber" which has claimed the life of Thaer Saggban al-Karkhi who had been a US collaborator in an "Awakening" Council (and whom Reuters describes as "a prominent Sunni Arab tribal chief") as well as three people with him. Al Arabiya News Channel notes the dead includes two bodyguards and one of the chief's niece and that another bombing in the same province took place at a police station and resulted in 2 deaths and twenty-two people being injured.
Shootings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 police officer shot dead in Salahuddin Province. Reuters notes an armed clash in Mosul left 2 dead and two more wounded.
Corpses?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad while Dr. Khalid Nasir's corpse was discovered in Basra. In the continuing targeting of educators, doctors and officials, Dr. Nasir was kidnapped on Sunday. CBS and AP note, "According to figures from the Iraqi Health Ministry released earlier this year, 618 medical employees, including 132 doctors, as well as medics and other health care workers, have been killed nationwide since 2003."
Yesterday, James Glanz (New York Times) reported that senators Carl Levin and John Warner's plan to use their positions on the Senate Armed Service Committee in order to determine "how Iraq is spending its soaring oil revenue" two months after the 'accountability' office in Iraq "reported that Iraq had spent a meager 4.4 percent of its 2007 reconstruction budget by August of that year, the most recent figures available at the time." CNN adds: "Iraq's ability to spend its $10.1 billion capital projects budget in 2007 was one of the 18 benchmarks used to assess U.S. progress in stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq, according to the GAO. The United States has spent more than $47 billion on Iraqi reconstruction efforts since 2003, according to the 2008 quarterly audit by the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction."
iraq
aiden delgado
dee knight
iraq veterans against the war
aimeee allisondavid solnit
aaron glantz
kpfa
john r. macarthur
samantha power
nancy a. youssefmcclatchy newspapers
the los angeles timesalexandra zavis
the new york timesjames glanz
the third estate sunday review
That's Isaiah's latest comic and I think he's captured Samantha Power perfectly. If you're lost, it's not your fault. You can read "Editorial: The Whores of Indymedia" but there's not much else you can count on because Panhandle Media -- always in the tank for Bambi -- is working overtime to 'protect' the voters from the truth that Barack Obama's senior foreign policy advisor Power (she was that then, she hadn't resigned) told the BBC that Obama's promise in commercials and speeches that he would pull out all US combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of being voted into the White House was just sop tossed out to the masses and Obama would decide what he'd do about Iraq only after he got into the White House.
Yes, he can! Because Panhandle Media allows him too. For an amazingly well written look at how Panhandle Media works it for Bambi, see Ava and C.I.'s "TV: Goodman and Rose 'honoring' bad TV past" and let me also praise "'Baby Jessica' Valenti (Dona)" which is a solo piece (epic!) by Dona.
While I'm praising, Kat's "Kat's Korner: Jack's not snoozing" went up yesterday and I love it. I laughed so hard at the first two sentences (I'm mentioned in the first one). Jack Johnson's new CD is entitled Sleep Through The Static and it is really amazing. I would like to write about it at some point this week. Just FYI, this is the CD Kat thought about reviewing in February but was afraid that there might not be anything that grabbed her attention in March.
Returning to the topic of Bambi lying.
"MEMO: Obama's Iraq Plan: Just Words" (HillaryClinton.com):
To: Interested Parties
From: The Clinton Campaign
Date: March 8, 2008
RE: Obama's Iraq Plan: Just Words
Once again, it looks like Senator Obama is telling voters one thing while his campaign says those words should not to be mistaken for serious action.
After months of speeches from Senator Obama promising a hard end date to the Iraq war, his top foreign policy adviser that counseled his campaign during that period is on the record saying that Senator Obama will "not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator."
Voters already have serious questions about whether Senator Obama is ready to be Commander-in-Chief. Now there are questions about whether he's serious about the Iraq plan he's discussed for the last year on the campaign trail.
Senator Obama has made hard end dates about Iraq a centerpiece of his campaign and has repeatedly attacked Senator Clinton for not being clear about her intentions with regard to troop withdrawal.
It turns out those attacks and speeches were just words. And if you can't trust Senator Obama's words, what's left?
This latest incident is part of a larger pattern where Senator Obama doesn't deliver on the promises he makes on the campaign trail -- whether it's his 2004 Senate race or his 2008 White House campaign.
In 2003, Senator Obama said he was for a single payer health system, but now opposes plans that cover every American. He promised to repeal the Patriot Act, but then voted to extend it. He promised to normalize relations with Cuba, but flip-flopped when he started running for president.
In 2008, Senator Obama rails against NAFTA in Ohio while his top economic advisor assures the Canadians his rhetoric is just "political positioning." He promises to opt in to public financing if the GOP nominee does, but then breaks that pledge in real time. He promises to withdraw from Iraq within 16 months, and now his top foreign policy adviser says that he's not relying on the plan.
With a short record to run on, Senator Obama's entire campaign is based on the speeches he makes on the campaign trail. So when he and his advisers dismiss the plans he touts on the stump, it undermines his entire candidacy.
Americans have heard plenty of speeches. It's time they got serious solutions and that's what Hillary is going to deliver when she is President.
I realize that it must be shocking for some. When Bambi was running for the US Senate, I was there as well. When I was dragging C.I. along to that fundraiser, we were both excited and had completely bought the press that Bambi was "anti-war" and we were so excited and so eager to write checks for his campaign. He gave a so-so, weak-ass speech and then he mingled. He was being treated with kid gloves and fawned over. He was not fawned over by C.I. One of us asked him (maybe both at the same time) about withdrawal. He wasn't for it. I was stunned and C.I. took up the questioning to make sure we were understanding. So I do know that for those who believed in Bambi, it must be shocking to learn that he has his public face and what he shows the inner circle. But that is reality and you do get over the shock. I did.
I'm surprised there was a snapshot today because C.I. is sick as a dog. (Though Ava swears C.I. looks "gorgeous." I'm sure that's true. The only person I ever knew who could pull off sick. Brings out the cheekbones even more on C.I.) (It's a stomach bug or the flu.) They and Kat are on the road speaking and I bring all that up because what I'm about to write should be considered being from C.I. and myself. It's a topic we've been talking about for about eight or nine days now. C.I. was going to try to write something tonight and I said, "You're sick, don't bother. I'll grab it at my site."
Hillary Clinton is this decade's Anita Hill. For those who saw the hideous Clarence Thomas confirmed to the Supreme Court, that's not surprising. Similar tactics are being used again.
Anita Hill was sexually harassed by Thomas. When he was nominated to the bench (by the current Bully Boy's father), Hill was among the women willing to come forward. She testified to the Senate and they didn't call any of the other witnesses.
The reason was partly the right-wing attack machine and the media in general; however, it was more than just that. It was also that our men in 'power' just didn't give a damn.
The charge against Hill was how dare she stand in the way of a Black man! It's the charge that gets floated against Hillary and, in fact, Barack's speech in Mississippi today was pretty much saying that. It wouldn't matter if Hillary was African-American or White. Anita Hill is African-American and the response was never, "What about the African-American woman." It was just what Thomas, as a man, was supposedly entitled to. He's gone on to wrong every race -- including his own -- on the bench so that should have put to the rest the race card.
But it hasn't. C.I. missed Tom Hayden's insane column endorsing Bambi other than the opening. When C.I. finally got around to reading it in full, we discussed it and thought it was cute that Tom wants 'cred' for some work with Latinos but he rendered women invisible in that piece except to piss on White women (Gloria Steinem in particular) and to applaud the "Black women" (he didn't use African-American) who were for Bambi. Apparently, all the other women -- including African-American women not for Bambi -- can piss off.
Tom's one of those guys who really wanted to be Black in the sixties, thought it would make him authentic but all he needed to do to be authentic was be authentic. That was too much work for him so fantasies were better for our 'activist.'
So we were talking about that crap in Tom's column and started talking about the response from our left and 'left' males when Clarence Thomas was headed to the bench. An arch conservative, nominated by a Bush, with sexual harassment charges in the air. You might think the left mounted a huge challenge to Thomas?
They didn't. They took the attitude that Thomas was entitled to sit on the bench because he'd been historically wronged. Again, no such thinking went into their attitudes towards Anita Hill.
That really doesn't get noted much today. When it does get noted that it wasn't just the right-wing echo chamber, the blames usually pushed off upon generic African-American men -- as a group. That's not reality. While some African-American males did shut out Hill and support Thomas, so did a lot of the White males and many were in Panhandle Media then and still are.
They were either silent or they stated outright that Thomas had to be seated on the bench. Some would argue that if Thomas wasn't seated, then the slot for an African-American (male) would be lost. Marshall was a real judge with an amazing mind and, yes, African-American but it's rather insulting to imply that his race was all he had to offer and that a mental midget like Thomas could fill or even hold the space. That certainly hasn't been what's happened since Thomas made it onto the bench.
But the crap that Tom throws out in that lousy column and that the hideous Jessica Valenti tosses out, we've heard it all before. We heard it during Hill-Thomas.
Who is this woman to stand in the historic way of a Black man!
That was the cry then and it's the cry now. But the same loons (hey, Bobby Scheer) weren't interested in women then, were they. In Hill's case, she was African-African but it didn't matter. What this is really about it that none of those men -- and include Tom Hayden in this -- value women. They never have.
As they've claimed Hillary played the gender card, they've rushed to insist (lie) that Barack hasn't been playing the race card all along.
Some of that insisting is honestly because they refuse to see the race card. When Barack plays it, they want to be down, they want to shoot hoops and have a posse! Anything that they can pin off as "gender," they will. They loathe women. They like to pretend otherwise, but look at them and their lives.
Robert Parry has no woman at his site. Robert Scheer's got a male posse going on. He reposts columns by women, but the original stuff is all by men. He doesn't like women. Tom, of course, has nevr valued women. (Except individual women who've walked out on him.)
So when Hillary on the campaign trail is speaking and her eyes moisten, they're screaming, "Gender!" Search their writing -- such as it is -- for anything on Duncan Hunter's public tears or any moment when the Bully Boy teared up. They didn't write about it. They either felt sorry for the man or they didn't notice the moments. But when a woman's eyes go moist, suddenly they're screaming their heads off.
