Little bombs

Okay, theme post tonight. We're supposed to grab a song of Aimee Mann's that we really enjoy.



I'm afraid you'll be dialing 911 for me. My choice is "Little Bombs."



I love the music which reminds me of tip-toeing and sneaking up on someone. It's a shuffle that stops and starts delicately.



Now the lyrics are why you'll be thinking, "Girl, you like that?" Yes, I do.


Life just kind of empties out
Less a deluge than a drought
Less a giant mushroom cloud
Than an unexploded shell
Inside a cell
Of the Lennox Hotel




I think that's really beautiful. Is it sad?

Yeah, and life can be sad. If it's not had any sadness, I'm not sure you've been living.



"Life just kind of empties out, Less a deluge than a drought" is just so beautifully put.

And there are the days when that couplet really captures it. It's a drought. Not flooded out. Just dried up.

We're doing theme posts tonight so be sure to check the other community sites to find out what song they selected.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Wednesday, October 7, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, information about a US prison in Iraq emerges, the inquiry into the death of Iraqi Baha Mousa while in British custody continues, Senator Byron Dorgan calls for accountability in the exposure of US troops serving in Iraq to sodium dichromate, DoD's Inspector General agrees to begin a formal investigation into the issue, 36 Iranians are finally released from an Iraqi prison, and more.

Monday on NPR's Morning Edition, Jonathan Blakley reported on what journalist Ali Omar al-Masshadani experienced while impisoned at Camp Bucca.
Jonathan Blakley: At it's peak it's prison housed over 22,000 detainees in separate camps at the sprawling facility. Ali Omar al-Mashhadani was one of them. Ali Omar al-Mashhadani: Each camp had up to a thousand prisoners. Some of the camps have tents. Each one was air conditioned. Each camp had different kinds of prisoners like extremists or ex-regime officials from the Ba'ath Party.Jonathan Blakley: Ali is a 40-year-old journalist. His voice drops when he recalls his detention at Bucca. All of his memories negative.Ali Omar al-Mashhadani: We were isolated from everything. We didn't have a radio or anything. The Americans would sometimes bring us very bad news like a Sunni guy killing a Shi'ite or vice versa to make the prisoners hate each other.Jonathan Blakley: Following the US invasion, Ali worked as a cameraman for the BBC and Reuters and as a stringer for NPR. In the summer of 2005, he was detained without charges while videotaping a clash between US forces and insurgents in Haditha. He was released after spending three months at Camp Bucca.Ali Omar al-Mashhadani: We demonstrated inside because we heard about massacres or other bad news about the war, we'd throw apples and they'd respond with gunfire and dogs.Jonathan Blakley: Over the course of six years, Ali was detained no fewer than seven more times by the US military -- essentially, he believes, for being in the wrong place at the wrong time while holding a camera near US forces. Like many other detainees, he has never been charged. Today in England, the inquiry into the death of Iraqi Baha Mousa (while in British custody) continued. Baha died September 16, 2003, after being beaten so badly that he had at least 93 injuries. Iraqi witnesses who were prisoners at the same time Baha was (none of the prisoners were ever found guilty of anything) are listed with "D" and a series of numbers. There names are not given to protect them. D004 testified today. D004 testifed that Baha was being abused before they left the hotel that the British army hauled them away from.

D004: As for me, no, but I could see the late Baha. He was being beaten up.

Gerald Elias: That is Baha Mousa?

D004: Yes.

Gerald Elias: What did you see happen to him?

D004: I saw a soldier kicking him on the head.
Gerald Elias: How forceful or otherwise was that kick?
D004: It was enough to make him sound in pain.

Gerald Elias: Upon arriving at the detention center, D004 was hooded (at one point with multiple hoods) and the hooding continued for three days with the hoods removed once for a doctor's visit, once when they were given water and once when they were given food. He described the three days:

D004: The torture was beyond belief. All kinds of beating, swearing. They did it in an artistic -- they were trying to be creative in their beating of us. [. . .] They beat me directly on all my body. There were also kicks and punches and suffocating holds.

Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian) reports on Tuesday's testimony which included an Iraqi prisoner explaining how "he was forced to drink the urine of British soldiers and described how his head was pushed down a toilet." This prisoner was the son of one of the owners of the hotel and is identifed as D005 and his father offered testimony earlier as D006. D005 explained what the British soldiers did to him (from inquiry transcript):

[. . .] he lowered my head to the opening of the toilet and asked me to stay as such, looking into the hole of the toilet. The smell was extremely bad because it had been an abandoned toilet, as far as I know. So I stayed in that position about an hour -- even more than an hour -- and it was such a scene, such an abominable scene and very improper. [. . . ] I felt I was not a human because a human who would be lowered to such a leave -- first of all, I felt inhuman. I felt a lack of respect, because the level of a man -- human being -- who was lowered to such an extent to foul -- to a foul level, this moved me a lot and affected me psychologically. [. . .] The stench was unbearable. When I lifted my head away from the smell, the soldier would hit me on the back with his feet because he was standing behind me. [. . .] This episode ended with beating by the soldiers and shouting, sleeplessness, I mean -- it was a very bad ending. [. . .] I was beaten by the soldiers whilst handcuffed, completely helpless, in pain, screaming, crying.On Monday, Ali Aktash gave testimony to the inquiry via videolink from Iraq and he explained, "I was detailed to go to Battlegroup Main firstly to look after the radio equipment there that I had been trained on and also to man the brigade net, which just involved keeping a log of radio traffic that was sent to Battlegroup Main." While working in the Ops Room, he overheard a conversation.Gerald Elias: All right. Let's see if we can just take a step back then and let me ask you about the conversation or conversations that you may have heard in that ops room which interested you. Who was present when these conversations took place?Ali Aktash: Okay, there was Lieutenant Crawford and Major Peebles was called into the ops room when they detained these men. Also there was a --Gerald Elias: Can I just ask you to pause a moment? Just pause a moment. When you were referring to a major a few minutes ago, was that Major Peebles or is that another major?Ali Aktash: Oh, no, Major Peebles, but there was another major whose office was -- he was the 1QLR major. There was another major, yes, there was. Gerald Elias: So when you were referring a few minutes ago to a major with an adjoining office, that is a different major to Major Peebles? Is that what you are saying?Ali Aktash: Yes, sir, yes.Gerald Elias: All right. So you are going to tell the Inquiry about something that happened when Lieutenant Crawford and Major Peebles were present in the ops room with you?Ali Aktash: That's correct.Gerald Elias: Yes, well tell us what happened please. What was the conversation that you heard?Ali Aktash: At that time my network wasn't busy. It generally wasn't that busy and I happened to overhear on the battlegroup's network that they had detained some people and Major Peebles was called into the room, and at some point the soldier on the ground asked, "Shall we commence the shock of capture?", and Major Peebles then said something along the lines of, "Yes, but don't go as far as before" and that caught my attention.Gerald Elias: Just pause there, if you will. Just pause. Major Peebles said "Don't go as far as before" or something like that. You say that he had been called into the room. Who called him into the room, do you remember?Ali Aktash: I don't remember. I don't remember.Gerald Elias: Did you hear any further conversation across the airwaves on this occasion?Ali Aktash: I don't remember, no. But then I -- because Lieutenant Crawford was no longer manning the -- their network at that time, I turned and asked Lieutenant Crawford what he meant, because once the soldier on the ground has said, "Can we commence the shock of capture?", Lieutenant Crawford then said, "Well, that sounds a bit ominous", which got my attention, and I asked Lieutenant Crawford what he meant by that and then he explained about the shock of capture.Gerald Elias: So what did Lieutenant Crawford say to you about the shock of capture?Ali Aktash: Well it's when they -- there's a procedure to keep the shock of capture going which I believe is used to help with interrogation. Gerald Elias: I'm going to stop you, Mr Aktash, because if you can listen to the question, I would be grateful. What was it, if anything, that Lieutenant Crawford said to you? You asked him what he meant by "That sounds a bit ominous", as I understand it. Correct? Ali Aktash: Yes, that's correct.At which point, they referred to Aktash's statement from May 7, 2004.Gerald Elias: All right. What I want to ask you about is the second paragraph. You see in the second paragraph -- you refer to Major Peebles in the top line: "When [he] had finished on the net I asked him 'How did you mean, what happened before?' or words to this effect . . ." That's what you have just told us about, isn't it?Ali Aktash: Yes, it is.Gerald Elias: Then you said this: "He said, 'They went too far and beat him up, they were in a state', or words to this effect. I did not ask and Major Peebles did not clarify this comment." Is that true? Ali Aktash: I don't recall exact words now --Gerald Elias: All right. Ali Aktash: -- but I can only rely on my statement. Gerald Elias: I understand. What I do want to ask you about is that you are here reciting in those paragraphs what Major Peebles had said to you in the ops room. Do you see how the next paragraph begins: "Later that same day, the exact time I do not recall . . ."Ali Aktash: Yes.Gerald Elias: ". . . though it was still daylight, I completed my shift and together with Sergeant Hitchins I walked with him to the prisoner holding cell. I knew that prisoners were being held in the cells as I saw that there were members of the guard of 1QLR milling around the holding cells . . ." Do you see that?Ali Aktash: Yes, I do. I understand what you're saying.Gerald Elias: Can that be taken off the screen please? What I want to ask you about, Mr Aktash -- if you can't help us further, you say so -- you seemed to be saying in 2004 that the conversation, if I can call it that for the moment, that you had with Major Peebles was on the same day as your visit to the TDF holding cells. Ali Aktash: When I gave my statement, it was in the context that -- the way the evidence came about was quite stressful for me and it -- at that time all I can put it down to is nerves and stress and I made a mistake. I'm quite clear now that it was the following day that I went to the TDF.They then discussed what he saw there. Ali Aktash estimated he saw eight prisoners whom he testified "weren't in good condition."Ali Aktash: Well, they -- firstly they were hooded with sandbags and they were making noises as if they were distressed. Also, I -- at one point one of the guards took off a hood and I noticed that they had bruising on their face. One of the detainees in the room to the left was falling over and having to be put back up again into their seated position.Gerald Elias: Just pausing there, do you recall, were they all hooded with sandbags?Ali Aktash: There was one guy closest to the door, the right-hand room, that didn't have a hood and was allowed to smoke a cigarette, and I asked about him too and one of the guards mentioned that he had already been through questioning. But I can't 100 per cent say if they were all hooded. All I can remember, the majority were hooded. [. . .] They were huffing and puffing a lot and groaning. Gerald Elias: When you saw one with bruising, you say, to the face because his hood was taken off, where was the bruising do you remember?Ali Aktash: It doesn't -- I can't remember specific. I just remember that there was bruising.Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing claimed 1 life and left five people injured, two Zinjili roadside bombings wounded four people and a Mosul roadside bombing injured three people. Yesterday a truck bombing in Amiriya claimed multiple lives. Nawaf Jabbar and Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) report this morning that the death toll rose from 9 (listed in yesterday's snapshot) to 11.

