Friday, March 06, 2009

Roundtable on Iraq

Rebecca: We're doing an Iraq roundtable tonight and we'll do one next Friday as well as part of the lead up to the March 19th actions. We've done two roundtables already in recent weeks and participating tonight are The Third Estate Sunday Review's Ava, me, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Trina of Trina's Kitchen, Wally of The Daily Jot, Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends, Marcia of SICKOFITRADLZ and Ruth of Ruth's Report. Betty and Cedric participate by phone. In the last Iraq roundtable, Jim of Third Estate sat in with us to figure out a way to see if there was a way to make it more manageable at Third to do a roundtable. What's been decided is that the core six of Third -- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I. -- along with Kat who lives in the same area and Betty and Wally who live at C.I.'s home will do an Iraq roundtable at Third. Others can participate if they want but most will be taking the chance to bail and be done at an earlier time than usual. Except for Cedric and Betty, we are all at Trina's for this roundtable. I'm going to toss to Mike to start with because, twice this week, the Associated Press tried to spin on Iraq and he blogged about both times. Mike?

Mike: Okay, First up, February ended and March began so it was time for 'monthly stats.' As C.I. had pointed out, February violence -- by Iraqi government figures -- was up 35% but the AP wanted you to believe, via their headline and spin, 'second lowest month ever!' Then yesterday it was "sharply reduced budget" which was only a 7% reduction. It's amazing when you think of how little coverage Iraq gets currently that they still have time to spin.

Cedric: And, as is noted in today's snapshot, James Rainey (Los Angeles Times) reports broadcast networks ABC, CBS and NBC offered 1/10 less coverge of Iraq in 2008 compared to 2007 and they haven't even filed 12 stories so far this year. So it really is something, as Mike said, with so little coverage of Iraq that AP still finds the need to spin. How many articles did the New York Times offer this week?

C.I.: In print? I believe Alissa J. Rubin's made it into print today but I couldn't read those pages of the paper since they were printed with mystery ink --

Rebecca: The pages were blank. No quality control at the New York Times.

C.I.: Right. There was Rubin's article we covered today that hopefully was in the paper -- but a pretty important John F. Burns article last week never made the paper though it was online -- and, earlier in the week, Tuesday, one of those 'justice' in Iraq pieces, by Steven Lee Myers. That's it in the paper.

Elaine: And yet the company spends millions staffing Iraq and never gets called on it by Wall Street. If you're going to spend the money, you should have something to show for it. I'm sure that will be seen as, "Pull the Iraq coverage!" That's not what I'm saying and pulling it will not suddenly make the coverage cost effective. If they pulled it tomorrow, they would still not be able to justify the costs of the coverage.

Ava: Whereas if anyone at the paper did more than sit on their ass, they would run an Iraq article in the paper every day and they would advertise their coverage. "Why we read the New York Times? We're in the United States. We're in Iraq, We're in Afghanistan. We're everywhere you need." That's what you do when you are discredited, when your entire industry is discredited -- and it is, it's seen as antiquated -- you make a point to show what you have. You make a point to advertise.

Rebecca: I'm going to jump in because that's true. P.R. is what I did and I was very good at it. You want people to buy you, you need to tell them why. Were the paper not the New York Times, it would be having even more problems. But they need to make it clear to people who don't know the brand or don't care why they should pick up the paper. And you can't just say it. You have to show it. If they used a slogan like Ava's and someone sees it and picks up the paper, Iraq better be in there and not by AP. The paper's only calling card is what they can offer that no one else can. That means filing, filing, filing. Always filing. One of the things they skipped, that everyoe skipped is in C.I.'s snapshot today, a February 23rd press conference in Baghdad on prisons. Let's talk about that just to emphasize it. Ruth?

Ruth: At one point, according to US Brig Gen David Quantock, and I find this shoking, the US military was holding 900 Iraqi juveniles. That is the highest number, according to the general, the US ever held in Iraq at one time. That is appalling and so is the idea that the US military is currently holding 38 Iraqi juveniles.

Kat: That is disgusting, I'm with Ruth. And it's disgusting that at one point we had nearly 1,000 children imprisoned. What's an average? Do we know? Average number of Iraqi prisoners.

C.I.: I'm tired but we can go with 18,000 because I can get a link for that in April 2007 -- a Washington Post article if I'm remembering correctly.

Kat: So nearly 1,000 children and in 2007, the total prison population, run by the US that the US will admit to, was 18,000? That is disgusting. And why is the US military holding children to begin with?

Ruth: And, really, what is the waves in America. There was a tiny wave of repulsion when it was revealed that the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba had children and then we apparently all decided we could live with it or had expressed ourselves as a country. And I see this momentary pang really benefits the US government and allows them to avoid being accountable or facing pressure to stop their disgraceful actions.

Rebecca: I believe "pang" is the correct word for it, as Ruth used it, because it illustrates exactly how momentary outrage has become. It's disgusting. Say your spiel and then quickly move on to the 'fun' stuff because we have so many other things we can do. And Ava and C.I. just exchanged a look.

Ava: Sorry, TV thing. Complaint from a friend with a show and we just both had an idea of how to address it. Non-Iraq related, go on.

Rebecca: Okay. The way it works is Ava and C.I. are taking the notes. We're all also drinking and if they both need a break, Trina will grab the notes if they nod to her. Cedric and Betty may or may not be drinking. But if someone wants a link, they only get it if they say so. Otherwise Ava and C.I. -- who will type this up -- aren't under any obligation to hunt down a link. Betty, Cedric, drinking alcohol?

Cedric: No. Was planning a beer or two but my stomach started killing me after lunch today and still is. Betty?

Betty: Dona and Ty made margaritas so I've been sipping on one since we started. I'm half-way through with it.

Rebecca: So everyone but Cedric, whose poor stomach is bothering him, is drinking. We have beers and drinks here. And wine. Ruth and Stan are hitting the wine. Trina, Mike, Wally and I are having beers. Ava and C.I. have Bloody Marys in front of them but are doing shots of tequila more than sipping from those. And my husband, by the way, is playing bartender. Sherry, longtime reader at my site, asked what we drank during the roundtables since we'd mentioned booze before. Now Goldie had a question as well. It's about actions. There's one coming up. Who wants to note that?

Stan: I'll grab that. Numerous groups -- such as The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War -- are taking part in an action in almost two weeks. Iraq Veterans Against the War explains:
IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21st
As an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.) To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.
For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: or

Rebecca: Thank you, Stan. Goldie's taking part in it and she assumes Kat, Wally, Ava and C.I. -- who are on the road Monday through Friday talking about the illegal war -- are promoting this when they speak on campuses and to groups. That is correct? Wally, you haven't spoken?

Wally: Yeah. We go over that twice. We grab it at the start and at the end of every discussion. A little before Valentine's Day, we started including it in every talk to be sure people had advance notice because they might need to travel.

Rebecca: And what's the reaction?

Wally: Right now it's positive, especially among people my age and younger -- actually, really younger. It's been over two years since the last real action and, people may not realize this, that's two new classes in college. You've got freshman and sophomores who never saw any national actions on Iraq during their college careers. Now Goldie, she started going to protests when she was in middle school and she started her own house party -- she and her mother -- to end the illegal war. But not everyone's like that. And there are juniors and seniors in high school who we speak to who want to take part. Whether they will or not, I don't know. But Wednesday one was telling me that he felt like he had to find a way to be there because he, his words, had not take a public stand against the Iraq War. I'd say there is strong interest.

Kat: And that's good because most people who are interested won't go. We all know that. We've seen it over and over with each activity. But it's not just when it comes to protesting the illegal war. Let's say we all love --

Betty: Diana Ross!

Kat: Diana Ross, okay. And she's coming to the Bay Area and we're all saying we'll go and our friends are saying it and when the concert rolls around out of fifty people saying they'll go maybe 10 will try to get tickets, maybe eight.

Marcia: I agree, people always talk more than they do -- and they have someone just like themselves in the White House now! -- but, Kat, is this enthusiasm across the board?

Kat: No. And, Marcia, I'm going to let Wally cover the rest of it because I've spoken and spoken and you, Stan, Wally, Betty and Cedric haven't. But I feel like I've jawed everyone's ears off. Wally?

Wally: Right. Marcia, guess where the enthusiasm is and where it's not?

