The new Rolling Stones?

First off, Margaret Warner (The NewsHour, PBS) is in Iraq and if you have a question about the war, you can write her and there going to pick through the questions. C.I. got a call from a PBS friend to get that included in the snapshot and C.I. said, "I think it's sent." She had dictated it early today due to the speaking schedule. It's like school's back in session. (The schedule.) So she said she'd include it tomorrow but I'm including it tonight.

The Christian Science Monitor took out the offensive phase. Read Elaine tonight, she'll go into it. (When we talked, she said I should write about it but I told her there wasn't enough meat on the CSM bones for both of us and to grab it. If I sound ticked off, it's not at Elaine, it's at CSM. Read Elaine tonight and you'll see why.)

Juan Forero is someone I loathed at the New York Times. I don't care for him much more now that he's at NPR. But today on Morning Edition, he had a report on Andrew Loog Oldham who used to manage the Rolling Stones. He is now in Columbia and working with the Ratones Paranoicos (Paranoid Mice). Now that link has text and audio and, if you can stream the audio, notice you're hearing a great Rolling Stones song. In fact, the Stones, if they do another studio album, should consider covering many of the tracks by the group.

Give it a listen. I really love the music. Hoping to download it this weekend.


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

Wednesday August 25, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, Iraq is slammed by bombings, the refugee crisis continues, the political stalemate continues, the Pentagon finds new ways to disrespect gays and lesbians, and more. Iraq was slammed by violence but before we get to that, the Pentagon found a new way to insult gays and lesbians this week as, apparently, apparently did President Barack Obama. Instead of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Barack's promised to study it for a year. He didn't need a study when he made it a campaign promise. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is the policy put in place in the early 90s to allow gays and lesbians the ability to serve. It did not allow them to serve openly. The policy was they couldn't tell and they couldn't be asked. It was a compromise policy. People were being asked and were being kicked out the military for their sexuality. The policy never worked the way it was hoped because the questions and witch hunts continued. It was a step and the most then-President Bill Clinton could get in the face of opposition from Congressional Democrats and Colin Powell. Time does move on, thankfully. And Barack campaigned on repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell so that gays and lesbians could serve openly without fear of being kicked out for their sexuality. But instead of doing that, he announced a 'study' was needed. If the study says "Don't Repeal!" will Barack still repeal? Ask Magic 8-ball, it's more honest than Robert Gibbs. As offensive as the study option was, it's now gotten worse. 150,000 questionaires were sent out this month by the Pentagon . . . to the husbands and wives of service members asking for their input. Next up look for the Pentagon to check with the cable guy of service members and, after that, their dry cleaners. That should eat up enough time that Barack will be out of the White House and his 'promise' long forgotten. If you want to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, you repeal it. It's not that difficult -- unless Barack's saying that, like his cigarette smoking, homophobia is a personal addiction for him. In the United States today the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm Mike Mullen, spoke in Chicago. He was speaking to a variety of business leaders and the thrust of his speech was how returning veterans were a valuable employment resource with skills companies would be more than fortunate to have. He took questions (although he refused to address topics that had nothing to do with him or his position -- including the Water Cooler topic that the chattering types can't shut about). Alex Keefe (Chicago Public Radio -- text and audio) quotes him stating, "This is a - an effort on the part of al Qaeda, in particular, in Iraq to re-ignite the sectarian violence." He addresses the Detroit Economic Club tomorrow and he spoke with Steve Courtney today on the Paul W. Smith AM Show (WJR). While Mullen offered hypothesis. At least 60 dead at least 265 injured today as Iraq is slammed with bombings -- mocking Joe Biden and the speech he gave to the VFW on Monday. That always happens. Attempt to serve up a wave of Operation Happy Talk and expect Iraq to correct your spin with a bracing splash of reality. As Jackson Browne once sang, "With all the times that I've been burned, by now you'd think I'd have learned" ("Rosie"). Ned Parker and Riyadh Mohammed (Los Angeles Times) explain, "The violence shook at least seven cities from north to south and appeared timed to undermine confidence in the Iraqi army and police as the U.S. military ends it formal combat mission in the country." Anthony Shadid and Stephen Farrell (New York Times) note the assaults appear "to be part of a coordinated wave of attacks" and they quote Mohammed Abbas who lost a cousin in one of today's bombings: "There may be a state, there may be a government. But what can that state do? What can they do with all the terrorists? Are they supposed to set up a checkpoint in every house?" Kadhim Ajrash and Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) explain, "Car bombs were used in the attacks in Baghdad, Basra, Karbala, Baquba, Kirkuk and Wasit, the officials said in statements." In addition, they note, "Vice President Joseph Biden and White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan said at separate events yesterday that the administration is confident Iraqi forces are capable of taking on the primary security role." Barbara Surk and Hamid Ahmed (AP) point out, "The attacks made August the deadliest month for Iraqi policemen and soldiers in two years, and came a day after the U.S. declared that its troop levels were at their lowest level since the war began in 2003." BBC News reminds, "Iraq's top army officer recently questioned the timing of the pull-out, saying the country's military might not be ready to take control for another decade." On the attacks, Reuters notes a Baghdad suicide car bombing claimed 15 lives (plus driver for sixteen) with fifty-six injured, a Kut suicide car bombing which claimed 30 lives (plus driver) and left eighty-seven injured, a Baghdad roadside bombing which injured five people, a Dujail car bombing which injured twenty people, a Basra minbus bombing which injured twelve people, a Kirkuk car bombing which killed 1 person (nine more injured), six Balad Ruz roadside bombings which injured thirteen people, a Falluja suicide car bombing which claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier and left ten people injured, a Baghdad, a Muqdadiya car bombing which claimed 3 lives and left eighteen injured, a Ramadi car bombing which claimed 3 lives and left thirteen wounded, a Baghdad roadside bombing which injured three people, a Baghdad car bombing which claimed 3 lives and left fourteen people wounded, two Samarra roadside bombings which wounded Col Mustafa Hameed and three of his bodyguards, a Tikrit roadside bombing which injured two police officers, a Tikrit roadside bombing which injured two college students and five Iraqi soldiers, and a Baghdad attack on a police checkpoint which claimed the life of 1 police officer and left another injured. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Falluja sticky bombing which claimed 1 life, a Wasit car bombing 10 people (fifteen injured), a Karbala car bombing claimed 1 life (eight more injured) and a Mosul suicide car bombing which claimed the lives 3 Iraqi soldiers (thirteen more injured). By 7:30 a.m. US EST this morning, the totals were at least 60 dead, at least 265 injured. BBC offers a slide show of the aftermath of some of the bombings. Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) reports, "Though the casualty figures are still coming in and may change, at least 86 Iraqis, including a large number of security forces, were killed and 371 others were wounded in the attacks." Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports "Day of violence hits every corner of Iraq." Mike Hanna (Al Jazeera) states, "It does appear the primary targets are police stations, check points [and other] symbols of the attempt to create a system of law and order within Iraq." Ben Lando (Wall St. Journal) explains, "U.S. commanders and the caretaker government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki repeatedly have blamed the attacks on a hodge-podge of insurgent groups, including extremist groups linked to al Qaeda and, separately, to Iran. They allege the groups are trying to take advantage of a political vacuum -- politicians have yet to form a government after March polls -- and sow fear amid the U.S. withdrawal." Jane Arraf, Laith Hammoudi and Mohammad Dulaimi (Christian Science Monitor and McClatchy Newspapers) report, "No group has yet taken responsibility but Prime Minister Nouri al-Malaki's office blamed the attacks on Al Qaeda and Baathists. The statement said the bombings would not derail the 'historic national achievement' of the troop withdrawal in line with Iraq achieving full national sovereignty." Martin Chulov (Guardian) adds, "The US military faces mounting pleas from Iraqis to reconsider its exit." Tang Danlu (Xinhua) notes the continuing political stalemate as the violence continues. March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board notes, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." 