Shootings?

Reuters drops back to yesterday to note 1 police officer shot dead in Samarra.

Corpses?

Reuters drops back to yesterday to note 3 corpses discovered in Shirqat.


Yesterday's snapshot included this: "Adam Lictenheld and Byron Moore (DC Bureau) are examining contractors and the way they US service members lives were risked in Iraq and a four-part series entitled 'No Contractor Left Behind.' Click here for part one." US Senator Byron Dorgan chairs the Senate Democratic Policy Committee ( I believe the August 4th snapshot was the last snapshot reporting on a hearing of the committee -- the committee's been mentioned since, but I believe the August 3rd hearing was the last one I attended). Dorgan's office has released the following statment from him:

There's an important development regarding the exposure of hundreds of U.S. troops to the deadly chemical compound sodium dichromate in Iraq. The Department of Defense's Inspector General has agreed to investigate the Army's response to that exposure. I requested such an investigation, in a ltter in August, along with six other Senators.
The reply we have now received is heartening. What happened to U.S. troops -- mostely National Guard men and women from Indiana, Oregon and West Virginia -- should never have happened and must not be allowed to happen again. They were exposed because of shoddy work by one of the largest military contractors, KBR, but the Army's deeply flawed response is just as troubling.
The exposure of troops to this deadly chemical compound was first revealed at a June 20, 2008 hearing by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee (DPC), which I chair. We found ample evidence that KBR dropped the ball multiple times with regard to the contract it held for assessing the site, cleaning it up, and getting it running again. It failed to inform the Army of the contamination until months after it knew there was a problem and after hundreds of U.S. soldiers had been exposed. It failed to clean up the site properly. KBR failed to warn even its own workers of the danger.
But the evidence suggests the Army's response was also highly inadequate and compounded the problem.
We found that when the Army finally got around to informing the soldiers, they consistently down played the seriousness of the exposure. When it finally got around to testing soldiers to determine the amoung of exposure they had experienced, too much time had passed. The test results were useless.
We found troops back home in the U.S. coping with illnesses consistent with exposure to sodium dichromate with no idea why they were sick. They did not know they had been exposed to sodium dichromate or that that exposure was life-threatening.
When I called the head of the Indiana National Guard after our 2008 hearing to tell him what we'd learned about the exposure of his troops in Iraq to the deadly chemical, he said it was the first he'd heard of it. No one at the Army thought to tell the Commander of the Indiana National Guard that his troops, while serving our country in Iraq, had been exposed to one of the most potent carcinogens in the world.
I asked the Army to review its response to the exposure.
The Army appointed a task force, which reported back, months later, that the Army had not only acted appropriately, but that its response had been exemplary!
Hardly.
We scheduled a second hearing to examine the Army's response ourselves. That hearing was held on August 3, 2009. We heard very little that was reassuring.
Following the hearing, Senators Evan Bayh (D-IN), Robert Byrd (D-W VA), John Rockefeller (D-W VA), Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) joined me in formally requesting an investigation by the Defense Department's Inspector General into the Army's handling of all this.
We now have a written request from the Inspector General's Office, agreeing to conduct an investigation and making clear it will get underway immediately.
Someone recently asked me what I hope will come out of the investigation. The answer is simple -- in a word, accountability. I want to know how all this happened, why it happened, and whose being held accountable for it. I want to know what is being done to make sure nothing like this ever happens again.
I also want every soldier exposed at Qarmat Ali to be accurately informed, first, that he or she was exposed, and second, that the exposure presents serious health risks. I want every exposed soldier to have access to on-going health monitoring and, if they should get sick, treatment, through the Veterans Affairs network of hospitals. I want this exposure made part of the service file of every soldier who was at Qarmat Ali during this time, so doctors can proactively look for sodium dichromate exposure related symptoms. Time is of the essence in treating illnesses that result from sodium dichromate exposure. Doctors need to know immediately, and up front, that the soldiers was exposed.
I also want there to be no question about whether illnesses that result from this exposure are service connected. They can take years, even decades, to show up. If every exposed soldier's service record includes information about what happened at Qarmat Ali, there will be no question about whether a resulting illness -- no matter when it appears -- is service connected, and therefore, eligible for treatment at a VA medical facility. If an illness develops, time is of the essence in treating it. I don't want anyone to have to waste time fighting to establish that the illness is service connected.
War is risky business. Soldiers know that when they sign up. But there is no excuse for any of that risk to come from sloppy work by a U.S. military contractor. Nor is acceptable for that risk to be increased because the Army dropped the ball in dealing with the aftermath of that contractor's failure.
I look forward to the Inspector General's report.


For those needing additional information, December 22nd Armen Keteyian (CBS Evening News with Katie Couric -- text and video) reported on James Gentry's developing lung cancer after serving at Iraq where he guarded KBR's water plant, "Now CBS News has obtained information that indicates KBR knew about the danger months before the soldiers were ever informed. Depositions from KBR employees detailed concerns about the toxin in one part of the plant as early as May of 2003. And KBR minutes, from a later meeting state 'that 60 percent of the people . . . exhibit symptoms of exposure,' including bloody noses and rashes." At the August 3rd hearing, Senator Dorgan spoke again (this isn't a new issue for him) about the need to document these illness now. That may confuse some people but during Vietnam, many veterans were left without the needed help and assistance because their illnesses and exposures were not documented. For example, those exposed to Agent Orange while serving n Vietnam? It wasn't until 1991 that Congress passed the Agent Orange Act. When Dorgan speaks of getting this in the files now and acknowledging it now, he's attempting to ensure that everyone is treated as quickly as possible and that no Iraq War veterans have to spend ten or twenty years lobbying Congress for a Sodium Dichromate Act. By that time, many people will be much sicker and many may have passed away. Many of the victims of Agent Orange were too badly damaged or dead by the time the Agent Orange Act was passed by Congress. The Senate's Democratic Policy Committee provides video archives of their hearings and you can click here to access that page. The issue goes before the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs tomorrow. NPR's Keri Brown (All Things Considered -- Brown is reporting from WVPB), reports on the issue today and among those she speaks with is Iraq War veteran Russel Powell who explains how his life has changed since exposure to the chemical, "And I was a very active person and now I can't even be active anymore And it's tough for my families also because my kids look up to me as a coach and I can't even do that anymore. It's sad." Powell also spoke with Adam Lichtenheld and Byron Moore (DC Bureau) for their article and explained to them, "My nose would bleed for 5 to 10 minutes."

Meanwhile Anthony Shadid (Washington Post) reports this morning on a September 28th Green Zone incident involving four contractors of DynCorp International and Iraq's Baghdad Brigade in which a scuffle allegedly took place when the Iraqis stopped the Americans, shots were allegedly fired, "security contractors refused to get out of their Suburban, and the [Iraqi] colonel ordered a tank to run over the vehicle," at which point the contractors allegedly exited their vhicle and they were allegedly "cuffed and beaten." The US military and Embassy quickly worked for their release and got the contractors out of the country. (See, they could do a lot more for Iraq's LGBT community.) It should be noted that the line drawn in the US between the military and the contractors is considered arbitrary in the countries they're stationed in. The incident's a reflection of the climate Nouri's remarks have created and may be a portent as well. Thomas E. Ricks (Foreign Policy) cites the Serious Incident Report (and notes he covered this story before today) to add the following details: "The four bodyguards were then arrested and their weapons confiscated. They were taken to the Iraqi brigade headquarters, where they were 'repeatedly assaulted.' 'One soldier used an Olympic Barbell (45 lbs in weight) to strike Brandon Sene in the abdomen and lower back.' He is listed in the report as suffering bruises and lacerations. His comrades were struck with the butts of AK-47 rifles."

