Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Bad cold

I have a nasty cold. I know people think, "California, it doesn't really get winter." It's 'winter' like to me. It's been so cold at night lately. I've played Bree Daniels all day, saying, "I hope this isn't going to make my cold worse." (Bree Daniels is the character in Klute played by Jane Fonda.) It's been one bit of bad news and worse news delivered over the airwaves all day. And I was on the couch in and out throughout the day. I taped Bonnie and I'll write about it tomorrow (unless I still have this cold) when I can listen. I nodded off and woke up throughout. I remember waking up at one point thinking, "What is that?" It was a caller and Bonnie noted it sounded like an engine was reving up. David Ewing was the guest and the topic was Christmas in China but I seriously doubt they were discussing Frosty the Snowman; however, I must have had a dream about Frosty because that's what I'm remembering. Somewhere during that or before or after C.I. was at the door with some hot soup. I downed that and was back asleep before I knew it.

I'm alternating shallow coughs (like a cat with a fur ball) with these deep barks and my nose is a glue factory. Except for the soup, I haven't eaten today and Sumner woke me up saying he was on his way over and bringing dinner. I'm going to eat that and then go right back to sleep. When I woke up this morning, I was freezing and couldn't get warm no matter what I tried. I'm going to assume I have a fever now because I've taken off my robe and am burning up (in sweats and t-shirt, before anyone dubs me the nude blogger).

C.I.'s covering a lot in the snapshot and I'll assume what's not covered happened only in my mind. (Seriously, I was in and out of all day while listening to KPFA.) Before that, here's a taste of Tariq Ali's "The War is Lost" (CounterPunch):

Once a war goes badly wrong and its justifications are shown to be lies, to insist that a "democratic" Iraq is visible on the horizon and that "we must stay the course" becomes a total fantasy. What is to be done?
In the US a group of Foggy Bottom elders was wheeled in to prepare a report. This admitted what the whole world (Downing Street excepted) already knew: the occupation is a disaster and the situation gets more hellish every day. After US citizens voted accordingly in the mid-term elections, the White House sacrificed the Pentagon warlord, Donald Rumsfeld.
The warlord of Downing Street, however, is still at large, zombie-like in his denials that anything serious is wrong in Baghdad or Kabul. Everything, for him, can still be remedied by a dose of humanitarian medicine (a poison so powerful and audacious that no resistance is possible). His desperate attempts to play the statesman have made him a laughing stock in friendly Arab capitals and Baghdad's Green Zone. Iraq is the umbilical cord that ties him to his fate.