163 seats are needed to form the executive government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher -- 163 is the number today but the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance -- this coalition still does not give them 163 seats. They are claiming they have the right to form the government. In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister. It's now 5 months and 18 days. Phil Sands (National Newspaper) notes that if the stalemate continues through September 8th, it will then be a half a year since Iraqis voted. Lebanon's Daily Star covers the rumors that Moqtada al-Sadr may move "to Beirut to escape Iranian pressures to endorse a second-term for incumbent Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki" and that "On Tuesday, Ziyad al-Darb, a lawmaker from Iraqiya said Sadrist lawmakers were throwing their weight behind Allawi for prime minister." BBC News' Hugh Skyes appeared on The Takeaway today supposedly to offer insight but instead apparently wanted to convey that Judi Dench is far from Britian's only drama queen. For the record, if he's going to admonish the host, he ought to get his facts correct. The drawdown is not, IS NOT, mandated by the Status Of Forces Agreement (" . . . that their forces are down to the 50,000 required by the State Of Forces Agreement here"). Know what you're talking about Hugh before you lecture someone else. What a putz. I can't imagine anything more stupid than being a reporter on Iraq and not knowing what the SOFA says and what it doesn't. Especially at this late date. The evening of November 27, 2008, the White House finally provided a copy of the Status Of Forces Agreement to the American people. (Even the US Congress was working with a translation of it prior, the White House did not provide Congress with a copy.) Read over it and find that 50,000 in the SOFA, Hugh Sykes. You won't. Because it's not in there as Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) and countless others have attempted to make clear over and over for nearly two years now. The 50,000 is Barack. It is not the SOFA which was signed on off before he was president. I don't think I've ever heard a guest on American public radio treat a host so rudely. And the reality is that while Hugh got his knickers in a wad, he's the idiot who doesn't even know what the SOFA says. Before he offers his next condescending lecture, he might try familiarizing himself with the basic facts. Monday Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) spoke with Marco Werman for PRI's The World (link has transcript and audio) about life in Iraq. Marco Werman: Egyptian society is typical of much of the Middle East. It's conservative. But one country stands out from its neighbors. That's Iraq. Prostitution, drugs and pornography are now widespread there. It wasn't always this way but it's part of the enormous change that the country has gone through in the past eight years. Jane Arraf has witnessed the changes in Iraq as a reporter, first for CNN and now as a freelancer. Jane, how is Iraq different from its neighbors and when did it change? Jane Arraf: Well I think the thing about Iraq is that with the toppling of Saddam, it basically lifted the lid on pretty much everything. It wasn't as if prostitution didn't exist before the war. It certainly did. And particularly in that period of sanctions when there were international trade sanctions on Iraq in the 1990s and even middle class women who couldn't find food for their families were turning to prostitution. I think the thing is now though that essentially it became lawless after the invasion, after Saddam was toppled, then law was imposed again. It has become quite religious. So it's this really odd combination of increasing religiousness -- Islam, of course -- and an openness and the two things coincide rather unhappily. Marco Werman: Gives ua an example. Perhaps you can talk about the pornography situation in Iraq. I mean what was Saddam's point of view on pornography and what is the kind of the national approach to pornography today? Jane Arraf: Well, essentially pornography is bad. It's about as simple as that. It certainly doesn't jive with any sort of religion and it's frowned on. But, having said that, this is a country where young men particularly do not have many avenues open to them. They can't really have sex. They certainly can't have sex with women for the most part. And pornography is one of the few ways that they have access to that sort of thing. It's the same on US military bases. There's a prevalence of pornography on the bases even though it's officially banned there. But really the thing about Iraq is, well, I think is, it's a country that's very much still coming to grips with what kind of country it wants to be. And we've seen that in the spate of recent killings of gay men. This has been an openness that many people have taken advantage of. They couldn't have dressed the way they dress under Saddam Hussein's era. They couldn't have engaged in the kind of behavior, danicing in clubs, that they did then. Men with men. But, having said that, it's collided with an increasingly religious atmosphere here. It has resulted in the death of at least a dozen gay men and they've eseentially gone underground, gone to Syria, gone to other places and gotten the message very clearly that even though things seem open here, they're not really. Jane Arraf went on to explain, "Sexual experiences between young men are considered fairly normal before they get married. So that if you have an experience of that sort with another man, you're not necessarily considered gay here. The thing that really offends people is not so much the sex, it's the appearance of being gay. It's the perception that you're gay, that you're effeminate." Psychologically speaking, it is the rejection of self and what the man has done which frequently manifests itself in homophobia and leads to lashing out -- verbally and/or physically -- at those who may or may not be gay (or bi) but whose appearance might result in that assumption. Along with the rejection, there's the projection and, of course, the almighty quaking fear that if "Mustaffa" is gay and you don't attack Mustaffa, you may be thought to be gay as well. Turning to the issue of Iraqi refugees, as July was winding down, Iraqi Osman Rasul took his own life. Owen Bowcott and Natalie Hanman (Guardian) reported that the 27-year-old man who was seeking asylum in England lept to his death after being "perched on railings surrounding the seventh floor balcony of a Nottingham tower block. He blanked out police officers attempting to talk him down and [. . .], placing his hand on his heart, he looked up to the sky and leapt." He was not allowed to work in England and his legal aid was cut off. Corin Faife (Ceasefire Magazine) remembers him: "Over the three months that he lived with me I heard more stories from him: of the murder of his father and brother by a militia in Iraq, and his fear for his own life; of his journey to the UK in the hold of a ship, and his impossible struggle to prove his origin and identity when he had arrived with nothing; of his arrest and imprisonment after a false accusation, and his bitter disbelief when he was aquitted, a year later, to be thrown back out on the street with no life to go back to. Living with Osman I saw firsthand the spirit-crushing inhumanity of the British asylum system, and how unremittingly bleak life can be for those who are left in limbo. Prohibited from working, with no access to housing or financial supports after his first claim was rejected and still awaiting furhter documents to make a fresh claim, he was left destitute, forced to rely on the charity of others to his continual chagrin." Great Britian's Socialist Worker adds, "He had applied for asylum, but it was denied because he could not prove he had a legal right to be in the country. He then applied to stay so that he could be with his children, who have British citizenship. This too was turned down. He was destitute and had been forced to sleep on friends' floors or on the street. Osman was not alllowed to work and was living on food parcels and charitable donations." His wife, Malgorzata Gajda, told the Coventry Telegraph that she believed he phoned her before he lept to his death, "I said 'Hello, hello' but no one answered. I'm sure it was him. He wanted to hear me and the kids for the last time." This week UN Dispatch's Mark Leon Goldberg published a list of "The Top 5 Most Ignored Humanitarian Crises" and coming in at number one: Iraqi refugees: "The invasion, occupation and subsequent civil war in Iraq war caused one of the biggest refugees crises in recent history. According to the UN Refugee Agency, there are 1.7 million Iraqi refugees living in Syria and Jordan. There are another 1.5 million Iraqi IDPs. The UN office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs released its regional response plan for Iraqi refugees in January. The appeal called for $367 million to support the refugees. So far, though, only 17.9% or $65 million is funded. The United States has contributed $17 million to the fund." In the United States, candidate Barack Obama swore he would provide $2 billion for Iraqi refugees. President Barack Obama has yet to do so. Kevin Robillar (PolitiFact) explained at the start of this year that the money wasn't being allocated: "If Obama is going to provide $2 billion over the course of four years, he would need to spend $500 million a year. That would be more than a third of the total amount the United States spends on refugees in 2010, which would seem unlikely." Today Mary Beth Sheridan (Washington Post) reports on the State Dept's Eric P. Schwartz and on the issue of Iraqi refugees. Sheridan's reporting on Schwartz' life and his testimony (before a body staffed with US lawmakers) and mentions a body of lawmakers. The Commission On Security & Cooperation in Europe aka the US Helsinki Commission -- not a Congressional committee. But they did issue a statement this month: WASHINGTON--The United States needs to develop a plan to assist the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have worked, or continue to work, for the U.S. in Iraq, 22 U.S. Senators and Representatives said today in letters to both Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates. The letters authored by U.S. Senator Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD), Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (U.S. Helsinki Commission), and Co-Chairman Congressman Alcee L. Hastings (D-FL) follow a recent hearing titled "No Way Home, No Way to Escape: The Plight of Iraqi Refugees and Our Iraqi Allies" that highlighted the dire situation of Iraqis employed by the United States. These men and women are considered "traitors" or "collaborators" and are marked for assassination by Al Qaeda in Iraq and other terrorist groups. "Time is of the essence in developing a plan to address this looming crisis as the August 31, 2010 withdrawal date rapidly approaches," the letters say. "The United States has a moral obligation to stand by those Iraqis who have risked their lives -- and the lives of their families -- to stand by us in Iraq for the past seven years, and doing so is also in our strategic self-interest." (Full text of both letters below. To view a pdf of the letter to Secretary Clinton click here. For the letter to Secretary Gates, click here.) Since resettlement to the United States is the safest option for many of our Iraqi allies, the signatories of the letters called for changes to the Special Immigrant Visa program to accelerate the application process and fulfill more of the current availability of 15,000 visas, only 2,145 of which have been used to date. This follows the legislative work of Co- Chairman Hastings, whose successful amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 calls on the Departments of Defense and State, in consultation with other federal agencies, to develop a plan to expedite resettlement of U.S.-affiliated Iraqis at risk as the United States withdraws from Iraq. "Providing support for our Iraqi allies will advance U.S. national security interests around the world, particularly in Afghanistan, by sending a message that foreign nationals who support our work abroad can expect some measure of protection," the letters state. The letters are signed by: U.S. Senator Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD), Commission Chairman* U.S. Representative Alcee L. Hastings (D-FL), Commission Co-Chairman* U.S. Senator Richard J. Durbin (D-IL), Senate Assistant Majority Leader U.S. Senator Richard G. Lugar (R-IN) U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) U.S. Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr. (D-PA) U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)* U.S. Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand (D-NY) U.S. Representative Ike Skelton (D-MO) U.S. Representative Howard L. Berman (D-CA) U.S. Representative Jim McDermott (D-WA) U.S. Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) U.S. Representative William D. Delahunt (D-MA) U.S. Representative James P. McGovern (D-MA) U.S. Representative Shelley Berkley (D-NV) U.S. Representative Janice D. Schakowsky (D-IL) U.S. Representative Darrell E. Issa (R-CA)* U.S. Representative G.K. Butterfield (D- NC)* U.S. Representative Russ Carnahan (D-MO) U.S. Representative Gwen Moore (D-WI) U.S. Representative Joe Sestak (D-PA) U.S. Delegate Eni Faleomavaega (D-AS) * denotes member of the U.S. Helsinki Commission Text of letters follows: August 12, 2010 The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton Secretary of State U.S. Department of State 2201 C Street, NW Washington, DC 20520 Dear Madam Secretary: We write to bring to your attention the plight of our Iraqi allies, those Iraqis who have worked alongside our troops and diplomats as interpreters and in other capacities since 2003, and who are now threatened for their service. We urge you to work with the Department of Defense and other federal agencies to develop contingency plans to protect these allies as our forces redeploy. Since 2003, tens of thousands of Iraqis have worked, or continue to work for, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, U.S. government contractors and other U.S. government funded entities in Iraq. Al Qaeda in Iraq and other terrorist groups affiliated with the Islamic State of Iraq have labeled these Iraqis traitors, collaborators and worse. Many have already paid the ultimate price for their service, and many more may be at risk after U.S. troops depart Iraq. Resettlement to the United States could be the only safe option for thousands of our Iraqi employees. We commend the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security for expanding and accelerating the admission process for Iraqi refugees during the past three years. However, we are advised that the application process for Iraqi refugees currently takes a year or more on average, and that fewer than 5000 of those resettled to date were employed by the United States in Iraq. This process will not work quickly enough when U.S.-affiliated Iraqis need it the most urgently. A second path to resettlement, Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), has also underperformed the current need. As you know, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 expanded the availability of SIVs to enable our Iraqi employees to resettle to the United States. Out of a current availability of 15,000 SIVs, only 2,145 have been issued to principal applicants to date. We believe that the underuse of the SIV program is due in large part to a consular interpretation that improperly restricts the scope of that legislation by extending eligibility only to Iraqis who had worked for the United States as direct hires, contractors, or subcontractors. This has denied eligibility to a class of Iraqis whom the Act sought to protect -- Iraqis who have worked for NGOs or private implementing partners funded by the United States Government through grants and cooperative agreements. Many of these individuals provided critical support to U.S. efforts and personnel in Iraq and face threats that are just as grave as the threats faced by direct hires and contractors. It is extremely unlikely that Iraqi extremists will consider the difference in funding mechanisms between grants to NGOs or contracts to companies when choosing which Iraqis to kill. We urge you to amend this interpretation as quickly as is practical. Finally, we should consider an airlift, for later processing, out of Iraq for those Iraqis who worked for or on behalf of the United States, who wish to leave Iraq, and who cannot be processed before all U.S. troops depart. The British did exactly this as they departed Basra and militant thugs openly hunted Iraqis who had worked for the British, airlifting their surviving Iraqi employees directly to a Royal Air Force base in England. Each of America's principal coalition partners -- Britain, Denmark, and Poland -- has honored its moral obligation to endangered Iraqi employees through airlifts to military bases. There is precedent for a similar undertaking by the United States in Iraq. In the 1996 Operation Pacific Haven, the United States airlifted more than 6,000 Iraqis to Guam in a matter of weeks, where they were safely processed for resettlement to the United States. While circumstances are somewhat different, our country also used Guam as a processing center for tens of thousands of Vietnamese refugees in 1975. Madam Secretary, time is of the essence in developing a plan to address this looming crisis as the August 31, 2010 withdrawal date rapidly approaches. The United States has a moral obligation to stand by those Iraqis who have risked their lives -- and the lives of their families -- to stand by us in Iraq for the past seven years, and doing so is also in our strategic self-interest. Providing support for our Iraqi allies will advance U.S. national security interests around the world, particularly in Afghanistan, by sending a message that foreign nationals who support our work abroad can expect some measure of protection. SIGNED (listed above) Let's hope Hillary tossed that letter in the trash can. (She didn't, but she should have.) Why? Pay attention -- and how stupid and uninformed are members of the US Congress -- Hillary's not over Iraq. Maybe it's time to bring back a literacy test? Not for voters, mind you, but for members of Congress. If you can't pass it, you're out. That's how it should work. And Cardin and the rest need to stop wasting Hillary's time with letters that should have never been sent. In a suitcase tied with string On the highest shelf In the closet down the hall Hidden from myself Fits of madness, pools of grief Fevers of desire How peculiar these remain Salavaged from the fire For some I crumpled Some I burned Some I tore to shreds Liftetimes later, here they are The ones I saved instead Letters never sent to you Letters never sent to you Letters I never sent Letters never sent to you -- "Letters Never Sent," written by Carly Simon and Jacob Brackman, first appears on Carly's Letters Never Sent album. Why should that letter have never been sent to Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State? Because she's not over Iraq and it is damn well known -- or damn well should be -- that she's not over Iraqi refugees. Press statement by Robert Gibbs, White House spokesperson and plus-size model, on August 14, 2009: Further to discussions that took place during Prime Minister Maliki's recent meetings in Washington, President Obama is pleased to announce that Samantha Power, Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights at the National Security Council in the White House, will coordinate the efforts of the many parts of the U.S. government on Iraqi refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs), including the Department of State, U.S. Agency for International Development, Department of Homeland Security, and Department of Defense. Who did Barack put in charge of Iraqi refugees? That's right. The old War Whore Samantha Power. So why the hell are lawmakers wasting time by addressing the letter to Hillary? And when can we propose a literacy test for all members of Congress? And continuing this week's plan to highlight at least one truth teller on the drawdown in each snapshot, today we'll note Camilo Mejia, Iraq War veteran, conscientious objector, speaking to Juan Gonzalez and Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! last Friday (link has video, audio and text): JUAN GONZALEZ: Camilo, your reaction now to this so-called news of the withdrawal of the last combat brigade from Iraq? CAMILO MEJÍA: My reaction is that this is just another media stunt, because what is not being reported as strongly as the final troop leaving Iraq is that we're still leaving 50,000 troops in country, not to mention that the 4,000 who are leaving are being replaced by 7,000 security contractors, called "dirty gangs" by Iraqis. I think that basically what we have is just a recycling of forces in what effectively could be called a transferring of military duties from the US military into the hands of corporate paramilitary forces in Iraq. AMY GOODMAN: Camilo, as you see the coverage over the last twenty-four hours, first, you know, as one of the leaders of Iraq Veterans Against the War, do you think this is the right move, what President Obama is doing? And then, what are your thoughts, hearing, watching soldiers talking about their experiences? CAMILO MEJÍA: I have not been really tracking the testimonies of soldiers about the alleged withdrawal of the troops. But I do think that it's very troubling to see how the corporate media are covering this withdrawal, because very little to nothing has been said about the fact that we are privatizing just absolutely everything. Now we have the situation in Iraq where huge contracts are going to be given to these corporations to do what the US Army used to do, not that one is better than the other. I think there probably will be less accountability for private security contractors to be doing the job that soldiers, who are at least subject to be court-martialed, but are now going to be in the hands of people like Erik Prince and people like that. We already have over 100,000 contractors in Iraq operating, many of them operating in the capacity of mercenaries. If you read the coverage by the New York Times, you realize that these are not just going to be security guards, these are going to be highly specialized former military personnel who are going to have the skills and the ability to operate radars, to go out there and find improvised explosive devices, so we're talking about EOD personnel. You're talking about people who are pilots. You're talking about people who are going to be operating drones in Iraq. So this is not just people who are going to be bodyguards. You're talking about highly specialized individuals who are going to be replacing soldiers from the US military and other special operations units within the Army. So, basically, it's the privatization of a military occupation. It is what we're witnessing right now, the transferring of military authorities and duties from the US military into corporate paramilitary forces. iraq the new york times anthony shadid stephen farrell bloomberg news kadhim ajrash caroline alexander reuters bbc news cnn mohammed tawfeeq al jazeera mike hanna xinhua tang danlu the daily star the christian science monitor jane arraf the wall st. journal ben lando mcclatchy newspapers laith hammoudi mohammed al dulaimy amy goodman democracy now juan gonzalez the guardian martin chulov pri the takeaway john hockenberry