Marcia: Enthusiasm with the young.

Wally: Exactly. Why did you guess that?

Marcia: Because you emphasized high school and college in your remarks.

Wally: UPFJ is United For Peace and Justice and everyone participating in this roundtable knows just how useless that organization is. But we follow Iraq regularly. Now young people know UPFJ is worthless because it's not uncommon now to find the organization called out and they don't do s**t to end the Iraq War. So students know. If you're in college or high school and you follow the Iraq War even a little, you generally know that UPFJ is not a peace group, is not a group working to end the Iraq War.

Marcia: But?

Wally: But adults are different. Maybe because they're busy with their lives? I don't know. But they seem to panic a bit over UPFJ's refusal to join in and they will ask things like, "Is this another A.N.S.W.E.R. - UPFJ split?"

Stan: So how do you explain it? You're speaking to labor groups and to women's groups, and to the elderly as well. How do you explain to them that UPFJ isn't doing anything?

Wally: Sometimes we'll try to do the slow walk through. More often that doesn't work so we toss to C.I. who has a two-line quip that explains it all, gets a laugh and we move on to the groups who matter.

Cedric: What's the joke?
Wally: We're using it now so we won't tell.

Cedric: Backing up. You were very effective campaigning for Hillary. For those who don't know, every state Wally campaigned in for Hillary, Hillary Clinton won. I was fortunate enough to spend about a month with him in Texas on that and Marcia spent about a month or six weeks with him in other states working on that. During that period everyone wanted to know about Wally's effective speech.

Wally: Oh sure. We should have told that awhile back --

C.I.: Stop. The set up you need before Wally speaks is to know he's a young man, blond, very good looking --

Betty: Young Robert Redford!

C.I.: I didn't say that, I know he gets tired of hearing it. But Wally's charming people, men and women. And if you're older, especially, than Wally, when he explains what he's about to explain, you really want to help him make it right. Wally?

Wally: So let's say someone shows up for us to talk about Hillary, okay? And let's say it's when the media's trying to run Hillary out of the race --

Cedric: So bascially, hours after the Iowa caucus ends.

Wally: That's true, I'm laughing. But let's say it's a little further down. Let's say we're in Ohio because I didn't campaign there and I don't have to worry that someone's going to say "You must like ___ state better than my state!" So I'm in Ohio and someone says, "You know, I want to vote for Hillary but the thing is the media says it's over for her." And that's when I explain, look, I'm from Florida. I don't know if you know this, but we did our part. We went to the polls and we voted and we overwhelmingly chose Hillary. Now they won't let her have the votes she won. They're saying our primary won't even be counted. I've been robbed of my vote. My grandfather, my mom, we've all been denied our right to vote. And they may get away with stealing our votes. But if you go and vote for Hillary, you're not just speaking for you, you're speaking for all of us in Florida who overwhelmingly chose Hillary and our votes aren't being counted. You're helping us and you're saying, it's not right, and we don't treat Florida that way, we don't treat anyone that way, this is America.

Marcia: That's the condensed summary and you really need to hear him expand upon it. It was an amazing speech and there were people, especially African-Americans, who would be nodding with Wally with tears in their eyes. I saw many people nod along with him, but African-Americans -- probably because we remember it was us denied in Florida in 2000 -- would really get behind what Wally was saying and usually shout out support. When Wally gave that speech, you did not want to go after him because no one was listening to you. They were thinking about Wally's speech and about Florida 2000 and just wondering what the hell the Democratic Party was doing and what they'd become that they would deny anyone the right to vote? And to pull this back to Iraq, when we speak, that's what we all basically do. And Wally credits C.I. with that. I credit Wally because he's the one I spoke with day after day and saw it in action. You have to be you, you have to bring you to the table. I can't compete with Wally and be a better Wally. But I can find something about, for example, Iraqi refugees that speaks to me, that reminds me of my own life and I can talk about it that way and be effective. Maybe not the best, but effective.

Rebecca: Okay, before we started, C.I. jotted a few notes down for me of topics to explore if we hit a block. We haven't, but one of them was, C.I. noted this, IVAW's Matthis Chiroux wants people to focus on the refugees and the dead. I'm assuming this is in the discussion with Debra Sweet, Matthis and Elaine Brower that people can see the video of.
C.I., can you set that up and then I'll come back to Marcia with a question about refugees.

C.I.: Sure. Matthis Chiroux, first off, has a hearing March 12th in St. Louis, Missouri, regarding his decision to stick with his discharge, thank you very much, and refuse to ship off to Iraq when the military tried to pull him back into the service. That's one of the things there wasn't room for in the snapshot today and it ended up being cut. But that hearing takes place March 12th and you can find out more by clicking here. As you guessed, it does take place in the discussion with Debra Sweet and Elaine Brower. He expresses the belief that it's time for America to find it's conscience and that he's used to the signs of X number of US service members killed or wounded but what he wants to see this time is recognition of what's been done to the people of Iraq. And Afghanistan, but I focus on Iraq. So he wants to see acknowledgements of how many people have been killed, how many people have been turned into refugees, etc.

Rebecca: Okay. And, for the record, no one supports the Afghanistan War here. I don't believe anyone ever has but I know Elaine and C.I. -- and have known them since we roomed together in college -- and they were adamantally opposed to the Afghanistan War before it started. They never drank the Kool-Aid, whether George serves it up or Barack. Now Marcia, in Iraq, there is a refugee crisis. You have approximately four million refugees -- both external, who've fled the country, and internal, who remain in the country. You're speaking to high schoolers, how do you connect or get that story across?

Marcia: I speak briefly about when I was a little girl and my grandfather died and my grandmother lost the house. How devastating that was and how, even with adults trying to keep that from me, the reality of it, I knew enough and it scared me and I was frightened my parents would lose their home and where would we live and where would my toys go or my dog? And I'd talk about how I wasn't at risk. And it wasn't as if all around me people were becoming homeless. But that did frighten me. And imagine if I had grown up in Iraq, during this war, when refugees were normal. When living in tent cities or on the streets -- as so many Iraqi children do -- was normal. And maybe I make it through and maybe I don't, but what does that mean if I do? What happened to my grandmother is nothing I have ever forgotten. Imagine what it's like for an Iraqi child who ends up on the streets. She or he has lost at least one if not both parents. And is trying to survive, to make it, in a war zone. Think about it.

Ruth: Marcia, that was very good. Very good.

Marcia: I learned watching Wally. Grab that experience that is your own and use it to talk about what you want to.

Rebecca: Yes, well done, Marcia. Okay, let's talk about external refugees which have been in the news lately and the US State Dept, as C.I. noted in two snapshots this week, had a problem with a press briefing in terms of accuracy about information.

Betty: Right, they had to correct it after the press conference. Which goes to how confusing the process is for Iraqi refugees if even State Dept spokespeople find the process confusing. I want to talk about something here. There was a couple in a snapshot awhile back. They had both been college professors in Iraq. They were desperate for work and frightened that they would have to return to Iraq because they couldn't find work. It's the Feb. 27th snapshot, please link to it here, and the woman wa Rand Hikmat-Mahmood who had settled in Houston, Texas with her family. And C.I. made the point of asking why they were in Houston? Why they were in Fort Worth, for example, which is close to a base or has one, and where they could be teaching soldiers about Iraq. And I agree with that. We're willing to spend tons of money on that deceitful counterinsurgency; however, we have two people, educators, who can provide information about Iraq, and the culture, to soldiers and we're not using them? Why does Rand Hikmat-Mahmood have to look for work? Why didn't someone -- in the long process that she and her husband had to go through to get to the US -- suggest to them that they give trainings on Iraq? That is pretty obvious. And she and her husband would be earning their money but the fact that they are refugees due to a war this country started, I wouldn't care if she wasn't a qualified educator and had every class play Simon Says for an hour. I know she wouldn't do that,she came off like a very professional woman. But I'm saying,t he US has some huge debts to make good on with Iraqis. The very least they can do is put her in a job she's qualified for that will assist her and assist the service members.

