I was taking portraits this morning and sometimes I hate my job. In this instance, I had a woman who got on my last nerve. She wanted this, she wanted that. She wanted to look this way and that way. It's a camera, not a magic mirror. At one point, she was bored complaining so she asked what I liked to do. I said "Follow the news."
Huge mistake. She got really excited (which at least allowed for some useable pictures) as she explained that she did too! She is obsessed (her word) with Anna Nicole Smith and Britney Spears. Have I been following that news?
I explained to her that I really didn't consider that news that effected or impacted my life. Sailed right over her head. But she explained she didn't just watch "news" on TV (Extra is her favorite "news" program), she also read magazines to keep up with "current events." She read The Star and Us magazine. Sometimes she read People too but she really didn't care for their photos. Too many black & white ones, she explained.
Now if this woman was in her mid-twenties or younger, I might cut her some slack. I might assume she's a victim of the news media that's so distorted what news actually is, that she's not able to tell it when she sees it. But she was well over thirty. She was also well off. Thanks to her marriage. (She proudly referred to herself as "a trophy wife.")
I just kept thinking, "How sad is this? A grown woman who should be educated running off at the mouth about Britney shaving her head or was Anna Nicole doing drugs when she died?" Then I thought of something sadder, that I had to listen to that nonsense while taking her picture. I told her she'd have to stop talking because her lips would be a blur in the photos otherwise. (A lie, but she believed it.)
Sumner told me I really needed to urge people to read "Talking artistic representation with The Common Ills' Isaiah" (The Third Estate Sunday Review) because "it's a lot deeper than it seems." He's read it three times now. I agree and Isaiah's pretty on the ball. (I doubt he's ever even mentioned the words "Anna Nicole Smith.")
Back to the woman, she thought I was strange. (And I may be.) So in fairness, I'll share that she was shocked that I rarely watch TV. I have a little one in the kitchen and I have big one in the living room. I don't usually turn them on. If I'm sick, I will turn them on. I'll camp out on the couch and watch the big TV or take the little one into the bedroom.
I have no idea why. I think it's just the comfort of knowing when I wake up, it'll be on. Like no matter how sick I am, if the TV's on, everything's going to be fine. Leaving it on, means I live. I don't even have to have the sound on (and often don't), just that flickering screeen.
So I got home just in time to catch Guns and Butter on KPFA. This week's show revolved around Dr. Steven F. Freeman's speech. He's with the University of Pennsylvania. He was bothered by the 'flip' in the votes compared to the exit polls when he woke up the day after the 2004 election. He wrote a paper which wasn't supposed to be circulated but was, over all. He's revised it and he was speaking about what he discovered regarding the stolen election of 2004. He noted that Republicans play to win and Democrats tend to play to advance. (Offering that Al Gore's 'defender' during the 2000 recounts ended up being nominated for boards by James Baker.) It was a very interesting speech, with many citations, but not so heavy that you couldn't follow it if you weren't heavy into statistics. (I'm not.) If you missed the program and go to Guns and Butter or KPFA's archives to hear it, there was something at the start of the program, music, that made me think Bonnie was being pre-empted. So give it a few seconds and don't think you're hearing the wrong thing.
That's going to be it for me. Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Wednesday, February 28, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq; wounded US service members get targeted by the US administartion; Dems in Congress play "hot potato" with the war (and don't seem to grasp that they'll end up holding it); and US war resister Joshua Key declares, "Iraq is a country and it's going to have to make its own path in history and its own way in life. No other country can do that and you definitely can't do that by means of a gun or a tank. But they have to make their own course and do whatever's necessary for themselves. I think that no outsiders are going to help it or solve the problem."
Starting with news of petty retaliation which, after all, is the Bully Boy's M.O. as demonstrated for the last seven years (if not sooner.) As noted by Aaron Glants today on KPFA's The Morning Show, Kelly Kennedy (Army Times) is reporting that Walter Reed Army Medical Center's Medical Hold Unit patients are being "told they will wake up at 6 a.m. every morning and have their rooms ready for inspection at 7 a.m., and that they must not speak to the media" in what is widely seen as a punishment for the recent Washington Post expose on the deplorable conditions at what is supposed to be the United States top facility for military medical care. In addition, Kennedy reports, the soldiers receiving medical care were informed that will move from Building 18 into Building 14 and, just happenstance -- surely, unlike Building 18, Building 14 requires that "reporters must be escorted by public affairs personnel."
In a series of articles that concluded last week, Dana Priest and Anne Hull (Washington Post) examined the realities behind the image of the 'premier medical center' -- focusing largely on Building 18, and revealed problems such as cockroach infestation, lack of heat, lack of water, mice and black mold, clerks that were overworked or didn't care. The answer for the US administration when confronted with reality is apparently the same answer they always reach for "DESTROY." Joe Wilson goes public about Niger, out Valerie Plame (his deep cover CIA wife). Soldiers talk to the press about the deplorable conditions that the administration is fine with them living in? Punish the soldiers.
The Bully Boy who loves strut around in uniforms (with or without codpieces) is far less willing to do anything to actually help the soldiers wounded in his illegal war and the administration's answer to the Walter Reed scandal is to punish the troops with daily inspections and other idiotic chores WHILE THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE RECEIVING MEDICAL CARE FOR THEIR WOUNDS.
Turning to news of war resisters, Tina Chau (Hawaii's KMGB9) reports that Ehren Watada's court-martil has been set for July 16-20 and that the "pre-trial motions are to be heard on May 20 and 21." In June, Watada became the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. In August of last year, the military held an Article 32 hearing at Fort Lewis to determine whether or not to go forward with a court-martial. At the start of this month, the court-martial of Watada began and ran for three days -- on the third day, Judge Toilet (aka John Head) ruled a mistrial over the objections of the defense (and initially without even the prosecution in support of a mistrial). Eric Seitz, Watada's civilian attorney, has maintained that the double-jeopardy clause of the Constitution now applies and that he will appeal any attempts to court-martial on that basis.
Lehia Apana (The Maui News) reports that Ehren Watada's father Bob and his step-mother Rosa Sakanishi were at the Maui Community College Library on Monday where Bob spoke to "an energetic crowd" of at least 75 people about his son and how "he believes the judge realized his son had a chance of being acquitted of the charges and therefore forced the prosecution to request a mistrial."
Last Friday the military re-filed charges against Watada, the day prior, as Conor Reed and Steve Leigh (Socialist Worker) observe was Mark Wilkerson's court-martial and that he issued a statement, "My Conscience is Clear," at his website:
I am now a twenty three year old man. When I made the decision to join the Army, I was a boy. When I made the decision to go AWOL I was still in many ways a boy.I realize in retrospect that going AWOL may not have been the right decision for me to make, but given the circumstances I found myself in at that time, I felt it was the only logical decision for me. I felt as though I wasn't being taken seriously by my chain-of-command. I was crushed when my conscientious objector application was denied. I had failed somehow in conveying in words just what I felt in my head and heart, and that was that I could not, in good conscience, serve as a soldier in the United States Army. I could not deploy to a foreign land with a weapon in my hand, representing my government. I am not willing to kill, or be killed for my government. When I enlisted in the Army, I thought I would be able to, but after Iraq, my beliefs became such that I could no longer participate.This was what I told my chain-of-command. I felt they didn't care what I said or believed. So I fled. I quit my job. No other occupation in the United States punishes you as badly as what the military does for quitting your job. But that's ok. I'm willing to face whatever punishment the government deems appropriate.In my Battalion's Retention Office, there is a quote by Retired Army General Bernard Rogers, and it states "This is a volunteer force. Soldiers volunteer to meet our standards. If they don't meet them, we should thank them for trying and send them home." Well, I enlisted into the Army with the best intentions. I had other options. But I wanted to serve my country. And when I felt my country was doing the very thing we pretend to condone, I took a stand. And to me that is the core of democracy. If the Army feels as though I didn't meet the standards, they should thank me for trying and send me home. There's no lesson prison can teach me. Prison is established for criminals who committed crimes that the majority of our society can say in morally wrong. And with this crime, I don't know if that can be said. Even though I committed a crime, I'm no criminal. And even if I do go to prison, I'm no longer a prisoner. My conscience is clear. I'm no menace to society. I have stayed true to myself and my moral code throughout my life, and that will never change. Just let me live my life, and I know I will live it well.
Susan Van Haitsma (CounterPunch) shares some of her encounters with Wilkerson and observations before concluding: "Mark wanted to help his country, but his country betrayed him. His country capitalized on his honorable intentions, gave him false promises, fed him misinformation, used him to carry out inhumane missions, caused him psychological injury and then punished him by making him an object lesson for his fellow GI's. In fact, Mark is an example of the best kind, for all of us. In the same courtroom where soldiers were sentenced for harming Abu Ghraib prisoners, Mark was sentenced for refusing to harm."
Wilkerson is scheduled to be released in September; however, the judge could release him earlier. Going before a judge Tuesday, March 6th in Germany is war resister Agustin Aguayo. Workers World notes that he is "charged with desertion and missing movement because of his refusal to go to Iraq." Though not etched in stone, the military has generally attempted to use desertion charges for those who were absent without leave for a month or more. In Aguayo's case, they've elected to toss that (Aguayo was gone from September 2nd through September 26th). Gillian Russom (Socialist Worker) spoke with Helga Aguayo, Agustin's wife, about his case, his feelings about the war, her own and much more. Agustin was a medica and he joined the military to support his family and to help people (he and his wife have two young daughters). Helga explained to Russom that, for her, it was seeing the experiences of military families that made her start questioning the war -- the creation of "geographical single mothers" -- and that for her husband, a book on Iraq's history took him from conscientious objector to the belief "that the war in Iraq has essentially been created of the personal gain of a few people." Helga also notes that her husband saw Sir! No Sir! and "it just revved him up for what he knew he might have to face." He's facing? Agustin Aguayo could be sentenced to as many as seven years in prison if convicted during his court-martial because the military is going for desertion. Why go for desertion?
Aguayo and Kyle Snyder both were screwed over by the military in different ways and they were among the last ones going public. (Snyder is back in Canada.) Tossing aside the rule of thumb re: desertion to charge Aguayo with that is considered as part of an effort by the military to clamp down on the growing movement.
Aguayo, Watada, Wilkerson and Snyder are part of a movement of resistance with the military that includes others such as Camilo Mejia, Patrick Hart, Ivan Brobeck, Darrell Anderson, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Joshua Key, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Corey Glass, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.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.
Joshua Key, war resister and author of the new book The Deserter's Tale, speaks with Christina Leadlay (Canada's Embassy Book Review) and notes that the passport requirement for travel back and forth between the US and Canada "would deter a lot of people [who] don't have passports, and if you're on the run and a deserter from the military, you're not going to be able to gain that passport." Joshua, his wife Brandi and their children went to Canada after Key returned from Iraq. There, he has sought refugee status and is currently appealing the denial of asylum. Key describes his decision to join the military as part of "the military's poverty draft" telling Leadlay: "You're stuck. You have no money. There is no other choice. If you want health care, if you want steady pay, and if you're even considering going to college, the [military] billboards pretty well offer it to you. When I joined there was not a wealthy person in the entire operation. I'd never seen a rich person in the military. I'd never seen a politican's son; I'd never seen anybody with any stature. We were all the same . . . coming from places that most people wouldn't even hear of, small towns, farms boys, and you're just looking for a way out."
Key's statements jibe with the study Kimberly Hefling (AP) reported on last week -- the communities in America that are most directly effected by the US military death toll in Iraq -- almost half of the dead are "from towns . . . where fewer than 25,000 people live" and that "nearly three quarters of those killed in Iraq came from towns where the per capita income was below the national average. More than half came from towns where the percentage of people living in poverty topped the national average."
Sir! No Sir!, noted above, is a study of resistance within the military during the Vietnam era. The amazing documentary, directed by David Zeiger, was recently re-released in a special director's cut version with additional bonus features. In addition, (audio link) DJ Dave Rabbitt interviews Jane Fonda here. DJ Dave Rabbitt, along with Pete Sadler and Nguyen, operated an underground radio station (Radio First Termer) while serving in Vietnam. (He also acts as the dee jay for the soundtrack to Sir! No Sir!)
Returning to Minority Rights Group International (PDF format) report Assimilation, Exodus, Eradication: Iraq's minority communities since 2003," we'll note that it examines the abuses minorities in Iraq are suffering. Yesterday, we focused on women. Today, we'll note that the religious and ethnic minoirites (who "make up about 10 percent of the Iraqi population") include Armenians, Baha'is, Chald-Assyrians, Fali Kurds, Jews, Mandaens, Palestinians, Shabaks, Turkomans and Yazidis.
