Blog post (angry reader)

I have an e-mail from an angry reader so I'm doing a blog post tonight. He has a point, by the way. He started reading in 2009.

He never checked the archives (no reason for him to, I agree) and now Betinna's back and he doesn't know her story and he feels I did a brief post on backstory and he's completely lost.

I'm sorry he feels that way. If he does, I'm sure someone else does as well. (Maybe a lot of someone elses.)

Betinna had no memory of her past. She was also being drugged by Thomas Friedman. He told her he had met her on an island and married her. She was instructed (in her drugged state) to repeat, "Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man." Hence the site title.

Slowly, she began to realize she was used a slave and, for example, Mr. Cheapness wouldn't even let her have dresses. She had to wear a sheet draped around her. He told her that was island style. And she had to buy the sheets at flea markets because he was that cheap.

Once Betinna stopped taking the pills (without him knowing she had), that's when she began to realize how screwed up her life was.

It would be some time before she discovered he was lying about everything.

Over time, her memory returned. She was working at a strip mall in New Jersey. He and Nicky K stopped off. Betinna didn't take Thomas Friedman's crap. He was pissed. They were in Nicky K's Pinto and they waited until Betinna was taking trash out to the dumpster. They knocked her out, popped the hatchback and put her in the back.

Nicky K's wife actually helped Betinna. And once Nicky K was confronted, Thomas Friedman went into hiding. Because they weren't married. Because he already had one wife.

Betinna was enraged that she had lost years, been used as a slave, been lied to etc.

Those are the key points. It was about how a man who thinks the world caters to him exploits and uses others.

I hope that helps. If it doesn't, let me know.