Rebecca: Betty, I think you said that beautifully and think we can move into debt unless someone has something to add? No? Okay. Like I said, Betty covered it. Well done. Okay, there is a debt and the debat is both for what the US military did under orders and what they did on their own. Let me change that to what they did under legal orders because you're not supposed to obey an unlawful order. In today's snapshot, C.I. emphasized Steven Dale Green and Santos A. Cardona. I need Stan, Mike and Cedric to speak during this and Ruth can come in as well and I'd love it if Elaine did. But I'm looking at the time and we need to wrap up so Stan, Mike and Cedric, get in here. Both Green and Cardona have War Crimes in common. Steve D. Green is accused of them and denies them and Santos A. Cardona was tried for them and found guilty.

C.I.: Found guilty of one.

Rebecca: Okay. So Stan, grab one. The accused or the convicted. Grab one and start us off.

Stan: I'll go with Cardona. He was found guilty in the Abu Ghraib scandal. He is the dog handler in some of the photos with the dog snarling at naked Iraqi prisoners. You know what, I'm passing to Cedric. He and Wally have been vocal on this topic in the past.

Cedric: Contractors? Yeah. Your kids need you at home. You go out and risk your life to try and make big bucks don't kid yourself that you're doing it for your kids. Wally and I both lost our fathers early on and we don't have any sympathy for the "I wanted to make money for my kids!" nonsense. Your kids need you there, more than anything else, they need you there. And he leaves behind a daughter. The Washington Post had an article today about it that was boo-hoo city. And who really cares? He wanted to make money, he became a mercenary. People who do that can die. It's why it's not a smart job to try to turn a profit in a war zone. So he gets convicted and he can't re-enlist. They don't kick him out, but they won't let him sign up for another hitch. New rule should be that if you're convicted for abuse of any sort, you're out. That should obviously be conduct unbecoming for all service members. So he ends up becoming a mercenary in Afghanistan after that. With his dog. And I don't have any tears for the man. I don't. No tears at all. Stan?

Stan: Well, on the tears, I think the issue is basically that we're not in the mood. Abu Ghraib was a War Crime -- non-stop War Crimes. And you can be one of the low hanging fruit and complain that those at the top walked, no problem. But you can't be a low hanging fruit that refuses to take accountability and that's what Cardona was. It wasn't his fault and those people at the top didn't get punished! You terrorized Iraqis. You were in a position of authority and trust. You terrorized them. They didn't know whether you'd let the dog actually rip them to shreds or not. They lived in terror because of you. You can whine that were you told to do it but you need to take accountability for what you did. You can point to higher-ups but that doesn't change the fact thatyou need to take accountability.

Mike: I think Stan just summarized it perfectly. If you took part in abuse at Abu Ghraib, I don't need for you to rot in hell. You're really not my concern. I would hope you would try to make amends for what you did. But you become my concern when I hear that you are minimizing your actions. What was done? War Crimes. And, hey, blow the whistle on every one above you. I'll applaud you for it. Even after you've been convicted. But don't ever think that because there was evil at the top, you're innocent. You weren't. You knew better. An eight-year-old boy knows not to threaten his little brother with a dog. So Cordova really has no excuse. And he made no efforts to make amends -- apparently because he didn't feel it was his fault. I agree with Stan, this, "It's their fault," that doesn't cut it. You need to take accountability. You didn't shoot an innocent Iraqi child by accident because you were storming into a home with guns blazing in the middle of a battle. That's awful, but that's not a war crime. It's a tragedy. It's a mistake. But I don't think most people would feel the service member was at all responsible. But there's a world of difference between that andbeing assigned to a prison and deciding you can abuse and terrorize prisoners. And saying, "I was ordered to." Well you know what's right and what's wrong. Does that mean you could've stopped? It means you should have. Now maybe you're too weak willed to stand up? Well that's what it is but that doesn't change that you are accountable for your actions.

Stan: And there was no sense of accountability. Just a push to erase it. This "I will prove that's not who I am." Well, if that's not who you are then, when you bring it up, people expect to hear remorse from you. Like Mike said, no one's saying, "Rot in hell!" That's for -- my opinion -- someone else to determine. But we're not going to pretend like you were tricked into what you did. You need to take accountability.

Cedric: Of all of them, I feel sorry for Lynddie England because, honestly, she didn't strike me as all there. But even with that sympathy, if she gave an interview where she didn't take accountability for what she did -- and we all remember her from those photos, I'd have no sympathy for her. Those were War Crimes. And we don't even know how bad things were, remember, because the US Congress decided the American people didn't have right to see all the abuse.

Rebecca: Good point, Cedric, and good points all. We still have Steven D. Green. Any of you three that wants to jump in, feel free. But I'm tossing to Ruth to start.

Ruth: I am going to toss to Betty for set-up and then I will offer a few quick thoughts.

Betty: Thank you, Ruth. Steven D. Green stands accused of being the ring-leader in the gang-rape and murder of Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi and the murders of Abeer's parents and her five-year-old sister. Other US soldiers accused have entered guilty pleas and all have fingered Green as the ring-leader. Abeer's brother has noted that she did not like Green, that he made her uncomfortable. He was in charge of a checkpoint right by her house. One day, as he got more foward -- remember this is a 14-year-old girl -- he ran his hand along her face. She lived in terror and complained to her parents. Had the assault been planned for the next day, Abeer wouldn't have been there because her parents had planned for her to stay in another home starting the next day. They were attempting to protect her. But Green, who states he is innocent -- doe she? Wait a second, C.I., Green, in the snapshot today, we learn Green filed his intent to plead not guilty by reasons of insanity. So is that the same as claiming he's innocent?

C.I.: You're correct. Your point is correct. If someone pleads not guilty by reasons of insanity, they aren't pleading innocent. But the thing to remember is that Steven D. Green has not spoken to the press and his attornenys no longer speak to the press. The last anyone heard from Green or an attorney speaking on his belahf, the statement was that Green was innocent. Once the trial starts, April 27th, if Green enters a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, then it really isn't accurate to simply state, "Green claims he is innocent." That plea is one that says: "I am guilty but I shouldn't be held liable due to my frame of mind." If he enters that plea, we certainly won't be under any obligation to state, "Green asserts he is innocent." We may start using "Green admits his guilt" because that is what's taking place. And that really is telling about the case. Because if they stick with that plea, Green is confessing. He says, "But wait, because there's one more thing I want to tell you, but, yes, I am guilty." Did that do it?

Betty: Yes, thank you, that covered it. So when his attorneys used to talk to the press it was conveyed he was innocent. That appears to have changed. Ruth?

Ruth: Well, I am glad Betty brought up that point and C.I. clarified it, however, it left me with little to say. So, if he pleads that way, as his legal team has indicated, he is not denying he took part in the crimes. Will the anti-death penalty people take up his cause?

Ava: Let me grab that because Jess, my boyfriend Jess, is anti-death penalty and works on that issue as do his parents. But they've said they don't believe in the death penalty but this isn't going to be an issue for them. They point to it being international in scope. Meaning, it's not a simple case. And, as advocates, it would require more teaching moments than will be possible.

Trina: Well, I would think, my opinion, that it would be a loser for the cause -- and I'm firmly opposed to the death penalty. But you've got a man who appears to be about to plead, "Yes, I was the ringleader." That means he planned the whole thing. Not just the crimes of rape and murder, but also the cover up. Add in that he's an adult and she's a child, Abeer was a child. Add in that it was his job, given to him by the US government, to protect her neighborhood. I mean, it's like, "Are we going to make the execution of a prison guard who willfully murdered prisoners are cause?" I mean, it would be great if we did. It would mean that the issue had progressed so far that we were saying, "No one deserves to be put to death." But we're not there yet. The movement tries to find the most sympathetic -- and often photogenic -- test cases. That's not a negative criticims on my part. There's much work to be done on the issue and on awareness. I understand the reluctance.

Rebecca: Trina speaking right now reminds me that she hasn't spoken and I actually wrote her name down but forgot about her. Trina, I'm so sorry. Okay, let's operate under the assumption that his plea is going to be not guilty by reason of insanity and that he's not quibbling over any of the charges. Describe what the means Steven D. Green did.

Trina: That would mean that -- as the other soldiers testified -- he planned it all. He lusted after this under-age girl. He knew it was wrong and this was not spur of the moment but a carefully crafted plan. As ringleader, he was the one deciding who went with him into the home and who was the lookout. And, note, that this was all planned ahead of time because everyone knew what to wear. C.I., help me, those still in the military had invidual trials but they all had the same court-martial. What did the prosecutor say at the hearing?