Still on the topic of assaults, Camp Ashraf is where Iranian dissidents live in Iraq. They have lived in Iraq for decades. Welcomed by Saddam. After the US-invasion, the US government had the US military protect them. They were declared protected persons under the Geneva Conventions by the US government. Nouri al-Maliki swore he would respect their rights. Nouri's a damn liar. 2009 saw the US hand over protection of Camp Ashraf to Nouri who launched an assault on the camp in July. As noted in Monday's snapshot, for the third time in a row, an Iraqi judge ordered that the 36 Ashraf residents being held (and tortured -- according to the judge) by Iraqi forces be released. Nouri just ordered them moved to another prison. BBC News reports the 36 have been released and returned to Camp Ashraf: "A spokeswoman for the group told the BBC they had been tortured in custody and were now being treated in hospital." Anne Barker (Australia's ABC) notes "An Iraqi judge had ruled three times they must be released, but officials refused to comply" until today and that the US "The United States recently called for assurances that camp residents would be treated humanely and not sent back to Iran." Tim Cocks (Reuters) adds, "The camp's residents and the 36 arrested on rioting charges had said they were on hunger strike until they were released. PMOI spokesman Shahriar Kia, speaking by phone, said the detainees were critically ill because of their hunger strike, which he said had gone on for many days. It was impossible to verify this claim."

Keiffer Wilhelm apparently took his own life while serving in Iraq and allegedly due to repeated and non-stop abuse from those he was serving with. August 21st, the US military announced that Staff Sgt Enoch Chatman, Staff Sgt Bob Clements, Sgt Jarrett Taylor and Spc Daniel Weber are all "charged with cruelty and maltreatment of subordinates . . . The four Soliders are alleged to have treated Soldiers within their platoon inappropriately."
Chris Roberts (El Paso Times) has reported that Keiffer Wilhelm "was abused by his 'first-line supervisors,' Sgt. Brandon LeFlor wrote in an e-mail. He is a spokesman for Multi-National Division-South in Basra, Iraq." We noted the case most recently in the September 24th snapshot:
"A loss in any family is hard to take," Shane Wilhelm, father of Keiffer P. Wilhelm, tells Cary Ashby (Norwalk Reflector). Keiffer Wilhelm died of "a gunshot wound to the head" in Iraq August 4th. It is thought he took his own life and that this resulted from abuse he suffered from other soldiers. The US military has charged four soliders in the matter and the military states a date has been set for the hearing, however, it isn't giving out the date. Ashby explains, "Shane and Shelly Wilhelm, Keiffer's stepmother, want to attend the hearing. The couple said Sept. 14 they're not sure if the military will allow them to attend or testify, but they want the chance to share their side of the story and the impact Keiffer's death has had on them." Marcia noted earlier this month that the First Merit Bank of Willard has set up a Memorial Fund for Keiffer Wilhelm to raise money for the family to attend the hearing (419-935-0191, Cari McLendon for more information and donations can be sent by mail to First Merit Bank, 501 Ft. Ball Road, Willard, OH 44890).Today Erik Shilling (Mansfield News Journal) reports that the military has deicded to toss out any murder charges which "means extended jail terms and dishonorable discharges are likely the stiffest penalties the accused will face." Shilling notes that Shane Wilhelm continues attempting to raise funds for the travel for himself, "his wife and an uncle" ($9,000 raised thus far)." The military states that if they paid for the father to attend, they'd have to pay for others to as well. But, point, Keiffer died while serving in Iraq and the US military made the decision to hold the inquest in Iraq. Once that decision was made, the government's next step should have been arranging for the flights to Iraq for the inquest for any members of Keiffer's family who wanted to attend. That is how you honor someone who served. Anything else is a slap in the face.

We'll close with Sherwood Ross' "Journalists Says Use of 'Embeds' In War Slants True Persepective" (Veteran's Today):
Television reporters embedded with the U.S. forces that invaded Iraq "didn't actually report" the news but provided "color commentary" instead, a Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent says.
Even though some 650 journalists were embedded with U.S. troops, "we actually learned less because there was less reporting and because these people, in essence, saw their role as providing color commentary," says Christopher Hedges, formerly a war correspondent for The New York Times.
"They said, 'Okay, we see that tank going over there. Oh, look, there's a puff of smoke,'" is how Hedges described their role. They "did precisely the same thing that (sports) commentators do when they broadcast a football game."
Hedges said that he is not against using embeds but "when you rely exclusively on embeds for your vision of the war, you see, as we have in Iraq, the occupation exclusively through the lens of the occupier, and this gives a very distorted vision of the conflict."
The war correspondent's remarks appear in the just issued "News Media In Crisis," (Doukathsan) from the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover. The work is the ver batim transcript of a conference held there last March on the changing profession of journalism.
Hedges went on to say that he does not allow himself to cover wars as an embed because "if you cannot report from among the vast majority of the powerless in a war zone (civilians) you end up unwittingly becoming a tool, however critical you may try and be of the occupation."
This happens, Hedges went on to say, "Because you humanize the occupiers and because you don't have any contact with those being occupied, you invariably stereotype or dehumanize those who are bearing the brunt of the violence."
Hedges said in the days preceding the U.S. invasion of Iraq, French intelligence experts tried unsuccessfully to get the New York Times to publish their findings "that there were no weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam Hussein was not reconstituting a nuclear weapons program, and that he had no links with Al-Qaeda."
The views of John Louis Brugier of French intelligence and Mohamed El-Baradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency of the United Nations, "were dismissed because they were not Americans," Hedges said, adding that at the time he was "intimately involved" with his paper's coverage of Iraq.
Even in the newsroom of the New York Times, "when I would come back from Paris…people would make jokes about the French, about their identity, their culture," Hedges said. "I think the New York Times was particularly susceptible to this because (the paper) looks at itself as a quasi-official organization, one which because of its power and influence, has been given the mandate to articulate the views of the elite."
Robert Rosenthal, director of Project Censored, and managing editor of the San Francisco Chronicle in the days preceding the Iraq invasion, said he did not believe the articles on Iraq written by reporter Judith Miller of The New York Times because "many of them were single-sourced, and it was just too carefully being put together." Miller, essentially, reflected the Bush administration's views about the military menace Hussein allegedly posed to the U.S.
Conference attendees in general agreed that the Knight Ridder Washington bureau -- which was skeptical of the government's charges -- did the best job of reporting on Iraq.
Transcripts of the conference at the law school are published in the book "News Media In Crisis" (Doukathsan) and are available by emailing landers@mslaw.edu.
The Massachusetts School of Law at Andover is a 21-year-old law school whose pioneering mission is to inexpensively provide rigorous legal education, a pathway into the legal profession, and social mobility to members of the working class, minorities, people in midlife, and immigrants.
Through its television shows, videotaped conferences, an intellectual magazine, and internet postings, MSL - - uniquely for a law school - - also seeks to provide the public with information about crucial legal and non legal subjects facing the country.
The Massachusetts School of Law is an independent, non-profit law school purposefully dedicated to the education of minority students and those from low-income and immigrant backgrounds who would otherwise not be able to afford a legal education.
(For further information contact Sherwood Ross, media consultant to MSL at sherwoodross10@gmail.com)#

iraq
npr
the los angeles timesnawaf jabbarned parkerthe washington postanthony shadid
dc bureauadam lichtenheldbyron moore
cbs news
armen keteyian
thomas e. ricks
mcclatchy newspaperslaith hammoudi
the mansfield journalerik shilling
el paso timeschris roberts
tim cocks
sherwood ross

