Iran

A senior official has confirmed that the State Department asked Twitter to delay a schedule maintenance shutdown and keep the social networking site running over the past weekend when it was scheduled to shut down for maintenance. The action was seen as a likely effort to maintain communication with users in Iran, where the contested presidential election has sparked a series of increasingly violent demonstrations and protests.

That is from Christina Ruffini (CBS News) and I remember what I said yesterday about not enjoying being directed to focus on a story. The State Dept wants to keep this story alive.

That's confirmed today but it was obvious Sunday and Monday. The government wants this story alive and the US government is not what anyone would consider a friend of Iran.

So why keep it alive, why beg Twitter to stay up?

How long has the US toyed with going to war with Iran?

Gee, think that could be part of it?

Think all these bloggers striving to create outrage over Iran's election (which really isn't all that important in the US) might unwittingly be helping set the stage for a US war with Iran?

Maybe.

And maybe that's why some people should learn that it's not your business what goes on in your neighbor's bedroom.

You would have thought Iran was the center of the US the way so many dropped every story to flood the zone on an election in another country.

We need to grow up and realize that this was an appeal to emotion.

Like tales of babies being tossed out of incubators.

Now a detached manner of following an election in another country is fine. But we didn't have that. We had a blood lust with lots of moralizing and chest thumping.

And it's those emotions that sweep a nation off to war.

I would hope that the CBS report would allow some to learn a lesson.

However, I doubt that's possible.


Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Tuesday, June 16, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, a lot people play 'proud parents' of Iraq, a call to halt executions in Iraq, and more.

Yesterday on KPFA Flashpoints, Iraq Veterans Against the War's Camilo Mejia appeared with soldier Victor Agosto who has refused to deploy to the illegal war in Afghanistan.

Camilo Mejia: I actually was pretty much against the occupation from even before my deployment. I had not bought into the whole rationale of weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda and 9-11. But it was all very political and all very -- I guess not very heart felt. I wasn't really willing to put my livelihood or my good military record on the line and I figured, you know, I'd just go to the theater, to Iraq, and get it over with and put it behind me once I returned home. But when I went to Iraq, my opposition to the war became more moral, more spiritual, more personal. It wasn't just an abstract thing. It wasn't just political because the first mission that we had was basically to run a POW camp -- a prisoner of war camp -- and to keep prisoners sleep deprived and for that we used a number of psychological tactics fear tactics that amounted to torture. And being an infantry man and being an infantry squad leader, following that mission we engaged not just the enemy but basically the population of Iraq particularly in a place called Ramada. And it just became a really horrible situation you know it became something that you're not ready to do as a human being. But at the same time my experience was very intense we didn't really have a whole lot of time to think philosophically or morally. Basically we wanted to get out of the place alive and in one piece so the will to survive kicked in and pushed aside moral concerns and it wasn't until I returned home on leave and I had a little bit of piece of mind and safety that I went back to my questioning of the war -- not just political but now moral as well and coming from a personal experience. I realized that I had to choose between being an obedient soldier and following my conscience you know I couldn't do the two at once. So I chose to follow my conscience and to not go back to the war and to eventually speak out against the war like Victor is doing. And there are different angles from which you can look at what Victor's doing and some people will say what awaits him is jail time and court martial and a lot of stress, the rejection of some of his peers and a harsh future in life. But in reality I think that his decision not to go back to an occupation that he finds immoral and illegal that goes against his conscience -- it's quite liberating and in the end going to work better for him than obeying something that is against his principals. And that's something you find from people who have gone through similar things like we have gone through like Stephen Funk and Augustin Aguayo and Kevin Benderman and other resisters. Yes, there's jail time and you may be put behind bars and some people may call you a coward or a traitor, but in the end you did what you knew was right in your heart and there's no greater sense of satisfaction and spiritual freedom than following your conscience. So I support him and I think that he's doing the right thing and I think that he's to be much better off resisting even if it means jail time than going back to Afghanistan and doing things that he later on will not be able to live with.

Nora Barrows Friedman asked Camilo about the state of things currently.

Camilo Mejia: For an organization like Iraq Veterans Against the War for instance, who depend greatly upon contributions from the public and support from ally organizations, we're having a very difficult time right now getting through to people and fund raising and doing things like that because the sense right now within the larger public is that the Iraq War is ending, that the Iraq occupation is coming to an end -- which is not true, and that the Afghanistan War is now the good war and that the -- Basically the Iraq War became indefensible. People turned against it. And they needed a new centerpiece for the global war on terror which is just another excuse for invading and occupying another country to go after their natural resources and Afghanistan is that war now. So a lot of people are on the fence or skeptical or giving President Obama the benefit of the doubt. If you add to that the financial crisis and a lot of people out there who are holding on to their savings and taking pay cuts and unemployed and not contributing the same and don't really feel like anti-war issues are any more that relevant, not as relevant as before. So that's the civilian side of things. I think right now we are on a stand-by when it comes to the civilian side. When it comes to the GI side? Regardless of what the official rhetoric is soldiers are still being deployed -- soldiers, marines, air service men and women -- we're still being deployed. And people are still coming back form Iraq and Afghanistan with untreated Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, returning to poverty in a broken economy being recycled from Iraq to Afghanistan. The VA crisis is really bad. We're short staffed. We have people who are suicidal who are waiting months to see a psychiatrist or psychologist or even a case worker. So regardless of the state of the civilian side of things we're going to continue to resist because our experience hasn't changed.

Iraq Veterans Against the War has been requesting people call their Congress members and demand a No vote on the War Supplemental:In mid May, we asked you to take action by contacting your legislators about the supplemental funding bill that would continue the U.S. occupation in Iraq and escalate our presence in Afghanistan. Well, since then, there have been some interesting developments, and we may have a real opportunity to defeat this funding. Republicans who previously voted for the earlier version of the bill do not want to give the IMF funds to bail out international banks or the economies of developing countries that have been affected by the global economic crisis. And progressive Democrats do not want to support money for the IMF due to its lack of transparency and its track-record of offering small nations economic bailouts with high interest rates and other nasty strings attached. Both sides have pledged to vote "NO" on the current version of the bill that now includes the IMF funding.This vote is expected to go to the House of Representatives TODAY. Please contact your member of the House today and tell them to vote "NO" on the Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (H.R. 2346).

This morning Carolyn Lochhead (San Francisco Chronicle) reported on US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's strong-arming attempt to get 218 out of 256 Democratic House members to support funding the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the undeclared war in Pakistan. US House Rep Lynn Woolsey is quoted stating, "I see no reason to be keeping our troops in Iraq that much longer and to start into Afhgnaistan when there's no end in sight. If we were voting on funds to bring our troops home from Iraq, I'd vote for it in a minute. . . . I just hope we're not repeating the mistake we made in Iraq." Lynn Woolsey went public last week on Pelosi and the White House's strong arming techniques earning the wrath of Barack's sock puppets and professional whores across the internet. Woolsey is a member of the Out of Iraq Caucus and one of the most telling votes will come from another member of that caucus, one who spent 2007 cutting details for her support of Barack and setting her own end up. Should she vote as she's led the White House and Pelosi to believe, one so-called dove will be sprouting her War Hawk feathers. Should it happen, it will be a big shock to her constituents and aid the challenge being planned against her in 2010. Rebecca notes her former pen pal has an article at CounterPunch wherein David Swanson notes MoveOn attempts a bait-and-switch by endorsing a non-binding amendment proposed by US House Rep Jim McGovern: "And MoveOn's timing, together with other organizations in the Win Without War coalition, was telling. Because many members of these groups oppose the war and have complained about their organizations' silence on the supplemental vote, the organizations' leaders chose the moment of the war vote to propose something else that might at least look like a halfway step. In reality, however, it may turn out to be counterproductive -- a development that would please Pelosi and [White House Chief of Staff Rahm] Emanuel." There is a chance the War Supplemental could go down in flames. If enough Dems and Republicans say "no," it won't pass. Walter Alarkon (The Hill) reports that the Republican plan in the House is "to vot en bloc against the $106 billion war-spending bill".

This morning Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) spoke with Bob Fertik of Democrats.com and he explained Republican opposition to the War Supplemental and demonstrated the problems with his organization's 'strategizing':

AMY GOODMAN: And what do you make of --what you're asking for is the Democrats to join with the Republicans in voting against the appropriations bill. Why are the Republicans against it?

BOB FERTIK: Because of the $5 billion for the IMF, which is a bailout for European banks.
AMY GOODMAN: And so, you're asking Democrats to join with the Republicans.

BOB FERTIK: Well, we're asking them to vote no on the bulk of the bill, which is the war funding for Iraq and Afghanistan, Pakistan.

He defines, he himself defines, the IMF issue as "a bailout for European banks" but when Amy follows up that he's asking for Dems and Republicans to join together? "Well, we're asking them to vote no on the bulk of the bill . . ." Because heaven forbid the man from Democrats.com work together with anyone to end the funding. I'm so sick of that nonsense. Yes, Dems and Republicans opposed to the bill -- for whatever reasons -- need to work together if they can. And that's in Congress and it's out of Congress. And Bob earlier wanted "everybody" to "call their representative at (202) 225-3121" -- everybody. And, guess what, Bob, some of those US House Reps that "everybody" will be calling? Republicans. For those who missed it, partisanship has ended the Iraq War, stopped the Afghanistan or prevented the undeclared war on Pakistan. Corey Boles (Wall St. Journal) reports Steny Hoyer is bragging publicly that he believes the Dems have the votes to pass the War Supplemental. Hoyer notes Barry O's efforts to push the bill through and praises him for possibly toying with an executive order barring the release of the torture photos because, after all, America is an executive order. What's that? It's a democracy? Don't tell Steny, he might pee all over himself in shock. Jeremy Scahill (Rebel Reports) points out, "In funding the wars, the White House has been able to rely on strong GOP support to marginalize the anti-war Democrats who have pledged to vote against continued funding (as 51 Democrats did in May when the supplemental was first voted on). But the White House is running into trouble now because of Republican opposition to some of the provisions added to the bill (and one removed), meaning the pro-war Democrats actually need a fair number of anti-war Democrats to switch sides. In short, the current battle will clearly reveal exactly how many Democrats actually oppose these wars."