Christian Science Monitor HATES peace

What did we learn today, kiddies?

That the Christian Science Monitor hates peace.

I did a Google blog search when I got back to the hotel this evening (and then went out to eat) on CSM and Iraq. This was the only result:

Iraq snapshot « The Common Ills

1 hour ago
Chaos and violence continue, the Christian Science Monitor repeats a known falsehood in their attempt to go for a blood libel smear against the peace movement, Moqtada al-Sadr may be backing Allawi, Moqtada al-Sadr may be moving to ...
http://thecommonills.blogdrive.com/

As C.I. explains in the snapshot, the "vets got spit on!" did not happen during and after Vietnam in that peace activists weren't spitting on them. The government pissed on veterans. It does that all the time. In fact, that Senator Jim Webb is pretty good at pissing on veterans while pretending to give a damn. (Refusing to support Agent Orange benefits because you think it would cost too much isn't supporting veterans. Refusing to support Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans having a registry that would make it easier for them to prove their chemical exposures and get treatment isn't supporting veterans. Jim Webb sure knows how to play it good for the cameras but anyone bothering to look at what he's actually been doing in 2010 wouldn't mistake him for a friend of veterans.)

But, no, peace activists didn't spit on them.

I grew up during Vietnam. I remember. I was a young girl and then I was a teenager when the war was finally winding down. I wrote about that time period in my review of Rickie Lee Jones and Norah Jones CDs a while back. (Two years ago? Three?)

I grew up in 'liberal' California. In the Bay Area. We didn't spit.

There was no reason for the Christian Science Monitor to even bring up that long disproven falsehood. But they did, didn't they?

They brought up the lie and they presented it as truth.

For the last ten years, the peace movement has been demonized and I'm just sick of it.

I'm not joking. I'm not in a happy mood.

This appeared in an editorial. From the editorial board. Presumably, they know a little more than someone rushing to file an actual report and meet a deadline.

They lied.

They lied and they need to retract their lie.

Will they do it? I don't know but until they do I'll probably make a point to rip them apart. And they've earned it. How dare they? How dare they attack the peace movement, smear us with a lie.