C.I.: "Murder, not war. Rape, not war. That's what we're here talking about today. Not all that business about cold food, checkpoints, personnel assignments. Cold food didn't kill that family. Personnel assignments didn't rape and murder that 14-year-old little girl." And that's Captain Alex Pickands being quoted.

Trina: And they carried it out. They plotted it and they carried it out. The others in the house -- meaning participating in the gang-rape of Abeer -- say they started the gang-rape while Green murdered Abeer's sister and her parents in the bedroom. They gang-rape took place in the living room. So they're raping her, one after the other, and she can hear her parents being killed in the next room, she can hear her sister being killed. Then Steven D. Green comes out and wants his 'turn'. So he gang-rapes her and then kills her. Then he tries to set her body on fire so that they can dispose of the evidence and blame it on insurgents. They then return to the base, where they proceed to grill chicken wings, kick back and get drunk. I don't see any public sympathy for Green but maybe his lawyers are miracle workers? I don't know.

Rebecca: Trina, cutting you off for a moment. I don't think anyone feels sympathetic for Green. But let me play devil's advocate. C.I., you're building sympathy for Steven D. Green, what do you do?

C.I.: Didn't you leave out "pop quiz," Dennis Hopper? Uh, well I stress the troubled childhood. I stress the stunted effects that had on his maturity and growth. I talk about his non-stop trouble with the law and, in effect, put the US military on trial. I ask why -- and I've made this argument at The Common Ills -- no red flags went up when Green attempted to enlist, either while in jail or while leaving? Where were the red flags? I put the US military on trial and ask for the records. I cast doubt that the US military was unaware of what Green was, what his problems were. My guess is they willfully ignored the red flags. But I would plant doubt there. I would ask what happens when you put a troubled -- beyond troubled from private accounts I've heard -- young man, emotionally not even an adult yet into a combat zone? What happens? I would throw to the jury repeatedly. I'd point to Steven and say, "I think we all know what happens. I guess the question is, 'Are we thatmuch smarter than the US military or did the US military take a gamble?' And if they rolled the dice, why is the only one being forced to pay Steven D. Green?" To be perfectly clear, I am very angry about the actions I perceive Steven D. Green was responsible for,participated in and orchestrated. However, go back to some of the early snapshots when his problems are first known. I don't want us to go around saying, "Hang 'em." One by one. But I will say for the record that if he doesn't get the death penalty, I won't be surprised and I won't be screaming my head off -- in person or online. From what I'm hearing, he's a very sick person and, if that's true, and if his attorneys can establish that, then he never should have been accepted into the military, the 'moral' waiver never should have been granted and the US military command needs to take accountability for their actions because, if true and presented convincingly, Steven D. Green has serious problems. Now I'm not saying he does have these problems. I am saying that's the word and that's what's being tested. If true, if it holds up in court, it could change the dynamic. Add in that most outlets refused to even print Abeer's name and she remains faceless and nameless to so many and you're dealing with a victim few can relate to. The prosecution would be very smart to get her brother and put him on the stand. If they don't and they lose, they will have that mistake to blame for it. They need to bring her brother into the United States for the trial. For them to win what they want to win, the prosecution needs to put a face on Abeer. The jury will hear all about 'poor Steven.' Abeer's just a dead girl in another country -- from the jury's perspective. They don't know her so she's already the 'other.' They don't know her so they have no ties to her. I think Capt Pickands did an amazing job bringing her to life in the Article 32 hearing in the summer of 2006; however, that went to him and his style. I wouldn't count on the same thing from this team of prosecutors. They need Abeer's photo in that courtroom and they need her brother. They need the family member who misses her, the family member who lost her, who lost his parents, who lost his five-year-old sister. Without him in the courtroom, you're talking about a crime which took place overseas in a war zone -- the jury will be thinking that -- and happened to a bunch of people with 'strange' names that no one knows. So if they lose or even have a partial loss and they did not call the brother to the stand, the prosecution will have only themselves to blame.

Trina: I think, Rebecca's pointing to me, I think C.I. makes the case for the defense and the prosecution. I don't know. I don't know how it's going to go. What I do know is that he got into legal trouble and was sane or aware enough to know that he could go into the military and escape consequences for his actions. That apparently was part of his road of not believing in consequences. I appreciated both views C.I. just offered but I really do think it comes down to that point C.I. made about whether or not the brother's there or the prosecution manages to put a face on the victims in some other way. If he did what he's accused of, he murdered four people in cold blood. Without any real remorse. Without any real hesitation. If they put a face on his victims, I see him getting convicted and getting the death penalty because, if I were serving on the jury, what I'd be thinking was, "Four people are dead. He joined the military to escape consequences. If he gets away with these murders and the gang-rape, no one in the US is safe from him."

Rebecca: Ruth, Betty, closing thoughts. Starting with Betty.

Betty: I think I'm the only one other than Ava, C.I., Wally and Kat who saw the stream of the discussion about the Iraq War and Afghanistan. I believe it's Debra Sweet who says that we're about to hit the sixth anniversary of this illegal war and we don't want to see the seventh. We don't. So what's it going to take. Elaine Browder believes, and I don't doubt her, that it's going to take massive civil disobedience. Sit-ins that shut down a city for example. There is so much to do, this is what I'm saying, and if you can't at least participate in the actions on the 19th or 21st, how do you make up for that? Do you chain yourself to the door at City Hall? I don't know. I know that the easiest thing in the world is for us to participate in these actions. There's so much more that could be done and should be done and these actions that are scheduled are nothing to be scared of. If I can go on for just one more second, Matthis made a point that I would have stood and applauded if I'd been there. He pointed out that just because Barack's "Black" -- put quotes around that, because he isn't and I don't consider him to be that -- doesn't mean that the racist wars are any less racist. I thought that took and demonstrated real guts and I wanted to give him some praise for that. It took a lot to make that valid point and a lot of people wouldn't have even attempted it.

Ruth: What Betty said. Seriously. I really think that if you do not stand up with these actions, you really are asking for this to be just the mid-way point of the illegal war. At least the mid-way point. If you're not going to participate, you really are asking for actions to stop and for the illegal war to continue. I did not have time to watch the stream but from what Betty said and a summary C.I. gave me earlier, Matthis Chiroux was talking about accountability. This is what we were talking about earlier. Guess what? If you do nothing, you are no better than the War Criminals from Abu Ghraib who try to offer excuses. If you sit silently and allow this illegal war to continue, you are sending a message to the world that you endorse and embrace the slaughter.

Rebecca: And on that note, we'll wrap this up. This is a rush transcript. We will do another Iraq roundtable next Friday.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Friday, March 6, 2009. Chaos and violence no doubt continue (it's Friday, forget getting a violence report on today's violence out of Iraq), Amnesty documents the violence targeting Iraqi women, a Feb. 23rd press conference contained all sorts of details about Iraqi prisoners but US audiences didn't get to hear about it, some talk reality (Debra Sweet, Matthis Chirous and Elaine Bower) and more.

Yesterday in NYC, Elaine Brower, Matthis Chiroux and Debra Sweet discussed upcoming actions and the need for them.
Click here to stream at wearechangetv. Debra Sweet is the national director of World Can't Wait and this from the discussion:

Debra Sweet: To my right is Matthis Chiroux who is a resister of the Iraq War -- someone who came out of the US army and decided that he would refuse orders to go into Iraq. And he's courageously right now fighting a battle with the US army so that he's not put in a position of having to back off that stand and he's trying to make a fight on principle. That the war is illegitimate in the first place and no one should have to serve. We got to know him very well when he led a group of
Iraq Veterans Against the War and hundreds of others of us to protest at the last debate between Obama and McCain out in Hampstea,d New York -- a bunch of them got beat up. And what they did were very righteous. To my left is Elaine Brower who is also a member of World Can't Wait and also a member of many other organizations -- such as Peace Action, Military Families Speak Out -- and is leading a national effort to get the Guard out of the federal government which would allow, we hope, them to be pulled out of US military adventures around the [world] including Iraq and Afghanistan. So we want to just have a conversation first among ourselves and, once we turn the cameras off, we'll bring everyone else in New York into this conversation. And again we're urging people listening right now to listen and then go out and make your plans for March 19th. Thursday March 19th is two weeks from today. There's plenty of time to make the kind of strong message we need to put together, emanating from this country. So I want to turn to Matthis and Elaine and ask a couple of questions. We're going to have a conversation. First of all what do we think about the responsibilities of the people living in this country in regards to the occupations of both Iraq and Afghanistan and especially the escalation of Afghanistan 17,000 more troops being sent by Obama and what about the responsibility we have for the US torture state and the announcement that, number one, there will be no prosecution, if Obama has anything to say about it, of the people who put together the us torture state and, number two, that he wants to continue both the use of state secrets to keep this quiet and secret rendition to take people from third countries to be tortured. I guess I've given an indication of what I think about this but let's hear from Matthis and Elaine.