So Bob Fertik wants you to stop the funding of the illegal war -- apparently without working with any of those cootie-laced Republicans. And what of the other brave hearts? American Freedom Campaign forgot about the Iraq War -- woopsie! -- but did find time today to send out an e-mail entitled "Book Recommendation: Daybreak" (no, not the Joan Baez book from decades ago, a new book by David Swanson). Those brave men and women at TomPaine, surely, they're all over this, right? Wrong. They sent out an e-mail today too . . . . On public health care. Well The Nation, surely The Nation magazine . . . . Oh, they e-mailed on "Iran's Twitter Revolution." Well put a twit in charge of The Nation, expect Twittering. Besides Katrina vanden Heuvel sold the 'good war' of Afghanistan. She'll moan a little ("Oh, the humanity!") but otherwise march along as she's told. Curse of the unpopular still desperate to fit in. True Majority e-mailed . . . to tell you it was your "last chance" to help Barry O with his his health plan. Good. Now they can find something else to mail about. (They won't.) CODESTINK is, of course, silent. They whored it out to Barack throughout 2007 and 2008. They whored it out and they've no credibility remaining. So it's probably good they just stand in their corners for the rest of 2009 and think what about they did. MoveOn tries to distract from the War Supplemental vote by suddenly pretending they care about the environment via a pollution e-mailing. Anyone else remember the "The earth can't wait one more minute!" screaming of 2007 and 2008? Anyone else noticing that Barack doesn't give a damn about the environment (first hint: Pro-mountain top removal and pro-nuclear energy)? Anyone else noticing the silence from the Crazies who were screaming "End of Times" last year and the year before? Sheryl Crow and her gal pal plan to corner David Axelrod and scream at him about what's happening to the administration? Just wondering.

Meanwhile the New York Times' John F. Burns is just a whore who will never recover from whoring. That's apparent today in the crap he scribbles under the headline "Britain to Investigate Role in Iraq." Couldn't keep it in his pants Burnsie played Go-Go Boy Gone Wild in the Green Zone and if there's one person who filed in Iraq that brought more shame to the paper than Dexy Filkins, it was his teacher, mentor and wet nurse Burnise who was way too old not to know better. He's still way too old not to know better and his article is an embarrassment. We gave him the benefit of the doubt yesterday and just avoided it for the snapshot. He might be rushing. He apparently was rushing. He rounded it out by taking the Conservative leader's speech and basically presenting points from it as a critique. Possibly that's a good thing since his own critical abilities fail him. There's not any informed and honest follower of the David Kelley inquiry at this late date who would refer to it without serious questioning. But Burnsie thinks it's an example of a great inquiry. And public, too! For those who've forgotten, the BBC accused Blair's cabinet of sexing up the intel and that was based on information provided by the late David Kelley. The inquiry was a whitewash. Only later revelations, after the inquiry closed, proved how right the BBC was. But this was after heads rolled. It takes a real idiot to invoke the Kelley inquiry as anything worthy of praise but Fat Ass Burnsie's been a real idiot for years now. Link provided for laughter only. Laugh at him and grasp he can't just sit at a desk in this economy. In the past the paper would keep useless garbage like Burnsie on the payroll for decades as long as they reported for work each day. They never had to actually compose a story worth publishing. It was sort of the payroll version of the "Gentleman's C." Those days are largely over. Catherine Mayer (TIME magazine) manages to actually report, pay attention, Burnsie. She quotes Rose Gentle protesting the non-public 'inquiry,' "What is the point of an inquiry behind closed doors? No family would be happy with that. We already feel that we have been lied to by the government. We don't want any more lies." And Mayer notes that "the new inquiry has no powers of subpoena and will hold no public hearings. Its report will be published, but with some information considered potentially harmful to national security redacted."

Released today in the US was [PDF format warning] "Joint Audit of Blackwater Contract and Task Orders for Worldwide Personal Protective Services in Iraq." It is the latest report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. As explained in the Executive Summary, "this report focuses on Blackwater contract in Iraq". The report questions oversight of the contract (including on labor costs billed to the government by Iraq). It's a minor report (44 pages of text -- largely outlining what Blackwater told them -- Blackwater, though not identified as such, is the primary source for the report. That's apparent due as they go through the step-by-step hiring process of Blackwater, etc. There was little independence in this report which really should have given Blackwater co-authorship of this report since they took all claims by Blackwater on employment hiring practices at face value.) Viola Gienger (Bloomberg News) notes that the report finds US diplomats were at "unnecessary risk" because Blackwater did not staff properly. Yes, a scary thought, all the damage Blackwater did in Iraq and they were understaffed. Imagine how many civilian slaughters they could have carried out if they'd been full staffed? CNN goes with the understaffed aspect as well but emphasizes the finanical portion: "The State Department failed to seek $55 million in penalties from the American security firm once known as Blackwater for not properly complying with its security contract for protecting diplomatic personnel in Iraq, an audit shows." Yochi J. Dreazen (Wall St. Journal) doesn't see a failure to seek penalties so much as "the State Department overpaid the contract-security firm".

While the press debates that, few bother to note that the European Union issued "Declaration by the Presidency on behalf of the European Union on the continuation of mass executions in Iraq:"The European Union is deeply disturbed at reports that in recent days further death sentences were carried out in Iraq, probably totalling number 20.Moreover, the European Union is severely alarmed about indications that further mass executions might be imminent. The European Union opposes the death penalty in all cases and in all circumstances. Our view is that the abolition of the death penalty contributes to the enhancement of human dignity and the progressive development of human rights. The European Union considers the death penalty as a cruel and inhuman punishment and a violation to the right to life. We consider that it provides no added value in terms of deterrence. At a time where a positive image of Iraq and of its achievements is emerging, the resumption of the execution of capital punishment affects that image and does not help the effort aiming at promoting the awareness of the positive developments in Iraq within the international community and public opinion. The European Union is particularly disturbed about the way in which the death penalty is applied in Iraq, a country where the judiciary is still being developed. The EU recalls that any miscarriage or failure of justice in the application of capital punishment represents an irreparable and irreversible loss of human life.The European Union considers it indispensable that where States insist on applying the death penalty, it is carried out with due respect to international obligations for the protection of human rights, including the obligation that the death penalty may only be carried out pursuant to a final judgment after legal process which gives all possible safeguards to ensure a fair trial, at least equal to those contained in article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including the right of anyone suspected of or charged with a crime for which capital punishment may be imposed to adequate legal assistance at all stages of the proceedings. The EU therefore urges the Government of Iraq to resume the de facto suspension of the execution of death penalty, which had been observed in Iraq since August 2007, pending legal abolition. This suspension should include all cases still on death row in Iraq. Such a step would be in line with the global trend towards abolition, as demonstrated, inter alia, by the recent UN General Assembly Resolutions calling for a moratorium with a view to considering the abolition of the death penalty for all crimes. The Candidate Countries Turkey, Croatia* and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia*, the Countries of the Stabilisation and Association Process and potential candidates Albania and Montenegro, and the EFTA countries Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, members of the European Economic Area, as well as Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova and Armenia align themselves with this declaration. * Croatia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia continue to be part of the Stabilisation and Association Process.CTK adds, "A halt to the executions in Iraq was also recently demanded by Amnesty International human rights watchdog." From yesterday's snapshot, we'll note:

Nell Abram (Free Speech Radio News) reports a hunger strike in Iraqi, "Dozens protested outside an Iraqi prison today where hundreds of detainees have launched a hunger strike -- they're protesting what they describe as abuse. Most of the 300 men at Iraq's Rusafa prison have been held without charge for at least a year. Last week, a Sunni lawyer who was a prominent voice for prisoners' rights was killed. Harith al-Obeidi, the head of Sunni Iraqi Accordance Front, had publicly called for Iraqi officials to respond to claims of torture in Iraqi jails."

Hey, kids, who runs that prison? The Ministry of the Inerior. Last November, they were offering Andrew North (BBC News) a tour of the Baghdad prison to disprove allegations of abuse. Is a potential pattern emerging?

Yes, it is the Ministry of the Interior and Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) reports today, "Iraq's interior minister promised on Tuesday to punish any prison workers found guilty of abusing inmates." Iran's Press TV also notes it is "an interior ministry prison".
Today in Iraq, Reuters reports a bus accident in southern Iraq has resulted in the death of at least 14 people ("many of them children") with at least thirty more injured. The dominant thread coming out of Iraq today is a lot of press members playing proud parents. You know how those are. A B-report gets inflated to an A, etc. So they hope no one attended Nouri's recital and saw the hole on the seat of his tights when he was doing an Arabesque. Instead, everyone's supposed to pretend that the acres and acres of the US Embassy that anchor the Green Zone don't exist and that Nouri really, honest!, has control over the Green Zone!!!! And forget those sprawling US bases bordering and running through Baghdad and Mosul, Nouri's got control!!! Control!!! It's such a proud moment and we're all so very -- Nouri, don't pick your nose. Stop that. But it's such a proud, proud moment and we're all so very . . . . It's not news. It's not even good propaganda. It's reporters shaming themselves in public. Way to drop that whole pesky disinterested, objective pose. In other reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi and Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) report a Baghdad roadside bombing which wounded two Iraqi civilians and one US service member, a Mosul roadside bombing which wounded four people and, dropping back to Monday night, a Mosul roadside bombing which left two people wounded. Reuters notes a Monday Mosul bombing which left "a judge and two of his aides" injured and a Monday Kirkuk car bombing which claimed the life of 1 person and left five more injured.

Shootings?

Laith Hammoudi and Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) report the US military fired at a car in Mosul and ended up hitting a woman and a driver on a bus, wounding both.

Stabbings?

Laith Hammoudi and Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) report 1 person stabbed to death in Kirkuk today. Reuters reveals that the victim owned a cell phone store and was killed in it.

Kidnappings?

Laith Hammoudi and Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) report 2 people kidnapped last night in Kirkuk.

Today the US military announced: "CONTINGENCY OPERATING BASE ADDER, Iraq -- A Multi-National Division-South Soldier was killed by an improvised explosive device near the city of Samawah June 16. The Soldier's name is being withheld pending notification of next-of-kin. The name of the Soldier will be 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 announcement brought to 4313 the number of US service members killed in the Iraq War.