Now here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Wednesday, December 20, 2006. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq; the New York Times which continues to act as though Colin Brown and Andy McSmith (Independent of London) broke no news last week, now plays "I don't see Chatham House" which may make it difficult for them to explain why Britain's Foreign Secretary is fessin' up to her own 'blot'; a large crowd turns out in Honolulu to hear US war resister Ehren Watada; and Bully Boy, who wants to go long with the lives of others, lets slip a bit of truth (naturally, the Times plays dumb),
In England, a [PDF format] report continues to spark debate. Chatham House issued the six-page report yesterday (see yesterday's snapshot) and Tony Blair rushed to deny the conclusions but mainly revealed that six pages are about five too many for him to read and comprehend. Along with the prime minister, also issuing denials was the country's Foreign Secretary who termed the report "utterly ridiculous." "Utterly ridiculous" describes Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, and her performance on BBC Radio 4 yesterday where she attempted to rewrite history. After confessing that the (false) claim that Iraq could attack England with WMDs within 45 minutes, Beckett attempted to make light of it: "That was a statement that was made once and it was thought to be of such little relevance". John Humphrys (host of the BBC program Today) begged to differ and noted that the Blair government never corrected the public record, never came out and stated, "Ooopsy! That was a big fat lie." Beckett snarled back, "Oh, come on -- nobody that it was revelant. Nobody thought it was a big sweeping statement."
This is London adds the perspective Beckett attempts to strip from the public record -- Tony Blair made that claim in the 2002 while advocating war, it "was at the heart of the Downing Street dossier issued in September 2002 where Blair wrote: "The document discloses that his military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them," Blair went on to push the false assertion four times more in the dossier and once in a public speech to the House of Commons, and the lie was at the root of the 2003 inquiry into whether or not intel had been 'sexed up' -- as the BBC reported it had -- during which time Beckett and Blair continued to sit on the truth and David Kelly died. Now Beckett wants to say, "Oh, come on"?
The BBC reports that the Tory party are calling it "appalling" and noting the false claim did not belong "in a government dossier". William Hague, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, states, "If it is true that the 45-minute claim had been discounted before the invasion, it is appalling that there seems to have been no effort or coordination between ministers to put the record straight. This is yet another reason to dismantle Tony Blair's sofa policy-making and restore Cabinet government." The BBC notes what the New York Times can't or won't, "The comments come after it was revealed last week that former UK diplomat Carne Ross had told the 2004 Butler review into Iraq intelligence that 'at no time did HMG (Her Majesty's Government) assess that Iraq's WMD (weapons of mass destruction) posed a threat to the UK or its interests'. He also claimed that there was no evidence of 'significant holdings' of chemical or biological weapons in the possession of Saddam prior to the invasion. "
While the Chatham House report goes largely ignored by the US press, Jackie Ashley (Guardian of London) observes, "If it wasn't so serious it would be hilariously funny. 'Mr Tony', as he now apparently likes to be called, has been explaining his theory of leadership: 'The art of leadership is learning to take decisions.' So far, so good. And, he goes on, 'sometimes you are right, sometimes you are wrong. Some of the decisions are very difficult and someone always gets angry.' Well, Mr Tony, certainly lots of people have got angry about the Iraq war, which an ever-growing number of people believe was a wrong decision. Look at the Baker-Hamilton commission in the United States, which gave a devastating critique of the policy, warned of the situation in Iraq deteriorating and of the threat of regional conflagration. Look at yesterday's report from the respected thinktank, Chatham House, which described the war as 'a terrible mistake' which has damaged Britain's global influence. Listen to all those Labour MPs who are saying publicly (a little) and privately (a lot) that the decision to follow George Bush into war with Iraq was a terrible error. Yet Mr Tony still seems to think, as indeed he has implied before, that it doesn't really matter whether the decision was right or wrong - what was important was that he made a decision. It is a truly bizarre theory of government, with extremely frightening consequences."
Mr. Tony? Sounds like he's getting ready to do a rinse and set. Tareq al-Hashemi thinks another kind of washing has gone on. The BBC reports that al-Hashemi, one of Iraq's two vice presidents, spoke to the Council of Relations in NYC and, noting that Mr. Tony had been favorable to the ide of a withdrawal timetable for foreign troops, went on to conclude that possibly Mr. Tony had been "brainwashed" by the Bully Boy since he changed his mind on the subject: "It is quite unfortunate that your president made a sort of blackmail out of Mr Blair."
Brainwashed, blackmailed or strong armed, it's exactly the sort of cow-towing, lackey decision making that the Chatham Report noted and stated needed to stop. In the United States, desperate for something, anything!, to fuel a new wave of Operation Happy Talk, the US government declares (and CNN runs with) that they have captured yet another al Qaeda leader in Iraq! Six days ago is whispered in sotto voice. al Qaeda was not in Iraq prior to the illegal war and, as the US Pentagon underscored yesterday, it's not the force the hyped up talk repeatedly makes it out to be (the Pentagon found militias to be the greater threat to national security in Iraq). But if the US administration pushes it hard enough, maybe the wave of Operation Happy Talk will drown out reality.
Or at least allow people not to note that the same Bully Boy who used Daddy's connections to avoid serving in Vietnam (not due to any opposition to the war, just cowardice of putting his own ass on the line) now tests the waters for sending more US troops to die in Iraq. Speaking to the press today, Bully Boy declared, "They think they can. They think it's just a matter of time before America grows weary and leaves, abandons the people of Iraq, for example. And that's not going to happen." Once again, he demonstrates how he can sleep easy even after all the blood on his hands -- he just doesn't give a damn. Which allows him to lie with claims such as "I also don't believe most Americans want us just to get out now." As polls have repeatedly demonstrated, Americans and Iraqis favor, in strong majorities, US forces doing just that.
AP reports that John Abizaid ("commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East") has submitted his plans to retire. That's surprising only to those who missed Thom Shanker (New York Times) report today that Abizaid "argues that foreign troops are a toxin bound to be rejected by Iraqis, and that expanding the number of American troops merely puts off the day when Iraqis are forced to take responsibility for their own security." That opinion is no longer in favor with the US administration (or War Hawks in the press like Gordo) so it's no surprise that Abizaid is stepping down.
Robert Gates, the newly installed US Secretary of Defense is all for more US troops being sent to Iraq. CBS and AP report that Gates visited the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad where he "discussed a possible infusion of more U.S. troops into Iraq with American commanders on Wednesday but said no decisions have been made. On just his third day in his post, Gates journeyed to Iraq armed with a mandate from President Bush to help forge a new Iraq war strategy." There are no new strategies, just desperation tactics. As Peter Baker (Washington Post) reported today, the Bully Boy has admitted that the US is "not winning" which, Baker observed, "was a striking reversal for a president who, days before the November elections declared, 'Absolutely, we're winning'."
Though some Democrats in the Senate may scratch their heads and wonder what happened to Bobby Gates, the reality is that his lackey qualities were well known long before they confirmed him. As Robert Parry (Consortium News) reports, the thinking was "that Gates was a closet dove who would help guide the United States out of George W. Bush's mess in Iraq. The thinking was that Gates, a former member of the Iraq Study Group, would represent the views of James Baker and other 'realitists' from George H.W. Bush's administration. Hillary Clinton and other Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee praised Gates for his 'candor' when he acknowledged the obvious, that the war in Iraq wasn't being won. Since the Gates confirmation vote on Dec. 6, however, Bush and Gates have signaled that they have no intention of extricating the U.S. military from the Iraq quagmire. They still insist on nothing short of 'victory' or 'success,' no matter how unlikely those ends and no matter how much blood must be spilled over the next two years to avert defeat." As Rebecca (Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude) noted yesterday, there's one conclusion left out of Parry's report -- the statement "I was right." Parry was right and had Senate Dems been more interested in exploring the record and less in a hurry to get rid of Donald the Rumsfled (who was out the door regardless), as Rebecca pointed out, "we wouldn't have the new donald rumsfeld. that's all gates is. actually, he's rumsfeld without 4 years of baggage, 4 years of known lies. he's rumsfeld with a honeymoon period from the press that will probably extend all the way through 2008."
Instead of recognizing the peace mandate of the November elections, as CBS and the AP report, the Pentagon is asking for an additional 99.7 billion for the wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) which "would boost this year's budget for the wars to about $170 billion."
More money and more lives down the drain in an illegal war of choice. In Iraq today . . .
Bombings?
Outside of Baghdad, Reuters notes two dead and three wounded in Baiji from a roadside bomb. Molly Hennessy-Fiske (Los Angeles Times) reports "a massive sucide car bomb" this morning in Baghdad "near the entrance to Baghdad University" which claimed eleven lives (plus the driver of the car) "including six Iraqi police" and left "at least two dozen" injured. Reuters also notes three other car bombs in Baghdad: four dead and eight wounded from one "in the parking lot of an Interior Ministry office," two wounded from one in the Bayaa disctrict and two wounded from one in the Camp Sara district.
Shootings?
Molly Hennesy-Fiske (LA Times) reports that three people were shot dead and at least seven more wounded at the Bab Al Muadhem bus terminal in Baghdad, that Mahmoud Mohammed Rahseed was shot dead in the Baghdad neighborhood "where he taught middle school," that Ali Arnoosi ("deputy dean of the college of law at the University of Baghdad") and law professor Mohammed Hamdani were also shot dead in Baghdad continuing the targeting of educators in Iraq. This comes at a time when, Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) reports, puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki has made attendence mandatory for both professors and students and failure to comply will lead to "dismissal or expulsion" so "the professors have begun hiding their education by donning ratty clothes, pulling on traditional Arab head scarves and driving to campus in beat-up cars." Like the Bully Boy, the puppet's not concerned with safety just with the appearances.
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports: "A military official in the 5th division of the Iraqi army said that a soldier was killed and 3 others were wounded when a group of more than 30 insurgents attacked early morning today a military checkpoint in Abo Al Nakhal district in Khalis city north of Baqouba city. The source confirmed that 5 insurgents were killed." and "A governmental source in Baladrooz town east of Baqouba city (60 kms north of Baghdad) said that 2 civilians were killed and 8 were injured when an insurgents group from Dainiya neighborhood targeted civilians in Shakori village in the same town early morning today."
Corpses?
Reuters notes that eleven corpses were discovered in Mosul and two in Mahmudiya while 76 corpses were discovered in Baghdad. Repeating, 76.
In addition, the US military announced today: "An improvised explosive device detonated near a Multi-National Division -Baghdad patrol, killing one Soldier in a southern neighborhood of the Iraqi capital Dec. 20. The combat patrol was conducting a route clearance mission in order to free the roads of any possible dangers. As they conducted their mission, a roadside bomb exploded near one of their vehicles, killing one and wounding two other Soldiers." The US military also announced: "An improvised explosive device detonated near a Multi-National Division -Baghdad patrol, killing one Soldier southwest of the Iraqi capital Dec. 20. The dismounted combat patrol was on the way to investigate an explosion that occurred in the area when a roadside bomb detonated. As a result of the explosion, four Soldiers were wounded and one Soldier was killed."
Turning to peace news, in June of this year, Ehren Watada became the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. Yesterday, in Honolulu, he spoke out again. Rod Ohira (The Honolulu Advertiser) reports that a crowd of 350 turned out to hear Watada speak at the Church of the Crossroads where he stated, "The issue is about the war and people need to educate themselves about everything that's going on about the war. They need to take a position one way or another. If people agree with me or disagree with me, I really don't care. . . . What people need to do is take a stance. And if they truly believe there is something wrong with this war -- that it's immoral and illegal -- they should ask themselves what are they willing to sacrifice in order to stop this war?"
Watada faces a pre-trial hearing in January and then a court-martial in February. Though the US Congress seems unable or unwilling to excercise their oversight and have largely rebuffed his mother, Carolyn Ho, and her efforts, the reality is that he is one person in a growing movement of resistance within the military that includes Kyle Snyder, Darrell Anderson, Joshua Key, Ivan Brobeck, Ricky Clousing, Mark Wilkerson, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Agustin Aguayo, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, and Kevin Benderman. Those are some of the war resisters who have gone public while currently there are thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada attempting to be legally recognized.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Appeal for Redress is collecting signatures of active duty service members calling on Congress to bring the troops home -- the petition will be delivered to Congress next month.

