Isaiah, Katha Pollitt, etc.

I had a really sweet e-mail that ended with the person stating how much she enjoyed the blog even though I hate doing it. She then wondered why I hate doing it so?



Thursday nights I have a session with veterans. I do not blog on Thursday nights. There's no time. My focus is on the session and I generally do a little work after (not a lot but a little touch basing because it can get a little rough for some) and follow that up with some notes. So I do not blog on Thursday evenings.



I do blog Monday through Wednesday and on Friday. On the weekends, though I am not blogging here, you can usually find me working with the gang on Third Estate Sunday Review. So I spend a lot of time online and certainly more time than I would like.



It is not that I hate blogging so much as I have other things to do. For example, I was swapping out briefcases today and found Obsidian III. It's a journal ("Literature In The African Dispora") that I enjoy and always read. Always?



I went to the bookcase I keep my copies of it on to put my most recent one up and the last one I read? How about the first one I missed reading? Fall/Winter 2005 -- Spring/Summer 2006; Volume 6, No. 2/ Volume 7, No. 1.



Now what was going on then? Hmmm.



That is when I started filling in for Rebecca (who was on vacation) and ended up starting my own site. I'm sure we're all short on time and I know I am. That is my 'beef' with blogging.



I appreciated the e-mail so much and I wanted to open with that. The sender got a personal reply (two actually, Sunny replied at work and told me about it at lunch, I wrote a reply before I started blogging tonight).



Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Princess Brat"







As always, I love Isaiah's comics. This one is brilliant. The backstory is it almost didn't go up. Mike was on the phone speaking to someone. I didn't know who and didn't ask. My general attitude in times like that is, "Yea! I can go take a bath!" So I was drawing the bath and thinking (because he also had to work on a presentation) that he'd be focusing on that. Meaning, I was getting out the salts and the candles.



So I'm getting it all ready when he knocks on the door. He's on the phone with Isaiah. Isaiah's made a boo-boo.



He's going to scrap the comic.



What's the boo-boo? Mike hands me the phone and Isaiah explains he's got too many lines and trying to do too much. He also doesn't have time to redraw. I say that it can't be bad even with 'too many lines' of dialogue. I suggest that if it bothers him, he liquid paper it out. He's not keen on doing that because it shows up in the drawing.



So I ask if he's called C.I. but he says he called Mike to avoid bother C.I. or me. I pace on the phone, by the way. So I am now in the living room and reach over to grab the landline, hit speedial and call C.I. She listens to me relay and asks, "Can he black it out? Remind him of the Robin Morgan comic he did recently and ask if he could do that?" (If he's worried about it. Like me, C.I. didn't think an extra line or two was a big deal.) So Isaiah ended up doing that and thinks it worked out perfectly that way. I agree. It reminds me of something as a result and I can't figure out exactly what. It's a certain style.



"Bill Ayers Whitewashes History, Again" (Katha Pollitt, The Nation):
It couldn't have been easy for Bill Ayers to keep quiet while the McCain campaign tarred him as the Obama's best friend, the terrorist. Unfortunately, the silence was too good to last. On Saturday's New York Times op-ed page, he announced that "it's finally time to tell my true story." Like his memoir, Fugitive Days , "The Real Bill Ayers" is a sentimentalized, self-justifying whitewash of his role in the weirdo violent fringe of the 1960s-70s antiwar left.
"I never killed or injured anyone, "Ayers writes. "In 1970, I co-founded the Weather Underground, an organization that was created after an accidental explosion that claimed the lives of three of our comrades in Greenwich Village." Right. Those people belonged to Weatherman, as did Ayers himself and Bernardine Dohrn, now his wife. Weatherman, Weather Underground, completely different! And never mind either that that "accidental explosion" was caused by the making of a nail bomb intended for a dance at Fort Dix.
Ayers writes that Weather Underground bombings were "symbolic acts of extreme vandalism directed at monuments to war and racism, and the attacks on property, never on people, were meant to respect human life and convey outrage and determination to end the Vietnam War." That no one was killed or injured was a monumental stroke of luck-- an unrelated bombing at the University of Wisconsin unintentionally killed a researcher and seriously injured four people. But if the point was to symbolize outrage, why not just spraypaint graffiti on government buildings or pour blood on military documents?
Spectacular violence, and creating fear of it, was the point. Along with beating people up and ridiculous escapades like running naked through white-working-class high schools shouting "Jailbreak!" It was what the Weatherpeople were all about.

Kat found the above and called me to engage in a do-I-or-don't-I?

Katha's worthless. I told Kat, "If you highlight it, I will and I'm not going to be pretty in my comments." So we're both highlighting Katha Pollitt.

You know what -- and if you're a community member, you already know this -- C.I. stood alone calling out Weather. Where was Katha? Hiding until after the election.

C.I. didn't hide and C.I.'s known Bill and Bernardine for years (as have I). We both caught some serious flack over doing the job that Katha wants to show up today and do. All this time later. I didn't do nearly as much as C.I. because (for starters) I don't write as much online as she does. But I did enough to get freak job's brother (or as Mike nicknamed him when he spoke of it at Third, "bitch-boy") screaming at me that to note the very things Katha is noting was "McCarthyism!" My attitude, of course, was, "You did nothing with your life and I should listen to a damn word you say because? I can buy and sell you twenty times over easily so get your f--k ass out of my damn face." (Sidebar, I never used to toss out money in disagreements but, as I've noted here many times, a number of assholes decided to spend the 70s and 80s insulting me because I wouldn't fork over my money on their bad and failing business dreams. Can you call 'independent' media a "business"? Having heard some of the many names I've been called, I never hesitate to throw it in someone's face if they were raised well and did nothing to increase that. At this point, I don't even profit from my practice because I don't need the money. I invested wisely -- thank you to my brother and to C.I. -- over the years.)

So Chatty Katha decides to open her mouth when it's easy.

Now I don't despise Katha. So I will give her credit for one thing: Ever telling the truth.

David Corn hasn't. Unlike Katha, he wasn't playing dumb. He was excusing Weather's actions. Everyone needs to remember that. Or take In These Times which ran an idiotic Q&A with Ayers. C.I. and I both heard of that at the same time and both said, "James would roll over in his grave." He would. James Weinstein was very clear, repeatedly, throughout his lifetime of what he thought of Bill and Bernardine.

Now I have said for years (as has C.I.) that Weather was a violent reaction to a violent government. That didn't change for me in 2008. The only thing that was new for me was learning that Weather had bombed a judge's home in NY. I did not know about that. C.I. and I were on the road helping war resistes, speaking out against the war (Vietnam). In those pre-cell phone, pre-palm pilot, pre-net days, you had the car radio and whatever paper you could grab in the cities and towns you went through. I was aware of probably 70% of the other bombings. The ones I learned of this year didn't shock me or make me change my opinion of Weather except for the fire bombing of a home. With people in it. With parents and a small child.

I didn't know about that. I did make a point to note it several times and I did make a point to explain that I was not aware of that. (I've written about this numerous times. For those late to the party, I wasn't a member of Weather. Nor was C.I. There were efforts to recruit us. We said no. Our story is similar to Michael Alpert's -- whom we both knew in real time. Weather did not sound like anything I wanted to be involved in. I was working for peace.)

My remarks on Weather during this year were much easier for me than C.I.'s. Not only did she write about it more, C.I. believes in fairness. C.I. had to offer both sides and navigate and determine when someone was outright lying. (Such as David Corn.)

It's a real shame Katha couldn't show up when it mattered. But, to her credit, she still managed to show up before David Corn.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills)
Monday, December 8, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, 5 Blackwater mercenaries turn themselves in, the Justice Dept announces the charges in a press conference, Iraqi women fight back against efforts to deny them of their rights, and more.

The Salt Lake Tribune reports today: "Blackwater Worldwide security guards indicted in Washington D.C. for the 2007 shooting of Iraqi civilians surrendered to federal authorities in Salt Lake City this morning. They arrived one by one with their attorneys starting about 7:45 a.m. As the first three of five men walked in, they offered no comment to reporters. Attorneys said they would attend a 1:30 p.m. hearing, where the exact charges are expected to be unsealed. The indicted men wore suits and expressionless faces as they walked from 400 South into the federal courthouse at 350 S. Main St." The five are Paul Slough, Nick Slatten, Donald Ball, Dustin Heard and Even Liberty, as Ginger Thompson and Katherine Zoepf (New York Times) reported yesterday after the attorneys for the five men gave some confirmation to the indictments. Ruth noted the reported indictments on Friday evening (and was careful to note they were reported and not confirmed at that point) citing Kevin Bohn and Terry Frieden (CNN) reporting five (then unnamed) Blackwater Worldwide employees were indicted and a sixth was supposed to be talking plea agreement. Saturday found Ginger Thompson and James Risen (New York Times) reporting on the indictment and noting that "at least 17 Iraqi civilians" were killed September 16, 2007 a shocker for those of us who remember the paper's inability to count the number correctly in the days and days after the slaughter. However, the paper wasn't the worst outlet. we'll get to the worst. First, let's refresh via the September 18, 2007 snapshot:

Turning to the subject of US mercenaries. Blackwater's latest slaughter continues to garner attention. On Sunday, Blackwater fired into crowds and they've repeatedly changed their story ever since. Are the mercenaries in our out? Martin Fletcher (Times of London) notes that any effort to eject them from Iraq -- any Iraqi effort -- "would be resisted strenuously by the US Government, whose security arrangements will be thrown into chaos if Blackwater can no longer operate in Iraq." Which is why US Secretary of State and Anger Condi Rice spent 15 minutes on the phone with puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki. Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) noted that "several contractors predicted Monday that it was unlikely the Iraqi government would carry through with the threat to expel Blackwater."For all intents and purposes they belong to the [U.S.] Department of State," one contractor said of Blackwater employees". Kim Sengupta (Independent of London) reports on "an extraordinary telephone news conference, the US embassy spokeswoman could not answer whether the company was still working for the Americans inside the Green Zone, or what its legal position was along with similar foreign contractors within Iraq." Sengupta also notes the ever changing story of Blackwater for why the opened fire on unarmed Iraqi civilians killing at least 8 on Sunday. Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) notes that Ali Dabbagh spoke to the press in Baghdad and noted that the Iraqi investigation "had found that guards with the private security company Blackwater USA had fired without provocation on a Baghdad traffic circle, killing eight people and wounding 13" and that a child was among the dead. As Leila Fadel, Joseph Neff and Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) point out, "Whether the Iraqi Interior Ministry will be able to enforce its decision to ban North Carolina-based Blackwater Security from operating in Iraq is likely to be a major test between the government of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki and the United States. Blackwater, founded by a major Republican Party benefactor, is among the most prominent -- and most controversial -- of dozens of companies that provide security to both government and private individuals in Iraq. In 2003, the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority exempted the companies and their employees from prosecution under Iraqi law, but Iraqi officials disputed whether that exemption remains in effect, and U.S. officials declined to comment."

September 18, 2007, PBS' NewsHour provided a discussion (link has audio, transcript and video). Judy Woodruff moderated the discussion and set it up with a clip of an eye witness (speaking through a translator), We see the security firms or the so-called American security firms doing whatever they want in the streets. They beat citizens and scron them. . . . . They shot randomly." Woodruff then brought on David Brooks of the wrongly named the International Peace Operations (it's a civilain arm of the US military) and Jeremy Scahill (who was still an independent journalist back then, having not yet joined the Cult of Barack). Scahill explained that "the Bush administration failed to build the coalition of willing nations to occupy Iraq and so instead it built a coalition of billing corproations. As you said, there are now [more] private contractors in Iraq than there are official U.S. soldiers." That was a real attempt at an honest dicussion. You had Scahill and Brooks from opposite sides and you had Woodruff, a journalist who knows her trade and takes pride in practicing it. Sadly . . .


The October 10, 2007 snapshot noted the worst 'discussion' and it was on PBS. Yes, Washington Week (or Washington Weak) where the gas bag and the fool shall roam -- freely! And without shame! US News & World Reports' Linda Robinson and Gwen appeared to believe their job was to confuse the issue. Linda wanted to "set the stage" but never in such a way that addressed the people of Iraq, the wounded or the dead. Her idea of setting the stage was offering excuses and justifications for Blackwater's slaughter: "Very, very violent city. You're driving around, bombs going off at any unpredicted time. So what happens is these convoy drivers use tactics. They throw things at people. They sound their horns, their sirens. If you don't get out of the way, they will shoot. And so Iraqi drivers generally pull over as soon as they see a convoy." Robinson considers all she stated normal so let's again ask: "So the question is, were Linda Robinson or Gwen to be walking to their cars at the start of the day and a car came zooming through with those in it throwing things at them, would they see that as a problem? Should Jon Stewart attempt to find out for The Daily Show? In fact, it shouldn't even be a surprise. Gwen and Robinson should volunteer for it to prove what good sports they are. After ten to fifteen minutes of drive-bys where water bottles are hurled at them (the mildest object usually cited in press reports) from speeding cars, let's see their smiling, bruised (possibly bloodied?) faces and find out whether they now think that 'the problem' includes a great deal more than being able to tell if a convoy is approaching?"

Here's Linda babbling on some more: "This is the situation right now. With the U.S. military the size that it is, there is no way that uniformed military people could do the job of guarding all these civilians. And it's our biggest embassy in the world and they're trying to get all of these developments people out. I mean, that's part of the General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker thing is to get the civilians out to help people in the neighborhoods."

Linda will say that the "agreesive tactics do protect the people inside the vehicle. What's the problem of course is that innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed. Now, we do -- and this is why I introduced this topic with the violence of that environment." During the entire discussion, only AP's Charles Babington seemed aware of the issues at stake. He demonstrated that by asking, "And there's nothing the Iraqi government can do? Can't take them to court, can't arrest them?" Linda explained Paul Bremer exempted them in 2004 with a decree leading Gwen to qucikly jump in with, "Okay, thank you, Linda." Yes, let's not focus on the Iraqis too much when discussing Iraq.

"At least 17" is the figure reported on the story in this news cycle. At one point, the Interior Minsiter in Iraq was saying 20 Iraqis were shot dead (that count was being given in September of 2007). AP's Matt Apuzzo and Lara Jakes Jordan report the five Blackwater employees indicted (a six is reportedly in the midst of a plea bargain) intend to turn themselves today in Utah and the reporters observe: "The case already is shaping up to be a series of contentious legal battles before the guards can even go to trial. By surrendering in Utah, the home state of one of the guards, the men could argue the case should be heard in a far more conservative, pro-gun venue than Washington, some 2,000 miles away." Nadine Elsibai and Cary O'Reilly (Bloomberg News) add, "Government officials said at a news conference it intends to try them in Washington, where support for the war in Iraq isn't likely to be as strong as in the western state." Del Quentin Wilber (Washington Post) notes "the Justice Department unsealed a 35-count indictment against them. . . . The indictment said all five were charged with volunatary manslaughter, attempt to commit manslaughter, and using and discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. A sixth security guard, Jeremy P. Ridgeway, pleaded guilty Friday to charges of voluntary manslaughter and attempt to commit voluntary manslaughter, according to papers filed in court today."

At the press conference at the Justice Dept today, Assistant Attorney General Patrick Rowan noted, "We're here to announce that a 35-count indictment has been unsealed in the District of Colubmia. As you are aware, an indictment is merely a formal charging document notifying a defendant of the charges against him or her. All defendents are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law. The indctment unsealed charges five Blackwater security guards with voluntary manslaughter, attempt to commit manslaughter, and weapons violations, for their alleged roles in the September 16, 2007 shooting at Nisur Square in Baghdad, Iraq. Specifically, the defendants are charged with killing 14 unarmed civilians and wounding 20 other indivuals in connection with this event. In addition, we can report that a sixth Blackwater security guard had pleaded guilty to charges of voluntary manslaughter and attempt to commit manslaughter for his role in the same shooting."

US Attorney Jeffrey Taylor then spoke and we'll note this from his remarks:

As set forth in the indictment, the five defendants were all employed by the Armed Forces outside the United States. Specifically, the defendants worked as independent contractors and employees of Blackwater Worldwide, a company contracted by the Department of State to provide personal security services related to supporting the Department of Defense in the Republic of Iraq, within the meaning of the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, or MEJA.
On September 16, 2007, the five defendants and 14 other Blackwater independent contractors were assigned to a convoy of four heavily armed trucks known as a Tactical Support Team, using the call sign Raven 23, whose function was to provide backup fire support for other Blackwater personal security guards operating in the city of Baghdad.
On September 16, 2007, at around noon, the Raven 23 convoy was responding to the detonation of a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device that had just exploded in the vicinity of a different Blackwater personal security detail located about a mile away from Nisur Square, and which was transporting a USAID protectee.
The members of the Raven 23 convoy understood that their mission was defensive in nature. They were not permitted to engage in offensive military actions, use the military tactic known as suppressive fire, or exercise police powers. They also understood that they were only authorized to discharge their firearms in self-defense and as a last resort.
The four heavily-armed vehicles in the Raven 23 convoy entered Nisur Square and then positioned themselves in order to block any traffic from entering the circle. Seconds after the Raven 23 convoy entered the traffic circle, it is alleged that at least six members of the Raven 23 convoy, including the five defendants named in the indictment, opened fire with automatic weapons and grenade launchers on unarmed civilians located in and around Nisur Square, killing, as Pat said, at least 14 persons, wounding at least 20 other individuals and assaulting but not injuring at least 18.
The first victim was later identified as a second-year medical student named Ahmed Haithem Ahmed Al Rubia'y, who was driving a white Kia sedan that was approaching the traffic circle from the south. The passenger of that vehicle was also shot and killed. That victim was Dr. Al-Khazali, the mother of the driver of the vehicle.
None of the victims of this shooting was armed. None of them was an insurgent. Many were shot while inside civilian vehicles that were attempting to flee from the convoy. One victim was shot in the chest while standing in the street with his hands up. Another was injured from a grenade fired into a nearby girls' school. At least 18 civilian vehicles were damaged by gunfire from the convoy, some substantially.
The indictment does not charge or implicate Blackwater Worldwide. It charges only the actions of certain employees for their roles in the September 16 shooting. They are Paul A. Slough, age 29, of Keller, Texas; Dustin L. Heard, 27, Maryville, Tennessee; Evan S. Liberty, 26, Rochester, New Hampshire; Nicholas A. Slatten, 23, of Sparta, Tennessee; and Donald W. Ball, 26, of West Valley City, Utah.
All five defendants are each charged with 14 counts of voluntary manslaughter, 20 counts of attempt to commit manslaughter, and one count of using and discharging a firearm and destructive devices during and in relation to a crime of violence. The firearms included an SR-25 sniper rifle, M-4 assault rifles and M-240 machine guns. The destructive devices were M-203 grenade launchers and grenades.
If convicted of the charges in the indictment, the defendants could face up to ten years in prison on each manslaughter count, seven years in prison on each attempted manslaughter count, and a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 years on the firearms charge.