In the US, Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan continues speaking out against the war machine. Her latest book is Myth America: 10 Greatest Myths of the Robber Class and the Case for Revolution. She's on the road and June 17th will be in St. Petersburg, Florida (6:00 pm at NOVA 535 and 8:00 to 9:00 pm at Cafe Bohmia). June 18th to 23rd, she blankets Philadelphia and surrounding areas with eight different venues. June 20th she will hold a noon event at Penn Wynne Presbyterian Church in Wynnewood, PA, then at three p.m. an event at Center City Phildelphia, then that night, at beginning at seven thirty, she'll be at the Moonstone Art Center in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. June 21st finds her at the Unitarian Universalist Congregation in Princeton, New Jersey starting at two p.m. and later that night, 6:30, at St Luke's United Church of Christ. June 22nd she'll be at Phila Community Center starting at two p.m. and at Central Bucks & Montgomery County that night at seven. June 23rds events include the Unitarian Universalist Church in Bethlehem, New York at seven p.m. June 24 and 25th are NYC. For a full listing click here. Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox is Cindy's weekly radio program and Dallas radio station 1360 AM, Rational Radio, is now carrying it on Sundays. World Can't Wait has video of Cindy's protest last week at Bush's home in Dallas.

In other news, "This Is Why" is a mailing sent out by the Democratic Party today (Democratic National Committee), it's filled with lies so big surprise it's signed by Barack Obama. (Wall Street bought and paid for you Barack, only you're most demented still believe your myth of small donors.) It's another "Send money!" Another, "You got a dollar?" The begging is appalling. It's not 2010. It's not begging for a political race. It's just begging. It's just greed. Some people need to start worrying about how tacky and cheap they're coming off. It's bad enough to have Celebrity In Chief. It's far worse to have one who can't stop whoring it out for a few dimes. Try to maintain the dignity of the office. Please stop trying to prostitute the office of the presidency due to your never ending greed.



iraqthe san francisco chroniclecarolyn lochheadthe hillwalter alakronkpfa
flashpointsnora barrows friedman
camilo mejiairaq veterans against the war
cindy sheehan
amy goodmandemocracy now
mcclatchy newspaperslaith hammoudisahar issa
the wall street journalyochi j. dreazen
waleed ibrahim
free speech radio news

Torture, not you know what

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "CIA Diva" went up last night and it's funny. I really thought this topic would be bigger in the news today but we're all too busy peeping through the curtains at Iran to pay attention to anything else I guess.

It's really kind of disgusting and if you look at it online you'll see that it's THE topic for all the blogs that always ignore Iraq. So tell me, The Confluence, you gonna suit up and rush over to Iran? You going to parachute in if you don't like the verdict?

I mean, get real. It's not your country and they're going to do what they're going to do. By all means, show some interest but the reality is this is more about a thirst for blood.

It's really disgusting. I have more respect for the people who stuck to their usual beats than I do for all the ones rushing off to say, "Oh did you see on Twitter! OMG! OMG!! What are we going to do!!!! Oh my!!!!" Yeah, like I asked, are you parachuting in?

I also get a little dismayed whenever the people go along with the networks. I kind of feel it's my civic duty after living through the lead up to the Iraq War to draw attention away from whatever the Corporate Whores want us to be concerned about.

So while everyone else is telling you, "Look over there!," I'll urge you to check out "Newly Released Detainee Statements Provide More Evidence of CIA Torture Program" (ACLU Blog):

Today, in response to an ACLU lawsuit, the CIA released documents in which Guantánamo Bay prisoners describe abuse and torture they suffered in CIA custody. In previously released versions of the documents, the CIA had removed virtually all references to the abuse of prisoners in their custody; the documents released today are still heavily redacted, but include some new information.

The documents were released as part of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking uncensored transcripts from Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs) that determine if prisoners held by the Defense Department at Guantánamo qualify as “enemy combatants.”
The newly unredacted information includes statements from the CSRTs of former CIA detainees, including Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, Abd Al Rahim Hussein Mohammed Al Nashiri, Abu Zubaydah and Majid Khan, including descriptions of torture and coercion.

If only John Yoo had declared the torture could go on Twitter, maybe some of the ga-ga-OMG-crowd today could cover it? Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Monday, June 15, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Gordon Brown attempts a whitewash, Sunnis under attack, Iraq stages its first state funeral over the weekend, and more.

Starting with England. Military Families Against the War's Rose Gentle told the BBC earlier today of the speculation of an inquiry into the Iraq War, "It ought to be held in public. It can't be held behind closed doors. It's the families and people that have to know the truth. It was our sons that were sent and our sons that were killed." The Daily Mirror quotes Rose stating, "What's the point of an inquiry behind closed doors? No family would be happy with that. We don't want any more lies." Gordon Brown, aka Tony Blair Junior, presented his non-plan today and it managed to be just as big a disappointment as Gordon himself. Before we get to his nonsense, let's go to Rose Gentle's pronouncement on Gordo's nonsense from UTV News, "I think we all know what it will say. I think it is going to be a whitewash. They tell you what they want you to know and that's it. Families are not going to find out the truth. The families and the country have a right to know why they did go. If there were any mistakes, lessons should be learned. I think those that have lost someone have a right to know."

Now on to Gordo. The Prime Minister yammered away like a Loony Bird for 2190 words, many of them lies. You'd think with 2190 words, he might have found time for a hey-hey to Amara but there was no mention there of how the British were run off their own basein Amara (August 24, 2006) how the British fled and the thing was dismantled by looters almost immediately.

Gordon Brown: Mr Speaker, I am today announcing the establishment of an independent, privy-counsellor Committee of Inquiry. It will consider the period from summer 2001 before military operations began in March 2003, and our subsequent involvement in Iraq until the end of July this year. The inquiry is essential so that, by learning lessons, we will strengthen the health of our democracy, our diplomacy and our military.
The inquiry will, I stress, be fully independent of government.
The scope of the inquiry is unprecedented -- covering an eight year period, including the run-up to the conflict and the full period of conflict and reconstruction.
The Committee of Inquiry will have access to the fullest range of information, including secret information. In other words their investigation can range across all papers all documents and all material. So the inquiry can ask for any British document to come before it and any British citizen to appear. No British document and no British witness will be beyond the scope of the inquiry.
And I have asked the members of the inquiry that the final report of the inquiry will be able to disclose all but the most sensitive information, that is, all information except that which is essential to our national security.

He announced that Sir John Chilcot would chair the committee composed of Baroness Usha Prashar, Sir Roderick Lyne, Sir Lawrence Freedman and Sir Martin Gilbert. The immediate response came in Parliament. The Liberal Democrats' Nick Clegg offered a response which included:

Everyone knows that the invasion of Iraq was the biggest foreign policy mistake this country has made in generations; the single most controversial decision taken by government since Suez.
So Mr Speaker, I am staggered that the prime minister is today seeking to compound that error, fatal for so many of Britain's sons and daughters, by covering up the path that led to it.
Liberal Democrats have called for an inquiry into the build-up and conduct of the Iraq war for many years, and we can be grateful that finally, the prime minister has acceded to that demand.
But, as so often, he has taken a step in the right direction but missed the fundamental point. A secret inquiry will not deliver what Britain needs.
Does the prime minister not understand that the purpose of an inquiry is not just to produce a set of dry conclusions, but to allow the people of Britain to come to terms with a mistake made in our name?
To allow veterans, and the families and friends of those who gave their lives in this disastrous war, to come to understand how it happened?
I have met the families of these soldiers.
And just an hour ago I was asked to speak in their name and tell you that nothing short of a fully public inquiry - held in the open - will satisfy them.
Will the prime minister not listen to what they need?
He says it the inquiry has to be in private to protect national security.
But it looks suspiciously like he wants to protect his reputation and that of his predecessor, not Britain. Why else would he want it to report after the general election?

The Conservative Party's David Cemeron offered a response to Brown which included the following:

Now we welcome an Inquiry, indeed we've been calling for it for many, many months. But I have to say I'm far from convinced that the Prime Minister has got it right.
The whole point of having an Inquiry is that it has got to be able to make clear recommendations, go wherever the evidence leads, establish the full truth, and to make sure the right lessons are learned. And it's got to do so in a way that builds public confidence. Isn't there a danger that what the Prime Minister has announced today won't achieve those objectives?
The membership looks quite limited. The Terms of Reference seem restricted. And the Inquiry isn't specifically tasked to make recommendations. And none of it will be held in public.
So will the Prime Minister answer questions about the following four areas: the timing, the membership, the coverage and content, and the openness?
First, timing. This Inquiry should have started earlier. How can anyone argue that an Inquiry starting say six months ago would somehow have undermined British troops?
Indeed the argument that you can't have an Inquiry while troops are still in Iraq has been blown away today by the Prime Minister saying that some troops will indeed be staying there even as the Inquiry gets underway.
In terms of how long the Inquiry takes, the Franks Inquiry reported in just six months. And yet this Inquiry is due to take, surprise surprise, until July or August 2010.
By delaying the start of the Inquiry, and prolonging the publication until after the next election, won't everyone conclude that this Inquiry has been fixed to make sure that the Government avoids having to face up to any inconvenient conclusions?
At the very least, will the Prime Minister look at the possibility of an interim report early next year?
Second, the people conducting the Inquiry. What is required for an Inquiry like this is a mixture of diplomatic, military and political experience.
Now we welcome the diplomatic experience . There has to be a question mark over the military expertise - no former chiefs of staff or people with that sort of expertise. But also isn't it necessary - as the Franks Inquiry did - to include senior politicians from all sides of the political divide, to look at the political judgements?
The Inquiry needs to be, and needs to be seen to be, truly independent - and not an establishment stitch-up.So will he look at widening the membership in the way that we have suggested?
Third, the coverage and content of the Inquiry. Yes, it is welcome that it will cover the whole period in the run-up to the War, as well as the conduct of the War.
But isn't it wrong to try to confine the Inquiry to an arbitrary period of time? Shouldn't it be free to pursue any points which it judges to be relevant?
Looking specifically at the issue of Terms of Reference: isn't it extraordinary that the Prime Minister said it should try to avoid apportioning blame. Shouldn't the Inquiry have the ability to apportion blame?
If mistakes were made, we need to know who made them and why they were made.