iraqehren watada
Posted by at

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

David Rovics



Thank you to Anita who pointed out in an e-mail that I forgot to mention that a review I did posted Saturday -- "Kat's Korner: David Rovic's Halliburton Boardroom Massacre." David Rovics' offers free downloads at his website so if you do not know the name, please visit his website. I really love this CD.

What's his voice like, Anita wondered? (Which tells me she didn't use the link to visit his site.) I don't know. It's got a snap to it. How good's your memory? If it's really good and you didn't grow up getting sodas, think about that first time you got a soda and the way it tasted.

It's a cool voice with a snap to it. It reminds me of when we'd go out to eat and I could talk my mother into letting me have a cola. (My brothers and sisters? Hey, you were on your own when it came to twisting Mom's arm.) It's got that warm taste that's thick and the the snap takes you by surprise.

It's a nice voice and he can sing. More importantly, he can write songs. So please make a point to check out the album. It makes my year's best list that I'll be posting shortly.

By the way, as soon as it went up (that's C.I.'s CD in the scan), Maggie called to say, "Oh I did borrow that CD. It's in my car stereo." She had borrowed it while I was in Ireland and didn't remember that she had it even though I told her she did. She looked in her Felix the Cat like purse and around her stereo at home. It was in her car stereo the whole time. She's listened to it over and over since October. So is you're worried about whether it will hold up to repeat listens, yes, it does. Maggie's proof.

That's it for me tonight. Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Tuesday, December 19, 2006. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq; an international policy think tank in London delivers a devestating evaluation on the failures of Tony Blair's leadership; Ehren Watada's mother speaks out on WBAI's Law and Disorder to raise awareness of her son and his upcoming court-martial scheduled to begin in February; bank robbers in Baghdad make off with the equivalen of nearly a million dollars; and Harry Reid and his favored 'surge' are rightly called out.


Starting in England where Tony Blair is coming under renewed criticism. Chatham House is a London based think tank that was created in 1920 which has just released a [PDF format] report grading the British prime minister's performance. Sophie Walker (Reuters) reports that Britian's Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, has termed the report "ridiculously wrong." Which indicates how correct it is. Victor Bulmer-Thomas ("OBE . . . Director at Chatham House since April 2001") is the author of the report.

Tracing the emergence of Blair as Poodle to Bully Boy, the report examines the post 9-11 period and notes that the prisoners held in the gulag of Guantanamo Bay "barely raised an eyebrow in British government circles" nor did Bully Boy's State of the Union address (January 2002) prompt a reaction from Blair despite Bully Boy labeled Iraq, Iran and North Korea as part of the so-called 'axis of evil' when "the United Kingdom had diplomatic relations with the last two and there was no link between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the atrocities of 9/11."

The report notes that "by mid-2002 Tony Blair had concluded that President Bush was determined to invade Iraq and that Britain needed to be a partner in this excercise. The British role was therefore to provide diplomatic cover and to enrol allies in Europe and elsewhere as far as possible. This was without a shadow of doubt the defining moment of Blair's foreign policy -- indeed the defining moment of his whole premiership. It will shape his legacy -- for better or for worse -- for many years to come."

The report further notes: "The problem Blair faced was not how to maintain European unity in the face of a threatened US pre-emptive war. . . . . Instead, the problem was how to obtain United Nations approval for a war of choice when NATO intervention was ruled out by French and German opposition. A case for human intervention could have been made, but that was unlikely to command support in the UN Security Council and could have provked a Russian or even Chinese veto. Instead, in close cooperation with US Secretary of State Colin Powell, the decision was made to emphasize the need to eliminate Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."

The report offers that, "in hindsight," the illegal war "was a terrible mistake" and that "the jury is still out" whether or not that call could have been made in real time because that depends upon how much Tony Blair "knew the claims about WMD were overblown or even fabricated." But diplomatic means were ignored ("Hans Blix was calling for more time for the UN weapons inspectors") and there was no threat to England ("even if Saddam Hussein had WMD, they were not directed at the United Kingdom"). Reviewing other areas, the Middle East in general and Afghanistan, Chatam House's report concludes that there has been no 'reward' to England for Blair's decision to throw his lot in with the Bully Boy: "The root failure, however, has been the inability to influence the Bush administration in any significant way despite the sacrifice -- military, political and financial - the the United Kingdom has made. . . . Tony Blair has learnt the hard way that loyalty in international politics counts for very little."


The BBC reports that Tony Blair has rejected the conclusions of the report; however, his comments demonstrate that he's not read it (it's only six pages) -- Blair says that the US needs to be a partner and the report doesn't question that. The report does note the importance of the European Union, the need to respect allies and the fact that Iraq ("disaster") resulted, for the British, from a failure to question (publicly) baseless lcimas and that working with the US did not require (and the report concludes will not in the future) "unconditional support for US initiatives." Blair, who will be out of office shortly, makes some self-serving claims about the Middle East and the report's already addressed that.