Matthis Chiroux: Hi, everybody here, everybody here, joining us at home via the internet, all around the world. Thank you for taking this moment to try and understand where our responsibility lies in this movement to resist the crimes of our government. What Debra said is very true. I think it is our responsibility to not only be organizing and demonstrating against these occupations but to being taking responsibly for them because ultimately I believe this isn't Bush's war, this isn't Obama's war, this is America's war. And in a democratic society, the more we would like to believe that we have a say so, in the same sense the more responsibility that we share for the actions of our elected representatives. It is imperative that the entire country go into mourning on March 19th for the 2 million dead of both of the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our movement needs to be distancing itself from President Obama. I'm sorry to say it because I know he was many of our candidate. But he has chosen not to be our president instead he has chosen to be an emperor and I protest emperor's and everybody should in this entire country and across this entire planet. So ultimately it is our responsibility and if we are not in the streets on March 19th protesting loudly and furiously the crimes of our government the world will consider it complicity and we cannot afford for that to happen. So, as a brief opening statement, yes, it is absolutely our responsibility to oppose these crimes and to demonstrate in the streets and to be putting our bodies on the line for peace and justice as citizens as the world not simply America. And I'll turn it over to Elaine.

Elaine: Good evening everybody and thanks for being here and thanks for watching. I just want to say that we invaded Iraq. It's six years now. And we protested the invasion before it happened and we need to keep protesting the occupation. And people sort of got complacent with the election coming. And we see that now there's slogans out there "Yes we can end the war," "Yes we can bring the troops home" but we're not saying what we used to say. We're not demanding -- demanding -- that the occupation and the wars end now. What we need to do for the world -- because the Afghani civilians are depending upon us, the soldiers are depending on us and the Iraqi civilians are depending on us to -- get out in the streets in mass mobilization on the 19th and shut down business as usual. We've been saying this for six years we've tried and we haven't accomplished it. People voted for change twice in this country In 2006 they went out and they tried to vote in Democrats for change and that didn't happen. And now they thought, "Well okay so we're going to vote in a new administration that's all Democrats and yes we're gonna get change." Well maybe we'll get some domestic change but we certainly are not getting a change in foreign policy. In fact If you listen to the pundits, they've been saying that they're very disappointed and things are absolutely not changing under this administration. So it's up to us in the movement to make sure that we're visible not on a weekend but during the week when people can see us out in the streets. And I know this is difficult to do this and I know -- I've been doing it myself for seven years, pretty much everybody here has been doing it and I know people that are watching have been doing it. But we cannot stop. This is the point where really need to mobilize and say, "No, you're not going to continue this killing and occupation in our name with out dollars." Obama's not talking about taking the mercenaries out of Iraq or Afghanistan. He's only talking about possibly drawing down troops, maybe. And he could always change his mind depending upon what goes down on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan. So we've got to make sure that they know we're out there.

Debra Sweet: I'd like to talk for a moment, since I raised it and since it's a demand, I think it's a just demand, for March 19th The occupation of Iraq has to end. I think most people are very clear on that. But I will tell you this right now, many people are not clear about Afghanistan. Many people are not clear that it is a terrible thing to be sending drones dropping bombs on people in Pakistan. Many people are not clear that Obama talking about diplomacy with Iran can be and has been used as just another way of making war on the Middle East and moving towards controlling it. And I think our responsibility -- yes, I think we have a responsibility to resist and I really agree with what Matthis and Elaine are saying, but we have even a heavier responsibility. We have to go out to the people we know who are not in this room, who are not watching who are thinking about something else and thinking everything has been solved and talk to them about why sending 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan after you've already raised the civilian murder rate. The killing of civilians, 40% in the last year, is absolutely unacceptable. And this is, I think, part of this heavier layer of responsibilty that I'd like us all to think about and to talk about. What does it take for people to start looking at this situation not just as Americans but through the eyes of humanity? And to give you a really shaper example, I was at a peace meeting two nights ago and it was a film called Obama's War. A representative of United For Peace and Justice -- of which World Can't Wait and many of us are members -- actually said, "Aren't you glad this is Obama's War and not McCain's War?" And I said, and I thought and said to myself, "How do the people in feel that this is Obama's War?" Do we think they're celebrating that the bombs being dropped on them have a big "D" for Democrat on them? I think hell no. This is an outrage that this president right now is still being seen by people all over the country as an anti-war president. Let's just be for real, this is a continuation of an unjust war no matter what it is called and it is a rebraniding of injustice in the name of something that it isn't, peace. What do you think?

Matthis Chiroux: I absolutely agree. I think one of the most important things for this movement to remember right now is that while this war was a liability to the Bush administration, it is something that was an embarssment for them. Every time something about the war came up, they were on the defensive -- trying to defend why we had to go get Saddam Hussein and why we still had to be going after bin laden in Afghanista. And people thought, "Oh, this is your fault. This is your mistake." This war is not a liabilty to Obma. This war is potentially something he can use to look like he's being strong on terror as a Democrat. This is something that he can escalate. And if the slightest, tiniest bit of progress can come out of it, this country will want to hail him as the hero of peace and justice and all of that stuff when, in reality, what we're doing is what we've always done. And I can say it having been in the US military and having been part of the occupation of German and Japan sixty years after WWII. I literally lived in the old Axis of Evil. And what I learned is that: we never leave. Right now in Iraq, while people believe that the war is over and that we won and we've struck a blow upon the anvil of imperialism and so on and so forth, it is just not the case. We are building permanent bases and leaving troops on a permanent timetable when we ought to be admitting wrong and paying reperations to people whose society we have destroyed. And there's no amount of capitulation that we can do to the Obama administration that is going to make the bombs stop falling. It was one of the first things he did when he took office, the bombs started falling on Pakistan. And then it came out that he was going to continue this legacy of state secrets to hide the fact that tortture does take place on a regular basis by the orders of the US government .
Fahad Hasmi is still lingushing in solitary confiement right here in NYC We're talking about Guantanamo closing in a year as being a great victory for this movement when, in fact, all that's going to happen is they're going to shut down and they're going to move them back into the federal system here where every bit as much injustice is occuring. For those who do not know, Fahad Hashmi is an American citizen who has been held in solitary confiement now for more than a year while in a state of presumed innocence for the supposed crime of allowing af riend to sleep on his couch for two months three or four years ago. It's craziness. Obama . . . I, right now, have a hearing with the military where I'm going to have to defend my decision not to report to duty last summer to deploy to Iraq The army's decision [applause], I say that because the army's decision to prosecute me, to set a date and show up, didn't come until after Obama took office. If we could expect serious change that would have stopped. But It's not. Those policies are continuing policies that are keeping poeple like Fahad literally, I'm sorry you don't have to water board someone to torture him. I think leaving him in a solitary confined space for a year without telling them what they did wrong is torture and we have to oppose that just as loudly. Look we have to understand change will absoultely not manifest itself in this country until we cease the unjust practices of the past. And when those unjust practices are simply being rebranded under a different face and a different name, it is our responsibility as a movement to provide clear contrast to something that people want to believe in but is ultimately a fairytale. Obama has plotted* a clear choice for this country from imperalism to impearlism-lite And I said it before and I'll say it again, as any ex-smoker will tell you, just because you switched from Reds to Marlboro Lights doesn't mean you quit the habit. You don't quit the habit until you put it out and we need to extinughs this war on terror because until we do the habit continues

Debra Sweet: I want to ask Elaine a specific question because I've known Elaine snce after her son was deployed to Afghanistan -- right aft 9-11 -- and since then he's been in Iraq twice and in fact he's there for the second time now. So this is a very personal question and a personal quest but what do we say to people who say that Afghanistan is the good -- "Yeah, yeah, I know Iraq is bad, we should get out of there. But what about Afghanistan isn't that the good war, isn't this a good thing?"