So they finally had their face to face last week and Thomas Friedman attempted to kill her. Now Miko has provided her shelter and may have rescued her. That's where we're at now.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Monday, March 1, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, Hillary Clinton says Iraq must receive US billions of dollars because it's a national security risk on the same day that England announces they're cutting aid to Iraq because it's not a national security risk, a new rumor is reported that the US flooded the Green Zone last Friday with US military (including sending them in from out of the country), violence remained high in Februrary (look at the numbers, not the headlines and claims from the ministries), NPR explored US forces in Iraq past 2011, Nouri gets called out by Moqtada al-Sadr, and more. Today on Morning Edition (NPR -- link has audio and text), Kelly McEvers reported on the chances of a withdrawal from Iraq by US forces at the end of 2011. McEvers notes US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates telling the US House Armed Services Committee last month (Feb. 16th) that "there is certainly on our part an interest in having an additional presence" in Iraq and she notes "one congressman" said Congress would be okay with 20,000 or so troops remaining in Iraq -- that was Democrat Adam Smith from the state of Washington. Now she's noting comments by US commanders in Iraq including the top US commander in Iraq, Gen Lloyd Austin. MCEVERS: This kind of spending puts the U.S. military in a difficult spot, especially back in Washington. On one hand, they have to say Iraq is a success story, that all that American blood and treasure wasn't for naught. On the other hand, they have to say there's still work to be done, so lawmakers increasingly averse to spending will continue funding military efforts here. If a large contingent of US troops doesn't remain in Iraq, the plan is to shift much responsibility to the state department. But that means funding a private army of contractors to do things that Austin says the real army does best. Gen. AUSTIN: If you're talking about combined arms training and joint training, then uniformed people probably do better at conducting that type of training. MCEVERS: For U.S. troops to stay and do that training, Iraq has to formally ask them. Many analysts believe Iraqi officials will wait until the last minute to do so, mainly because no Iraqi politician wants to be seen as pro-American. But Austin says the Iraqis simply can't wait forever to ask. Gen. AUSTIN: The answer is we always need as much time as we can possibly get. The US plan currently to continue the Iraq War past 2011 (US forces remaining in Iraq) are two-fold: One push for a new agreement or an extension of the SOFA to allow DoD to continue to keep forces there while also preparing to switch the forces over to the State Dept (US troops under the State Dept's umbrella) in case no extension or new agreement is reached. Either way, US troops remain past 2011. Today UPI reports on Rasmussen Reports' poll which found "a plurality of U.S. voters think the Arab world's growing unrest makes it unlikely U.S. troops will be out of Iraq by the year's end as planned". We'll go into the poll more tomorrow. On her Twitter feed, Kelly McEvers tells another interesting story about a conversation with a US contractor today -- payoff comes in fourth Tweet: Really don't want to talk about Juan Williams and whether Fox is "fair and balanced" with this security contractor. #flightdelay #Iraq about 9 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone Now I feel bad. The guy just gave me cliff bars and water. #Iraq #flightdelay about 7 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone Guy actually really interesting. Has all his savings ($37K) in #Iraqi dinars. Thinks he might triple his money someday. #flightdelay about 7 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone Also sez US mil was VERY worried abt #Iraq day of rage. Sez troops flooded green zone (where he works), some even flew in from US. #feb25 about 7 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone Is that true? Is the contractor telling the truth? Is anyone going to ask the State Dept or the White House or the Defense Dept if this assertion is true? Today US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared: Let me walk you through a few of our key investments. First, this budget funds vital civilian missions in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, al-Qaeda is under perssure as never before. Alongside our military offensive, we are engaged in major civilians effort that is helping to build up the governments, economies and civil societies of both countries and undercut the insurgency. Now these two surges -- the military and civilian surge -- set the stage for a third: a diplomatic push in support of an Afghan process to spilt the Taliban from al-Qaeda, bring the conflict to an end and help stabilize the region. Our military commanders are emphatic they cannot succeed without a strong civilian partner. Retreating from our civilian surge in Afghanistan with our troops still in the field would be a grave mistake. Equally important is our assistance to Pakistan -- a nuclear armed nation with strong ties and interests in Afghanistan. We are working to deepen our partnership and keep it focused on addressing Pakistan's political and economic challenges as well as our shared threats. And as to Iraq? After so much sacrifice, we do have a chance to help the Iraqi people build a stable, democratic country in the heart of the Middle Esat. As troops come home, our civilians are taking the lead, helping Iraqis resolve conflicts peacefully and training their police. It was from her opening remarks to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Chair Ileana Ros-Lehtinen set a relaxed but serious tone for the meeting. She and Ranking Member Howard Berman both touched on multiple issues in their opening statements (Berman's appeared to go on forever). Our focus is Iraq. They weren't concerned with it in their opening remarks or in the hearing. Chair Ros-Lehtinen asked Hillary to please summarize her written remarks and, though Hillary agreed she would. she read her prepared remarks outloud. US House Rep Gregory Meeks was one of the few obviously listening to every word (or polite enough to make it appear he was). US House Rep Donald Payne appeared as though he were about to fall asleep during the opening remarks (and Payne and Hillary are friends). When Hillary was talking about State needing to put their "war" money into the Overseas Contingency Operations account (8.7 billion) US House Rep Ann Marie Buerkle's facial expression was an editorial of opposition -- to what wasn't made clear. In her opening questions, Chair Ileana Ros-Lehtinen asked, "And I ask for US protection for the many residents of Camp Ashraf, many of who are here today in the audience and are concerned about their relatives. Thank you, Madam Secretary." It was a series of questions from the Chair and Camp Ashraf was the last of the series. Time ran out before it was dealt with by Hillary. An excited and red faced US House Rep Dan Burton was concerned about national security due to the fact that so much of our "energy" (oil) is coming from outside the country. If you thought he might have a real discussion on "energy," you were wrong. He wants to open up drilling for oil in the US. Burton announced that "this administration is being derelict in its responsibility." Ron Paul had a long editorial statement that name checked the Iraq War and a hundred other things. A specific question did include Iraq. US House Rep Dannis Cardoza: Madam Secretary, at least 70 people were killed during an attack last October on Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad making it the worst massacre of Iraqi Christians since 2003. Less than two months later, extremists bombed the homes of more than a dozen Christian families in Baghdad as well. And on New Year's Eve 23 people were killed by a suicide bomber in Alexandria, Egypt while coming out of mass in St. Marks and St. Peter's Coptic Church. Since these tragic incidents in the Middle East have -- Since these tragic incidents, the Middle East has been rocked by wide ranging protests and regime changes as we've seen in the last few weeks. How has this ongoing instability effected the already heightened risk to vulnerable religious minority groups like Assyrians, Jews, Cops and others? Secretary Hillary Clinton: Congressman, thank you for asking that question. I think this has not gotten the level of attention and concern it should. We immediately went into action when the bombings took place in Baghdad. Our Ambassador [] was deeply involved with the government, making sure that there was protection and security. The ambassador went to Mass in order to show solidarity with Iraqi Christians. But there's no doubt that Christians and other minority groups are feeling under pressure and are leaving countries from North Africa to south Asia because they don't feel protected. I think we need to do much more to stand up for the rights of religious minorities and obviously I'm deeply concerned about what happened to the Christians in Iraq and the Christians in Egypt. I'm also concerned about what happens to minority Muslim groups in Pakistan and elsewhere. So you have raised an issue that I think is one of deep concern and we have to be speaking out more. And we have to hold governments accountable. When I spoke with the prior Egyptian government after the Alexandria bombing, they expressed the same level of outrage that I felt. They said that the Cops are part of, you know, Egyptian history. As you recall from Tahrir Square there were a lot of inter-faith efforts with Cops and Muslims together, worshipping together. Let's hope that continues and let's do whatever we can to make that the future instead of what I am fearful of which is driving out relgious minorities. And the final thing I would say on that because it's an issue that I have paid a lot of attention to, we want to protect religion and religous believers but we don't want to use some of the tools that other countries are proposing -- which is to criminalize defamation, criminalize in the broadest possible definition blasphemy -- and then use it to execute, harass and otherwise oppress religious minorities. So we have to come up with an international consensus about what we're going to do to protect those who are exercising their conscience. While Hillary was repeatedly saying that the billions to go into Iraq -- a third surge, was how she billed it -- were necessary for national security, a curious thing was happening across the Atlantic Ocean. Alex Stevenson (Politics) reports, "Britain has shaken up its international development budget by placing renewed emphasis on poor countries which directly affect the UK's national security. The move means 16 countries including Angola, Niger, Cameroon and Lesotho will no longer receive any funding from Britain. Neither will Russia, Iraq, Vietnam, Bosnia, Serbia and Burudni." That's very interesting. The Iraq War was started and led by the US and the UK. They spent the most money on the illegal war and sent the most bodies to fight it (and had the most foreign people die in Iraq). To sell the Iraq War in the US, Bully Boy Bush resorted to many lies including that Iraq had sought yellow cake uranium from Africa. Tony Blair, then prime minister of England, had the ability to use chemical and/or biological weapons on England within 45 minutes. That's much quicker than an attack on the US and that's because England is physically closer to Iraq than is the US. So why is it that the UK argues today that they don't need to give Iraq anymore aid because it's not a threat to their own national security but the US -- White House and Hillary Clinton -- is arguing differently? February 10th, Oxfam released their report "Whose Aid is it Anyway?" which argues that aid is not the military (or lunch money you fork over for protection on the playground). They make a solid argument and one I agree with. I'm not taking the State Dept's position that we give aid only for national security. But I am saying that today England announces they're giving aid for their own national security and that means dropping Iraq for them. But in the US, the claim is being pushed that it is our national security that is at stake so we must fund billions and billions more just for next year (that's not even acknowledging what happens after next year when more billions are budgeted for Iraq). It doesn't make sense. And someone needs to clarify it. One country's government is wrong in their classification of Iraq as a national security threat. (And it looks like it's the United States that's wrong.) Security is always at risk in Iraq. And Iraq remains a violent country as a result of the illegal and ongoing war. Reuters reports today a Falluja roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier. Let's review the month. February 2nd, 5 people were reported dead and ten injured, February 3rd, 17 people were reported dead and forty-eight injured. February 4th, 10 were reported dead and twenty-seven injured. February 5th, eighteen were reported injured, February 6th, 1 person was reported dead and five injured. February 7th, 2 were reported dead and thirteen wounded. February 8th, 3 were reported dead and six injured. February 9th, 10 were reported dead and seventy-eight injured. February 10th, 1 person was reported dead and five wounded. February 12th, 38 were reported dead and seventy-four injured. February 13th, 151 were reported dead (we have always counted a mass grave discovered -- grave from 2003 and later -- in the violence count, it was 150 on this day and 1 protester died). February 14th, six people were reported injured. February 15th, 3 were reported dead and eleven injured. February 16th, 7 were reported dead and fifty-eight injured. February 17th, 9 people were reported dead and forty-seven injured. February 18th, 23 were killed and thirty-one injured. February 20th, 3 were reported dead and six injured. February 21st, 13 were reported dead and fifty-nine injured. February 22nd, five people were injured. February 23rd, 2 people were reported dead and twenty-two injured. February 24th, 18 were reported dead and thirty-eight injured. February 25th, 23 were reported dead and ninety injured. February 26th, 7 were reported dead and eighteen wounded. February 27th, 6 people were reported dead. February 28th, 1 person was reported dead and seven wounded. For the month of February, 353 people were reported dead and 682 were reported injured. The150 corpses counted were not counted when they died. No one knew about it then. We've always counted them when they were discovered. (Which is the way most crime bases do as well in the US.) For those who insist, "It's not fair! It inflates violence!" Yes, it does. And not including in real time (when it wasn't known) made Iraq appear much less violent than it was. Those are the trade-offs. But for the whiners, if you take the 150 away you have 203. AFP tells us the Iraqi ministries ministries count 197 reported deaths. They then claim 330 people were injured. The wounded is obviously off. It should further be noted that the numbers we are counting are probably way off because they're an under-report. McClatchy hasn't done a daily violence report since December 7th. Few bother to report violence anymore. Iraq Body Count has a total of 254 killed for this month. That's probably more accurate than either our number or the ministries. AFP notes the toll was 259 in January (according to ministries). IBC says 254, the ministries say 197. Go with IBC. And 254 is only 5 less than the ministries claims for January so you can say violence stayed more or less exactly the same in February as it was in January. Some outlets might need to correct their copy and especially their