We caught two hearings today and C.I.'s covered the House veternas one in the snapshot today so I'm going to write about the Senate hearing in the morning.
It was the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The video isn't up yet. It usually goes up the next day and you can click here. (But if you click tonight, you've got no video, I warned you.) The hearing was chaired by John Kerry (who is also the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee) and was entitled "Iran at a Crossroads."
It was really interesting because the panelist and Kerry all sat around the same table, sat in a square.
Presiding: Senator Kerry
Senator's Statements:
Senator X, title
-->
Guests:
Karim Sadjadpour Associate Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Washington, DC
Hooman Majd Journalist New York, NY
Michael Singh Ira Weiner Fellow The Washington Institute for Near East Policy Washington, DC
Mehdi Khalaji Senior Fellow The Washington Institute for Near East Policy Washington, DC
Suzanne Maloney Senior Fellow Brookings Institution Washington, DC
I copied and pasted that and included Kerry so you could have his opening statement if you were interested. Hooman Majd was on one side of Kerry and I forget who was on the other.
Suzanne Maloney spoke first because she had another engagement scheduled.
So Kerry asked Michael Singh to hold off on a comment to allow her to speak before it was time to leave. After that, he encouraged a free exchange and that's what took place.
There were various arguments and theories and probably Hooman Majd was the most knowledgable because he repeatedly stressed how very little was known.
He also did a great deal of debunking.
On the alleged Twitter 'revolution,' he noted that a huge number of Twitter accounts switched their "locations" to Iran in the last two weeks. He also noted that they were not driving a revolution in Iran, that it was a very tiny number (the so-called Twit set) and that they couldn't have managed any massive turnouts.
He also noted that Iran's computers are largely using dial up to connect to the internet. Internet wise, he said we needed to grasp that Iran was where the US was 15 years ago. People are not constantly checking. They're dialing up the way we once did.
The idea that Twitter is a major or even minor tool in Iran is a laughable notion and one that has been wrongly pushed.
There was a wide range of opinions, I'm emphasizing the part that stood out to me. I don't think the video will be up first thing in the morning. Video usually goes up a little before noon the next day.
Okay, last night's posts:
Cedric's Big Mix
Barack caught in another lie
9 hours ago
The Daily Jot
THIS JUST IN! LIAR, LIAR CIGS ON FIRE!
9 hours ago
Thomas Friedman is a Great Man
DMZ: The Hidden War
9 hours ago
Mikey Likes It!
Warren Ellis' No Hero, ACLU
9 hours ago
Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude
gordon brown, wonder woman
9 hours ago
SICKOFITRADLZ
G.B. Trudeau Talk to the Hand!
9 hours ago
Ruth's Report
Naoki Urasawa's Monster
9 hours ago
Oh Boy It Never Ends
Heroes Volume Two
9 hours ago
Like Maria Said Paz
Mark Evanier's Mad Art
9 hours ago
Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)
Re-Gifters
9 hours ago
I enjoyed all the posts but a big pat on the back for Rebecca. She did a great job with Wonder Woman. Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Wednesday, June 24, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Gordon Brown's made another U-turn, Baghdad rocked by violence, at a US Congressional hearing the VA yet again embarrasses itself, and that June 30th 'deadline'? Not so much.
Starting in England with the planned inquiry into the Iraq War. "As the prime minister said last week," Foreign Minister David Miliband declared in the House of the Commons today, tapping the table twelve times for emphasis, "it is not an inquiry that has been set up to establish civil or criminal liability. It is not a judicial inquiry. Everything beyond that is within it's remit. It can uh praise or blame whoever it likes. It is free to write its own report at every stage." [BBC has a clip here currently.] The House of Commons debated many topics including the Iraq inquiry. BBC News live blogged it here. The Daily Mail dubs it the latest "U-turn" from Prime Minister Gordon Brown's cabinet: "It is the latest climbdown on the inquiry, which was only unveiled by the Prime Minister last week as he attempted to restore his authority." Andrew Sparrow (Guardian) also calls it a U-turn and observes, "After watching David Miliband open today's debate on the subject in the Commons this afternoon, I've counted at least five U-turns." Sparrow then reviews the five U-turns. U-turn was also the phrase shadow foreign secretary William Hague used (BBC has clip here): "A U-Turn executed in stages as painful to watch as a learner driver doing a six-point turn, having started off the wrong way down the motorway. And they have performed this U-turn by getting the chairman of the inquiry, Sir John Chilcot, to announce changes we have all been demanding but to announce them himself so that no minister has had to come back to the House and admit that the government were in the wrong. Indeed Sir John is now -- I will give way in a moment -- indeed sir John is now busily engaged in the very process of consultation with opposition parties and other -- others -- that a prime minister doing his job properly would have carried out before hand."
In addition to the issue of apportioning blame, Philippe Naugton (Times of London) highlights another issue about the inquiry that was raised during the debate, "Mr Miliband was also pressed by MPs from all sides on how the inquiry could take evidence on oath -- as Mr Brown had said he hoped it would -- if it was not established on a statutory footings. The Foreign Secretary eventually told them: 'I am reliably informed that you don't need a statutory power to administer an oath'." Ian Dunt and Alex Stevenson (Politics.co.uk) report that the debate followed a motion put forward by the Conservative Party that the inquiry be a public one. BBC reports the vote was 260 for a public inquiry and 299 against. Joe Murphy (Evening Standard) notes that Milband also "confirmed that Tony Blair will be questioned in public about his role" and that Hague promised if his party wins the upcoming elections (his party is the Conservative party) they will "beef up" the inquiry Brown's proposing if it has not finished its work (the report from the commission will not be released until after the election -- whether or not it will be finished with the investigation before the election has not been addressed).
A lengthy exchange can be found here (YouTube) in an ITN video. Here are two excerpts:
William Hague: We said that the membership of the inquiry, while encompassing people we have no call to criticize seem to us to be too narrow and that in particular some experience of ministerial office was desirable. And the following Monday my right honorable friend, the leader of the opposition, also made the point that military experience was desirable. And we further pointed out that the inquiry as proposed by the government consisted of four nominees -- none of whom was a woman. The government went a small way to meeting a part of these objections by adding Baroness Prasha to the inquiry membership. And I hope the Foreign Secretary will also acknowledge that his statement on the Today program -- that these five people were approached and then the cabinet secretary went to talk to the opposition parties -- was also inaccurate. Because the fifth, Baroness Prasha, was only added when it was pointed out to ministers that they proposed an inquiry to narrow in its membership.
David Miliband: At various points there have been allegations, for example, that the inquiry would not be able to look at the run-up to the war or the decisions in Basra in 2006 to 2008. These concerns, Mr. Speaker, are not well founded. The Chilcot inquiry has the widest possible remit. The committee will be free not just to examine all the evidence as I will document below but also do what it considers to be the most important issues the scope is deliberately not limited. As the prime minister said last week no inquiry has looked at such a long period and no inquiry has the powers to look in so much breadth. Second, Mr. Speaker, independence. The prime minister wrote Sir John Chilcot on the 17th of June assuring him of the government's commitment to a thorough and independent inquiry Sir John confirms in his repo - reply of the 21st of June, "I welcome the fact that I and my colleagues are free to decide independently how to -- how best to fulfill our remit.
The Socialist Party issued the following statement by Sean Figg:
There are many unanswered questions surrounding the invasion: the Blair government's rush to war, twisting and turning to justify an attack on Iraq, using the most spurious of arguments to get the invasion they had already decided upon. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed as a result, along with over 4,600 US, British and other coalition soldiers. Massive destruction and devastation has also been wrought on Iraq.
Brown has tried to pose the inquiry as part of a new 'openness' in politics following the MPs' expenses scandal. But given his initial stance that the inquiry should be behind closed doors, clearly Brown is still unsure exactly what 'openness' means!
There has since been an 'establishment rebellion' amongst MPs, civil servants, and top military brass over a secret inquiry. In response, Brown announced a partial retreat last week asking the inquiry chairman, Sir John Chilcot, to consider opening a few sessions to the public - far from a complete climbdown.
The truth is that on Iraq, Brown is in up to his neck. He still has everything to lose from an 'open' inquiry. He voted for the invasion, was part of Blair's war cabinet and has been a consistent supporter of the occupation. Brown could point to the reduction of British troops in Iraq since he took over as prime minister to try and improve his image, if he wasn't for escalating the war in Afghanistan instead!
The news that Tony Blair had intervened in an attempt to keep any inquiry secret will anger people further.
But even if there is a fully open inquiry, its chairman Sir John Chilcot - chairman of the Police Federation and a member of the unelected, unaccountable Privy Council - is clearly part of the establishment. And when establishment figures are left to investigate other establishment figures, even if not directly involved in the events they are investigating, there are still many vested interests in ensuring not too much damage is done.
And while an inquiry may bury itself in details of government shenanigans, the real motives for the war - securing oil resources and geopolitical control of the region by western imperialism - will be conveniently ignored.
Meanwhile the Liberal Democrats leader Nick Clegg has declared, "We need an independent process to decide exactly what evidence is heard in private. This decision should not be down to the whims of Prime Ministers past and present. The burden of proof must be on the Government to demonstrate a clear impact on national security of specific evidence before any session can be held in private." Anne McElvoy (This is London) observed this morning, "The PM has havered and obscured his own position on Iraq because he did not want to pick a fight with Mr Blair at the time or, more cynically, concluded as the UN resolution unravelled, that the fallout was more likely to precipitate his predecessor's time in office than extend it and so kept shtoom. It is, when you consider the breadth of Mr Brown's other international interests and emphasis on the the 'big picture', an odd thing not to have a position on -- even now. What do you remember the Prime Minister saying at all about Iraq since the war? Nope, me neither." The Stop the War Coalition has issued a call for a full inquiry:
Nothing less than a full public inquiry into Iraq war
Contact your MP: We need a full public inquiry. Write, phone, fax your MP. Download letter . . . The revelation that Tony Blair -- who led Britain into the illegal war in Iraq -- is behind Gordon Brown's decision to hold an inquiry in secret won't surprise the anti-war movement and will further fuel the anger of MPs, peers, military leaders, former civil servants and bereaved families appallbed by the plan to hear evidence in private. Read more. . . . No surprise either that a leaked memo proves that Tony Blair met with George Bush in January 2003 to hatch a plot to go to war, whatever the United Nations decided. Read more . . . . A full public inquiry would reveal the secrets and lies in Blair's rush to war. What chance of that with Brown's inquiry panel of four knights and a baroness, some of whom were pro war?
ITN News reports that a Baghdad bombing in Sadr City has claimed at least 52 lives and left one-hundred-and-four more people injured. The Telegraph of London adds, "The blast shook the predominantly Shia district of Sadr City, a slum that is home to supporters of the firebrand cleric Moqtada al-Sadr." They also state that the bomb was on "a motorcyle rickshaw which had been loaded with explosives hidden underneath its load of vegetables." BBC quotes their correspondent Jim Muir stating the neighborhood "has been struck often and provocatively in the past." CNN updates the death toll to 55 and the number injured to one-hundred-and-sixteen. Al Jazeera cites an unnamed official with the Interior Ministry stating the bomber fled his motorcycle before the bomb went off. When the death toll rose to 56, AP was calling it the third worst bombing of the year in Iraq (based on the death toll). AP counts the dead in Saturday's Kirkuk bombing at 72 (the highest of the year) and then falls back to April 24th's suicide bombings in Baghdad with 71 dead. Sattar Rahim (Reuters) is reporting the death toll has reached 72 which would put it at the second deadliest. The death toll may continue to rise. Alice Fordham (Times of London) reports, "Today's blast came after a spokesman for the US military in Iraq told reporters that after June 30, some US soldiers will remain at posts called Joint Security Stations to train and advise local security forces." The military spokesperson making that declaration was Brig Gen Steve Lanza.