Elaine: Well it's interesting because as a member of
Military Families Speak Out, we just opened up a discussion form because it became a hot topic. Now what's happening is a lot of the military families are seeing their loved ones instead of going to Iraq, they're going to Afghanistan. And this is something they never expected. So there's a real debate now amongst military families, shouldn't we add this to our mission, shouldn't this be a part of our mission statment that we do not want to send our soldiers to afhgnaistan? And people now are sort of getting on board with that it's dawning on them, "Well why are we going to afghanistan?" They're questioning that: "Well what are we looking for? The Afghani people never attacked us. Okay, so mabye it was bin Laden, who knows? We don't even know that for a fact. But let's say it was that's one person and al Qaeadea is one group of people. So we just bomb Afghansitan? Do we send soldiers into the mountains to kill innocent people in villages that have nothing to do with this?" So this discussion is starting to surface. And, no, it is absolutely wrong to send soldiers into Afghanistan. In fact today I was talking about National Guard and now they're taking the national guard and sending them to Afghanistan. For what? Our National Guard is supposed to be here in the United States responding to any emergeinces we have here -- whether they be hurricanes or accidents of major magnitude. But they're no longer here. In fact, yesterday in Wisoncisn, they sent 3200 national gaurd members to Iraq they happened to go, but here from Rochester we lost 2000 national guard going to Afhgnistan. So this is definitaly a situation where, being a military family member, I live and breathe this every day. I have to tell you personally when you have children what you do -- or a loved one -- I knd of have this little grid in my head. And I know where my daughter is. And I know where my husband is. And when my son joined the military I lost track of him in this grid. And I had to place him where ever he was. And I was thinking today on my wall, I used to have a map and I had thumbtacks in it. And before 9-11 and he was in Afghansitan I'd put a thumbtack and then he went to Australia and East Timor and then he kind of got lost in Iraq and it was very traumatic for me. And I have been going through this for seven years. And there are other military family members who are saying "When is this going to end? Even if he's going to keep 50,000 troops in Iraq, who are those 50,000? Are they the same people that have gone three four times already? Or are they now freshly recruiting right out of high school" -- which we've seen new young people -- "to go over there to do what? What are they protecting?" They're protecting this monstrotisty of an embassy What are we doing there? What's the purpose? So Afghanistan is defintely wrong. I know that and I think now it's sort of bubbling to the surface and people are starting to question that which they didn't before. But I think we're going to see more of that. Getting out on the 19th, to me, is very critical because . . . I do not want my son to come back from Iraq -- he's supposed to come back in June, I hope he comes back in one piece -- I don't want to see him go to Afghanistan. Or back to Iraq for that matter. I want this over and I think pretty much everyone who is in my position does also.

Consider the above a rush transcript. Example, Matthis may have said Barack's "charted" and not "plotted." Second, last night was going to include Judith LeBlanc but Jim called a related section for Third. Two people present (neither was Debra Sweet) at the event Debra is speaking of (above) called during the event to say Judith LeBlanc had just said "the most insane thing" and "disgusting thing" and it was the story that Debra related. I have no intention of covering for UPFJ's Judith LeBlanc. It's all over the peace movement (I've had voice mails and e-mails from easily 200 friends passing it on in the days since it took place) and no one can stop talking about it. Debra Sweet was nice about it. It was supposed to be in last night's entry and Judith was going to be named. Since the story's being told above, I feel no need to be nice (see "Guess Who, Don't Sue" at the end of the snapshot for more on that) and the person is Judith LeBlanc. Judith hasn't had this much attention since she started wearing those tacky, faux leather, men's sandles a few years back. And, again, I'm not in the mood (see the last item in the snapshot), if you'd like to ask Judith why she said that, her business e-mail should still be You might also want to ask her if she stands by the ridiculous lie she pimps in various interviews about Barack's reach-out to veterans during the DNC convention. (When he punked IVAW by sending Big Lies From Texas out to disperse them in Denver.) Then again, why shouldn't Judy spit on the truth? She already spits on her own family heritage when she calls Barack "Black."

Those who want to chant "Obama! Obama!" while rubbing themselves can join Judith in a frenzied rush but those who want to stop the Iraq War can join with
The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War for an action this month. From IVAW's announcement:IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21stAs an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.) To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: or

MN Roy (Cleveland IMC) evaluates Barack's bad, war-on wagging speech from last Friday and remembers to include a shout-out for UPFJ:

Obama's abandonment of even a pretense of appearing to be "anti-war" was further underlined by his keeping Bush's war minister and generals aboard in the name of "non-partisanship." You can be sure that "General Betray-Us," amongst others, has far more say in shaping the policies of the Obama administration vis-a-vis Iraq than any of his slavish supporters in "MoveOn.Org" or UFPJ. While there are plenty of Clinton and Bush era retreads, not to mention generals, in the Obama administration for all to see and hear, where are the representatives of the "mass movement" that supposedly propelled Obama into office? Indeed where is the "mass movement?" You'd think by now that there would have been some sign of protest against the escalation of the war in Afghanistan, the maintenance of the rendition and torture lite or the endless welfare for Wall Street that are becoming the signature items of the Obama regime. Then again, none of them raised a peep, at least not in public, against the Obama endorsed Israeli onslaught against Gaza. Maybe it's that when you keep people off the streets for so long in order to get them into the voting booth, you can't get them out in the streets again. Unless, of course, like UFPJ, you don't want to get them out there to begin with.UFPJ opposes marching on Washington on March 21st against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan out of deference to the Democrats. The question for the pro-Obama "left" is whether they will follow the logic of their politics and become supporters of Obama's wars and his austerity attacks on American workers in spite of the slap in the face he just gave them or will that slap finally wake up some or any of them. Back in the sixties, many of today's "Progressives for Obama" came of age politically in response to an imperialist war being waged by a liberal Democratic administration, one that actually could still be pressured into cleaning up some of American capitalism's more blatant inequities and excesses. Yet that didn't stop Martin Luther King, Jr. from boldy breaking with LBJ in order to oppose the Vietnam war. King became persona non grata vis-a-vis the pro-Democrat "civil rights" establishment but he stood his ground. Today some of the leaders of UFPJ want to do the same thing to antiwar activists who opposed voting for the pro-war Democrats. So just as Obama has embraced his Republican rivals in "non partisanship," ie, in common defense of American capitalism and, in doing so, repudiated his supporters, today's liberal-left by uncritically embracing Obama, has done the same. As they used to say in the sixties, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Or to be a bit more frank, if the boot fits, they'll lick it!

MN Roy has a very strong analysis of the speech but when someone captures UPFJ so perfectly, we go with that for the excerpt.

In Baghdad, a woman is raped, beaten and scarred with a lit cigarette by armed men who are trying to make her miscarry; in the KRG, a woman's brother shoots her for running away from the forced marriage to a relative ("her cousin"); in Basra, Rand 'Abd al-Qader is killed by her own father for the 'crime' of speaking to a British soldier (the father admits his crime to Iraqi police and is never even charged), Leila Hussein (Rand's mother) leaves her murderous husband and she is shot dead in Barsra in May 2008; Bergerd Hussein Muhammad Amin, an Iraqi journalist, is repeatedly threatened by her estranged husband and the police do nothing, she ends up stabbed repeatedly and dies but murder is 'unknown.' Those are but two of the stories to be found in
Amnesty International's new report [PDF format warning] entitled "Trapped By Violence: Women In Iraq." The report notes:

Acts of sexual violence against women in Iraq are severely under-reported, not least because of the victims' fear of reprisal, and reported incidents are not systematically recorded. However, the majority of women who responded to a survey conducted through networks of Iraqi women organizations and published by Women for Women International in 2008 said that violence against women was rising. Many women are trapped indoors as they fear the risks of stepping out of their homes.

Across the board, rights for women have gone into retreat in Iraq and those women who speak up and fight for equality often find themselves targeted. Nothing was done to protect Iraqi women because the US government did not give a damn about them (and apparently still doesn't). It was more important to push through plans for corporations and that required 'stability' which was easier to 'achieve' by empowering thugs. Yes, the Afghanistan model was used in Iraq which, prior to the start of the illegal war, had been a secular MidEast country.