headlines. What does all the violence mean? It does impact lives. The daily press rarely conveys that -- or even tries to -- anymore. Journalist Annia Ciezadlo's new book is Day of Honey: A Memoir of Food, Love and War. She was a guest on Think with Krys Boyd (KERA) today (here for audio). Annia Ciezadlo: There's a story in the book, a short chapter, about a mother in Baghdad. And-and it was just this heartbreaking thing that I actually wrote for the Houston Chronicle. It was the first story I wrote from Baghdad. This mother who had been very, very spooked -- as had many parents in Iraq -- by this terrible bombing that happened right at the beginning of Ramadan. And, as it happened, it was the week before her daughter's birthday. And so she kept her daughter out of school for -- I think it was a week and a half. She-she finally -- Her daughter was going crazy, but it was this terrible choice that she had to make: Let my daughter go to school and take the risk that their might be a bombing on the very road she might be taking to school? Or do I say ''no, education comes first, we can't live like this" and send her to school? It was a horrible choice to have to make. So she decided that she was going to throw this extra special birthday party for her daughter and she was going to get her this fabulous cake. And-and the more she talked about the cake, the more I realized, really, it wasn't about having a fancy cake. The cake had become this symbol to her of normal life, her ablility to go to school and send her daughter to school and all of these things that they had lost. I think -- I think it's natural. I think we all do that with food. I think we all have a food that symoblizes to us something more than just that food. Krys Boyd: And one thing that, you know, people may not make this direct connection a lot about market places being targeted in times of war, particularly in that part of the world. Even shopping for food can be a dangerous thing. This is this day-to-day thing we always have to do, even when there's a war going on. And it might be the most dangerous thing people go out and do. Annia Ciezadlo: Absolutely. Absolutely. And that's one of the first places that gets targeted: Marketplaces, restaurants, hotels, cafes. I think there's a couple of reasons for this. I think terrorists like to target these places because nothing sews fear like this attack on something you have to do every day, really an attack on normal life. And I should add that in a place like Baghdad where electricity is very irregular, you have to go shopping every day because you can't just keep stuff in the freezer or refrigerator. So all of these forces combine to make it absolutely essential that you go to the market but also dangerous. I think there's another thing about markets and I have a real -- I'm a real market nut. I love markets. And one of the reasons I love markets is that they're often in a city that might be somewhat segregated or somewhat, you know, Balkanized. But the market is usally the place where everybody goes. It's usually a place that's free of divisions or relatively free of divisions of sect or gender or, you know, religion, ethnicity, these kinds of things. And I think that's one of the things that makes them so wonderful and I think that's why terrorists like to target them. Along with the immediate effects of the violence, there are the longterm effects of some of the weapons that the US and England used in Iraq. The International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons announces a news conference in Hiroshima this Saturday: Iraq War and Inhuman Weapons: What is Happening at the Hospitals in Fallujah Now -- An Urgent Appeal toward the 8th Anniversary of Iraq War -- Time: PM 3:30-6:00, March 5, 2011 Venue: Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, Conference Room II Speakers: 1) Ms Samira Alani: pediatrician 2) Ms Mayasah Waleed: radiologist 3) Mr. Abdulgader Abdulkareem: geneticist 4) Ms Yukiko Hashida: director, Hashida Memorial Mohammad Fund 5) Prof. Nobuo Kazashi, director, NO DU Hiroshima Project Moderator: Ms Haruko Moritaki, executive director, NO DU Hiroshima Project The three Iraqi doctors are going to report about the reality they are faced with now at their hospitals in Fallujah; lately the media has been reporting about the alarming increase of congenital deformities in Fallujah where it is suspected that various inhuman weapons including DU weapons were used during the fierce attacks by the U.S. forces in 2004. Last year it was also reported that WHO had started an independent study on the critical situation in Fallujah. Three doctors are staying in Japan for about a month with the support of JICA and Hashida Memorial Mohammad Fund. Yesterday morning we were noting how the New York Times couldn't be bothered mentioning the assault on Iraqi journalists. A day later, they still can't find the story. This despite the fact that by yesterday evening, The Committee to Protect Journalists had called out the assaults, as had Simone Vecchiator (International Press Institute) and Reporters Without Borders released their open letter to KRG President Massoud Barzani while Nouri al-Maliki had apologized to one reporter, Wissam Ojji (Turkman Eli TV), publicly. Al Rafidayn reports Ojji accepted Nouri's apology. No report on that in the New York Times today. Alsumaria TV reports the White House National Security Council spokesperson Tommy Visor issued a statement which included: "We were also deeply troubled by reports that Iraqi Security Forces detained and beat Iraqi journalists and civil society leaders during Friday's demonstrations." Those reports Visor refers to never ran in the New York Times. Even the Guardian manages a brief item today, "Over the weekend, a number of reporters were detained during and after their coverage of the mass demonstrations that took place in central Baghdad's al-Tahrir Square." But the New York Times, which was determined to sell Friday as a day of violence -- but to hang the blame for that on the protesters -- never managed to report on what was going on. Meanwhile with Ayad Allawi, Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani and Moqtada al-Sadr weighing in on the protests Saturday, New Sabah reports that Jalal Talabani has now issued a statement in support of the Iraqi people -- what a brave move. Why is it that the President of Iraq is always the last to make a statement or take a position? Al Mada notes that Talabani declared that democracy is the aspiration which drives people. Nouri's press conference yesterday was to again proclaim "reform." New Sabah reveals that among the issues he floated was reducing retirement age from 63-years-old to 61-years-old. Dar Addustour reports he declared the proposed change was necessary to provide young people with opportunities. He also pledged more construction projects. (Day laborers and construction workers were among the first to join the recent wave of protests in Iraq.) Meanwhile, though the New York Times misses it, the Iraqi press is all over Moqtada al-Sadr's remarks. New Sabah reports that al-Sadr has declared Nouri is the one responsible for the conditions in Iraq nothing that Nouri "tops the pyramid" of power. Dar Addustour also leads with al-Sadr saying Nouri had full responsibility for the conditions in Iraq and that he's compared it to what has taken place in Egypt and calls for Nouri to address the issues. If Nouri seems a little on the ropes, that may explain why, when asked about a rumored cabinet post for Ahmed Chalabi at yesterday's press conference, he begged off. Raman Brosk (Zawya) reports that al-Sadr announced yesterday the seven-day referendum he's calling "People's Voice Week." The referendum is a rather silly idea. But it does keep Moqtada's name before the public and does give the appearance that he is doing something which may be the whole point. Meanwhile Dar Addustour reports that Iraqiya is accusing State Of Law of blocking the appointment of heads for the security ministries -- Ministry of the Interior, Ministry of Defense and Ministry of National Security. The posts have never been filled. Nouri appointed himself the minister of all three 'temporarily' but that's gone on for months now. New Sabah notes that Iraqiya reminded Nouri is the head of State Of Law. Yesterday, Time magazine's Bobby Ghosh appeared on C-Span's Washington Journal and Iraq briefly came up: Maryland Caller (on the GOP line): I wanted to know what your thoughts were on what sort of example and therefore role Iraqi government might play in the Middle East uprising as it continues to afford more and more democratic opportunties to its people. Thank you. Bobby Ghosh: That's a great -- that's a great question. And what we're seeing in Iraq right now, unfortunately, does not -- does not lend itself to a lot of confidence in the Arab world. You're seeing a lot of instability in Iraq. This is a country that took more than 200 days to create a government after elections. Iraq's new government has already proven itself to be very corrupt and not very responsive to its people which is why Iraqis have also been inspired by what's happened in Egypt and Tunisia and over the last week there's been a lot of uprising all over Iraq -- from the north to the south -- against the government and there have been demonstrations demanding that the government respond to the needs of the people. I think if Iraq stands as an example to the Middle East, it is that Iraqis now have an opportunity to express themselves. That Iraqis have the ability now to go out and, without fear, and demonstrate and protest and make themselves heard. And every four years, they have the opportunity to elect their own leaders. They have the opportunity to kick out a government that is not responsive to them. Bobby Ghosh has an informed view. That doesn't make him correct. The Iraqi people have been fairly consistent about why they're protesting and that they're not copying. One element of Iraq has been pushing the notion that they're aping others: Iraq's Communist Party has repeatedly attempted to tie it in with Egypt. The press has treated the Communist Party as the spokesperson on the protests -- and they are not that. They are one segment of the protests. But while treating them like the spokesperson, the press has repeatedly refused to identify the Communist Party. I have no idea why. But that's what's happened over and over. And if you're a member of the Communist Party, you have a world view that is different than some people. For instance, you see a global struggle against capitalism and all its effects. If you're predisposed to see a global struggle, you're going to be making statements linking your actions to actions in other countries -- whether or not there is an actual linkage. (You can see that in the US with those who started the efforts to link Wisconsin with Egypt -- as well as those sad speakers who turn off half of America every time they use terms like "solidarity" and "brothers and sisters" and "comrades" in what are supposed to be working class, just US follks, speeches.) It is interesting that the Communist Party in Iraq (which the US government should have supported from the start of the invasion but did not and has not) is rendered invisible by so much of the Western press; however, they grab onto it for this instance. Iraq's protests were inspired by Ned Parker and Human Rights Watch exposing the secret prisons. That's what got people in the streets besides Iraq's union workers (the leather workers were doing protests with very small turnouts). The secret prisons were denied by Nouri al-Maliki. The families of the prisoners turned out and they were protesting. They were the spine of the protests and you had day laborers and contructions workers and others joining but it was that higher purpose and that authority that inspired the original protests and it was the way these protesters were treated that allowed the spreading to other areas of Iraq. And you can see that even in the original areas where a number of women were not participating in the protests until the protesters started getting beaten up and locked up. That's when those areas came alive (though the US press still wasn't paying attention). That acted as an agent of change and the efforts to eradicate that from the story are very annoying and possibly very telling. I think Bobby Ghosh is less than honest when he claims that now Iraqis can protest without any fears. Explain the secret arrests? Explain the crackdowns? Explain the targeting of journalists and academics? No fears? I don't know where he's getting that. And then there is this remark: "And every four years, they have the opportunity to elect their own leaders. They have the opportunity to kick out a government that is not responsive to them." How does Iraq have that? They votes were counted and recounted. And Nouri succeeded in using the power of being the sitting prime minister to have many votes thrown out. Even so, Iraqiya got more votes than State Of Law (Nouri's slate is State Of Law). How were the people heard? They weren't heard. Nouri refused to budge and the man whose party got the least votes was allowed to put together the government and remain prime minister. (The US government backed all of that with promises, strong-arming and bribes.) So Bobby Ghosh might want to reconsider the claims that Iraqis have no fears in protesting and that they have had any real voice in their own government. Andrew Raine (The National) reports: Authorities in Iraq are using a mixture of strong-arm tactics and financial persuasion to prevent anti-government protests gaining momentum. The political stakes escalated significantly when thousands of people took to the streets of Baghdad and other major cities last week to demand reforms, improved services and an end to the corruption associated with Iraq's new political elite. Those demonstrations, the largest yet in Iraq, were met by force, as riot police opened fire on protesters with live ammunition. At least 29 people were killed, including a 14-year-old boy. Since then, army and police units have beaten, arrested or threatened scores of political activists and journalists, their colleagues say. Meanwhile, government security and intelligence agencies are trying to root out the organisers of the protests, especially those who are using the internet in an attempt to organise another mass protest. And we'll close with this from the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee: MURRAY TO CHAIR VETERANS' AFFAIRS COMMITTEE HEARING ON THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET (Washington, D.C.) – Tomorrow, Wednesday, March 2, 2011, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, will chair a hearing on the President's budget. The Committee will meet at 10:30 a.m. in Room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building. Witnesses will include: PANEL I The Honorable Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Accompanied by: The Honorable Robert A. Petzel, MD, Under Secretary for Health Michael Walcoff, Acting Under Secretary for Benefits Steve L. Muro, Acting Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs The Honorable Roger W. Baker, Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology W. Todd Grams, Acting Assistant Secretary for Management PANEL II Independent Budget Representatives Carl Blake, National Legislative Director, Paralyzed Veterans of America Joseph A. Violante, National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans Christina M. Roof, National Acting Legislative Director, AMVETS Raymond C. Kelley, National Legislative Director, Veterans of Foreign Wars Tim Tetz, Director, National Legislative Commission, The American Legion Maryann D. Hooker, MD, Lead Neurologist, Wilmington, Delaware VA Medical Center, representing American Federation of Government Employees iraq al rafidayn alsumaria tv the guardian new sabah al mada dar addustour zawya raman brosk npr morning edition kelly mcevers