The Scottish National Party's Angus Robertson decried Gordon Brown's non-plan as "totally inadequate" and stated:

As he reinvented himself last week, Gordon Brown told us he was comitted to transparency in government. Today, the doors he was so keen to open have been slammed shut in the faces of our service personnel, the families who lost loved ones in Iraq, those people who protested against the war, and all of us who are paying for it.
The claim that the war was about weapons of mass destruction was a blatant lie, a mere cover story unsupported by the facts, which has the lives of thousands of civilians and hundreds of our brave soldiers. The timing and scope of this inquiry all point to a desperate Government and a Prime Minister making a cynical attempt to boost his faltering leadership.
We must learn the lessons from the worst UK Foreign Policy decisions in living memory and this can only be done through a full and open investigation -- that this can only be done through a full and open investigation -- that this inquiry will take place in private is totally outrageous and entirely inadequate.
The SNP have been pressing for years on this issue and will continue to push until the full story about the events which led to the war in Iraq and the conflicts itself are known.

Al Jazeera quotes Stop the War Coalition's Lindsey German stating, "There is no reason this shouldn't be a public inquiry. It's carried out by the privy council which is part of the establishment and therefore won't be geniunely independent of the government. We have to have an inquiry which asks what Tony Blair and George Bush discussed a year before they took us to war when they met at Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas." Philip Webster (Times of London -- link has a one minute and a few second snippet of Gordo's lenthy speech) quotes Rose Gentle stating, "We have fought and fought for this but it will be no use and it could all be for nothing behind closed doors. We will be lobbying Parliament to make sure this is all transparent." Deborah Summers and Nicholas Watt (Guardian -- link also has a video snippet of Brown's speech) report on the protest at Parliament Square following Brown's announcement and quotes 19-year-old architercture student Ben Beach stating, "We're here today because they have announced the inquiries will be in secret, which I think is an affront to democracy in this country, and it's an affront to British democracy that this war went ahead despite the overwhelming majority of people being against it." Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian) observes:

There really is no legitimate reason now for any of the inquiry into the invasion of Iraq to be held in private. Extremely sensitive information, intelligence material in particular, has already been disclosed, either here or in the US, by official inquiries or leaks.
The reason why the government wants it to be held behind closed doors -- a weapon allowing Whitehall to control proceedings -- is to enable it to protect itself, and individuals, from embarrassment. To drive home the point, the members of the inquiry, led by Sir John Chilcot, the epitome of a Whitehall mandarin, will be made privy counsellors, told to swear an ancient oath of secrecy.
We already know a great deal about how the Iraqi banned weapons dossier was manipulated by Whitehall officials and intelligence chiefs, at the behest of their political masters -- most notably, Tony Blair. We know from a leaked Dowing Street memo, marked " secret and strictly personal -- UK eyes only", that, at a meeting Blair chaired on 23 July 2002, nearly a year before the invasion, Sir Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6, warned that in Washington "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy"; and Jack Straw, then foreign secretary, said "it seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action ... But the case was thin."
Lord Butler told the Guardian that his committee set up to investigate the use and abuse of intelligence in the build-up to the invasion had seen the document. He said his report did not refer to its contents on the grounds that they related to US use of intelligence, which was outside his terms of reference. The explanation is one reason why a fresh inquiry needs to be held in public. That Chilcot himself sat on the Butler committee hardly inspires confidence that this new inquiry will be any more penetrating.

It's amazing that Gordon Brown wanted to talk of the bravery of the British forces while showing nothing but cowardice when it came to an inquiry. If he indeed feels British forces fought bravely and since the Iraq War was conducted in public, the inquiry should be as well.

Moving to Iraq, Fatih Abdulsalam (Azzaman) observes, "There are strong indicators for political assassinations to become the major trademark of the run-up to the parliament elections early next year. . . . Assassination as a political weapon was not there before the 2003-U.S. invaion. This weapon is the means which politically and morally weak leaders and groups resort to because without it they will heave no existence." MP Harith al-Obeidi (also spelled Obaidi) was assassinated Friday outside his mosque. The day before he was assassinated, he had called for an independent investigation into reports of abuse and torture in Iraqi prisons. Saturday Rod Nordland and Abeer Mohammed (New York Times) reported that he had given a sermon moments before and that a section of it covered prison abuse. They also report the killer was 27-years-old. al-Obaida's funeral was Saturday and Al Jazeera observed it was the country's "first state funeral since the US-led invasion in 2003" while Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) added, "Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and lawmakers from across Iraq's political spectrum watched as a white-clad honour guard carried Ubaidi's coffin and the other containing his sister's husband, a close aide, who was among five other people killed." But on that day in history, AP reminds, "Five years ago: In Iraq, gunmen assassinated senior Education Ministry official Kamal al-Jarah." Marc Santora (New York Times) reported Sunday, "The gunman who killed the men Friday managed to get past three layers of security at the mosque where Mr. Obaidi, who was also a cleric, was leading Friday Prayer. The investigation is focusing on the security guards assigned to protect Mr. Obaidi and the mosque, who were from Mr. Obaidi's own Islamic Party of Iraq, or I.I.P., according to an Iraqi security official with direct knowledge of the case." Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) quoted an unnamed Iraqi MP explaining one of the dominant Shi'ite blocs in Parliament (Tuwafaq) "had asked members of parliament not to publicly comment on the process until the investigation was completed within the next two days. He says there is skepticism, though, on the credibility of the investigation and any prospect that it would link Iraqi security forces in any way to the killing. 'For the past four years they have been making investigations and we haven't seen any results,' he says."

Who could be responsible? No one knows at this point. Less than 24 hours before he was killed, al-Obeidi was addressing the torture and abuse going on in Iraqi prisons and demanding an independent inquiry. The press that was eager to run with "Killer is 15!" when that was fed to them was also happy to run with the feeding of "INSURGENT!" Who runs the prisons in Iraq? Not 'insurgents.' The Ministry of Justice . . . and the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs and the Ministry of Defense. (The Kurdish Regional Government runs their own prisons.) What names stands out on that list? The Ministry of the Interior. A thug-heavy ministry that's stolen land and homes in Baghdad, that's terrorized and ethnically cleansed sections of Baghdad, a group of Shi'ite thugs who are thought to have been implicated in the deaths of many US service members. July of last year, Matthew D. LaPlante's "'Worse than the adult prisons' U.S.: Torture, murder at Iraqi juvenile prison" (Salt Lake Tribune): U.S. forces staged several high-profile raids on adult detention centers run by Iraq's Ministry of the Interior in 2005 and 2006, uncovering several "torture dungeons" where, in some cases, prisoners -- most often Sunni men accused of insurgent activity -- had been mutilated with chains, knives and power drills. There have been fewer public disclosures of such "liberations" of abused detainees in the wake of the Sunni-Shiite civil war, which reached a violent apex in 2007. But Kevin Lanigan, a former Army officer who served as an adviser to the Ministry of the Interior in 2006 and 2007 and now directs the U.S. Law and Security Program at the New York City nonprofit Human Rights First, said he cannot say whether that is the result of improvements in the way those working for the ministry - which by law isn't allowed to detain anyone for more than 72 hours - treat their prisoners. "Nobody has good oversight or supervision," Lanigan said, noting that in many cases local militias have taken control of government operations. "There's just not a lot that's transparent about it."Lanigan said Iraq's criminal detainees are supposed to be held in facilities run by Iraq's Ministry of Justice, though in practice the responsibility for prisoners is spread out over several other ministries, including the Shiite-dominated Interior Ministry, which does not get funding, training or oversight for that task. This is Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) providing a rundown of the ministry in July 2007:The very language that Americans use to describe government -- ministries, departments, agencies -- belies the reality here of militias that kill under cover of police uniform and remain above the law. Until recently, one or two Interior Ministry police officers were assassinated each week while arriving or leaving the building, probably by fellow officers, senior police officials say. That killing has been reduced, but Western diplomats still describe the Interior Ministry building as a "federation of oligarchs." Those who work in the building, like the colonel, liken departments to hostile countries. Survival depends on keeping abreast of shifting factional alliances and turf. On the second floor is Gen. Mahdi Gharrawi, a former national police commander. Last year, U.S. and Iraqi troops found 1,400 prisoners, mostly Sunnis, at a base he controlled in east Baghdad. Many showed signs of torture. The interior minister blocked an arrest warrant against the general this year, senior Iraqi officials confirmed. The third- and fifth-floor administrative departments are the domain of Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's Islamic Dawa Party, a Shiite group. The sixth, home to border enforcement and the major crimes unit, belongs to the Badr Organization militia. Its leader, Deputy Minister Ahmed Khafaji, is lauded by some Western officials as an efficient administrator and suspected by others of running secret prisons. The seventh floor is intelligence, where the Badr Organization and armed Kurdish groups struggle for control. The ninth floor is shared by the department's inspector general and general counsel, religious Shiites. Their offices have been at the center of efforts to purge the department's remaining Sunni employees. The counsel's predecessor, a Sunni, was killed a year ago.No one was treated fairly in those Iraqi prisons but who was most often targeted? In June of 2006, Jonathan Finer and Ellen Knickmeyer (Washington Post) reported, "But while a U.N. human rights report issued last month stressed that the Defense and Interior ministries have legal authority to hold inmates only a brief time, Sunni Arabs charge that Sunnis are regularly imprisoned in the centers for months or even more than a year."Sunnis felt they were treated more harshly. A Sunni lawmaker calls for an independent investigation. Hmm. In November of 2005, Catherine Philp (Times of London) reported:Up to 200 malnourished Iraqi detainees bearing signs of torture have been found in a secret prison in the basement of a Government building in Baghdad.The discovery of the prisoners came after American troops surrounded and took control of an Interior Ministry building in the Jadriya neighbourhood of the capital on Sunday night. When American forces arrived at the facility, officials there told them there were 40 detainees being held. As they moved through the building they discovered at least 200 prisoners, mostly Sunni Arabs and many in very poor health. The Americans had apparently been tipped off to the prison's existence by relatives of those being detained. A secret prison run by whom? The Interior Ministry. And the prisoners were mostly what? Sunnis. And a Sunni MP called for an independent investigation into torture and abuse in Iraq prisons on a Thursday and the following morning he was assassinated?Aswat al-Iraq reported at the start of the month that an investigation into the torture and abuse in Iraqi prisons was being started. Guess who was carrying it out? "The Iraqi Interior Ministry formed a committee to investigate petitions filed against some security services in Diwaniya alleging that they committed human rights violations in the province's prisons, the director of the Ministry's operations room said on Saturday." So there was already ongoing investigations. What was al-Obeidi problem? Oh, yeah, they were independent investigations, they were more of the same whitewash that had gone on over and over where no one's ever really responsible or guilty of anything. Today Nell Abram (Free Speech Radio News) reports a hunger strike in Iraqi, "Dozens protested outside an Iraqi prison today where hundreds of detainees have launched a hunger strike -- they're protesting what they describe as abuse. Most of the 300 men at Iraq's Rusafa prison have been held without charge for at least a year. Last week, a Sunni lawyer who was a prominent voice for prisoners' rights was killed. Harith al-Obeidi, the head of Sunni Iraqi Accordance Front, had publicly called for Iraqi officials to respond to claims of torture in Iraqi jails."