Not mentioned in the report is
Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi. She is the fourteen-year-old girl murdered March 12, 2006 by US soldiers in Mahmoudiyah. While she was gang-raped, her parents Qassim Hamza Raheem and Fakhriya were murdered in the next room as was her five-year-old sister Hadeel Qassim Hamza. The plan was to blame the War Crimes on 'insurgents' and, for many months, that worked. Since then, some involved have stood before the courts. James Baker pleaded guilty to his part in the gang-rape, Paul Cortez pleaded guilty to his part in the gang rape, Jesse V. Spielman pleaded guilty to his part in the gang-rape and Bryan L. Howard was found guilty of covering up the crime but not participating in them. That leaves Steven D. Green who maintains his innocence but whom all others have fingered as the ring-leader. From the Monday, July 3, 2006 snapshot:

Developments in the Mahmoudiya incident where four Iraqi civilians died, allegedly at the hands of the US forces, in March continue including the age of one of the alleged victims and the arrest of a US soldier. To recap, one of the four was allegedly raped and this morning
Ellen Knickmeyer (Washington Post) broke the news that the town felt the "woman" was a fifteen-year-old girl who had complained about the 'interest' some US forces had in her. Sandra Lupien noted on today on KPFA's The Morning Show, the military had put the age of the female at 20 years-old when they announced their investigation last week (Friday). Reuters reports that the mayor of Mahmudiya declared today that the woman "was no more than 16 years old when she was killed along with her parents and young sister". Lupien also noted the arrest of Steven D. Green. Green, is 21 and was with the 101st Airborne Division of the US Army. Friday, in Asheville, North Carolina, he was arrested and charged with both the four deaths as well as the rape. According to the US government press release, if convicted on the charge of murder, "the maximum statutory penalty . . . is death" while, if convicted on the charge of rape, "the maxmium statutory penalty for the rape is life in prison."

Green, who maintains his innocence, has still not been on trial. Green had already been discharged before the crimes were discovered. He will stand trial in a civilian court. The United States District Court, Western District of Kentucky is where United States vs Green, Steven D. is scheduled to take place. Jury selection is set to begin April 6th with the trial to start at nine a.m. April 27th. Green is being represented by Scott T. Wendelsdorf, Patrick J. Bouldin and Darren C. Wolff. United States Attorney David L. Huber notified the court of the government's intent to seek the death penalty July 3, 2007: "The Government further gives notice that in support of the imposition of the death penalty it intends to rely upon all all the evidence admitted by the Court at the guilt phase of the trial and the offenses of conviction as described in the indictment as they relate to the background and character of the defendant, Steven D. Green, his moral cuplability, and the nature and circumstances of the offenses charged in the indictment." The defense has introduced several motions including that the death penalty is unconstitutional (August 26, 2008, Judge Thomas B. Russell denied all those motions). May 15, 2008, the defense notified that they would be arguing insanity and that they would be providing expert witnesses on that defense during the hearing.

In other Iraq War Crimes news,
Josh White (Washington Post) reports Santos A. Cardona is dead. It does not appear to be a great loss. Caronda was among the War Criminals responsible at Abu Ghraib. As White notes, "Cardona and his tan Belgian Malinois, Duco, were shown in photographs of detainee abuse that surfaced publicly in 2004. The most notable image showed Duco growling at a cowering, naked detainee." During his June 2006 trial, his attroney, Kristen M. Mayer, proved she could lie and spin better than anyone as she attempted to insist that all he Cardona was guilty of was allowing his dog to bark (and "get too close"). She insisted that Cardona did not participate in interrogations at Abu Ghraib and, the military jury not willing to do their duty, went along and pretended it was then logical for her to introduce memos on interrogation policies to argue that Cardona wasn't responsible for his actions, higher ups were. Repeating, the case she presented was (a) it wasn't abuse, (b) it did not take place in an interrogation and (c) even if it did, nah-nah-nah, look at these memos. In White's article, we learn Cardona was allegedly 'haunted.' By his War Crimes? No, by the world knowing. He wanted to get back to Iraq and prove he was a good . . . what? Not citizen. He wanted back on the buddy patrol. When his plans to go to Iraq were demolished by public outrage and when his conviction prevented him from re-enlisting, Cardona became a mercenary in Afghanistan where the man found guilty of abusing and terrorizing Iraqi prisoners was allowed to roam around with a dog. His concern was never over the Iraqis or over justice. He wanted to prove he was still one of the buddies. And he died over there. Oh well. He wasn't ordered to go and those who profit off wars are generally seen as lower than low by most in any society. If he wanted to make right what he'd done (which may or may not have been possible -- truly only the Iraqi prisoners he tormented could offer redemption to him), he could have publicly named the higher ups. But that would have kicked him out of the buddy system. It was so much easier to do nothing, to make no efforts at redemption and just whine that those higher up never got punished. Boo-hoo. That doesn't mean you were innocent and, in fact, you were found guilty. Cardona was a War Criminal -- convicted War Criminal. That's reality. The fact that he was allowed to remain in the military until his service contract expired says a great deal about how little oversight and accountability there is. The fact that K-9 Detection Services would hire him to work with a dog in another war zone says a great deal about their hiring practices and the kind of 'winners' they'll employ.

But let's return to Kristen M. Mayer. Let's assume she's not a liar -- for a moment anyway -- and that she was serious about the fact that the Iraqi prisoners Cardona (and his dog) came into contact with were not being interrogated. Why were they naked? Why was a dog able to get into, in the most famous photo, one man's face. Why was the man naked and crouching on the ground? Can you imagine the outrage in the US if photos of dogs snarling at prisoners in prison were circulated? (Granted, the biggest concern would most likely come from the animal lobbies, but still, there would be outrage on the part of those who care about human rights and those who work on prison issues.) There was nothing 'normal' about what Cardona was taking part in. He chose to go along with it, not out of fear, but because he wanted to be one with the buddies. And, again, we're assuming Mayer's not a liar. That really was her summation, whether she grasped it or not. He's dead. The Iraqis he terrorized who are still alive live with the nightmares. No one really needs to shed a tear over the death of a War Criminal.

Staying with prisoners, February 23rd Brig Gen David Quantock briefed the press (mainly Iraqi press) about the prison situation in Iraq and admitted that at one point, the US was holding 900 Iraqi juveniles prisoner. Quantock announced the US was only holding 38 juveniles currently. As of Feb 23rd the US military was holding 140 Third-Country Nationals (non-Iraqis) prisoner in Iraq. Four prisoners (captured in Afghanistan), on the orders of "the minister of defense and the Government of Iraq" (that Quantock speaking) were transferred from Guantanamo to Iraq. (Did you know the US government took orders from Iraq?) And the Quantock appeared to want to blur a point regarding Afghanistan and Guantanamo. He wanted to argue -- and run it together -- that no prisoners captured in Iraq were transferred to Guantanamo and running it together imply that of Afghanistan as well. "We have not transferred any detainees from Iraq to Guantanamo." Three days after,
Feb. 26, Defense Minister John Hutton would declare the following to the UK House of Commons:

During the final stages of the review of records of detentions, we found information about one case relating to a security operation that was conducted in February 2004, a period which honorable members I'm sure will recall saw an increased level of insurgent activity as the transfer to Iraqi sovereignty drew closer. During this operation, two individuals were captured by UK forces in and around Baghdad. They were transferred to US detention in accordance with normal practice and then moved subsequently to a US detention facility in Afghanistan. This information was brought to my attention on the first of December, 2008. And I instructed officials to investigate this case thoroughly and quickly so I could bring a full account to Parliament. Following consultations with US authorities we confirmed that they transferred these two individuals from Iraq to Afghanistan in 2004 and they remain in custody there today. I regret that it is now clear that inaccurate information on this particular issue has been given to the House by my department. I want to stress however that this was based upon the information available to ministers and those who were briefing them at the time. My predecessors as secretaries of state for defense have confirmed to me that they had no knowledge of these events. I have written to the honorable members concerned, correcting the record, and am placing a copy of these letters also in the library of the house. And again, Madame Deputy Speaker, I want to apologize to the House for these errors. The individuals transferred to Afghanistan are members of Laskar-e-Taiba, a proscribed organization with links to al Qaeda. The US government has explained to us that they were moved to Afghanistan because of a lack of relevant linguists necessary to interrogate them effectively in Iraq. The US has categorized them as unlawful enemy combatants and continues to review their status on a regular basis. We have been assured that the detainees are held in a humane, safe and secure environment meeting international standards which are consistent with cultural and religious norms and the International Committee of the Red Cross has had regular access to the detainees. A due diligence search by the US officials of the list of all those individuals captured by UK forces and transferred to US detention facilities in Iraq has confirmed that this was the only case in which individuals were subsequently transferred outside of Iraq. This review has established that officials were aware of this transfer in early 2004. It has also shown that brief references to this case were included in lengthy papers that went to then-Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary in April 2006. It is clear that the context provided did not highlight the significance at that point to my right honorable friends. In retrospect, it is clear to me that the transfer to Afghanistan of these two individuals should have been questioned at the time. We have discussed the issues surrounding this case with the US government and they have reassured us about their treatment but confirmed that, as they continue to represent significant security concerns, it is neither possible or desirable to transfer them to either their country of detention or their country of origin.