Blog post

Sunday Kat posted her latest album review "Kat's Korner: Radiohead, I'm going to need a cigarette." I enjoyed reading it but my oldest son loved it and loves the Radiohead album. He told me when I posted here I had to mention it. So I have. Please make a point to check out the album or, if you're unable to do that, you can check out the first video "Lotus Flower."

Ron Brynaert (I always call him Ron Bryant in my head, it's easier) was one of the first people outside the community to link to me. His site is Why Are We Back In Iraq? and he is posting there again from time to time. Yesterday he posted "BBC appears to have yanked Raymond Davis Pakistan 'spy' story." So make a point to read that.

I'm listening to Joni Mitchell's Mingus right now ("A Chair in the Sky" specifically) and that's because I'm just not able to sleep. I told myself I'd blog in the morning around six PST (time on my blog posts is EST) but I keep thinking about the woman we wrote about in "Sexaul Assault Enabler of the Week." That would be Helena Cobban.

And maybe we can take a lesson from the Idiot Cobban. Should a friend get into trouble, the way her beloved Nir Rosen did, don't make an idiot of yourself rushing in to vouch for him.

She's yammering away about how she knows Nir and he doesn't demean or marginalize women. Uh, stupid idiot, he does it all the time.

Where the f**k have you been, Helena?

I think we all became aware of it in 2008 (aware in this community) when C.I. reported on the Senate hearing where Nir kept interrupting Barbara Boxer. It's only become more obvious since then. And there's the fact that 'fierce supporter of women's rights' Nir's ignored women for all this time. "I care about the victims." Really? You've written about Iraq how much now? When did you ever devote significant time to covering Iraqi women? I believe Human Rights Watch last week released another report about how they have suffered under the occupation.

And then there's the fact that a rapist -- not a dunce -- would say a woman deserved to be sexually assaulted.

That's rape talk, Helena.

I'm so sick of these liars who rush forward. I remember an actress who's supposedly smart who rushed forward during The Passion of the Christ to insist Mel Gibson had no problems with Jews. I can't even watch her films anymore (and that includes the sequel she's making right now, I won't see it). Or how about the GLAAD spokesperson in the 90s who rushed to assure us that Mel was homophobic. Even though his films are incredibly homophobic?