Feingold

"Opening Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold at a Hearing on Examining the History and Legality of Executive Branch 'Czars'" (Russ Feingold):
“I think it is fair to acknowledge that there has been a lot of discussion about the Obama administration’s appointment of so-called czars to various positions in the White House and other departments or agencies. I called this hearing today because I think this is a serious issue that deserves serious study. But I want to be clear that I have no objection either to the people serving as advisors to the president, or to the policy issues they are addressing. These are some very talented people working on some very important issues that this administration absolutely should be addressing, from climate change to health care. I hope that this hearing will enable us to get beyond some of the rhetoric out there and have an informed, reasoned, thoughtful discussion about the constitutional issues surrounding the president’s appointment of certain executive branch officials.
“I should note that while the term ‘czar’ has taken on a somewhat negative connotation in the media in the past few months, several presidents, including President Obama, have used the term themselves to describe the people they have appointed. I assume they have done so to show the seriousness of their effort to address a problem and their expectations of those they have asked to solve it. But historically, a czar is an autocrat, and it’s not surprising that some Americans feel uncomfortable about supposedly all-powerful officials taking over areas of the government.
“While there is a long history of the use of White House advisors and czars, that does not mean we can assume they are constitutionally appropriate. It is important to understand the history for context, but often constitutional problems creep up slowly. It’s not good enough to simply say, ‘well, George Bush did it too.’
“Determining whether these czars are legitimate or whether they will thwart congressional oversight requires analysis of the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and a discussion of some complicated constitutional and administrative law principles. I am therefore very pleased that we have such an accomplished group of witnesses who can help us determine whether there is a basis for concern here or not, and if so, what are possible remedies that Congress ought to consider. I want to thank the Ranking Member, Senator Coburn, for helping to put together this distinguished panel.
“I think it is helpful to break down the officials whose legitimacy has been questioned into three categories to better understand the potential legal issues. The first group are positions that I have no concerns about, and frankly, no one else should either. These positions were created by statute and are subject to advice and consent from the Senate. For example, some have called Dennis Blair the Intelligence Czar. But he is the Director of National Intelligence, a position created by Congress based on the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. Like his predecessors Mike McConnell and John Negroponte, he was confirmed by the Senate. Calling him a ‘czar’ does not make him illegitimate or extra-constitutional. There are roughly nine officials that fall into this category, yet have appeared on some lists of czars. Any serious discussion of this issue has to conclude that there is no problem with these posts.
“The second category of positions also does not appear to be problematic, at least on its face. These are positions that report to a Senate confirmed officer, for example, a Cabinet Secretary. All of these positions are housed outside of the White House and all of these officials’ responsibilities are determined by a superior who Congress has given the power to prescribe duties for underlings. I will leave it to our distinguished constitutional law experts to further discuss this category, but as I understand it, these officials are likely to be considered ‘inferior officers’ under the Appointments Clause, and therefore they are not automatically required to be subject to advice and consent of the Senate. Most of these positions are also housed within parts of the government that are subject to open records laws like the Freedom of Information Act, and many of them have already appeared to testify before Congress. Indeed, of the 32 czars on a prominent media list, 16 have testified this year and two others are in positions where their predecessors under President Bush or Clinton testified. There does not appear to be a constitutional problem with these positions in theory, although it is possible people could identify one in practice, if for example, some of these people were determined to be taking away authority or responsibility from a Senate-confirmed position. However, I do not have any reason at this point to believe that to be the case.
“I am most interested in the third category of positions, and I think we are talking about fewer than 10 people, in part because we know the least about these positions. These officials are housed within the White House itself. Three weeks ago, I wrote to the President and requested more information about these positions, such as the Director of the White House Office of Health Reform and the Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change. The response to that letter finally came yesterday, and I will put the response in the record and plan to question our witnesses about it.
“The White House decided not to accept my invitation to send a witness to this hearing to explain its position on the constitutional issues we will address today. That’s unfortunate. It’s also a bit ironic since one of the concerns that has been raised about these officials is that they will thwart congressional oversight of the Executive Branch.
“The White House seems to want to fight the attacks against it for having too many ‘czars’ on a political level rather than a substantive level. I don’t think that’s the right approach. If there are good answers to the questions that have been raised, why not give them instead of attacking the motives or good faith of those who have raised questions?
“No one disputes that the president is allowed to hire advisors and aides. In fact, the president is entitled, by statute, to have as many as fifty high-level employees working for him and making top salaries. But Congress and the American people have the right to ensure that the positions in our government that have been delegated legal authority are also the positions that are exercising that authority. If – and I am not saying this is the case -- individuals in the White House are exercising legal authority or binding the executive branch without having been given that power by Congress, that’s a problem. And Congress also has the right to verify that any directives given by a White House czar to a Cabinet member are directly authorized by the president.”

Senator Russ Feingold attempted to stand up for democracy and open government today. Stan and I discussed it and felt that was the thing to highlight. We also weren't interested in the 'great Digby' and Bob Somerby's uninformed praise of the little whore who stayed silent while Hillary was ripped to shreds.

See, speaking out would have cost her links. Speaking out would have meant having a spine.

Little whores like Digby never do anything that might cost them. It's only the courageous, people like C.I., who will take on AlterNet or BuzzFlash or others -- doing the right thing while knowing that links will be pulled as a result.

The strong woman is C.I. The weak little whore is Digby.

Digby refused to call out the liars attacking Hillary throughout 2008. Because more important to her than the truth is being linky loved. She's just a whore.

And she's also a liar. I've spoken of that many times and how I find it hilarious that after Ava and C.I. and I have talked honestly online about the way women get treated by men, suddenly Digby shows up stealing our stories. She's just a whore. There is no other word for her. She's as bad as Adam Nagourney or any other big media whore only she's small media getting smaller.

It takes a lot of nerve to steal the pain of others and pass it off as your own. But that's what the little whore did.

I won't be noting Bob Somerby tomorrow and find it hysterical that he's going to applaud someone who stayed silent while Hillary was smeared last year with all those 90s right-wing lies and was smeared with sexism and so much more.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Tuesday, October 6, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, the targeting of Iraq's LGBT population gets some press attention, Cindy Sheehan and others protest the continued wars, and more.

Earlier this year, four Iraqi gay males -- Fadi, Ahmed, Mazen and Namir -- discussed the targeting of Iraqi gays in a Baghdad cafe. Within a month, two of the four would be executed for the 'crime' of being gay. Matt McAllester (New York Magazine) notes them in his report on the continued assault on Iraq's LGBT population which observes:

As virulent as the violence against gay people (men mostly) was, it operated at a kind of low hum for many years, overshadowed by the country's myriad other problems. But in February of this year, something changed. There was no announcement, no fatwa, no openly declared policy by a cleric or militia leader or politician, but a wave of anti-gay hysteria hit the country. An Iraqi TV station, with disapproving commentary, showed a video of a group of perhaps two dozen young men at a private dance party, wiggling their hips like female belly dancers. Terms like the third sex and puppies, a newly coined slur, began to appear in hostile news reports. Shia and Sunni clerics started to preach in their Friday sermons about the evils of homosexuality and "the people of Lot." Police officers stepped up their harassment of openly gay men. Families and tribes cast out their gay relatives. The bodies of gay men like Mazen and Namir, often mutilated, began turning up on the street. There is no way to verify the number of tortured or harassed, but the best available estimates place that figure in the thousands. Hundreds of men are believed to have been killed.

Yesterday on NPR's Talk of the Nation (here for audio and transcript links) discussed the issue with Matt McAllester.

Neal Conan: As the conditions improved in Iraq, general security, the militias had time to start feeling that gay people were a real threat and punishing them.

Matt McAllester: Yeah. I'm not sure that they ever felt that they were a threat. I felt that there was, in a sense, there seemed to have been a lack of targets. American troops were armed, much less visible and much less numerous and really just aren't in the major cities in Iraq anymore. The government of Iraq is much stronger than military and police forces in Iraq. And the power of the militias has faded in terms of the civil war that was going on and really has been over for sometime. So some of the militias, one in particular, Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, which had been extremely powerful, had lost their sort of raison d'etre in their power base, and, in a sense, needed someone to pick on. And there was no more hated and is no more hated group across just about every ethnic barrier that you can think of and social group in Iraq than gay people. And --

Neal Conan: Yeah. You just described them as being utterly defenseless. There is no --

Matt McAllester: Mm-hmm.

Neal Conan: -- political advantage to anyone in Iraq for standing up for the rights of homosexuals.

Matt McAllester: That's right. I mean, it's incredibly difficult to get any comment from the Iraqi government about this. They're just not even comfortable talking about it. It took me several weeks, I think it was - certainly many days to get any response from the Iraqi embassy in Washington, and none that I get at all from emails that I sent to Iraqi government spokesman in Baghdad. Other journalists have had this problem in the past. It's not even something they're happy talking about it.

Nor is it something that the US State Dept or White House is "happy talking about" which is why they avoid the topic and are aided in that avoidance by a domestic press corps that finds the issue too 'icky' to bring up. (The one time the issue was seriously raised in a State Dept briefing, the correspondent pressing the issue was with BBC News.)

Matt McAllester and Neal Conan discuss "Nouri" (not his real name) and how he was not only targeted, not only kidnapped, but it was done by the Interior Ministry and he was taken to one of their prisons (they have many -- most 'off the books') where he was shown five corpses and told that was his fate if his family didn't pay a ransom.

Kidnapping is just another way to raise additional funds apparently. Richard Kerbaj (Times of London) reports how it "has overtaken burglaries, robberies, car theft and other crimes to become the biggest criminal activity in many areas of Baghdad, an investigation by The Times has discovered insurgents and gangsters are increasingly using abducted children to raise funds for terrorism operations and personal wealth." Kerbaj explains how posters of mmissing children have become common in Baghdad's richer neighborhoods while, in "unstable neighborhoods," "several children were found beheaded and dumped in the rubbish after their parents failed to come up with ransom payments." That was the fate of 11-year-old Muhsin Mohammed Muhsin whose parents were unable to raise "$100,000 in 48 hours".