Hey, kids, who runs that prison? The Ministry of the Inerior. Last November, they were offering Andrew North (BBC News) a tour of the Baghdad prison to disprove allegations of abuse. Is a potential pattern emerging? He calls for an independent investigation on Thursday and he's dead on Friday. That doesn't mean that's why he was assassinated. It does mean it's an angle that reporters should have been pursuing instead of repeating the now apparent lie of "15-year-old teenager" over and over just because that was fed to them. Nada Bakri (Washington Post) quoted Sunni preacher Mustafa al-Bayati stating yesterday, "They did not kill him because he is a lawmaker. They killed him because he is Sunni."

al-Bayati may be correct. On Sunday, several Sunnis was killed. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reported yesterday that a Baghdad sticking bombing targeting Sahwa which left a Sahwa member wounded as well as two passer-bys (Sahwa is the Sunni group sponosred by the US which is also known as "Awakening" and "Sons of Iraq") and a Falluja sticky bombing targeting Sahwa leader Sheikh Jashaam Delef that was discovered before it exploded while Mazin Yahya (AP) reported 6 Sahwa members were killed enroute to Balad Ruz when their vehicle was "ambushed" and 1 Sahwa member was shot dead with three more wounded at a Tarmiyah checkpoint.

Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 Baghdad sticky bombings which claimed 2 lives and left six people injured, a Baghdad roadside bombing left four people injured, a Mosul roadside bombing left two people injured, a Baquba bombing which injured two people and Kirkuk sticky bombing claimed 1 life and five more injured.

Shootings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 person shot dead in Mosul.

Poisonings?

Reuters notes 2 police officers are dead and another is "seriously ill after poisoned food was given to them by a driver at a" Garma checkpoint.

Corpses?

Reuters notes 1 corpse discovered in Ramadi (police officer kidnapped two days before).

Saturday the US military announced: "BAGHDAD -- A Multi National Corps - Iraq Soldier was killed by an improvised explosive device during combat related operations June 12.The Soldier's name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin. The names of the 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 announcement brings to 4312 the number of US service members killed in the Iraq War.

In the US, David Lightman (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that Barak's war supplemental is expected to come to the House floor yesterday and to follow in the Senate. Tom Eley (WSWS) reviews the White House's strong arming efforts to force the bill through and offers, "The episode demonstrates the Democrats' leading role in carrying forward the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and their complicity in covering up the criminality of these operations." Iraq Veterans Against the War has been requesting people call their Congress members and demand a No vote on the War Supplemental:

In mid May, we asked you to take action by contacting your legislators about the supplemental funding bill that would continue the U.S. occupation in Iraq and escalate our presence in Afghanistan. Well, since then, there have been some interesting developments, and we may have a real opportunity to defeat this funding.
Republicans who previously voted for the earlier version of the bill do not want to give the IMF funds to bail out international banks or the economies of developing countries that have been affected by the global economic crisis. And progressive Democrats do not want to support money for the IMF due to its lack of transparency and its track-record of offering small nations economic bailouts with high interest rates and other nasty strings attached. Both sides have pledged to vote "NO" on the current version of the bill that now includes the IMF funding.
This vote is expected to go to the House of Representatives TODAY. Please contact your member of the House today and tell them to vote "NO" on the Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (H.R. 2346).


Also on Congress, Kat's "House Veterans Affairs Strategic Forces Subcommittee" went up Thursday and I wasn't able to note it on Friday. I believe Kat was the only to report on what happened in that mark up. Not even the chair's hometown paper's appear of aware of it. Throughout the US, including in my state (California), employees are being put on furloughs. That means they're taking a day of work from you because they're trying to svae money by not paying you. The New York Times ran a disgusting article today about people who weren't able (or in some cases unwilling -- little kiss asses trying to impress the boss) to take the time off. It is the law that if you work, you get paid. If you are on a furlough and your employer is making you work, you need to see a labor lawyer. If you are a supervisor, you are responsible for ensuring that everyone takes their time. If someone's playing kiss ass and refusing to take their time and you let it happen, you can get in trouble from your superiors beacuse you're putting the company/organization/body at risk of a lawsuit. It's basic: You work, you get paid. That's the law. We covered that here this morning and we're noting it again to lead into something else and also because it is the law and obviously needs to be noted. Though they need them, the daily papers have no labor reporters. One of the few labor reporters in the US is David Bacon who was interviewed by Tiffany Ten Eyck (Labor Notes) about the joint-position of the AFL-CIO and Change to Win on immigration. Excerpt:

LN: What happened in years to come that led to opposing positions on immigration reform by the major unions and federations? DB: The big question after the convention was how to get immigration reform through Congress. Some unions that went off to form the CTW federation, generally speaking, adopted a position that the only way we are going to be able to get legalization is by building an alliance with employers, and employers want guest workers. If we give them guest workers, and we agree that enforcement of employer sanctions will continue, maybe we'll be able to get amnesty in trade for that. And that was the architecture for the "comprehensive immigration reform" bills we saw in Congress over the last few years: big guest worker programs, increases in enforcement of employer sanctions, and some degree of legalization. But the legalization proposals were actually more pro-corporate: they proposed things like 18-year waiting periods, but they would immunize employers from punishment under employer sanctions. In other words, they would grandfather in the existing workforce while guest worker programs were getting up and running. So we've had the labor movement divided in the last few years on immigration reform, with the AFL-CIO continuing to support the position that we won in 1999 and SEIU, UNITE HERE, and some other unions in CTW basically changing positions and supporting those comprehensive immigration reform bills instead. The irony is that these are the unions that fought the hardest in 1999 for a repeal of sanctions! So the new joint position between the AFL-CIO and CTW is an effort to overcome that division. I think it's actually an effort to bring the CTW and AFL-CIO back together, period. If you can do it on immigration reform, then you can do it pretty much on everything else, because this is one of the places where there was the sharpest conflict between CTW and AFL-CIO. A joint position on immigration reform is a good idea if it's a good position. It's not a good idea if it's not. We have to look at what it actually says. There's one good piece to this position that is worth trying to get the labor movement to live up to. It says: "a long-term solution to uncontrolled immigration is to encourage just economic integration, which will eliminate enormous economic inequalities... Much of the emigration from Mexico in recent years resulted from the disruption caused by NAFTA, which displaced millions of Mexicans from subsistence agriculture and enterprises that could not compete in a global market. Thus, an essential component of the long-term solution is a fair trade and globalization model that uplifts all workers, promotes the creation of free trade unions around the world, ensures the enforcement of labor rights and guarantees core labor protections for all workers." There was an even better statement in a letter that Sweeney and Ken Georgetti of the Canadian Labour Congress wrote to Obama about NAFTA. They talked about the displacement of people, that NAFTA caused migration by increasing poverty. So here we look at the connection of immigration policy to trade policy. We can't support a free trade agreement with Colombia if it is going to lead to the displacement of millions of Colombians, which it will. Same thing with Panama, with Peru. All these agreements, and the economic model they are part of, are displacing millions of people. So we have to not only oppose the trade agreements but also call for a new economic relationship with other countries. That is a very profound thing to say, and it's going to take a lot of work to get our labor movement to live up to those words. Because what we are really saying is that we demand a fundamental change in the foreign policy of this country, economic, political, military. That's going to bring us into confrontation with the Obama administration.


iraq
richard norton-taylor
the new york timesrod nordlandabeer mohammedaljazeerawaleed ibrahim
jane arrafthe los angeles timesned parkerthe washington postellen knickmeyerjonathan finernada bakrimarc santoramcclatchy newspaperssahar issa
free speech radio news
david lightmanmcclatchy newspaperstom eley
iraq veterans against the wardavid bacon

This and that and Bob Somerby

So end of the week. We spent a lot of time in DC in Congress and in talking with people in surrounding areas about the illegal war.

I don't know but it feels like slowly the ground is moving and people are awakeining from their cult like state. I expect it to continue for some time but there is a peeling off that's taking place.

And it's not something we have to initiate. Usually that's the case. But this week, it was being voiced before we could.

I think Barack has lost a bit of his luster and that people are waking up.

Betty just called. She posted and forgot to include something and wanted to know if I could put it in my post? Of course. This is from Bob Somerby's Daily Howler today:


In our view, Robinson wrote the appropriate column for him -- a fairly Standard Tribal Tract. Our tribe's the good tribe -- and their tribe isn't, the broad-brushed gentleman says:
ROBINSON (6/12/09): In April, a prescient Department of Homeland Security memo predicted that the election of the first African American president and the advent of economic hard times could worsen the threat from "right-wing extremist groups." In particular, the memo warned of an increase in anti-Semitic activity by extremists who buy into the whole Jewish-banker-secret-cabal paranoid fantasy--and would blame "the Jews" for engineering the global financial crisis, just as they blame "the Jews" for everything.
For days, some conservative commentators tried mightily to paint the memo as an underhanded attempt by the Obama administration to smear its honorable critics by equating "right-wing" with "terrorism." It made no difference to these loudmouths that the number of hate groups around the country has increased by more than 50 percent since 2000, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. It didn't matter that the memo was backed up by solid intelligence and analysis. For these infotainers, the point isn't to illuminate a subject with light but to blast it with heat.
There’s a great deal to discuss in all this, as Krugman’s piece makes much more clear. But here’s a question: Is “anti-Semitic activity” somehow “right-wing?” Obviously not, though you might get that impression from Robinson’s broadly-brushed work. (Reverend Wright piped up this week, presumably not from “the right.”) And how about this: If “the number of hate groups” has increased, are those groups necessarily “conservative?” In various ways, that ain’t obvious either. Except in the vague and broad-bushed logic of this particular column.
It’s interesting to see Robinson complain about “infotainers,” because he’s becoming a bit of a tainer himself. Many nights, he pockets his three hundred bucks from MSNBC, having inspired us rubes a bit more. On the programs where he stars, we rubes always belong to the good and true tribe. And then too, there’s always The Other.
Krugman discusses the same topic today (just click here). But where he goes, rubber meets road. He largely skips blanket statements about "conservatives" and the "right-wing" (though he uses the latter term more directly than we would). Instead, he names the names of actual people and quotes the actual things they have said. No one can do justice to these critical topics in just 700 words, of course. But Krugman quotes actual statements by O'Reilly, Beck and Limbaugh -- and by the Washington Times. For our money, he's a bit too fair to O'Reilly today (more below) -- and a bit too hard on Mitch McConnell. But he largely moves past sweeping tribal portrayals. He lays the groundwork for a long-delayed discussion of the specific irresponsible, crackpot claims which have infested our discourse.
Crackpot claims have infested our culture for the past two decades. Citizens deserve to be told that this is happening -- deserve to be put on alert. Citizens need to hear these actual statements quoted; they need to read the actual names of the actual people who have made the claims. No one can do this in 700 words --but Krugman makes the start.
In our view, Robinson gets us pretty much nowhere today. Naming names and quoting their quotes, Krugman gives readers a start.