A table on page 12 of the report charts the diminishing Mandaean population in Iraq by looking at the figures for April 2003 and the figures for April 2006. In 2003, 1600 families lived in Baghdad and three years later the figure had dropped to 150. Though that was the largest drop, the Mandaen population diminished in all areas -- Baquba (from 200 families to 40), Diwaniya (from 400 to 62), Kirkuk (from 250 to 75), Kut (from 400 to 65), Missan (from 900 to 300), Nasriya (from 950 to 320) and Ramadi (from 275 to 75). The report notes that "Mandaen or Sabian religion is one of the oldest surviving Gnostic religions in the world and dates back to the Mesopotamian civilisation. John the Baptist is its central prophet and water and access to naturally flowing water remain essential for the practice of the faith. Scholars believes the religion pre-dates the time of John the Baptist, however, and is has a similar creation myth to the Judeao-Christian Adam and Eve story." The report also notes that the Mandaen language has been "listed in the 2006 UNESCO Atlast of the World's Languages in Danger of Disappearing" and that their faith does not allow them to carry weapons and "forbids the use of violence". The report traces a similar disappearance of Jewish people noting that in 2003 there were "a few hundred" Jews in Baghdad, by 2005, the number had dropped to only 20 and that by 2006 there were only 15 Jews living in Baghdad (most assumed to be "older than 70" years-old).
And in Iraq today . . .
Bombings?
Reuters notes a mortar attack in southwestern Baghdad that left nine wounded, a car bobm in southern Baghdad ("near a vegetable market") that killed 10 people and left 21 wounded, a bomb attack on a Baghdad police station that killed 2 police officers and left two more wounded, a roadside bombing in Riyadh that wounded four Iraqi troops, a mortar attack in Iskandariya that killed a woman and a man, and a mortar attack in Mahmudiya that killed one person and left four members "from the same family" wounded.
Shootings?
CNN reports: "Two brothers of a prominent Sunni politician were shot and killed Wednesday, the Iraqi Islamic Party said in a statement. Salim al-Joubori's brothers were killed in Muqdadiya, north of Baghdad. Al-Joubori is a member of parliament and spokesman for the Iraqi Accord Front, Iraq's biggest Sunni Arab political bloc." Reuters notes a man shot dead ("inside his car") in Tikrit, and the shooting death of Abdul-Haid Mahmoud in Mosul. CBS and AP report that, in Taji, "Eight people died when American helicopters and fighter planes fired on a palm grove".
Corpses?
Reuters notes a corpse discovered in Himreen, and the corpse "of a police colonel who had been kidnapped two months ago" discovered in Baghdad.
Today, the British Ministry of Defence announced "the death of a British soldiers in Iraq as a result of an incindent on the morning of 27 February 2007."
Yesterday, Dahr Jamail spoke with Nora Barrows-Friedman on KPFA's Flashpoints on a number of topics (click here for Rebecca's summary) and on the violence and the oil law, he stated, "I absolutely find no evidence on the ground to support that statement that this oil law is going to unite Iraq or anything like that. I think it's just blatant propaganda that would go along with the signing of this legislation that is really, the approval of the draff of the oil law essentially which has basically paved the way for western oil companies to finally get their hands on Iraq's oil which is what this has been about or one of the primary reasons the invasion was launched to begin with and so the corporate media, outlets like National Public Radio -- you know the joke on the ground with me and many of my colleagues from the United States who were operating in Baghdad was we would call it 'National Petroleum Radio' or 'National Pentagon Radio' because their reporters always love to embed I saw them ebedded in places like Falluja or in Baghdad, on more than one occassion -- and so that they're now issuing this propaganda that I'm sure would make the Pentagon very happy and of course the US State Department and the Bush administration and the corporations that support them saying that this is a very good thing, a positive thing. It's another way to put a spin on the occupation just like the transfer of soveriegnty on June 28, 2004 was a 'positive' thing, just like the Jan. 30, 2005 'elections' were a positive thing. And we all know, those of us with pulses, where those events have taken us today."
As all the above goes down, Anne Flaherty (AP) reports that, in the US House of Representatives, "Democratic leaders are developing an anti-war proposal that wouldn't cut off money for U.S. troops in Iraq but would require President Bush to acknowledge problems with an overburdended military. The plan could draw bipartisan support but is expected to be a tough sell to members who say they don't think it goes far enough to assuage voters angered by the four-year conflict." Dana Bash (CNN) reports that efforts continue "to bridge differences within the [Democratic] party after backwing away from legislation that would set condictions on war funding." That would be US House Rep John Murtha's proposal. Bash quotes Yawn Emmanuel making his usual self-serving statements and notes that the Senate's 'bravely' (my mock, not Bash's) decided to postpone debating anything "for at least two weeks." (Insert joke about Bully Boy being "The Decider" here.) Yesterday, US Senator Russ Feingold issued the following statement:
I am working to fix the new proposal drafted by several Senate Democrats, which at this point basically reads like a new authorization. I will not vote for anything that the President could read as an authorization for continuing with a large military campaign in Iraq. Deauthorizing the President's failed Iraq policy may be an appropriate next step if done right, but the ultimate goal needs to be using our Constitutionally-granted power of the purse to bring this catastrophe to an end.
With few exceptions, including Feingold, the Democrats holding Congressional office appear more than willing to take Bully Boy's war and make it their own which is what they do as they rush to grab cover and refuse to call out an illegal war. Meanwhile, Larry Kaplow (Cox News Service) reports that a "public affairs guidance" note was "sent to units in Iraq from the Baghdad command" which includes generic talking points created by the Pentagon which may also be controlling the Democratic Party judging by their own generic talking points. Meanwhile Edward Epstein (San Francisco Chronicle) reports that there is no backing away from the Murtha plan but don't pin your hopes on it, Yawn Emanuel shows up to offer more talking points. Jill Zuckman and Aamer Madhani (Chicago Tribune) may call it best: "Democrats in the House and Senate are struggling to find the best way to express congressional disapproval of the war and President Bush's troop buildup. They are wary both of going too far and not going far enough" -- "wary being the key word.
Finally, in policy news, Jake Tapper (ABC News) reports that when US House Rep Marty Meehan "introduces legislation to overturn the ban on openly gay and lesbian troops serving in the military," he will be joined by Eric Alva (a Staff Sgt. "first U.S. Marine seriously wounded in Iraq" -- March 21, 2003) who is now openly gay.
Alva tells Jose Antonio Vargas (Washington Post): "The truth is, something's wrong with this ban. I have to say something. I mean you're asking men and women to lie about their orientation, to keep their personal lives private [. . .] That's one fact. The other factor is, we're losing probably thousands of men and women that are skilled at certain types of jobs, from air traffic controllers to linguists, because of this broken policy."
iraq
ehren watadaagustin aguayomark wilkersonkpfa
aaron glantz
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
nora barrows friedmanflashpointsdahr jamailsteve leighconor reed
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Walter Cronkite, Tariq Ali
So as the Iraq war continues and continues and continues . . . A voice from the past speaks out. A friend in San Jose passed this on. It's from Hank Plante's "Cronkite In CBS 5 Interview: Iraq War A 'Disaster'" (San Jose's CBS ):
It was in 1968, when CBS Anchorman Walter Cronkite did a combat tour of Vietnam, and came back highly critical of that war.His pronouncement that the Vietnam War was unwinnable led to such a shift in public opinion against the war that President Lyndon Johnson said, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost America." The 90-year-old Cronkite was in San Jose on Friday addressing the Commonwealth Club. In an exclusive interview with CBS 5, he weighed in on the situation in Iraq."We should have gotten out a long time ago. This is a mistake, this entire war there, its a disaster. And the earlier we get out the better," Cronkite said. "It's a terrible disaster. Look at the loss of lives of our young Americans there and those who have been maimed for life, for what purpose? No purpose we can define."
No purpose we can define. As someone who can remember when Cronkite was the evening news, it's like Moses handing down another commandment. I don't know how it will play with others. In the late 90s, a friend, a young friend who was 19, would always say of some guy that ticked her off, "Oh, he talks like he thinks he's Walter Cronkite." After about the seventh or ninth or twentieth time, I asked her, "What do you know about Walter Cronkite?" She really didn't. She just knew he did the news before she was watching (though she was born before he left, she was probably three or four years old when he retired from the CBS' Evening News) and that he was considered a trusted voice. So someone like that would get that the above is pretty big. But I do wonder how many others would?
Switching topics, Toni, Dak-Ho and I all had the time to go to lunch today -- a rare thing during the week. And we had Chinese. I don't usually look at the fortune cookies (or eat them) but they both insisted and made me promise to note it when I blogged. So here is the fortune: "You will attend an unusal party and meet someone important." I don't take fortune cookies seriously. I don't take horiscopes seriously. If you do, good for you and don't let me spoil them for you.
Horiscopes was something my best friend from high school and I were heavily into. We were the same sign and we'd read them every day in high school. (I don't remember anything ever coming true.) Then, post-high school, it was just this thing we'd always check in on. I took it lightly (if someone wants to do a personal horiscope, I'll look at that, but I'm talking about the little lines in the paper that are supposed to cover every one in the world of that sign) but I was really bothered to realize how seriously she was taking it. She ended a marriage because of a horiscope and also ended up heavy in debt one year because of a horiscope.
The thing that bothered me were the end of the year ones. She would always call me on New Years and read what our horiscope was supposed to be. And it never came true. So I got more than a little bitter and also noticed how she not only allowed it to make decisions for her but also would delude herself. If there was a problem that needed addressing (job or personal), she would get lost in that "Good things a'coming!" nonsense. It started to feel, to me, like heroin. And she was really addicted to it.
If you believe in the daily horiscopes in the newspapers, don't let me spoil it for you. Maybe you've actually found things that came true? But I just don't take them or fortune cookies very seriously. (Again, if someone does my chart, I am always grateful. I got one of those last year for my birthday and it is so beautiful and intricate that I've framed it and put it up on the wall.)
Younger than Cronkite, but equally as trusted to those of us in the know, Tariq Ali continues to be a voice worth hearing. This is from his "The Khyber Impasse: the Case for Withdrawal from Afghanistan" (CounterPunch):
It is Year 6 of the UN-backed NATO occupation of Afghanistan, a joint US/EU mission. On 26 February there was an attempted assassination of Dick Cheney by Taliban suicide bombers while he was visiting the 'secure' US air base at Bagram (once an equally secure Soviet air base during an earlier conflict). Two US soldiers and a mercenary ('contractor') died in the attack, as did twenty other people working at the base. This episode alone should have concentrated the US Vice-President's mind on the scale of the Afghan debacle. In 2006 the casualty rates rose substantially and NATO troops lost forty-six soldiers in clashes with the Islamic resistance or shot-down helicopters.
The insurgents now control at least twenty districts in the Kandahar, Helmand, Uruzgan provinces where NATO troops have replaced US soldiers. And it is hardly a secret that many officials in these zones are closet supporters of the guerrilla fighters. The situation is out of control. At the beginning of this war Mrs Bush and Mrs Blair appeared on numerous TV and radio shows claiming that the aim of the war was to liberate Afghan women. Try repeating that today and the women will spit in your face.
Who is responsible for this disaster? Why is the country still subjugated? What are Washington's strategic goals in the region? What is the function of NATO? And how long can any country remain occupied against the will of a majority of its people?
So, you got Cronkite, you got Ali, you got a fortune cookie and a discussion on horiscopes. I've got to stop now because there's a party tonight and I've never been to anything like it, so I'm not sure what to wear . . . I'm joking. I'm actually going over to C.I.'s when I post that. (If you didn't grasp the joke, you missed the fortune in the cookie.) Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Tuesday, February 27, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq; was a soccer field bombed or did the US military detonate a controlled explosion; the Iraqi oil law moves from the cabinet to the parliament but no one's supposed to notice; 4 US troops are announced dead; a new report reveals women and other minorities are suffering in the US occupied Iraq;
and call it "civil war," a US official says it's okay.
Starting with the subject of war resisters. Agustin Aguayo was the topic today on KPFA's The Morning Show and Philip Maldari spoke with Jeff Englehart and Tom Cassidy of Iraq Veterans Against the War. Pointing to the common thread between Aguayo, Mark Wilkerson and Ehren Watada, Englehart observed: "These guys have basically opted not to go based on the illegality of the war and the criminality of it." They then addressed Aguayo's case specifically noting that he was "a medic who actually signed up to help people, not to take lives," that he refused to load his weapon while serving in Iraq (Cassidy: "I'd say that more than anything validates his conscientious objector status."), and how being in Germany added a physical distance (his wife Helga is attempting to raise money to travel to the court-martial). They discussed how the AWOL process varies from case to case (Cassidy: "It seems like no two AWOL cases are the same" Englehart: "Military justice is an oxymoron."), and how those serving on Aguayo's jury will be "guys who are lifers," "serious hardliners basically determining the fate of his life." The also addressed the war.