That's 'liberated' and 'democratic' Iraq. Where children and the LGBT community (along with Iraqi Christians and many others) are targeted with nary a word from the US administration and little interest from the press. Grasp that despite all the money spent, it wasn't the Times of New York that reported on the kidnappings, it was the Times of London. The paper that sold the illegal war (Times of New York) seems to think that they deserve praise when they manage to do a violence brief once or twice a week -- the sort of thing Reuters does daily without breaking a sweat.

Though the US press largely lost interest in Iraq, US forces did not leave the country. And today the US military announced: "A Soldier assigned to Multi-National Division-South died of a non-combat related injury October 6. The Soldier's name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin." The announcement brings the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4349.

Since the start of the illegal war? Today US House Rep Dennis Kucinich observes, "Seven years ago this week the House of Representatives debated the Iraq War Resolution which was presented by President Bush. I made the case for NOT going to war. I analyzed the Bush war resolution, paragraph by paragraph, and pointed out 'Key Issues' which argued against Congress voting to go to war. I distributed the attached analysis, personally, to over 200 members of Congress from October 2, 2002 until October 10, 2002 when the vote occurred. When you hear people say: 'If only we had known then what we know now,' remember, some did know of the false case for war against Iraq. And since so many know now that we should not have gone to war against Iraq, then why are we still there?" A good question and we'll end the snapshot with Kucinich's list, but first.
As noted in yesterday's snapshot, protests took place in DC yesterday against the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, Guantanamo and US government torture policies. Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan was present, protesting outside the White House where she was arrested. Kelly Marshall (CNN) notes Cindy observed "that President Obama has been in office long enough to start working towards peace in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that his supporters want him to make those changes." Marshall then notes xenophobic fat-boy Robert Gibbs issued some prattle. Left unstated was that Robert Gibbs was a huge, huge cheerleader for an Iraq War in 2002 and 2003. Brian Montopoli (Political Hotsheet, CBS News) notes Cindy was arrested "dressed all in black with the words 'greed kills' printed on her chest" after she chained "herself to a White House fence as part of a protest against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq." Garance Franke-Ruta (Washington Post) reports on Monday's protests here. Cindy (Cindy Sheehan's Soap Box) observes, "I had just walked back into my hotel room yesterday after chaining myself to the White House fence and being arrested, when I saw White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, say that removing troops from Afghanistan was 'not an option'. When I saw such a quick response to our protest, I was angry, of course, but I was also excited. First of all, when Obama said that we had to 'make him do it,' I knew Obama was just blowing smoke out of his hind end, like he blows cigarette smoke out of his mouth. Secondly, I know we are being heard and I have complete realistic hope that this is the time for US in the USA to make a difference." Yunji de Nies and Sunlen Miller (ABC News -- link has text and video) report on Cindy's announcement to move to DC and her protesting today and quote her stating, "We're going to create a movement that's going to demand a change of policy. It's going to be massive." How so? Cindy writes:

To that end, we are organizing the most ambitious anti-war, peace event ever. We are planning what we are calling, Peace of the Action which will be the largest, most aggressive and sustained action ever done in DC. We are calling for 5000 people to commit to come to this Nation's Capitol to participate in daily civil resistance to stop "business as usual," because "business as usual" in this town is so corrupt and disordered. We are not calling for this commitment for a day, a week, or a month. We are not even interested in making symbolic gestures. We are calling for this commitment until our demands of: All troops and para-military mercenaries, are ordered out of Iraq and Afghanistan, the drone bombings in the tribal regions of Af-Pak are discontinued and we get about the business of healing, reconciliation and REPARATIONS. I am going to move to DC to help coordinate these actions and I will be 100% committed with you to be: "all in it to win it." This time true change will happen, it must.
An Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy writes in "Why U.S. shouldn't Give Iraq the Blind Eye?" (Inside Iraq):For all past years I have been against the presence of the U.S. troops in Iraq, and I still am. This war brought nothing but sorrow for families in both countries. But I think the U.S. government and the people of America shouldn't put Iraq in the dark far corner for good reasons, I believe. Let the soldiers leave Iraq, let the country restore its national unity. Let it have its problems and solve them internally; let the country find its own way -- but don't let the people down. Six years after the U.S. led invasion of Iraq, Iraqi civilians are still the biggest casualty of war. Six years after what was supposed to be an easy swift and welcomed liberation, Iraqi civilians and U.S. soldiers are dying because of that invasion.

And the dying continues today throughout Iraq -- with most attention on an Amiriyah bombing. Anthony Shadid (Washington Post) reports 9 dead from the truck bombing "in front of a restaurant" in which "the explosion was so powerful that corpses were hurled onto the roofs of neighboring buildings. The victims appeared to be civilians, police and members of Sons of Iraq [Sahwa, "Awakenings"], a U.S.-backed militia that fought the insurgency in 2007 and 2008." Xinhua adds that thirty-one people were wounded. Fadhel al-Badrani, Tim Cocks and Andrew Dobbie (Reuters) provide this context: "It was the second big bomb in the large, desert province in as many days. On Monday, a suicide bomber walked into an Iraqi funeral tent and blew himself up in the western town of Haditha, killing at least six mourners."


That was far from the only violence today in Iraq. Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two Baghdad roadside bombings which claimed 1 life and left six people injured, another Baghdad bombing (on a blast wall) which claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier and left four people injured, a Mosul roadside bombing which wounded two people and, dropping back to Monday, notes a Basra liquor store was bombed.

Robberies?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a robbery at a Basra currency exchange today in which 2 people (owner and employee) were killed, a third person was wounded and $150,000 was stolen.

We're low on space. Adam Lictenheld and Byron Moore (DC Bureau) are examining contractors and the way they US service members lives were risked in Iraq and a four-part series entitled "No Contractor Left Behind." Click here for part one. DC Bureau notes:

Using videotaped depositions from KBR workers and internal company documents, No Contractor Left Behind shows KBR knew about the presence of sodium dichromate at Qarmat Ali early in 2003, but failed -- even after repeated warnings from its own safety managers -- to properly notify KBR employees and military personnel. When the company finally performed an environmental evaluation of Qarmat Ali it found extremely toxic levels of the chemical at the facility. Yet KBR has continued to deny that it recklessly exposed U.S. troops to the deadly poison.
The Defense Department also tried to downplay soldiers' concerns that their health problems are a direct result of their exposure at Qarmat Ali. The Army has relied on a faulty medical test performed on its National Guardsmen back in 2003 - a test that a leading sodium dichromate expert told DCBureau.org was inadequate. The Department of Veterans Affairs has used these findings to deny health coverage to sick veterans.
Congress, meanwhile, has entrusted the Qarmat Ali probe -- and the slew of contracting scandals that have plagued the Pentagon over the past half-decade - to the Democratic Policy Committee (DPC). But the DPC lacks the power to subpoena documents and compel testimony, rendering it unable to conduct a full investigation. Despite Qarmat Ali being the most recent controversy in a string of accusations against KBR including contracting fraud, bribery, wrongful death, sexual assault, and shoddy work that has killed several soldiers, KBR remains the Army's largest war contractor.

Regarding the DPC, the point is valid and it's one Kat's made her site repeatedly.
We'll close with US House Rep Dennis Kucinich's "Analysis of Joint Resolution on Iraq" from October 2, 2002 (a) because Dennis has a right to say "I was right" and (b) he appears to be the only one who remembers this took place seven years ago:

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq; KEY ISSUE: In the Persian Gulf War there was an international coalition. World support was for protecting Kuwait. There is no world support for invading Iraq. Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism; Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated; KEY ISSUE: UN inspection teams identified and destroyed nearly all such weapons. A lead inspector, Scott Ritter, said that he believes that nearly all other weapons not found were destroyed in the Gulf War. Furthermore, according to a published report in the Washington Post, the Central Intelligence Agency has no up to date accurate report on Iraq's WMD capabilities. Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998; KEY ISSUE: Iraqi deceptions always failed. The inspectors always figured out what Iraq was doing. It was the United States that withdrew from the inspections in 1998. And the United States then launched a cruise missile attack against Iraq 48 hours after the inspectors left. In advance of a military strike, the US continues to thwart (the Administration's word) weapons inspections. Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235); Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; KEY ISSUE: There is no proof that Iraq represents an imminent or immediate threat to the United States. A "continuing" threat does not constitute a sufficient cause for war. The Administration has refused to provide the Congress with credible intelligence that proves that Iraq is a serious threat to the United States and is continuing to possess and develop chemical and biological and nuclear weapons. Furthermore there is no credible intelligence connecting Iraq to Al Qaida and 9/11. Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait; KEY ISSUE: This language is so broad that it would allow the President to order an attack against Iraq even when there is no material threat to the United States. Since this resolution authorizes the use of force for all Iraq related violations of the UN Security Council directives, and since the resolution cites Iraq's imprisonment of non-Iraqi prisoners, this resolution would authorize the President to attack Iraq in order to liberate Kuwaiti citizens who may or may not be in Iraqi prisons, even if Iraq met compliance with all requests to destroy any weapons of mass destruction. Though in 2002 at the Arab Summit, Iraq and Kuwait agreed to bilateral negotiations to work out all claims relating to stolen property and prisoners of war. This use-of-force resolution enables the President to commit US troops to recover Kuwaiti property. Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council; KEY ISSUE: The Iraqi regime has never attacked nor does it have the capability to attack the United States. The "no fly" zone was not the result of a UN Security Council directive. It was illegally imposed by the United States, Great Britain and France and is not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution. Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; KEY ISSUE: There is no credible intelligence that connects Iraq to the events of 9/11 or to participation in those events by assisting Al Qaida. Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens; KEY ISSUE: Any connection between Iraq support of terrorist groups in the Middle East, is an argument for focusing great resources on resolving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. It is not sufficient reason for the US to launch a unilateral preemptive strike against Iraq. Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations; KEY ISSUE: There is no connection between Iraq and the events of 9/11. Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself; KEY ISSUE: There is no credible evidence that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. If Iraq has successfully concealed the production of such weapons since 1998, there is no credible evidence that Iraq has the capability to reach the United States with such weapons. In the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq had a demonstrated capability of biological and chemical weapons, but did not have the willingness to use them against the United States Armed Forces. Congress has not been provided with any credible information, which proves that Iraq has provided international terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949; KEY ISSUE: The UN Charter forbids all member nations, including the United States, from unilaterally enforcing UN resolutions. Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677"; KEY ISSUE: The UN Charter forbids all member nations, including the United States, from unilaterally enforcing UN resolutions with military force. Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688"; KEY ISSUE: This clause demonstrates the proper chronology of the international process, and contrasts the current march to war. In 1991, the UN Security Council passed a resolution asking for enforcement of its resolution. Member countries authorized their troops to participate in a UN-led coalition to enforce the UN resolutions. Now the President is asking Congress to authorize a unilateral first strike before the UN Security Council has asked its member states to enforce UN resolutions. Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime; KEY ISSUE: This "Sense of Congress" resolution was not binding. Furthermore, while Congress supported democratic means of removing Saddam Hussein it clearly did not endorse the use of force contemplated in this resolution, nor did it endorse assassination as a policy. Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable"; Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary; KEY ISSUE: Unilateral action against Iraq will cost the United States the support of the world community, adversely affecting the war on terrorism. No credible intelligence exists which connects Iraq to the events of 9/11 or to those terrorists who perpetrated 9/11. Under international law, the United States does not have the authority to unilaterally order military action to enforce UN Security Council resolutions. Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations; KEY ISSUE: The Administration has not provided Congress with any proof that Iraq is in any way connected to the events of 9/11. Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations; KEY ISSUE: The Administration has not provided Congress with any proof that Iraq is in any way connected to the events of 9/11. Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that Iraq has harbored those who were responsible for planning, authorizing or committing the attacks of 9/11. Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and KEY ISSUE: This resolution was specific to 9/11. It was limited to a response to 9/11. Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region; KEY ISSUE: If by the "national security interests" of the United States, the Administration means oil, it ought to communicate such to the Congress. A unilateral attack on Iraq by the United States will cause instability and chaos in the region and sow the seeds of future conflicts all other the world. Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq". SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to- (a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and (b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions. KEY ISSUE: Congress can and should support this clause. However Section 3 (which follows) undermines the effectiveness of this section. Any peaceful settlement requires Iraq compliance. The totality of this resolution indicates the Administration will wage war against Iraq no matter what. This undermines negotiations. SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1)defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2)enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq. KEY ISSUE: This clause is substantially similar to the authorization that the President originally sought. It gives authority to the President to act prior to and even without a UN resolution, and it authorizes the President to use US troops to enforce UN resolutions even without UN request for it. This is a violation of Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which reserves the ability to authorize force for that purpose to the Security Council, alone. Under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace... and shall make recommendations to maintain or restore international peace and security." (Article 39). Only the Security Council can decide that military force would be necessary, "The Security Council may decide what measures... are to be employed to give effect to its decisions (Article 41) ... [and] it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security." (Article 43). Furthermore, the resolution authorizes use of force illegally, since the UN Security Council has not requested it. According to the UN Charter, members of the UN, such as the US, are required to "make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces..." (Article 43, emphasis added). The UN Security Council has not called upon its members to use military force against Iraq at the current time. Furthermore, changes to the language of the previous use-of-force resolution, drafted by the White House and objected to by many members of Congress, are cosmetic: In section (1), the word "continuing" was added to "the threat posed by Iraq". In section (2), the word "relevant" is added to "United Nations Security Council Resolutions" and the words "regarding "Iraq" were added to the end. While these changes are represented as a compromise or a new material development, the effects of this resolution are largely the same as the previous White House proposal. The UN resolutions, which could be cited by the President to justify sending US troops to Iraq, go far beyond addressing weapons of mass destruction. These could include, at the President's discretion, such "relevant" resolutions "regarding Iraq" including resolutions to enforce human rights and the recovery of Kuwaiti property. PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION. In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and (2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. (c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. - (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. - Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. - Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS (a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998). (b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress. (c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1. Dennis J Kucinichwww.Kucinich.us


iraq
npr
cnn
cindy sheehan
cbs newsbrian montopoli
abc newssunlen miller
the washington postanthony shadid
fadhil al-badranitim cocksangus mcswan
mcclatchy newspaperslaith hammoudi

Mondays

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Dream Team Take Two."


That's priceless and Valerie Jarrett and Oprah really perfect. Brilliant. Also brilliant was Kat's "Kat's Korner: Combo is the answer" -- her review of Barbra Streisand's new album.


"THOMAS PLAYS THE FOOL! Evan Thomas played the fool—and helped us recover some history" (Bob Somerby, The Daily Howler):
Last Thursday, Chris Matthews played the fool in a session with Branch. (See THE DAILY HOWLER, 10/2/09.) Sunday, it was Thomas’ turn. He reviewed Branch’s fascinating book in the Washington Post’s Outlook section.
As with Matthews, so with Thomas. Branch’s book covers a wide range of topics, topics defining a decade of history. But one sole topic remains in the minds of journalistic children like these: Clinton’s disastrous mini-affair with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. Little else entered Matthews’ head during his silly session with Branch. Little else seems to have occurred to our poor floundering Thomas.
What did Clinton tell Taylor Branch about the war conducted on his health care proposal? That topic might even seem relevant now. But not to millionaire toad stools like these, who are hired to go on TV and pretend to be a “press corps.” When fellows like Matthews and Thomas skim books, they look for talk about “that woman”—and for little else.
Only one other topic intrudes: Each fellow was brought up short by Clinton’s inappropriate, real-time comments about their own fraternal order—about the Washington “press.” When Thomas discusses this part of the book, he provides real comedy entertainment. In the process, he helps us see how our recent history has been stolen and lost—disappeared.

And this same refusal to focus on issues by the press? It's why we have Barack in the White House and not Hillary. Hillary gave them real issues and they just wanted to talk sex. Hillary gave them substance and they wanted to mock her.

The country's in huge trouble -- multiple wars, the economy, etc. -- and we needed a real leader. That leader was Hillary. We didn't get her. They took her out.

And we suffer as a result.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Monday, October 5, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Iraqi Christians remain under attack but the attacks have been amplified, Camp Ashraf residents are ordered released but get tortured instead, the US sends more troops to Iraq, and more.

In Iraq, various populations are targeted -- including women who are targeted regardless of sect, religion, education, what have you. Among the targeted groups are Iraqi Christians. Today alarms are sounded again against assaults on Christians. Xinhua interviewed Archbishop Lois Sako who tells them, "It seems clear that the operations of targeting Christians have returned again. Before kidnapping the Christian man Imad Eila two days ago, there were several incidents occurred against other Christians in Kirkuk such as the killing of one of them, kidnapping a physician, and the storming of two houses of Christians by unknown gunmen in the city. These horrible attacks against the Christian families here began to arouse horror among the unprotected minority, and the new attacks also raise fears of a new wave of violence against us." Alsumaria adds, "Then families comprising around 60 people have left the city last week in fear of being targeted for political motiviations or because of religious unawareness". ZENIT explans that Imade Elias Abdul Karim, a Christian nurse, was kidnapped in Kirkuk last night and is corpse was discovered today. Asia News explains that he was tortured to death, that he leaves behind two children. September 27th, Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reported Dr. Mehasin Basheer has been released after being kidnapped from her Bartala home. AFP revealed the "Chrisitan doctor [was] abducted by an armed gang overnight from her home" in northern Iraq and quote a police officer stating, "The gang kidnapped the doctor, Mahasin Bashir, in her home late at night, as her children watched." Hammoudi says a ransom was paid. Doctors and Christians have been repeatedly targeted in Iraq and, at this point, it's not known if Dr. Basheer was targeted for either of those reasons or something else. September 24th's snapshot included, "INA reports that Dr. Sameer Gorgees Youssif was released by his kidnappers following his August 18th abduction. The explain the fifty-five year-old man is at least the fourth doctor kidnapped in Kirkuk in the last two years. His family paid $100,000 for his release. His injuries include sever pressure uclers along the right side of his body, 'open wounds around his mouth and wrists' (from being bound and gagged) and bruises all over his body." Like Dr. Basheer, Dr. Youssif is both a medical doctor and a Christian. Jareer Mohammed (Azzaman) noted the kidnapping of Dr. Basheer and that "Basheer serves in a small hospital in the Christian village of Bartella, just a few kilometers to the east of Mosul. More attacks targeting the string of Christian villages to the east and north of Mosul have occurred recently. Christian liquor shops are attacked and owners either kidnapped or killed. The villages have preserved their Christian identity for centuries but the inhabitants now seriously fear for their future." Over the weekend, Last week, John Pontifex (Aid to the Church in Need) explained:

CHRISTIANS in Iraq are beginning to flee the only place where they thought they were safe -- their ancient homelands in the Nineveh plains. Reports have come in from clergy in the north of the country that in the past few months, a slow but steady emigration has got under-way from the villages and towns close to Mosul city, which trace their heritage back to the earliest Christian centuries. It comes after warnings of another blow to the Church expected in the immediate run-up to the January 2010 general elections. With government ministers publicly expecting a surge in violence as people prepare to go to the polls, Church leaders fear that a new security crisis could spark another mass exodus of Christians, which in some areas may mean the departure of the last remaining faithful. In an interview with the Catholic charity Aid to the Church in Need, leading Iraqi priest Fr Bashar Warda made clear that Christians in the Nineveh region are now beginning to feel threatened by the kind of security problems which have blighted the lives of people in so many other parts of the country.
Speaking from northern Iraq today (Monday, 28th September), Fr Warda told the charity for persecuted and other suffering Christians: "I am sad to say that the emigration of Christian families that we have seen in places like Mosul and Baghdad has now begun to affect the Nineveh area. "We are not seeing -- at least not yet -- a large emigration from places like Alqosh and other [Nineveh] villages but it is definitely happening." Fr Warda said he could not give precise estimates of the number leaving the region but he said that a number of exclusively Christian villages have each been losing 30 or 40 faithful every month, sometimes more. The news has added significance because the many almost completely Christian villages in the region had become a refuge for faithful under threat in other parts of the region.

UPI reminds, "The Christian community in Iraq was the target of attacks in late 2008, forcing nearly half of the population to seek refuge in neighboring Syria."

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

Bombings?

Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing which wounded four people (one was a police officer), a Mosul hand grenade explosion claimed the life of 1 child, an Al Sinuni car bombing which injured Peshmerga with either three wounded or over thirty, a Mosul roadside bombing wounded two police officers, a Mosul roadside bombing wounded two Iraqi soldiers, a Mosul roadside bombing injured one person, a Falluja sticky bombing claimed 1 life and wounded two people and a Falluja roadside bombing injured one person. Fadhil al-Badrani, Tim Cocks and Angus MacSwan (Reuters) report a Haditha suicide bomber took his own life and the lives of "at least six mourners" in a funeral tent with at least fifteen more people left injured.

Shootings?

Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 man was shot by Iraqi security forces in Mosul. Reuters notes the person was a civilian.



Meanwhile September 24th, there was a prison break in Tikrit with sixteen prisoners escaping and, by the 25th, 6 of the 16 were said to have been captured. CNN reported 2 more escapees were captured on the 26th during "house-to-house searches" for a total of 8 prisoners now captured. Fang Yang (Xinhua) reported September 29th that three more were captured (9 total) and that, with the latest three, all five who were on death row have been captured. Yang notes Col Mohammed Salih Jbara ("head of anti-terrorism department of Salahudin province) has been "sacked" as a result of the prison escape. Anne Tang (Xinhua) reported Sunday that two more escapees were captured "bringing the number of recaptured prisoners to 11".

Staying on the topic of Iraqi, prisons, members of the MEK are being held in them. Backtracking,July 28th was when the assault on Camp Ashraf by Nouri al-Maliki's 'troops' began. During Saddam's time, Iranian exiles were allowed safe harbor in Iraq. The exiles were leftists who were opposed to the religious fundamentalist leaders following the toppling of the Shah (the exiles did not favor the Shah). They utilized violence and are known as the People's Mujahedeen Organization of Iran or the MEK. They remained in Iraq in the 80s, the 90s and this decade. The European Union and England are among the organizations and countries that listed the MEK as a terrorist group -- past tense. The MEK has renounced violence and was removed from the terrorist listing. The US still has the MEK listed as a terrorist organization. There were efforts to remove it from that listing by Congress beginning in 2008; however, the previous administration wasn't interested in that or anything else to do with MEK. It is a hot button issue and it was ignored repeatedly by the Bush administration. This is one of the hot potatoes dropped into the current administration's lap. I have no problem criticizing the Barack Obama administration (or criticizing Barack) but this was a problem that was dumped in their lap. That said, there's no excuse all this time later for no movement on it. The US military brass in Iraq tends to feel the same way and look askance at Chris Hill. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports today that the 36 MEK members who were hauled off during the July assault on Camp Ashraf were beaten and then "forcibly transferred [. . .] to a remote southern prison despite an Iraqi judge's order to free them, the judge and the group's leader said Monday."
This was the third ruling to release the 36 according to Rebecca Lowe (Edgware & Mill Hill Times) who reports on the UK protests outside the US Embassy in support of the Camp Ashraf residents -- 20 people have been on a hunger strike since Nouri's assault on Camp Ashraf and 300 people joined the fasters on Saturday to demonstrate their solidarity. From the start of the Iraq War until the start of this year, Camp Ashraf has been under US protection. Nouri now has control of it and has no interest in keeping his promise to offer protection. Ron Naso (KCBS -- audio link) reports on protests in the Bay Area where twenty-five gathered to show their support for the residents of Camp Ashraf and chanted, "US, US recognize, Ashraf residents human rights!" and "President Obama, take action! Take back Ashraf protection!"

Al Jazeera's latest installment of Inside Iraq began airing on Friday. The topic explored was the sanctions on Iraq for that country's armed assault on Kuwait under the previous leadership of Saddam Hussein.

Jasim Azawi: To discuss the continued tension between Iraq and Kuwait, I'm joined by an Iraqi professor at Baghdad University Saad Naji Jawad and by Abdullah Alshayji, chairman of the American studies unit at Kuwait University. Gentlemen, welcome to Inside Iraq.

Abdullah Alshayji, Iraq is no longer threat to international peace and security and yet Kuwaiti officials refuse to get Iraq out of chapter seven. As a matter of fact, politicians keep lobbying the P5 -- the permanent members of the [UN] Security Council to keep Iraq hemmed in under that chapter. Why is that? Is it a question of the money Kuwait needs or is it something else?

Abdullah Alshayji: No, it's not the issue of the money, it's the issue of the recrimination, reparation. Iraq has done great damage to Kuwait. The hardship has not been buried yet. Between now and then -- as you said in your intro -- there has been reoccurence of claims by Iraqi officials. Last summer, we had another round of this recrimination. Although the relationship at the governmental level between the two governments have been excellent, we have donated to Iraq hundreds of millions of dollars. The last one was $10 million just couple of weeks ago. We have received Iraqis -- injured Iraqis -- from the Bloody Wednesday on August 19th and we were thanked by the

Jasim Azawi: If that is the case, Abdullah Alshayji, what is the reason for the refusal to allow Iraq escape chapter seven?

Abdullah Alshayji: I mean, as you know Jasim, let's be frank here, it's not Kuwait. Kuwait does not have leverage to keep Iraq under chapter seven. Iraq has to fufill --

Jasim Azawi: And yet you keep lobbying.

Abdullah Alshayji: -- its international obligations. We have the right to ask Iraq to fulfill its obligations., international obligations. There have been numerous United Nations security resolutions that have been passed. Iraq is not the only country that was subjected to chapter seven. So as long as Iraq and once Iraq fulfills its obligations under chapter seven, then Kuwait welcomes that, and Kuwait finally --

Jasim Azawi: Let me engage Saad Naji Jawad and see --

Abdullah Alshayji: [Crosstalk] -- willing to help Iraq get out of chapter seven.

Jasim Azawi: Saad Naji Jawadm, according to Abdullah Alshayji, Kuwait wants and is actively seeking good relationship and yet Iraq must remain under chapter seven. And he also acknowledges that it is not up to Kuwait really to say whether Iraq remains or does not remain in chapter seven, it is the United Nations, it's the big P5. Shouldn't the Iraqis address their greivances towards the US, the UN and P5 instead of Kuwait?

Saad Naji Jawad: Well, Jasim, thank you very much. There are subjects which I always avoided to speak about. But one of them is the Kuwait-Iraqi situation or relations. I have a weak spot for the Kuwaitis. I have good friends from Kuwait. On the family side, we have historical good relations with the families from Kuwait. But the problem is what my friend Dr. Alshayji is saying is contradictory. One time he says, which I agree with him, it's not in the hands of the Kuwaitis to keep Iraq under chapter seven. And on the other hand, he says we have the right to keep on pressing Iraq until it fills -- it fills its obligations. I should think the matter is, the matter is in the hand of other powers. I think if the Americans want to get Iraq out of chapter seven they will ask them to do it immediately. And I should say more of the Americans or other European powers want Kuwait to pay reperation to Iraq instead of Kuwait paying reperations to Iraq. They can't do it without the Kuwaitis or the Iraqis having anything to say. I also believe that to speak about good relations with the present Iraqi government is not something that could give positive or could satisfy the Iraqis about the future of Iraq-Kuwait relations. I think the present government does not represent really the real intentions or the real Iraqi people. I think these people are really looking after their own interests and they are representing the American policy in Iraq rather than representing the Iraqi real policy --

Jasim Azawi: This is standard --

Saad Naji Jawad: -- objectives.