The June 30th 'deadline' calls for US troops to be out of all Iraqi cities. And that's not happening. Rod Nordland (New York Times) reported that months ago -- explaining how, in Baghdad, the sprawling military bases would be overlooked and the 'deadline' fudged. Nordland reports this morning on attempts to explore Anbar Province, supposedly newly safe, and notes that before the police commander Tarqi al-Youssef would allow a reporter to visit "only after the general ordered dozens of Provincial Security Force troops to clear the streets and rooftops first." That's Falluja. Mike Tharp (McClatchy Newspapers) reports on Kirkuk:
The Iraqi army major, a Kurd, didn't know what hit him. Col. David Paschal, the 6'6" commander of the 10th Mountain Division based in the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk last year, had taken off the diplomatic gloves. As tea and soft drinks were served by fawning subordinates, the major almost preened in his easy chair. The top-ranked American soldier in the area had come to visit HIM. After a few minutes of pleasantries--the Arabic translated by Paschal's female Lebanese interpreter--the officer from Chicago leaned forward in his seat. Rawboned hands as big as those of former Bulls defensive ace Jerry Sloan clasped themselves together, as if trying to avoid making fists. His usual command voice grew even louder. He demanded to know why 200 Sunni Arab inductees had been turned away the previous week by the major. The major started to explain about not enough trucks and lack of bunks and..."Bull! I know why," the colonel thundered. "Because they were Sunni! We can't have that here. We need every soldier we can get."
Today Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) reports on the problems in Mosul where the US military insists that attacks "have been cut by more than half with far fewer of the devastating suicide bombs and car bombs that hav been the hallmark of Sunni insurgents. But smaller attacks -- three to four a day -- have become the backdrop of daily life here." And to bring that back to today's news from Brig Gen Steve Lanza that US forces will not all be leaving Mosul, Sunday Jane Arraf reported US forces might not leave Mosul and quoted Col Gary Volesky stating, "We're waiting for a final decision, and we're prepared to execute whater they tell us to execute."
In some of today's other reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing which left two people injured, a Baghdad roadside bombing claimed 1 life and left ten people injured, a Mosul bombing which wounded eight people, a Mosul roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier and left five people injured, a Kirkuk roadside bombing left four people wounded and "Insurgent Yaseen Salam died Wednesday when an IED he was planting in Rashad neighborhood exploded while he was handling it."
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 guard for the ministry of Labour and Social Affairs was injured by sniper fire. Reuters notes 1 police officer was shot dead in Mosul.
Corpses?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse (female, shot in "the head and chest) was discovered in Mosul.
This afternoon in DC, the House Veterans' Affairs Committee's DAMA Subcommittee held a hearing. Subcommittee Chair John Hall opened the hearing by allowing US House Rep Joe Donnelly to offer his statements -- as part of the first panel -- because he had another commitment.
US House Rep Deborah Halvorson spoke, as part of the first panel, on behalf of the legislation she is sponsoring (HR 2774, the Families of Veterans Financial Security Act" whic would allow veterans to receive Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI) for two years. This takes place at present; however, it is set to expire shortly. Halvorson's legislation makes the two years permanent and in need of no additional legislation to renew it.
Subcommittee Chair John Hall: I would like to ask -- well it seems to make a lot of sense of course to permanently extend the coverage for SGLI for two years since service members who are disabled are going through a very difficult and trying time. Have you had any feedback from service members or their families who have benefitted from this coverage and what did they think?
US House Rep Deborah Halvorson: Well what I've heard -- and we're talking here about service related, totally disabled veterans and these are the veterans that often can't find any other commercially offered insurance -- and I have a veterans' advisory committee and this is one of the things that came to my attention as something that they find very, very important as they're making these informed decisions with their family.
The second panel was composed of Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors' Bonnie Carroll and Disabled American Veteran's Joe Wilson. Wilson noted DAV supported Donnley's bill and had no objections to Halvorson. Joe Donnelly's proposed legislation addresses out of date tables being used today, specifically a 1941 mortality chart used to set premiums -- a table that has continued to be used despite being out of date.
US House Rep Ann Kirkpatrik arrived as Wilson and Carroll were breifly speaking and, following the second panel being dismissed, Kirkpatrik proposed legislation is HR 20968 and she explained:
I introduced this bill with Republican Walter Jones of North Carolina to do just one thing: To make the group life insurance offered to veterans and service members both fairer and more consistent with commercial life insurance Under both veterans groups' life insurance and service members' group life insurance, when a veteran or a service member is terminally ill, they can elect to receive up to half of their coverage while they are still alive. They can use this accelerated benefits option to pay medical bills, improve their quality of life or in any way they see it. However, current regulations require VGLI and SGLI to decrease the pay-out these veterans and service members collect by a percentage based on the prevailing interest rates. In recent years, this has amounted to a decrease in as much as $6,000. By contrast, most commercial life insurance policies that allow ABO withdrawals do not decrease this pay-out to claimants. We can and must do better for our veterans. This simple, common sense, bipartisan bill removes this deduction so that we might better serve terminally ill veterans and service members at the most financially vulnerable time for them and their families. Removing this deduction can be accomplished using the life insurance premium veterans and service members currently pay. This means that we can accomplish this important change without any additional cost to veterans service members or tax payers and without pay-go implications.
The third panel's only witness was the VA's Thomas Lostowka. He insisted that VGLI is competative with private practice and that everyone raises their premiums every five years -- every one. VA's raising has to do with the mortality table, remember that? Subcommittee Chair Hall wanted to know why a 1941 mortality table was being used and Lostowka agreed that it was out of date but insisted there would be a "higher cost to government if you were to change the table at this time." So when could the table be changed? According to Lostowka, never.
The father of a veteran who had traveled to DC for the hearing stopped us (Wally, Ava, Kat and myself) to ask why Lostowka knew so little? He shared that if someone was coming to offer opinions on proposed legislation -- as Lostowka was -- it seemed to him they should be able to answer basic questions. That is not a minor point and it's one that can be made whenever VA sends witnesses (I think we've made it here). His House Rep sits on the Veterans Affairs Committee but not the Subcommittee and he intended to raise that issue with his rep's staff. It's a question the White House and Congress should be raising with the VA. The embarrassingly poor performance of Lostowka's was all the worse when you grasp that he felt the need to "brag" (his word) on the VA and to pat himself on the back stating "so we're doing quite a good job." No, Lostowka, you're not and you might need to meet with the families of veterans if you don't grasp that.
In the US yesterday, Barry O gave another press conference. One that avoided covering the Iraq War or even mentioning it. Helene Cooper and Sheryl Gay Stolberg (New York Times) live blogged it. We'll note this:
A Brief Wrap 1:33 p.m. Helene Cooper: Well, Sheryl, he really ramped it up on Iran. We heard the president use the word "condemn" for the first time since the Iranian elections to describe the government's actions. It will be interesting to see what comes next from Tehran in response.Sheryl Stolberg: Yes, I was struck especially by his last answer to Suzanne Malveaux about the "heartbreaking" video. He showed more passion than earlier in the press conference. And speaking of passion, I was also struck by the way Mr. Obama seemed irritated with reporters at various times during this news conference. The cigarette question seemed to really get under his skin. He rarely loses his cool, but there were more flashes of anger here than in the past."Heartbreaking." Some in the US might think the people dying in Iraq are "heartbreaking" but apparently, without video, it's no big deal to Barack. While Barry O had time to market the next war, he had no time for Iraq:It's Over 1:31 p.m. Sheryl Stolberg: Mr. Obama leaves the room. "No questions about Iraq or Afghanistan?" a reporter cries out. The question hangs in the air. It does seem amazing, not a single question for the American president about the nation's two wars.He didn't have time for Iraq. But he had time for a planted question as Dana Milbank (Washington Post) explains. Aging Socialite's Cat Litter Box (Huff & Puff) was contacted by the White House. They invited Nico Pitney to the show:They told him the president was likely to call on him, with the understanding that he would ask a question about Iran that had been submitted online by an Iranian. "I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet," Obama went on. "Do you have a question?"Pitney recognized his prompt. "That's right," he said, standing in the aisle and wearing a temporary White House press pass. "I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian." Pitney asked his arranged question. Reporters looked at one another in amazement at the stagecraft they were witnessing. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel grinned at the surprised TV correspondents in the first row.The use of planted questioners is a no-no at presidential news conferences, because it sends a message to the world -- Iran included -- that the American press isn't as free as advertised. But yesterday wasn't so much a news conference as it was a taping of a new daytime drama, "The Obama Show." Missed yesterday's show? Don't worry: On Wednesday, ABC News will be broadcasting "Good Morning America" from the South Lawn (guest stars: the president and first lady), "World News Tonight" from the Blue Room, and a prime-time feature with Obama from the East Room. Barry O wants to decry Iran . . . from his staged press conference?A sign of how pathetic Panhandle Media is, you won't find that as the lead item on any Pacifica programming, you won't find it decried at The Nation, et al this morning. Bill Clinton, whom Panhandle Media chose to demonize, got a similar approach during the 90s. He could have handled a push back and probably would have had stronger terms in office if there had been one. Instead it was kid's gloves. So realize, kiddies, this story you're being read aloud? It has the same ending. Eight years from now the same people who've been silent will be screaming their heads off about how Barack did this or did that but, in real time, when it mattered, they didn't say or do a damn thing. Excuse me. That's not true. They begged for money. Endlessly, they begged for money. Always they begged for you to send money. Anything to stop from having to work a real job. The same programs and magazines and websites that rightly called out staged events by Bully Boy Bush now fall strangely silent providing a text book example of "situational ethics."
Many of those same outlets have wasted our time with the nonsense from the PR group "Save Darfur" -- Amy Goodman would be the prime example there and she's refused to book Keith Harmon Snow for over three years now but she's not interested in guests who call out the nonsense but she has repeatedly booked propagandists for the advertising 'activists'. Bruce Dixon (Black Agenda Report) continues the strong work he's done on his own (and with Glen Ford and Ford's done some on his own as well) exposing Save Darfur:
A hundred years ago, in the Souls of Black Folk, W.E.B. DuBois observed that "...the country's appetite for facts on the Negro question has been spoiled by sweets." If he was around today, DuBois could say the same for America's appetite for facts on Darfur, Sudan, the rest of Africa, Iraq, and most of the world. Facts are messy things. Facts come with historical contexts and uncertain consequences. Eternal truths, like good vs. evil are sweet like candy, simple and comforting.
Since its founding in 2004, the Save Darfur Coalition has spent tens of millions on a state of the art advertising campaign to paint us a picture that is exactly that. Sweet and simple, easy to understand, and most of all, we get to be the good guys. Darfur is, to use Samantha Power's phrase, "a problem from hell," a piece of pure, unambiguous evil in which the global power of the US can be put to use constructively, because stopping a genocide calls for action, not for politics. Stopping genocide, we are told, is above politics. The lesson of genocide is that great powers must act, people of conscience and good will must intervene.
There are several problems with this, both as a general proposition, and specifically as it applies to Darfur. In the first place genocide is defined as the attempt to wipe out a nation or a people. There is so little evidence that mass killings on the scale necessary to be called genocide have occurred in Darfur that back in 2007, Save Darfur's UK operation was prohibited from using the figure of 400,000 dead that routinely appears in its advertisements in the US. Britain has a government truth-in-advertising agency called the Advertisement Standards Authority. They looked at Save Darfur's massive death toll. They took into account a 2006 US General Accounting Office report in which GAO assembled a number of death and casualty estimates, high and low for Darfur, and summoned a panel of experts to determine which were accurate.
The GAO study [1] found the low estimates of 50 to 70 thousand dead from a variety of causes including disease and starvation due to desertification on all sides of the conflict to be more accurate than the high estimates of 200 to 400 thousand by direct armed violence on one side alone claimed by Save Darfur. The GAO report maintained that the peak death toll occurred in 2004 and early 2005 and had been trending downward since. This was compelling enough evidence for Britain to ban the inflammatory claims that Save Darfur still makes with impunity in the US, which has no truth in advertising laws.