People need to learn to shut up and stop defending that which cannot be defended.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Monday, February 28, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, protests continue, Nouri apologizes publicly to one of the many journalists targeted by Iraqi forces, Noam Chomsky gets asked about US withdrawal, Ayad Allawi tapes a video supporting the protesters, and more. Over the weekend, protesting continued in Iraq as it did on Friday's Day Of Rage. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reported that protests continued Saturday with Samarra protesters defying a "curfew to attend the funerals of two people killed during protests" on Friday and that Iraqi forces opened fire on the protesters/mourners leaving eight injured while Basra also saw a funeral for a protester killed on Friday. On Sunday, BNO News reports, protests continued in Iraq with 27 protesters left wounded in Amara City by Iraqi forces. Today, at Baghdad's Tahrir Square, Alsumaria TV reports Iraqis turned out to demonstrate again. Saturday, Wael Grace and Adam Youssef (Al Mada) reported the disturbing news that after Friday's Baghdad demonstration, four journalists who had been reporting on the protests were eating lunch when Iraqi security forces rushed into the restaurant and arrested them with eye witnesses noting that they brutal attacked the journalists inside the restaurant, cursing the journalists as they beat them with their rifle handles. One of the journalists was Hossam Serail who says that they left Tahrir Square with colleagues including journalists, writers intellectuals, filmmakers. They went into the restaurant where the Iraqi military barged in, beat and kicked them, hit them in the face and head with the handles of their rifles, cursed the press and journalists, put him the trunk of a Hummer. This is Nouri al-Maliki's Iraq -- the Iraq the US forces prop up at the command of the Barack Obama. Stephanie McCrummen (Washington Post) added that the journalists stated "they were handcuffed, blindfolded, beaten and threatened with execution by soldiers from an army intelligence unit" and quotes Hossam Serail (spelled Hussam al-Ssairi) stating, "It was like they were dealing with a bunch of al-Qaeda operatives, not a group of journalists. Yesterday was like a test, like a picture of the new democracy in Iraq." In addition, Alsumaria TV adds, "Iraqi security forces released on Friday Alsumaria reporters Sanan Adnan and Idris Jawad in addition to cameraman Safaa' Hatem. Alsumaria reporters were arrested while covering the protests of Baghdad's Tahrir Square. Security forces attacked as well Alsumaria employees Ali Hamed and Muhannad Abdul Sattar who managed to escape." Stephanie McCrummen (Washington Post) reported Sunday, "Iraqi security forces detained about 300 people, including prominent journalists, artists and lawyers who took part in nationwide demonstrations Friday, in what some of them described as an operation to intimidate Baghdad intellectuals who hold sway over popular opinion." The Committee to Protect Journalists notes the above and other crackdowns on the press in Iraq (as well as in Yemen and Libya): Security forces prohibited cameras from entering Baghdad's Tahrir Square, where there were thousands of people protesting, according to news reports and local journalists. Police confiscated tapes that reporters managed to shoot in the square, according to Al-Jazeera. [. . .] Anti-riot forces also raided the offices of Al-Diyar satellite TV station in Baghdad and detained 10 of its staff members for three hours, according to Al-Diyar's website. In the afternoon, anti-riot police stormed the office for a second time, prohibited the staff from entering the building, and detained at least three more employees. Niyaz Abdulla, a correspondent for Radio Nawa and a volunteer for Metro Center, a local press freedom group, was assaulted today while covering demonstrations in Erbil. "I was on the air when a plainclothes security officer came and started threatening me," she told CPJ. The officer threatened to call over men to attack her, alluding to a potential sexual assault. "I stayed calm but it was very disturbing," Abdulla said. She added that two of her colleagues had their cameras confiscated while they were covering the demonstration. In Karbala, anti-riot forces attacked Afaq and Al-Salam satellite channels crews, according to news reports. "They were beaten and cursed at while they were covering the march in Karbala," Jihad Jaafar, a correspondent for Afaq channel told Noun news website. He added that the tapes of the crews were confiscated. In addition, CPJ's Deputy Director Robert Mahoney is quoted stating, "We are particularly disturbed that a democratically elected government such as that of Iraq would attempt to quash coverage of political protests. We call on Baghdad to honor its commitments to respect media freedom." Over the weekend, a number of journalists were detained during and after their coverage of the mass demonstrations that took place in central Baghdad's al-Tahrir Square. Simone Vecchiator (International Press Institute) notes: During a news conference held on Sunday, four journalists -- Hussam Saraie of Al-Sabah Al-Jadid newspaper, Ali Abdul Sada of the Al-Mada daily, Ali al-Mussawi of Sabah newspaper and Hadi al-Mehdi of Demozee radio -- reported being handcuffed, blindfolded, beaten and threatened by security forces. They also claimed they were held in custody for nine hours and forced to sign a document, the contents of which were not revealed to them. Aswat al Iraq news agency reported that the journalists will file a court case against the executive authority in response to the alleged violations of their civil rights. This episode is the latest in a series of repressive measures adopted by security forces in order to stifle media reports about the current political and social unrest. Meanwhile Nasiriyah reports that Maj Gen Qassim Atta, the spokesperson for Baghdad Operations Command is insisting he has no idea about targeting of the media, specifically four journalists being arrested on Friday, and insists there will be an investigation. He's calling on witnesses to come forward . . . so they can be disappeared? This morning Kelly McEvers (NPR's Morning Edition) reported on the attacks on journalists and focused on Hadi Al Mahdi whose "leg is really swollen" and who was one of the four noted above stopped Friday afternoon while "eating lunch with other journalists when soldiers pulled up, blindfolded them, and whisked them away. Mahdi was beaten in the leg, eyes, and head. A solider tried to get him to admit he was being paid to topple the regime." Hadi Al Mahdi: I replied, I told the guy who was investigating me, I'm pretty sure that your brother is unemployed and the street in your area is unpaved and you know that this political regime is a very corrupt one. Kelly McEvers: Mahdi was later put in a room with what he says were about 200 detainees, some of them journalists and intellectuals, many of them young protesters. At a press conference in Baghdad today, AFP reports, Nouri was confronted by Wissam Ojji (Turkman Eli TV) over the fact that Iraqi soldiers beat him and broke his video camera while he was attempting to report on the Baghdad protests. Nouri is quoted tating, "We will compensate you for your camera and for the poor treatment that you received. We are sorry for what happened and if you can indentify to us who carried it out, we will punish the guilty, provided that you had not acted provocatively." Focusing on the assaults on press freedom in the KRG, Reporters Without Borders released their open letter to KRG President Massoud Barzani: Dear President Barzani, In a report released on 3 November, Reporters Without Borders said there was more press freedom in Iraqi Kurdistan than in surrounding regions and that the situation had improved considerably in the past 10 years. However we would now like to share with you our deep concern about the deterioration in the situation of journalists in your autonomous region since 17 February. During the past 10 days, our organization has registered many physical attacks by the security forces on journalists covering the current demonstrations. Many journalists have also told us that they have received explicit death threats. Please find enclosed a list of these incidents, which is not exhaustive. As president of the autonomous regional government of Iraqi Kurdistan, Reporters Without Borders urges you to do everything in your power to end these media freedom violations and to ensure that the safety of all journalists is guaranteed. We would also like these incidents to be investigated, especially the arson attack on the privately-owned TV station NRT on 20 February. We thank you in advance for the attention you give to our request. Sincerely, Jean-François Julliard Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Friday on Free Speech Radio, George Lavender reported, "Protests gained momentum late last week when militia forces for the ruling Kurdish Democratic Party fired on demonstrators who were calling for increased freedom, jobs and an end to political corruption. Three people died. Protests have since spread across Kurdistan, and authorities have responded with increased military force and by arresting large numbers of people. [. . .] Today thousands gathered in Sulaymaniyah's Freedom Square. Those present said demonstrations will continue until their demands are met. George Lavender, FSRN." The protests have been witnessed and, many would argue, felt. Al Rafidayn reports that Salman Nasser Hamidi, Governor of Babylon Province (more commonly called Babil Province by most outlets), became the third governor to resign in the last three days as a result of the protests. Like the other two who have resigned, Hamidi was a member of the State Of Law slate. State Of Law is Nouri's political slate and Alsumaria TV notes that demonstrators on Friday in Baghdad, when confronted by security forces, began calling for the resignation of Nouri. In an attempt to circumvent the rage, Al Rafidayn reports Nouri held an emergency meeting with his Cabinet Sunday insisting that they had 100 days to produce results on the corruption issue or, Nouri swears, he's firing. Really? It's nearly ninety days since November 25th when Nouri officially became prime minister-designate. He was supposed to have 30 days to announce a Cabinet. All this time later, he's still not named a full cabinet. And you really think he's going to fire many people? Honestly? New Sabbah reports on Nouri's announcement and notes that Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi is calling for provinicial elections to be held early to address concerns. Dar Addustour adds that al-Nujaifi pledged to investigate the efforts to suppress the demonstrations, to torture protesters and to prevent journalists from covering the events and he pledged to investigate the violence in Mosul. He also declared the ban on live satellite coverage would be lifted. He decried those who fired guns at the protesters and who used excessive force on them and on journalists and he condemned the arrest of journalists. Jane Arraf (Al