Engelhart: Jeff: Generally I kind of questioned the war from the very outset and I went into Iraq very skeptical. But it was while I was there I saw some things that really solidified in my mind what I would consider an anti-war sentiment. . . The most important thing I saw that really turned me against the war was the, uh, well two things really. A lot of the civilian deaths. Basically the way I saw a lot of the civilians deaths, and there were many, they were caused because of our complicit involvement in the occupation.
Maldari: . . . Complicity with who was killing whom and why?
Jeff: Well anytime you have an occupying force and the strongest military in the world occupying heavily populated urban areas, civilian deaths occur on any given second in response to small arms attacks from insurgents. We have to understand, we're using some of the most advanced weaponary in the world, like 50 caliber machine guns, . . . grenade launchers, you know, 500 lb bombs, 1000 lb bombs, depleted uranium, white phosphorus . . . All these things take into account. And you're dropping them essentially on civilian neighborhoods and you're using them in civilian neighborhoods. And a lot of those civilians deaths I saw were the result of sectarian differences basically what I viewed as our US forces pitting ethnic groups against each other to establish a subservient ethnicity to govern the Iraqis but a lot of those car bombs and suicide bombs that killed a lot of civilians was internal, it was in fact internal, but what I viewed as basically our own involvement was causing it. And a lot of times in any kind of urban strife just our own sheer power would destroy, you know, vast amounts of urban neighborhoods. And that's one thing I think we really lost the war in the fact that we lost the hearts and minds and you really can't win the hearts and minds with shock & awe.
Maldari: Well I interrupted you. You said you had a second reason as well.
Englehart: Just the dehumanization of Arab culture. As opposed to what the West would like to view the Arabs as backwards people who need our help. And . .. . Just scratch the surface of any kind of knowledge you would want to gain from the Arab world, you'd find that they are peaceful people, who are very intelligent and can govern themselves without any help.
Cassidy spoke of the derogatory words "used on a lot of official documents as a term to describe the Iraqi people which is sad because we had a civil rights movement like forty or fifty years ago and we still haven't gotten over just blatantly being racist to other cultures."
Elsa Rassbach (American Voices Abroad Military Projects) joined them in the last five minutes. And, FYI, re: Thomas Cassidy and Jeff Englehart. They have been speaking on campuses [AnnMarie Cornejo (San Luis Obispo Tribune) reported on a high school appearance last Thursday] and they and other members of Iraq Veterans Against the War are very interested in discussing their experiences. If you'd like to request a speaker, click here.
To clear up some confusion. Mark Wilkerson was sentenced to seven months as part of a plea agreement. Mark Wilkerson was also charged with being AWOL. Though he was not gone a full month (he was gone September 2nd through September 26th), Agustin Aguayo has been charged with desertion. Desertion charges come with longer potential sentences than do charges of AWOL. Aguayo is facing a maximum of seven years imprisonment if he is found guilty in the March 6th court-martial and if he receives the maximum sentence.
Maldari noted these upcoming events for Aguayo:
*6:30 War Memorial Building in San Francisco tonight. (401 Van Ness). This is a fundraising dinner.
*Tomorrow (Tuesday) 10 to noon City College of San Francisco Diego Rivera Theater, Ocean Campus, presentation of Iraq: The Case For Immediate Withdrawal and The Growing Military Resistance to the War.
* Saturday, in Oakland, 7pm to 2 am a party benefit that will include dee jays and performers (Taiko Ren, Qeen Deelah & Cov Records Artists, ICAF-Oakland, Zazous, Fuga, DJ Zahkee and Qbug.
For more information on the above, click here.
An article in Germany's Der Spiegel, by Mary Wiltenburg, mentions Aguayo but it is not about Aguayo. (About a fifth of the article covers Aguayo.) Wiltenburg looks at the growing resistance "[o]n military bases across Germany" and, noting there are "no guarantees," reports: In practice, many soldiers who go AWOL overseas follow the advice of the Army's deserter hotline and quietly turn themselves in to Ft. Sill or Ft. Knox. Ft. Knox spokeswoman Gini Sinclair says most of the 14,000-plus troops who have been processed through the two centers since the invasion of Aghanistan were discharged within two weeks." Wiltenburg speaks with Michael Sharp ("director of the Military Counseling Network, a non-profitogranisation near Heidelberg that helps American soldiers who are considering leaving the service") and reports: "Last month the group took on 30 new clients, three times its previous average."
Meanwhile, Carolyn Tate and Maizie Harris Jesse (Nevada Appeal) note: "Thirty-nine years ago in March, the horrible incident at Mai Lai in Vietnam occurred. When Lt. William Calley was court martialed, he insisted he was just following orders. Remarks were made at the time that he should have disobeyed and refused to kill civilians. Now they are trying to court martial Lt. Ehren Watada for refusing to deploy to Iraq. Lt. Watada has said he will go to Afghanistan and fight, but not Iraq, because he believes it to be an 'illegal' war (we agree). Double standard? Is it his Mai Lai? Or is he derelict for not following orders? Think about it."
Yesterday on The KPFA Evening News, Aaron Glantz reported on the army's decision to refile charges against Ehren Watada last Friday. Eric Seitz, Watada's civilian attorney, stated, "It is my professional opinion that Lt. Watada cannot be tried again because of the effects of double-jeopardy. . . . Once jeopardy has attached and it clearly did attach in this case when the jury panel was sworn in and when the first witness testified the protection against double-jeopardy applies as a Constitutional matter."
Jeff Paterson (Courage to Resist, Not In Our Name) told Glantz: "The military wanted to avoid showing to all the other people, all the other troops who are facing 2nd and 3rd and 4th deployments to Iraq is that if you don't go to Iraq and you speak out, you'll have a thousand people rally to your defense, pay all your legal bills, Sean Penn will hang out with you and [you will] go to prison for a few months or do you go to Iraq? And I think some people would go for that deal of the public support and spending a few months in prison instead of Iraq."
Glantz also noted that Mark Wilkerson was sentenced to seven months last Thursday and that he will be imprisoned until September (unless he is released early).(Glantz' report also aired on yesterday's Free Speech Radio News).
This month is an anniversary as well. First Coast News' Shannon Ogden noted: "This month is also the anniversary of Camilo Mejia's release from military prison." Mejia was released on February 15, 2005. Mejia self-checked out of the military after serving in Iraq and received a one-year sentence. Odgen spoke with Camilo Mejia who states, "You know, I couldn't really justify, I'd say, 90 percent of the things we did in Iraq." He also offers that "the entire invasion lacked authority . . . it was not in response to an attack on the US." Echoing the issue Tate and Harris Jesse raised above, Mejia noted, "In the military, we have a duty to refuse an order that we know is illegal." He also notes, "Absolutley. And I do feel like a coward but not for not going back but for going in the first place. Because I knew the war was wrong from the beginning." Odgen mentioned that Mejia will soon begin a lecture tour behind his upcoming autobiography. That book is Road from ar Ramadi: The Prviate Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia -- due out May 1st, from The New Press, with an afterword written by Chris Hedges.
Aguayo, Watada, Wilkerson and Mejia are part of a movement of resistance with the military that includes others such as Kyle Snyder, Patrick Hart, Ivan Brobeck, Darrell Anderson, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Joshua Key, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Corey Glass, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.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.
Turning to the topic of violence in Iraq but starting with what's seen as yesterday's attempt on Iraq's Shi'ite vice president Adel Abdul-Mahdi. On yesterday's The KPFA Evening News,
Mark Mericle noted that yesterday's bombing at the Ministry of Public works raised a number of questions including how the bomb got into the building and when since US forces had walked through with bomb sniffing dogs prior to the start of the conference.
Bringing the violence up to today, AFP reports that US Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell told the Senate Armed Services Committee today that "civil war" was the term to use in describing Iraq and that deterioation will continue at recent rates barring some ability to halt the chaos "during the 12-18 month time frame" that the crackdown is expected to last. To repeat, 12 to 18 months. That's "good news" the same way that the 600+ corpses discovered in Baghdad for the month thus far is down because of the 'crackdown'! (That's a nonsense talking point and we're not even bothering to link to it.) Meanwhile, Al Jazeera reports: "Minority groups in Iraq are facing 'desperate conditions', 'a barrage of attacks' and the threat of being 'eradicated' from their homeland." That's based on a new (PDF format) report from Minority Rights Group International (based in London). The report, credited to Preti Taneja, is entitled "Assimilation, Exodus, Eradication: Iraq's minority communities since 2003." We'll zoom in on women (pp. 5-6):
A further hidden layer is the degenerating situation for women from minorities. They are subject to rape and harassment from sectarian groups, as well as a continuing toll of domestic violence in their own communities.
Pages 22 and 23 focus soley on women and the section kicks off with the chair of the Iraqi Women's League, Souad Al-Jaziry, noting that the chaos and violence "provide a golden opportunity for the reactionary forces to impose their will, curtail the role of women and violate their rights." (A topic Rebecca was addressing yesterday.) Both the attacks and the fear of being attacked result in "a progressive curtailment of freedom in daily life, including not being able to drive or go out without a male relative to accompany them. In March 2006, Women's Right Assoication (WRA), a local Baghdad NGO, reported that since 2003, the number of women attacked for choosing not to wear head scarves or veils has more than tripled." Confinement to the home (for many) results in "raising families traumatised by living in fear." It notes that minority women face increased threats and that they are more likely to be raped, the victims of other violence, and little legal recourse ("funamentalists cite a belief that that rape of an 'unbeliever' constitutes an act of purification and is not unlawful" -- an "unbeliever" can be a Christian, Jew, Baha'is, etc.). Due to the lack of legal action (see Nouri al-Maliki's own rush to judgement last week for just one example) when reported and the social opinions of the victims (who are often blamed for the rape instead of the attacker), most rapes go unreported. In addition the police maintain that they do not have the resources to pursue the cases. The example of one 18-year-old is given. The unnamed woman "was abducted, raped, then forced to wear a belt loaded with explosives and sent to bomb a cleric's office in Khadamiyah, where she turned herself into the police." Her reward? Seven years in jail "for her sake" (the rape meant she was less than 'pure'). (FYI, those incidents are among the reasons we do not use the term "suicide bomber.") The section covers women being kidnapped and forced to convert to other religions by their kidnappers (whom they 'marry' under duress). This includes Mandaean women as well as Yazidi women. Women who are 'unbelievers' are often denied employment, education and forced to wear a hijab or other Islamic article of clothing. The section concludes by noting how weak women's rights are in the Iraqi constitution.
That's the constitution under Bully Boy. Women had more rights under the constitution in place before the illegal war.
The (PDF format) report has other sections and we'll address some of them tomorrow but the general response to these reports by news organizations has been to ignore the section of the continued destruction of women's rights in Iraq so that was our first focus. And, again, that's from the London based Minority Rights Group International.
Chaos and violence continued though there's a bombing in dispute. Dean Yates and Ibon Villeabeitia (Reuters) note that the US military claims no knowledge of a bombing in Ramadi that is said to have taken place on or near a soccer field and killed 18 people while Iraqiya state TV is broadcasting that the 18 were 12 children and 6 women. The Telegraph of London cites "an Iraqi defence official" who says that in addition to the 18 dead, 20 boys were wounded but note that the US military stated "a controlled explosion carried out today by American soldiers near a football field in Ramadi had injured 30 people, including nine children." Noting both explanations, Brian Murphy (AP) observes: "It was unclear if there were two blasts or whether there was confusion over the casualties from a single explosion."
Bombings?
CBS and AP note "a bomb in a plastic bag at a restaurant killed at least three people and injured 13" in Baghdad. CNN notes that bombing and one at an ice cream shop in Baghdad that resulted in a total of 8 deaths (5 in the ice cream shop alone) as well as a parking lot bombing in Baghdad that claimed one life and left three wounded and a mortar attack in Baghdad that killed two and left six wounded. Reuters notes a truck bombing in Mosul targeting a police station that killed seven and left 47 wounded, a bombing in al-Baaj that killed four and left six wounded and a roadside bombing in Iraq that killed two people and wounded eleven more.
Shootings?
Reuters notes a college student shot dead in Mosul.
Corpses?
Reuters notes four corpses discovered in Baghdad.
The US military reports: "One 13th Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) Soldier was killed and two were wounded in an improvised explosive device attack on their M-1114 HMMWV near Ad Diwaniyah at approximately 10:30 p.m. Feb 26." And they announced: "On Feb. 27, an MND-B unit struck an improvised explosive device while conducting a route clearance mission southwest of the Iraqi capital, killing three Soldiers and wounding another."