African scholar Mahmood Mamdani [2] has traveled extensively for many weeks in Sudan and Darfur as part of the African Union's Dialog for Darfur project, interviewing officials, activists and ordinary people on all sides of the conflict. In a talk at Howard University on March 20, 2009 [3] he reported that only days before, the general in charge of the African Union's peacekeeping forces in Darfur pegged the death toll for the entire year in and around the refugee camps at a mere 1,500. While the deaths of 50 to 70 thousand people several years ago on multiple sides of an armed conflict are a grievous matter, not to be minimized or brushed aside, they don't count as the ongoing genocide of helpless civilians.
iraqbbc newsanne mcelvoythe new york timeshelene coopersheryl gay stolbergthe washington postdana milbank
the times of londonalice fordham
rod nordlandmcclatchy newspapersmike tharpjane arraf
bruce dixon
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Re-Gifters
Dixie (real name Dik Seong Jen) is in love with Adam. She's also a hapkido student (hapkido is a martial arts form). Dixie is Korean-American and prone to make allusions which are sailing over the heads of some people, I'm sure, but are very funny.
Avril is Dixie's best friend.
Dixie is well drawn character who will remind you of women you know -- probably most so when she's got an exhibition coming up but spends the entry fee trying to win him over with a gift.
Meg is her nemesis.
Meg: Hi, Dixie. You playing tonight or did you just come along to see Adam fight?
Dixie: I'm competing, Megan.
Megan: Oh, well, cool. Hey do you know where the blue seats area are?
Dixie: Blue signs. Blue seats. Blue arena. It's idiot-proof up to a point.
The characters are in the graphic novel Re-Gifters by Mike Carey, Sonny Liew and Marc Hempel.
It's a strong collection. And you'll see that some things don't change (hurt feelings when you're beaten by . . .) But our reactions to them can.
We have a theme post tonight and I wasn't prepared. I ran into a bookstore as soon as we got done speaking tonight and asked for a suggestion. The clerk (a guy) insisted I go with Re-Gifters which was a bargain at $9.99 and which blurbs Booklist on the back cover: "action, romance, and introspection combine in an enjoyable and realistically multiethnic whole."
Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Tuesday, June 23, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Gordo Brown gets chatty, a woman from Duluth attempts to steer attention to the plight of Iraqi refugees, Stars and Stripes fights attempts by the US army to censor it, Germany's investigation into its involvement in the Iraq War is a whitewash, and more.
Starting in England where Prime Minister Gordon Brown remains desperate and eager to spin. Today he gave a highly confusing interview to BBC Radio 4's World at One in which he meant to say that there would be a scope for people to provide testimony but he actually stated there was no scope for it and in which he appeared to hint that Mid-East countries surrounding Iraq would be harmed from a public inquiry because they had been working with England on the Iraq War.
Gordon Brown: The Iraq inquiry was always going to be difficult because we're looking at, uhm, eight years of -- of events. We're looking at the causes of the conflict, what happened during the conflict, we're looking at the reconstruction that's taking place after the conflict. And there are many, many views on this and it has been a very controversial issue for Britain over a period of -- a period of time. I want that review to able to take all the evidence that is -- that is necessary, including having before it the security information, the confidential information. We've got to be careful, of course, about our relationships with other countries and what is made public about our relationships for examples with countries in the region which have got to be strong after the inquiry as well. But I think we've got to position with Sir John Chilcot where he has written to me yesterday saying he sees some hearings that we could do in public consistent with national security. He has responded to my invitation that he take into account the needs of the family. He has also responded to my invitation that as chairman of the inquiry he looks at whether there's an oath or some kind of undertaking on giving evidence. And I think -- I think we're making progress on an inquiry that I hope for the public is not just to get to the truth of what's happened -- that's important. It's also to learn lessons and lessons I think the whole public wants to learn what happened during that period.
Shaun Ley: But it looks as though you have been forced into a change of position by the reaction. A week ago you told the House of Commons you wanted the evidence to be heard in private for the reasons you've just outlined. Then you get people like Lord Butler saying this will add to mistrust, John Major says people will perceive it as a whitewash, John Chilcot writes to you and you respond and say 'actually I accept your advice as much as possible should be held in public.'
Gordon Brown: Hold on. Hold on.
Shaun Ley: And they get --
Gordon Brown: Hold on. Hold on.
Shaun Ley: -- a sense then that --
Gordon Brown: Hold on. Hold on.
Shaun Ley: -- perhaps the public's mood on this kind of issue.
Gordon Brown: Hold on. You --you've got to put what happened in its proper, uh, context.
Shaun Ley: I'm trying to do that.
Gordon Brown: I, uh, I actually wrote to Sir John Chilcot my-myself. I asked him, as chairman of the inquiry, to consider a number of issues related to the conduct of the inquiry -- some of the issues that you've just raised.
Shaun Ley: But after you made your statement to the MPs.
Gordon Brown: Yes, but I said at the time that I was inviting Sir John Chilcot to talk to all the leaders of the parties and all the chairman of the select committees, and that we were going to have a process of consultation with them about the conduct of the inquiry. So Sir John Til--Chilcot looks at the thoughts I put to him -- including thoughts about how we deal with the vex question of how the families are properly consulted and do they want to -- to give evidence in private or public. and rightly Sir John Chilcot then replies to me. I'm trying to find a way to get an inquiry that can satisfy people that we're doing everything in our power to get to the truth while at the same time I think everybody understands because people were asking for a Franks-style inquiry and Franks meant
Shaun Ley: On the Falklands War.
Gordon Brown: Yes you've got to take into account national security considerations and that you've got serving military --
Shaun Ley: Indeed.
Gordon Brown: -- who want to give evidence want to give evidence sometimes in private.
Shaun Ley: At what point did you refer to this question of the giving evidence on oath? Will that in your view now happen? Does that have to happen? Does that need to happen?
Gordon Brown: Well Sir John Chilcot has written back to me -- I requested this -- he's written back to me. He is suggesting that he does think there's a way that people can give at least an undertaking that what they're saying is truthful and complete and full and I think that's --
Shaun Ley: So not a kind of hand on the Bible or hand on the Crown kind of thing?
Gordon Brown: You see, the -- the point of this inquiry --
Shaun Ley: An honorable statement saying I am giving truthful evidence.
Gordon Brown: Of course, yes. The point of this inquiry, this was an eight-year-long uh episode in -- in British history, our troops are just leaving Iraq, it is ripe to learn the lessons. Now I think the way we're doing it allows those people that have got something to say sometimes that is confidential or effects our relationships with other countries to be able to say it directly to Chilcot he then has the chance to look at all the papers the security papers as well as confidential and private papers but at the same time there is no scope for people to give evidence in public if that is -- if that is what he chooses.
Note that the program is only available for the next seven days. Tom Whitehead (Telegraph of London) notes that Brown's backtracking (prior to the interview -- the interview was only more backtracking) was "further humilitation" and that Conservative Party members are saying the New Labour prime minister is doing a "U-turn in slow motion". At the US Socialist Worker, Mark Steel offers his thoughts on the inquiry:It's unlikely anything so interesting will come out of the inquiry into the Iraq war announced by Gordon Brown. Because it will be held entirely in secret, and is not allowed to "apportion blame," as this will prevent the inquiry being "clogged up by expensive lawyers."
Apparently, this will encourage those called to be "more candid" about their behavior. So why not change the whole legal system for similar reasons? Murderers would be so much more candid in a trial if they weren't weighed down by the thought of their comments being made public. "Between you and me I strangled the lot of them," they'd laugh, whereas once they're in that big room with lawyers and blame getting in the way they're bound to clam up. How much quicker the law could be resolved without all that paraphernalia of cross-examining and working out who was telling the truth and other money-wasting nonsense. Just ask someone whether they did it, and if they say "Not really," or "I had to kill them because I'd heard they had some destructive weapons," the judge could say, "Well, that's pretty much cleared it up--who's next?"
This Wednesday, the Stop the War Coalition is rallying Wednesday. "Protest at parliament against holding Iraq enquiry in private" (Great Britain's Socialist Worker) reports the demonstration will be "outside parliament at 2pm this Wednesday, demanding 'No Whitewash, No Cover Up', in the Iraq enquiry." Independent Catholic News notes that Justice and Peace groups have created a petition "to urge MPs to vote in favour of a public enquiry." Click here for the petition.
Meanwhile in Germany, a whitewash has concluded. Deutsche Welle reports the nation's investigation into "whether former chancellor [Gerhard] Schroeder helped oust Saddam Hussein" -- an investigation that's taken three years, heard from 140 witnesses, produced a final report that numbers 2,500 pages -- was unable to "clear up key questions" and had only "meagre results." If that judgment seems harsh, it's not my judgment. It's Seigfried Kauder's judgment and Kauder was the committee chair of the investigation. Friday The Local reported that "the parliamentary investigation split along party lines over whether [Frank-Walter] Steinmeier had been truthful when he said that Germany's help to US forces consisted only of intelligence on how to avoid bombing civilian targets." The amount of pressure put on the British inquiry ahead of it commencing will determine how much of a whitewash it is or isn't.
Gordon Brown has additional troubles and they could end up being big problems for the US government. As Rebecca explained last night, May 2007 saw five British citizens kidnapped and held hostage. Over two years ago. Two turned up over the weekend and they were dead. The families are outraged. As Rebecca points out:
had the british government tried anything (diplomacy or force) and it gone bad, you could say, 'well they tried.' you could be miserable over the results but you knew they were acting.instead, gordon brown took the attitude that he could just ignore the hostages. that's what he did and that's why he wanted the families to be silent. not to protect the hostages but to keep them nameless so england wouldn't be able to put a name to each 1 and demand their safe return.
He did nothing. Two are dead. The other three? No one knows at this point. What is known is that the US negotiated with terrorists. That does happen and it's not uncommon. But they did so for the five British citizens. In fact, they released two men, two brothers, thought to be the ringleaders in an assault on a US base in Iraq in which five US service members were killed. They released these two suspected ringleaders and the deal was supposed to be that the organization the brothers belonged to released the five British hostages. Thus far only two have been released and they were dead. Should all five prove to be dead, look for extreme outrage over an action the US government has been able to semi-quiet up to this point.
Staying with the topic of US clampdowns, Heath Druzin is an American journalist employed by Stars & Stripes. You might think he'd easily be able to embed with US troops in Iraq but that was not the case. David Axe (Wired) reports the US army said no and did so "in part, because he 'refused to highlight' good news on previous stints with the military." Terry Leonard, the editorial director of Stars & Stripes, declares this is "censorship." (I agree with him.) Stars & Stripes is reporting on the refusal to allow Druzin to report:
Officials said Stripes reporter Heath Druzin, who covered operations of the division's 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team in February and March, would not be permitted to rejoin the unit for another reporting tour because, among other things, he wrote in a March 8 story that many Iraqi residents of Mosul would like the American soldiers to leave and hand over security tasks to Iraqi forces.
"Despite the opportunity to visit areas of the city where Iraqi Army leaders, soldiers, national police and Iraqi police displayed commitment to partnership, Mr. Druzin refused to highlight any of this news," Major Ramona Bellard, a public affairs officer, wrote in denying Druzin's embed request.
Bellard also alleged that Druzin used quotes out of context, "behaved unprofessionally" and persisted in asking Army officials for permission to use a computer to file a story during a communications-blackout period.
Additionally, Col. Gary Volesky, the 3rd Brigade's commander, asserted that Druzin "would not answer questions about stories he was writing."
Terry Leonard, editorial director of Stars and Stripes, said Druzin's reporting in Mosul had been consistently accurate and fair and he denied all of the Army's allegations. Leonard noted, for example, that reporters are not required to answer a commander's questions about their plans for future stories.