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

Tuesday, August 24, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, the Christian Science Monitor repeats a known falsehood in their attempt to go for a blood libel smear against the peace movement, Moqtada al-Sadr may be backing Allawi, Moqtada al-Sadr may be moving to Lebanon, the political stalemate continues, and more. Today Tom Ashbrook used the hour of On Point (NPR) to explore the situation in Iraq and was joined, by phone from Baghdad, the Los Angeles Times' Liz Sly and the New York Times' Anthony Shadid. Tom Ashbrook: Liz, you remind us in your recent reporting that -- what, about a year ago? -- when US troops withdrew from the cities in Iraq, Iraqis danced in the street, there was celebration. What about this last week? Americans have heard a lot about the withdrawal of combat troops, what's -- Has there been a public response? Has there been dancing in the street from Iraqis, Liz? Liz Sly: Well there has no. The reaction has been in noted contrast to last year. And that's because two things are different between this year and last year. Last year, the American troops withdrew from the cities under the terms of the security agreement signed with Iraq and so the Iraqi government trumpeted that as a triumph for Iraq, as a sign of its sovereignty. This year -- This year, the unilateral withdrawal of the 50,000 is an American move in response to President Obama's election pledge to bring the troops home. It hasn't really received much attention from the Iraqis. And the other thing that's different between now and last year is that last year Iraq was looking pretty stable. It kind of was better off than Iraq had been in a long time, violence had subsided a lot, the government was relatively strong, relatively popular, relatively in control. This year, the situation really does feel really unstable again. We had elections in March, they failed to produce a winner, there's been no success in negotiations for a new government and a lot of Iraqis now are feeling very worried about what lies ahead and especially wihtout so many troops -- without so many American troops in the country -- to kind of keep order, if you like? had finally Tom Ashbrook: Uh, Liz, Anthony, here was US commander in Iraq Ray Odierno just this last Sunday on CBS [Face The Nation]. He was asked about whether the US had won in Iraq? Gen Ray Odierno: I would say that we've made lot of progress here. I would say to determine whether we've won the war or not, we can see that in three to five years as we see how Iraq works out. A strong, democratic Iraq should bring stability to the Middle East and, if we see an Iraq moving from that two, three, five years, I think we can call our operation a success. Tom Ashbrook: Two, three, five years from now? It's a long goodbye already. US troops -- formally -- to be out at the end of next year, we'll see what happens with that. But Anthony Shadid, when you look over that kind of horizon, the right now that Liz is talking about, the spikes in attacks, then there's the two, three, five year horizon out there. Where do see Iraq? What do you see coming, Anthony? Anthony Shadid: I think Liz is exactly right, this is a very precarious moment right here and what struck me in the past few weeks is the degree of the divorce between the population right now and the ruling elite. And it is an utter divide that's going on right there. The ruling elite is discredited, there's not a lot of trust in them, there's an incredible amount of frustration as Liz pointed out in their inabililty to form a government. Where does that -- that disenchantment, that disillusionment lead to? And I think that's one of the most pressing questions and it's not a question that US officials and the military is reallyd ealing with right now. This is a government or an elite that has lost the trust of the people. It's not a good sign of the durability or even the longterm implications for creating a stable political system. I think it's in fact one of the most danger -- one of the biggest dangers they're facing right now. Tom Ashbrook: Anthony, who is the ruling elite of Iraq today? Anthony Shadid: Well interestingly it's many of the same ruling elite that we saw back in 2003 and I think this is going to be one of the American legacies of the invasion/occupation and what's followed here. There are people that the Americans helped empower and they're still, in a lot of ways, calling the shots. I mean, we've heard a lot of the names already. Ayad Allawi, Ahmed Chalabi, Ibrahim Jaafari and, you know, Prime Minister Maliki is one of the different ones but he's from the Dawa party which is one of the parties that were brought back after 2003. So we're dealing with a lot of the same faces and we're dealing with a lot of the same penchant toward deadlock, toward stalemate that's characterized their dealing, you know, back from 2004 and on. Tom Ashbrook: Liz Sly, the group that Anthony's pointing at there, from 2003, that the US brought in were largely exiles. What has that meant about the way they've approached politics? The Iraq that they now, you know, more or less, for better or worse, rule? Liz Sly: Well you've got something of a really fundamental divide going on in Iraqi society and politics at the moment and it's the same divide that we saw back in 2003, back in 2004 as the insurgency started. And it's opened up again, if you like, by this latest election. And that really is a huge divide between religious parties which were empowered very much by the US invasion. The Shi'ite religious parties which had been in exile since they'd been persecuted by Saddam. They came back, they formed the government and now they're in power. What you have now is a bit of a situation where there's a little bit of a pushback against that religious style of government that came in in those years by people who want to see a more secular and less overtly religious form of government and, quite frankly, there is a sectarian overture to that as well because there are Sunnis who don't want Shia religious parties to be in control. And so you've got this fundamental divide that we've never really solved in any of the earlier years when the emphasis was mainly on bringing the violence down and not on solving the fundamental political problems. And you've got that divide opening up again just as the troops are going home. Tom Ashbrook: Anthony Shadid, what's the problem in getting a new government established? The election is five months and counting behind us now. What are the obstacles to some kind of a compromise to get something settled here? What's the problem? Anthony Shadid: Well I think on one level it's ambition. It's the ambition of the people who did best in the election. But I think more fundamentally, it's a question of power and who has that power and how is that power -- to what degree does everyone enjoy that power? There is a question right now going on of whether the prime minister will have the powers he's had in the past, whether it will be moved to the Cabinet. There are ideas out there of creating a National Strategies Council, a National Security Council that would take some of the powers away from the prime minister but I think we're still in the preliminary stages there. The Ambassador, Christopher Hill, before he left, optimistically forecast it was weeks away but I think pessimism was probably the better sentiment to have and those negotiations seem to have fallen apart. I think when you talk to politicians right now, we're not all of that -- I mean, maybe I'm overstating it a little bit -- but I don't think we're all that further ahead than we were in March. And I think this could last weeks, even months. And the interim is dangerous. That interim encourages rumors of crisis and confrontation and even coups -- coup d'etats -- and you do wonder where -- where this is all going to lead to? That's an excerpt. Again, Ashbrook devoted the hour to the very important topic. Shadid and Sly were allowed to speak on various aspects of Iraq that never get noted in the rush for 'the week's headlines' that Iraq is often lumped into. I can't think of a time when Iraq got the full hour on any radio show this year. (The Takeaway still deserves praise for their week long look at Iraq.) Check out the show for that and for more on the elections. March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board notes, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." 