Of the plea bargain, Taylor noted the man's name was Jeremy P. Ridgeway ("age 35, of California") and that it took place in DC last Friday "before Judge Ricardo Urina. He pleaded to superseding information charging him with one count of voluntary manslaughter and one count of attempt to commit manslaughter." There is no date scheduled for Ridgeway's sentencing at this point.

Also speaking at the press conference was Joseph Persichini Jr. (FBI Assistant Director In-Charge) whose remarks included:

The tragic events in Nisur Square on September 16 of last year were shocking and a violation of basic human rights. That day in Baghdad around a busy traffic circle at Nisur Square, the Iraqi citizens were going to lunch, stopping at the market, traveling with their families and children. The traffic circle soon became congested due to construction. Traffic slowed down then gunshots rang out. At that moment many innocent lives were altered. Unarmed citizens were traumatized, injured or killed.
Following this incident the Department of State requested that the FBI investigate the shooting. The FBI's Washington Field Office deployed an investigative team to Baghdad for four weeks of evidence collection and investigation. The FBI was augmented by two agents from the Department Diplomatic Security Service and the Department of State.
To add to the difficulty in an already challenging case, FBI and Department of State personnel had to face the dangers of working extensively outside the green zone. They had to overcome language barriers and deal with cultural and religious sensitivities.
Since that first deployment to Baghdad, members of the investigative team, which included up to 10 special agents, returned to Iraq four additional times in furtherance of our investigation. The FBI utilized every resource available to ensure that a comprehensive and thorough investigation was conducted. Those resources included forensic specialists from the FBI laboratory, members of the Washington Field Office, extra territorial squad and the evidence response team, and Department of Justice Attorneys.
As a result of the tireless dedication and extraordinary efforts of the team, over 250 interviews were conducted and more than 200 pieces of physical evidence were obtained to support the investigation. As with most FBI investigations, we would not have been successful without the assistance of local law enforcement partners. We had the extreme good fortune of working with members of the Iraqi national police. The assistance provided by the Iraqi national police was instrumental to our success of our mission. These officers work under extraordinary challenging circumstances every day and I extend my gratitude to them.
In addition to the Iraqi National Police, the FBI was supported by many members of the United States military. Their assistance was invaluable in the protection of our personnel. The FBI's legal attaché office in Baghdad and the U.S. embassy personnel provided unwavering support during each of our team's deployment to Iraq. The success of one of the FBI's most difficult investigations was truly a team effort with many components and challenges.
What was at stake here was not just an investigation into the allegations of the violation of federal law. But, more importantly, it was an investigation into the protection of basic human rights, that should be afforded to all people, not just citizens of the United States. The FBI is committed to investigating all allegations of violations of the rule of law and defending individual civil rights and civil liberties, whether at home or abroad.

At the US State Dept this morning, Sean McCormack handled the press briefing and attempted to avoid responding on the topic of Blackwater stating, "I'll refer those over to the -- any questions about that over to the Department of Justice. But you know, let me just say one thing about the people who provide protection for our diplomats in Iraq as well as around the globe. They do, in many cases, heroic work and important work that allow us to do our jobs. All of that said, if there are individuals who have broken rules, regulations, or law, they need to be -- laws -- they need to be held to account. And I'll just stop there and not offer andy further comment. If the Department of Justice has anything further to say about actions they may be taking, I'll leave it to them to say it."

Katherine Zopef and Atheer Kakan (New York Times) reported a development (a scoop, in fact, for the paper) this morning following an interview with Abdulwahab Abduklkader who survived the September 16, 2007 slaughter (he was wounded while driving in his car -- first Blackwater chased his car down, rammed it and then shot at him) and revealed them that the FBI questioned him, asked him to walk them through via the satellite images of the area the slaughter took place and that he was brought to the United States in May to testify before a grand jury. Richard Beeston (Times of London) observes, "From next year foreign security guards will lose immunity from prosecution under the terms of the new "status of forces agreement" signed between Baghdad and Washington. The next time a foreign security guard opens fire on civilians he will face Iraqi justice. The days of the cowboys running amok in Iraqi cities are over. "

Blackwater isn't the only news regarding Iraq; however, it is the bulk of it. Sunday Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) reported on the situation for women in Iraq: "From the southern port city of Basra to bustling Irbil in northern Iraq, Iraqi activists are trying to counter the rising influence of religious fundamentalists and tribal chieftains who have insisted that women wear the veil, prevented girls from receiving education and sanctioned killings of women accused of besmirching their family's honor. In their quest for stability in Iraq, U.S. officials have empowered tribal and religious leaders, Sunni and Shiite, who reject the secularism that Saddam Hussein once largely maintained. These leaders have imposed strict interpretations of Islam and enforced tribal codes that female activists say limit their freedom and encourage violence against them." Muna Saud is quoted explaining, "Women are being strangled by religion and triablism."

Violence in Iraq today? Apparently Blackwater is all anyone can focus on. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) notes 20 corpses were discovered in Al Anbar Province today. And that's it for reported violence currently.


Meanwhile AP's Erica Werner and Kimberly Hefling report that the family of Roger Suarez-Gonzalez faces new questions and heartache after video surfaced of his death while serving in Iraq, video which suggests he may not have been killed by enemy forces but by so-called "friendly fire."

The treaty has gone through on Iraq's side and the White House that never wanted Congressional input and approval (despite the Constitution requiring that) gets its way as Congress (and, yes, president-elect Barack) roll over. Friday an interview Iris Ludeker did with Phyllis Bennis was posted at ZNet. Bennis spoke with Ludeker about the treaty on November 24th. Her statements included:

The first problem in examining the SOFA text is that we cannot yet be sure exactly what the text says. The Iraqi parliament is debating one version, that has been translated informally to English for the international press. But we do not yet have the White House's official version. Until that time, I do not think we can assume that the text now being discussed in the press is necessarily "the" final version. There are many in Iraq who are eager to present the text as a victory for Iraqi sovereignty; there is certainly the possibility that the text circulating in Iraq has been doctored with in such a way as to over-emphasize Iraq's power in the future U.S.-Iraq relationship. The agreement specifies that the Arabic and English texts are equally valid, but without the official U.S. version of either text, it is impossible to know for sure what it says. We also should not assume the current draft will be ratified by the Iraqi parliament, or that it will be similarly approved by the U.S. Senate - which is necessary under the U.S. Constitution despite Bush administration claims that such ratification is not needed because this is only an "ordinary" SOFA agreement. "Ordinary" SOFA agreements do not take into account on-going wars as is the case in U.S.-occupied Iraq.
Turning to the US, to the White House in fact, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley -- who was very lucky that investigating the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame stopped so quickly -- issued a statement this morning regarding a New York Times editorial:Sunday's New York Times contains an editorial expressing inaccurate and incomplete statements on pre-war intelligence and the war in Iraq. While the President has repeatedly acknowledged the mistakes in the pre-war intelligence, there is no support for the Times' claim that the President and his national security team "knew or should have known [the intelligence] to be faulty" or that "pressure from the White House" led to particular conclusions. Nothing in the many inquiries conducted into these matters supports the view of the Times' Editorial Board. Indeed, the independent Silberman-Robb Commission and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded that no political pressure was brought to bear on the Intelligence Community. As the President has stated, he regrets the intelligence was wrong, but it was intelligence that members of Congress, foreign governments as well as the Administration all believed to be accurate. Working with Congress, the President has since put in place a number of intelligence reform measures to try to ensure that such mistakes do not happen again. While Saddam Hussein did not have stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, he was a threat, and his removal has opened the door to a democratic Iraq in the heart of the Middle East that is an ally of the United States. The New York Times continues to have difficulty acknowledging the undeniable success of the President's decision to surge an additional 30,000 troops into Iraq. Because of the surge, Iraq is a more stable and secure country. It is the success of the surge that is allowing American troops to withdraw from Iraq and return home with a record of heroic service and still unheralded success. The intelligence manufactured and, in many cases, did not come through normal channels. The CIA knew the intelligence was false and some fought back against the lies but the CIA was not used for the 'gathering.' Feith, et al, set up their own little 'office' with the White House's knowledge and on the orders of Bully Boy. The evidence was manufactured. Saying that it's the same evidence Congress has is b.s. because it is the 'evidence' the White House provided Congress with, most infamously in Collie Powell's lie-infested 'testimony' which should have resulted (and still should) in charges being brought against Powell. The Times' editorial is "The Deluder in Chief" and all Hadley's statement will do is draw attention to it (as evidenced by the fact that we're noting the editorial right now): It was skin crawling to hear him tell Mr. Gibson that the thing he will really miss when he leaves office is no longer going to see the families of slain soldiers, because they make him feel better about the war. But Mr. Bush's comments about his decision to invade Iraq were a "mistakes were made" rewriting of history and a refusal to accept responsibility to rival that of Richard Nixon. At one point, Mr. Bush was asked if he wanted any do-overs. "The biggest regret of the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq," he said. "A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction" were cause for war. After everything the American public and the world have learned about how Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney manipulated Congress, public opinion and anyone else they could bully or lie to, Mr. Bush is still acting as though he decided to invade Iraq after suddenly being handed life and death information on Saddam Hussein's arsenal. The editorial is correct. Of course it takes a lot of nerve for the editorial board to write the above or the below: The truth is that Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had been chafing to attack Iraq before Sept. 11, 2001. They justified that unnecessary war using intelligence reports that they knew or should have known to be faulty. And it was pressure from the White House and a highly politicized Pentagon that compelled people like Secretary of State Colin Powell and George Tenet, the Central Intelligence director, to ignore the counter-evidence and squander their good names on hyped claims of weapons of mass destruction. Judith Miller is the New York Times catch-all excuse and we're all supposed to believe that Miller wrote her articles, the guest columns (and turned down the many columns against going to war with Iraq that the paper rejected), the editorials and, in fact, edited the news section of the paper and determined which stories made the front page. Miller is the paper's fall-gal when the paper was on board with selling the illegal war. Finger pointing at the White House would be more loudly applauded if the paper had ever gotten fully honest about their role in the selling the illegal war. The mini-culpa -- anyone remember that -- promised there would be futher investigation. Was there? (No, there wasn't.) And the matter was allowed to slide. Another editorial could easily read: The truth is that the New York Times had been chafing to attack Iraq before Sept. 11, 2001. They justified that unnecessary war using unsourced stories, drumming up the beat of war and refusing to question so-called intelligence reports that they knew or should have known to be faulty. And it was a need to be 'in' with the the White House and a highly politicized Pentagon that compelled journalists to ignore the counter-evidence and squander their good names on hyped claims of weapons of mass destruction, to abandon the skepticism that is supposed to be at the heart of journalism and turn themselves into Stenographers to the Court of St. Bully Boy. Hadley echoes his superior Condi Rice whom CNN reports told Fox "News" yesterday,"While it's fine to go back and say what might we have done differently, the truth of the matter is we don't have that luxury. And we didn't at the time." The truth? Condi wants to talk about the truth? Okay, that is funny.

Intentionally funny is Mickey Z (via Dissident Voice) who skewers the Cult of Barack cheerleaders. Sample:

In fact, I'm willing to go out on a limb right now and boldly predict that by the year 2011, the number of US combat troops in Iraq will have decreased by at least 10-15%. To those who want more, I ask: We can't expect Obama to simply withdraw those brave, heroic, gallant, valiant, superhuman men and women in one shot, can we? No way, there's no cut and run for America. (And remember: we wouldn't be in this mess if that damn egotistical Ralph Nader hadn't ruined everything in 2000. He shouldn't be allowed to run. Make it illegal, I say.)
At least Obama is forming a strong centrist coalition. "A team of rivals," they say. Some may nitpick and point out that every single appointee is a Washington retread who supported the war and could've just as easily been chosen by John McCain had he won, but Obama is clearly in charge and he's brilliant. He makes the decisions, and he's so articulate. He promised hope and change and, being that he's so eloquent, I'm positive he will deliver. It would be negative, bitter, and cynical to think otherwise. In fact, anyone not thrilled with the historic election of a half-black man should not be allowed to breathe our precious oxygen. (Ain't that right, Tim Wise?) Keith Harmon Snow is an independent journalist. Iraq's really not his focus but two weeks ago comments about him (positive comments) had to be pulled from a snapshot when I was informed we were over 82K (they can only be so long or they don't hit the site when e-mailed). He has an article up at Dissident Voice and we'll link to that and point out that he is an independent journalist and it is amazing how many allegedly 'independent' outlets are not open to him. KHS is also a favorite of Kat's and she's written of him many times at her site. (Such as here or here.)


iraq
the new york timesginger thompsonkatherine zoepf
atheer kakan
blackwater usa
jeremy scahill
the new york timessabrina tavernise
mcclatchy newspapers
ned parker
leila fadel
matt apuzzolara jakes jordan
erica wernerkimberly hefling
the washington postsudarsan raghavan
phyllis bennisiris ludker

It's not that easy, Alex

"Honeymoans From the Left" (Alexander Cockburn, CounterPunch):
One striking feature of these complaints is that if thethe many of complainers had their suspicions about Obama during the campaign, they kept their mouths firmly shut. Across eight presidential campaigns, since Jimmy Carter’s successful run in 1976, I’ve never seen such collective determination by the liberal left to think only positive thoughts about a Democratic candidate. Indeed, some of the present fury may stem from a certain embarrassment at their own political naivety. In fairness to Obama, beyond the vaguely radical afflatus of his campaign rhetoric about “change”, Obama never concealed his true political stance, which is of the center-right. In every sense of the phrase, he can say to his left critics, “I told you so.” And indeed he did.

No, Alex, you're not going to play that game and not get called out on it. Reality, you drank the Kool-Aid. Reality, you're hatred for Hillary Clinton was so immense that you didn't feel bound by facts or reality and pushed Barack so hard. You didn't do that just as co-editor of CounterPunch (where you printed all the lunatics suffering from Hillary Hatred), you also did it in your own words and it was at that point that you got delinked from my site.

It was pathetic to see you, of all people, start blathering on about the Miracle-Cure of the Corporatist War Hawk. So do not think for one damn minute that you can show up now and act too-cool-for-school, so seriously jaded that you never got caught up in the Cult-Craze. You were up to the neck, up Barack's ass to the neck. It is not forgotten. It will not be forgotten.

It was embarrassing to see you play the fool. It is embarrassing to watch you now try to act as if it never happened.

You had no guts, you had no courage.

C.I. did. She damn well did. She got attacked for telling the truth when it mattered. She had the piece of the trash from out of the country team up with titty-baby "ABC is in cahoots with the Penatgon to lie about me! And I love Barack! And he's going to end the war!" to attack C.I. C.I. knows exactly what went down and why. That wasn't the only online attack but it is infamous in the community and, last week, the community was afraid C.I. was going to 'high road it' and start covering those losers again. Not happening. Not ever happening. Those little punks and bitches did a very ugly thing that upset C.I.'s children. She does not forget that, she does not forgive that.

When socially stunted and ignorant (culturally, academically, go down the list) fools attack, C.I. doesn't turn around and say, "Gee, how can I help them out?"

C.I. had guts (always does) but little Alex wanted to go along and be liked. What if the other kids don't like him? What if he's the chubby boy this school year again?

Alexander Cockburn is too damn old to have made the fool of himself he did. He is mistaken if he thinks it can be swept under the rug and ignored.

Make a point to check out Marcia's "Stupid Dissident Voice and Jenny Matsui." That's it for me tonight. Repeating, C.I. had guts. Which is why this piece by C.I. went up at The Common Ills Thursday morning as opposed to the rip-off version by Jeremy Scahill that went up Friday at CounterPunch.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Friday, December 5, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Iraq holds an Energy Expo . . . as the price of oil drops further, the 'coalition' continues to shrink, a military trial ends in tears and shouts at the verdict, and more.

Today the Iraq Energy Expo took place at Baghdad International Airport and the sponsor was the mercenaries for hire corporation Triple Canopy Inc. Sourcewatch notes that the company, started in September 2003, was awarded over $90 million in US government contracts before the end of 2005. The Iraqi-American Chamber of Commerce and Industry organized the event. Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal's Baghdad Life) observes that "Iraqi oil officials made sure they put their best faces on today" for the "large crowd" turning out for the expo (due to complete on Sunday) and that the bulk of the crrowd will be staying at the new hotel just opened at Baghdad International Airport. The expo was originally supposed to take place from October 17th through the 19th but it was cancelled due to the fact that the convention center wasn't fully constructed at that point. UPI's Ben Lando noted the announced ates back in September were December 3rd to 5th. AFP reports that "many major global oil companies" -- such as Exxon, Total and BP -- skipped the expo and quotes an unnamed US oil company exec complaining, "Since we have been here, we haven't made money. We sent some expert teams, then we took them back (as) we had no results. There are two many problems." Of the 'guests'/ 'visitors,' Chon notes, "Because they were limited to either the conference hall or their hotel rooms, the one amenity they did appreciate was a bar in the hotel, one of the few in Baghdad. The bar opens at noon and last call is at 11:30 p.m., but it closes after midnight. 'I'm not allowed to go anywhere except the hotel and the oil conference, so at least there is the bar go to,' one international company representative said. 'There is nothing else to do at night. That will be one drawback if we set up here." Quick, get that on the travel brochure! Ben Landon (UPI) reports that Hussain al-Shahristani, Iraq's Oil Minister, gave the keynote speech and insisted during it that the oil reserves in his country were "understated" and he also declared, "The oil sector represents an important part of Iraq's recent history and also its future." That as Mark Shenk (Bloomberg News) explains, "Crude oil fell for a sixth day, capping the biggest weekly drop since the Persian Gulf War in 1991, on concern demand will decline after a resport showed U.S. employers cut jobs in November at the fastest pace since 1974. Oil is down 25 percent since Nov. 28 as the recession deepened in the U.S., Europe and Japan."