The report's release comes four days after Colin Brown and Andy McSmith (Independent of London) broke the news on the recently disclosed 2004 testimony of Carne Ross to the Butler Inquiry which stated that Hussein being "effectively contained" was a common view "among British officials" all the way up to the illegal war and that an invasion would result in "chaos" for Iraq (". . . Iraq would collapse into chaos") and that there was no threat "of CW [chemical warfare], BW [biological warfare] or nuclear material". All was known and all was ignored by Tony Blair who wanted the same illegal war of choice that the Bully Boy did.

Colin Brown and Andy McSmith published their report of the revelations on December 15th. To date, the New York Times has refused to cover or note them -- even at their website by posting either the AP or Reuters article. The blackout on the news is so huge that even in Sabrina Tavernise's lengthy open mouthed kiss to Tony Blair (ran in Monday's paper) there was no time to note Carne Ross' previously classified testimony.

Tavernise 'report' only grows more laughable today as BBC News' Andrew North weighs in on the photo-op and notes that both Blair and puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki "looked like they were on auto-pilot, saying much of the same things they've said before."
North observes: "But as on previous trips, Mr Blair did not really visit Baghdad. He stopped off for three hours on another planet called the Green Zone, the the sprawling fortress housing the US and British embassies and most Iraqi government ministries. Even in this maze of razor wire and concrete-walled compounds, it is not totally safe. Mortars often rain down. Mr Maliki's residence is ringed by 20ft-high blast barriers and gun towers. Mr Blair arrived with an impressive army of gun-toting bodyguards in armoured vehicles bristling with high-tech electronic equipment. But life in the Green Zone bears no relation to the unpredictable chaos of Baghdad beyond - the Red Zone as it is known by Green Zone residents."

Tavernise's problematic 'report' utilized White House talking points ("the way forward in Iraq") as though they were her own, failed to note Sunday's mass kidnapping utilized 'security vehicles' that were also used by Iraq's security forces, and somehow failed to report that on Sunday (the day she was 'reporting' on), the US military had announced the death of three US soldiers. But didn't she manage to quote Tony Blair. Good stenography. Lousy reporting.

In the United States, the Pentagon releases its congressionally mandated accounting. CNN reports the Pentagon's summary concludes that militas are a greater threat in Iraq than is the mythical al Qaeda. Interviewed yesterday by Nora Barrows-Friedman on KPFA's Flashpoints, journalist Robert Fisk made sport of the inflated claims of an al Qaeda led resistance within Iraq. [Rebecca discusses the appearance here.] However, for the Pentagon, this is a belated but huge step in truth telling. Ann Scott Tyson (Washington Post) reports that the Pentagon announced "that the violence in Iraq soared this fall to its highest level on record" and that this occurs "despite increased troop levels -- including a higher-than-anticipated U.S. force level of 140,000 troops".

The troop increase resulted from the so-called 'crackdown' on Baghdad that began in June and never ended -- nor did it ever suceed in lowering the violence -- a fact proven by the Pentagon's own report. However, despite this reality, US Senator Harry Reid, who is expected to become the Senate Majority Leader next month, has given his okay for a 'surge' in troop level with the laughable qualifier that it was only "two or three months." Those qualifiers fly out the window very quickly -- the raised level of troops for the 'crackdown' were also supposed to be short-term.

Military Families Speak Out had issued their [PDF format] statement noting that they represent "over 3,100 military families" and they "have grave concerns" over Reid's statement. The organization "is calling on Congress to stop focusing on what others may or may not do, and take action itself to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq. The U.S. Congress has the power of the purse, and can cut off funding for the war. MSFO understands that there is enough money currently appropriated in the Defense Department's budget to bring all U.S. troops home quickly and safely -- funding the equipment, armor, supplies, food and other items they will need during their exit."

The alternative will likely be the Iraq-ization of Iraq that will follow the same patterns of the Vietnamization of Vietnam as outlined by John Graham (Common Dreams). But the US Congress shows little desire to utilize their power of the purse and deny funding for the illegal war. [The White House budget director, Rob Portman, announced today that the finanical costs on the part of the US for the illegal war will be greater than $110 billion.]
CODEPINK and Gold Star Families for Peace are among the groups calling for actions in DC next month, January 27th through 29th, to demand the new Congress live up to the peace mandate they were voted in on.

Among the violence today in Iraq was an armed heist. CNN reports that approximately 20 men, utilizing four vehicles, made off with the US equivalent of nearly one million dollars while some "were dressed in camouflage uniforms similar to Iraqi Security Forces' uniforms". Christopher Torchia (AP) reports that they "drove up to the Zuwiyah Bank i Baghdad's Karradah neighborhood and fired automatic weapons in the air, then handcuffed guards and robbed accountants" (he also notes that 26 of the people abducted in the mass kidnapping at the Iraqi Red Crescent's Baghdad offices on Sunday have been released -- 16 are still unknown and the total number of those kidnapped Sunday is 42.)


Bombings?

Reuters report that a roadside bomb in Kirkuk left seven police officers wounded while, in Baghdad, a car bomb took one life and left three wounded. CBS and AP report at bombing "at a medical facility flying a Red Crescent flag" in Baghdad. Mohammed al Awsy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a mortar attack "west of baqouba" that killed 3 children and left eight more injured. Christopher Torchia (AP) notes two dead in Baghdad and seven wounded from a mortar attack while two died from a roadside bomb.

Shootings?

Mohammed al Awsy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that 2 police officers were shot dead in Baquba. Christopher Torchia (AP) notes that a college sudent was shot dead in Mosul.


Corpses?

Reuters reports that four corpses were discovered in Mosul, 12 corpses were discovered in Baquba. Mohammed al Awsy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that 53 corpses were discovered in Baghdad (and offers a very thorough breakdown of who was found where within the capital), that Mitashar al Sudami's corpse was also discovered after the actor was "kidnapped yesterday" and that eight corpses were discovered in al Tahreer.

As the violence and chaos continues, 'normal' is a dream. Dahr Jamail and Ali al-Fadhily (IPS) examine the issue of children attending school in a war zone and find that "attendance rates for the new school year, which started Sep. 20, are at an all-time low" -- while approximately 75% of Iraqi children were attending schools in 2005, the figure has now dropped to 30 percent. Along with falling attendance is falling literacy rates (and Iraq had one of the highest rates of literacy in the Middle East prior to the illegal war). Jamail and al-Fadhily note Um Suthir who explains that her children are in danger just traveling to school and another Iraqi who explains, "We are now living in a factory building, and there is no school near our shelter. I've had to ask for my oldest boy to help cover expenses by working as a cleaner at a mechanic's shop nearby."