Also in Iraq, the long planned and hoped for (by the US administration) Iraq oil law has cleared the cabinet and now awaits the parliament's response. As Andy Rowell (Oil Change International) observes, "'Shared economic interest' i code for giving control of Iraqi oil to US and other multinational oil companies. What many people cannot understand is why the Iraqis are doing it." Danny Schechter (News Dissector) calls it thusly: "The Iraqi Oil Ministry has made a deal to please the international oil companies which, when all is said and done, we will learn was a powerful motive for this war that was totally unexamined in the depth it deserved."
Antonia Juhasz and Raed Jarrar, who've been following this oil law for some time now, team up (at CounterPunch) to report: "Not every aspect of the law is harmful to Iraq. However, the current language favors the interests of foreign oil corporations over the economic security and development of Iraq. The law's key negative components harm Iraq's national sovereignty, financial security, territorial integrity, and democracy. The new oil law gives foreign corporations access to almost every sector of Iraq's oil and natural gas industry. This includes service contracts on existing fields that are already being developed and that are managed and operated by the Iraqi National Oil Company (INOC). For fields that have already been discovered, but not yet developed, the proposed law stipulates that INOC will have to be a partner on these contracts. But for as-yet-undiscovered fields, neither INOC nor private Iraqi companies receive preferences in new exploration and development. Foreign companies have full access to these contracts." The two note, as they have before, that there was no need to rush through an oil law and that attempts by the US to push it through will only further inflame the chaos and violence.
Who owns the illegal war? Speaking with Yanmei Xie on Monday's The KPFA Evening News and Monday's Free Speech Radio News, CODEPINK's Nancy Kricorian explained why it was important for Democrats to make a strong proposal regardless of whether they can garner enough votes to pass legislation: "Then if it fails, that's one thing. But if they continue funding the war and voting for these appropriations bills to fund the war the war is no longer Bush's war, it's the Democrats and the Congress' war because they voted to pay for."
Finally, January 29, 2006, ABC's Bob Woodruff and Doug Vogt were injured in Iraq. For Woodruff, it's been a long struggle back (during which Charles Gibson stole the anchor desk from an injured Woodruff and a pregnant Elizabeth Vargas). Tonight (Tuesday) on ABC (10:00 pm EST), To Iraq and Back focuses on Woodruff's injuries, his recovery, injuries among veterans serving in Iraq and the level of care they are receiving.
ehren watadaaaron glantz
kpfa
the morning showthe kpfa evening news
iraq
agustin aguayo
mark wilkerson
antonia juhaszraed jarrar
It was in 1968, when CBS Anchorman Walter Cronkite did a combat tour of Vietnam, and came back highly critical of that war.His pronouncement that the Vietnam War was unwinnable led to such a shift in public opinion against the war that President Lyndon Johnson said, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost America." The 90-year-old Cronkite was in San Jose on Friday addressing the Commonwealth Club. In an exclusive interview with CBS 5, he weighed in on the situation in Iraq."We should have gotten out a long time ago. This is a mistake, this entire war there, its a disaster. And the earlier we get out the better," Cronkite said. "It's a terrible disaster. Look at the loss of lives of our young Americans there and those who have been maimed for life, for what purpose? No purpose we can define."
No purpose we can define. As someone who can remember when Cronkite was the evening news, it's like Moses handing down another commandment. I don't know how it will play with others. In the late 90s, a friend, a young friend who was 19, would always say of some guy that ticked her off, "Oh, he talks like he thinks he's Walter Cronkite." After about the seventh or ninth or twentieth time, I asked her, "What do you know about Walter Cronkite?" She really didn't. She just knew he did the news before she was watching (though she was born before he left, she was probably three or four years old when he retired from the CBS' Evening News) and that he was considered a trusted voice. So someone like that would get that the above is pretty big. But I do wonder how many others would?
Switching topics, Toni, Dak-Ho and I all had the time to go to lunch today -- a rare thing during the week. And we had Chinese. I don't usually look at the fortune cookies (or eat them) but they both insisted and made me promise to note it when I blogged. So here is the fortune: "You will attend an unusal party and meet someone important." I don't take fortune cookies seriously. I don't take horiscopes seriously. If you do, good for you and don't let me spoil them for you.
Horiscopes was something my best friend from high school and I were heavily into. We were the same sign and we'd read them every day in high school. (I don't remember anything ever coming true.) Then, post-high school, it was just this thing we'd always check in on. I took it lightly (if someone wants to do a personal horiscope, I'll look at that, but I'm talking about the little lines in the paper that are supposed to cover every one in the world of that sign) but I was really bothered to realize how seriously she was taking it. She ended a marriage because of a horiscope and also ended up heavy in debt one year because of a horiscope.
The thing that bothered me were the end of the year ones. She would always call me on New Years and read what our horiscope was supposed to be. And it never came true. So I got more than a little bitter and also noticed how she not only allowed it to make decisions for her but also would delude herself. If there was a problem that needed addressing (job or personal), she would get lost in that "Good things a'coming!" nonsense. It started to feel, to me, like heroin. And she was really addicted to it.
If you believe in the daily horiscopes in the newspapers, don't let me spoil it for you. Maybe you've actually found things that came true? But I just don't take them or fortune cookies very seriously. (Again, if someone does my chart, I am always grateful. I got one of those last year for my birthday and it is so beautiful and intricate that I've framed it and put it up on the wall.)
Younger than Cronkite, but equally as trusted to those of us in the know, Tariq Ali continues to be a voice worth hearing. This is from his "The Khyber Impasse: the Case for Withdrawal from Afghanistan" (CounterPunch):
It is Year 6 of the UN-backed NATO occupation of Afghanistan, a joint US/EU mission. On 26 February there was an attempted assassination of Dick Cheney by Taliban suicide bombers while he was visiting the 'secure' US air base at Bagram (once an equally secure Soviet air base during an earlier conflict). Two US soldiers and a mercenary ('contractor') died in the attack, as did twenty other people working at the base. This episode alone should have concentrated the US Vice-President's mind on the scale of the Afghan debacle. In 2006 the casualty rates rose substantially and NATO troops lost forty-six soldiers in clashes with the Islamic resistance or shot-down helicopters.
The insurgents now control at least twenty districts in the Kandahar, Helmand, Uruzgan provinces where NATO troops have replaced US soldiers. And it is hardly a secret that many officials in these zones are closet supporters of the guerrilla fighters. The situation is out of control. At the beginning of this war Mrs Bush and Mrs Blair appeared on numerous TV and radio shows claiming that the aim of the war was to liberate Afghan women. Try repeating that today and the women will spit in your face.
Who is responsible for this disaster? Why is the country still subjugated? What are Washington's strategic goals in the region? What is the function of NATO? And how long can any country remain occupied against the will of a majority of its people?
So, you got Cronkite, you got Ali, you got a fortune cookie and a discussion on horiscopes. I've got to stop now because there's a party tonight and I've never been to anything like it, so I'm not sure what to wear . . . I'm joking. I'm actually going over to C.I.'s when I post that. (If you didn't grasp the joke, you missed the fortune in the cookie.) Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Tuesday, February 27, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq; was a soccer field bombed or did the US military detonate a controlled explosion; the Iraqi oil law moves from the cabinet to the parliament but no one's supposed to notice; 4 US troops are announced dead; a new report reveals women and other minorities are suffering in the US occupied Iraq;
and call it "civil war," a US official says it's okay.
Starting with the subject of war resisters. Agustin Aguayo was the topic today on KPFA's The Morning Show and Philip Maldari spoke with Jeff Englehart and Tom Cassidy of Iraq Veterans Against the War. Pointing to the common thread between Aguayo, Mark Wilkerson and Ehren Watada, Englehart observed: "These guys have basically opted not to go based on the illegality of the war and the criminality of it." They then addressed Aguayo's case specifically noting that he was "a medic who actually signed up to help people, not to take lives," that he refused to load his weapon while serving in Iraq (Cassidy: "I'd say that more than anything validates his conscientious objector status."), and how being in Germany added a physical distance (his wife Helga is attempting to raise money to travel to the court-martial). They discussed how the AWOL process varies from case to case (Cassidy: "It seems like no two AWOL cases are the same" Englehart: "Military justice is an oxymoron."), and how those serving on Aguayo's jury will be "guys who are lifers," "serious hardliners basically determining the fate of his life." The also addressed the war.
Engelhart: Jeff: Generally I kind of questioned the war from the very outset and I went into Iraq very skeptical. But it was while I was there I saw some things that really solidified in my mind what I would consider an anti-war sentiment. . . The most important thing I saw that really turned me against the war was the, uh, well two things really. A lot of the civilian deaths. Basically the way I saw a lot of the civilians deaths, and there were many, they were caused because of our complicit involvement in the occupation.
Maldari: . . . Complicity with who was killing whom and why?
Jeff: Well anytime you have an occupying force and the strongest military in the world occupying heavily populated urban areas, civilian deaths occur on any given second in response to small arms attacks from insurgents. We have to understand, we're using some of the most advanced weaponary in the world, like 50 caliber machine guns, . . . grenade launchers, you know, 500 lb bombs, 1000 lb bombs, depleted uranium, white phosphorus . . . All these things take into account. And you're dropping them essentially on civilian neighborhoods and you're using them in civilian neighborhoods. And a lot of those civilians deaths I saw were the result of sectarian differences basically what I viewed as our US forces pitting ethnic groups against each other to establish a subservient ethnicity to govern the Iraqis but a lot of those car bombs and suicide bombs that killed a lot of civilians was internal, it was in fact internal, but what I viewed as basically our own involvement was causing it. And a lot of times in any kind of urban strife just our own sheer power would destroy, you know, vast amounts of urban neighborhoods. And that's one thing I think we really lost the war in the fact that we lost the hearts and minds and you really can't win the hearts and minds with shock & awe.
Maldari: Well I interrupted you. You said you had a second reason as well.
Englehart: Just the dehumanization of Arab culture. As opposed to what the West would like to view the Arabs as backwards people who need our help. And . .. . Just scratch the surface of any kind of knowledge you would want to gain from the Arab world, you'd find that they are peaceful people, who are very intelligent and can govern themselves without any help.
Cassidy spoke of the derogatory words "used on a lot of official documents as a term to describe the Iraqi people which is sad because we had a civil rights movement like forty or fifty years ago and we still haven't gotten over just blatantly being racist to other cultures."
Elsa Rassbach (American Voices Abroad Military Projects) joined them in the last five minutes. And, FYI, re: Thomas Cassidy and Jeff Englehart. They have been speaking on campuses [AnnMarie Cornejo (San Luis Obispo Tribune) reported on a high school appearance last Thursday] and they and other members of Iraq Veterans Against the War are very interested in discussing their experiences. If you'd like to request a speaker, click here.
To clear up some confusion. Mark Wilkerson was sentenced to seven months as part of a plea agreement. Mark Wilkerson was also charged with being AWOL. Though he was not gone a full month (he was gone September 2nd through September 26th), Agustin Aguayo has been charged with desertion. Desertion charges come with longer potential sentences than do charges of AWOL. Aguayo is facing a maximum of seven years imprisonment if he is found guilty in the March 6th court-martial and if he receives the maximum sentence.
Maldari noted these upcoming events for Aguayo:
*6:30 War Memorial Building in San Francisco tonight. (401 Van Ness). This is a fundraising dinner.
*Tomorrow (Tuesday) 10 to noon City College of San Francisco Diego Rivera Theater, Ocean Campus, presentation of Iraq: The Case For Immediate Withdrawal and The Growing Military Resistance to the War.
* Saturday, in Oakland, 7pm to 2 am a party benefit that will include dee jays and performers (Taiko Ren, Qeen Deelah & Cov Records Artists, ICAF-Oakland, Zazous, Fuga, DJ Zahkee and Qbug.
For more information on the above, click here.
An article in Germany's Der Spiegel, by Mary Wiltenburg, mentions Aguayo but it is not about Aguayo. (About a fifth of the article covers Aguayo.) Wiltenburg looks at the growing resistance "[o]n military bases across Germany" and, noting there are "no guarantees," reports: In practice, many soldiers who go AWOL overseas follow the advice of the Army's deserter hotline and quietly turn themselves in to Ft. Sill or Ft. Knox. Ft. Knox spokeswoman Gini Sinclair says most of the 14,000-plus troops who have been processed through the two centers since the invasion of Aghanistan were discharged within two weeks." Wiltenburg speaks with Michael Sharp ("director of the Military Counseling Network, a non-profitogranisation near Heidelberg that helps American soldiers who are considering leaving the service") and reports: "Last month the group took on 30 new clients, three times its previous average."