Maybe it's guilt? Maybe they're remembering all the trashy ways they've treated women over the years. (The left male 'voices' have more than earned their own little You'll Never Make Love In This Town Again tell-all about the way they've treated women over the last decades.)
With Hillary, we're seeing the same side choosing by those men that we did during the Thomas-Hill hearings. "Lynched," "bamboozeld," etc. All those terms showed up then as well. It's amazing that so many White men on the left are so sensitive to the historical oppression of African-American males but never recognize the oppression of any woman (regardless of race). Probably recognizing would mean owning it up to it.
Maybe you're a sleeze who used to taunt your wife that she wasn't sexy enough, that her breasts weren't large enough? Maybe she used to binge on peanut butter to try to compensate for all the times you'd tell her Jessica Lange had a better body?
Maybe you didn't just verbally attack and undermine her, maybe you also physically abused her. Sorry to break it to anyone, but a number of lefty males have been guilty of domestic abuse. Again, the left males have more than earned their own You'll Never Make Love In This Town Again.
Supposedly, their admiration for Barack was that he would end the illegal war and they'd say, "He's promised to pull out all combat troops within 16 months of taking office!" We find out that's a lie and they all go silent, don't they?
There's a reason for that. It was never about Iraq. It was about their hatred of women (and their fear is beneath the hatred).
Many of your lefty male voices over 40 have been domestic abusers, womanizers and shown no respect to women their entire lives. It must be very frightening for them that Hillary Clinton is so close to becoming president. If they were involved with her, they could just destroy her (or try to) the way they've spent so much of their own lives destroying the women around them.
It really was exposed, this hatred of women, with Anita Hill. It wasn't about race. Hill is African-American. It was about hatred of women. They're very lucky that so many who trust them today don't know about their behavior during Hill-Thomas, let alone in their own personal lives.
Their non-stop attacks on Hillary are just another example of the way they've treated women all along. Telling them that their lives weren't "real" (often while living of their spouse's money) or that their lives before didn't matter, were meaningless. (Even when their lives before provided the money that allows the lazy ass men of the left to pursue their own dreams.)
When I think of all the young men today, children of 'left' male voices, many who grew up with their mothers, I wonder what it would be like if they found out the truths about their 'noble' fathers?
Most of their ex-wives have gone out of the way to be kind and not go through what happened during the marriage. Not when the children were young and not now that they are adults.
The children are like a lot of their audience today, kidding themselves that the attacks on Hillary are about Iraq. They aren't. If they were about Iraq, all those 'voices' would have been tearing Barack about today. They don't do that. They just batter and abuse women.
It's a real shame that women were nice about what happened. It's a real shame that Ms. has gotten so nice. Ms. magazine needs to return to its roots of holding all men accountable. But we've seen a reluctance to do that for about three decades now. It's why The Nation magazine got away with publishing 491 men in 2007 and only 149 women without being called out.
By the way, the examples I picked didn't just pop into my head. They are examples of what some of our 'trusted' male 'voices' did, all of it. The belitting a woman and telling her Jessica Lange had a better body, telling his own wife that and doing so just to prove what a price he was, just to try to destroy her self-confidence. If left male 'voices' of a certain age were to read this, they'd shudder. If you're a left male 'voice' and are reading this and wondering, "Does she know?" The answer is, yes, I do. Women talk to each other. Even when we draw the veil to the world at large about the s**t you did to us, we still talk to each other about it.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Monday, March 10, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Barack Obama's 'pledge' wasn't a pledge but watch Panhandle Media play dumb, the US military announces the deaths of US service members today, reconstruction and more.
Starting with war resistance. "The most common hostility that I faced was the ostracism of many of my peers: the young soldiers of the same rank as I," Aidan Delgado explained to Dewey Hammond last August in an interview timed for the release of his book d The Sutras Of Abu Ghraib: Notes From A Conscientious Objector In Iraq. As the book title notes, Delgado is a CO and Hammond asks him, "At what pointfor you did it become clear that being a soldier could not coexist with being Buddhist?"
Aidan Delgado: After enlistment, during Basic and Advanced training, I began to study and became far more serious about Buddhism but I still felt that there was some way to allow the ideals of being a soldier and the ideals of being a Buddhist to coexist. When I deployed to Iraq and had all the abstractions peeled away, saw what it truly meant to be a soldier, was when I finally decided that Buddhism and militarism were incompatible. That is not to imply that it was a sudden "revelation" on my part; to the contrary, it was the final stage of a long process of questioning and maturation on my part. I didn't suddenly decide that war was wrong when I deployed to Iraq, I knew it already intellectually, but it took the direct experience of war to make it real for me and give me the courage to oppose it.
.
All war resisters show courage by resisting and war resisters in Canada could use some people backing them up. They were dealt a serious set-back when the Canadian Supreme Court refused to hear the appeals of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Today, Canada's Parliament remaining the best hope for safe harbor war resisters have, you can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (http://us.f366.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (http://us.f366.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (http://us.f366.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. That is the sort of thing that should receive attention but instead it's ignored.There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara 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, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, 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, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty 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 [(877) 447-4487], 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. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).Meanwhile IVAW has a DC action this month:In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & AfghanistanMarch 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation. Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'." IVAW's co-chair Adam Kokesh will, of course, be participating and he explains why at his site, "But out of a strong sense of duty, some of us are trying to put our experiences to use for a good cause. Some of us couldn't live with ourselves if weren't doing everything we could to bring our brothers and sisters home as soon as possible. The environment may be unking, but that is why I will be testifying to shooting at civilians as a result of changing Rules of Engagement, abuse of detainees, and desecration of Iraqi bodies. It won't be easy but it must be done. Some of the stories are things that are difficult to admit that I was a part of, but if one more veteran realizes that they are not alone because of my testimony it will be worth it." The hearings will be broadcast throughout at the Iraq Veterans Against the War home page an on KPFA March 14th and 16th with Aimee Allison (co-host of the station's The Morning Show and co-author with David Solnit of Army Of None) and Aaron Glantz hosting and the KPFA live stream will also be available at Glantz' War Comes Home.
Over the weekend, Michael McGuire (The Evening Sun) reports, that IVAW's Daniel Black "spoke about his military experiences to a small group in the community room at the Guernsey Memorial Library in Norwich. Thursday, he gave a talk to students at Hartwick College sponsored by the Iraq-Iran Group of the Coalition for Democracy of Central New York." Mason Kerns (Des Moines Register) reports that IVAW was among those protesting Karl Rove at the Univeristy of Iowa (Rove gave a speech there over the weekend) while April West (The Lawrentian) reports that IVAW's John Knox spoke on the Lawrence University campus at the invitation of the Multicultural Affairs Committee and he "discussed the demographics of those in the Army as well as recruiters' tactics. The bulk of new army recruits' parents make a combined $30,000 - 50,000 a year and are from Texas, he said. Knox described an exponential correlation in which the more money a family makes the less likely they are to have children in the Army." Justin Hughes (Golden Gate [X]Press) reports that IVAW's Michael Blake joined with Iraqi journalist Salam Talib to speak at San Francisco State University with Blake explaining, "We are using Iraq to project power throughout the Middle East. . . . These guys are getting filthy stinking rich off this war while everyone else is suffering. From their perspective, the war is going very well."
From whose perspective is it okay to tell the voters a known lie?
Stephen Sackur: You said that he'll revisit it [the decision to pull troops] when he goes to the White House. So what the American public thinks is a commitment to get combat forces out within sixteen months, isn't a commitment is it?
Samantha Power: You can't make a commitment in whatever month we're in now, in March of 2008 about what circumstances are going to be like in January 2009. We can'te ven tell what Bush is up to in terms of troops pauses and so forth. He will of course not rely upon some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or as a US Senator.
We noted the above on Friday. The then foreign policy advisor to Barack Obama, Samantha Power, speaking to the BCC. Most haven't noted the story (the list includes The Nation, Common Dreams, The Progressive among others, see The Third Estate Sunday Review's "Editorial: The Whores of Indymedia" ). AP noted it. Gideon Rachman (Financial Times of London) lies but notes not only did Power say it on the BBC, Power also stated similar things to Rachman last week. Rachman's lie is that Samantha Power was against the illegal war before it started. As John R. MacArthur (Common Deams) noted in 2005 -- before so many War Hawks started going in for Extreme Makeovers -- the "humanists such as [George] Packer, [Samantha] Power, and Michael Ignatieff signed on with the neo-conservative crowd for a 'democracy-building' project in Iraq". David Corn (Mother Jones) embarrasses himself (but give him credit, like Rachman, for not pretending the BBC interview never took place -- many others pretended it didn't take place). Corn excuses Power's remarks but they don't need any excuse. She spoke the truth, it's Corn who's spinning claiming that all it means is "a campaign proposal is just that: a proposal." Since Corny's among the crowd 'jazzed' by the 'youth' for Bambi, Corny should be aware that what his 'seasoned' and non-reasoned (remember his attacks on Gary Webb?) 'insider' status allows him to 'know' is not a known to people turning out at Obama's rallies and hearing him pledge to pull all combat troops out of Iraq in 16 months. What it is, and Corn knows this, is a lie -- a big fat lie. Samantha Power revealed it as such in her interview with the BBC and Corn quotes from it selectively. He really needs to be ashamed of himself. It's the sort of crap that makes Mother Jones just another whore in Panhandle Media and they really ought to be ashamed because more than any other outlet, they used to march to their own drum. Now they've got their hands out begging like every other cheap hustler. Barack Obama has declared in ads and speeches that he will withdraw troops 16 months from being sworn in.