He said the newspaper had spent more than three weeks appealing Druzin's banishment to senior commanders in Iraq as well as public affairs officials at the Pentagon, but had been repeatedly rebuffed.
In other news, Thameen Kheetan (Jordan Times via California Chronicle) reports on Iraqi refugees noting that Amman was where the the World Refugee Day 2009 Film Festival kicked off at the start of this week and two films on Iraqi refugees are part of the festival. Nada Doumani interviews four Iraqi refugees for Errant Home. Iraq has external (outside of the country) refugees and internal (displaced within Iraq) ones. Michelle Naar-Obed is an American citizen attempting to raise awareness for Iraq's internal renfugees. David Cowardin (Duluth News Tribune) reports Naar-Obed is in Iraq, in a refugee camp during the day and wants to be "granted permission from local authorities and the Foreign Affairs office". Naar-Obed is part of Christian Peacemaking Teams. Moving to Iraq's external refugees, Richard Hall (The Daily Star) reports that, in Lebanon, they are forced to either return to Iraq or be at risk of deportation for working without the necessary paperwork. UNHCR's Laure Chedrawi states, "The majority of refugees here cannot work legally, and there are many channels in Lebanon to work illegally. This causes many problems. SOme are not paid their salaries, some employers and landlords threaten to report them to the police and others are forced to work long hours without payment." Lebanon, Syria and Jordan have the bulk of Iraq's external refugees. Taylor Luck (Jordan Times) reports Jordan hots "half a million Iraqis" and that the "number of Iraqis returning home is not as high as analysts had predicted, something the representative attributed to a flux of refugees going back and forth between the Kingdom and its neighbor to the east." Sunday IRIN quoted Commission of Society Enterprises' Basil Abdul-Wahab al-Azawi stating, "On behalf of all Iraqi NGOs, we call upon the UN and all international organizations to offer protection and facilitate resettlement of all Iraqi refugees who are affected by violence and to help increase the number of those who are accepted in secure [third] countries. [. . .] As their country is still occupied and witnesses different disputes, protection should be offered to them [Iraqi refugees] . . . Any return against their will is not acceptable." The tiny number of Iraqi refugees who have been received in the United States struggle with a failing economy and stingy benefits that run out far too soon. Alex Dalenberg (Arizona Republic) examines life for Iraqi refugees in Arizona and finds stories like that of Nuha Hussian who "says that despite speaking English and having had successful careers in Iraq, she and her husband have struggled to pay rent and buy groceries for their two children since arriving in Glendale four months ago." Meanwhile Ria Misra (Politics Daily) reports Nouri al-Maliki has issued a plea to "the 350,000 Iraqis with university degrees currently living abrod: Please come back." They left because they were targeted or (those who left early on) feared they would be. The US backed Shi'ite zealots who were thugs and determined to turn Iraq from a secular nation-state into a fundamentalist one. Doctors, scientists and all educated women of any field were targeted because you can't return to the dark ages and still embrace modernity. And, no, it is not safe to return to Iraq.
Yesterday saw extreme violence. Alice Fordham (Times of London) notes the "worrying escalation of violence" and it was worse than she or Marc Santora (New York Times) knew when filing their reports because Monday night would see further violence (we'll get to it in a moment). Howard LaFranchi (Christian Science Monitor) counts 33 dead from violence yesterday. Santora does note a sucide bombing in Abu Ghraib and how 4 died and ten were wounded "including the three American soldiers, who had just arrrived to participate in the meeting." Richard Boudreaux (Chicago Tribune) observes that the death toll of the last three days finds "over 100" Iraqis killed. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) quotes Mustafa Abdul Jaleel Reyadh who states, "We can't feel safe at all. I feel afraid when I walk in the streets because I expect an explosion any moment. The situation will not change even after the departure of the American forces, because one hand cannot clap. We must unite to defeat terror." Ernesto Londono and Nada Bakri (Washington Post) report, "Wael Abdel Latif, an independent Shiite Muslim lawmaker, said three factors are driving the recent violence: the imminent withdrawal of American soldiers from urban areas; growing tension between the parliament and Maliki's cabinet as the legislative body demands more oversight; and the regrouping of Sunni Muslim extremist groups who want to undermine the government." Meanwhile British General Dannatt has made remarks some Americans may seize on and echo (applied to the US) in a few years. Phillippe Naughton (Times of London) reports "General Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff, said the failure of coalition forces" to secure Iraq and rushing quickly off to Afghanistan led them to blow the "window of consent" which supposedly existed following the initial invasion of Iraq. Already the Brookings Boys are sounding alarms and those alarms do not say that Iraq was dropped for Afghanistan -- at present they don't say that -- but that's where they will head (and falsely claim they issued warnings in real time) if conditions in Iraq continue down the current path or worsen.
Turning to today's reports of violence . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a a Muqdadiyah roadside bombing which claimed the life of Iraqi Lt Col Mohammed al Timimi and left four more Iraqi soldiers injured and a Tikrit cluster bombing which left "four young boys between eight and ten . . . seriously injured" and, dropping back to Monday night, a Baghdad roadside bombing (eight p.m.) which claimed 4 lives and left twenty people wounded, another Baghdad roadside bombing (ten p.m.) which left two people injured and a Falluja bicycle bombing (nine p.m.) which left six people (including Dr. Ammar Mohammed Chyad) wounded.
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 person shot dead in Mosul yesterday.
Sunday we noted Father Tim Vakoc who passed away Saturday night from wounds received in a May 29, 2004 Iraq bombing. AP notes that Father Tim is "believed to be the first military chaplain wounded in Iraq". Zenit (via Indian Catholic) explains, "The priest traveled a long journey over the five years from explosion to his death. He was initially categorized by doctors as being in a 'vegetative state,' but was later upgraded to a 'minimally responsive state'." He is quoted telling his sister, "The safest place for me to be is in the center of God's will, and if that is in the line of fire, that's where I'll be." Earlier Chao Xiong (Minneapolis Star-Tribune) reported, "The blast cost him an eye and severely damaged his brain." The Columbian notes the "funeral is scheduled for Friday at the Cathedral of St. Paul in St. Paul."
From a US death to a British one, Lee Ellis died February 28, 2006, at the age of 23, from an Al Amarah bombing while serving in Iraq. Amanda Cook (Manchester Evening News) reports that the family is seeking governmental compansation for Courtney Ellis, his eight-year-old daughter and quotes Anthony Ellis, Lee's father, stating, "Lee was a great dad. He was devoted to Courtney and she doesn't really remember him -- it is so sad. She has missed out the most losing her dad so young, so if she can get some compensation that would be great." The family is also lobbying the Ministry of Defence "to use more heavily-armoured vehicles" which might prevent deaths like Lee Ellis'.
And back to the US. Sunday the Department of Defense issued the following: "The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. Spc. Chancellor A. Keesling, 25, of Indianapolis, Ind., died June 19 in Baghdad, Iraq of a non-combat related incident. He was assigned to the 961st Engineer Company, Sharonville, Ohio. The circumstances surrounding this incident are under investigation. For more information media may contact the U.S. Army Reserve Command public affairs office at 404-464-8500 / 9471 / 9251." Richard Essex (Eyewitness News) reports on 25-year-old Chancy Keesling and interviews his parents Janett and Gregg Keesling who explain that their son enlisted at 19 and had already been stationed in Iraq once before. Gregg Keesling states, "There were e-mails and we knew he was troubled." Renee Jameson (The Indy Channel's 6News -- link is text and video) reports that the Keeslings expect the cause of death to be suicide. Janett Keesling states, "If parents here hear stress, move mountains, whatever you have to do" and Gregg Keesling notes he thinks about and wishes there had been "some way we could have reached out to the chaplain there and said 'go see my son'."
Plugging a friend, Kathryn Bigelow's amazing film The Hurt Locker opens in Los Angeles and New York Friday and opens July 10th in San Francisco, Dallas, Chicago, Atlanta, Austin, Oahu, Portland, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, San Diego, Minneapolis, Denver, Toronto and DC. Christy Lemire (AP) reviews the film today and observes, "'The Hurt Locker' is by far the most effective film yet on this subject - and what's ironic about that is, it doesn't even feel all that specific to the Iraq war. Its insights and reach extend far beyond what's happened there over the past several years." Mali Elfman (Screen Crave) interviews Bigelow about directing the movie:
[Elfman:] When I watched the film I definitely got pangs of the adrenaline junkie Point Breakish- kind of thing. How important was it to have that side of the character while at the same time focusing on the reality behind someone like him?
Bigelow: Well in a way it's kind of a coincidence, I do look at film, as being very the opportunity to be very experiential. If you really want to stretch the medium you can give a viewer an experience that they can't otherwise easily get -- let's say you want to sign up for a tour of duty. And so when he came back and he was talking about some of these individuals in kind of an idea for a character that he had that combined a few of them, where they had a tremendous amount of swagger and bravado, and almost verging on being reckless, but at the same time combining that with a really profound skill set. I thought, really, that was an interesting course of direction.
Then we looked at Chris Hedges' book "War is a Force that Gives us Meaning" and one of the elements that he drools down on is "wars dirty little secret, some men love it." So he really looks at it because he is a war voluntary that there is -- not to everybody and it is not a generalization, but there is a sort of allure and attractiveness that combat possesses. So like the war reporter, like the war photographer, you know some, who knows, bull rider, whatever, there are certain vocations that speak to that kind of psychological component -- is hungry for those peak experiences.
[Elfman:] We were talking to Jeremy [Renner] and he said that his first question to you was "how do you want the audience to feel at the end of the movie?" How did you want the audience to feel at the end of the movie?
Bigelow: Well I think it's a little bit of both, you know, to a certain extent his life -- the sergeant James character is truly a hero, I believe, but at the same time that heroism comes with a price, and I think that is what I said to Jeremy way back way, is that their is a price to his heroism and can he reintegrate -- is his home life really ruined is too strong of a word, but it definitely doesn't provide the purpose and meaning that being out in the field disarming a bomb does. And unfortunately nothing can replicate that for particular character and so it is a bit of both.
Jennie Yabroff profiles Kathryn for Newsweek:
In the desert all that reserve fell away. "I'm young and in shape, and I was exhausted," says Renner of the Hurt Locker shoot. "She's out there feeding camels apples and skipping like a schoolgirl." A schoolgirl who can beat a bunch of macho guys up a hill, that is. Not that she'd want to draw attention to that fact. At this point in her career, Bigelow is weary of the notion that being a woman affects how she works. Critics can't seem to get over the idea that a female director could devote herself to making adrenaline-charged films that owe more to Ridley Scott than Nora Ephron. They rhapsodize, in high academic prose, about the role of guns as phallic symbols in Blue Steel, a thriller about a female cop; or the homoeroticism of Point Break; or the androgynous female figures in Near Dark, a hybrid Western/vampire movie. At the same time, it's hard to believe that Bigelow would dedicate her oeuvre to genres that are typically made by, for and about men, and not have a few thoughts on the subject.