Jazeera) reminds that "al-Nujaifi is a member of the opposition, and it would also be two years early to replace provincial councils. Anger from anti-government protesters is being mainly directed at local officials, for primarily corruption, lack of services and high unemployment." Alice Fordham (Foreign Policy) observes: At this point, as with last-minute concessions made by other Arab leaders, it may be too little too late. It's true that the past few years have brought a measure of stability and democracy to Iraq that was sorely lacking before. Last year, more than 60 percent of the electorate risked terrorist attacks to participate in parliamentary elections, which were declared free and fair by international monitors. But what came next made their bravery seem futile. Iraq's politicians took more than eight months to build a ruling coalition. During this undignified ethnosectarian tussle, the country's shoddy services and security improved not one bit. Maliki was eventually renominated as prime minister despite the fact that his bloc did not win the most seats in the election. What was Friday's "Day of Rage" about? An Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy (Inside Iraq) offers: The main purpose of the demonstrations that took place in many Iraqi cities in Feb 25 was to give the Iraqi officials an idea about the bad reality that we live eight years after what was called liberation. After the collapse of the former regime in 2003, Iraqis were so optimistic about future. We thought that collapsing Saddam's regime was the end of suffering, deprivation but it looks that Iraq moved from the dictatorship of one party to the dictatorship of a group of parties. Both Baath Party and the current Iraqi parties care only about their interests neglecting Iraqis completely. During Saddam's regime, high positions were only for the regime's supporters and now the same thing happen. If you are not a member of the ruling parties or a friend of one of the officials, you can forget about having a decent job even if you have the highest level of education. Professionalism is not the basic criterion in Iraq. It had been ignored more than three decades ago. The basic criterion now days is (which party are you from? )or sometimes (how much money you can pay to get the position?) The Economist sounds a similar note, "When demonstrations began in Tunisia, ministers said Iraq was immune to such unrest because it was already a democracy. They may have underestimated Iraqi anger about their government. As one old man in Tahrir Square said, 'we did vote for them, but they're gangsters'." Sunshine (Live Strong) shares: The greatest thing is , people's intension is not to make coias or destroy , we're not like the politicians, the people are caring roses and green branches, and shouting "peace" … as well as other great sentences that made me realize we still have heroes.. Now I am listening to people's demands in freedom and jobs, and also hearing their stories that made my heart ache, a woman said 7 years ago the police took her 18 years old son, and she didn't see them since that time, and she's hoping this revolution will settle the justice and innocent people will get out of jail .. and another women said she didn't get her retired salary for 4 years, she worked for 22 years , and now she deserve a good life .. Another pleasing thing is, people prayed "Freday's prayer" together in Al Tahreer in baghdad , Sunnis and Shiites together and they shouted " we're brothers Sunnis and Shiites and we're not going to sell this country ", the same thing happened in Sulaymania when Kurds and Arabs prayed together .. Abbas Hawazin (Catharsis) adds, "There is no hope of supporting this dictatorship-cum-democracy in the hope that there is a spirit of reform inherent to itself and which shall manifest itself any day soon. The course of conduct it has employed in approaching these demonstrations was EXACTLY like the one all the surrounding tyrannies employed: anxiety borne out of a deep-seated uncertainty in its own legitimacy, the too-late scramble to make promises, the questioning of the protests' background and intentions using old bogey-men, and turning on electricity for an entire day (a classic Saddam move) not to mention the concrete blocks, raids and arrests by 'unknown' governmental forces, and the fatwas made by that most decadent and disgusting of institutions which opposes true determination of individuals of their own destiny. I am SOLIDLY against this government now." Jane Arraf (Al Jazeera -- link is video) reported on the Friday demonstrations and one Iraqi women, Yanar Mohammad, explained, "If we can cross the bridge, if we can reach the Green Zone and tell them it's not their's anymore, it's for the people -- This was the dream. And we are still hoping to make it through." Ben van Heuvelen (The Atlantic) details some of what the protesters were up against, "Over the past few days, plainclothed special ops units bearing the characteristics of the so-called "dirty brigades" -- secret security forces reporting to the prime minister -- have ransacked the offices of protest organizers and NGOs. (Prime Minister Maliki, on the other hand, has cautioned that agents provocateurs might pose as police.) On Thursday afternoon, Maliki gave a televised speech warning that Friday's protests would be infiltrated by Baathists and al-Qaida. That night, the Baghdad Operation Command, which coordinates security in the province, announced it had evidence of terrorist threats. On Friday, the police imposed a vehicle curfew banning all cars, motorcycles, and even bicycles from the roads. If you wanted to go to Tahrir, not only did you have to brave the threat of terrorism, you also had to walk." Saturday, Ayad Allawi posted this video expressing his support for the protesters, noting they have the legal right to protest, calling for the demands of the protesters to be respected and decrying the lack of a feeling/belief that a democratic body represents Iraqis. He is not calling the government undemocratic in the video, he is saying it does not feel democratic. He is very careful in his wording and one reason may be because the government might 'feel' more democratic to him if Nouri al-Maliki followed up on the promise that he would be appointed president of the National Council for the Strategic Policies. Today AK News reports, "A spokesman for the al-Iraqiya List led by former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi said on Monday that it is seeking to apply time limits to the implementation of the agreements signed by the political blocs in Erbil prior to the formation of the current government." Though he attempted to stop Friday's protests on Wednesday (after praising them on Sunday, Feb. 20th), Al Rafidayn reports that Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani declared Saturday that "serious steps" need to be taken to address the demands of the protesters. Khaled Frahan (Reuters) added al-Sistani called for reform to be fast-tracked. Also attempting to derail the protests was Moqtada al-Sadr who returned to Iraq last week. Now Moqtada can speak apparently. Alsumaria TV reports, "Al Sadr urged Al Maliki not to disregard his responsibilities and to put forth immediate solutions. In a statement read out by Sadr Front senior official Hazem al Aaraji, cleric Sayyed Moqtada al Sadr affirmed that the present situation in Iraq is the responsibility of Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki since he is at the top of the government." There are many groups organizing protests (and there are calls for a major protest this Friday). At the Iraqi Revolution Facebook page, the following demands are listed: Ihab The Iraqi Revolution "OUR DEMANDS" For this we revolve... The following are some of our demands: FIRST: We demand to take our homeland back We had been occupied by a great power without an international permission, this power had adopted excuses that its leaders' them selves confessed that they had been deceived by them, so why are their forces still on our land then..? It has been eight years since our country became under occupation, during that time we have lost all that our ancestors had built, and we have become living in our homeland with no homeland!.. so what are we waiting for? Many had died from our generation in order to free this country; hundreds of thousands of our generation had been detained aggressively and unjustly, we will continue with our protests until our brothers in prisons are freed by the will of God and until we take back our homeland. SECOND: We demand to overthrow the system This system was imposed on us, we did not choose this system, and it was found on the basis of sectarianism and racism that serves an agenda of foreign powers and does not serve us, we do not want those basis, for it brought us scourges and because of it, parties that do not represent us had appeared on the field, parties that had never thought of our suffering not even for one day, but, they were only seeking gains that boosts their own existence and seeking what makes their members wealthier, to secure their future in isolation from our interests, us the children of the homeland, so under which right a system like this is imposed up on us? This system that we dislike and it have no place among our perception. We want a system that is Just, which would be found on the basis of citizenship which ensures equality, justice and equal opportunity between the children of the one homeland without religious, racial and/ or sectarian discrimination. THIRD: We demand services to be provided We live in a wealthy country, but, we are poor! People of the land of the two rivers can not find drinkable water! The people of the land of oil complain from the lack of gas and kerosene! And the rise of the prices for both!! The numbers of our patients is by the hundreds of thousands because of the war and its woes, and we have no valid hospitals to receive them! Many of our doctors had been murdered; many of them had been displaced. Electricity is almost non-existent despite the announcement of spending 17 billion dollars in order to upgrade the power plants. The buildings in the heart of Baghdad are ruins, the public roads are rugged and in the provinces the situation is much worse and bitterer, as for the residents of the counties and districts, their living conditions became closer to the living conditions of the unknowns of Africa!. FOURTH: We demand Job opportunities We are lost between the clutches of leadership of the poles of the political process!! All are after achieving their own goals at the expense of the youth, which had been puzzled over the previous period, not knowing what to do!! We have the ability to develop the country, and we have academic degrees, we have competencies, but, we have no job opportunities, we are living a bitter unemployment situation, some of our youth had started to hang them selves, others burn them selves due to despair and frustration. The highest positions are monopolized by the parties leaderships' and their relatives even if they had no academic degrees that qualifies them for the position, other job opportunities are reserved for the members and loyalists of the