Kristen Senz (The Union Leader) reported that in November, "If elected, Obama vowed to end the war in Iraq within 16 months". Does David Corn think Senz misunderstood? Use the link, it goes to Barack Obama's site which reposted that article under the heading "Change We Can Believe In." "Believe in me" says Bambi. He's got no record to run on, so he's run on personality and told everyone he has 'judgement' and can be 'trusted.' But he's lying. Need more from "Change We Can Believe In"? Barack's campaign has posted Peter Hecht (Sacramento Bee) reporting Bambi declared, "As president I will end the war in Iraq. I will bring the troops home. They will be home in 16 months. . . . America, San Francisco. Our moment is now. You can't wait any longer. Our moment to bring about change is now." Sounds like a promise because that's what he wants people to hear it as. On October 2nd (again, link goes to Bambi's campaign site) his campaign posted his speech that day which included Barack declaring, "The first thing we ahve to do is end this war. . . . I will remove one or two brigades a month, and get all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months." That's pretty damn clear unless your name is David Corn. December 18th, campaigning in Iowa, he declared that if he was "the Democratic nominee, I will offer a clear choice. My opponent won't be able to say that I ever supported the war in Iraq, or that I don't support a clear timetable to bring out troops home." He also stated in that speech, "So when you consider who to caucus for, I ask you to consider myjudgement and vision for new American leadership. Leadership that brings our combat brigades out of Iraq in 16 months, renews American diplomacy, finishes . . ." Get the point?
He's campaigned on this over and over in speeches and commercials. Tom Hayden has assumed it was a real pledge. He's written column after column praising Bambi. You better believe others have taken Bambi at his word. At the Barack Obama campaign website it reads here that "In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as president. Bring Our Troops Home Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat briages out of Iraq within 16 months." Will is the verb in the final sentence (written by Bambi's campaign and posted on his website). While David Corn embarrasses himself, NBC' Domenico Montanaro (reporting on the same press call Corn did) explains that "when (now former) top Obama foreign policy adviser Samantha Power told BBC that Obama 'will, of course, not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator,' the Clinton campaign found something tangible to seize on."
And the Hillary Clinton campaign released "MEMO: Obama's Iraq Plan: Just Words" which opens with, "Once again, it looks like Senator Obama is telling voters one thing while his campaign says those words should not be mistaken for serious action. After months of speeches from Senator Obama promising a hard end date to the Iraq war, his top foreign policy adviser that counseled his campaign during that period is on the record saying that Senator Obama will 'not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator. Voters already have serious questions about whether Senator Obama is ready to be Commander-in-Chief. Now there are questions about whether he's seriou about the Iraq plan he's discussed for the last year on the campaign trail. . . . It turns out those attacks and speeched were just words. And if you can't trust Senator Obama's words, what's left?" Nothing. And certainly nothing that indicates the illegal war's ending.
While Bambi tries to figure out what he thinks today, people are dying. In fact, 8 US service members appear to have died today. Nancy A. Youssef and Hannah Allam (McClatchy Newspapers) report that at a time when most outlets are aware of 5 dead. Deborah Haynes (Times of London) reports, "Five American soldiers were killed and three wounded when a suicide bomber blew himself up in the middle of a foot patrol in Baghdad today, in the deadliest strike against the US military in the city since last June." And that was when it was five (the other three dead are not the three wounded in the bombing we're focusing on right now.) CBS and AP note that an Iraqi interpreter was also injured in the bombing. CNN offers, "The explosion marks the deadliest attack against the US military since five soldiers were killed January 28 in a roadside bombing in Mosul." Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) explains, "Iraqi police said a man with explosives strapped to his waist walked up to the soldiers during a foot patrol int he upscale Mansour meighborhood and blew him self up. The blast also killed an Iraqi civilian and injured 11 other Iraqis, police and hospital officials said." That brings the total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 3980. But, as noted before, Youssef and Allam write that 8 died today and they report 3 more "died while on a patrol in Diyala province, the official said. He asked not to be identified as he isn't an official spokesman." Now might be a good time to note that Rear Admr. Gregory Smith declared yesterday in his Iraq press conference, "I would not look at the last few weeks as an increase or a trend of an increase."
In other reported violence today . . .
Bombings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad truck bombing that claimed the life of 1 person and left five more wounded, a Baghdad mortar attack wounded two people, a Baghdad roadside bombing wounded two people, a Baghdad car bombing claimed 1 life and left four people wounded a Diyala Province bombing that claimed the lives of 2 police officers and left twenty people wounded, a Diyala Province roadside bombing that claimed the life of an Iraqi soldier and wounded two others in the Iraqi military and a bombing targeting the Sulaimaniyah Palace Hotel which claimed the life of 1 guard and left thirty-four people injured. Reuters reports a Diyala Province bombing today credited to "female suicide bomber" which has claimed the life of Thaer Saggban al-Karkhi who had been a US collaborator in an "Awakening" Council (and whom Reuters describes as "a prominent Sunni Arab tribal chief") as well as three people with him. Al Arabiya News Channel notes the dead includes two bodyguards and one of the chief's niece and that another bombing in the same province took place at a police station and resulted in 2 deaths and twenty-two people being injured.
Shootings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 police officer shot dead in Salahuddin Province. Reuters notes an armed clash in Mosul left 2 dead and two more wounded.
Corpses?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad while Dr. Khalid Nasir's corpse was discovered in Basra. In the continuing targeting of educators, doctors and officials, Dr. Nasir was kidnapped on Sunday. CBS and AP note, "According to figures from the Iraqi Health Ministry released earlier this year, 618 medical employees, including 132 doctors, as well as medics and other health care workers, have been killed nationwide since 2003."
Yesterday, James Glanz (New York Times) reported that senators Carl Levin and John Warner's plan to use their positions on the Senate Armed Service Committee in order to determine "how Iraq is spending its soaring oil revenue" two months after the 'accountability' office in Iraq "reported that Iraq had spent a meager 4.4 percent of its 2007 reconstruction budget by August of that year, the most recent figures available at the time." CNN adds: "Iraq's ability to spend its $10.1 billion capital projects budget in 2007 was one of the 18 benchmarks used to assess U.S. progress in stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq, according to the GAO. The United States has spent more than $47 billion on Iraqi reconstruction efforts since 2003, according to the 2008 quarterly audit by the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction."
iraq
aiden delgado
dee knight
iraq veterans against the war
aimeee allisondavid solnit
aaron glantz
kpfa
john r. macarthur
samantha power
nancy a. youssefmcclatchy newspapers
the los angeles timesalexandra zavis
the new york timesjames glanz
the third estate sunday review
Friday, March 07, 2008
Peter Daou and other things
So it turns out, see C.I.'s snapshot at the bottom, Barack Obama's 'pledge' to end the Iraq War by pulling "combat" troops out of Iraq over a 16-month period was never a genuine pledge or a binding one. Samantha Power, then Bambi's foreign policy advisor, revealed it on the BBC. So he lied.
He lied and fools like Tom Hayden and Laura Flanders, among others, hopped on board his choo-choo train to lie for him. Will they apologize? Will they admit that they were fooled? Probably not. They were fools because they allowed themselves to be made into fools.
"How Does this Help Hillary in the General Election?" (Peter Daou, HillaryClinton.com):
I've seen a number of blog posts criticizing Hillary for drawing a contrast on national security with Sen. Obama. The claim is that by suggesting that she and Sen. McCain cross the commander-in-chief threshold and that Sen. Obama should be asked about it, Hillary is undercutting Sen. Obama's prospects in a general election were he to become the nominee.
The hand-wringing on this is excessive. What Hillary is saying is that with Sen. McCain as the nominee, national security is the terrain that Republicans will play on. We saw it in 2004 and we'll see it again in 2008. Democrats know that. Winning in November means defeating John McCain and it is not only legitimate but essential for Hillary to make the case that she is the Democrat who can stand toe-to-toe with Sen. McCain on national security.
Now if you want an example of a false negative attack that provides fodder to the GOP, look no further than the Obama campaign's repeated allegation that Hillary will "say anything" to get elected. Hillary has demonstrated a lifelong commitment to core Democratic values and has fought tirelessly for the issues that matter to Democrats and progressives. To allege that she'll "say anything" to get elected when she has spent this entire campaign talking about universal health care, ending the Iraq war, and a host of critical issues and when she's made the case for why she thinks she can make America a better place for all of us, is to engage in a needless, unfounded character attack.
So my question to fellow bloggers is this: if drawing a contrast on national security is so destructive to a candidate in a general election, how does it help to make the patently false claim that your Democratic opponent will "say anything" to get elected?
I generally just excerpt. If it's something by someone I know there have been two times when I've excerpted in full. One item appeared at Common Dreams and the writer said, "I didn't give them permission, Elaine, don't worry. I'm not going to sue." If I don't know the person, I generally don't excerpt in full. I don't know Peter Daou but it's from Hillary's campaign site and I would assume they are very interested in getting the word out. They should be because, surf the net, there are so many lies and distortions out there that really do need to amplify online.
The first part Dauo's addressing (I agree with both his points) is a point C.I. was making this morning as well. "She" is Ruth Rosen in the following excerpt.
"The Problem From Hell: Samantha Power" (The Common Ills):
She uses 'feminism' to play like she is proud of both candidates but, golly, Hillary shouldn't have raised the national security issue. Rosen says John McCain's camp will do that. Yes, McCain's camp will do that. The GOP did it in 2004. They will do it again. Democrats better be prepared for that and better be able to answer and respond immediately. Instead of making that point, Rosen plays a card we're all familiar with. It was used on Elizabeth Holtzman as well -- in the alleged name of 'feminism': women shouldn't want public office and they should be encouraging and supportive of their fellow candidates. That's a load of crap. Every candidate is in an election to win or they shouldn't be running for office to begin with. Hillary's ad was effective and it was needed. Bambi supporters operate under the assumption that no issue must be raised (it's why his foot soldiers refer people to the website and are ordered to only talk about how Bambi makes them 'feel'). They think they can offer some dopey New Age primary campaign and then, against the GOP attack machine, they'll be standing. They won't. Hillary's ad worked not because it played into 'fear.' Hillary's ad worked because it addressed the elephant in the room.
It is the elephant in the room. In fact, all of Obama's weakness are the elephants in the room that no one's ever supposed to mention. The campaign thinks they can intimidate everyone into silence. It won't work on the GOP and it shouldn't work right now on Hillary's campaign. She's running for the nomination because she thinks she would make the best president. She needs to make the case for that. Pointing out her strength in that area is nothing but running a solid campaign. Nothing Hillary could do is what the GOP will do to Bambi if he were to get the nomination.