The energy expo took place while many issues were still up in the air. Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) reports that Hussein al-Shahrastani was sending "mixed signals" today "about a possible detente over oil contracts between the central government and the semi-autonomous Kurdish region." Anna Fifield, Javier Blas and Delphine Strauss (Iraq Updates) note, "Iraq's central government and regional authorities in Kurdistan are moving closer to signing a long-awaited oil deal that could pave the way for exports from the northern region's oil fields early next year." But Ben Lando (UPI) explains, "Eleven days after the Iraqi oil minister traveled to the KRG capital, Erbil, for meetings with the region's prime minister and oil minister, both sides have continued firing warning shots in the debate that has continued for more than a year on Kurdish oil contracts with the international oil companies."

While foreigners visit for the expo, foreign troops beat a hasty retreat out of the country.
This week South Korea was among those ending their missions in Iraq. The KRG notes Nechirvan Barzani, KRG Prime Minister, declared to Kim Joong-ryun (Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chair), "We are pleased with this relationship and proud of this friendship with the people of Korea. The motto that you brought to the Kurdistan Region was 'We are friends'. I can say with full sincerity, and from the bottom of my heart, that we in the Kurdistan Region are your true friends, too." Mike noted Tony Perry's "IRAQ: Back to Azerbaijan, 'land of valiant sons'" (Los Angeles Times' Babylon & Beyond) last night on Azerbaijan's departure and , Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) reported yesterday on a ceremony held in Iraq for Tonga who "became the latest member of the 'coalition of the willing' to end its mission in Iraq." (Tonga had 55 service members stationed in Iraq.) Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal's Baghdad Life) reports the Czech Republic had their departure ceremony yesterday . Any nations who decide to continue stationing troops in Iraq will need to reach some agreement one-on-one with the puppet government. Adam Ashton (McClatchy Newspapers) notes that next month only six countries are expected to have troops in Iraq: Australia, El Salvador, Estonia, Romania, the UK and the US. Troops aren't the only ones leaving. After the US, the next largest number of troops comes from the UK. Alissa J. Rubin (International Herald Tribune) states they have 4,100 soldiers stationed in Iraq and notes of the treaty the UK is attempting to work out with the puppet government, "A diplomat at the British Embassy in Baghdad who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the media said that the negotiations were continuing but that the mission of British forces here would be dramatically reduced by early next year. After that, British forces will be almost exclusively involved in training Iraqi troops, according to Iraqi officials." Corinne Reilly (McClatchy Newspapers) reflects on her seven weeks reporting from Iraq: "I saw a lot of people cry while I was in Iraq, but I think of the hugging soldiers and the rocking civilian most often. Maybe it was the strangeness of seeing uniformed soldiers in tears. Maybe it's the way they made me feel: guilty, because I got to leave. Whatever the reasons, I'm glad that I think about them, glad that their grief is my last remembrance of Iraq. Because for all the stories of reduced violence and political and social successes there, Iraq remains, for the most part, a devastated country."

On the treaty the White House is pushing through with their puppet government in Iraq, Campbell Robertson (New York Times) observes, "If the pact were to fail in the referendum, which is scheduled to be held in July, Iraq would pull out of the agreement. But that process, under the agreement's terms, would require giving the Americans a year's notice." Ramzy Baroud (Information Clearing House) notes the nonsense of the press in reporting the treaty: "Thousands of headlines exuded from media outlets, largely giving the false impression that the Iraqi government and parliament have a real say over the future of US troops in their country, once again playing into the ruse fashioned by Washington that Iraq is a democratic country, operating independently from the dictates of US Ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker and the top commander of US toops in Iraq, General Ray Odierno." Noting the stenography of the press, Baroud makes a point to cite the Guardian's Jonathan Steel and Al Jazeera's English website for the poor job they did in covering the treaty. From his column:

What is particularly interesting about the Iraq case is that news reports and media analysts scampered to dissect the 18- page agreement as if a piece of paper with fancy wording would in any way prove binding upon the US administration which, in the last eight years, has made a mockery of international law and treaties that have been otherwise used as a global frame of reference. Why would the US government, which largely acted alone in Iraq, violated the Geneva Conventions, international law and even its own war and combat regulations, respect an agreement signed with an occupied, hapless power constituted mostly of men and women handpicked by the US itself to serve the role of "sovereign"?

It's also bewildering how some important details are so conveniently overlooked; for example, the fact that the Iraqi government can sign a separate agreement with the US to extend the deadline for withdrawal should the security situation deem such an agreement necessary. Instead, the focus was made on "concessions" obtained by the Iraqis regarding Iraq's jurisdiction over US citizens and soldiers who commit heinous crimes while "off duty" and outside their military bases. This precisely means that the gruesome crimes committed in prisons such as Abu Ghraib and the wilful shooting last year of 17 Iraqi civilians by Blackwater mercenaries in Nisour Square in Central Baghdad is of no concern for Iraqis. And even when crimes that fall under Iraqi jurisdiction are reported, such matters are to be referred to a joint US-Iraqi committee. One can only assume that those with the bigger guns will always prevail in their interpretation of the agreement.


From those duped by the treaty to the duped workers now trapped/imprisoned in Iraq, Michael Ware (CNN) reports they have reported physical battering as well, stating that "Iraqi police handcuffed and beat them" and while "the men spoke to CNN on camera, an official in charge of them threatened to lock them out of the compound unless they returned inside within two minutes." Deborah Haynes (Times of London's Inside Iraq) quoted one of the men, Ganesh Kumar Bhagat, stating, "We have no money, no food, no toilet, no water, no job. The first time I arrived here I was happy, I had a good feeling. But we have not been lucky. Nobody should come to Iraq."

Certainly note with all the ongoing violence or the fact that it is an illegal war. On the violence, Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed 2 lives and left two people injured and an Iranian "bombardment" in Sulaimaniyah that injured a shepherd. It's a Friday, not a lot of violence gets reported.

Tuesday, Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) filed a piece expressing the belief that Moqtada al-Sadr was losing influence in Iraq and that Parliament's vote in favor of the treaty was among the signs "of how Sadr's clout has diminished since 2005". I disagree. And prior to the flare up in Basra, I had bought the idea that he had lost influence. The rumors then were he was a hotel clerk in Najaf (alternatating with Iran) and studying. He had been gone from Sadr City (if not Iraq) for some time and the residents were living in a violent hell with no one to speak up for them, let alone to protect them. I have no problem stating I was wrong in thinking he'd lost his influence. When Basra flared up (al-Maliki launched his attack on the city -- jumping the announced date and doing so without the US military's express consent or lengthy consultation according to what Gen David Petraeus told Congress in April), al-Sadr stood alone as the person standing up. He called out the attack. His stock rose. Despite the fact that there was no 'win' for al-Sadr in either the assault on Basra or on Sadr City (started shortly after), his stock rose. He became seen -- rightly or wrongly -- as someone who spoke the truth and that image went far beyond just his usual supporters or even just Shi'ites. Susman's take may be correct but it may not. I don't believe (my opinion) he's losing influence. Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) has a report that could be picked for support that al-Sadr's losing influence or that he's holding steady (or gaining). The thrust of the report is that his supporters are going to have to find other ways to build the movement. No doubt they will. However, problems his supporters have are their own. Moqtada enjoys a special status because of his father and because of his actions since the start of the illegal war. To point to some follower in some city of Iraq and say this can prove al-Sadr's grasp is slipping is a reach. If the US is smart, they won't antagonize him. (No more taunting speeches to al-Sadr from Secretary of State Condi Rice, for example.) That might allow him to fade -- maybe -- provided things actually improved in Iraq ("improved," not lessened -- "violence lessened, misfortune lessened, the refugee crisis lessened," etc.). But his power is a personal nature and has to do with what bloodlines have vested in him and what his own actions since the start of the illegal war have been. At any point, even should his image be at an all time low (short of any scandal -- real or imagined -- or planned like the Abu Ghraib photos were planned to embarrass prisoners after they were released if the prisoners 'made trouble'), all he has to do is return to Iraq and walk through the streets of any neighborhood. There will be an automatic excitement and rush.