And I'll even pass it on to Elaine because I think there's a section she'll use.

Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Friday, June 12, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Newsweek explores Iraq, Congress puts out like a gumball machine for the White House, a Sunni MP is assassinated, Nouri stages a praise-a-thon, and more.

Starting with Newsweek. Comedian Stephen Colbert took his Comedy Central show to Iraq and, as a tie-in, was the guest editor of Newsweek for the issue on sale now (with his photo on the cover). For four pages you get more lies from Fareed Zakaria, these are titled "Victory In Iraq." Liar Fareed wants you to know "the democratic ideal is still within reach." Oh really? How do you define "democratic ideal," you damn liar? Two centuries ago, if you lied in the public square the way Fareed has repeatedly, you would have found yourself whipped in the public square and maybe for pundits who put the lives of others at risk we should bring that policy back. Here's reality that liars like Fareed can never tell you about:


We are writing to urge you to call upon the government of Iraq to prevent the persecution of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people, and to protect the right of all Iraqi citizens to be free from all forms of cruel,inhumane or degrading punishment.
Deeply disturbing reports are enamating from Iraq with regard to the torture, beating and killing of LGBT people in that country. The increasing violence is being led by religious zealots who are targeting these individuals simply because of their sexual orientation. This year alone, 63 people have been tortured or killed as a result of religious decrees against gay citizens. A prominent Iraqi human rights activists has reported that Iraqi militia have deployed painful and degrading forms of torture and punishment against homesexuals that must be stopped.
The United States is spending trillions of dollars to fight a war that is based on bringing freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people. These unspeakable actions of violence on Iraqi citizens are in direct violation of our purpose for being in that country and of the stated policy of non-discrimination of the new administration.
Local police in Iraq have issued a statement that "the extra-judicial killing of any citizen is a crime punishable by law. No one has the right to become a substitute for judicial authorities or executive authorities, and if there are complaints against individuals, there is law and there are police and there are government agencies. No group or class has the authority to punish people instead of the state." The violence occuring against LGBT Iraqis is in direct contradiction to this statement.
As one of the signatories to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Iraqi government has an obligation to protect the right to life (Article 6) and the right of all its citizens "to be free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" (Article 7). Current actions belie this obligation.
To protect the lives of LGBT Iraqis, we urge you to please take immediate action to stop the violence. We believe that a strong public condemnation of these actions must come from you and our other national leaders, along with the necessary pressure on the Iraqi government to protect the life and liberty of all its citizens.

The [PDF format warning] letter is signed by California state legislatures Mark Leno, Tom Ammiano, Christine Keho, John A. Perez, Jim Beall Jr., Julia Brownley, Sandre R. Swanson, Tom Torlakson, Marty Block, Mariko Yamada, Pedro Nava, ANthony Portantino, Jerry Hill, Hector de la Torre, Mike Feuer, Felipe Fuentes, Cathleen Galgiani, Curren D. Price Jr., Norma J. Torres, Jospeh S. Simitian, Elaine Alquist, Alan Lowenthal, Leland Yee, Gilbert Cedillo, Jenny Oropeza, Gloria Romero, Gloria Negrete McLeod, Lou Correa, Loni Hancock, Lois Wolk, Patricia Wiggins, Ellen Corbett, Carol Liu, Fran Pavley, Bonnie Lowenthal, William W. Monning, Isadore Hall III, Mary Salas, Mike Davis, Paul Fong, Warren T. Furutani, Jared Huffman, Bob Blumenfield, Alex Padilla and Paul Krekorian. The letter was sent this month to US President Barack Obama, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and US Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein.

The issue has been reported on by the Denver Post, the New York Times, the BBC, ABC and many other outlets. Newsweek has NEVER reported on it. Newsweek has never acknowledged the attacks and assaults on Iraq's LGBT community. And that falls on Fareed who decides what makes it into non-guest editorial issues and what doesn't. Fareed doesn't want to touch the subject due to his own apparent homosexual panic. As SourceWatch notes, in October of 2006, War Hawk and Cheerleader Fareed was finally walking away from the illegal war declaring that the puppet government in Iraq "has failed" and calling the US venture/war crime a failure as well. He's back to selling the illegal war all over again. The Henry Kissinger wannabe infamously said as the illegal war on Iraq began, "The place is so dysfunctional any stirring of the pot is good. America's involvement in the region is for the good." Again, a few centuries back, he would have been flogged in the town square. These days he just feeds his own vanity which is how he ends up with an attention getting, four page spread which leads off the news section of the magazine. Vanity, thy name is Fareed.

On a better (and actual news) note, Gretel C. Kovach contributes "Canada's New Leaf" which zooms in on Kimberly Rivera, the Dallas - Fort Worth native and Iraq War veteran who self-checked out and took her family to Canada becoming, in February 2007, the first female Iraq War veteran to publicly seek asylum in Canada. Kovach notes Kimberly next appears before a Canadian court in July:

Now 26, Rivera has more problems than ever. Her mother hasn't spoken to her since she fled to Canada, although Rivera misses her terribly. And the Canadian government keeps trying to send her home to face desertion charges. She might end up in a military prison -- but says she has no regrets about her broken commitment to the service of her country. "At least I can say I never killed anyone, ever," she says. "I think that's a little more honorable."

Kovach demonstrates that Fareed doesn't know how to edit worth s**t. Jimmy Carter, as president, did not pardon deserters. He pardoned draft dodgers and only draft dodgers. He did that in the first month of his administration and there was hope among some (such as US House Rep Elizabeth Holtzman) that he would revist the subject but he never did. Before Jimmy Carter, President Gerald Ford offered a conditional amnesty for deserters and draft dodgers which required that they jump through hoops for a considerable amount of time and may or may not end up with amenesty. Very few attempted Ford's program. Near the end of Ford's presidency -- in November and December -- he considered proposing a pardon for draft dodgers and/or deserters, however, he was convinced (as were columnists at the New York Times) that Jimmy Carter would do this once sworn in. They were mistaken and only had to hear Carter's speech to veterans while campaigning for the presidency where he made clear that, if elected, he would pardon draft dodgers but not deserters. (Carter was booed during this speech.) We've covered this before and it's all public record. The inability of Newsweek and their fact checkers to get the story straight goes a long way towards explaining why all the whining about the death of Big Media is so much blah blah blah b.s. If you can't get damn facts right, you have no business charging anyone even a penny. I'm blaming the editors because I know where Gretel C. Kovach was fed the lies, the same place the lies are always fed up north. And, yeah, there little attacks on this site stemmed from the fact that we wouldn't let them lie in public without correcting the record. A July 10, 2008 entry quoted Robert Trumbull, "Pardon Brings Cautious Response From Some War Exiles in Canada," New York Times, January 23, 1977:

Jeff Enger, a deserter from the Army and therefore excluded from the Presidential pardon, will be sworn in as a Canadian citizen next Friday, one of the many self-exiled American war resisters who "want to make our lives here." However, like other deserters, Mr. Egner would like to be able to travel freely in the country of his birth. The Presidential pardon covered nearly all draft evaders of the Vietnam War period. Mr. Carter postponed a decision on the men who entered but then deserted the armed forces. Jack Colhoun, a leader in the Toronto exile community, is one of those deseters who insist that they would fight in a "just war," or "if the United States were attacked," as Mr. Colhoun put it. The men interviewed, who rerpesent a cross section of the estimated 20,000 to 25,000 American war resisters living in Canada, have in common a yearning for recognition by Americans at home that their actions were an acceptable exercise of principle "in the American tradition," as one said. "We don't expect to be congratulated or anything," said Mr. Egner, a law student at the University of Toronto, "but we believe we acted correctly." They also share a deep conviction that the deserters, as well as the draft evaders, should be pardoned.

Because the lies from up north continue, we're apparently going to have to do a slow walk through. David Postman (Seattle Times) outlined what Gerald Ford offered to war resisters: "a limited clemency for Vietnam draft resisters and military deserters." Here's Gerald Ford speaking in September of 1974 (and link has text and audio):

In my first week as President, I asked the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense to report to me, after consultation with other Governmental officials and private citizens concerned, on the status of those young Americans who have been convicted, charged, investigated, or are still being sought as draft evaders or military deserters.
On August 19, at the national convention of Veterans of Foreign Wars in the city of Chicago, I announced my intention to give these young people a chance to earn their return to the mainstream of American society so that they can, if they choose, contribute, even though belatedly, to the building and the betterment of our country and the world.


That's Ford and his jump through hoops program which a study by the New York Times found, before Ford even left office, was being utitlized by very few of the over 50,000 who had self-checked out. Now let's move to Jimmy Carter once he becomes president. Here's how PBS's The NewsHour (then The MacNeil/Lehrer Report) reported Carter's program on January 21, 1977 (link has text, audio and video):

Just a day after Jimmy Carter's inaguration, he followed through on a contentious campaign promise, granting a presidential pardon to those who had avoided the draft during the Vietnam war by either not registering or traveling abroad. The pardon meant the government was giving up forever the right to prosecute what the administration said were hundreds of thousands of draft-dodgers. . . . Meanwhile, many in amnest groups say that Carter's pardon did too little. They pointed out that the president did not include deserters -- those who served in the war and left before their tour was completed -- or soliders who received a less-than-honorable discharge. Civilian protesters, selective service employees and those who initiated any act of violence also were not covered in the pardon.