There's some idiot 'logic' that John Kerry was Swiftboated and (a) the mistake was that he didn't respond and (b) that he didn't do so quickly. No, that wasn't the mistake. There wasn't much he could say because he had boxed himself in. He did that by ignoring his record as someone calling out the war in Vietnam. He seemed to think he could walk away from that and that, as long as he did, the GOP wouldn't raise the issue. They did. What would his quick response have been?
His war record was questioned, yes. But not just in terms of whether or not he earned medals. It was called into question because he spoke out against the war and then, decades later, attempted to act like that didn't happen. Exactly what was the response John Kerry was supposed to offer? "Did too win those medals!"? How about, "I'm insulted!"
Either response would have led to, "Did you throw your medals" at an anti-war protest? He would have had to admit he did (though he claims today it was someone else's medals) and the issue still would have been out there.
The Swift Boating took place because the GOP was going to try anything, granted. But John Kerry's culpability in this was that he refused to speak about his protest period. He could have and should have. But he didn't and there was no way for him to defend himself from the smears because he'd effectively wiped that part of who he was out of the narrative via the 2004 DNC convention.
Candidates better be prepared to face the GOP attack machine. Hillary's 3:00 am commercial was about a serious issue and silly fools (I'm thinking of one woman at Common Dreams) who want to say "national security isn't an issue on people's minds" are (a) idiots and (b) short-sighted. National security is very much on people's minds. This election will bring in the first new White House occupant since 9-11 that's not Bully Boy. You better believe it will be an issue. On the second point, if they truly think -- based on right now -- that it won't be an issue, they better learn to look a little in the future because the fall campaign will not be like the current ones. There will be many issues emerge and recede over the next few months.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Friday, March 7, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, War Hawk Sammy Power Down and taking the Obama campaign with her, International Women's Day, Bambi's not so 'anti-war' and more.
Starting with war resistance. Julie Muhlstein (HeraldNet) reports that Catherine Ryan and Gary Weimber's documentary Soldiers of Conscience will be shown at 10:30 Saturday morning in the Historic Everett Theatre as part of the Everett Women's Film Festival. "Their country asked them to kill, their hearts told them to stop" is the tagline in some promotional materials for the film that won Best Documentary at both the Rhode Island International Film Festival and Ireland's Foyle Film Festival. Ryan (co-director and co-producer) will be present Saturday as part of the filmmaker forum. Among those featured in the documentary is war resister Aidan Delgado who told his story of serving in Iraq and rejecting the illegal war in The Sutras Of Abu Ghraib: Notes From A Conscientious Objector In Iraq. In the book, Delgado explains how he knew the whispers of abuse at Abu Ghraib weren't false speculation -- they're all called in for a speech by a commander:
There's no doubt now that everything we've heard about is true, and it must be even worse than we thought, for the commander himself to get on our backs about it. All a family? I laugh. We're only a family when the captain wants us to do his bidding or conceal some wrongdoing. The Army has tried that rhetoric before, talking about family and Army pride and everything else to try to get you to buy into what they do. When the Army talks about "handling something internally," it's only because they've done something so obviously wrong, they can't allow the rest of the country to see it. This doesn't surprise me. After all, if Americans back home saw Iraqi prisoners shot dead for throwing stones, saw the wretched conditions inside Abu, or saw the way the MPs dealt with the prisoners, what would they think of our glorious and righteous invasion? The truth about Abu Ghraib has to be concealed, has to be "kept in the family," because if the average citizen saw what we're doing to the people here, they would know in their guts that it's un-American.
Delgado's journey doesn't begin in the excerpt (read the book) and every war resister has a moment where they realize they can't take part in the illegal war. For some, it may be after they serve in Iraq and see it with their own eyes, for others it may come as they begin exploring the 'reasons' given for the Iraq War, some have a religous awakening . . . Every individual has their own story and these are the stories that are not being told.
Among the stories that need to be told due to a window of time are the stories of war resisters who went to Canada. They were dealt a serious set-back when the Canadian Supreme Court refused to hear the appeals of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Today, Canada's Parliament remaining the best hope for safe harbor war resisters have, you can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (http://us.f366.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (http://us.f366.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (http://us.f366.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. That is the sort of thing that should receive attention but instead it's ignored.There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara 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, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, 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, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty 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 [(877) 447-4487], 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. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).Meanwhile IVAW has a DC action this month:In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & AfghanistanMarch 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation. Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'." IVAW's co-chair Adam Kokesh will, of course, be participating and he explains why at his site, "But out of a strong sense of duty, some of us are trying to put our experiences to use for a good cause. Some of us couldn't live with ourselves if weren't doing everything we could to bring our brothers and sisters home as soon as possible. The environment may be unking, but that is why I will be testifying to shooting at civilians as a result of changing Rules of Engagement, abuse of detainees, and desecration of Iraqi bodies. It won't be easy but it must be done. Some of the stories are things that are difficult to admit that I was a part of, but if one more veteran realizes that they are not alone because of my testimony it will be worth it." The hearings will be broadcast throughout at the Iraq Veterans Against the War home page an on KPFA March 14th and 16th with Aimee Allison (co-host of the station's The Morning Show and co-author with David Solnit of Army Of None) and Aaron Glantz hosting and the KPFA live stream will also be available at Glantz' War Comes Home.
Today, at Foreign Policy in Focus, Aaron Glantz reports more on the upcoming action:
"We have given a blanket invitation to Congress," said Camilo Mejia, the Chair of the Board of Iraq Veterans Against the War. "We hope the Congress will give these hearings the same attention they did during the Vietnam era."
But action from politicians is only one possible outcome. Mejia says IVAW also hopes Winter Soldier will increase the size and strength of GI Resistance against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"The event is going to empower soldiers to follow their conscience whatever that means for them," said Mejia . . . "The kinds of things we're talking about are non-partisan. They're non-political. They have to do with human being trapped in this atrocity producing situation."
Meanwhile, it was not a good day to be Our Modern Day Carrie Nations or, as Samantha Power prefers to be called, "the humanitarian War Hawk." Last night, The Scotsman was making news with Power's insults of US Senator Hillary Clinton and "the poor" in America and, generally, just flashing that foul mouth everyone knows about but generally ignroes. The morning started with Sammy Power expressing 'sorrow.' She wasn't sorry and we're not going to play around with this story. Here's reality, the press was lining up this morning the stories on this and talking to one another (as they are prone to do) for background examples of other times Sammy Power has personally (and destructively) insulted Hillary Clinton. When it was obvious that those stories would come out if she stayed with the campaign she 'resigned.' At The New Statesman, she was flaunting her War Hawk nature in an interview (as well as that foul mouth). [Personal note: I'm sure I could match Sammy swear word for swear word, but I wasn't planning on becoming Secretary of State.] Lynn Sweet (Chicago Sun-Times) was one of the first out of the gate noting that Sammy Power "resigned as a foreign policy advisor to Sen. Barack Obama" this afternoon. Her calling Hillary a "monster" did matter, it was off sides -- both for a future Secretary of State as well as for a professor at Harvard. It's a shame Obama still lacks the leadership to take control of his campaign -- that would have required firing Power. Instead she resigned indicating that he's unable to run a campaign as well as unable to tell the truth. Power -- who also went to work for Obama in 2005 when he was first elected to the US Senate (November 2004) -- also had to deal with the BBC interview she'd given. Barack Obama has not promised to pull ALL troops out of Iraq in 16 months. He has promised the American people that "combat" troops would be removed. But promises, promises (as Dionne Warwick once sang) . . .
Stephen Sackur: You said that he'll revisit it [the decision to pull troops] when he goes to the White House. So what the American public thinks is a commitment to get combat forces out within sixteen months, isn't a commitment is it?
Samantha Power: You can't make a commitment in whatever month we're in now, in March of 2008 about what circumstances are going to be like in January 2009. We can'te ven tell what Bush is up to in terms of troops pauses and so forth. He will of course not rely upon some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or as a US Senator.
Which would mean Mr. Pretty Speeches has been lying to the American people. (Add the "AGAIN!")
Her rise was swift, her fall even faster. Our Modern Day Carrie Nations took part in the "Bring the troops home and send them to Darfur" nonsense. [For more on that nutso crowd, see Julie Hollar's "The Humanitarian Tempatation" (Extra!).] Despite presenting herself recently as against the Iraq War from the start, the public record has never backed that up. But it is true that she wanted wars in Africa and was selling them under "humanitarian" guise. "Stop the killing!" she cried but if she really wanted to stop the killing, she might have tried to speak out against the ongoing genocie in Iraq (which has also produced the largest refugee crisis in the world). She didn't care about that. Probably because it demonstrates that sending armed forces in is not an answer. Again, if Barack Obama had any leadership abilities, he would have announced today that he fired his longterm advisor. He did not, she resigned. (She foolishly doesn't grasp that this is her Alexander Haig moment and there is no comeback.) Power was not a campaigner, she was a high level, longterm foreign policy advisor being groomed to be the next Secretary of State. As Krissah Williams (Washington Post) notes, Senator Clinton's response to Power's BBC interview was to note Power's agreement that Obama's pledge to have "combat" troops out in 16 months was never more than a "best-case scenario". Hillary Clinton: "Senator Obama has made his speech opposing Iraq in 2002 and the war in Iraq the core of his campaign, which makes these comments especially troubling. While Senator Obama campaigns on his [pledge] to end the war, his top advisers tell people abroad that he will not rely on his own plan should he become president. This is the latest example of promising the American people one thing on the campaign trail and telling people in other countries another. You saw this with NAFTA as well."