Turning to the US where a trial was ongoing into military deaths in Iraq, Alberto B. Martinez was on trial for the murders of Philip Esposito and Louis Allen. A decision was reached yesterday leading Louis Allen's widow Barbara to shout, "He slaughtered our husbands, and that's it?" and at Martinez, "You murdered my husband." Jim Kambrich (WNYT -- link has text and video) reports on the verdict in the case of the double murders June 7, 2005 and highlights Philip Esposito's widow Siobhan stating in October, "We would rather be back with our children than be here in the court room but we're here seeking justice for our husbands." Hema Easley (Lower Hudson Journal News) explains the jury had fourteen members and they found Martinez not guilty of fragging the two men ("military slang for the intentional killing of an officer, especially by hand grenade"). Robert Gavin (Albany Times Union) notes, "Staff Sgt. Amy Harland of Ohio, who also worked in supplies at the base, testified she provided Martinez with the mines in May, unaware of what would transpire. The jury Thursday asked to listen to her testimony, in which she said the soldier's ire toward Esposito was increasing." Paul Woolverton and Corey G. Johnson (Fayetteville Observer) report that when the verdict was read, someone shouted (in disbelief), "This is the United States of America!" John Sullivan (Times Herald Record) adds that another person (unidentified) yelled at Martinez "murdering son of a bitch" as the judge, Col Stephen Henley, cleared the courtroom. Hema Easley also reports that a plea agreement was floated to the widows and quotes Barbara Allen stating: "We got a call from Iraq to gauge our feelings about a guilty plea, and we said no, we needed the truth. At that point we had faith in the judicial system." Siobhan Esposito adds, "We said absolutely not." The US Army's statement on the case can be found here. The US State Dept has repeatedly underestimated him (though that's not the case currently) and thought many times that he was 'out.' Each of those times added to the image he already had as "the son of" and helped carve out an individual image for himself. Moqtada al-Sadr is -- rightly or wrongly -- the person who calls out the abuses in Iraq brought on by the US invasion and US control of the puppet government. There is no fade for that image. He is Iraq's Che, James Dean and assorted other mythic figure. As long as there is chaos and violence in Iraq, al-Sadr has power because his role is the critic. Every day that peace does not come to Iraq backs up his role and his statements. al-Maliki is attempting to further consolidate his power (a power grab) and currently in conflict with the Kurdish officials. Possibly Susman's grading al-Sadr's 'loss' on some daily measurement? It's not a daily ebb and flow. He has a power base and that is now a personal one that he inhabits. It's no longer coming from his father or who his father was, or who does or does not declare their support for him publicly. He's become a mythic figure and -- short of a scandal that goes to character or Iraq having a prolonged outbreak of peace -- only he can destroy his power at this point.

Public broadcasting notes. PBS programs begin airing tonight in some markets, check local listings for time and date. NOW on PBS offers:How should President-elect Barack Obama handle our tricky relations with Pakistan? This week, David Brancaccio sits down with author and journalist Tariq Ali, who grew up in Pakistan, to discuss what he thinks team Obama should do to improve its standing in Pakistan in particular and the region as a whole."I think it should back off militarily. That's the key," Ali tells NOW. Ali says the U.S.'s roughly 20 reported attacks against Al Qaeda inside Pakistan's borders since late August are doing more harm than good because they "mainly have hit civilian targets."The question of how to handle nuclear-armed Pakistan has become especially difficult amidst Indian claims of Pakistani links to the recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai, which left at least 170 people dead.What's the best strategy for the U.S. in Pakistan and how will it impact the war in Afghanistan, where Obama has said he plans to send more troops? Watch for an insider's view of how the president-elect should proceed.and:Tehran-born author Hooman Majd talks to NOW's David Brancaccio about America's thorny relationship with Iran and how he thinks Obama should handle the problematic issue of Iran's nuclear program."I think the main issue for Americans, and certainly for the [Obama Administration,] is how do we persuade Iran to not take that step? We can't take the knowledge away from them anymore," says Majd, who grew up in American and Britain, but often returns to Iran.Iran has produced enough nuclear material to produce a nuclear bomb, according to a report released last month from the International Atomic Energy Agency.Although Iran denies that its nuclear program has military aspirations, it has called for wiping out the state of Israel. What's the best way forward with this unpredictable country in Middle East?On Washington Week's latest installment, Gwen sits around the table with Karen Tumulty (Time magazine), Peter Baker (New York Times) and David Wessel (Wall St. Journal). Public radio? WBAI on Sunday:Sunday, December 7, 11am-noonTHE NEXT HOURDocumentary filmmaker/psychologist Murray Nossel and psychiatrist PaulBrowde, co-stars of the off-Broadway hit, "Two Men Talking,"demonstrate their storytelling techniques with members of theirNarativ Workshop. With storytellers Benaifer Bhadha, Marion Stein,Archimedes Bibiano and Jerome Deroy. Hosted by Janet ColemanBroadcasting at WBAI/NY 99.5 FMStreaming live at WBAIArchived at Cat Radio CafeNOTE: CAT RADIO CAFE is pre-empted on December 8 for WBAI fundraising.Regular programming resumes on December 22. Information on CAT RADIOCAFE and THE NEXT HOUR fundraising specials to be announced.
And on broadcast TV Sunday, CBS offers CBS 60 Minutes:The Oil KingdomDespite the pledge of President-elect Barack Obama and others to lessen America's use of foreign oil, Saudi Arabia – the world's largest oil supplier - isn't worried. That's what Saudi officials told Lesley Stahl when she visited the oil kingdom and toured its vast petroleum facilities, which are gearing up to produce even more. (This is a double length segment.) Watch Video
SchnabelHis painting took the art world by storm in the 1980s and then Julian Schnabel reinvented himself as a film director to more kudos. Morley Safer profiles this titan of art and film. Watch Video


iraq
ben lando
gina chonthe wall street journal
the los angeles timestina susman
ramzy baroud
deborah haynes
michael wareadam ashton
corinne reilly
mcclatchy newspapers
sahar issatony perry
mikey likes it
the fayetteville observerjim kambrichhema easleyjohn sullivanrobert gavinpaul woolvertoncorey g. johnson
the washington postsudarsan raghavanwbaicat radio cafejanet colemandavid dozer60 minutescbs newskaren tumultywashington weeknow on pbspbs

Sheehan

"Core Values?" (Cindy Sheehan, World Can't Wait):
After President-Elect, Barack Obama, officially appointed Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State, he had this to say: "Senator Clinton shares my core values." Really? I thought that the two dueling Senators had diametrically opposing "Core values." Isn't that why most of the US anti-war movement supported Obama over Clinton? Wasn't Obama the so-called "Anti-War Candidate?" I am amazed that there is no outcry from the "US anti-war movement" over Obama's foreign policy team that includes Robert Gates who will remain as Obama's Secretary of Defense. I don't care how any Democratic shill wants to spin this one; it's not spinnable if one really cares about peace and security.
Hillary Clinton is an unrepentant supporter of the Iraq War. She was, in fact, one of the major cheerleaders for that war and Bush's policy of preventive strikes and occupation. Obama theoretically opposed the invasion until he became a Senator and then voted for every funding bill. I am sure that Clinton and Gates will be fully on board with the President Elect's plan of sending more troops to Afghanistan to increase the D-RWoT (the Democrat's Real War on Terror) and will continue the illegal raids into Pakistan without so much as a blink of their eyes.After the official appointments were confirmed, I told two of my closest friends that Obama has killed the US anti-war movement that has been on life support while it worked feverishly to elect him. But, in reality, Obama didn't kill the movement, the movement committed suicide in (again) supporting a non-anti-war candidate solely because he is not George Bush and he knows how to say the words "hope and change" with a straight face and no hint of irony in his voice. Besides it doesn't hurt that he tacks on a (D) after his name.

Cindy Sheehan will go on to speak of how there's no need to hate. First off, she hates Hillary. Second, I don't care what fuels a person, that's their business.

Most importantly though, she can't lie.

Cindy cannot lie about Hillary and expect to be believed.

Where is the proof that Hillary was one of the major cheerleaders? There is no such proof. While Cindy was still torn about the Iraq War, I was protesting it. I know which senators acted as cheerleaders. I know which ones should have shown some backbone (and I include Hillary on that list as I do Edwards, Kerry and a whole host of others).

Cindy's created a monster in her head and grafted it onto Hillary.

Cindy had a meeting with Hillary, face-time, which didn't go the way Cindy liked. Tough s**t.

She's not your senator. She's New York's senator. She agreed to meet with Cindy of California. She didn't say in the meeting or after what Cindy wanted. Well that means the two of you disagree. While Cindy can hate Hillary for disagreeing with her, she can't lie. That's not allowed.

I'm sorry Casey died but I'm sorry a lot of people are going to die in Afghanistan.

I'm appalled that Cindy Sheehan helped elect Barack Obama.

That's a fact that she doesn't want to own up to. But she haunted Common Dreams leaving mean, nasty comments about Hillary and never calling out Barack. She led people to believe she was supporting Barack (even though she'd already endorsed Cynthia McKinney).

So Cindy needs to take accountability for the fact that she REFUSED to call out Barack.

Now it wasn't hard to call out War Hawk Barack. I did it every day I blogged. It wasn't hard to vote for a non-War Hawk candidate. In the Democratic Party primary, I voted for Mike Gravel. In the general election, I voted for Ralph Nader.

Cindy's lying when she says Hillary's unrepentant.

Hillary refused to don the sack cloth. She said her vote was a mistake (2002 vote) and, if she had it to do over again, she would vote differently.