Meanwhile, Carolyn Tate and Maizie Harris Jesse (Nevada Appeal) note: "Thirty-nine years ago in March, the horrible incident at Mai Lai in Vietnam occurred. When Lt. William Calley was court martialed, he insisted he was just following orders. Remarks were made at the time that he should have disobeyed and refused to kill civilians. Now they are trying to court martial Lt. Ehren Watada for refusing to deploy to Iraq. Lt. Watada has said he will go to Afghanistan and fight, but not Iraq, because he believes it to be an 'illegal' war (we agree). Double standard? Is it his Mai Lai? Or is he derelict for not following orders? Think about it."
Yesterday on The KPFA Evening News, Aaron Glantz reported on the army's decision to refile charges against Ehren Watada last Friday. Eric Seitz, Watada's civilian attorney, stated, "It is my professional opinion that Lt. Watada cannot be tried again because of the effects of double-jeopardy. . . . Once jeopardy has attached and it clearly did attach in this case when the jury panel was sworn in and when the first witness testified the protection against double-jeopardy applies as a Constitutional matter."
Jeff Paterson (Courage to Resist, Not In Our Name) told Glantz: "The military wanted to avoid showing to all the other people, all the other troops who are facing 2nd and 3rd and 4th deployments to Iraq is that if you don't go to Iraq and you speak out, you'll have a thousand people rally to your defense, pay all your legal bills, Sean Penn will hang out with you and [you will] go to prison for a few months or do you go to Iraq? And I think some people would go for that deal of the public support and spending a few months in prison instead of Iraq."
Glantz also noted that Mark Wilkerson was sentenced to seven months last Thursday and that he will be imprisoned until September (unless he is released early).(Glantz' report also aired on yesterday's Free Speech Radio News).
This month is an anniversary as well. First Coast News' Shannon Ogden noted: "This month is also the anniversary of Camilo Mejia's release from military prison." Mejia was released on February 15, 2005. Mejia self-checked out of the military after serving in Iraq and received a one-year sentence. Odgen spoke with Camilo Mejia who states, "You know, I couldn't really justify, I'd say, 90 percent of the things we did in Iraq." He also offers that "the entire invasion lacked authority . . . it was not in response to an attack on the US." Echoing the issue Tate and Harris Jesse raised above, Mejia noted, "In the military, we have a duty to refuse an order that we know is illegal." He also notes, "Absolutley. And I do feel like a coward but not for not going back but for going in the first place. Because I knew the war was wrong from the beginning." Odgen mentioned that Mejia will soon begin a lecture tour behind his upcoming autobiography. That book is Road from ar Ramadi: The Prviate Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia -- due out May 1st, from The New Press, with an afterword written by Chris Hedges.
Aguayo, Watada, Wilkerson and Mejia are part of a movement of resistance with the military that includes others such as Kyle Snyder, Patrick Hart, Ivan Brobeck, Darrell Anderson, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Joshua Key, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Corey Glass, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.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.
Turning to the topic of violence in Iraq but starting with what's seen as yesterday's attempt on Iraq's Shi'ite vice president Adel Abdul-Mahdi. On yesterday's The KPFA Evening News,
Mark Mericle noted that yesterday's bombing at the Ministry of Public works raised a number of questions including how the bomb got into the building and when since US forces had walked through with bomb sniffing dogs prior to the start of the conference.
Bringing the violence up to today, AFP reports that US Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell told the Senate Armed Services Committee today that "civil war" was the term to use in describing Iraq and that deterioation will continue at recent rates barring some ability to halt the chaos "during the 12-18 month time frame" that the crackdown is expected to last. To repeat, 12 to 18 months. That's "good news" the same way that the 600+ corpses discovered in Baghdad for the month thus far is down because of the 'crackdown'! (That's a nonsense talking point and we're not even bothering to link to it.) Meanwhile, Al Jazeera reports: "Minority groups in Iraq are facing 'desperate conditions', 'a barrage of attacks' and the threat of being 'eradicated' from their homeland." That's based on a new (PDF format) report from Minority Rights Group International (based in London). The report, credited to Preti Taneja, is entitled "Assimilation, Exodus, Eradication: Iraq's minority communities since 2003." We'll zoom in on women (pp. 5-6):
A further hidden layer is the degenerating situation for women from minorities. They are subject to rape and harassment from sectarian groups, as well as a continuing toll of domestic violence in their own communities.
Pages 22 and 23 focus soley on women and the section kicks off with the chair of the Iraqi Women's League, Souad Al-Jaziry, noting that the chaos and violence "provide a golden opportunity for the reactionary forces to impose their will, curtail the role of women and violate their rights." (A topic Rebecca was addressing yesterday.) Both the attacks and the fear of being attacked result in "a progressive curtailment of freedom in daily life, including not being able to drive or go out without a male relative to accompany them. In March 2006, Women's Right Assoication (WRA), a local Baghdad NGO, reported that since 2003, the number of women attacked for choosing not to wear head scarves or veils has more than tripled." Confinement to the home (for many) results in "raising families traumatised by living in fear." It notes that minority women face increased threats and that they are more likely to be raped, the victims of other violence, and little legal recourse ("funamentalists cite a belief that that rape of an 'unbeliever' constitutes an act of purification and is not unlawful" -- an "unbeliever" can be a Christian, Jew, Baha'is, etc.). Due to the lack of legal action (see Nouri al-Maliki's own rush to judgement last week for just one example) when reported and the social opinions of the victims (who are often blamed for the rape instead of the attacker), most rapes go unreported. In addition the police maintain that they do not have the resources to pursue the cases. The example of one 18-year-old is given. The unnamed woman "was abducted, raped, then forced to wear a belt loaded with explosives and sent to bomb a cleric's office in Khadamiyah, where she turned herself into the police." Her reward? Seven years in jail "for her sake" (the rape meant she was less than 'pure'). (FYI, those incidents are among the reasons we do not use the term "suicide bomber.") The section covers women being kidnapped and forced to convert to other religions by their kidnappers (whom they 'marry' under duress). This includes Mandaean women as well as Yazidi women. Women who are 'unbelievers' are often denied employment, education and forced to wear a hijab or other Islamic article of clothing. The section concludes by noting how weak women's rights are in the Iraqi constitution.
That's the constitution under Bully Boy. Women had more rights under the constitution in place before the illegal war.
The (PDF format) report has other sections and we'll address some of them tomorrow but the general response to these reports by news organizations has been to ignore the section of the continued destruction of women's rights in Iraq so that was our first focus. And, again, that's from the London based Minority Rights Group International.
Chaos and violence continued though there's a bombing in dispute. Dean Yates and Ibon Villeabeitia (Reuters) note that the US military claims no knowledge of a bombing in Ramadi that is said to have taken place on or near a soccer field and killed 18 people while Iraqiya state TV is broadcasting that the 18 were 12 children and 6 women. The Telegraph of London cites "an Iraqi defence official" who says that in addition to the 18 dead, 20 boys were wounded but note that the US military stated "a controlled explosion carried out today by American soldiers near a football field in Ramadi had injured 30 people, including nine children." Noting both explanations, Brian Murphy (AP) observes: "It was unclear if there were two blasts or whether there was confusion over the casualties from a single explosion."
Bombings?
CBS and AP note "a bomb in a plastic bag at a restaurant killed at least three people and injured 13" in Baghdad. CNN notes that bombing and one at an ice cream shop in Baghdad that resulted in a total of 8 deaths (5 in the ice cream shop alone) as well as a parking lot bombing in Baghdad that claimed one life and left three wounded and a mortar attack in Baghdad that killed two and left six wounded. Reuters notes a truck bombing in Mosul targeting a police station that killed seven and left 47 wounded, a bombing in al-Baaj that killed four and left six wounded and a roadside bombing in Iraq that killed two people and wounded eleven more.
Shootings?
Reuters notes a college student shot dead in Mosul.
Corpses?
Reuters notes four corpses discovered in Baghdad.
The US military reports: "One 13th Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) Soldier was killed and two were wounded in an improvised explosive device attack on their M-1114 HMMWV near Ad Diwaniyah at approximately 10:30 p.m. Feb 26." And they announced: "On Feb. 27, an MND-B unit struck an improvised explosive device while conducting a route clearance mission southwest of the Iraqi capital, killing three Soldiers and wounding another."
Also in Iraq, the long planned and hoped for (by the US administration) Iraq oil law has cleared the cabinet and now awaits the parliament's response. As Andy Rowell (Oil Change International) observes, "'Shared economic interest' i code for giving control of Iraqi oil to US and other multinational oil companies. What many people cannot understand is why the Iraqis are doing it." Danny Schechter (News Dissector) calls it thusly: "The Iraqi Oil Ministry has made a deal to please the international oil companies which, when all is said and done, we will learn was a powerful motive for this war that was totally unexamined in the depth it deserved."
Antonia Juhasz and Raed Jarrar, who've been following this oil law for some time now, team up (at CounterPunch) to report: "Not every aspect of the law is harmful to Iraq. However, the current language favors the interests of foreign oil corporations over the economic security and development of Iraq. The law's key negative components harm Iraq's national sovereignty, financial security, territorial integrity, and democracy. The new oil law gives foreign corporations access to almost every sector of Iraq's oil and natural gas industry. This includes service contracts on existing fields that are already being developed and that are managed and operated by the Iraqi National Oil Company (INOC). For fields that have already been discovered, but not yet developed, the proposed law stipulates that INOC will have to be a partner on these contracts. But for as-yet-undiscovered fields, neither INOC nor private Iraqi companies receive preferences in new exploration and development. Foreign companies have full access to these contracts." The two note, as they have before, that there was no need to rush through an oil law and that attempts by the US to push it through will only further inflame the chaos and violence.
Who owns the illegal war? Speaking with Yanmei Xie on Monday's The KPFA Evening News and Monday's Free Speech Radio News, CODEPINK's Nancy Kricorian explained why it was important for Democrats to make a strong proposal regardless of whether they can garner enough votes to pass legislation: "Then if it fails, that's one thing. But if they continue funding the war and voting for these appropriations bills to fund the war the war is no longer Bush's war, it's the Democrats and the Congress' war because they voted to pay for."
Finally, January 29, 2006, ABC's Bob Woodruff and Doug Vogt were injured in Iraq. For Woodruff, it's been a long struggle back (during which Charles Gibson stole the anchor desk from an injured Woodruff and a pregnant Elizabeth Vargas). Tonight (Tuesday) on ABC (10:00 pm EST), To Iraq and Back focuses on Woodruff's injuries, his recovery, injuries among veterans serving in Iraq and the level of care they are receiving.
ehren watadaaaron glantz
kpfa
the morning showthe kpfa evening news
iraq
agustin aguayo
mark wilkerson
antonia juhaszraed jarrar
Monday, February 26, 2007
Feminist Wire Daily, Danny Schechter, etc.
Adding to the chorus of women leaders demanding that President Bush retreat from the possibility of war against Iran, retired Army Reserves Colonel and former high-ranking diplomat Mary Wright asked military personnel to refuse potentially imminent orders to attack Iran. "Attacking Iran will be a crime against peace, a war crime," wrote Wright in a recent column published by Truthout.org.
[. . .]
Wright served 29 years in the US Army and Army Reserves, rising to the rank of colonel. In March 2003, Wright was one of the highest-ranking State Department officials to resign in protest of the Iraq war. Feminist Majority Foundation President Eleanor Smeal joined with Nobel Peace Laureates Jody Williams of the US and Shirin Ebadi of Iran in April of last year to call for a peaceful resolution to the tensions between the two countries. A May 2006 Ms. magazine poll found that 67 percent of US women (compared with 59 percent of men) oppose the US taking a preemptive, unilateral military action against Iran.
That's from Feminist Wire Daily's "Woman Colonel Urges Troops to Refuse Orders if US Attacks Iran." Rebecca and I were on the phone earlier and we both agreed to grab one of the two items at Feminist Wire Daily to make sure people are aware of the resource.
Now I finally got off my ass and postea review on Saturday, "Kat's Korner: Air kisses from Diana Ross" if you haven't seen it already. And let me note Trina's "Arroz Con Pollo in the Kitchen " and Betty's "A Foreign Affairs Columnist Built of Do-Do" which also went up Saturday. (There's another Saturday post that I intend to comment on tomorrow.)
And I type that and then see something I have to note, Elaine's "It's a democracy, not a junta." I wish I had written that. She's addressing toothless measures, and they're not all coming from our Congress. It's incredible writing and the sort of thing we all count on from her.