Meanwhile Tom Hayden again offers Barack advice from the heart, from love. At Common Dreams, Hayden feels that, "The only policy difference favoring Obama that goes straight to the issue of 'experience' is Iraq. It no longer is enough that Obama opposed the war five years ago, especially if it appears that there are no differences between the candidates now. For whatever reason, Obama has allowed Clinton to appear to take an identical stand on the war. Is that true? Or is it time for Obama to issue a further clarification of his position separating him from both Clinton and McCain? The peace movement and media can play a role here." Tom then asks, "Does Clinton propose a timetable for withdrawing combat troops, like Obama does?" Apparently Tom missed Sammy's interview -- Obama has no proposal. As Sammy notes, things change, who can say? Should we expect Hayden's endorsement of Hillary anytime soon? Or will he again plan to 'represent' the peace movement by covering for the 'anti-war' candidate -- one whose own foreign policy advisor (she was that when she gave the interview) informs is saying words he'd not planning to live up to?
Meanwhile violence continues in Iraq . . .
Bombings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two Mosul roadside bombings that wounded fourteen people and claimed the life of 1 police officer and a Mosul car bombing that claimed the lives of 4 police officers and left thirty-three people wounded.
Shootings?
Reuters notes US forces in Samarra "killed eight suspected al Qaeda fighters" (and they note the death toll from yesterday's Baghdad bombings rose to 68).
Corpses?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad.
Iraqi president Jalal Talabani is in Turkey for day one of a two-day visit. Zerin Elci (Reuters) reports that he has "pledged Iraq's backing for Turkey in its fight against Kurdish PKK rebels on Friday, just one week after Ankara ended a major army ground offensive against the guerrillas in northern Iraq." That's where Talabani is, where's Moqtada al-Sadr? Earlier today, Khaled Farhan (Reuters) reported:Powerful Iraqi Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who has not been seen in public for months, issued an unusual statement on Friday explaining his absence to his followers and admitting splits in his movement."I swear that I live with you and among you. I am a part of you. I will not change this unless death separates us," he said in a two-page statement bearing his personal stamp.The statement was issued two weeks after Sadr extended a ceasefire by his Mehdi Army for another six months. He first called on the militia, blamed by the U.S. military and Sunni Arabs for fuelling sectarian violence, to halt its activities in August so that he could reorganise it.
BBC notes, "May of his followers had split from him 'for materalistic reasons or because they wanted to be independent,' he said" in the statement. While Sadr City residents feel targeted, al-Sadr's not there. He's renewed a cease-fire/truce that the residents didn't favor and the attitude then (which is only growing) is, "Why should we listen to someone who's not even here standing with us?" (He's rumored to be in Najaf, working as a hotel clerk.) A "leader" has to be seen as standing with (and suffering with) the people. al-Sadr is not seen as such currently and his little 'gift' of a message won't have much impact. Already the rumbles have moved on to wonder if he is collaborating with the US and every day he is out of Sadr City, he is futher weakened. That isn't at all surprising and any student of history could have seen it coming. In his absence, the rumors circulate and issuing 'press releases' to the residents of Sadr City will not raise his standing.
And we'll close with one topic. Saturday is International Women's Day. Feminist Wire Daily explains, "International Women's Day (IWD) will be celebrated this Saturday across the world. According to the IWD website, this year marks the 97th annual celebration. Counties including Armenia, Russia, and Vietnam recognize IWD as an official holiday, but hundreds of celebrations happen all over the world on March 8th." and arrives as Women for Women International has released a new study on Iraqi women. Zainab Salbi writes in the introduction to [PDF format warning] "Stronger Women, Stronger Nations: 2008 Iraq Report:"
In Iraq, violence against women increased within months of March 2003 U.S. invasion. There were assassinations and abductions of Iraqi professional women, in the country and abroad. Hair salons were bombed, and there were threats to women who drove or didn't cover their hair. Soon every politician, businessperson, professional Iraqi and foreigner became vulnerable to kidnapping and attack and remains so today. This issue has become menacing enough to impede development efforts in the country. But the increasingly precarious status of women was and continues to be seen as a secondary issue, a distraction from the bigger political debates.
Since 2003, the discussion of women's role in Iraqi society and their earnest participation in reconstruction has shrunk from one of legitimate substance to obligatory quantity. In 2004, as plans for Iraq's new constitution were underway and "women's issues" were designated as a priority, the initial request of setting aside 40 percent of the seats in parliament for women was negotiated down to 25 percent.
[. . .]
Once the fighting ends, it is women who pick up the pieces of their families and mend the social fabric of their communities. Yet this crucial role is rarely acknowledged. Sustainable peace, democracy and economic development depend on women's social, political and economic participation. Unless there is a clear understanding of the obstacles and avenues to women's access to development resources and the political will to enact gender equitable policies, any blueprint for sustainable peace risks being place perilously out of reach. Thus, the incorporation of women's views into traditionally male-dominated political processes is vital to achieving sustainable peace, democracy, and prosperity.
Of course, to believe that, you'd have to believe that women matter, you'd have to accept the realities of the gender barriers worldwide and you'd have to grasp how under attack all women are, every day, around the globe. If you're a woman, you'd also have to have at least a little self-respect. As evidenced by the non-stop attacks on Hillary Clinton coming from so many and the refusal of women in the United States who do not support Hillary to call these attacks out, women still don't matter in the United States and Bash the Bitch remains the national pasttime.
The report informs that in 2004, 90.6 percent of Iraqi women surveyed were "optimistic about the future" and that, in 2007, the number stating they were optimistic fell to 26.9 percent. 88 percent of respondents "expressed a great deal of concern that they or someone living in their households would become a victim of violence." In addition, the number stating that the presence of US forces and British forces were making things worse was 65.3 percent and 67.9 percent "stated that their ability to walk down the street as they please has gotten worse since the U.S. invasion." As the illegal war hits the fifth year mark this year, things are not improving, they are only getting worse. The report details the hazards of just conducting the survey with details such as "For security reasons, women in Al-Sadr City, Al-Kamalyah, and Al-Ubadi gathered in groups of five in a woman's home and met with a staff member to complete the questionnaire." The respondents repeatedly cited the following as "the biggest problems facing Iraq as a whole":
* High/rising prices
* Housing availability/prices
* Lack of security
* US occupation/presence
On basic issues of mobility, the illegal war has had a huge impace: "86.0% of respondents said they are not able to walk down the street as they please; 67.9% of respondents stated that their ability to walkd won the street as they please has gotten worse since the U.S. invasion; 68.3% of women are not able to drive a car; 53.7% of respondents say that their ability to drive a car has gotten worse since the U.S. invasion; 48.6% of respondents said that they are not able to work outside the home; and 56.7% of respondents said that their ability to work outside the home has gotten worse since the U.S. invasion." As a result, 74.5 percent of Iraqi women now avoid leaving the home, 63.2 percent are not allowing their children to go to school ("most commonly in parts of Baghdad"), 38.5 percent say rape is increasing, 30.4 percent see an increase in the trafficking of women, 29.6 percent see an increase in prostitution. Why is that? The three most repeated answers were:
* There is less respect for women's rights than before
* Women are thought of as possessions
* The economy has gotten worse
Asked to rank "the biggest threat to national security," the women chose US and British soldiers (43.9 percent) followed closely by the Iraqi militias (32.6 percent). From the report:
A group of women in Karbala was asked what they would do if they were in charge of the country. They said, "We would first ask the Americans to leave immediately. Second, we will address the poverty situation in Iraq which is impacting us the most." One woman added, "If I was the president of the country, I would make filling the stomach of the old people as my utmost priority." When asked what was neeeded, 70.0% of respondents said that rebuilding infrastructure such as roads, wells, drains and public buildings was necessary for the welfare of their communities. Other priorities included programs designed to help communities take care of their own needs and emergency relief such as food, shelter and emergency medical services.
The report concludes with "Action Agenda for Women" which argues for proving "that freedom is not inconsistent with safety"; restoring infrastructure throughout the country, addressing the economic needs of women, supporting "women's organizations and umbrella groups" and strengthening "democracy through education." Again the thirty-four page report is in PDF format and entitled "Stronger Women, Stronger Nations: 2008 Iraq Report." In non-PDF form, an overview is provided here. The founder of Women for Women, Zainab Salbi, remembers (at Womens Media Center) her own last visit to Iraq (in 2004), "My colleague who picked me up turned to me in the car and said: 'Zainab, remember the basketball hoop your family put in the cul-de-sac in front your home? Al-Mahdi militia has been using the basketball pole to execute Sunnis.' I couldn't believe what he was telling me. 'Zainab,' he continued, 'every day I saw tens of bodies lying in front of your house after being executed. Every day there was a body hanging from the basketball pole. Your home has turned into an execution center'." She remembers traveling Iraq that year and encountering many women including Shatha who told her, "If I was the president of the country, the first thing I would do is ask the Americans to leave. I then would make filling the stomachs of the people my utmost priority, by ending poverty and creating jobs. And thirdly I will focus on education. We can't have a real democracy if we don't have educated people pushing for a real democracy." Zainab Salbi asks that everyone "remember the women who struggle in Iraq and around the world to create peace." AFP notes the report and speaks with two Iraqi women: Asma Kadhim and Eman Ahmad. The latter states, "Before the war in 2003, I used to work in complete freedom. I had my shop and my own car. I was threatened a year back and since then I have stopped working and stopped driving." She had operated a clothing store while Asma Kadhim had operated a hair salon but one day, "There was a stranger at the door. He gave me an envelope which had two bullets and a letter that said 'if you do not close your beauty parlour, we will kill you. Your work is haram (forbidden)'."
January 29th, Deborah Amos (NPR's Day to Day) reported how 'democracy' played out for Iraqi women:
Deborah Amos: Rima, a 48-year-old mother of four, escaped to Syria a year ago. She doesn't want her family name broadcast because of relatives back home. In the kitchen, Rima seems a traditional Iraqi mother preparing food for her son and three daughters but when it came to education, her daughters have advanced college degrees just like her son. In Baghdad, Rima worked for a western aid organization helping improve the lives of poor Iraqi women until militants threatened to kill her.
Rima: So many times I went to places that poor women are living. They knew me. They knew my face.
Deborah Amos: Rima acknowledges that from a distance Baghdad seems safer now but she says she needs guarantees that go beyond safety to take her daughters back there.
Rima: There is no freedom. Can any girl, woman, dressing as she likes, going to jobs, going to colleges as before?