163 seats are needed to form the executive government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher -- 163 is the number today but the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance -- this coalition still does not give them 163 seats. They are claiming they have the right to form the government. In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister. It's now 5 months and 17 days. Phil Sands (National Newspaper) notes that if the stalemate continues through September 8th, it will then be a half a year since Iraqis voted. Today Alsumaria TV reports that State Of Law submitted a "political reform paper" to Iraqiya and Iraqiya has refused the paper. UPI notes that Nouri's spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh issued a statement denying that Iran was attempting to influence the process. Phil Sands (National Newspaper) adds that Syria is working on the political stalemate and attempting to encourage negotiations. Rahmat al-Salaam (Asharq Alawsat Newspaper) reports: For his part, Al-Iraqiya member Muhammad Allawi said that "Al-Maliki has two options; he can either assumes the second post after the prime minister or accepts to stay as a member of parliament." On the possibility of starting dialogues with the SLC anew in spite of Al-Maliki's insistence to remain a candidate for the post of prime minister in the next government, Allawi said that "Al-Iraqiya had set a condition not to mention the name of Al-Maliki as a candidate to head the next government during the dialogues or the negotiations with it, and in case this happens, the meeting with the SLC would stop." He stressed that Al-Iraqiya is adopting this stand since it is the bloc that has the electoral right which authorizes it to form and head the government." Muhammad Allawi added that the Al-Iraqiya list "is going ahead in its negotiations with the Iraqi National Alliance (led by Ammar al-Hakim) in determined steps, and the same is the case of the Kurdistan Alliance, while keeping the door open for the SLC to take what it deserves of main posts, specifically the second highest post after the prime minister." UPI reports that supporters of Moqtada al-Sadr have made a decision whom to back: "Ziyad al-Darb, a lawmaker from Iraqiya, told the Voices of Iraq news agency that Sadrist lawmakers were throwing their weight behind Allawi for prime minster." Saturday Alsumaria TV noted Al Hayat Newspaper was reporting that al-Sadr would be supporting Allawi. Xiong Tong (Xinhua) reported Sunday that al-Sadr and Allawi would meet-up in Syria shortly. Ma'ad Fayad (Asharaq Alawsat Newspaper) reports that rumors are swirling that Moqtada al-Sadr is planning to move to Lebanaon "in order to escape from Iranian pressure, which is pushing for his approval of the nomination of Nuri al-Maliki, leader of the State of Law Coalition and outgoing Prime Minister, for a second term in office." Al Bawaba also notes the rumors and quote an unnamed source stating, "Al-Sadr rejected all the pressures and proposals made by Iranian officials for the approval of al-Maliki and today is planning seriously to go to Lebanon and stay in Beirut." Consider all of the reports today to be etched in soft clay and able to wash away at any time as has repeatedly happened during the nearly six months since the elections. Today many reporters had a sick day on the job while other 'reporters' continued posing and they all tried to tease a report out of a press release. It was pimping and worse. It was not news. It was whoring. Thanks Christian Science Monitor, Mary Baker Eddy never planned for you to be such a whore, let alone a cheap whore. CSM's editorial board (the same crap that palled around with LIAR Daniel Schorr -- forever remembered as the 'brave guy' who tried to falsely blame Lesley Stahl to save his own ass) wants to tease out the press release and insult our intelligence -- the latter by repeating the tired, disproven trope that US service members were spat on during Vietnam. Who gives the editorial board it's history lessons? Barack Obama. (He was only 8 years old!) Here's reality, you damn dirty whores of the Christian Science Monitor editorial board, from Jerry Lembcke (Vietnam Veterans Against the War): Many of the current stories are accompanied by stories of spat-upon Vietnam veterans. The recent story of spitting in Asheville, for example, was traced to a local businessman who says he is a veteran who was also spat upon and called a "baby killer" when he returned from Vietnam. An Associated Press story of April 9 reported stories of spat-upon Vietnam veterans surfacing in several cities including Spicer, Minnesota whose mayor said he was spat upon in the San Francisco airport while coming home from Vietnam in 1971. Similar stories became quite popular during the Gulf War of 1991 which raised my curiosity about where they came from and why they were believed. There is nothing in the historical record -- news or police reports, for example -- suggesting they really happened. In fact, the Veterans Administration commissioned a Harris Poll in 1971 that found 94% of Vietnam veterans reporting friendly homecomings from their age-group peers who had not served in the military. Moreover, the historical record is rich with the details of solidarity and mutuality between the anti-war movement and Vietnam veterans. The real truth, in other words, is that anti-war activists reached out to Vietnam veterans and veterans joined the movement in large numbers. Stories of spat-upon Vietnam veterans are bogus. Born out of accusations made by the Nixon administration, they were enlivened in popular culture (recall Rambo saying he was spat on by those maggots at the airport) and enhanced in the imaginations of Vietnam-generation men -- some veterans, some not. The stories besmirch the reputation of the anti-war movement and help construct an alibi for why we lost the war: had it not been for the betrayal by liberals in Washington and radicals in the street, we could have defeated the Vietnamese. The stories also erase from public memory the image, discomforting to some Americans, of Vietnam veterans who helped end the carnage they had been part of. The facsimiles of spat-upon veteran stories that are surfacing now confuse the public dialogue surrounding the war. Debate about the war itself and the politics that got us into it is being displaced by the phony issue of who supports the troops. Everyone supports the troops and wishes them a safe and speedy homecoming. It's the mission they have been sent on that is dividing the nation and it is the mission that we have a right and obligation to question. And you can read more of Jerry's book The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam online via Google books. (Or actually buy the book. It's a great book and Jerry's a great guy.) You can also refer to Tim King's 2008 article for Salem-News. But what you can't do is WHORE out whatever was left of your reputation and expect anyone to take you seriously. What the Christian Science Monitor has done is repeat a blood libel that they decided to bring up on their own. All on their own. They're liars, they're whores, they're uneducated and they're uniformed -- and that's your editorial board. Beginning to see why -- even with considerable tax breaks -- the Christian Science Monitor could no longer hack it as a print newspaper? Mmmhmm. Watch the little liars try to weasel out of issuing the correction that damn well know they need to. Well remember, they supported the Iraq War. A fact they'd like you to forget. They supported it, they whored it, they did the advance work for it -- that includes the 'brave' and thankfully dead Danny Schorr. Now a lot of outlets tried to tease the press release into 'news' and no one did a worse job than the Christian Science Monitor. Who actually managed to deliver news? NPR did. They treated it like news meaning they did something more than rewrite the press release, they added the details that were being (intentionally) left out. From their hourly news