Jasim Azawi: -- Saad Naji Jawad, is creating bitterness. Abdullah Alshayji, that bitterness is seeping into the body politics of Iraq. So chapter seven, sooner or later, will be lifted. And not by Kuwaiti intervention but by the will and the decision by the United Nations. So why wouldn't the --

Saad Naji Jawad: Let me --

Jasim Azawi: Americans do it, Abdullah Alshayji?

Saad Naji Jawad: Let me say one thing.

Jasim Azawi: Go ahead.

Saad Naji Jawad: There is nothing called chapter seven under reperations in international law and in the charter of the United Nations. Yes, chapter seven says if a country is a threat to international peace and security, there should be an action to be taken, even the use of armed forces to stop this threat. Once this threat is stopped, chapter seven does not apply to anything else. This is a new innovation by the Americans to put Iraq under continuous pressure and I think one day the International Court of Justice will rule that whatever Iraq paid under this chapter was not legal and that should be paid back.

Jasim Azawi: Let's hear from Abdullah.

Abdullah Alshayji: Let's cut through the chase here, I think Iraq has the obligation -- whether it's Saddam Hussein's regime or this regime. International law does not look at the difference of a regime or the change of regime means forgiving the regime obligations that should be applied to the new regime. This is number one. Number two, I take issue with my friend from London here, and that is that United States although it plays a major role in protecting Kuwait and helping Kuwait standing on its feet but still Kuwait is a soverign country here and Kuwait has the right to do what is right under the United Nations charter. Kuwait is a member of the United Nations body. And Iraq has really -- Kuwait has come a long way, in my opinion. We sent an ambassador in the summer of 2008. Our foreigh minister visited Iraq on the day of Kuwait libertation from Iraq on the 26th of February.

Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) reports that plans for a January referendum have been put aside in Iraq. This would be the referendum promised when the Iraqi Parliament voted on the treaty masquerading as a Status Forces Agreement (Thanksgiving Day 2008), those who voted (many skipped the vote due to the vote's controversial nature) were told there would be a referendum in six months on the matter. Six months came and went. As late as May, some foolish gas bags were stating the vote would take place in June or July. Forgetting all that's needed before any vote can take place. The vote wasn't happening. Nouri al-Maliki, thug of the occupation, declared it would take place in January 2010 along with the planned national elections. More lies.More lies and the lies never end. This is a huge slap in the face to the Iraqi Parliament, to the Iraqi people and to the democratic process. But it's also more than that. Business Week runs Sameer N. Yacoub's AP story where Iraq's Parliament notes that there will be no vote on the draft oil law. That's not much of a surprise. US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill told Congress that last month.It's among the issues causing tension (to put it mildly) between Hill and Gen Ray Odierno, top US commander in Iraq. But grasp that NOTHING has happened. All this time later, NOTHING has happened.This community opposes the oil draft law which we see as the theft of Iraqi oil.But what is taking place?Elections are (supposedly) being held. And?And?Elections were held in 2005.What's been accomplished since? (Provincial elections were held in 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces in January 2009 and in 3 more in July of 2009 -- but these are the first national elections since 2005).Congress demanded measurements, metrics. In 2007, the then-administration came up with a series of benchmarks. Nouri agreed to them and signed off on them. The benchmarks were never met.These benchmarks became 'confusing' because the press (and the the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction) began measuring them 'partially" as if that was the point.No, that was never the point.The benchmark says you will ___ then you do ___.You moved an inch when you were supposed to travel a mile? Well, let's give you a smiley face sticker if it makes you feel better but let's not pretend that you've accomplished your benchmark.Those benchmarks were not open-ended. They were supposed to be met.It's two years later and they have not been met.It's two years later and why are US forces still there?No, they shouldn't have been sent there to begin with. Yes, the Iraq War is an illegal war.But the 'excuse' for it was that the (US installed) Iraqis were moving forward.In 2005, they had national elections. In 2010, they're supposed to hold national elections again. And what's been accomplished between the two?It's no longer just Nouri disrespecting US forces stationed in Iraq. Hannah Allam (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that Capt Abdullah al Maliki made a point of delivering a speech in front of US soldiers where he offered an insult "speaking slowly so the interpreter wouldn't miss the implicit insult that the U.S. military had avoided hand-to-hand combat" by using air strikes on Baghdad at the start of the Iraq War. US forces disrespected to their faces (and that behavior tends to escalate -- is anyone in the administration worried about the safety of US forces?). And for what?
The escalation ("surge") was sold as a way to buy time for political movement. No political movement took place. How long are US forces going to have to remain on the ground for the US-installed puppet government of exiles in Iraq?AFP quotes MP Ali Hussein Balo stating, "There is no agreement on the contents of the oil law . . . because this government wants the management of the oil sector to be centralized. Due to these conflicts, we have decided to delay the oil law enactment until after the eleciton."As Chris Hill stated.We're told the 'problems' in Iraq are political not military. So why is the military remaining on the ground in Iraq month after month when the US-installed puppets are in no hurry to move?It's past time for all US forces to leave Iraq.

Meanwhile Erin Alberty (Salt Lake Tribune) reports 45 soldiers from Utah's Army National Guard's 2-285th Aviation Battalion are deploying to Iraq for one year while AP notes that Arizon's Army National Guard's 2-285th Assault Helicopter Battallion is sending over 250 soldiers to Iraq. The War Resisters League notes:

As the U.S. led war in Afghanistan begins its ninth year this week, 82 were arrested bringing a strong message to the White House that war, torture and drone bombing are outrageous, unacceptable and must end immediately. National anti-war groups and people from around the country joined together to say "No to War in Afghanistan. No to Torture and Vengeance." The day opened with a "Guantanamo prisoner" presence at the U.S. Supreme Court as Justice Sonia Sotomayor begins her tenure on the country's highest court. The group distributed the Center for Constitutional Rights' "Torture Team" baseball cards and had four large puppet heads of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice­all dressed in prison stripes as they called for accountability for the architects of the Bush administration's torture policies. Then, hundreds of people gathered this morning in McPherson Square for song, poetry and rousing speeches to kick off a day of action. Led by the "Mourn the dead, heal the wounded, end the wars" banner, those gathered then marched to the White House in a solemn procession, carrying large photographs of war victims, signs and banners. The group assembled on the sidewalk in front of the White House and Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey Sheehan was killed in Iraq in 2004 while serving in the U.S. Army, read a statement and welcome the group, which by this time had grown to more than 500 people. As the "March of the Dead" wound through the crowd wearing white masks and carrying the names of dead U.S. service people and Iraqi and Afghan war victims, more than 20 people dressed at Guantanamo prisoners assembled near the White House fence. Members of "Witness Against Torture," a group committed to the shuttering of Guantanamo and the quickly enlarging Bagram air base in Afghanistan, many chained themselves to the fence. On their backs, they wore the names of Guantanamo detainees cleared for release who remain detained under the Obama administration despite the White House's heralded decision to shutter the prison. The group read the names of those killed in war and newspaper accounts of U.S. bombings and their devastating consequences in Afghanistan and Iraq. Code Pink, World Can't Wait and many others also participated in the day of action. Veterans for Peace carried large American and peace flags and processed with three coffins representing those killed in war. Each coffin was draped with a flag­America, Iraq and Afghanistan all represented. Members of the War Resisters League held a large banner than said "End the War in Afghanistan" and wore white shrouds emblazoned with the pictures of Afghan civilians. All those who remained on the White House sidewalk were eventually arrested. In total, 82 people were taken into police custody as the readings of the names of the dead­a tragic litany of war­continued. Meanwhile, the National Call for Nonviolent Resistance, the group that convened the day of action, and members of PeaceAction left the area to deliver a letter to the Obama Administration. Rebuffed at the press gate, the group held a die-in, read statements and were eventually arrested. The protests today send a strong message that Americans are sick of war, gravely concerned that the Afghan conflict is spinning out of control and hopeful that the President will listen to the American public and end the occupation. Continuing­and surging­Bush era policies means more American deaths, more civilian casualties, an intensified insurgency and the further waste of precious resources that are so badly needed at home. The October 5 Anti-War Coalition includes National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance, the War Resisters League, Witness Against Torture, Code Pink, Peace Action, World Can't Wait, Veterans for Peace and Voices for Creative Nonviolence


Lastly, over the weekend, Kat's "Kat's Korner: Combo is the answer" went up Sunday as did Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Dream Team Take Two."


iraq
al jazeerainside iraqjasim al-azzawi
mcclatchy newspaperslaith hammoudi
the wall street journalgina chon
sameer n. yacoubfadhil al-badranitim cocksangus mcswan
erin alberty
hannah allam
cindy sheehan