Deborah Amos: There are women in college, there are some.
Rima: But all of them are frightened.
Deborah Amos: Historically Iraqi women had more rights and freedom than many in the Middle East. That status declined in the last years of Saddam's rule, deteriorated further still after the US invastion. Religious conservatives swept to office in Iraq's elections, the new constitution reduced women's rights and religious radicals directly threatened women -- a story told be refugees across the Middle East. In Lebanon, 53-year-old Bosaf and her brother Feraz, live in a low rent neighborhood outside the capital. They fled Iraq's northern city of Mosul in June. Bosaf -- the head librarian at Mosul University -- was threatened she says because of her head scarf. Her university i.d. shows her blond hair covered by a flowered scarf -- a hijab. But that wasn't good enough for Islamist militants in Mosul. Basama -- a dignified, middle-aged woman -- displays a wicked sense of humor when it comes to the young men who dictated her head gear. She drapes a long, black garmet over her head, rolls her eyes in a can-you-believe-they-made-me-wear-this expression and twirls across the living room.
Unidentified woman: They killed many Christians, that's why she had to wear it.
Deborah Amos: But even a proper headscarf was no protection in Basra. Just ask 35-year-old Ala, the name she agrees to use for her family's safety. She worked as a translator for a western aid organization delivering food and school supplies -- a job she knew came with risks. But Ala says the bigger danger is the well armed and powerful in Basra imposing an extreme form of Islam.
Ala: What's happened, the whole change, attract every wrong value -- this is the religion: "God say that!"
Deborah Amos: Do you think it's more dangerous because you're a woman or because you were a translator?
Ala: Woman. Woman, yeah.
Deborah Amos: Ala now expresses her opinions in the relative saftey of exile. She fled to neighboring Jordan last year. But as a refugee there are other dangers for women. Many have been trapped into prostitution, she says.
Ala: Let me show you something.
Deborah Amos: Ala takes a folded piece of paper from her wallet. She says a Jordanian man -- old enough to be her father -- handed it to her when she first arrived.
Ala: Okay. And then he said, just in case my dear daughter -- you need anything, anybody bother you in this country call me any time. And you'll never believe what he gave me. Oh my God.
Deborah Amos: She smooths out the paper, points to a phone number and one Arabic word underlined. A code she understood.
Ala: Marriage. (Ala laughs.)
Deborah Amos: So he was actually proposing marriage to you?
Ala: If that was his proposal. This is what they're using women here unfortunately. Marriage is the gate or the knock for the door.
Deborah Amos: This is how the prostituion happens? You get a note like this?
Ala: How many women actually show the note to the police?
Deborah Amos: Ala has finally left Jordan accepted for resettlement in the United States. Basama in Lebanon and Rima in Syria hope for resettlement too because they believe they have no future in Iraq.
And it's not just Iraqi women who are targeted in Iraq. Jamie Leigh Jones went to Iraq to work for Halliburton's KBR and was drugged, gang-raped and imprisoned . . . by her co-workers. As the Associated Press notes, she currently engaged in a battle to have her case heard in a court while KBR claims an employment contract should cover 'grievances.'
iraq
aiden delgado
camilo mejia
dee knight
iraq veterans against the war
aimeee allisondavid solnit
aaron glantz
kpfa
npr
day by day
the washington post
mcclatchy newspapers
samantha power
He lied and fools like Tom Hayden and Laura Flanders, among others, hopped on board his choo-choo train to lie for him. Will they apologize? Will they admit that they were fooled? Probably not. They were fools because they allowed themselves to be made into fools.
"How Does this Help Hillary in the General Election?" (Peter Daou, HillaryClinton.com):
I've seen a number of blog posts criticizing Hillary for drawing a contrast on national security with Sen. Obama. The claim is that by suggesting that she and Sen. McCain cross the commander-in-chief threshold and that Sen. Obama should be asked about it, Hillary is undercutting Sen. Obama's prospects in a general election were he to become the nominee.
The hand-wringing on this is excessive. What Hillary is saying is that with Sen. McCain as the nominee, national security is the terrain that Republicans will play on. We saw it in 2004 and we'll see it again in 2008. Democrats know that. Winning in November means defeating John McCain and it is not only legitimate but essential for Hillary to make the case that she is the Democrat who can stand toe-to-toe with Sen. McCain on national security.
Now if you want an example of a false negative attack that provides fodder to the GOP, look no further than the Obama campaign's repeated allegation that Hillary will "say anything" to get elected. Hillary has demonstrated a lifelong commitment to core Democratic values and has fought tirelessly for the issues that matter to Democrats and progressives. To allege that she'll "say anything" to get elected when she has spent this entire campaign talking about universal health care, ending the Iraq war, and a host of critical issues and when she's made the case for why she thinks she can make America a better place for all of us, is to engage in a needless, unfounded character attack.
So my question to fellow bloggers is this: if drawing a contrast on national security is so destructive to a candidate in a general election, how does it help to make the patently false claim that your Democratic opponent will "say anything" to get elected?
I generally just excerpt. If it's something by someone I know there have been two times when I've excerpted in full. One item appeared at Common Dreams and the writer said, "I didn't give them permission, Elaine, don't worry. I'm not going to sue." If I don't know the person, I generally don't excerpt in full. I don't know Peter Daou but it's from Hillary's campaign site and I would assume they are very interested in getting the word out. They should be because, surf the net, there are so many lies and distortions out there that really do need to amplify online.
The first part Dauo's addressing (I agree with both his points) is a point C.I. was making this morning as well. "She" is Ruth Rosen in the following excerpt.
"The Problem From Hell: Samantha Power" (The Common Ills):
She uses 'feminism' to play like she is proud of both candidates but, golly, Hillary shouldn't have raised the national security issue. Rosen says John McCain's camp will do that. Yes, McCain's camp will do that. The GOP did it in 2004. They will do it again. Democrats better be prepared for that and better be able to answer and respond immediately. Instead of making that point, Rosen plays a card we're all familiar with. It was used on Elizabeth Holtzman as well -- in the alleged name of 'feminism': women shouldn't want public office and they should be encouraging and supportive of their fellow candidates. That's a load of crap. Every candidate is in an election to win or they shouldn't be running for office to begin with. Hillary's ad was effective and it was needed. Bambi supporters operate under the assumption that no issue must be raised (it's why his foot soldiers refer people to the website and are ordered to only talk about how Bambi makes them 'feel'). They think they can offer some dopey New Age primary campaign and then, against the GOP attack machine, they'll be standing. They won't. Hillary's ad worked not because it played into 'fear.' Hillary's ad worked because it addressed the elephant in the room.
It is the elephant in the room. In fact, all of Obama's weakness are the elephants in the room that no one's ever supposed to mention. The campaign thinks they can intimidate everyone into silence. It won't work on the GOP and it shouldn't work right now on Hillary's campaign. She's running for the nomination because she thinks she would make the best president. She needs to make the case for that. Pointing out her strength in that area is nothing but running a solid campaign. Nothing Hillary could do is what the GOP will do to Bambi if he were to get the nomination.
There's some idiot 'logic' that John Kerry was Swiftboated and (a) the mistake was that he didn't respond and (b) that he didn't do so quickly. No, that wasn't the mistake. There wasn't much he could say because he had boxed himself in. He did that by ignoring his record as someone calling out the war in Vietnam. He seemed to think he could walk away from that and that, as long as he did, the GOP wouldn't raise the issue. They did. What would his quick response have been?
His war record was questioned, yes. But not just in terms of whether or not he earned medals. It was called into question because he spoke out against the war and then, decades later, attempted to act like that didn't happen. Exactly what was the response John Kerry was supposed to offer? "Did too win those medals!"? How about, "I'm insulted!"
Either response would have led to, "Did you throw your medals" at an anti-war protest? He would have had to admit he did (though he claims today it was someone else's medals) and the issue still would have been out there.
The Swift Boating took place because the GOP was going to try anything, granted. But John Kerry's culpability in this was that he refused to speak about his protest period. He could have and should have. But he didn't and there was no way for him to defend himself from the smears because he'd effectively wiped that part of who he was out of the narrative via the 2004 DNC convention.
Candidates better be prepared to face the GOP attack machine. Hillary's 3:00 am commercial was about a serious issue and silly fools (I'm thinking of one woman at Common Dreams) who want to say "national security isn't an issue on people's minds" are (a) idiots and (b) short-sighted. National security is very much on people's minds. This election will bring in the first new White House occupant since 9-11 that's not Bully Boy. You better believe it will be an issue. On the second point, if they truly think -- based on right now -- that it won't be an issue, they better learn to look a little in the future because the fall campaign will not be like the current ones. There will be many issues emerge and recede over the next few months.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Friday, March 7, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, War Hawk Sammy Power Down and taking the Obama campaign with her, International Women's Day, Bambi's not so 'anti-war' and more.
Starting with war resistance. Julie Muhlstein (HeraldNet) reports that Catherine Ryan and Gary Weimber's documentary Soldiers of Conscience will be shown at 10:30 Saturday morning in the Historic Everett Theatre as part of the Everett Women's Film Festival. "Their country asked them to kill, their hearts told them to stop" is the tagline in some promotional materials for the film that won Best Documentary at both the Rhode Island International Film Festival and Ireland's Foyle Film Festival. Ryan (co-director and co-producer) will be present Saturday as part of the filmmaker forum. Among those featured in the documentary is war resister Aidan Delgado who told his story of serving in Iraq and rejecting the illegal war in The Sutras Of Abu Ghraib: Notes From A Conscientious Objector In Iraq. In the book, Delgado explains how he knew the whispers of abuse at Abu Ghraib weren't false speculation -- they're all called in for a speech by a commander:
There's no doubt now that everything we've heard about is true, and it must be even worse than we thought, for the commander himself to get on our backs about it. All a family? I laugh. We're only a family when the captain wants us to do his bidding or conceal some wrongdoing. The Army has tried that rhetoric before, talking about family and Army pride and everything else to try to get you to buy into what they do. When the Army talks about "handling something internally," it's only because they've done something so obviously wrong, they can't allow the rest of the country to see it. This doesn't surprise me. After all, if Americans back home saw Iraqi prisoners shot dead for throwing stones, saw the wretched conditions inside Abu, or saw the way the MPs dealt with the prisoners, what would they think of our glorious and righteous invasion? The truth about Abu Ghraib has to be concealed, has to be "kept in the family," because if the average citizen saw what we're doing to the people here, they would know in their guts that it's un-American.