That's not enough for the Losers. I don't put Cindy in the category. I do put LIARS like Amy Goodman in that category. They wanted to make a big deal out of, "Hillary won't apologize for her vote!" Who the hell cares if she apologizes or not? Does "I'm sorry" bring one dead person back? Hell no.

Grow up. She said she'd vote differently.

Now what Liar Amy Goodman seemed to want was for Hillary to pull a John Edwards and publicly disown her vote. We're supposed to believe that?

I seem to recall Edwards finally get caught on his mistress. Do you remember what happened then?

He booked himself on ABC for an interview where he 'apologized' for it. Then he went into hiding and today no one in the press is allowed to ask him about it.

My point?

John Edwards is a cheap attorney who knows how to offer a little acting bit to trick people. He did it with his 'I'm sorry for my vote,' he did it with his, 'I'm sorry for my affair.' He still won't get honest about fathering that child and everyone in Democratic Party leadership believes it is Edwards' child.

Edwards thought he said he was sorry and it was over (his Iraq War vote and his lying to the public while running for president).

I'm not interested in the people who climb onto the cross to score points.

Cindy can do whatever she wants. If loathing Hillary for the rest of her life gets her up every morning, more power to her. However, every time she lies about Hillary, she makes it that much harder for those who have listened to her before to listen now.

I'm not talking about the people who dumped her that May when she left the Democratic Party. I'm talking about the people who really like her.

I won't highlight anything else by her that is as lunatic as the current column. She has a great column but mars it by going into her attack Hillary mode. When she does that, she has to raise the stake every time and she creates this larger than Hillary image for Hillary.

If Cindy's so damn displeased Barack chose Hillary, start DAMN WELL writing about that Cindy. All you've done is spew Hillary Hatred one more time and it's getting damn old. That's why you have to lie and inflate your claims.

Barack is the president. A daily hissy fit at Hillary in private may or may not do you any good.

However, you are the woman who made herself useless by REFUSING to call out Barack. You're aren't fixing that by continuing to rip apart Hillary. Barack will be president, when might we expect you to GROW THE HELL UP ENOUGH to take him on?

He's the liar and until you can reject the lies of Amy Goodman and all the other beggar whores of 'independent' media about how dreamy Barack is, you're no use to the peace movement. You are, in fact, one more person hurting the movement.

Your hatred of Hillary? She now works for Barack. Maybe you can chuckle over that and enjoy that she didn't achieve what she wanted?

All I know is every day you refuse to confront the man who will be running the empire, you are completely useless.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Wednesday, December 3, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, press freedom becomes a bigger joke in Iraq, as does the judicial system when a judge is caught bragging about just how biased he is, KBR imprisons workers, and more.

Picking up from yesterday's snapshot, the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq released their thirteenth "Human Rights Report" with this one covering January 1, 2008 through June 30, 2008 [PDF format warning, click here]. One of their recommendations for the Iraqi government was: "Issue on a regular basis mortality data compiled by the Ministry of Health, based on informaction received from all governorates and statistics kept at the Medico-Legal Institute in Baghdad, together with details of the methodology used to calculate the figures." Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) notes, "Until April 2007, the reports also included mortality rates based on number provided by government ministries, hospitals and medical officials. But after the January 2007 U.N. report came out and estimated that 34,452 Iraqis had been killed in war-related violence in 2006, the Iraqi government refused to give out the numbers anymore. It had put the 2006 death toll at 12,357. As The Times wrote at the time, the official and unofficial reasons given by the government for withholding numbers varied. Publicly, Iraq's government said it did not have the organizational capabilities to ensure accurate counting of war victims. But privately, U.N. officials at the time said the Iraqis were worried that the large numbers would tarnish the country's image, so they decided to withhold information." China's Xinhau zooms in on this quote from the report: "The targeted killings of journalists, educators, medical doctors, judges and lawyers has continued, as did criminal abductions for ransom." The Press Trust of India quotes this statement from the report, "Grave human rights violations that are less widely reported [than general security], and the elimination of which requires long-term political commitment, remain unaddressed." UPI explains, "In addition to recommendations for the Iraqi government, the report recommended the multinational security forces investigate promptly and impartially credible allegations of unlawful killings by military personnel, and take appropriate action against those found to have exercised indiscriminate or excessive force. It also called on the international forces to consider implementing basic due process guarantees to improve prisoners' access to counsel and grant human rights monitors access to detention facilities."
Picking up with the remainder of the thirty page report (we noted the first sixteen pages yesterday), the report notes that there are more than 2.8 million internally displaced people in the country and that approximately an eighth of them "were living in public buildings and under the threat of eviction." But the number of the internally displaced may be decreasing and, if so, one reason may be that it is "increasingly difficult to move within Iraq as well as to neighbouring countries given the more retrictive entry policies". It notes that the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iraq remain under US military protection in Camp ashraf (Diyala Province) and that the camp has been attacked plus "the Government of Iraq issued a statement declaring the PMOI a terrorist organization calling for their expulsion" (June 17, 2008) despite the United Nations position that the PMOI should be "protected from focible deporation, expulsion or repatriation".

The report notes the total number of prisoners in Iraq is 50,595 ("detainees, security internees and sentenced prisoners"), that February's General Amnesty Law has still not gone into effect, that the number detained by Iraq's central government (exclude Kuridsh section of Iraq) was higher than it was in the last six months of 2007 and that reports of prisoner abuse continue to come in. The report then moves to prisoners held by the US military and notes that the US insists due process does not apply and that the United Nations believes Geneva provides for all prisoners to have the right to know why they were arrested, "to be brough promptly before a judge if held on a criminal charge, and to challenge the lawfulness of their detention." [As noted elsewhere in the report -- and in yesterday's snapshot -- the UN is also still attempting to get monitors into US prisons in Iraq.] With regards to the Kudistan region, the KRG continues to hold a number of people on "vague accusations" for great lengths of time, those suspected of "terror-related incidents" are tortured ("violent treatment amounting to torture during investigations"). Four people were sentenced to death from the start of the year through March in the Kurdistan region and 34 people "are on deathrow in Erbil Central Prison as of June 2008" and the UN is calling for a stay of executions due to "the impossibly of avoiding execution of the innocent and absence of proof of deterrence effect of the penalty". The report ends listing various ways in which UNAMI provides support in Iraq.

We skipped pages 17 through 19 at the top to deal with them here. That section beings by noting religious and ethnic minorities in Iraq as well as others in vulenerable groups. In the first six months of the year, there have been "17 reports of attacks and kidnappings against Chaldo-Assyrians (Christians) throughout Iraq" with the bulk in Mosul. Shabaks had nine reported attacks and the bulk of them were also in Mosul. Five Yezidis were killed in the first six months of this year. Over 80% of the Mandean community have fled the country (10,000 to Syria, 3,000 to Jordan and the rest to Yemen and Egypt). [5,000 have moved into the Kurdistan region for shelter.]

Now we're emphasizing the sections on journalists and freedom of expression. UNAMI's report notes: "Journalists and media workers remain one of the most vulnerable professional groups throughout Iraq being subjected to threats, targeted violence, kidnappings and assassination." The report then moves to the Kurdistan region:

UNAMI continued to receive reports of intimidation and/or arrests of media professionals in the Kurdistan region, in particular those who had reported on issues of public interest. Officials have also filed several criminal defamation complaints against journalists. During the same period of time, KRG human rights authorities have declared to work at imprvoing the situation of journalists.
A few journalists UNAMI was in contact with alleged tha ton 31 January and 1 February 2008, they were arrested, harassed and ill-treated by KRG police. They also reported that their photographs and notes were confiscated whilst attempting to cover the impact of Turkey's military operations on civilians and civilian properties along the border. Photographs provided to UNAMI showed a journalist being surrounded and dragged by security forces. Local journalist associations have condemned the conduct of the KRG authorities while other journalists were also prevented from covering the military operations.
On 4 February, the Editor-in-chief of an independent newspaper, was summoned to court in Sulaimaniya to respond to a complaint filed against him by President Jalal Talabani for publishing an article on the President's personal assets. He was released on bail and his case postponed indefinitely. On 10 February, Umar Ahmed Mahmood, journalist from Hawlati newspaper, was summoned to Kalar Court, Sulaimaniya, where the Head of the KDP Office in Kalar district filed a complaint based on an article Mahmood had written about conflicting loyalties of KDP politicians. The journalist was subsequently detained for three days and released on bail. On 16 February, a journalist and blogger was arrested by Kurdish Peshmargas in Talkif District, Nineveh, and was interrogated for four days at an Asayish facility in Dohuk. He was forced to sign a ltter whereby he agreed not to "defame" KRG leaders and Christian clergymen before being released. On 16 March, a Dohuk court issued an arrest warrant against Muhamad Salih Haji, Editor-in-chief of Rasan Newspaper (licensed to the Kurdistna Islamic Union (KIU) and another KIU member, for publishing an article charging the court's decision to arrest a number of KIU members for alleged involvement in terror activities last year as politically motivated. Both were subsequently released on bail.
On 9 February, staff members of Kurdistan TV received death threats and had their equipment damaged when they tried to film an attack on a traffic policeman by a group of armed men in Erbil. The Kurdistan Journalists' Syndicate has condemned the attack and requested the Minister of Interior to investigate. On 2 March, Nabaz Goran, a journalist received a death threat in a letter sent by Halo Ibrahim Ahmad, a relative of a high-ranking Iraqi official. It was reported that although Halo Ibrahim had apologized, he subsequently reiterated his threat on Kurdistan post web-site. On 17 March, UNAMI wrote to KRG authorities requesting justifications for the arrests and complaints filed against these journnalists and urged the KRG to investigate the death threat against Nabaz Goran. Srood Mukarram Fatih, a journalist arrested a year ago by the Asayish in Erbil has yet to be charged noting that he was accused of being involved in terror activities.