Use the link and you can read, listen or watch the roundtable which includes then US House Rep Elizabeth Holtzman who states, "I'm pleased that the pardon was issued, I'm pleased that it was done on the first day and I'm pleased that President Carter kept a commitment that he made very clear to the American people. I would have liked to have seen it broader, I would like to have seen it extended to some of the people who are clearly not covered and whose families will continue to be separatedf rom them . . . but I don't think President Carter has closed the door on this category of people." I like Liz and I've known her for years but it was this b.s. attitude of praising Jimmy instead of pressuring him that allowed him to never revist the issue again. He never did another thing and its appalling that a magazine called "Newsweek" which wants $5.95 an issue for their 'factual' reporting can't get their damn facts straight. (Hint to other reporters, stop believing the lies you hear up north. It is your job to fact check statements if you present them in your articles.) Jimmy Carter did not offer an "unconditional pardon" to deserters. He offered nothing to deserters and just because an old man in Canada (a deserter) told you that Carter offered something doesn't make it true. It's also appalling because Newsweek covered some of this in real time so the magazine (wrongly) fabled for its fact checking should have caught these lies before they made it into print. Kovach is of the opinion (it's a popular one these days -- that doesn't mean it's accurate) that the resisters will all be deported (the decision by Canada's House to pass ANOTHER non-binding resolution on the issue demonstrates that they really won't stand with war resisters) and notes:

All of which means that the United States must now figure out what to do with the deserters who have already begun trickling back. No one expects Obama to issue them a pardon. They'll have to plead their cases before the military command. Prosecution rates of deserters have increased during the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts from 2 percent at the start to about 10 percent now (the remainder receive administrative punishments, like the loss of a stripe).

It's a real shame that 'helpers' up north wanted to refight Vietnam because of their own issues instead of helping today's resisters. (They lost their planned statue right before the resisters began pouring in and that apparently hurt a lot of feelings.) For the record, there are groups in Canada (and I give money to them) that have been successful in getting citizenship for resisters. They don't make a spectacle of themselves because the issue isn't them or what they did or didn't do during Vietnam. The issue is and has always been how to ensure that a resister doesn't have to return to the US. (Elaine wrote about that group, which she also contributes to, in August of last year.) And resisters in Canada can forget about Barack, he will not help any returning deserters. He has taken the Carter position that if some had avoided the draft that was one thing but those who have left service will not be let off. No, we didn't have a draft but that is his position. It was the same position as Carter's which is boiled down as "It's not honorable to desert." [Carter referred to his actions as a pardon and not amnesty, he stated calling it amnesty would push the notion that their avoiding the draft was a 'correct' action and he did not believe it was.] Neither the assaults on Vietnam or Iraq were "honorable" and self-checking out was one of the bravest things anyone could do. Today's resisters deserve praise but they won't get from the White House and many believe they won't get it from the Canadian government.


Jessica Ramirez examines the effects of deployments on families in "Children Of Conflict" and finds that "roughly 890,000" parents have been deployed since September 11, 2001 and that "[t]he personal sacrifices of military kids can go unnoticed amid the grown-ups' struggles, in part because the scars they may sustain aren't necessarily the visible kind. But they are real and long-lasting, and they are not diminished by the fact that levels of violence in Iraq have dropped or that U.S. troops are no longer taking the lead on combat operations there." Christopher Anderson contributes a photo essay on Iraq and US forces in Iraq. Dan Ephron explores the War Porn Six Days in Fallujah. And an article by Daniel Stone, Eve Conant and John Barry on the effects at home for the returning:

Part of the trouble with long tours is the stress of holding together a normal life back home. "When you're gone o long, you put your whole life on hold," says Ohle. "You can't plan anything." That can be OK if you're single, but Ohle has been dating another Army intelligence officer who is in a different brigade. They met during a training exercise many years ago, and then in 2006 spent a few months together "downrange," as Ohle calls the combat zone. After that, the dating was long distance. They've been "together-together" only since February, and Ohle expects her boyfriend to deploy again sometimes this summer.
Whenever she comes back to the United States, Ohle faces culture shock similar to anyone who returns from a foreign land. She's overwhelmed by the food selection in the markets, and the number of people in the aisles. But unlike ordinary travelers, she also needs to keep her anger in check. "When someone with a shopping cart gets in your way, you can't just yell at them to get out of the way," she says. "Interacting with people requires a reset."

Most of the features are not available online. Fareed is but we don't link to trash. A West Point story is available online and we'll link to that. What does Colbert do in the issue besides 'guest editing'? He speaks to the readers on page five and contributes letters (the earliest from 1933) in his TV character complaining about Newsweek coverage over the ages (starting with 1933). He also does the Conventional Wisdom on page 15 and an essay on page 68.

Colbert's trip to Iraq resulted in Newsweek focusing on Iraq. It's not a great issue but it is attention to an ongoing illegal war and that is an accomplishment. I don't care for Colbert but I applaud him for that. It also got attention from the daily papers -- many of whom have also forgotten that the Iraq War continues to drag on. (James Rainey (Los Angeles Times) covers Colbert's trip to Iraq.) AP reports members of Mississippi's National Guard's 155th Brigade Combat Team is preparing for its second deployment to Iraq and notes the previous deployment resulted in 14 deaths. WKYC reports 161 Ohians are deploying to Iraq ("part of the Ohio Army National Guard's 1192nd Engineer Company"). But because it's so very difficult for people to pay attention to Iraq, let's all pretend the war is over. That's how it works, right?

In Iraq today, a Sunni leader was assassinated. Ned Parker and Raheem Salman (Los Angeles Times) report Harith Obeidid "was gunned down by a teenager" in Baghdad. Obeid had been the leader of the Accordance Front. after shooting Obeidid twice in the head, the teenager than threw a grenade. BBC reports their correspondent "Jim Muir in Baghdad says the assumption will be that this attack was carried out by insurgents from Mr Obeidi's own Sunni community, who have often targeted Sunnis involved with the government." Michael Christie (Reuters) asks, "Could the killers be Shi'ites? Possibly, although suicidal attacks, as Friday's assassination appears to have been, are more often associated with Sunni extremists." Al Arabiya reports that Obeidid was one of 5 people killed in the attack and that twelve were left injured while the assassin was killed as he attempted to escape. KUNA notes that al-Maliki's government has declared 25-year-old Ahmed Jassim Ibrahim the assassin "in contrast to claims by Iraqi police who earlier mentioned he was only 15." In terms of possible motives, Al Arabiya explains, "Obaidi, born in 1966, was deputy chairman of parliament's human rights committee and on Thursday had called for an independent inquiry into torture and abuse of detainees in Iraq's prisons." Sahar Issa and Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) observe that Iraq's President Jalal Talabani went on TV to urge calm following the assassination and speak with MP Shatha al Obusi who serves on the Human Rights Committee and states Obaidi leaves behind a wife and eight children, that "he was a fun-loving man with an easy smile" and "I believe that he was targeted for these qualities by people who would not have him succeed. He was, and will continue to be, a role model to us regarding the issue of human rights and defending those who have fallen under injustice."


In other reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing destroyed a US military vehicle, another Baghdad roadside bombing claimed 2 lives and left ten people injured and, dropping back to Thursday, a Karbala roadside bombing which claimed 2 lives and left four people injured. Reuters notes a Baghdad roadside bombing which wounded six people.

Shootings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baquba home invasion in which 2 people (mother and daughter) were killed. Reuters notes 2 Sahwa members were shot dead in Mussayab by a police officer who claims "they were planting a bomb".


Meanwhile Rod Nordland and Marc Santora (New York Times) report on the puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki hosting a praise-a-thon for himself. Nouri fancies himself the new strong man of Iraq, the new Saddam. And Nordland and Santora capture that as they note he's now positioned himself as commander in chief despite the fact that the Iraqi Constitution does not give him that power and that he received toadies yesterday who called him their "master" and "commander in chief" (the Ministry of the Defense being among the toadies). An unnamed US military officer attempted to attend but was sent packing by the one of 'master' Nouri's thugs.Drunk on the smell of Nouri's cheap cologne (truly, he wears the cheapest cologne and over wears it, a detail that's yet to make it into domestic reports) the puppet's puppets engaged in a circle jerk where they self-praised and pretended they were running the country. And, insert laughter, runnig it well.If you automatically thought "air force," the reporters go there. There is no Iraqi air force to speak of and the reporters have Gen Anwar Hama Ameen later admitting that it will take more than the optimistic US prediction of "tow and a half years" for the air force to be built. The reporters note that this and other realities were left out of the circle jerk. The paragraph that should haunt reads: "The tenor of the meeting reminded many of similar ones between Saddam Hussein and his commanders, which featured fawning speeches praising him, the use of the word 'master' when addressing him, and a recitation by a nationalist poet. In Thursday's case, the poem was a recent one denoucning terrorism."

So Nouri's the new Saddam and the air force is nowhere ready. Jack Dolan (McClatchy Newspapers) reports more problems. Despite all the praise going down in the meeting with Nouri, turns out things are not so great. Iraqi forces are apparently not ready to take over the security functions in Mosul and reveals that issues include lack of ammunition and weapons and the 'hope' that the people of Mosul will work with Iraqi security forces.
Last night at the Washington Post, Perry Bacon Jr. reported that the Democrats in Congress had found some mutual understanding that would allow Barack's war funding supplemental to move forward, "The agreement was reached only after a letter from President Obama to a congressional committee saying that his administration would appeal to the Supreme Court to keep the photos from becoming public, rather than try for a Congressional ban as part of the war funding bill. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York on Thursday stayed an earlier order that the photos be released immediately, so the government will now have time to appeal." Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) offers, "The measure does not include language allowing indefinite detention as President Obama has initially proposed. The White House also dropped a request for a provision imposing a congressional ban on the release of photos showing the abuse of prisoners at US jails in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Obama said he will continue to seek the photos' censorship through an appeal to the Supreme Court." With more on the reassurance on suppressing the torture photos, Carl Hulse and David M. Herszenhorn (New York Times) explain, "The deal was concluded after Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, went to the Capitol to assure Senate Democrats that President Obama would use all admnistrative and legal means to prevent the photos' release. At the same time, a federal court issued a ruling effectively ensuring that the photos would not be released for months, if ever." Naftali Bendavid (Wall St. Journal) quotes Rahm stating, "I talked to the Senate Democrats -- everything's fine." Amy Goodman breaks down 'fine': "The war funding bill includes more than $90 billion for the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and is expected be voted on next week. In a letter to other House members who have previously opposed war funding, Congress members Lynn Woolsey of California and Dennis Kucinich of Ohio urged them to retain 'steadfast opposition' to the new bill. Speaking on the House floor, Kucinich said the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan is based on 'aggression and lies'." Goodman goes on to quote some of US House Rep Dennis Kucinich's statement so those who need or prefer audio use the previous link but here's Kucinich's statement in full:

Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, had no intention or capability of attacking United Statess, had nothing to do with Al-Qaida's role in 9/11, and each and every statement made by the previous administration in support of going to war turned out to be false.
Yest here we are. A new administration and the same old war, with an expansion of the war in Afghanistan. We cannot afford these wars. We cannot aford these wars spiritually. They are wars of aggression and they are based on lies. We cannot afford these wars financially. They add trillions to our national debt and destroy our domestic agenda. We cannot afford the human costs of these wars, the loss of lives of our beloved troops and the deaths of innocent civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. So, why do we do this? Why do we keep funding wars when they are so obviously against truth and justice and when they undermine our military? These are matters of heart and conscience which must be explored. Our ability to bring an end to thse wars will be the real test of our power.