Delgado's journey doesn't begin in the excerpt (read the book) and every war resister has a moment where they realize they can't take part in the illegal war. For some, it may be after they serve in Iraq and see it with their own eyes, for others it may come as they begin exploring the 'reasons' given for the Iraq War, some have a religous awakening . . . Every individual has their own story and these are the stories that are not being told.
Among the stories that need to be told due to a window of time are the stories of war resisters who went to Canada. They were dealt a serious set-back when the Canadian Supreme Court refused to hear the appeals of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Today, Canada's Parliament remaining the best hope for safe harbor war resisters have, you can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (http://us.f366.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (http://us.f366.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (http://us.f366.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. That is the sort of thing that should receive attention but instead it's ignored.There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara 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, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, 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, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty 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 [(877) 447-4487], 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. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).Meanwhile IVAW has a DC action this month:In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & AfghanistanMarch 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation. Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'." IVAW's co-chair Adam Kokesh will, of course, be participating and he explains why at his site, "But out of a strong sense of duty, some of us are trying to put our experiences to use for a good cause. Some of us couldn't live with ourselves if weren't doing everything we could to bring our brothers and sisters home as soon as possible. The environment may be unking, but that is why I will be testifying to shooting at civilians as a result of changing Rules of Engagement, abuse of detainees, and desecration of Iraqi bodies. It won't be easy but it must be done. Some of the stories are things that are difficult to admit that I was a part of, but if one more veteran realizes that they are not alone because of my testimony it will be worth it." The hearings will be broadcast throughout at the Iraq Veterans Against the War home page an on KPFA March 14th and 16th with Aimee Allison (co-host of the station's The Morning Show and co-author with David Solnit of Army Of None) and Aaron Glantz hosting and the KPFA live stream will also be available at Glantz' War Comes Home.
Today, at Foreign Policy in Focus, Aaron Glantz reports more on the upcoming action:
"We have given a blanket invitation to Congress," said Camilo Mejia, the Chair of the Board of Iraq Veterans Against the War. "We hope the Congress will give these hearings the same attention they did during the Vietnam era."
But action from politicians is only one possible outcome. Mejia says IVAW also hopes Winter Soldier will increase the size and strength of GI Resistance against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"The event is going to empower soldiers to follow their conscience whatever that means for them," said Mejia . . . "The kinds of things we're talking about are non-partisan. They're non-political. They have to do with human being trapped in this atrocity producing situation."
Meanwhile, it was not a good day to be Our Modern Day Carrie Nations or, as Samantha Power prefers to be called, "the humanitarian War Hawk." Last night, The Scotsman was making news with Power's insults of US Senator Hillary Clinton and "the poor" in America and, generally, just flashing that foul mouth everyone knows about but generally ignroes. The morning started with Sammy Power expressing 'sorrow.' She wasn't sorry and we're not going to play around with this story. Here's reality, the press was lining up this morning the stories on this and talking to one another (as they are prone to do) for background examples of other times Sammy Power has personally (and destructively) insulted Hillary Clinton. When it was obvious that those stories would come out if she stayed with the campaign she 'resigned.' At The New Statesman, she was flaunting her War Hawk nature in an interview (as well as that foul mouth). [Personal note: I'm sure I could match Sammy swear word for swear word, but I wasn't planning on becoming Secretary of State.] Lynn Sweet (Chicago Sun-Times) was one of the first out of the gate noting that Sammy Power "resigned as a foreign policy advisor to Sen. Barack Obama" this afternoon. Her calling Hillary a "monster" did matter, it was off sides -- both for a future Secretary of State as well as for a professor at Harvard. It's a shame Obama still lacks the leadership to take control of his campaign -- that would have required firing Power. Instead she resigned indicating that he's unable to run a campaign as well as unable to tell the truth. Power -- who also went to work for Obama in 2005 when he was first elected to the US Senate (November 2004) -- also had to deal with the BBC interview she'd given. Barack Obama has not promised to pull ALL troops out of Iraq in 16 months. He has promised the American people that "combat" troops would be removed. But promises, promises (as Dionne Warwick once sang) . . .
Stephen Sackur: You said that he'll revisit it [the decision to pull troops] when he goes to the White House. So what the American public thinks is a commitment to get combat forces out within sixteen months, isn't a commitment is it?
Samantha Power: You can't make a commitment in whatever month we're in now, in March of 2008 about what circumstances are going to be like in January 2009. We can'te ven tell what Bush is up to in terms of troops pauses and so forth. He will of course not rely upon some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or as a US Senator.
Which would mean Mr. Pretty Speeches has been lying to the American people. (Add the "AGAIN!")
Her rise was swift, her fall even faster. Our Modern Day Carrie Nations took part in the "Bring the troops home and send them to Darfur" nonsense. [For more on that nutso crowd, see Julie Hollar's "The Humanitarian Tempatation" (Extra!).] Despite presenting herself recently as against the Iraq War from the start, the public record has never backed that up. But it is true that she wanted wars in Africa and was selling them under "humanitarian" guise. "Stop the killing!" she cried but if she really wanted to stop the killing, she might have tried to speak out against the ongoing genocie in Iraq (which has also produced the largest refugee crisis in the world). She didn't care about that. Probably because it demonstrates that sending armed forces in is not an answer. Again, if Barack Obama had any leadership abilities, he would have announced today that he fired his longterm advisor. He did not, she resigned. (She foolishly doesn't grasp that this is her Alexander Haig moment and there is no comeback.) Power was not a campaigner, she was a high level, longterm foreign policy advisor being groomed to be the next Secretary of State. As Krissah Williams (Washington Post) notes, Senator Clinton's response to Power's BBC interview was to note Power's agreement that Obama's pledge to have "combat" troops out in 16 months was never more than a "best-case scenario". Hillary Clinton: "Senator Obama has made his speech opposing Iraq in 2002 and the war in Iraq the core of his campaign, which makes these comments especially troubling. While Senator Obama campaigns on his [pledge] to end the war, his top advisers tell people abroad that he will not rely on his own plan should he become president. This is the latest example of promising the American people one thing on the campaign trail and telling people in other countries another. You saw this with NAFTA as well."
Meanwhile Tom Hayden again offers Barack advice from the heart, from love. At Common Dreams, Hayden feels that, "The only policy difference favoring Obama that goes straight to the issue of 'experience' is Iraq. It no longer is enough that Obama opposed the war five years ago, especially if it appears that there are no differences between the candidates now. For whatever reason, Obama has allowed Clinton to appear to take an identical stand on the war. Is that true? Or is it time for Obama to issue a further clarification of his position separating him from both Clinton and McCain? The peace movement and media can play a role here." Tom then asks, "Does Clinton propose a timetable for withdrawing combat troops, like Obama does?" Apparently Tom missed Sammy's interview -- Obama has no proposal. As Sammy notes, things change, who can say? Should we expect Hayden's endorsement of Hillary anytime soon? Or will he again plan to 'represent' the peace movement by covering for the 'anti-war' candidate -- one whose own foreign policy advisor (she was that when she gave the interview) informs is saying words he'd not planning to live up to?
Meanwhile violence continues in Iraq . . .
Bombings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two Mosul roadside bombings that wounded fourteen people and claimed the life of 1 police officer and a Mosul car bombing that claimed the lives of 4 police officers and left thirty-three people wounded.
Shootings?
Reuters notes US forces in Samarra "killed eight suspected al Qaeda fighters" (and they note the death toll from yesterday's Baghdad bombings rose to 68).
Corpses?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad.
Iraqi president Jalal Talabani is in Turkey for day one of a two-day visit. Zerin Elci (Reuters) reports that he has "pledged Iraq's backing for Turkey in its fight against Kurdish PKK rebels on Friday, just one week after Ankara ended a major army ground offensive against the guerrillas in northern Iraq." That's where Talabani is, where's Moqtada al-Sadr? Earlier today, Khaled Farhan (Reuters) reported:Powerful Iraqi Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who has not been seen in public for months, issued an unusual statement on Friday explaining his absence to his followers and admitting splits in his movement."I swear that I live with you and among you. I am a part of you. I will not change this unless death separates us," he said in a two-page statement bearing his personal stamp.The statement was issued two weeks after Sadr extended a ceasefire by his Mehdi Army for another six months. He first called on the militia, blamed by the U.S. military and Sunni Arabs for fuelling sectarian violence, to halt its activities in August so that he could reorganise it.
BBC notes, "May of his followers had split from him 'for materalistic reasons or because they wanted to be independent,' he said" in the statement. While Sadr City residents feel targeted, al-Sadr's not there. He's renewed a cease-fire/truce that the residents didn't favor and the attitude then (which is only growing) is, "Why should we listen to someone who's not even here standing with us?" (He's rumored to be in Najaf, working as a hotel clerk.) A "leader" has to be seen as standing with (and suffering with) the people. al-Sadr is not seen as such currently and his little 'gift' of a message won't have much impact. Already the rumbles have moved on to wonder if he is collaborating with the US and every day he is out of Sadr City, he is futher weakened. That isn't at all surprising and any student of history could have seen it coming. In his absence, the rumors circulate and issuing 'press releases' to the residents of Sadr City will not raise his standing.
And we'll close with one topic. Saturday is International Women's Day. Feminist Wire Daily explains, "International Women's Day (IWD) will be celebrated this Saturday across the world. According to the IWD website, this year marks the 97th annual celebration. Counties including Armenia, Russia, and Vietnam recognize IWD as an official holiday, but hundreds of celebrations happen all over the world on March 8th." and arrives as Women for Women International has released a new study on Iraqi women. Zainab Salbi writes in the introduction to [PDF format warning] "Stronger Women, Stronger Nations: 2008 Iraq Report:"
In Iraq, violence against women increased within months of March 2003 U.S. invasion. There were assassinations and abductions of Iraqi professional women, in the country and abroad. Hair salons were bombed, and there were threats to women who drove or didn't cover their hair. Soon every politician, businessperson, professional Iraqi and foreigner became vulnerable to kidnapping and attack and remains so today. This issue has become menacing enough to impede development efforts in the country. But the increasingly precarious status of women was and continues to be seen as a secondary issue, a distraction from the bigger political debates.