Listen to Bigelow for a while, though, and you suspect that the critics and film scholars are missing the point. She is far more interested in talking about the look of her movies: how many cameras she used on The Hurt Locker (four); the way she storyboarded each scene, translating the space from three dimensions to two in her mind; the effort she took to make sure the bomb explosions appeared authentic, and not like what she calls HMEs (industry-speak, she explains, for Hollywood movie explosions). "I've spent a fair amount of time thinking about what my aptitude is, and I really think it's to explore and push the medium," Bigelow says. "It's not about breaking gender roles or genre traditions." In The Hurt Locker, Renner's character, Sergeant James, evokes iconic images of American masculinity: in his heavily padded, helmeted bomb suit, he looks like an astronaut striding onto the moon. There's also more than a little of the cowboy about him. He's not just a soldier; he's a renegade, ignoring protocol to do things his way. Not only does he defuse bombs like he's unwrapping lollipops, he outdrinks, outfights and outshoots his squadmates. But Bigelow sees the character less as a commentary on popular images of masculinity and more as an exploration of the modern hero. While exemplary at his job, James can barely function in noncombat zones. "He's evocative of a kind of John Wayne type, but updated to accommodate the complexities of this character, who is almost attracted to the world's most dangerous job," she says. The fact that the Iraq War is being fought by a volunteer Army is one of the keys of that attraction, she believes, and one of the elements that makes The Hurt Locker different from other war films. "War's dirty little secret is that some men love it," she says. "I'm trying to unpack why, to look at what it means to be a hero in the context of 21st-century combat."
iraq
bbc news
tom whiteheadmark steelrichard essexthe socialist worker
the times of londonalice fordhamthe new york timesmarc santoraalissa j. rubinrichard boudreaux
mcclatchy newspaperslaith hammoudi
the washington posternesto londono
nada bakristars and stripeschristy lemirekathyrn bigelow
chao xiong
Avril is Dixie's best friend.
Dixie is well drawn character who will remind you of women you know -- probably most so when she's got an exhibition coming up but spends the entry fee trying to win him over with a gift.
Meg is her nemesis.
Meg: Hi, Dixie. You playing tonight or did you just come along to see Adam fight?
Dixie: I'm competing, Megan.
Megan: Oh, well, cool. Hey do you know where the blue seats area are?
Dixie: Blue signs. Blue seats. Blue arena. It's idiot-proof up to a point.
The characters are in the graphic novel Re-Gifters by Mike Carey, Sonny Liew and Marc Hempel.
It's a strong collection. And you'll see that some things don't change (hurt feelings when you're beaten by . . .) But our reactions to them can.
We have a theme post tonight and I wasn't prepared. I ran into a bookstore as soon as we got done speaking tonight and asked for a suggestion. The clerk (a guy) insisted I go with Re-Gifters which was a bargain at $9.99 and which blurbs Booklist on the back cover: "action, romance, and introspection combine in an enjoyable and realistically multiethnic whole."
Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Tuesday, June 23, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Gordo Brown gets chatty, a woman from Duluth attempts to steer attention to the plight of Iraqi refugees, Stars and Stripes fights attempts by the US army to censor it, Germany's investigation into its involvement in the Iraq War is a whitewash, and more.
Starting in England where Prime Minister Gordon Brown remains desperate and eager to spin. Today he gave a highly confusing interview to BBC Radio 4's World at One in which he meant to say that there would be a scope for people to provide testimony but he actually stated there was no scope for it and in which he appeared to hint that Mid-East countries surrounding Iraq would be harmed from a public inquiry because they had been working with England on the Iraq War.
Gordon Brown: The Iraq inquiry was always going to be difficult because we're looking at, uhm, eight years of -- of events. We're looking at the causes of the conflict, what happened during the conflict, we're looking at the reconstruction that's taking place after the conflict. And there are many, many views on this and it has been a very controversial issue for Britain over a period of -- a period of time. I want that review to able to take all the evidence that is -- that is necessary, including having before it the security information, the confidential information. We've got to be careful, of course, about our relationships with other countries and what is made public about our relationships for examples with countries in the region which have got to be strong after the inquiry as well. But I think we've got to position with Sir John Chilcot where he has written to me yesterday saying he sees some hearings that we could do in public consistent with national security. He has responded to my invitation that he take into account the needs of the family. He has also responded to my invitation that as chairman of the inquiry he looks at whether there's an oath or some kind of undertaking on giving evidence. And I think -- I think we're making progress on an inquiry that I hope for the public is not just to get to the truth of what's happened -- that's important. It's also to learn lessons and lessons I think the whole public wants to learn what happened during that period.
Shaun Ley: But it looks as though you have been forced into a change of position by the reaction. A week ago you told the House of Commons you wanted the evidence to be heard in private for the reasons you've just outlined. Then you get people like Lord Butler saying this will add to mistrust, John Major says people will perceive it as a whitewash, John Chilcot writes to you and you respond and say 'actually I accept your advice as much as possible should be held in public.'
Gordon Brown: Hold on. Hold on.
Shaun Ley: And they get --
Gordon Brown: Hold on. Hold on.
Shaun Ley: -- a sense then that --
Gordon Brown: Hold on. Hold on.
Shaun Ley: -- perhaps the public's mood on this kind of issue.
Gordon Brown: Hold on. You --you've got to put what happened in its proper, uh, context.
Shaun Ley: I'm trying to do that.
Gordon Brown: I, uh, I actually wrote to Sir John Chilcot my-myself. I asked him, as chairman of the inquiry, to consider a number of issues related to the conduct of the inquiry -- some of the issues that you've just raised.
Shaun Ley: But after you made your statement to the MPs.
Gordon Brown: Yes, but I said at the time that I was inviting Sir John Chilcot to talk to all the leaders of the parties and all the chairman of the select committees, and that we were going to have a process of consultation with them about the conduct of the inquiry. So Sir John Til--Chilcot looks at the thoughts I put to him -- including thoughts about how we deal with the vex question of how the families are properly consulted and do they want to -- to give evidence in private or public. and rightly Sir John Chilcot then replies to me. I'm trying to find a way to get an inquiry that can satisfy people that we're doing everything in our power to get to the truth while at the same time I think everybody understands because people were asking for a Franks-style inquiry and Franks meant
Shaun Ley: On the Falklands War.
Gordon Brown: Yes you've got to take into account national security considerations and that you've got serving military --
Shaun Ley: Indeed.
Gordon Brown: -- who want to give evidence want to give evidence sometimes in private.
Shaun Ley: At what point did you refer to this question of the giving evidence on oath? Will that in your view now happen? Does that have to happen? Does that need to happen?
Gordon Brown: Well Sir John Chilcot has written back to me -- I requested this -- he's written back to me. He is suggesting that he does think there's a way that people can give at least an undertaking that what they're saying is truthful and complete and full and I think that's --
Shaun Ley: So not a kind of hand on the Bible or hand on the Crown kind of thing?
Gordon Brown: You see, the -- the point of this inquiry --
Shaun Ley: An honorable statement saying I am giving truthful evidence.
Gordon Brown: Of course, yes. The point of this inquiry, this was an eight-year-long uh episode in -- in British history, our troops are just leaving Iraq, it is ripe to learn the lessons. Now I think the way we're doing it allows those people that have got something to say sometimes that is confidential or effects our relationships with other countries to be able to say it directly to Chilcot he then has the chance to look at all the papers the security papers as well as confidential and private papers but at the same time there is no scope for people to give evidence in public if that is -- if that is what he chooses.
Note that the program is only available for the next seven days. Tom Whitehead (Telegraph of London) notes that Brown's backtracking (prior to the interview -- the interview was only more backtracking) was "further humilitation" and that Conservative Party members are saying the New Labour prime minister is doing a "U-turn in slow motion". At the US Socialist Worker, Mark Steel offers his thoughts on the inquiry:It's unlikely anything so interesting will come out of the inquiry into the Iraq war announced by Gordon Brown. Because it will be held entirely in secret, and is not allowed to "apportion blame," as this will prevent the inquiry being "clogged up by expensive lawyers."
Apparently, this will encourage those called to be "more candid" about their behavior. So why not change the whole legal system for similar reasons? Murderers would be so much more candid in a trial if they weren't weighed down by the thought of their comments being made public. "Between you and me I strangled the lot of them," they'd laugh, whereas once they're in that big room with lawyers and blame getting in the way they're bound to clam up. How much quicker the law could be resolved without all that paraphernalia of cross-examining and working out who was telling the truth and other money-wasting nonsense. Just ask someone whether they did it, and if they say "Not really," or "I had to kill them because I'd heard they had some destructive weapons," the judge could say, "Well, that's pretty much cleared it up--who's next?"
This Wednesday, the Stop the War Coalition is rallying Wednesday. "Protest at parliament against holding Iraq enquiry in private" (Great Britain's Socialist Worker) reports the demonstration will be "outside parliament at 2pm this Wednesday, demanding 'No Whitewash, No Cover Up', in the Iraq enquiry." Independent Catholic News notes that Justice and Peace groups have created a petition "to urge MPs to vote in favour of a public enquiry." Click here for the petition.
Meanwhile in Germany, a whitewash has concluded. Deutsche Welle reports the nation's investigation into "whether former chancellor [Gerhard] Schroeder helped oust Saddam Hussein" -- an investigation that's taken three years, heard from 140 witnesses, produced a final report that numbers 2,500 pages -- was unable to "clear up key questions" and had only "meagre results." If that judgment seems harsh, it's not my judgment. It's Seigfried Kauder's judgment and Kauder was the committee chair of the investigation. Friday The Local reported that "the parliamentary investigation split along party lines over whether [Frank-Walter] Steinmeier had been truthful when he said that Germany's help to US forces consisted only of intelligence on how to avoid bombing civilian targets." The amount of pressure put on the British inquiry ahead of it commencing will determine how much of a whitewash it is or isn't.
Gordon Brown has additional troubles and they could end up being big problems for the US government. As Rebecca explained last night, May 2007 saw five British citizens kidnapped and held hostage. Over two years ago. Two turned up over the weekend and they were dead. The families are outraged. As Rebecca points out:
had the british government tried anything (diplomacy or force) and it gone bad, you could say, 'well they tried.' you could be miserable over the results but you knew they were acting.instead, gordon brown took the attitude that he could just ignore the hostages. that's what he did and that's why he wanted the families to be silent. not to protect the hostages but to keep them nameless so england wouldn't be able to put a name to each 1 and demand their safe return.
He did nothing. Two are dead. The other three? No one knows at this point. What is known is that the US negotiated with terrorists. That does happen and it's not uncommon. But they did so for the five British citizens. In fact, they released two men, two brothers, thought to be the ringleaders in an assault on a US base in Iraq in which five US service members were killed. They released these two suspected ringleaders and the deal was supposed to be that the organization the brothers belonged to released the five British hostages. Thus far only two have been released and they were dead. Should all five prove to be dead, look for extreme outrage over an action the US government has been able to semi-quiet up to this point.
Staying with the topic of US clampdowns, Heath Druzin is an American journalist employed by Stars & Stripes. You might think he'd easily be able to embed with US troops in Iraq but that was not the case. David Axe (Wired) reports the US army said no and did so "in part, because he 'refused to highlight' good news on previous stints with the military." Terry Leonard, the editorial director of Stars & Stripes, declares this is "censorship." (I agree with him.) Stars & Stripes is reporting on the refusal to allow Druzin to report:
Officials said Stripes reporter Heath Druzin, who covered operations of the division's 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team in February and March, would not be permitted to rejoin the unit for another reporting tour because, among other things, he wrote in a March 8 story that many Iraqi residents of Mosul would like the American soldiers to leave and hand over security tasks to Iraqi forces.
"Despite the opportunity to visit areas of the city where Iraqi Army leaders, soldiers, national police and Iraqi police displayed commitment to partnership, Mr. Druzin refused to highlight any of this news," Major Ramona Bellard, a public affairs officer, wrote in denying Druzin's embed request.
Bellard also alleged that Druzin used quotes out of context, "behaved unprofessionally" and persisted in asking Army officials for permission to use a computer to file a story during a communications-blackout period.
Additionally, Col. Gary Volesky, the 3rd Brigade's commander, asserted that Druzin "would not answer questions about stories he was writing."
Terry Leonard, editorial director of Stars and Stripes, said Druzin's reporting in Mosul had been consistently accurate and fair and he denied all of the Army's allegations. Leonard noted, for example, that reporters are not required to answer a commander's questions about their plans for future stories.
He said the newspaper had spent more than three weeks appealing Druzin's banishment to senior commanders in Iraq as well as public affairs officials at the Pentagon, but had been repeatedly rebuffed.