No 'justice,' no 'liberation,' no safety and even the area Iraqi's long taken pride in (their high levels of literacy) are now falling as the illegal war drags on. In peace news, Carolyn Ho, mother of Ehren Watada, was interviewed by Dalia Hashad, Michael Smith, and Michael Ratner on WBAI's Law and Disorder Monday. Ehren Watada is the first US officer to refuse publicly to deploy to Iraq. Ho spoke of being "stunned" on January 1, 2006, when her son told her of his decision. Dalia Hashad asked, "You were upset with your son because he didn't want to go to war?" Ho replied, "Well, you know, all I could think of was I just did not want him to be vilified in the press. All I could see was this was my son trying to face the military-industrial complex. It was just totally overwhelming and I just was not prepared for it. It was days that I had to think through this. It was just feelings of grief, of anger that he was doing this to himself."

Ho has spoken with member of Congress and hasn't been overwhelmed by their response. She noted, "I feel that my son's case is not seperate and apart from the legislative branch." And though Congress and the military wishes to act as though it's as cut and dry as her son just refusing an order, Ho feels "this government is going to have to face reality."

Ehren Watada knows the war is illegal and the resaon for the refusal to deploy is not a secondary issue but the primary one in his case -- whether the military or the US Congress wants to admit it. Michael Ratner revealed that Eric Seitz' attorney has spoken with him about the prospect of Ratner testifying at Watada's February court-martial.

Dalia Hashad raised the issue of Watada's role in "the larger anti-war movement" and Ho offered, "I think that he holds the banner as do all the other refusenics. I think that people sometimes say that he is a part of it and not the other way around but I think it needs to be perceived in the broader context and that with his victory, I believe truly that it will be a victory for the people and for the movement because the movement progresses with each case and each victory is something that brings us further along the line. I think that he does not operate in a vacuum, that he has been inspired by others that went before him and he will be an inspiration for other to follow."

Watada is a part of a resistance movement within the military that includes Kyle Snyder, Darrell Anderson, Joshua Key, Ivan Brobeck, Ricky Clousing, Mark Wilkerson, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Jeremy Hinzman, Corey Glass, Patrick Hart, Clifford Cornell, Agustin Aguayo, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, and Kevin Benderman. Those are some of the war resisters who have gone public and over thirty US war resisters are currently in Canada attempting to be legally recognized. Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Appeal for Redress is collecting signatures of active duty service members calling on Congress to bring the troops home -- the petition will be delivered to Congress next month.


Ehren Watada spoke with Robert Shikina (Honolulu Star -Bulletin whose Gregg Kakesako is among the reporters subpeoned by the prosecution to testify in the February court-martial).
"It'll all be over pretty soon. In one way or another, it'll all be over," Watada told Shikina. "Now at least I know I have a date and it's set. And I know after that point, one way or another, it's going to end." Though the court-martial is due to begin in February, pre-trial motions start January 4th. Watada and Ann Wright (retired US army colonel, retired US State Department official) will speak at 7:00 p.. tonight at the Church of the Crossroads, 1212 University Ave, in Honolulu.

Meanwhile, in England, new developments emerge in the inquiry into the 2003 death of a British soldier. Steve Roberts died March 24, 2003 in Iraq. Michael Evans (Times of London) reports that at an inquest into Roberts' death (classified under the euphimism "friendly fire"), Osfordshire's assistant deputy coroner, Andrew Walker, testified, "To send soldiers into a combat zone without the appropriate basic equipment is, in my view, unforgiveable and inexcuseable and represents a breach of trust that the soldiers have in those in government." Last week, as reported by Yorkshire Post Today, the inquest heard a tape recording that Steve Roberts had intended to be a letter to his wife, Samantha Roberts, where he noted, "Kit we're being told we are going to get, we're not. It's disheartening because we know we're going to have to go to war without the correct equipment." Samantha Roberts' reaction to the latest development in her husband's inquest, "The coroner found failing in training and command in the run-up to and after the shooting, but the single most important factor was the lack of enhanced body armour. If Steve had had that he would be with us today."

Returning to the issue of the US Congress funding the war, Cindy Sheehan (writing at BuzzFlash) wonders where Democratic Congress members such as Sherrod Brown believe that the monies for the domestic programs they're advocating will come from if the illegal war continues to be funded? Noting that, the Harry Reid's 'surge' and more, Alexander Cockburn (CounterPunch) analyzes the work of the New York Times war pornographer Michael Gordon: "Indeed no reporter has played a more assiduous role in fostering this 'surge' option than Gordon, a man who somehow skipped free of the misreporting charges that finally caught up with his former colleague Judith miller, even though he shared a byline with Miller in the very worst report, the claim that aluminum tubes were hard evidence of Saddam's WMD program. In the past months, in the Times and on CNN Gordon has been laying down a propaganda barrage against speedy withdrawal and for a hike in US troop numbers in Iraq. When [John] Murtha ran for the House majority leadership position, the New York Times front-paged two stories by Gordon attacking Murtha's advocacy of rapid withdrawal, and promoting a troop increase."


iraqehren watada









Posted by at

Monday, December 18, 2006

No title comes to mind


The illustration to the left is the cover of The Nation you didn't see all year long because they were too busy wasting everyone's time giving the finger. It goes with '"F.U." from The Nation' (The Third Estate Sunday Review).

There will be no requests that they turn over anything (to the US military) because they have done so very little, week after week.

They don't care about war resisters or they would have covered Kyle Snyder, Mark Wilkerson, Darrell Anderson, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck or any of the people who stood up and stated publicly they were not going to serve in the illegal war.

The Nation doesn't care. Message received.

The magazine doesn't care about the people. It cares about sucking up to the Democratic Party, it cares about hiding behind flags.

I didn't catch C-Span Friday but C.I. did and that was almost included in the article. It was a really long article. I think C.I. will write about it in "And the war drags on" Thursday. I don't want to spoil that so I'll just note Amy Goodman didn't shrink up and hide on the program. Give her credit for guts and, as C.I. has pointed out before, not hiding behind the military or the flag.