Bad writing? Maggie passed it on to me. A dumb ass wonders if she has to vote for Hillary Clinton because they're both women? That's not feminism, you idiot and maybe you've spent too much time picking out push up bras and not enough time learning to think?
(When I say things like that I do get how a TV character based on me ended up the way it is but I still don't like that character. I don't blame C.I. and Ava for the character to be clear. I wrote about this for Maria, Miguel and Francisco's newsletter Sunday just to have something to contribute. I thought that would be the start and end of it. But e-mails poured in asking what that was like? It's weird as hell to turn on your TV and see a character that's supposed to be you. Has your job, supposedly has your life. At first I was mad at the friend of Ava and C.I.'s and felt like my soul was being stolen or something. Now I'm not even mad about that. But it's just too weird for me to be objective about it or to watch more than a few seconds of.)
(C.I. explained it best, telling me that the writer grabbed one part of me that would fit and that no TV character is ever going to be fully rounded even if a show airs for years. To answer a question that both Bryan and Charlie e-mailed with, yes, I would be happy if the show was cancelled.)
Feminism, real feminism and not 'gal talk' trying to pass itself off as feminism, was always about supporting pro-women candidates (and maybe becoming one yourself). I don't see Hillary as pro-woman. Those days are long behind her. I also don't give a damn about the dippy, drippy WhiteHouseProject which is a waste of time and money, if you ask me.
In fact, Ava and C.I. covered all of this sometime ago in "TV Review: Commander-in-Chief aka The Nah-Nah Sisterhood:"
We've never doubted that a woman could be president (and at some point will be). But we've never assumed that gender would be an answer. A woman who supports equality? Absolutely, that's a great thing. A woman who makes her way as an exception, backs up an agenda she doesn't believe in and does nothing to help other women? We don't see the point in applauding that.
It's a pertinent issue as two women are repeatedly named as potential candidates in the real world: Condi Rice and Hillary Clinton. If either woman (or both) runs, will we get the same giddy "It's a woman!" nonsense? Under no circumstance would either of us vote for Rice. We'd be reluctant to vote for Clinton considering her waffles on the issue of choice and her stance on the war. But will those issues be silenced in the giddy cry of, "It's a woman! It's a first!"
That's troubling.
Ava and C.I. were exploring that in November of 2005. Now, in 2007, a woman stops flipping through thongs and push-up bras long enough to pretend she's a feminist and wonder if, being a woman, she has to vote for Hillary? Shallow waters run endless (not deep, Paul Simon).
By the way, in "Mailbag," Betty talks about how, had Hillary said "My vote was a mistake" last week, she'd be supporting her right now. No one had a problem with that. Betty (who said I could write about this) respects the way Hillary conducted during the whole Lewinsky ordeal. Betty went through something similar (without cameras and news crews) and she knows how hard a spouse cheating can be. She saw that as a test, a curve ball tossed out, and felt Hillary handled it well and that an argument could be made that she demonstrated she could think on her feet and handle anything that came her way. She still has a lot of respect for Hillary but Hillary's refusal to admit the mistake is why Betty's now going elsewhere. None of us questioned Betty's choice or ragged her about it. I actually think the logic she was applying was very solid. Especially when you contrast it with how Bully Boy's need to always appear to have the upper hand has led to many problems for the country. I'm not for Hillary but there are people who are for reasons other than gender.
Okay, changing topics, this is from Danny Schechter's "The Real Media Mantra: 'Let's Make A Deal'" (BuzzFlash):
Finally here's Rupert Murdoch buying DIRECT TV from John Malone's Liberty Media. The Deal characterized it as an "exchange of gifts befitting of moguls" and ending an "often silly saga in mogul one-upmanship." In the end, Murdoch generated about $3.5 billion in stock gains for his News Corpse. Who lost?
We the taxpayers, of course! While we pay ours, they avoid theirs.Explains The Deal, "And it was all accomplished, of course, in the tax-free manner both moguls prefer." Of course! And don't think that the Bush Administration's favorite media owner was not getting a wink and a nod from the IRS and the interests he shills for. Many of the businesses he promotes can't wait for the new Fox Business Channel, which has already promised to be more corporate friendly than those commies over at CNBC.
Most of our business journalists don't do enough to scrutinize and expose Mafia-like machinations at the top. They tend to beatify the Captains of Capitalism. Media companies rarely expose their own ways of doing business. Often the last place to look for the corporate crimes of media is in the media.
The Deal lashes out at Business Week noting that one week it reads like muckrakers with a cover story on "Gluttons on the Gate:" which "all but declared private equity a criminal enterprise that laid too much debt on its companies, raped them for big dividends, and charged dubious fees to investors."
Okay, I should have covered more than enough topics for one post. Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Monday, February 26, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq; the Iraqi president is out of the country recovering while one of the vice-presidents is targeted; a group that tried so damn hard to play it apple pie learns that when you're given the spotlight and have nothing to say you bore everyone; the privatization of Iraq's oil moves to parliament; and mass protests took place in London and Glasgow over the weekend.
Starting with news of war resistance. Friday, the US military decided to charge Ehren Watada again. In June of last year, Watada became the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. At the start of this month, he was court-martialed for his stand. Over defense objection, and only after repeatedly hinting to the prosecution that they should request a mistrial, Judge Toilet (John Head) declared the court-martial a mistrial. The US military is attempting to maintain that the double-jeopardy clause doesn't apply. Peter Boylan (Honolulu Advertiser) reported Saturday that Eric Seitz, Watada's civilian attorney, was "surprised" by the decision to refile the charges and that he believes "the Army has made so many bad mistakes in this case that the chances of them having a successful outcome are very slim." Tuesday, The Honolulu Advertiser notes, Eric Seitz will debate Michael Lewis at the William S. Richardson School of Law at the University of Hawaii at Manoa -- the debate is billed as "Lt. Watada's Case and the Legality of the War in Iraq" (12:40 pm to 1:25 pm).
Ehren Watada is part of a movement of resistance with the military that includes others such as Kyle Snyder, Patrick Hart, Agustin Aguayo (scheduled to be court-martialed in Germany beginning March 6th), Ivan Brobeck, Mark Wilkerson, Darrell Anderson, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Corey Glass, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.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.
In addition CBS' Lara Logan spoke with a group of people who have signed a petition that states: "As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq. Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S. troops to come home." But, as demonstrated in statements to Logan for the piece that aired Sunday on CBS' 60 Minutes, the war not being "worth the price" doesn't mean that any signer won't go. The speakers took great stride to point out that they were good soldiers who would obey every order. Maybe next time they can be ordered not to sign petitions? Coming off less than appealing (Ronn Cantu: "By volunteering we've done more than about 99 percent of the population"), they (or their egos) may have finally buried their own timid action. Putting out the weakest and most rah-rah voices didn't help. Playing politically stupid didn't help. A smart group of service members put the project together and in the weeks since it's been repeatedly dumbed down for public consumption.
As Mike noted Friday, The Pooper was crowing about how he was the first to cover the timid group -- as though that's something to be proud of? -- but the reality is many others (including Nora Barrows-Friedman, that's Law & Disorder) had covered it long before the Pooper did.
Today, Jon Cohen (Washington Post) reports on the paper's most recent joint-poll (with ABC) which found that respondes favored "Congressional Democrats over Bush to handle the situation in Iraq by a 54 percent to 34 percent margine"; however, there was also "a five-point increase in the number who trust neither the Democrats in Congress nor the President on the issue". This as Jeff Leys (CounterPunch) reports on how Dems in Congress "are buying the Iraq war lock, stock and barrel. Indeed, fewer votes may be cast against continuing Iraq war funding this year than last". The five-point increase in the Washington Post - ABC poll could increase next go round if Democrats do not start recognizing what's gone on around the country. As Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted, "In Election news, five peace activists were arrested on Friday at a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton in San Francisco. They held banners that said 'We Need a Peace Presidet' and 'Hillary, Stop Funding War'." The Occupation Project -- where citizens visit and sit in at the offices of their elected representiatives -- is currently going on throughout the country and you can click here for more information. Meanwhile Margaret Taley (AP) reports that Dems in the US Congress are feeling boxed in by the meaningless, marketed phrase that was created to clampdown on dissent but silly fools thought that adding "We" in front of it would 'frame' it.
Meanwhile, as Molly Hennessy-Fiske (Los Angeles Times) reports, US Secretary of State (and Anger) Condi "Rice spoke out Sunday against efforsts in Congress to limit the role of U.S. forces in Iraq, saying President Bush would not allow himself to be constrained by such a 'micromanagement of military affairs'." Congress, of course, has the right, power and duty to oversee the Iraq war (and bring an end to it). But Rice is fully aware that on the chat & chews she can say whatever she wants and get away with it. It's only when called to testify under oath that things get ugly. All together now, "I believe the title was, 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States'."
Turning from "No one could have guessed" Condi to Ahnold, Peter Nicholas (Los Angeles Times) notes that Republican governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, spoke with Bob Schieffer on CBS' Face the Nation yesterday where he "reiterated . . . that the U.S. needs to set clear timelines for bringing troops home, lest Iraq devolve into a quagmire with no end in sight."
Also appearing on Face the Nation (PDF format warning) was 2008 Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards who stated, "I think the Congress should use its authority, its funding authority to bring down the troop level an initial 40- to 50,000 out of Iraq, and continue to use that authority to redeploy troops out of Iraq over the next year or so." Also, on the issue of those, such as Hillary Clinton, who cannot or will not apologize for their 2002 vote that led to the illegal war, Edwards declared: "I--I think that there are two issues. One is what the situation -- difficult situation we're in, in Iraq now, what's the right and responsible course, and telling the American people and the world, for that matter, the truth about that. I also think it's important for those of us who were responsible for voting on the resolution in 2002 to say whatever the truth is for us about that vote. For those who voted for it, including me, if we believe we were wrong -- and I believe I was -- I think it's important to be honest about that and to say it. But I think that's an individual decision to be made by those who were responsible."
Meanwhile US House Rep and 2008 Democratic Presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich received an award yesterday. "[T]he only Presidential candidate who voted against the original Iraq war authorization and every funding appropriation since has received the first-ever Champion for Peace Award in Hollywood from a group of families of military members opposed to U.S. involvement in the Iraq War. Military Families Speak Out honored Kucinich for being 'a strong advocate for bringing the troops home now and never wavering from that position despite the politics going on,' said Pat Alviso, leader of the organization's Long Beach and South Bay Chapter." Last week, in Nevada, Kucinich noted, "It must be really tough for Presidential candidates to come before the American people and claim that they were tricked, deceived, misled . . . by George Bush? Well here's one person who wasn't. I saw the same information all these other candidates saw."
Across the Atlantic, in the United Kingdom, over 100,000 gathered in London and Glasgow to march against the war Saturday. Matthew Cookson (Socialist Worker) reports on the London rally: "The march once again showed the depth, breadth and vibrancy of the anti-war movement. Thousands of students, trade unionists, Muslims, Christians and campaigners joined the protest." Manchester.com offers that "[t]he main emphasis of the London protest was against the war in Iraq" and that demonstrators met up "at Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park before marching to Trafalgar Square." Arifa Akbar (Independent of London) spoke with Ceinwen Hilton who participated in the 2003 peace demonstration and explained why she was taking part again, "In 2003, the feeling was incredible. I was delighted that people had made an effort to show just how widely the opposition to war was felt. I remember the amazing feeling I had walking down Shaftesubry Avenue and seeing all the cast of Les Miserables cheering us from the balcony. When we were demonstrating four years ago, 600,000 were not dead. I'll be remembering them on today's march." The protests came with a theme song and a video. Life Style Extra reports that Stop The War Coalition has taken the song "War" and created a video with Tony Blair in it, where he appears to be singing the song, with the hopes of getting it into the top ten next Sunday -- "Mobile users can text PEACE1 to 78789 to download the tune" and you can purchase it here and you can watch the video (no purchase necessary) here. The BBC reports that, along with the London and Glasgow rallies, "Relatives of soldiers killed or serving in Iraq set up a camp outside Downing Street on Friday to coincide with the protest. They handed in a letter to Mr Blair calling for all British troops to be withdrawn immediately and demanding a meeting with him." CBS and AP note: "The speakers in London, and at a second demonstration in Glasgow, Scotland, also voiced fears the United States and Britain could take military action against Iran over its . . . nuclear programme."