In other news, Thameen Kheetan (Jordan Times via California Chronicle) reports on Iraqi refugees noting that Amman was where the the World Refugee Day 2009 Film Festival kicked off at the start of this week and two films on Iraqi refugees are part of the festival. Nada Doumani interviews four Iraqi refugees for Errant Home. Iraq has external (outside of the country) refugees and internal (displaced within Iraq) ones. Michelle Naar-Obed is an American citizen attempting to raise awareness for Iraq's internal renfugees. David Cowardin (Duluth News Tribune) reports Naar-Obed is in Iraq, in a refugee camp during the day and wants to be "granted permission from local authorities and the Foreign Affairs office". Naar-Obed is part of Christian Peacemaking Teams. Moving to Iraq's external refugees, Richard Hall (The Daily Star) reports that, in Lebanon, they are forced to either return to Iraq or be at risk of deportation for working without the necessary paperwork. UNHCR's Laure Chedrawi states, "The majority of refugees here cannot work legally, and there are many channels in Lebanon to work illegally. This causes many problems. SOme are not paid their salaries, some employers and landlords threaten to report them to the police and others are forced to work long hours without payment." Lebanon, Syria and Jordan have the bulk of Iraq's external refugees. Taylor Luck (Jordan Times) reports Jordan hots "half a million Iraqis" and that the "number of Iraqis returning home is not as high as analysts had predicted, something the representative attributed to a flux of refugees going back and forth between the Kingdom and its neighbor to the east." Sunday IRIN quoted Commission of Society Enterprises' Basil Abdul-Wahab al-Azawi stating, "On behalf of all Iraqi NGOs, we call upon the UN and all international organizations to offer protection and facilitate resettlement of all Iraqi refugees who are affected by violence and to help increase the number of those who are accepted in secure [third] countries. [. . .] As their country is still occupied and witnesses different disputes, protection should be offered to them [Iraqi refugees] . . . Any return against their will is not acceptable." The tiny number of Iraqi refugees who have been received in the United States struggle with a failing economy and stingy benefits that run out far too soon. Alex Dalenberg (Arizona Republic) examines life for Iraqi refugees in Arizona and finds stories like that of Nuha Hussian who "says that despite speaking English and having had successful careers in Iraq, she and her husband have struggled to pay rent and buy groceries for their two children since arriving in Glendale four months ago." Meanwhile Ria Misra (Politics Daily) reports Nouri al-Maliki has issued a plea to "the 350,000 Iraqis with university degrees currently living abrod: Please come back." They left because they were targeted or (those who left early on) feared they would be. The US backed Shi'ite zealots who were thugs and determined to turn Iraq from a secular nation-state into a fundamentalist one. Doctors, scientists and all educated women of any field were targeted because you can't return to the dark ages and still embrace modernity. And, no, it is not safe to return to Iraq.
Yesterday saw extreme violence. Alice Fordham (Times of London) notes the "worrying escalation of violence" and it was worse than she or Marc Santora (New York Times) knew when filing their reports because Monday night would see further violence (we'll get to it in a moment). Howard LaFranchi (Christian Science Monitor) counts 33 dead from violence yesterday. Santora does note a sucide bombing in Abu Ghraib and how 4 died and ten were wounded "including the three American soldiers, who had just arrrived to participate in the meeting." Richard Boudreaux (Chicago Tribune) observes that the death toll of the last three days finds "over 100" Iraqis killed. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) quotes Mustafa Abdul Jaleel Reyadh who states, "We can't feel safe at all. I feel afraid when I walk in the streets because I expect an explosion any moment. The situation will not change even after the departure of the American forces, because one hand cannot clap. We must unite to defeat terror." Ernesto Londono and Nada Bakri (Washington Post) report, "Wael Abdel Latif, an independent Shiite Muslim lawmaker, said three factors are driving the recent violence: the imminent withdrawal of American soldiers from urban areas; growing tension between the parliament and Maliki's cabinet as the legislative body demands more oversight; and the regrouping of Sunni Muslim extremist groups who want to undermine the government." Meanwhile British General Dannatt has made remarks some Americans may seize on and echo (applied to the US) in a few years. Phillippe Naughton (Times of London) reports "General Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff, said the failure of coalition forces" to secure Iraq and rushing quickly off to Afghanistan led them to blow the "window of consent" which supposedly existed following the initial invasion of Iraq. Already the Brookings Boys are sounding alarms and those alarms do not say that Iraq was dropped for Afghanistan -- at present they don't say that -- but that's where they will head (and falsely claim they issued warnings in real time) if conditions in Iraq continue down the current path or worsen.
Turning to today's reports of violence . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a a Muqdadiyah roadside bombing which claimed the life of Iraqi Lt Col Mohammed al Timimi and left four more Iraqi soldiers injured and a Tikrit cluster bombing which left "four young boys between eight and ten . . . seriously injured" and, dropping back to Monday night, a Baghdad roadside bombing (eight p.m.) which claimed 4 lives and left twenty people wounded, another Baghdad roadside bombing (ten p.m.) which left two people injured and a Falluja bicycle bombing (nine p.m.) which left six people (including Dr. Ammar Mohammed Chyad) wounded.
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 person shot dead in Mosul yesterday.
Sunday we noted Father Tim Vakoc who passed away Saturday night from wounds received in a May 29, 2004 Iraq bombing. AP notes that Father Tim is "believed to be the first military chaplain wounded in Iraq". Zenit (via Indian Catholic) explains, "The priest traveled a long journey over the five years from explosion to his death. He was initially categorized by doctors as being in a 'vegetative state,' but was later upgraded to a 'minimally responsive state'." He is quoted telling his sister, "The safest place for me to be is in the center of God's will, and if that is in the line of fire, that's where I'll be." Earlier Chao Xiong (Minneapolis Star-Tribune) reported, "The blast cost him an eye and severely damaged his brain." The Columbian notes the "funeral is scheduled for Friday at the Cathedral of St. Paul in St. Paul."
From a US death to a British one, Lee Ellis died February 28, 2006, at the age of 23, from an Al Amarah bombing while serving in Iraq. Amanda Cook (Manchester Evening News) reports that the family is seeking governmental compansation for Courtney Ellis, his eight-year-old daughter and quotes Anthony Ellis, Lee's father, stating, "Lee was a great dad. He was devoted to Courtney and she doesn't really remember him -- it is so sad. She has missed out the most losing her dad so young, so if she can get some compensation that would be great." The family is also lobbying the Ministry of Defence "to use more heavily-armoured vehicles" which might prevent deaths like Lee Ellis'.
And back to the US. Sunday the Department of Defense issued the following: "The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. Spc. Chancellor A. Keesling, 25, of Indianapolis, Ind., died June 19 in Baghdad, Iraq of a non-combat related incident. He was assigned to the 961st Engineer Company, Sharonville, Ohio. The circumstances surrounding this incident are under investigation. For more information media may contact the U.S. Army Reserve Command public affairs office at 404-464-8500 / 9471 / 9251." Richard Essex (Eyewitness News) reports on 25-year-old Chancy Keesling and interviews his parents Janett and Gregg Keesling who explain that their son enlisted at 19 and had already been stationed in Iraq once before. Gregg Keesling states, "There were e-mails and we knew he was troubled." Renee Jameson (The Indy Channel's 6News -- link is text and video) reports that the Keeslings expect the cause of death to be suicide. Janett Keesling states, "If parents here hear stress, move mountains, whatever you have to do" and Gregg Keesling notes he thinks about and wishes there had been "some way we could have reached out to the chaplain there and said 'go see my son'."
Plugging a friend, Kathryn Bigelow's amazing film The Hurt Locker opens in Los Angeles and New York Friday and opens July 10th in San Francisco, Dallas, Chicago, Atlanta, Austin, Oahu, Portland, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, San Diego, Minneapolis, Denver, Toronto and DC. Christy Lemire (AP) reviews the film today and observes, "'The Hurt Locker' is by far the most effective film yet on this subject - and what's ironic about that is, it doesn't even feel all that specific to the Iraq war. Its insights and reach extend far beyond what's happened there over the past several years." Mali Elfman (Screen Crave) interviews Bigelow about directing the movie:
[Elfman:] When I watched the film I definitely got pangs of the adrenaline junkie Point Breakish- kind of thing. How important was it to have that side of the character while at the same time focusing on the reality behind someone like him?
Bigelow: Well in a way it's kind of a coincidence, I do look at film, as being very the opportunity to be very experiential. If you really want to stretch the medium you can give a viewer an experience that they can't otherwise easily get -- let's say you want to sign up for a tour of duty. And so when he came back and he was talking about some of these individuals in kind of an idea for a character that he had that combined a few of them, where they had a tremendous amount of swagger and bravado, and almost verging on being reckless, but at the same time combining that with a really profound skill set. I thought, really, that was an interesting course of direction.
Then we looked at Chris Hedges' book "War is a Force that Gives us Meaning" and one of the elements that he drools down on is "wars dirty little secret, some men love it." So he really looks at it because he is a war voluntary that there is -- not to everybody and it is not a generalization, but there is a sort of allure and attractiveness that combat possesses. So like the war reporter, like the war photographer, you know some, who knows, bull rider, whatever, there are certain vocations that speak to that kind of psychological component -- is hungry for those peak experiences.
[Elfman:] We were talking to Jeremy [Renner] and he said that his first question to you was "how do you want the audience to feel at the end of the movie?" How did you want the audience to feel at the end of the movie?
Bigelow: Well I think it's a little bit of both, you know, to a certain extent his life -- the sergeant James character is truly a hero, I believe, but at the same time that heroism comes with a price, and I think that is what I said to Jeremy way back way, is that their is a price to his heroism and can he reintegrate -- is his home life really ruined is too strong of a word, but it definitely doesn't provide the purpose and meaning that being out in the field disarming a bomb does. And unfortunately nothing can replicate that for particular character and so it is a bit of both.
Jennie Yabroff profiles Kathryn for Newsweek:
In the desert all that reserve fell away. "I'm young and in shape, and I was exhausted," says Renner of the Hurt Locker shoot. "She's out there feeding camels apples and skipping like a schoolgirl." A schoolgirl who can beat a bunch of macho guys up a hill, that is. Not that she'd want to draw attention to that fact. At this point in her career, Bigelow is weary of the notion that being a woman affects how she works. Critics can't seem to get over the idea that a female director could devote herself to making adrenaline-charged films that owe more to Ridley Scott than Nora Ephron. They rhapsodize, in high academic prose, about the role of guns as phallic symbols in Blue Steel, a thriller about a female cop; or the homoeroticism of Point Break; or the androgynous female figures in Near Dark, a hybrid Western/vampire movie. At the same time, it's hard to believe that Bigelow would dedicate her oeuvre to genres that are typically made by, for and about men, and not have a few thoughts on the subject.
Listen to Bigelow for a while, though, and you suspect that the critics and film scholars are missing the point. She is far more interested in talking about the look of her movies: how many cameras she used on The Hurt Locker (four); the way she storyboarded each scene, translating the space from three dimensions to two in her mind; the effort she took to make sure the bomb explosions appeared authentic, and not like what she calls HMEs (industry-speak, she explains, for Hollywood movie explosions). "I've spent a fair amount of time thinking about what my aptitude is, and I really think it's to explore and push the medium," Bigelow says. "It's not about breaking gender roles or genre traditions." In The Hurt Locker, Renner's character, Sergeant James, evokes iconic images of American masculinity: in his heavily padded, helmeted bomb suit, he looks like an astronaut striding onto the moon. There's also more than a little of the cowboy about him. He's not just a soldier; he's a renegade, ignoring protocol to do things his way. Not only does he defuse bombs like he's unwrapping lollipops, he outdrinks, outfights and outshoots his squadmates. But Bigelow sees the character less as a commentary on popular images of masculinity and more as an exploration of the modern hero. While exemplary at his job, James can barely function in noncombat zones. "He's evocative of a kind of John Wayne type, but updated to accommodate the complexities of this character, who is almost attracted to the world's most dangerous job," she says. The fact that the Iraq War is being fought by a volunteer Army is one of the keys of that attraction, she believes, and one of the elements that makes The Hurt Locker different from other war films. "War's dirty little secret is that some men love it," she says. "I'm trying to unpack why, to look at what it means to be a hero in the context of 21st-century combat."
iraq
bbc news
tom whiteheadmark steelrichard essexthe socialist worker
the times of londonalice fordhamthe new york timesmarc santoraalissa j. rubinrichard boudreaux
mcclatchy newspaperslaith hammoudi
the washington posternesto londono
nada bakristars and stripeschristy lemirekathyrn bigelow
chao xiong
Monday, June 22, 2009
Sandra Bullock, John Kass
The Proposal is the number one movie in the country. Above is Isaiah's illustration of Sandra Bullock who stars in that number one film.