In fact, let me note a section from Democracy Now! today (the full hour was Howard Zinn giving a speech -- you should check it out if you missed it):

They've taken over the country. They've taken over the policy. They've driven us into two disastrous wars, disastrous for our country and even more disastrous for people in the Middle East. And they have sucked up the wealth of this country and given it to the rich, and given it to the multinationals, given it to Halliburton, given it to the makers of weapons. They're ruining the environment. And they're holding on to 10,000 nuclear weapons, while they want us to worry about the fact that Iran may, in ten years, get one nuclear weapon. You see, really, how mad can you be?
And the question is, how has this been allowed to happen? How have they gotten away with it? They're not following the will of the people. I mean, they manufactured a will of the people for a very short time right after the war started, as governments are able to do right after the beginning of an armed conflict, in order to able to create an atmosphere of war hysteria. And so for a short time, they captivated the minds of the American people. That's not true anymore. The American people have begun to understand what is going on and have turned against the policies in Washington, but of course they are still there. They are still in power. The question is, you know, how did they get away with that?
So, in trying to answer the question, I looked a little at the history of Nazi Germany. No, it's not that we are Nazi Germany, but you can learn lessons from everybody and from anybody's history. In this case, I was interested in the ideas of Hermann Göring, who, you may know, was second in command to Hitler, head of the Luftwaffe. And at the end of World War II, when the Nazi leaders were put on trial in Nuremberg, Hermann Göring was in prison along with other of the leaders of the Nazi regime. And he was visited in prison by a psychologist who was given the job of interviewing the defendants at Nuremberg.
And this psychologist took notes and, in fact, a couple of years after the war, wrote a book called Nuremberg Diary, in which he recorded -- put his notes in that book, and he recorded his conversation with Hermann Göring. And he asked Göring, how come that Hitler, the Nazis were able to get the German people to go along with such absurd and ruinous policies of war and aggression? And I happen to have those notes with me. We always say, "We happen to have these things just, you know, by chance."
And Göring said, "Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war? But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy. The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they’re being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism. It works the same way in any country."
I was interested in that last line: "It works the same way in any country." I mean, here, these are the Nazis. That's the fascist regime. We are a democracy. But it works the same way in any country, whatever you call yourself. Whether you call yourself a totalitarian state or you call yourself a democracy, it works the same way, and that is, the leaders of the country are able to cajole or coerce and entice the people into war by scaring them, telling them they're in danger, and threatening them and coercing them, that if they don’t go along, they will be considered unpatriotic. And this is what really happened in this country right after 9/11. And this is happened right after Bush raised the specter of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and got for a while the American people to go along with this.
But the question is, how did they get away with it? What about the press? What about the media? Isn't it the job of the press, isn't it the job of the media, isn't it the job of journalism to expose what governments do? Don’t journalists learn from I.F. Stone, who said, "Just remember two words," he said to young people who were studying journalism, he said, "Just remember two words: governments lie"? Well, but the media have not picked up on that. The media have gone along, and they embraced the idea of weapons of mass destruction. You remember when Colin Powell appeared before the United Nations just before the onset of the Iraq war and laid out to the UN this litany of weaponry that Iraq possessed, according to him, and gave great details in how many canisters of this and how many tons of this, and so on and so forth. And the next day, the press was just aglow with praise. They didn't do their job of questioning. They didn't do their job of asking, "Where? What is your evidence? Where did you get this intelligence? Who did you talk to? What are your sources?"


Now in the feature at The Third Estate Sunday Review I linked to earlier, an e-mail came in from a community member who is part of the Truth Movement and judging by his e-mail, his feelings were hurt. That's not me being sarcastic.

The thing was edited and C.I. always takes great pains to make sure that everyone's feelings are respected. Jim thought it was covered and cut out two paragraphs because he thought they were repeating. C.I. didn't agree that they were repeating but didn't want to re-read the article.
I should have said something but I knew what Jim was thinking which was, we've covered this. Not just in that article but in others as well.

"We'll listen" was explained in greater detail and got cut. That doesn't mean, "Oh dig us, so sympathetic." It's a reference to Drunk Uncle's assertion that 'those people' are everywhere.
It's never been a problem for C.I. (and C.I.'s noted this before which was why Jim felt comfortable editing). If something matters, C.I. listens.

What 'we'll listen' means is that we're not engineers or scientists and our focus is getting the troops home. The Truth Movement cares about that as well (and that was noted before it got edited down) and see the two as related. I don't think anyone can dispute that the government didn't use 9-11 to justify attacking Iraq. (But maybe the Susan Seaforth Hayes of independent media could?).

What was being counted on during the editing was that, most of all, every 1 was familiar with C.I.'s oft noted policy which goes something like this: "I don't know everything. I can't follow everything. Things I do follow, I don't know enough to comment on. I'm not going to gas bag on every topic."

Anyone involved in the Truth Movement knows they are giving a huge amount of time to study and explore. That's time we don't have. We don't think that time's wasted. We just don't have the time the same way we care about the environment but that's not our focus.

I was so upset when I read the e-mail because we weren't trying to say, "Oh, we'll listen to the sillys." We listen with interest and most of us listen to Bonnie Faulkner each week.

C.I.'s noted (after I outed it, sorry, I didn't realize I was outing) that friends who are firefighters do not believe the story -- friends who were part of the rescue effort. C.I. doesn't think they're crazy and doesn't humor them by listening. C.I.'s genuinely concerned. We were counting on that point being made and it was a case where we did need to repeat (if the stuff C.I. had in there that got cut was repeating) because we certainly did not mean to hurt anyone in the Truth Movement.

Jim will tell you he can be an asshole. He can be, we all can be. But he tends to take pride in it. However, when I read him the e-mail I got on the feature, he was honestly upset that someone's feelings had been hurt. If it had been some idiot in indy media, he wouldn't have given a damn. But this did matter because we were working so hard to show that this is something that people study (they don't just sit around taking hits off a honey bear they've turned into a bong and pulling theories out of their ass) and invest so much time in and that we are interested. We will listen, we will read. But our focus is the war. The way someone else might be focused on 9/11 or the environment or Guantanamo or whatever.

The member who e-mailed made a point to draw a line and put the blame on the other side of C.I. and I think that's because he realized that C.I. has gone to great pains to be respectful. We're not going to sneer and mock. People are dedicating their lives to this and they are unearthing information that is valuable. We tried very hard to get that across and if anyone else was offended, I do apologize and so does Jim.

The man who e-mailed noted how much dedication it takes from him and others and that is absolutely true. And it is respected by everyone working on that feature. If that wasn't clear, it was due to editing and not intent.

Those of us who listen to Bonnie, listen to her eagerly (on all topics). We support her work and we do not slam her. We also had a paragraph that got cut where we said if independent media (The Progressive, The Nation, etc.) is so interested all the sudden, why is it none of them can talk to Bonnie Faulkner? Get her opinion?