parties even if they were unqualified, as for the Iraqi people they have no hope in getting any jobs, if the parties petty the Iraqi people they give them what is left of the crumbs, which would only happen after bribing them or giving up a salary of a whole year and putting it between their hands as a form of gift!! Any citizen that lives under a government has the right to have a roof over his head, and doesn't have to live with their families due to poverty – as the situation is now – people live in the open fields with no homes or in tin houses or in cemeteries! The right to have an appropriate income in order to live comfortably without the need to extend their hand for anyone begging for food or clothing for their children, The right to live in a sense of security that protects them, their property and honor of their family, so the night visitors and the organized crime gangs can not assault them. The right to have a secured future for their children so they won't be lost in the streets or get conscripted by the various shapes of gangs, The right to have a health system that protects them and their families, so their child won't die between their hands because of the lack of medicine or their wife dies giving birth to a child because of the non-existence of medical care. The right to have the freedom that ensures the right of safe movement, travel, trade, freedom of speech, gathering with groups and other activities under a Just law. The right of education that meets the needs, capabilities and job opportunities that stands on the basis of the concept (the right man in the right position), so that a citizen will not be prevented from an opportunity because of their religion, doctrine, race, political views, or because they can not afford a bribery in order to get a job!!. All our demands were not present under those corrupt governments, despite the fact that our country floats on a sea of petroleum, and God has given it wealth that no other country has. We demand job opportunities and who ever is incapable of meeting our demands shall leave. FIFTH: We demand to end the corruption and trial the corrupt individuals Corruption has reached a limit that makes the noses sneeze, under the consecutive governments since the beginning of the occupation to our land, approximately 400 billion dollars were spent on Iraq, it is an amount of funds that is enough to rebuild Iraq twice to make it the best model and bring wealth to all its citizens young and old without exception, but, where did all this money go?? It went to the pockets of the corrupt. And who are the corrupt?? They are the main staff of the government, from ministers and parties' leaderships, gang members and militias that the prime minister refuses to open their corruption files to look in to them or to investigate. In all countries, corruption is practiced secretly, but, in Iraq it is practiced in public! And the latest corruption deal was the disappearance of 45 billion dollars from the development funds, the answer that is heard from officials regarding the question (Where did the money go?) Is with all simplicity: We do not know!! The corruption files must be revealed, the corrupt individuals must be trialed, and the people must get their stolen funds back, and we will not stop our protests until we see corruption seized from existence in our facilities and corrupt sitting in the depths of prisons. WE WILL NOT ACCEPT PROMISES AFTER TODAY - We are fed up with political bids, we are fed up with honeyed promises, we are fed up with prosthetic decisions that some officials use to throw dust in the eyes of the people. - Empty promises will not satisfy the hungry, and the cheap bids will not put clothes on the naked, and the shinny slogans will not quench the thirst of liver behooves. - Silence is no longer a choice for any of us, so we will no be silenced after today… -So how long will the Iraqis be divided into two classes, one that eats the beef, and the other eats the leaf!! - And how long will a group of people receive multiple salaries, each salary covers a whole tribe, and the other people can't get a single penny from the wealth of their homeland!! - And how long will a group will receive warmth from the fire caused by the process of burning the public funds while others are dying because of the cold at the night of winter!! - And how long will some enjoy the iced water in the heat of summer time while the others quench their thirst with the sewage water!! AS GOD IS OUR WITNESS.. WE WILL NEVER BE SILENCED Friday, Kat noted the US White House's silence on the protests and on the crackdown on the press, the protesters and more. Justin Elliott (Salon) observes today: We saw it with Yemen, and now we're seeing it again with Iraq: The Obama administration is conspicuously quiet when friendly Middle East regimes use ugly tactics -- including violence and imprisoning peaceful demonstrators -- to quell growing protest movements in their countries. That's in marked contrast to the administration's tough stand when similar tactics are employed by unfriendly governments like the one in Iran. In a statement yesterday, the White House "strongly condemn[ed] the Iranian government's organized intimidation campaign and arrests of political figures, human rights defenders, political activists, student leaders, journalists and bloggers." But in one of the least-noticed stories of the week, the U.S.-backed government of Nouri al-Maliki in Iraq has resorted to imprisoning 300 journalists, intellectuals and lawyers in order to stop ongoing protests, according to a well-reported Washington Post dispatch from Baghdad. Bombs weren't silent in Iraq today. Nasiriyah reports that a bombing targeted a convoy of US forces in Nasiriyah. Alsumaria TV adds that a Baghdad bombing targeted a liquor store and another one "targeted the house of Imam Abu Ghraib mosque Salah Al Ubaidi in Al Zaytoun Street in Abu Ghraib District killing his son, a police source told Alsumaria news." Reuters notes a Mosul roadside bombing injured three people, a Baghdad roadside bombing wounded one person, another Baghdad roadside bombing injured two people and a Baghdad sticky bombing injured too. Saturday Stephanie McCrummen (Washington Post) reported that Iraq's largest refinery, in the city of Baiji, was attacked by unknown assailants leaving 1 engineer and 4 security guards dead. Alana Semuels (Los Angeles Times) added that it is one of three refineries in Iraq and that assailants utilized a bomb. Jack Healy (New York Times) notesdthat they set off bombs after storming the refinery and that, "Oil Ministry officials were just beginning to investigate the extent of the damage on Saturday, and the acting manager of the refinery said he feared it would take months to repair the pipelines, cables, furnaces and other equipment damaged by the explosions and fires." AP explained, "The refinery processes about 150,000 barrels of oil per day." Dar Addustour reported the assailants used guns with silencers and that an official says 4 engineers were killed and three guards were wounded. Today Kadhim Ajrash and Nayla Razzouk (Bloomberg News) report that Ministry of Oil spokesperson Asim Jihad declared today that the refinery will be back in production by next week and that, in the meantime, they will increase the production at the refinery in Ash Shaabiya. Also today, Liam Denning (Wall St. Journal) offers some analysis, "First, it seems just two gunmen temporarily shut down the refinery. Baiji should be better prepared: It was Iraq's No. 1 target for insurgent attacks in the first five years after the U.S. invasion, according to Peter Zeihan at Stratfor, a global intelligence firm. This feeds into the second reason: Iraq's latent production. Right now, Iraq produces about 2.7 million barrels a day, or just 3% of global supply. but its growth potential is enormous. The International Energy Agency puts Iraq second only to Saudi Arabia in terms of increased oil output by 2035, with Iraq producing another 4.3 million barrels a day by then." Turning to the topic of whether or not there will be a US withdrawal (or were we already on that topic with the previous paragraph?), American intellectual Noam Chomskey was interviewed by Namo Abdulla (Rudaw): NA: In our previous interview, by email, you made a great comment: that the Americans "did not invade Iraq in order to withdraw." Do you now think they are going to completely withdraw from Iraq and leave the country like this? CHOMSKY: Well, we don't know. There is a commitment to withdraw, but there is a long distance between commitments and actions. So for example, take the status of the military bases that the US has been building throughout Iraq. Well, there is very little information about them, but, as far as anyone can determine, they are still being built. What is called the "embassy" in Baghdad is a city, basically, within a city. There is no embassy like it in the world, and it has not been built in order to be abandoned. It's actually increasing in size under Obama. So I think the Americans are just feeling their way to see how much control they can maintain -- how much of a position they can maintain within Iraq. It is worth remembering that the Iraqi invasion was a serious defeat for the United States. The United States had pretty definite war aims. They weren't stated clearly in the beginning -- because, you know, it's not nice to state them – but, as the US had to back down step by step and abandon its aims, they were finally stated quite clearly. So by 2007 and 2008, the Bush administration came out with official pronouncements about what it intended and what its minimum objectives were. They included, stated in January 2008, an agreement which would allow the US to have a major military base in Iraq to be able to carry out combative operations in Iraq, and to have arrangements with the Iraqi government that would privilege US corporations in oil exploration. That was January 2008. Within a few months, Washington had to abandon those aims in the face of Iraqi nationalist resistance. In fact, if anyone was the victor of the Iraq war, it was probably Iran. At the start of last week, British Iraq War veteran Danny Fitzsimons was supposed to learn the verdict in his case. Instead he remained imprisoned awaiting the news. It came today and he's been found guilty. Danny served in the British military for eight years and was stationed in Afghanistan and Kosovo as well as Iraq. He returned to Iraq in the fall of 2009 as a British contractor, or mercenary, accused of being the shooter in a Sunday, August 9, 2009 Green Zone incident in which 1 British contractor, Paul McGuigan, and 1 Australian contractor, Darren Hoare, died and one Iraqi, Arkhan Madhi, was injured. The Manchester Evening News reported last week, "Danny Fitzsimons could be hanged if found guilty of double murder at an Iraqi hearing tomorrow. His father, Eric, of Whitworth, and younger brother Michael are to visit him in prison in Baghdad before the verdict is delivered." Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports that Danny's been sentenced to life in prison -- in Iraq. His father and step-mother had hoped that, if convicted, Danny could serve in a British prison. Terri Judd (Independent) did a profile on Danny and his family before they learned the verdict: What is not open for debate is that the case is an inflammatory one – the first westerner to go on trial since the start of the war in Iraq. It happened just months after security firms -- who had poured into the country in the post-conflict confusion -- lost immunity. For the Iraqis, it was an opportunity to clamp down on the guards, despised by many particularly since a group of American contractors from Blackwater opened fire on civilians in 2007, killing 14 and wounding 20. G4S, a company with a £7bn turnover in 2009 and competing for multi-million dollar contracts in Iraq, swiftly sacked Fitzsimons but insisted it was observing its duty of care by providing him with meals and contributing towards his legal costs. The Fitzsimons family, who are from Manchester, did not even know Danny had flown out to Baghdad, and the matter has been a desperate fight to try to get him brought back to face justice in Britain. They remain adamant that he had such severe mental health problems that he should never have been employed by ArmorGroup. Tafeeq notes, "Salam Abdulkarim, who represents the families of the victims, said Fitzsimons had committed an ugly crime and according to Iraqi law, he should get the most extreme punishment." The Manchester Evening News quotes Danny's Iraq attorney Tariq Harb stating, "This is a very good sentence. I saved him from the gallows." And the paper adds, "Fitzsimons now has 30 days to appeal, which Mr Harb said he would do. Last week, Fitzsimons' British lawyer John Tripple said the family and British authorities were trying to reach an agreement with the Iraqi government to have Fitzsimons transferred to a British prison if he was not given the death penalty." Terri Judd (Indpendent) reports Danny's family is afraid he will take his own life as a result of the sentence, noting that he had been saying repeatedly he could not "end up in Rusafa jail." Dropping back to the US War Criminals who sold the illegal war (as opposed to the ones who continue it today), Colin The Blot Powell is the subject of Daniel R. Cobb's Digital Journal column about Powell's claim to have been fooled, "Now, for Powell to be outraged that he was lied to, that he was hoodwinked, and that world's most well-funded and most capable intelligence agencies, the CIA and DIA, were somehow taken in by one man and a pile of fabrications, is truly pathetic. If this story represents the best the CIA and DIA can offer, then we are in deep trouble. In my humble opinion, Colin Powell, you are either unbelievably naïve, or you're a liar." He's a liar. And the Guardian worked overtime recently trying to salvage and excuse Powell (and to justify even more wars for the UK). As noted February 16th: If you had any confusion yesterday about how the Guardian was whoring to rewrite history, maybe the above will clue you in. It's from Michael White's "Curveball's confession: another dent in the Iraq conspiracy theory" (Guardian) in which the shrieking White wants you to know that his beloved Tones is innocenct and so must George W. Bush be. In this country, there was outrage that the media wouldn't pick up on the Downing Street Memos. And, possibly because there's a lot of whoring on our left in this country, never in that outrage did your 'brave' 'leaders' point out that the Guardian was refusing to report on the Downing Street Memos. They whored for Tony. They ignored the story consistently. The Guardian is New Labour. As is Tony. It was the Murdoch owned Times of London that broke the story on the Downing Street Memos (which revealed that war was the goal and going to happen long before the public had an inkling). It broke repeated stories on it. [. . .] The revisionary history that White's promoting -- and the Guardian's encouraging, they've never even considered firing the lying asshole despite his long history of lies in print -- is that Curveball tricked everyone! See! And it's a conspiracy to claim otherwise! That's what we were calling out in yesterday's snapshot because it was the 'reporting' that laid the groundwork for the b.s. spewing out of White's mouth today. For example, White whines that England left Iraq too soon and pins the blame for that everywhere, including: "I suppose I could interpolate the thought too that the anti-war movement's pressure for withdrawal and for delegitimising the invasion also contributed to the desire to scuttle, and emboldened the suicide bombers and sectarians." It was just a mistake. A liar gave them info that sounded so good. It fit their preconceived notions and they were foolishly swept away. But Curveball was known to be a liar and the Los Angeles Times was able to refute Collie Powell's testimony in real time. Michael White's revisionary lies depend upon people forgetting or not knowing a great deal. It wasn't a rush to believe that led the US government to steal from a student's paper and pass it off as 'intel,' after all. Jonathan Cook (Media Monitors Network -- Cook freelanced for the Guardian long ago, then he was a staff reporter for the Guardian for many years and, until a few years ago, was a columnist for the paper) rejects the paper's presentation of their non-stop Curve Ball coverage and explains what was really at work: So how did the Guardian, a bastion of liberal journalism, present its exclusive on the most controversial episode in recent American foreign policy? Here is its headline: "How US was duped by Iraqi fantasist looking to topple Saddam". Did the headline-writer misunderstand the story as written by the paper's reporters? No, the headline neatly encapsulated its message. In the text, we are told Powell's presentation to the UN "revealed that the Bush administration's hawkish decisionmakers had swallowed" Curveball's account. At another point, we are told Janabi "pulled off one of the greatest confidence tricks in the history of modern intelligence". And that: "His critics -- who are many and powerful -- say the cost of his deception is too difficult to estimate." In other words, the Guardian assumed, despite all the evidence uncovered in its own research, that Curveball misled the Bush administration into making a disastrous miscalculation. On this view, the White House was the real victim of Curveball's lies, not the Iraqi people -- more than a million of whom are dead as a result of the invasion, according to the best available figures, and four million of whom have been forced into exile. There is nothing exceptional about this example. I chose it because it relates to an event of continuing and momentous significance. Unfortunately, there is something depressingly familiar about this kind of reporting, even in the West's main liberal publications. Contrary to its avowed aim, mainstream journalism invariably diminishes the impact of new events when they threaten powerful elites. At Foreign Policy Journal, Kevin Ryan wonders when the lying began and notes: An obvious question that many people ask is: Why is this war and occupation still going on when the world knows that it was based entirely on lies? The unspoken answer is that it is good for business. During the Obama Administration, 211 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq and Obama has no intention of stopping the war. Obama has ramped up the war in Afghanistan and was rewarded for it with the Nobel Peace Prize. Casualties in Afghanistan are growing, with 500 dead Americans in that war just last year. And there are substantial business reasons for continuing the bloodshed. The less obvious but perhaps more important question that should occur to people is: When did the lying begin? That is, if our political leaders were willing to tell and repeat unabashed lies despite the knowledge that those lies would result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, what would they not do? What similar lies have they told in the past to achieve their goals and would our own understanding change dramatically if we knew the truth? Before someone e-mails, "Don't you know who Kevin Ryan is!!!" Yes, I do. He's someone pursuing truth. Not a crime. His website is here. I'm not involved in his movement but I have no quarrel with it and wish them all the best. Some who do have quarrels with it are noted in the latest post of Louis Proyect (The Unrepentant Marxist): "I have found the term 'anti-anti' useful over the years. I first heard it in Lillian Hellman's memoir 'Scoundrel Time' when she referred to the anti-anti-fascist left. It also pretty much describes people like Marc Cooper, David Corn and Michael Bérubé who wrote article after article red-baiting the anti-war movement while including pro forma statements from time to time about how wicked the invasion of Iraq was. As anti-anti-war activists, there was not much to distinguish them from all-out supporters of the war like Christopher Hitchens." The listed do a lot of scorning but do they do a damn thing about the Iraq War? When did any of them last call out the ongoing illegal war? And while we're talking about those who helped the illegal war along and Colin Powell, let's note this from Eric Ruder (US Socialist Worker) at the end of 2008: Carl Davidson, a leading figure within UFPJ, has written a document attacking the left for, in his view, getting the 2008 election "dead wrong." He accuses socialists of adding "fuel to the fascists' fires" by pointing out that Obama's election would not be sufficient to end the war, and by refusing to take Davidson's advice to abandon their independence and fold into the Obama campaign. This approach is nothing new for Davidson. In 2001, Davidson advocated a "tactical alliance" with then-Secretary of State Colin Powell versus the neo-conservative hawks in the Bush administration--because, Davidson claimed, Powell advocated a "'narrow-the-target' focus on al-Qaeda and has worked to build a broad coalition of support." But, of course, Powell didn't disagree with the Bush administration's overall war strategy, simply the timing and methods. It's precisely this strategy of looking to hostile political figures as allies that has put the antiwar and other progressive movements in their current position of weakness. The conclusion of Davidson's current document is that UFPJ should pursue the marginalization, defeat and expulsion of those left forces he attacks for failing to see things his way. "It's not that we are demanding a split," writes Davidson. "The split has already taken place over the past two years, in real life and in actual politics." But not once does Davidson acknowledge the elephant in the room--Obama's new responsibility for the war in Iraq, his embrace of the war in Afghanistan, and the political questions that flow from this. Nor does he seem at all concerned about the poisonous atmosphere that will be created by attempting to exclude antiwar forces that disagree with him. iraq al mada wael grace adhem youssef the washington post stephanie mccrummen iraq the los angeles times alana semuels the new york times jack healy mohammed tawfeeq the independent terri judd the manchester evening news mcclatchy newspapers inside iraq the new york times duraid adnan free speech radio news george lavender