Meanwhile, at the Chicago Tribune, John Kass writes:
It’s amusing to watch the Washington political establishment feign shock, now that President Barack Obama’s reform administration has used a clay foot to vigorously kick one inspector general and boot another out the door.
One inspector general foolishly investigated a friend of the president. Another inspector general audited those juicy bonuses given to AIG executives as part of $700 billion federal bailout of the financial industry.[snip]
Barofsky now claims that his autonomy will be compromised if the Obama Justice Department rules that he is merely a functionary of the Department of Treasury.
“An adverse ruling … could potentially have a serious impact on the independence of our agency and our ability to carry out our mandate,” Barofsky wrote in a letter to ranking senators on Friday.
Just two weeks ago, inspector general Gerald Walpin, who watches over volunteer community programs, was fired. He investigated Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, an Obama pal and former NBA star. Walpin alleged Johnson misused $850,000 in federal youth grants.
The use of political muscle may be prohibited in the mythic transcendental fairyland where much of the Obama spin originates, sprouting green and lush, like the never-ending fields of primo Hopium.
It really was amazing to watch as Kass and Steve Chapman (among others) were shut out of the conversation on TV last year. The national press knew nothing of Barack and they weren't interested in digging. Kass repeatedly warned that things were not as advertised.
I see the latest column as his "I told you so" column and see it as the first of many. He's earned the right.
A lot of us have and I'm not in the mood to play nice after all the nasty things screamed at those who tried to tell the truth in 2008.
Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Monday, June 22, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Gordon Brown can't cover for himself let alone Tony Blair, Jane Arraff reports US forces may not be pulling out of Mosul, Cindy Sheehan speaks out against both parts of the War Machine, the tag sale on Iraqi oil gets a push from the New York Times, and more.
Starting with England where Prime Minister Gordon Brown's been the topic of the week all last week. Fresh from nearly losing his prime minister post and on the heels of the spending scandals in Parliament, Brown promised a new age of transparency only to turn around last Monday and offer the long promised inquiry into the Iraq War . . . as a back-door, hidden-from-public view song and dance. The Irish Independent observes, "Brown's reputation has been hit by his disastrous handling of the planned inquiry into the invasion of Iraq." Today John Chilcot -- appointed by Brown to lead the Iraq inquiry -- makes a statement. BBC reports that Chilcot has sent Brown a letter which includes this statement: "More broadly, I believe it will be essential to hold as much of the proceedings of the inquiry as possible in public, consistent with the need to protect national security and to ensure and enable complete candour in the oral and written evidence from witnesses." Haroon Siddique (Guardian) adds, "One reason why Brown is thought to have agreed to a private inquiry may have been pressure from the former prime minister, Tony Blair. The Observer reported that Blair pressed Brown to hold an inquiry behind closed doors because he feared he would be subjected to a 'show trial' if it were open to the public." This morning on BBC1's The Andrew Marr Show, Marr spoke with Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg:
Nick Clegg: If his [Gordon Brown's] inquiry is to have any legitimacy it must first be held in public with only some exceptions made for evidence heard in secret. Andrew Marr: Do you think Tony Blair should be giving evidence in public? Nick Clegg: And second I'll be saying if the inquiry is to have any legitimacy, the prime architect of the decision to go to war in Iraq, along side George Bush, should give his evidence in public under oath. I think anything less will make people feel this is just a grand cover up for, after all, what was the biggest foreign policy mistake this country has made since has made since Suez. Andrew Marr: And what about Cabinet documents and documents that have been private before like, for instance, the one you mentioned from The Observer which suggest that there was a discussion [between Bush and Blair] about sending a plane over Iraq to see if they'd shoot it down as an excuse for starting the war? Nick Clegg: I think all of that should be made possible with, of course, some exceptions where you, for instance, endanger the lives of intelligence officers -- if you reveal through a public session where they're working how they're getting their intelligence. Just like the 9-11 inquiry in the United States. Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, some of these key players, they gave evidence in public and we should do exactly the same thing with only very small exceptions for evidence held in secret. I think, look, diplomats think it should be held in public, military figures do, the public clearly do, the families of the soldiers -- the brave service men and service women who've lost their lives, most political opinion thinks we should hold this in public. The only two people who don't are Alastair Campbell and Tony Blair because they want to cover up their tracks. We shouldn't have this inquiry determined by precisely the people who risk being most embarrassed by it.
Nick Clegg was asked of Jamie Doward, Gaby Hinsliff and Mark Townsend (The Observer) report on a January 31, 2003 memo ("almost two months before the invasion") which is a "record of a meeting between President Bush and Tony Blair before the invasion of Iraq, outlining their intention to go to war without a second United Nations resolution". Let's drop back to June of 2005 when Michael Smith (Times of London) reported:
A SHARP increase in British and American bombing raids on Iraq in the run-up to war "to put pressure on the regime" was illegal under international law, according to leaked Foreign Office legal advice. The advice was first provided to senior ministers in March 2002. Two months later RAF and USAF jets began "spikes of activity" designed to goad Saddam Hussein into retaliating and giving the allies a pretext for war. The Foreign Office advice shows military action to pressurise the regime was "not consistent with" UN law, despite American claims that it was. The decision to provoke the Iraqis emerged in leaked minutes of a meeting between Tony Blair and his most senior advisers -- the so-called Downing Street memo published by The Sunday Times shortly before the general election.
The two War Hawks were admitting that WMD might not be found and that they needed other ways to force the war with Iraq. Blair doesn't want to testify in private and has argued against it. Jason Beattie (Daily Mirror) adds, "Tony Blair sparked fury yesterday over claims that he tried to 'muzzle' the Iraq War inquiry. The former PM is reported to have told Gordon Brown the probe would have become a 'show trial' unless it was kept behind closed doors." Jane Merrick and James Hanning (Independent of London) surmise, "A public appearance by Mr Blair before the Chilcot inquiry would also damage his ambitions of becoming EU president, a role that needs the support of European countries that opposed the war." The New Statesman explains, "Sir Gus O'Donnell, the cabinet secretary, is said to have communicated Blair's anxieties to Brown. Yesterday the Northern Ireland Secretary, Shaun Woodward, confirmed that Blair had discussed the inquiry with O'Donnell." The reaction to former Prime Minister and always Bush Poodle Tony Blair attempting to circumvent the process resulted in a backlash even among Labour (Blair and Brown's party). William Hague (Daily Mail) argues, "He is the last person who should be setting the rules for an inquiry that will largely be concerned with decisions and events during his time in office." Nigel Morris (Independent of London) reports, "The Labour rebels' anger was intensified by the disclosure yesterday that Tony Blair, likely to be the key witness, had consulted with the Cabinet Secretary on the form of the inquiry. They want him to give evidence under oath."
This anger may be apparent in the increasingly public role of Education Secretary Ed Balls. Balls backed a public inquiry last week when he was caught by surprise with the question during a live interview. James Chapman (Daily Mail) notes, "Ed Balls today signalled that the Government would perform a U-turn and hold the Iraq War inquiry in public. The Education Secretary said it would be a 'good thing' to hold some of the hearing in public after Gordon Brown faced fury from Labour backbenchers over his initial decision to keep them private." Blair's not helped by news of an upcoming interview to run in Esquire. Rachel Cooke (Daily Mail) quotes Blair saying, "I've no regrets about that decision" to start an illegal war with lies "because it was difficult to get rid of Saddam, but leaving him would also have been difficult, and when I look at the region now, I think it would be a lot more complicated [were he still there]". And would over a million Iraqis have died? Would 173 British service members have died? Would 4315 US service members have died? Tony Blair sent what members of his own family into Iraq?
In the BBC interview, Nick Clegg mentioned Alastair Campbell. James Chapman (Daily Mail) observes, "Like ghosts at the feast, the sulphurous spirits of Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell loom large over Gordon Brown's latest political disaster. . . . Mr Campbell, who helped draw up the infamous Iraq War dossiers as Mr Blair's chief spin doctor, remains a major player behind the scenes and a conduit between the two men. He too speaks regularly to Mr Brown by phone and makes frequent visits to Downing Street." Bruce Anderson (Independent) advocates even further opening of the inquiry, "Crucial decisions were taken in the closest partnership with the Americans. Condi Rice, then the National Security Adviser, was in daily contact with David Manning, her nearest equivalent in No.10. It would be impossible to understand the UK role without the US dimension. That requires long interviews with President Bush, Secretaries Powell, Rice and Rumsfeld, plus a score of lesser names. The Chilcot report will not be complete unless it contains a chapter entitled: 'Mr Blair becomes a neo-conservative'." Lucien Rajakarunanayake (Sri Lanka's Daily News) also argues for expanding the scope:
The facts of the UK's involvement in the invasion of Iraq, it would show there is every reason to call for a fully independent and international probe into why the UK went to Iraq, what it did there and what it has left the Iraqi people with.The reasons are compelling. They went to a foreign land. They went there uninvited by its people. They went under false pretexts, having lied to their own legislature, the House of Commons, that Saddam Hussein was on the verge of acquiring WMD. They spun and twisted intelligence reports to mislead their own legislature, and even worse, together with those in Washington who misled both Houses of Congress about Iraq and WMD, also misled the UN Security Council on the same matter. They fooled the UN into endorsing the invasion of Iraq, which was in fact an illegal and criminal act. The entire invasion was a war crime of the highest order. All the bloodshed there was a humanitarian catastrophe - bloodbaths aplenty that no one in the UN warned about. But what do we have instead. Gordon Brown, David Miliband and the other pathetic caricatures of true Labour politicians, eating off the hands of a so-called Tamil Diaspora that promises them vote banks and plenty of undeclared stuffed brown paper envelopes, have announced a probe into the UK's participation in the war against Iraq, to be held in private. An international atrocity of such magnitude is to be probed in private, without even the media present to report what happens, at least to the British people, if not the world. Such is the level of transparency practised by those who demand the very extremes of public disclosure from us.
This Wednesday, the Stop the War Coalition is rallying Wednesday. "Protest at parliament against holding Iraq enquiry in private" (Great Britain's Socialist Worker) reports the demonstration will be "outside parliament at 2pm this Wednesday, demanding 'No Whitewash, No Cover Up', in the Iraq enquiry."