break this morning. Craig Windham: The number of US troops in Iraq is now below 50,000 for the first time since the American-led invasion of that country seven years ago NPR's Mike Schusther in Bagdad says the drawdown of combat forces has been completed a week before the date set by President Obama. Mike Shuster: The US military says that largely brings to a close the US combat role in Iraq. Now the main mission of those troops remaining will be to train and assist Iraqi security forces. But American troops will still be armed and will accompany Iraqi patrols. There are still almost daily insurgent attacks in Iraq. The US may be ending its primary combat role in Iraq but the violence has not ended. In addition, some of the remaining US troops are Special Forces and they will continue to stage secret operations against al Qaeada in Iraq and other insurgent groups. Mike Shuster, NPR News, Baghdad. That's from the hourly news and I'm not aware of any way to link to that, sorry, so we'll just note NPR. Note that Shuster's able to do what others can't or won't. How very telling. Nor did he have to resort to lying about the peace activists during Vietnam. "Yet since the Vietnam War, when returning soldiers were shunned and even spat on, Americans have learned to distinguish between the service of a soldier and the politics of war" lied the Christian Science Monitor -- which doesn't seem to go with either Mary Baker Eddy's beliefs or those of Christ's -- disgracing itself. ("Shunned"? By the government. But you know that a cowardly editorial board would rather attack the people than hold accountable the government.) This morning, I was surprised to find out that we called out Joe Biden (whom I know and love) in yesterday's snapshot and everyone else wanted to pretend like Joe was making sense yesterday. Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) is the exception: "On the subject of Iraq, Biden mocked those who suggested that violence would rise ahead of the drawdown, insisting it 'didn't happen.' Last month saw the highest death toll of Iraqi civilians in over two years." Good for Jason Ditz. But I was merely surprised by the silence elsewhere. On the smear and attack on the peace movement? I'm furious and outraged. For those who are still suffering from Joe Biden's spin from yesterday, here's Charlie Kimber (Great Britain's Socialist Worker): The truth is that the US has achieved only the sordid destruction of an entire society. Over a million Iraqis are dead because of the war, as are thousands of US, British and other troops. Some four million Iraqis have been driven from their homes, and the vast majority are too terrified to return. Basic services are in short supply and the reality for the majority of the Iraqi population is poverty and fear. July saw the highest number of violent deaths in Iraq for two years: August will be worse. Sectarianism has been created and entrenched. Al Qaida did not exist in Iraq before the war -- but it does now. The lie that the US has made Iraq a better place is on a scale of the lies about weapons of mass destruction. And of course the US is not withdrawing from Iraq. "Combat troops" are meant to be out, but 50,000 "trainers and advisers" will remain until the end of 2011, and 10,000 even longer. The US is in the process of recruiting 7,000 security contractors (mercenaries) to back up their power. Turning to some of today's reported violence . . . Bombings? Anthony Shadid (New York Times) reports 1 car bombing which took the life of a Sahwa leader. Mohammed Tawfeeq and CNN identify the dead is Mithaq Salman Falih and note a Baghdad roadside bombing which wounded two people, a Mosul grenade attack which injured three Iraqi soldiers. Reuters drops back to "late on Monday" to note a Baghdad mortar attack which injured one person. Shootings? Anthony Shadid (New York Times) reports 1 "municipal official . . . shot dead" in Baghdad. Mohammed Tawfeeq and CNN identify the dead as Ahmed Hassan. Reuters drops back to "late on Monday" to note two police officers were injured in a Baghdad assault (one bystander was also injured). Moving to the US, the editorial board of the Delaware County Daily Times observes, "It is easy to sympathize and treat visible wounds, but the illness veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are reporting is difficult to diagnose, often discounted as an excuse by some, and tough to treat. Of the more than 2 million troops who have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, it is estimated that one in five return with post-traumatic stress disorder. Yet, only 78,000 of the 150,000 troops diagnosed with PTSD have been awarded disability claims." The board notes the deaths of Matthew Magdzas, April Olse-Magdzas, their child Lila Magdzas and the family's three dogs -- all apparently dead at the hands of Matthew who was a 23-year-old Iraq War veteran. Mike Simonson (Wisconsin Public Radio) quotes City Council member and Iraq War and Afghanistan War veteran Greg Mertzig stating, "I know by being deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan, it's a huge, hard adjustment. When I got back from my deployment . . . I had some difficulties finding a job. I found myself a little disgruntled and upset with how things were going." Hawaii also saw multiple murders and a suicide, apparently carried out by an Iraq War veteran. The Honolulu Star-Advertiser reports that Iraq War veteran Clayborne Conley is suspected of murdering Kristine Cass and her teenage daughter (Saundra) and then taking his own life. Conley is rumored to have suffered from PTSD. In other violence news, there's an update to the 2007 murder of Lance Cpl Maria Lauterbach who was murdered while she was eight months pregnant. Amy Thorpe (News 14 -- link has text and video) reports Cesar Laurean was convicted of first degree murder yesterday: "Jurors sided with the state that the defendant wanted to salvage his military career after Lauterbach accused him of rape. Prosecutors said the defendant had a plan to make it seem she went AWOL by sending her to Mexico. An SBI pathologist testified and said Lauterbach's blood was in the Laurean's garage and on a crowbar the prosecution said killed her." His family is quoted worrying about him and expressing no remorse for his actions. For those who've forgotten, he murdered her, dug a hole/pit in his backyard and attempted to destroy her body that way. Maria's body was only discovered when his wife called the authorities to say he'd confessed to her that he'd killed Maria. Chris Brown and Andrew Doud (WNCT -- link has text and video) report that the verdict was returned in "less than 3 hours." In the video, Mary Lauterbach is shown explaining: This case has begin a tragedy from beginning to end. It started with Maria's chain of command and the NCIS agents who would not listen to me. They cast Maria as a deserter without making any connection with her sexual assault allegation. For those who've forgotten, Cesar eventually ended up in Mexico. How did that happen? The military refused to take anything seriously. He was the prime suspect. The police were moving in and the military -- despite the rape charge and the fact that Maria was missing -- didn't even bother to keep an eye on him. Emily Friedman (ABC News -- link has text and video) reports: "Sources familiar with the probe told ABC News at the time that Laurean boarded a bus in Raleigh-Durham, N.C., and then rode to Houston. In Houston, he allegedly boarded another bus and then traveled to San Luis Potosi, a state in central Mexico. The massive three-month international manhunt eventually culminated in Lauren's capture in Mexico in April 2008. Mexican police on an anti-kidnapping operation reportedly spotted Laurean wandering the street and became suspicious when they realized he didn't speak Spanish very well." As noted in yesterday's snapshot, there have been some truth tellers despite the media spin on the drawdown. We'll continue to highlight them this week. Today, we'll note Cindy Sheehan, "Deja Vu All Over Again" (Peace of the Action): My son, Casey and at least 4000 more troops have been killed in Iraq since George Bush's famous Captain Codpiece moment when he flew onto the deck of the Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier near San Diego and declared an "end to major combat" in Iraq. At that point, my son's division, the First Cavalry's, imminent deployment to Iraq was canceled (but later rescheduled). I remember the day that happened on May 1st, 2003 Casey called me from Ft. Hood and we I discussed the fact that the war was over. Now, in a stultifying display of deja vu, the Obama administration is declaring another end to combat in Iraq seven years, three months, and 18 days after BushCo's declaration. Not only is this an astounding display of re-framework, many people are going to believe it. I just saw a commentator on MSNBC(GE) telling everyone that President Barack Obama ended the war in Iraq ahead of schedule. Dozens of Iraqis were killed this past week and I think that they didn't get the memo about the war being over, either. People are still going to die -- soldiers will still be killed because the Iraqis have always seen them as oppressors and occupiers, not saviors. And we'll close with Iraq Veterans Against the War's "The Iraq Debacle: The Legacy of Seven Years of War:" We, the undersigned organizations and individuals, mark the August 31st partial withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq with the following evaluation and recommendations: * The U.S. occupation of Iraq continues and the reduction of U.S. troops in Iraq can at best be called only a rebranded occupation. While the number of U.S. troops in Iraq will be reduced from a high of 165,000, there will still be 50,000 troops left behind, some 75,000 contractors, five huge "enduring bases" and an Embassy the size of Vatican City. * The U.S. military's overthrow of the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein did not lead to a better life for Iraqis—just the opposite. It resulted in the further destruction of basic infrastructure—electricity, water, sewage—that continues to this day. The U.S. dropped more tons of bombs on Iraq than in all of WWII, destroying Iraq's electrical, water and sewage systems. Iraq's health care and higher education systems, once the best in the entire region, have been decimated. The U.S. war on Iraq unleashed a wave of violence that has left over one million Iraqis dead and four million displaced, as well as ethnic rivalries that continue to plague the nation. We have seriously wounded millions of Iraqis, creating a lifetime of suffering and economic hardship for them, their communities and the entire nation as it struggles to rebuild. Life expectancy for Iraqis fell from 71 years in 1996 to 67 years in 2007 due to the war and destruction of the healthcare system. The U.S. use of weapons such as depleted uranium and white phosphorous has taken a severe toll, with the cancer rate in Fallujah, for example, now worse than that of Hiroshima. * The majority of the refugees and internally displaced persons created by the US intervention have been abandoned. Of the nearly 4 million refugees, many are now living in increasingly desperate circumstances in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and around the world. As undocumented refugees, most are not allowed to work and are forced to take extremely low paying, illegal jobs ($3/day) or rely on the UN and charity to survive. The United Nations refugee agency (UNHCR) has documented a spike in the sex trafficking of Iraqi women. * Iraq still does not have a functioning government. Many months after the March 7 elections, there is still a political vacuum and violence that is killing roughly 300 civilians a month. There is no functioning democracy in place and little sign there will be one in the near future. * The Iraq War has left a terrible toll on the U.S. troops. More than one million American service members have deployed in the Iraq War effort. Over 4,400 U.S. troops have been killed and tens of thousands severely injured. More than one in four U.S. troops have come home from the Iraq war with health problems that require medical or mental health treatment. PTSD rates in the military have skyrocketed. In 2009, a record number of 245 soldiers committed suicide. * The war has drained our treasury. As of August 2010, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $750 billion on the Iraq War effort. Counting the cost of lifetime care of wounded vets and the interest payments on the money we borrowed to pay for this war, the real cost will be in the trillions. This misappropriation of funds has contributed to the economic crises we are experiencing, including the lack of funds for our schools, healthcare, infrastructure and investments in clean, green jobs. * The U.S. officials who got us into this disastrous war on the basis of lies have not been held accountable. Not George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld. No one. Neither have the Bush administration lawyers who authorized torture, including Jay Bybee and John Yoo. The "think tanks," journalists and pundits who perpetuated the lies have not been fired—most are today cheerleading for the war in Afghanistan. * The war has led to the pillaging of Iraqi resources and institutionalization of corruption. The U.S. Department of Defense has been unable to account for $8.7 billion of Iraqi oil and gas money meant for humanitarian needs and reconstruction after the 2003 invasion. The invasion has also led to the erosion of Iraqi government control over the nation's oil. In 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, which included executives of America's largest energy companies, recommended opening up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment. The resulting draft Iraq Oil Law threatens global grab for Iraq's resources as the international oil cartel seeks to reestablish its control. Adoption of the oil law, however, has been stymied by stiff popular resistance, foremost by the oil workers and their union. * The war has not made us more secure. The US policy of torture, extraordinary rendition, indefinite detention, violent and deadly raids on civilian homes, gunning down innocent civilians in the streets and absence of habeas corpus has fueled the fires of hatred and extremism toward Americans. The very presence of our troops in Iraq and other Muslim nations has become a recruiting tool. Given the above, we, the undersigned individuals and organizations, mark the occasion of this troop withdrawal by calling on the Administration and Congress to take the following actions: * Withdrawal of all U.S. troops and military contractors from Iraq and the closing of all U.S. bases; * Reparations to help the Iraqis repair their basic infrastructure and increased funds for the millions of internally and externally displaced Iraqis; * Full support for the U.S. troops who suffer from the internal and external wounds of war; * Prosecution of those officials responsible for dragging our country into this disaster; * Transfer of funds from war into resources to rebuild America, with a focus on green jobs. * The lessons of this disastrous intervention should also be an impetus for Congress and the administration to end the war in Afghanistan. It's time to focus on creating real security here at home and rebuilding America. Bay Area Labor Committee for Peace & Justice CODEPINK: Women for Peace Community Organizing Center Courage to Resist Fellowship of Reconciliation Global Exchange Institute for Policy Studies' New Internationalism Project Iraq Veterans Against the War Jeannette Rankin Peace Center Just Foreign Policy Military Families Speak Out Nicholas (Nick) Dibs, Independent candidate for Congress Pax Christi - USA Under the Hood United for Peace and Justice US Labor Against the War Veterans for Peace Voices for Creative Nonviolence Voters for Peace War Is a Crime Women's International League for Peace & Freedom (WILPF) Los Angeles Branch See the following link for additional signatories: http://www.womensaynotowar.org/article.php?id=5510 iraq npr the new york times anthony shadid the los angeles times liz sly alsumaria tv upi asharq alawsat newspaper rahmat al-salaam the national newspaper phil sands the delaware county daily times wisconsin public radio mike simonson amy thorpe wnct chris brown andrew doud abc news emily friedman antiwar.com jason ditz cindy sheehan asharaq alawsat newspaper