Cedric had a really important point and when C.I. found that was cut (after it posted) (it was a comment on race -- about a paragraph and a 1/2), C.I. was mad. There were a lot of things cut to make that a readable piece. We probably worked four hours writing that. By the time it was being edited, it was already seven in the morning. We would continue until after eleven o'clock or right before. And we started at five p.m. on Saturday. Some people took breaks but on the West coast, we worked straight through. We were just wanting to get it up. (Ava and C.I. realized Sunday night they hadn't mentioned Rosanna Arquette's performance in Crash. They'd meant to.) Everyone was tired and C.I.'s grabbing the blame on the member's feelings being hurt by saying, "I should have read it." But everyone was so tired.

Jim didn't edit out the longer section out of malice. The thng was very long and he and Dona were tightening it. He thinks if one person was offended and wrote in, a few more probably were offended and didn't write. So he asked me to note that he's very sorry that he thought the points were clear and he could remove the sections he did.

I've explained this to the member who wrote (over the phone, I asked him for his phone number and apologized over the phone because, on this issue, it does matter to me -- if he'd been in California, I would've seen if we could meet up and I could apologize and explain in person) but if anyone else felt the same way, let me be clear (a) that was not our intent and (b) Jim is sorry, I'm sorry. C.I.'s in beat-up mode over not reading over the article before it posted.
Jim said, "You don't need to be. ___ is not mad at you." C.I. doesn't care about 'mad,' C.I.'s upset that a member of the community felt a wall was being put up between him and the community.

Hopefully that clears things up. Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Monday, December 18, 2006. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, a mass kidnapping Sunday targeted the Baghdad offices of the Iraqi Red Crescent, KPFA listeners learn on air that the US military is very interested in the station's programming, the US military announces the deaths of three troops in Iraq, and Howard Zinn notes the realities of this illegal war, "They're not fighting for their country. They're not doing their families any good. They're certainly not doing the people over there any good. But they're doing it for their government, they're doing it for Bush. That would be more accurate to say, 'I'm going off to fight for George Bush'."

On KPFA's The Morning Show today, guests included attorney Dan Siegel and Gary Hill (Ethics Chair of the Society of Professional Journalists) who discussed the targeting of journalists by prosecutors who are unable to do their own work -- specifically as it related to Dahr Jamail and Sarah Olson. Hill reminded that journalists are supposed to act independently and that "is hard to do" when you're supposed to be a witness for the prosecution. Jamail, Olson and Gregg Kakesako (Honolulu Star-Bulletin) are being asked to provide some form of testimony in the court-martial of Ehren Watada. The supposed reason is to provide confirmation that what they wrote is true. Kakesako and Olson have been subpoenaed. Jamail has yet to be. As Philip Maldari (co-host with Andrea Lewis) pointed out, Jamail posted a transcript of Watada's speech in Seattle to Veterans for Peace at Truthout and the same page provides the option of watching the entire speech on video. (Those who prefer audio or do not have video capabilities can refer to KPFA's Flashpoints Friday, September 15th broadcast that includes portions of the speech.) So the US military has trouble determining video it sees with its own eyes? (That might explain the failure of those in commanding roles not to grasp that the war is lost.)

It's interesting request by the US military because in Watada's August 17th Article 32 hearing, they were able to just play clips from the speech. With regards to Watada, Hill noted that journalists were being sought because the military wants to prosecute Watada for what he said "and I find that very troubling in the United States." [Those charges fall under contempt toward officials and conduct unbecoming an officer.] Siegel noted that if Watada's going to be prosecuted for his speech, Bully Boy should be prosecuted for his lies that led to war.

Olson was scheduled to appear (I believe Jamail was as well but missed any comment on that) but was advised by her attorney not to while the legal strategy is still being worked out. Last week, Olson told Aaron Glantz (IPS), "This morning at 8:45 someone came to my house and delivered a subpoena. It's absolutely outrageous. It's a journalist's job to report the news. It is not a journalist's job to testify against their own sources." Olson's interview with Watada originally appeared at Truthout and was run by Left Turn -- Left Turn is the only left magazine to print an article about Watada (or for that matter -- any of the war resisters who began coming forward last summer). Possibly they're so shocked by Olson's interview (conducted in May) because Watada was (rightly) calling Iraq a civil war even then?

In one of the more surprising moments during the discussion, Siegel revealed that KPFA's
also being asked to supply information. Specifically, the US military has requested a program provide them with a "transcript" of their broadcast. The program, unidentified on air, is most likely KPFA's Flashpoints where hosts Dennis Bernstein and Nora Barrows-Friedman have regularly interviewed war resisters such as Carl Webb, Mark Wilkerson, Kyle Snyder, Ivan Brobeck (the only outlet to avoid performing The Full Brobeck in fact Barrows-Friedman interviewed Brobeck on the November 6th broadcast -- the only interview he gave before turning himself in the next day). Flashpoints airs Monday through Fridays at 5:00 pm PST. Flashpoints began broadcasting in 1991 offering coverage of the Gulf War. Siegel stated that the program had said "no."

KPFA is the nation's oldest public radio station and was started long before NPR. Lewis Hill founded KPFA Pacifica Radio and the station began broadcasting in 1949 (94.1 FM in most of California, originating out of Berkeley and also carried on KPFB and KCFC). KPFA was the first Pacifica Radio station and Pacifica Radio is also the first public radio network in the United States. KPFK would follow in 1959 (Los Angeles), then WBAI (New York) in 1960, KPFT (Houston, TX) in 1970 and WPFW in 1977. In addition there are affiliates throughout the United States. (Click here for the history of the network.) While it's good when anyone listens, even the most casual listener should be aware that all programs are archived and a copy of most broadcasts can be purchased. All of the Pacifica stations are listener supported.

Support Baghdad is currently doing without is the Iraqi Red Crescent. Following Sunday's mass kidnapping at their offices in Baghdad, the BBC reports that the IRC is suspending operation "till further notice." The International Committee of the Red Cross puts the number of people abducted Sunday at thirty and notes that "The Iraqi Red Crescent officers are clearly identified by the red crescent emblem." The BBC notes that the IRC is Iraq's "biggest humanitarian organisation". CNN reports that six of the thirty abducted were released on Sunday and that the mass kidnapping involved 20 vehicles and men "dressed in camoflage Iraqi commando uniforms". CBS and AP note that the IRC "has around 1,000 staff and some 200,000 volunteers in Iraq." AFP notes that the main office in Baghdad was closed as well as "another 40 subsidiary offices in Baghdad, affecting more than 600 staff, a large portion of them security guards" and notes that. of the 30 kidnapped, 17 have now been released. Al Jazeera quotes ICRC spokesperson Nada Doumani, "All offices in Baghdad have closed, but this will not affect the work in the other 17 provinces."