In Iraq Saturday a bombing in Kirkuk resulted in mass deaths. Khalid al-Ansary, Mustafa Mahmoud, Waleed Ibrahim, Muhanad Mohammed, Michael Christie, Daniel Wallis and Matthew Jones (Retuers) reported on the truck bombing dubbed "the deadliest in more than a year" and Hussain Nashaat declares, "I was sitting in my house when suddenly a powerful blast shook the ground under me. I found myself covered in blood and ran outside in a daze. My lovely neighbourhood was just rubble." Ali Al Winadawi and Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) added, "Witnesses said the explosion leveled more than 80 clay brick homes and partially destroyed the mosque. Rescuers dug through mounds of rubble looking for the wounded and pulling out the dead. Medical officials said at least 70 people had been killed and another 182 wounded in the bombing." The Telegraph of London noted that shortly before the Kirkuk bombing, Nouri al-Maliki was raving about the "great victory" (US troops leaving some Iraqi cities). Nada Bakri (Washington Post) quoted eye witness Qanbar Abdullah Sajjad stating, "All I could see was a fireball flying into the air followed by a thick cloud of dust and smoke. Bodies, covered with mud, were laying on the ground. People were bleeding and shouting for help." Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) added, "Hours after the blast, authorities were still digging through rubble searching for possible survivors and more bodies." Sunday Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reported the death toll has now risen to 80 with two-hundred-and-eleven people injured. (Reuters goes with 73.) Yaseen Taha and Mike Tharp (McClatchy Newspapers) explain, "Most of the casualties were Shia Turkoman, a large minority in Kirkuk Province where most people are Kurds. The prospect of control from Baghdad following the withdrawal of U.S. forces is deeply dismaying to many in Kirkuk who regard it as part of Kurdistan, a semi-autonomous region in the north of the country. Moreover, Kirkuk, a city of 848,000, sits atop some of Iraq's richest oil fields." Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) adds, "The force of the blast gouged a crater in the ground and badly damaged dozens of homes, burying victims in the rubble, people and officials at the scene said, expressing fear that the death toll would rise even more." It is the worst attack in Iraq this year (based on the death toll) and outlets are having to drop back to 2008 (specifically February 2008) to find an attack with a larger death toll.
Meanwhile, in Iraq today, violence continues. Alice Fordham (Times of London) reports, "A spate of deadly attacks killed more than 25 people in Iraq today and left more than 60 wounded, in a worrying escalation of violence as the exit of American troops from the country's cities draws nearer."
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) report a Baghdad roadside bombing which wounded three people, a second Baghdad roadside bombing which claimed 3 lives and left twelve wounded, a third Baghdad roadside bombing which claimed 3 lives and left thirty wounded, a Baghdad car bombing which claimed 5 lives and left twenty wounded, a Baghdad 'suicide car' bombing in which 7 people (plus the driver) died and thirteen were injured and a Baquba bombing which claimed 3 lives ("security members working for the ministry of oil"). Reuters notes a Kirkuk roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 Sahwa member (two more were wounded as they attempted to chase down two suspects who were shooting) and a Khanaqin roadside bombing which claimed the lives of 3 Iraqi soldiers.
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) report a Mosul home invasion in which 1 woman was shot dead and an assault on a Mosul checkpoint in which 2 police officers were shot dead.
Corpses?
Reuters notes 1 corpse discovered in Mosul.
Saturday the US military announced: "CAMP STRYKER, BAGHDAD -- A Multi-National Corps -- Iraq Soldier died as the result of a non-combat related incident June 19. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. The names of service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense official Web site at http://www.defenselink.mil/. The announcements are made on the Web site no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. The incident is under investigation." The announcement brings to 4315 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war.
Meanwhile "Do journalist learn English grammar?" is the question that Timothy Williams and Suadad al-Salhy's "Laws Lag in Iraq, as Patience Wears Thin" begs. The article runs in this morning New York Times and we'll let al-Salhy off the hook (although Arabic also includes basic grammar rules). We won't let Williams, the editors or the US State Dept (which wanted this piece of garbage 'report') off the hook. It's not a report. It's propaganda meant to force passage of the theft of Iraqi oil laws. The first sentence of the article tells readers that "popular support" is under strain in Iraq -- for the Parliament -- due to corruption. That's based on what? On the observations of the reporters? If so, they're not equipped to make that judgment nor does it belong in a report (it can go into a column or editorial on the op-ed pages). They insist "widespread confusion" reigns. Based on what?"Based on what?" should be the cry of readers as they work through the article.Who's making these claims? Chris Hill and the State Dept are doing a huge push thinking they have a limited window to get the theft of Iraqi oil passed. This is pressure from outside of Iraq.You're clued in that the complaints are not Iraqi based when paragraph six finally includes a "who" to hang some of the charges on: Haider Ala Hamoudi? Who is he? A professor . . . at the University of Pittsburgh.The trade offered from the US State Dept to Nouri al-Maliki is, "Push hard on the oil law and we'll push on changing the power structure." This article is a byproduct of the arrangement.Why does Nouri need the power structure changed? Because despite the press portraying him as popular (and a 'winner' in the January 2009 elections in which he wasn't a contest and in which NO political party could truly claim a majority of votes), he's not. He does appear to be more popular overall in Iraq than he is in the area that he represents.Nouri's always protected Nouri and that's why he's entered into yet another bargain with the US and why he's hoping they can help him ram through a presidential system to replace a parliamentary system. (Jalal Talabani is the president of Iraq currently. Nouri wants the sort of government the US has with himself in the position equivalent to the US presidency. What he really wants is to be the New Saddam and he's well on his way to achieving that 'honor'.)The typists type, "The country's economy is dependent almost entirely upon oil revenue, but because there is no single law regulating the industry, there is widespread confusion about investment, production and lines of authority. . . . Without rules governing the extraction of its huge oil reserves, it has been difficult for Iraq to attract foreign investment to its petroleum industry, which accounts for 95 percent of foreign exchange earnings." They really hope the readers haven't been paying attention. There's been no problem at all with business lining up for Iraqi oil. You're not supposed to know that or know that they had an auction on oil field leases last week. (Winners will be announced June 29th and 30th.) This morning Esther Nakkazi (The East African) reports that that Genel Energy International and Heritage Oil plan to merge into Heritage Oil Plc and form "an Anglo-Turkish company that would operate in Uganda and Iraq's autonomous oil-rich region of Kurdistan". Yesterday Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London) observed:It is only now, six years after the American invasion, that the battle for the control of Iraqi oil production is moving to the centre of politics in Baghdad. On 29 and 30 June, the Iraqi government will award contracts under which international oil companies will take a central role in producing crude oil from Iraq's six super-giant oilfields over the next 20 to 25 years. By coincidence, 30 June is also the date on which the last American troops will be leaving Iraqi cities. On the very day that Iraq regains greater physical authority over its territory, it is ceding a measure of control over the oilfields on which the future of the country entirely depends.The contracts have been heavily criticised inside Iraq as a sell-out to the big oil companies, which are desperate to get back into Iraq – oil was nationalised here in 1972, and Iraq and Iran are the only two places in the world where immense quantities of oil might still be discovered. Several of those criticising the contracts work in the Iraqi oil industry. "The service contracts will put the Iraqi economy in chains and shackle its independence for the next 20 years," said Fayad al-Nema, head of the state-owned South Oil Company, which produces 80 per cent of Iraq's crude. "They squander Iraq's reserves." Rule of thumb for foreign countries (and Boston newspapers), when the New York Times is 'concerned' about your economy, be alarmed. And for those who were still doubting reality (and the Times' efforts to distort it) this morning, Robin Pagnamenta (Times of London) reports in tomorrow's paper on the reality about the Iraqi oil contracts and bids:
Hussain al-Shahristani, who is due to announce winners for the first round of deals next week, will defend his decision to allow international oil companies, including BP and Shell, to compete openly for the contracts, which could be worth billions of dollars in the long term.
His appearance at a parliamentary committee hearing in Baghdad this morning comes after concern from some politicians that the contracts are not in Iraq's best interests and will expose the country to exploitation by Western oil companies. "The Oil Minister must convince us why the Government should have spent $8 billion [£4.9 billion] to develop oilfields, but then offers them to foreign firms like pieces of cake," Jabir Khalifa Jabir, secretary of the parliament's oil and gas committee, said. "Today" in the excerpt is Tuesday (when the story runs). Poor little Times of New York -- not only smacked down by the Times of London but also NYT used to do state propaganda so much better. Must be the economy.
Turning to the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement which doesn't mean what many appeared to think it meant. Khalid al-Ansary, Mustafa Mahmoud, Waleed Ibrahim, Muhanad Mohammed, Michael Christie, Daniel Wallis and Matthew Jones (Retuers) noted on Saturday "Almost all U.S. soldiers will leave urban centres by June 30 under a bilateral security pact signed last year and the entire force that invaded the country in 2003 must be gone by 2012." Got to love that "almost." The Status Of Forces Agreement did not allow for "almost" -- outside of horse shoes, it's difficult to think of anything where "almost" counts. Aamer Madhani (USA Today) reports today that Lt Col Shawn "Reed and his soldiers won't be going too far away -- the security agreement reached last winter with the Iraqi government stipulates only that U.S. combat troops leave cities, towns and villages by the June 30 deadline." Meanwhile Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) reports US forces in Mosul may not be withdrawing from Mosul and cites Col Gary Volesky explaining, "We're waiting for a final decision, and we're prepared to execute whatever they tell us to execute." The link also contains audio from Arraf: "As the deadline for US troops to be out of Iraqi cities approaches the main thing it's fostered is confusion. The security agreement signed by Iraq and the United States last year is quite clear: All US combat troops will withdraw from cities and other populated areas no later than June 30th. But since the agreement also seeks the temporary help of the US in combatting terrorism there's quite a bit of leeway."
In the US, Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan observes how strangely silent so many are as the war machine grinds on and notes how she was kicked to the curb and lied about when she refused to support the more 'populist' war party by cheering it on blindly:
I think that I have unfortunately been vindicated by almost every single action that the Democratic Party has taken since 2006 when impeachment was taken "off the table," but "blank-check" war funding was served up to the Military Industrial Complex on a bloody platter dripping with the flesh and blood of real human beings. Our politicians have no integrity partly because the organizations in the movements that have the largest emailing lists have no integrity. Wars that were wrong under Bush become acceptable under Obama and the stain of torture fades into the woodwork or is hidden from sight like a demented relation because a Senator has an affair. As I understand it, MoveOn.org was founded to oppose the impeachment of Bill Clinton for the same thing Ensign did. . . now the gatekeepers of the War Party are going to crucify Ensign to distract their subscribers from real issues? MoveOn.org sent this out in April 2008 in a fundraising email to its 5 million person list: No matter what happens in Iraq, the Bush Administration and John McCain always have the same answer: 6 more months. They're at it again this week, asking for six more months. But six months won't change anything -- except the body count and the price tag. They were not talking about the Democratic war funding this week. Apparently it's fine to fund wars if we have a Democratic Despotism, but dangerous for our troops if we have a Republican Regime.
And Jeremy Scahill (Rebel Reports) explored the Despotism noting Barack Obama's expanding (and undeclared) war in Pakistan which began with drone attacks January 23, 2009 and has continued and escalated since. Jeremy notes an interview Barack gave with Dawn where he claimed US troops would not be sent into Pakistan . . . despite the fact that they already are in Pakistan and he observes:
First, the only difference between using these attack drones and using actual US soldiers on the ground is that the soldiers are living beings. These drones sanitize war and reduce the US death toll while still unleashing military hell disproportionately on civilians. The bottom line is that the use of drones inside the borders of Pakistan amounts to the same violation of sovereignty that would result from sending US soldiers inside the country.
And finally from Third's "Summer reads," we'll note: "Tuesday MASTER OF WAR: Blackwater USA's Erik Prince and the Business of War by Suzanne Simons is published. You can read an excerpt from the hardcover book here. The book is based upon Simons' interviews with Prince and various Blackwater employees, research Simons did in Afghanistan and the Middle East, government contacts, employees' families and much more."
iraqbbc newsthe andrew marr showandrew marrlucien rajakarunanayakerachel cookejason beattiethe socialist workerjamie dowardgaby hinsliffmark townsend
nigel morris
khalid al-ansarythe los angeles timesali al winadawined parkerthe washington postnada bakrimohammed tawfeeqcnn
jane arraf
the new york timestimothy williamssuadad al-salhypatrick cockburnesther nakkazi
cindy sheehan
jeremy scahill
suzanne simons
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)