Iran? As Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted: "The New Yorker magazine is reporting the Pentagon has established a special planning group within the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to plan a bombing attack on Iran. According to investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, the new planning group has been charged with a developing a bombing plan that could be implemented within 24 hours of getting the go-ahead from President Bush. Hersh also reveals that U.S. military and special-operations teams have already crossed the border into Iran in pursuit of Iranian operatives." Iran and Iraq were also addressed on KPFA's The Morning Show today with the guest Chris Toensing of the Middle East Report. Philip Maldari pointed out the push to scapegoat Iran for the problems in Iraq, specifically attempting to draw relationships between Iran and roadside bombs, and, as Toensing noted, "they threw it up against the wall, it didn't stick, so back to the drawing board." [Richard A. Oppel Jr. and James Glanz (New York Times) reported this morning on another attempt to pass weapons off as tied to Iran: "But critics assert that nearly all the bomb components could have been produced in Iran or somewhere else in the region. Even if the evidence were to establish that Iran is the source, they add, that does not necessarily mean that the Iranian leadership is responsible."] Maldari noted the attempts by the US administration to draw ties between Muqtada al-Sadr and Iran while ignoring how close Nouri al-Maliki was to Iran and how al-Maliki was in Iran "for decades before the overthrow of Saddam Hussein." Toensing agreed and observed that, "If one wants to look at major Iraqi political figures who've recently been to Iran, the list would be long and they're all allies of the United States."
Andrea Lewis noted the sentencing of Paul Cortez for his role in the gang rape of Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi and Tinsling pointed out how significant it was that two women came out last week to state that they had been raped by Iraqi security forces. Feminist Wire Daily notes the the gang rapes and quote Jodie Evans (CODEPINK) stating, "This is nothing new. Women . . . pay the worst price of the war, they live in total anarchy and in fear for their lives constantly -- [imagine] how easy rape is in that situation." Feminist Wire Daily also notes that Ann Wright (retired army col.; retired State Dept.) has "asked military personnel to refuse potentially imminent orders to attack Iran." This as Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter (Times of London) report: "Some of America's most seniour military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources. Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack."
Writing at Truthout, Wright noted: "George Bush is going to war again. We see it in the Bush administration's rhetoric about Iran's nuclear program. We see it in the Bush administration's commentary on Iran's reported role in training and equipping Iraqis who are fighting US forces that have invaded and occupied that country. We see it in the Bush administration's criticism of Iran's role in funding and equipping Hezbollah in Lebanon. We see it in the Bush administration's direction to the US military to detain Iranian diplomats in Iraq, breach diplomatic facilities, and capture or kill Iranian operatives in Iraq." CNN reports that five Iranians are currently being held by US forces includ Mohsen Chirazi who has been held since December.
In Iraq the never-ending 'crackdown' continues (ongoing since June). Yesterday, CNN reported that Jalal Talabani had been flown to Amman, Jordan following a collapse. Talabani is the president of Iraq. Today, CBS and AP quote his doctor stating that he was suffering "from exhaustion and a lung inflammation". The presidential post is thought to be ceremonial in Iraq (though those who've read the Iraqi constitution closely dispute this to a degree and also dispute how many powers are actually vested in the country's prime minister position). Serving under Talabani are two vice-presidents, one Sunni, one Shia.
This morning in Baghdad, an attack was launched against Adel Abdul-Mahdi who is the Shia vice-president of Iraq. Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) reported that the bomb was not from a car but actually inside the building a conference was being held in. Ahmed Rasheed and Ibon Villelabeitia (Reuters) report that six people were killed in the bombing, 31 were wounded, that Riad Ghareeb (Public Works Minister) was injured and that Abdul-Mahdi had "shrapnel wounds." CBS and AP report that Tariq al-Hashemi, Iraqi's Sunni vice-president, "has urged the Americans to come up with a 'Plan B' in case the current crackdown fails to stem the violence in Baghdad."
In addition to an attempt on the Shia vice-president's life, Iraq was also rolled by a Sunday bombing that resulted in mass fatalities. Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) reports: "A suicide bomber pushed past guards at a crowded college campus Sunday and set off a thunderous blast that killed at least 40 Iraqis, most of them female students waiting in line to enter classrooms for midterm exames. The attack was the second in recent weeks to target the mainly Shiite Muslim Mustansiriya University. Even as rescue workers mopped up blood from the college grounds, the Iraqi government insisted that the U.S.-Iraqi security plan launched nearly two weeks ago was succeeding." Also yesterday, Sinan Salaheddin (AP) quoted a statement reported to be from Muqtada al-Sadr noting: "I'm certain, just like all oppressed Iraqis are certain, that no security plan will work and no good will come of any occupier. Here we are, watching booby trapped cars exploding to harvest thousands of innocent lives from our beloved people in the middle of a security plan that is controlled by an occupier who does as he please."
Today?
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that an explosion in southern Baghdad killed two police officers and left another wounded, while a mortar attack in downtown Baghdad killed two people and wounded four. Reuters reports one Iraqi soldier dead and two more wounded in a bombing attack on a "checkpoint near the small town of Abbasi".
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an attack in Baghdad on "a center of civil defense unit" which utilized "machineguns and grenades" and left three police officers dead and three more wounded.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that 18 corpses were discovered today in Baghdad.
Also today, the US military announced: "A Marine assigned to Multi National Forces-West was killed Feb. 26 while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar Province."
Last Friday, Antonia Juhasz and Kris Welch discussed the privatization of Iraq's oil on KPFA's Living Room. Andy Rowell (Oil Change International) notes today that the "hugely controversial oil law edged closer to approval after Kurds said some key issues had now been resolved between them and Baghdad." Dr Ashti Hawrami, Kurdistan Regional Government's Minister for Natural Resources, answers some basic questions here and raises more questions (and fears) than he addresses. Robert H. Reid (AP) reports that the proposed law has already been approved by the Iraqi cabinet and now will move to parliament.
iraq
agustin aguayo
ehren watada
antonia juhasz
kpfakris welch
living room
the new york timesrichard a. oppel jr.
[. . .]
Wright served 29 years in the US Army and Army Reserves, rising to the rank of colonel. In March 2003, Wright was one of the highest-ranking State Department officials to resign in protest of the Iraq war. Feminist Majority Foundation President Eleanor Smeal joined with Nobel Peace Laureates Jody Williams of the US and Shirin Ebadi of Iran in April of last year to call for a peaceful resolution to the tensions between the two countries. A May 2006 Ms. magazine poll found that 67 percent of US women (compared with 59 percent of men) oppose the US taking a preemptive, unilateral military action against Iran.
That's from Feminist Wire Daily's "Woman Colonel Urges Troops to Refuse Orders if US Attacks Iran." Rebecca and I were on the phone earlier and we both agreed to grab one of the two items at Feminist Wire Daily to make sure people are aware of the resource.
Now I finally got off my ass and postea review on Saturday, "Kat's Korner: Air kisses from Diana Ross" if you haven't seen it already. And let me note Trina's "Arroz Con Pollo in the Kitchen " and Betty's "A Foreign Affairs Columnist Built of Do-Do" which also went up Saturday. (There's another Saturday post that I intend to comment on tomorrow.)
And I type that and then see something I have to note, Elaine's "It's a democracy, not a junta." I wish I had written that. She's addressing toothless measures, and they're not all coming from our Congress. It's incredible writing and the sort of thing we all count on from her.
Bad writing? Maggie passed it on to me. A dumb ass wonders if she has to vote for Hillary Clinton because they're both women? That's not feminism, you idiot and maybe you've spent too much time picking out push up bras and not enough time learning to think?
(When I say things like that I do get how a TV character based on me ended up the way it is but I still don't like that character. I don't blame C.I. and Ava for the character to be clear. I wrote about this for Maria, Miguel and Francisco's newsletter Sunday just to have something to contribute. I thought that would be the start and end of it. But e-mails poured in asking what that was like? It's weird as hell to turn on your TV and see a character that's supposed to be you. Has your job, supposedly has your life. At first I was mad at the friend of Ava and C.I.'s and felt like my soul was being stolen or something. Now I'm not even mad about that. But it's just too weird for me to be objective about it or to watch more than a few seconds of.)
(C.I. explained it best, telling me that the writer grabbed one part of me that would fit and that no TV character is ever going to be fully rounded even if a show airs for years. To answer a question that both Bryan and Charlie e-mailed with, yes, I would be happy if the show was cancelled.)
Feminism, real feminism and not 'gal talk' trying to pass itself off as feminism, was always about supporting pro-women candidates (and maybe becoming one yourself). I don't see Hillary as pro-woman. Those days are long behind her. I also don't give a damn about the dippy, drippy WhiteHouseProject which is a waste of time and money, if you ask me.
In fact, Ava and C.I. covered all of this sometime ago in "TV Review: Commander-in-Chief aka The Nah-Nah Sisterhood:"
We've never doubted that a woman could be president (and at some point will be). But we've never assumed that gender would be an answer. A woman who supports equality? Absolutely, that's a great thing. A woman who makes her way as an exception, backs up an agenda she doesn't believe in and does nothing to help other women? We don't see the point in applauding that.
It's a pertinent issue as two women are repeatedly named as potential candidates in the real world: Condi Rice and Hillary Clinton. If either woman (or both) runs, will we get the same giddy "It's a woman!" nonsense? Under no circumstance would either of us vote for Rice. We'd be reluctant to vote for Clinton considering her waffles on the issue of choice and her stance on the war. But will those issues be silenced in the giddy cry of, "It's a woman! It's a first!"
That's troubling.
Ava and C.I. were exploring that in November of 2005. Now, in 2007, a woman stops flipping through thongs and push-up bras long enough to pretend she's a feminist and wonder if, being a woman, she has to vote for Hillary? Shallow waters run endless (not deep, Paul Simon).
By the way, in "Mailbag," Betty talks about how, had Hillary said "My vote was a mistake" last week, she'd be supporting her right now. No one had a problem with that. Betty (who said I could write about this) respects the way Hillary conducted during the whole Lewinsky ordeal. Betty went through something similar (without cameras and news crews) and she knows how hard a spouse cheating can be. She saw that as a test, a curve ball tossed out, and felt Hillary handled it well and that an argument could be made that she demonstrated she could think on her feet and handle anything that came her way. She still has a lot of respect for Hillary but Hillary's refusal to admit the mistake is why Betty's now going elsewhere. None of us questioned Betty's choice or ragged her about it. I actually think the logic she was applying was very solid. Especially when you contrast it with how Bully Boy's need to always appear to have the upper hand has led to many problems for the country. I'm not for Hillary but there are people who are for reasons other than gender.
Okay, changing topics, this is from Danny Schechter's "The Real Media Mantra: 'Let's Make A Deal'" (BuzzFlash):
Finally here's Rupert Murdoch buying DIRECT TV from John Malone's Liberty Media. The Deal characterized it as an "exchange of gifts befitting of moguls" and ending an "often silly saga in mogul one-upmanship." In the end, Murdoch generated about $3.5 billion in stock gains for his News Corpse. Who lost?
We the taxpayers, of course! While we pay ours, they avoid theirs.Explains The Deal, "And it was all accomplished, of course, in the tax-free manner both moguls prefer." Of course! And don't think that the Bush Administration's favorite media owner was not getting a wink and a nod from the IRS and the interests he shills for. Many of the businesses he promotes can't wait for the new Fox Business Channel, which has already promised to be more corporate friendly than those commies over at CNBC.
Most of our business journalists don't do enough to scrutinize and expose Mafia-like machinations at the top. They tend to beatify the Captains of Capitalism. Media companies rarely expose their own ways of doing business. Often the last place to look for the corporate crimes of media is in the media.
The Deal lashes out at Business Week noting that one week it reads like muckrakers with a cover story on "Gluttons on the Gate:" which "all but declared private equity a criminal enterprise that laid too much debt on its companies, raped them for big dividends, and charged dubious fees to investors."
Okay, I should have covered more than enough topics for one post. Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Monday, February 26, 2007. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq; the Iraqi president is out of the country recovering while one of the vice-presidents is targeted; a group that tried so damn hard to play it apple pie learns that when you're given the spotlight and have nothing to say you bore everyone; the privatization of Iraq's oil moves to parliament; and mass protests took place in London and Glasgow over the weekend.
Starting with news of war resistance. Friday, the US military decided to charge Ehren Watada again. In June of last year, Watada became the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. At the start of this month, he was court-martialed for his stand. Over defense objection, and only after repeatedly hinting to the prosecution that they should request a mistrial, Judge Toilet (John Head) declared the court-martial a mistrial. The US military is attempting to maintain that the double-jeopardy clause doesn't apply. Peter Boylan (Honolulu Advertiser) reported Saturday that Eric Seitz, Watada's civilian attorney, was "surprised" by the decision to refile the charges and that he believes "the Army has made so many bad mistakes in this case that the chances of them having a successful outcome are very slim." Tuesday, The Honolulu Advertiser notes, Eric Seitz will debate Michael Lewis at the William S. Richardson School of Law at the University of Hawaii at Manoa -- the debate is billed as "Lt. Watada's Case and the Legality of the War in Iraq" (12:40 pm to 1:25 pm).