The kidnapping took a backseat in some press outlets to Tony Blair's show visit in the Green Zone Sunday -- despite the fact that Britain's prime minister repeated the same song and dance he's been performing for months. The Guardian of London observes: "It speaks volumes about the dire state of the Middle East that a foreign head of government visiting Iraq dare not stray beyond the heavily fortified 'green zone' in central Baghdad and that the entire Gaza Strip - the centre of the region's latest escalating crisis - is now strictly out of bounds on security grounds. Tony Blair's pledge that British troops will stay in Iraq 'until the job is done' had an unreal air as he stood by Nuri al-Maliki yesterday with the disastrous mayhem of daily life -- mass kidnappings, bombings and shootings - continued unabated".


And today?

Bombings?

In Baghdad, Al Jazeera notes "a car bomb at the entrance of a wholesale vegetable market killed five people and wounded 19". Mohammed al Awsy (McClatchy Newspapers) notes that was one of two bombings targeting vegetable markets (the other, seven hours earlier, resulted in seven being injured and a mortar attack in Shah Ali killed one person and wounded twelve more including seven women ("The people were from families displaced from baqouba city").

Reuters notes the following: three police officers wounded by a roadside bomb in Baghdad, a car bomb "planted in a car carrying Electricity Ministry officials killed the driver and wounded two in easter Baghdad", one dead in Hawija from a roadside bomb and another wounded,


Shootings?

Reuters notes an attack onthe "female staff at the Ministry of Education" in Baghdad in which one woman was shot dead and two others wounded; a police officer shot dead in Kirkuk; and that Khaireddine al-Dabagh was shot dead in Mosul where he served on the city council. Mohammed al Awsy (McClatchy Newspapers) notes the Baghdad shooting death of Colonel Adil Abdullah Kadhum.


Corpses?

AFP reports that 44 corpses were discovered in Baghdad. Mohammed al Awsy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that the number of corpses discovered in the capital grew to 49 while a corpses was discovered in Samara, two in Mosul and nine in Baquba.



Today the US military announced: "One Soldier assigned to 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division died Dec. 15 from wounds sustained due to enemy action while operating in Al Anbar Province." Earlier on Monday they announced: "One Marine assigned to Regimental Combat Team 5 died Dec. 16 from wounds sustained due to enemy action while operating in Al Anbar Province." Later today, the US military announced: "Baghdad Soldier was killed and another injured when a Bradley Fighting Vehicle rolled over during a route clearance mission north of the Iraqi capital Dec. 18. The incident is still under investigation. In the month of December, Soldiers in the same area north of the Iraqi capital have found eight roadside bombs and a weapons cache disabling the terrorists ability to disrupt operations by Iraqi Army and coalition forces and wound or kill innocent Iraqi citizens." This brings the number of US troops known to have died in Iraq this month to 60 -- eight shy of the total for the entire month of December last year; however, there are still 13 days left in this month.

Despite this reality, the 650,000 plus Iraqis who have died since the start of the illegal war, some are calling for more troops to be sent to Iraq. The KPFA Evening News reported yesterday that the group calling for that includes US Senator Harry Reid who expressed his support for a 'temporary' surge of US troops "for two or three months" on ABC's This Week.
On the broadcast Dahr Jamail offered his opinion of Reid's nonsense: "Let's not forget that during the Vietnam war this was called 'escalation' not 'temporary increases' or anything like this, but this is an escalation of the occupation"; while David Swanson's reaction no doubt spoke for many: "Look we voted on Nov. 7th in the clearest national mandate Congressional election in US history. I mean, this was a statement by the American people that we want to end this war and already our new majority Democratic Senate in Congress are talking about, not ending the war, in fact, of escalating it. Obviously the surest way to end it and withdraw is not to send in more troops but to withdraw."
While Reid lives in the land of delusion, Michael Moss has been exploring the realities of Iraq's prisons. In Sunday's New York Times, Moss reported on 'justice' -- most Iraqi 'trials' last 15 minutes, the public defenders are paid $15 per class, that you can be convicted -- as two Iraqi males were -- for 30 years when the US military claims you attacked a hospital that even the hospital adminstrator swears was not attacked, and notes Karen Hanrahan (former US "State Dapeartment's rule-of-law coordinator in Iraq") explaining that public defender systerm "was never financed in part because judicial planning was dominated by American prosecutors who took a dim view of defense lawyers."

After delivering that appalling news, Moss returns in Monday's New York Times to chart the wrongful arrest and imprisonment of a former Navy veteran, Donald Vance, who blew the whistle on the contractor he was working for but the US military couldn't straighten that out; they could, however, deny him and other prisoners "the right to a lawyer at detention hearings to determine whether they should be released or held indefinitely" as the documents Vance left with bear out. Sunday's report by Moss noted that if you are one of the few an Iraqi judge finds not guilty, that doesn't mean you walk out of the court room and are free. Instead, if found innocenct in an Iraqi court, the US military then grabs you and throws you in their prisons. Iraqi 'justice' can be counted on to hand out the death penalty (and has) but the US military doesn't believe it's up to determining innocence which, Karen Hanrahan might point out, has a lot to do with the way the system was set up (by the US).
Meanwhile, a prisoner has escaped from a prison in Iraq. Amit R. Paley (Washington Post) reported on October 12th that, the day prior, Iraqi-American citizen and former Iraqi electricity minister Aiham al-Sammarae had been "convicted of corruption and sentenced to two years in prison. Afterward, U.S. troops took custody of Sammarae . . .because he fears being killed if he was placed in jail". He need fear not currently. The BBC reports he escaped from his prison in the Green Zone and that this was "the second time that Samarrai has escaped from custody" -- earlier, after he was convicted, he was caught at Baghdad International Airport with a Chinese passport.


In other legal news, Reuters reports that the US military will announce charges against Marines over "the killing of 24 civilians in Haditha" this coming Thursday.


Finally, Howard Zinn is the subject of today's Democracy Now! as he addresses the realities of not only the current illegal war but of wars in general. Amy Goodman and company broadcast a speech he gave recently in Madison, Wisconsin which notes the uses of 'terrorism' to build fear, the ways people are manipulated by leaders, the way the press fawns over officials, and a great deal more.



the kpfa evening news

dahr jamail
Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)