The lengthy excerpt is included because the close of last month saw another journalist targeted in the Kurdistan region. Adel Hussein is the journalist and he's been convicted to six months of prison for the 'crime' of "writing an article about homosexuality". Reporters Without Border notes: "Sexual practices are part of the individual freedoms that a democratic states is supposed to promote and protect. Furthermore, Hussein did not defend homosexuality. He limited himself to describing a form of behavior from a scientific viewpoint. . . . We are astonished to learn that a press case has been tried under the criminal code. What was the point of adoptiong -- and then liberalising -- a press code in Kurdistan region if people who contribute to the news media are still be tried under more repressive laws?" The Committee to Protect Journalists is calling for the immediate release of Adel -- "a doctor and a freelance journalist with the independent weekly Hawlati". CPJ's Robert Mahoney (Dept Director) states, "A judge of all people should know that ignorance of the law is no excuse. This is the second time in a month that a court in Iraqi Kurdistan has sent a journalist to prison in violation of the new press law. We call on the authorities to ensure that the new legislation is widely promulgated and enforced, and we urge the appeal court to overturn this conviction and free Adel Hussein immediately." The other reporter referred to was Shwan Dawdi whose conviction was overturned by the court of appeal. Yahya Barzanji (AP) quotes the Kurdistan Journalist Union's Zirak Kamal stating, "We will appeal this unjust verdict and we hope that Kurdistan officials intervene and solve the problem." BBC explains the Kurdish government is attempting to say that Adel "violated a public decenty law" by reporting.

While this affront to journalism and free speech is taking place, the Kurdistan Regional Government wants the international community to be outraged by actions Nouri al-Maliki is taking. Yesterday the KRG released a lengthy litany of Nouri al-Maliki's actions which they felt violated the Iraqi Constitution. AP's Hamza Hendawi reports today that Jalal Talabani (Iraq's president and a Kurd) has decided to ask the federal court to step in and prevent "al-Maliki from establishing tribal councils" in the KRG region and quotes Talabani declaring, "Nouri al-Maliki is my friend and enjoys the confidence of parliament. He is not budging and remains adamant that creating these councils is legal. We will go to the federal court to see whether this is indeed the case." The KRG fears that thugs will be brought in (as happened with the "Awakening" Councils) while the puppet government in Baghdad feels the Kurdish government has gotten highly expansionist. The attacks on Christians in Mosul and surrounding areas beginning in July also forced al-Maliki to do something to ensure safety of minority populations.Now it's a little hard for Talabani and others to play this as they are standing up for the rule of law when they continue to target journalists and show no respect for a free press. The KRG might want to check the Iraqi Constitution they're so fond of citing these days -- it includes provisions for a free press.

The judicial system throughout Iraq is wanting and Alissa J. Rubin and Katherine Zoepf (New York Times) provide a peak at alleged impartial and unbiased judges today:

Judge Khalifa said Mr. Majid was guilty of crimes against humanity. Mr. Majid remained calm, but Mr. Ani shouted: "I welcome death if it is for Iraq, for pan-Arabism and for the Baath. Down with the American and Persian occupation!"The judge responded, "Shut up."In later remarks to fellow judges, Judge Khalifa was overheard saying: "All the Baathists are this way. Baathists live as Baathists and die as Baathists."

Meanwhile, Adam Ashton (McClatchy Newspapers) reports, "About 1,000 Asian men who were hired by a Kuwaiti subcontractor to the U.S. military have been confined for as long as three months in windowless warehouses near the Baghdad airport without money or a place to work." The contractor is KBR and Noah Shachtman (Wired) reminds that workers from India lodged a complaint against KBR in 2004 stating they had been deceived by them while 2007 found a KBR subcontractor explaining to the US Congress how Filipinos were "kidnapped to work on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad." And today the imprisoned made their displeasure known. Deborah Haynes (Times of London) reports, "Iraqi guards opened fire above the heads of 1,000 migrant workers who staged a mini-riot today in protest at their poor treatment in Baghdad and the prospect of being sent home without pay. The men, from Bangladesh, Nepal, India and Sri Lanka, will be flown to Dubai after the Kuwaiti company that hired them failed to secure enough contract work at dining facilities inside a number of US military bases across Iraq. Their passports have also been taken." Haynes goes on to reveal that the workers have been held since arriving -- this after paying $3,000 (US equivalent) for jobs that did not exist. Haynes also visited the compound and filed a report on it:

He had dreams of coming to Iraq, making his fortune and migrating to Australia. Instead Manoj Kodithuwakku, 28, a Sri Lankan, is stranded in an overcrowded hangar near a US military base with no money, no job and no way out.
Poorly dressed and desperate, he and hundreds of other men from developing countries who came looking for work are living in pitiful conditions. Yesterday The Times entered one of three pale blue hangars that house foreign workers near Baghdad airport. They are full of men who paid a small fortune to come here and have ended up forgotten and trapped.

While workers are trapped, countries continue leaving the so-called 'coalition' of the willing. Today Azerbaijani follows South Koera in ending their mission and Michael Christie (Reuters) notes, "Barely a day goes by without an end-of-mission ceremony in a dusty military camp somewhere in Iraq, with U.S., allied and Iraqi officials delivering grateful speeches to departing troops, and pinning medals on chests as military bands play." Joe Sterling (CNN) adds, "So far this year, Poland, Armenia, Mongolia, Georgia, Latvia, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kazakhstan and South Korea have departed or begun departing Iraq. Over the next couple of weeks, Azerbaijan, Tonga, the Czech Republic, Japan, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Denmark, Moldova and Albania will be leaving, a total of more than 600 troops."


In some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing claimed 1 life and left five more people wounded and a Baghdad mortar attack left five people wounded.

Shootings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 tribal leader was shot dead in Diyala Province today.

Corpses?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad.


Meanwhile Andrew Cockburn (CounterPunch) speaks with Winslow Wheeler (who was editor of America's Defense Meltdown: Pentagon Reform for President Obama and the New Congress) regarding president-elect Barack Obama and Wheeler explains:


He campaigned on "Change We Can Believe in" and his transition almost immediately switched to "Continuity We Can Believe In." The people so far selected, especially Robert Gates, have a track record, and that track record is basically to keep things the way they are. Gates will do what he's told on issues like Iraq and Afghanistan. He's already made it clear that as far as managing the Pentagon is concerned he thinks he's been doing a competent job. But during his tenure things have only gotten worse. The budget's going up faster than ever before in recent history; the size of our forces is going south; the equipment continues to get older. We have a new report from the Congressional Budget Office that tracks the size of our weapons inventory and its age. This study shows that if everything goes perfectly according to Gates' plans as revealed in his Pentagon budget, our forces will continue to shrink and the equipment will continue to get older.
The one exception is Obama's plan to expand the number of combat units in the army and marine corps. That is turning out to be a question of much larger cost than people suspected. It's going to cost us somewhere in excess of a hundred billion dollars. It's very unclear therefore if that expansion is actually going to occur and the historic trend suggests that even if it does occur it will reverse itself in a few years and the additional units will be phased out. Also, if you look at previous wars such as Korea and the Indochina wars, the expansions that
occurred during those conflict were gigantic compared to the puny little 60,000
man increase that Robert Gates and Barack Obama say they want to endorse.



In other news, Music pioneer Odetta died yesterday. Her influence was wide reaching and among the many who cited her as an influence over the years were Carly Simon (Odetta's voice was the one that allowed Carly to hear herself as a singer), Bob Dylan, Harry Belafonte, Carolyn Hester, Janis Ian, Phoebe Snow, Holly Near, Janis Joplin and Judy Collins. The Washington Post headlines their obituary "Odetta, 77; Sang the Soundtrack for the Civil Rights Movement" (Martin Weil and Adam Bernstein, wrote the obit).

MediaChannel has opened MEDIA STORE for the holidays: "The Economy may be crashing, but we as a culture still believe in a season of giving. That's why MediaChannel and GlobalVision are opening an online store, as others close theirs, to share books and films we believe offer food for the mind and make for valuable gifts. Buying through us helps support MediaChannel. Your support in this season means alot to us. Our last fundraising drive has helped keep us alive! Your continuing help will keep us online and on the issues we all care about."

iraqadel husseinreporters without bordersthe committee to protect journalistsyahya barzanji
the los angeles timestina susman
the new york timesalissa j. rubinkatherine zoepf
deborah haynes
adam ashton
mcclatchy newspapers
andrew cockburn
the washington post