Ehren Watada is part of a movement of resistance with the military that includes others such as Kyle Snyder, Patrick Hart, Agustin Aguayo (scheduled to be court-martialed in Germany beginning March 6th), Ivan Brobeck, Mark Wilkerson, Darrell Anderson, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Joshua Key, Camilo Meija, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Corey Glass, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.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.
In addition CBS' Lara Logan spoke with a group of people who have signed a petition that states: "As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq. Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S. troops to come home." But, as demonstrated in statements to Logan for the piece that aired Sunday on CBS' 60 Minutes, the war not being "worth the price" doesn't mean that any signer won't go. The speakers took great stride to point out that they were good soldiers who would obey every order. Maybe next time they can be ordered not to sign petitions? Coming off less than appealing (Ronn Cantu: "By volunteering we've done more than about 99 percent of the population"), they (or their egos) may have finally buried their own timid action. Putting out the weakest and most rah-rah voices didn't help. Playing politically stupid didn't help. A smart group of service members put the project together and in the weeks since it's been repeatedly dumbed down for public consumption.
As Mike noted Friday, The Pooper was crowing about how he was the first to cover the timid group -- as though that's something to be proud of? -- but the reality is many others (including Nora Barrows-Friedman, that's Law & Disorder) had covered it long before the Pooper did.
Today, Jon Cohen (Washington Post) reports on the paper's most recent joint-poll (with ABC) which found that respondes favored "Congressional Democrats over Bush to handle the situation in Iraq by a 54 percent to 34 percent margine"; however, there was also "a five-point increase in the number who trust neither the Democrats in Congress nor the President on the issue". This as Jeff Leys (CounterPunch) reports on how Dems in Congress "are buying the Iraq war lock, stock and barrel. Indeed, fewer votes may be cast against continuing Iraq war funding this year than last". The five-point increase in the Washington Post - ABC poll could increase next go round if Democrats do not start recognizing what's gone on around the country. As Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted, "In Election news, five peace activists were arrested on Friday at a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton in San Francisco. They held banners that said 'We Need a Peace Presidet' and 'Hillary, Stop Funding War'." The Occupation Project -- where citizens visit and sit in at the offices of their elected representiatives -- is currently going on throughout the country and you can click here for more information. Meanwhile Margaret Taley (AP) reports that Dems in the US Congress are feeling boxed in by the meaningless, marketed phrase that was created to clampdown on dissent but silly fools thought that adding "We" in front of it would 'frame' it.
Meanwhile, as Molly Hennessy-Fiske (Los Angeles Times) reports, US Secretary of State (and Anger) Condi "Rice spoke out Sunday against efforsts in Congress to limit the role of U.S. forces in Iraq, saying President Bush would not allow himself to be constrained by such a 'micromanagement of military affairs'." Congress, of course, has the right, power and duty to oversee the Iraq war (and bring an end to it). But Rice is fully aware that on the chat & chews she can say whatever she wants and get away with it. It's only when called to testify under oath that things get ugly. All together now, "I believe the title was, 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States'."
Turning from "No one could have guessed" Condi to Ahnold, Peter Nicholas (Los Angeles Times) notes that Republican governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, spoke with Bob Schieffer on CBS' Face the Nation yesterday where he "reiterated . . . that the U.S. needs to set clear timelines for bringing troops home, lest Iraq devolve into a quagmire with no end in sight."
Also appearing on Face the Nation (PDF format warning) was 2008 Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards who stated, "I think the Congress should use its authority, its funding authority to bring down the troop level an initial 40- to 50,000 out of Iraq, and continue to use that authority to redeploy troops out of Iraq over the next year or so." Also, on the issue of those, such as Hillary Clinton, who cannot or will not apologize for their 2002 vote that led to the illegal war, Edwards declared: "I--I think that there are two issues. One is what the situation -- difficult situation we're in, in Iraq now, what's the right and responsible course, and telling the American people and the world, for that matter, the truth about that. I also think it's important for those of us who were responsible for voting on the resolution in 2002 to say whatever the truth is for us about that vote. For those who voted for it, including me, if we believe we were wrong -- and I believe I was -- I think it's important to be honest about that and to say it. But I think that's an individual decision to be made by those who were responsible."
Meanwhile US House Rep and 2008 Democratic Presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich received an award yesterday. "[T]he only Presidential candidate who voted against the original Iraq war authorization and every funding appropriation since has received the first-ever Champion for Peace Award in Hollywood from a group of families of military members opposed to U.S. involvement in the Iraq War. Military Families Speak Out honored Kucinich for being 'a strong advocate for bringing the troops home now and never wavering from that position despite the politics going on,' said Pat Alviso, leader of the organization's Long Beach and South Bay Chapter." Last week, in Nevada, Kucinich noted, "It must be really tough for Presidential candidates to come before the American people and claim that they were tricked, deceived, misled . . . by George Bush? Well here's one person who wasn't. I saw the same information all these other candidates saw."
Across the Atlantic, in the United Kingdom, over 100,000 gathered in London and Glasgow to march against the war Saturday. Matthew Cookson (Socialist Worker) reports on the London rally: "The march once again showed the depth, breadth and vibrancy of the anti-war movement. Thousands of students, trade unionists, Muslims, Christians and campaigners joined the protest." Manchester.com offers that "[t]he main emphasis of the London protest was against the war in Iraq" and that demonstrators met up "at Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park before marching to Trafalgar Square." Arifa Akbar (Independent of London) spoke with Ceinwen Hilton who participated in the 2003 peace demonstration and explained why she was taking part again, "In 2003, the feeling was incredible. I was delighted that people had made an effort to show just how widely the opposition to war was felt. I remember the amazing feeling I had walking down Shaftesubry Avenue and seeing all the cast of Les Miserables cheering us from the balcony. When we were demonstrating four years ago, 600,000 were not dead. I'll be remembering them on today's march." The protests came with a theme song and a video. Life Style Extra reports that Stop The War Coalition has taken the song "War" and created a video with Tony Blair in it, where he appears to be singing the song, with the hopes of getting it into the top ten next Sunday -- "Mobile users can text PEACE1 to 78789 to download the tune" and you can purchase it here and you can watch the video (no purchase necessary) here. The BBC reports that, along with the London and Glasgow rallies, "Relatives of soldiers killed or serving in Iraq set up a camp outside Downing Street on Friday to coincide with the protest. They handed in a letter to Mr Blair calling for all British troops to be withdrawn immediately and demanding a meeting with him." CBS and AP note: "The speakers in London, and at a second demonstration in Glasgow, Scotland, also voiced fears the United States and Britain could take military action against Iran over its . . . nuclear programme."
Iran? As Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted: "The New Yorker magazine is reporting the Pentagon has established a special planning group within the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to plan a bombing attack on Iran. According to investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, the new planning group has been charged with a developing a bombing plan that could be implemented within 24 hours of getting the go-ahead from President Bush. Hersh also reveals that U.S. military and special-operations teams have already crossed the border into Iran in pursuit of Iranian operatives." Iran and Iraq were also addressed on KPFA's The Morning Show today with the guest Chris Toensing of the Middle East Report. Philip Maldari pointed out the push to scapegoat Iran for the problems in Iraq, specifically attempting to draw relationships between Iran and roadside bombs, and, as Toensing noted, "they threw it up against the wall, it didn't stick, so back to the drawing board." [Richard A. Oppel Jr. and James Glanz (New York Times) reported this morning on another attempt to pass weapons off as tied to Iran: "But critics assert that nearly all the bomb components could have been produced in Iran or somewhere else in the region. Even if the evidence were to establish that Iran is the source, they add, that does not necessarily mean that the Iranian leadership is responsible."] Maldari noted the attempts by the US administration to draw ties between Muqtada al-Sadr and Iran while ignoring how close Nouri al-Maliki was to Iran and how al-Maliki was in Iran "for decades before the overthrow of Saddam Hussein." Toensing agreed and observed that, "If one wants to look at major Iraqi political figures who've recently been to Iran, the list would be long and they're all allies of the United States."
Andrea Lewis noted the sentencing of Paul Cortez for his role in the gang rape of Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi and Tinsling pointed out how significant it was that two women came out last week to state that they had been raped by Iraqi security forces. Feminist Wire Daily notes the the gang rapes and quote Jodie Evans (CODEPINK) stating, "This is nothing new. Women . . . pay the worst price of the war, they live in total anarchy and in fear for their lives constantly -- [imagine] how easy rape is in that situation." Feminist Wire Daily also notes that Ann Wright (retired army col.; retired State Dept.) has "asked military personnel to refuse potentially imminent orders to attack Iran." This as Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter (Times of London) report: "Some of America's most seniour military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources. Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack."
Writing at Truthout, Wright noted: "George Bush is going to war again. We see it in the Bush administration's rhetoric about Iran's nuclear program. We see it in the Bush administration's commentary on Iran's reported role in training and equipping Iraqis who are fighting US forces that have invaded and occupied that country. We see it in the Bush administration's criticism of Iran's role in funding and equipping Hezbollah in Lebanon. We see it in the Bush administration's direction to the US military to detain Iranian diplomats in Iraq, breach diplomatic facilities, and capture or kill Iranian operatives in Iraq." CNN reports that five Iranians are currently being held by US forces includ Mohsen Chirazi who has been held since December.
In Iraq the never-ending 'crackdown' continues (ongoing since June). Yesterday, CNN reported that Jalal Talabani had been flown to Amman, Jordan following a collapse. Talabani is the president of Iraq. Today, CBS and AP quote his doctor stating that he was suffering "from exhaustion and a lung inflammation". The presidential post is thought to be ceremonial in Iraq (though those who've read the Iraqi constitution closely dispute this to a degree and also dispute how many powers are actually vested in the country's prime minister position). Serving under Talabani are two vice-presidents, one Sunni, one Shia.
This morning in Baghdad, an attack was launched against Adel Abdul-Mahdi who is the Shia vice-president of Iraq. Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) reported that the bomb was not from a car but actually inside the building a conference was being held in. Ahmed Rasheed and Ibon Villelabeitia (Reuters) report that six people were killed in the bombing, 31 were wounded, that Riad Ghareeb (Public Works Minister) was injured and that Abdul-Mahdi had "shrapnel wounds." CBS and AP report that Tariq al-Hashemi, Iraqi's Sunni vice-president, "has urged the Americans to come up with a 'Plan B' in case the current crackdown fails to stem the violence in Baghdad."
In addition to an attempt on the Shia vice-president's life, Iraq was also rolled by a Sunday bombing that resulted in mass fatalities. Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) reports: "A suicide bomber pushed past guards at a crowded college campus Sunday and set off a thunderous blast that killed at least 40 Iraqis, most of them female students waiting in line to enter classrooms for midterm exames. The attack was the second in recent weeks to target the mainly Shiite Muslim Mustansiriya University. Even as rescue workers mopped up blood from the college grounds, the Iraqi government insisted that the U.S.-Iraqi security plan launched nearly two weeks ago was succeeding." Also yesterday, Sinan Salaheddin (AP) quoted a statement reported to be from Muqtada al-Sadr noting: "I'm certain, just like all oppressed Iraqis are certain, that no security plan will work and no good will come of any occupier. Here we are, watching booby trapped cars exploding to harvest thousands of innocent lives from our beloved people in the middle of a security plan that is controlled by an occupier who does as he please."
Today?
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that an explosion in southern Baghdad killed two police officers and left another wounded, while a mortar attack in downtown Baghdad killed two people and wounded four. Reuters reports one Iraqi soldier dead and two more wounded in a bombing attack on a "checkpoint near the small town of Abbasi".
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an attack in Baghdad on "a center of civil defense unit" which utilized "machineguns and grenades" and left three police officers dead and three more wounded.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that 18 corpses were discovered today in Baghdad.
Also today, the US military announced: "A Marine assigned to Multi National Forces-West was killed Feb. 26 while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar Province."
Last Friday, Antonia Juhasz and Kris Welch discussed the privatization of Iraq's oil on KPFA's Living Room. Andy Rowell (Oil Change International) notes today that the "hugely controversial oil law edged closer to approval after Kurds said some key issues had now been resolved between them and Baghdad." Dr Ashti Hawrami, Kurdistan Regional Government's Minister for Natural Resources, answers some basic questions here and raises more questions (and fears) than he addresses. Robert H. Reid (AP) reports that the proposed law has already been approved by the Iraqi cabinet and now will move to parliament.
iraq
agustin aguayo
ehren watada
antonia juhasz
kpfakris welch
living room
the new york timesrichard a. oppel jr.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)