We'll note Kucinich and Lynn Woolsey's letters to their colleagues in part [PDF format warning, click here for letter in full]:

Continued funding of war operations in Iraq ensures a continued occupation thereby undermining the stated U.S. goal for withdrawal by the end of 2010. Funds for Iraq should be dedicated to bringing all our troops and contractors home immediately. We must meet our moral obligation to rebuild Iraq and support viable solutions to the crises faced by the refugee and internally displaced populations. As such, the U.S. must maintain a continued commitment to the country of Iraq that does not include war or occupation.
Funding expanded combat operations in Afghanistan will not meet the security objectives of the U.S. Sending additional brave American service members to Afghanistan does nto increase security and it is not an act of diplomacy. This approach only encourages the Taliban and other insurgent groups to do likewise, while fueling their recruiting efforts. The bill ensured that the months and perhaps years ahead will be bloody. And the bill fails to present an exist strategy.
Voting down the funds for war honors the mandate to end the war in Iraq that was given to this body by the American people in November 2006. Futhermore, defeat of the War Supplemental sends a clear message about U.S. priorities at home and abroad.
Congress must use the power of the purse to end combat operations. When the War Supplemental conference comes to the Floor for a vote I urge you to continue to vote no.
Today the bufoons at CounterSpin yet again tried to pimp Barry O's Cairo speech. Reality on that speech via independent journalist John Pilger via ZNet:

Naturally, unlike George W Bush, Obama did not say that "you're either with us or against us". He smiled the smile and uttered "many eloquent mood-music paragraphs and a smattering of quotations from the Holy Quran", noted the American international lawyer John Whitbeck. Beyond this, Obama offered no change, no plan, only a "tired, morally bankrupt American mantra [which] essentially argues that only the rich, the strong, the oppressors and the enforcers of injustice (notably the Americans and Israelis) have the right to use violence, while the poor, the weak, the oppressed and the victims of oppression must . . . submit to their fate and accept whatever crumbs their betters may magnanimously deign suitable to let fall from their table". And he offered not the slightest recognition that the world's most numerous victims of terrorism are people of Muslim faith - a terrorism of western origin that dares not speak its name. In his "reaching out" in Cairo, as in his "anti-nuclear" speech in Berlin, as in the "hope" he spun at his inauguration, this clever young politician is playing the part for which he was drafted and promoted. This is to present a benign, seductive, even celebrity face to American power, which can then proceed towards its strategic goal of dominance, regardless of the wishes of the rest of humanity and the rights and lives of our children.

Independent Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan wondered recently:

I have integrity. I oppose war, torture, economic oppression and environmental degradation no matter who is in the White House or what political party he belongs to. I have been one of President Obama's earliest and most ardent critics, but where's the media coverage when I protest the carnage now that Obama is president? Where's Air America calling me to comment on the war crimes that Obama has already committed? Why won't most "progressive" online sites print my articles anymore (except AfterDowningStreet.org, Oped News and MichaelMichael.com)?


Cindy's on the road and heads to Nashville June 13th through 16th. Click here for her full schedule for this month and we'll run the remaining dates next week. She was in Texas this week. Kimberly Kreitner (Daily Texan) reports on her stop in Austin where Cindy explained, "We have a Democratic party [in office], but nothing good is happening. It pays for war and coddles war cirminals. What's the difference between Democrats and Republicans? . . . People ask, 'How can peace be relevant during time of a peace president? Well, I don't like to go around and tell people there is no Santa Claus, but May was the deadliest month in Iraq [for U.S. Soldiers]." And apparently Lily Tomlin's Suzy Sorority attended Cindy's speech because an unnamed woman told Kreitner, "We already have enough negativity going on, and saying bad things about the Obama administration won't help anything." For those who don't remember Suzy Sorority of the Silent Majority, let's revisit one of Tomlin's Laugh-In skits:

Suzy Sorotiy: I'm a charter member of the YACF -- that's Young Americans for Connie Francis. Now there's a person with a lot of problems -- like what to wear to entertain the troops, things like that. But you don't see Connie shooting glue or smoking acid or getting low or smelling those LSMFT tablets. No sir! When something upsets Connie, she just sings her little heart out and the troubles of the world disappear.

In US military news, Gina Cavallaro (Army Times) reports that the National Guard and Reserve fell short of their goals last month (623 short) but remain "comfortably ahead in their fiscal 2009 goals." Staffan De Mistura has always fallen short in Iraq and been an embarrassment for the United Nations. Alsumaria reports: "UN special envoy to Iraq Staffan de Mistura announced that he will leave his post shortly after a two years mission in Iraq. After meeting with Iraq's supreme religious authority Ali Husseini Al Sistani, De Mistura affirmed that the United Nations will pursue its work in Iraq as long as Iraq needs it noting that a good successor will take over." The United Nations work, under de Mistura, has been a joke for two years in Iraq. That goes beyond the cover for the occupation the UN has granted to include the blaming of the Iraqi women for the cholera outbreaks each fall, it goes to the refusal to address the Kirkuk issue, an issue that was supposed to be addressed long ago but which the UN has repeatedly given cover for and allowed to be sidestepped and postponed.


TV notes. NOW on PBS begins airing tonight on many PBS stations (check local listings):The murder of Dr. George Tiller has reignited the abortion debate, and raised the question: should violence against medical doctors who perform abortions be viewed and prosecuted as domestic terrorism? This week NOW Senior Correspondent Maria Hinojosa sits down with two of the remaining handful of doctors who publicly acknowledge performing late abortions, including Leroy Carhart, a fellow doctor in Tiller's Wichita, Kansas clinic.Carhart discusses his vow to carry on Tiller's mission and what it's like for him and his family to live as "targets". The show also investigates claims that law enforcement dropped the ball when it came to stopping Tiller's alleged murderer, Scott Roeder.Hinojosa travels to Colorado as well to talk with Dr. Warren Hern, another late abortion provider who says he's been living "under siege" for decades. Dr. Hern works behind four layers of bulletproof windows and is now under round-the-clock federal protection.NOW goes into the eye of the abortion rights storm to see how Tiller's killing and its ramifications are impacting doctors, free speech, and a civilized society.
Bill Moyers Journal begins airing tonight on mnay PBS stations and he and Michael Winship have an essay on gun control:

You know by now that in Washington, DC, on Wednesday, an elderly white supremacist and anti-Semite named James W. von Brunn allegedly walked into the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum with a .22-caliber rifle and killed a security guard before being brought down himself. He's 88 years old, with a long record of hatred and paranoid fantasies about the Illuminati and a Global Zionist state. How bitter the bile that has curdled for so many decades.You will know, too, of the recent killing, while ushering at his local church, of Dr. George Tiller, one of the few doctors in the country still performing late term abortions. Sadly, this case was proof that fatal violence works. His family has announced that his Wichita, Kansas, clinic will not be reopened.You may be less familiar with the June 1st shootings in an army recruiting office in Little Rock that killed one soldier and wounded another. The suspect in question is an African-American Muslim convert who says he acted in retaliation for US military activity in the Middle East. Soon, however, these terrible deeds will be forgotten, as are already the three policemen killed by an assault weapon in Pittsburgh; the four policemen killed in Oakland, California; the 13 people gunned down in Binghamton, New York; the 10 in an Alabama shooting spree; five in Santa Clara, California; the eight dead in a North Carolina, nursing home. All during this year alone.There is much talk about hate talk; hate crimes against blacks, whites, immigrants, Muslims, Jews; about violence committed in the name of bigotry or religion. But why don't we talk about guns?We're arming ourselves to death. Even as gunshots ricocheted around the country, an amendment allowing concealed weapons in national parks snuck into the popular credit card reform bill. Another victory for the gun lobby, to sounds of silence from the White House.
Washington Week finds Ceci Connolly (Washington Post), Bara Vaida (National Journal), Tom Gjelten (NPR) and John Harris (Hedda Hopper Lives!) joining Gwen around the table. Also tonight on most PBS stations, Bonnie Erbe sits down with Melinda Henneberger, Susan Au Allen, Avis Jones-DeWeever and Tara Setmayer to discuss the week's news on PBS' To The Contrary. Check local listings. And turning to broadcast commerical TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers:The Man Who KnewHarry Markopolos repeatedly told the Securities and Exchange Commission that Bernie Madoff's investment fund was a fraud. He was ignored, however, and investors lost billions of dollars. Steve Kroft reports. Watch VideoFor Better Or WorseForeigners who marry Americans are entitled to become permanent residents of the U.S., but in a stricter post-9/11 world, hundreds of widows are being asked to leave the country because their husbands died – even some whose children were born in the U.S. Bob Simon reports. Watch VideoAlice WatersShe has been cooking and preaching the virtues of fresh food grown in an environmentally friendly way for decades. A world-class restaurant and eight cookbooks to her credit, Alice Waters has become famous for her "slow food" approach – an antidote to fast food. Lesley Stahl reports. Watch Video60 Minutes, Sunday, June 14, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.


iraqthe new york times
robert trumbull
perry bacon jr.the washington post
marc santorarod norlandcarl hulsedavid m. herszenhornalsumaria
the los angeles timesned parkermcclatchy newspapers
democracy nowamy goodman
john pilger60 minutescbs newsbill moyers journalto the contrarybonnie erbenow on pbs
pbs