Since 2003, the discussion of women's role in Iraqi society and their earnest participation in reconstruction has shrunk from one of legitimate substance to obligatory quantity. In 2004, as plans for Iraq's new constitution were underway and "women's issues" were designated as a priority, the initial request of setting aside 40 percent of the seats in parliament for women was negotiated down to 25 percent.
[. . .]
Once the fighting ends, it is women who pick up the pieces of their families and mend the social fabric of their communities. Yet this crucial role is rarely acknowledged. Sustainable peace, democracy and economic development depend on women's social, political and economic participation. Unless there is a clear understanding of the obstacles and avenues to women's access to development resources and the political will to enact gender equitable policies, any blueprint for sustainable peace risks being place perilously out of reach. Thus, the incorporation of women's views into traditionally male-dominated political processes is vital to achieving sustainable peace, democracy, and prosperity.
Of course, to believe that, you'd have to believe that women matter, you'd have to accept the realities of the gender barriers worldwide and you'd have to grasp how under attack all women are, every day, around the globe. If you're a woman, you'd also have to have at least a little self-respect. As evidenced by the non-stop attacks on Hillary Clinton coming from so many and the refusal of women in the United States who do not support Hillary to call these attacks out, women still don't matter in the United States and Bash the Bitch remains the national pasttime.
The report informs that in 2004, 90.6 percent of Iraqi women surveyed were "optimistic about the future" and that, in 2007, the number stating they were optimistic fell to 26.9 percent. 88 percent of respondents "expressed a great deal of concern that they or someone living in their households would become a victim of violence." In addition, the number stating that the presence of US forces and British forces were making things worse was 65.3 percent and 67.9 percent "stated that their ability to walk down the street as they please has gotten worse since the U.S. invasion." As the illegal war hits the fifth year mark this year, things are not improving, they are only getting worse. The report details the hazards of just conducting the survey with details such as "For security reasons, women in Al-Sadr City, Al-Kamalyah, and Al-Ubadi gathered in groups of five in a woman's home and met with a staff member to complete the questionnaire." The respondents repeatedly cited the following as "the biggest problems facing Iraq as a whole":
* High/rising prices
* Housing availability/prices
* Lack of security
* US occupation/presence
On basic issues of mobility, the illegal war has had a huge impace: "86.0% of respondents said they are not able to walk down the street as they please; 67.9% of respondents stated that their ability to walkd won the street as they please has gotten worse since the U.S. invasion; 68.3% of women are not able to drive a car; 53.7% of respondents say that their ability to drive a car has gotten worse since the U.S. invasion; 48.6% of respondents said that they are not able to work outside the home; and 56.7% of respondents said that their ability to work outside the home has gotten worse since the U.S. invasion." As a result, 74.5 percent of Iraqi women now avoid leaving the home, 63.2 percent are not allowing their children to go to school ("most commonly in parts of Baghdad"), 38.5 percent say rape is increasing, 30.4 percent see an increase in the trafficking of women, 29.6 percent see an increase in prostitution. Why is that? The three most repeated answers were:
* There is less respect for women's rights than before
* Women are thought of as possessions
* The economy has gotten worse
Asked to rank "the biggest threat to national security," the women chose US and British soldiers (43.9 percent) followed closely by the Iraqi militias (32.6 percent). From the report:
A group of women in Karbala was asked what they would do if they were in charge of the country. They said, "We would first ask the Americans to leave immediately. Second, we will address the poverty situation in Iraq which is impacting us the most." One woman added, "If I was the president of the country, I would make filling the stomach of the old people as my utmost priority." When asked what was neeeded, 70.0% of respondents said that rebuilding infrastructure such as roads, wells, drains and public buildings was necessary for the welfare of their communities. Other priorities included programs designed to help communities take care of their own needs and emergency relief such as food, shelter and emergency medical services.
The report concludes with "Action Agenda for Women" which argues for proving "that freedom is not inconsistent with safety"; restoring infrastructure throughout the country, addressing the economic needs of women, supporting "women's organizations and umbrella groups" and strengthening "democracy through education." Again the thirty-four page report is in PDF format and entitled "Stronger Women, Stronger Nations: 2008 Iraq Report." In non-PDF form, an overview is provided here. The founder of Women for Women, Zainab Salbi, remembers (at Womens Media Center) her own last visit to Iraq (in 2004), "My colleague who picked me up turned to me in the car and said: 'Zainab, remember the basketball hoop your family put in the cul-de-sac in front your home? Al-Mahdi militia has been using the basketball pole to execute Sunnis.' I couldn't believe what he was telling me. 'Zainab,' he continued, 'every day I saw tens of bodies lying in front of your house after being executed. Every day there was a body hanging from the basketball pole. Your home has turned into an execution center'." She remembers traveling Iraq that year and encountering many women including Shatha who told her, "If I was the president of the country, the first thing I would do is ask the Americans to leave. I then would make filling the stomachs of the people my utmost priority, by ending poverty and creating jobs. And thirdly I will focus on education. We can't have a real democracy if we don't have educated people pushing for a real democracy." Zainab Salbi asks that everyone "remember the women who struggle in Iraq and around the world to create peace." AFP notes the report and speaks with two Iraqi women: Asma Kadhim and Eman Ahmad. The latter states, "Before the war in 2003, I used to work in complete freedom. I had my shop and my own car. I was threatened a year back and since then I have stopped working and stopped driving." She had operated a clothing store while Asma Kadhim had operated a hair salon but one day, "There was a stranger at the door. He gave me an envelope which had two bullets and a letter that said 'if you do not close your beauty parlour, we will kill you. Your work is haram (forbidden)'."
January 29th, Deborah Amos (NPR's Day to Day) reported how 'democracy' played out for Iraqi women:
Deborah Amos: Rima, a 48-year-old mother of four, escaped to Syria a year ago. She doesn't want her family name broadcast because of relatives back home. In the kitchen, Rima seems a traditional Iraqi mother preparing food for her son and three daughters but when it came to education, her daughters have advanced college degrees just like her son. In Baghdad, Rima worked for a western aid organization helping improve the lives of poor Iraqi women until militants threatened to kill her.
Rima: So many times I went to places that poor women are living. They knew me. They knew my face.
Deborah Amos: Rima acknowledges that from a distance Baghdad seems safer now but she says she needs guarantees that go beyond safety to take her daughters back there.
Rima: There is no freedom. Can any girl, woman, dressing as she likes, going to jobs, going to colleges as before?
Deborah Amos: There are women in college, there are some.
Rima: But all of them are frightened.
Deborah Amos: Historically Iraqi women had more rights and freedom than many in the Middle East. That status declined in the last years of Saddam's rule, deteriorated further still after the US invastion. Religious conservatives swept to office in Iraq's elections, the new constitution reduced women's rights and religious radicals directly threatened women -- a story told be refugees across the Middle East. In Lebanon, 53-year-old Bosaf and her brother Feraz, live in a low rent neighborhood outside the capital. They fled Iraq's northern city of Mosul in June. Bosaf -- the head librarian at Mosul University -- was threatened she says because of her head scarf. Her university i.d. shows her blond hair covered by a flowered scarf -- a hijab. But that wasn't good enough for Islamist militants in Mosul. Basama -- a dignified, middle-aged woman -- displays a wicked sense of humor when it comes to the young men who dictated her head gear. She drapes a long, black garmet over her head, rolls her eyes in a can-you-believe-they-made-me-wear-this expression and twirls across the living room.
Unidentified woman: They killed many Christians, that's why she had to wear it.
Deborah Amos: But even a proper headscarf was no protection in Basra. Just ask 35-year-old Ala, the name she agrees to use for her family's safety. She worked as a translator for a western aid organization delivering food and school supplies -- a job she knew came with risks. But Ala says the bigger danger is the well armed and powerful in Basra imposing an extreme form of Islam.
Ala: What's happened, the whole change, attract every wrong value -- this is the religion: "God say that!"
Deborah Amos: Do you think it's more dangerous because you're a woman or because you were a translator?
Ala: Woman. Woman, yeah.
Deborah Amos: Ala now expresses her opinions in the relative saftey of exile. She fled to neighboring Jordan last year. But as a refugee there are other dangers for women. Many have been trapped into prostitution, she says.
Ala: Let me show you something.
Deborah Amos: Ala takes a folded piece of paper from her wallet. She says a Jordanian man -- old enough to be her father -- handed it to her when she first arrived.
Ala: Okay. And then he said, just in case my dear daughter -- you need anything, anybody bother you in this country call me any time. And you'll never believe what he gave me. Oh my God.
Deborah Amos: She smooths out the paper, points to a phone number and one Arabic word underlined. A code she understood.
Ala: Marriage. (Ala laughs.)
Deborah Amos: So he was actually proposing marriage to you?
Ala: If that was his proposal. This is what they're using women here unfortunately. Marriage is the gate or the knock for the door.
Deborah Amos: This is how the prostituion happens? You get a note like this?
Ala: How many women actually show the note to the police?
Deborah Amos: Ala has finally left Jordan accepted for resettlement in the United States. Basama in Lebanon and Rima in Syria hope for resettlement too because they believe they have no future in Iraq.
And it's not just Iraqi women who are targeted in Iraq. Jamie Leigh Jones went to Iraq to work for Halliburton's KBR and was drugged, gang-raped and imprisoned . . . by her co-workers. As the Associated Press notes, she currently engaged in a battle to have her case heard in a court while KBR claims an employment contract should cover 'grievances.'
iraq
aiden delgado
camilo mejia
dee knight
iraq veterans against the war
aimeee allisondavid solnit
aaron glantz
kpfa
npr
day by day
the washington post
mcclatchy newspapers
samantha power
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)