Quantock also wanted to take the Iraqi press to task during the press briefing as he whined about how they said the US released prisoners that they didn't have evidence against. They did so! He whined that, anyway. But they didn't think it was evidence that would stand up in court, he pouted. In other words, you had no credible evidence against the thousands of prisoners ("detainees") that have been released since the start of this year. He expects all prisoners to be transferred out (to somewhere) of US custody by the start of 2010. The prison in Taji, an Iraqi prison, is costing the US tax payers $80 million dollars so far, according to Quantock ("So we've spent about $80 million to stand up that facility and then we're going to give it to the Government of Iraq.") Despite the fact that he declared this was being built still, the Iraqi press pointed out that the prison was indeed open and that the US was operating it. Yes, Quantaock agreed, cornered, the prison is open but it could hold 5,000 prisoners and the US is only holding "180 in there right now." And that's just, he said" to put some detainees in there just to test our procedures." Why are you testing US procedures in an Iraqi prison when you claim you are in the process of turning all prisoners over to the Iraqi government and will have done so by the start of the next year? What procedures do you need to test as you 'go out of business?'

It was a very interesting press conference and we could go on and on with it. It's a shame US reporters stationed in Iraq didn't feel it warranted coverage. But, hey,
Matthew Schofield (McClatchy Newspapers) can tell us Shi'ites can take a pilgrimage to Samarra now. Well, yea! Let's just set aside all the issues of Iraqi prisoners. (And note that the New York Times never covered John Hutton's statements. Guess that would interfere with all that feel-good Hopium in the air.)

In the US,
James Rainey (Los Angeles Times) covers Thomas E. Ricks new book The Gamble and notes the broadcast networks running from Iraq with 2008 offering 1/10 the coverage of Iraq on the evening news that could be found the year prior and the "less than a dozen stories," ABC, CBS and NBC have done on Iraq so far this year. Turning to public broadcasting. NOW on PBS examines a murder from 2005 this week, David Brancaccio interviews Danile Junge who made the documentary They Killed Sister Dorothy about the murder of Catholic nun Dorothy STang in the Amazon. On Washington Week, which also begins airing Friday on many PBS stations, Gwen sits down with David Wessel (Wall St. Journal), James Barnes (National Journal) and Karen Tumulty (Time magazine) -- the latter of whom is working on her Bette Davis "stars" speech from Now Voyager in an attempt to incorporate into the sham discussions on health care that Barack is leading currently. "Jerry, don't let's ask for the moon, we have the stars." Moving over to broadcast TV (CBS) Sunday, on 60 Minutes:Bank FailureScott Pelley has an exclusive look as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation takes control of a failed bank.
EyewitnessLesley Stahl reports on flaws in eyewitness testimony that are at the heart of the DNA exonerations of falsely convicted people like Ronald Cotton, who has forgiven his accuser, Jennifer Thompson. (This is a double-length segment.) Watch Video
60 Minutes, Sunday, March 8, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Guess who, don't sue? This member of Congress has dined out on a tale of woe for years which, it turns out, isn't in fact reality. More importantly, a ____ _____ informed the Congressional Dem that the story appeared to be a falsehood last year; however, that hasn't stopped the Barack Cheerleader from continuing to repeat it and from using it as their entire raison d'etre. Currently, the moldly lie is being picked up in local press but if and when it transfers to the national stage, will any reporters sleuth around and ask a few questions? For starters they might consider safety practices and they might also consider billing and payment. After that, they might try looking into the background of those who supposedly victimized the liar. The background of those people is not one that jibes with the story being told -- in fact, their background suggest something very, very different. Questions about safety, payment and billing go to why problems were experienced and not the fairytale like 'explanations' the Congress member continues to give. Now being embellished with the addition of a phone call! (At that point, the person is no longer repeating a lie, the person is actively engaging in LYING.) Warning, Barack Cheerleaders, I am not in the mood for your s**t. I'll out you on anything and everything and the person we're discussing faces re-election next year. This little scandal could give the seat away.

kpfathe morning showsandra lupienthe washington postellen knickmeyersteven greensteven d. green
60 minutespbswashington weeknow on pbs
thomas e. ricks

Thursday, March 05, 2009

Thoughts on PUMA

PUMA disgraces itself when it does 'corrections' without noting them. If a note's not attached to Wednesday post at The Confluence by this weekend, I will bringing that up. It was a stupid mistake (and still contains one). I'm sure someone can find a screen cap but I've already found a way around it to grab.

The whining PUMAs, that's how I think of them these days. I waited and waited for the race-baiting Heidi-Li to post a "Woops! Was I Wrong!" post, but she never did. Senator Roland Burris was never the establishment choice and she looked like a moron insisting he was. This week we found Barack's little buddy is going to try to challenge Senator Burris in the Democratic Party primary. Barack's little buddy (35-years-old, I believe) looks like his lover in the photo going around online -- and that's not homophobia, I'm hugely pro-gay rights and looking at that photo I saw the same thing I did in a photo of my brother's. Which is when I asked him, "Are you gay?" (He is.) There's a furtive quality about the photo, a sense of they-don't-know-what-we-do. I'm referring to both photos actually. No surprise, Barack's little buddy is White.

Roland Burris will get the bum rush. What the PUMAs never grasped is that the only ones insisting to the press Barack was "Black" (he's not) were his paid schills. Little Jesse Junior who stabbed his father's in the back. (We know Rev Jackson doesn't consider Barack Black.) The idiot Congress man who cut the deal with Nancy, Jamie Clyburn.

The only ones who pushed "He's Black!" were ones on the payroll (or payoff roll).

Roland Burris is not Baraack Obama. Nothing was handed to him. He didn't go to a posh school, live with wealthy grandparents, etc. Senator Burris is Black andI will never forgive the PUMAs for their attacks on him because they who finger-point at the dreaded Marcos of The Daily Toilet Scrubber turned around and lied as easily as that idiot does. They lied to attack an elderly Black man who had a career of public service and who was not one of Barack's friends. But he was Black and they're so racist they must have thought, "All those people know each other and are all friends."

I don't forget it and I laugh when I see the PUMA posts where they try to pretend they aren't racist. "Look, here's a Black woman in women's history! See, we pointed her out, we're not racist!" I'll stop thinking of Heidi Li as a racist when she gets honest about her lying on Roland Burris.

They're not very left (or very informed). They don't grasp, for example, that there was no bigger Barack supporter (I believe he held Barack's balls whenever Barack got sweaty) than Scott Horton. Scott Horton attacked Hillary with sexist garbage -- and it was more than once. But they're not educated, those PUMAs, so they don't know about that.

But they KNOW that Roland Burris is Barack's BFF! Even though he's not.

So Heidi Li can say, "Woops, I was Heidi Lie when I was attacking Roland Burris! I'm sorry. I should have grasped that with the attacks on Social Security, Barry hates old people. I should have grasped that the attacks on PUMA were often age-based. So I should have seen Senator Burris as not all that different from us. I should have grasped that, unlike Barry, Senator Burris was actually qualified to serve in the US Senate. I shouldn't have taken my race-based anger out on Senator Burris."

When Heidi Li can say that or something similar, I'll cut PUMA some slack. But they should have addressed the undercurrents of racism some time ago.

And that's not, "Black people cannot be criticized!" I have offered plenty of criticism of my own race here and will continue to do so. That is, "Don't invent lies about a Black person to attack them with and expect people not to notice how this happens over and over when you talk about anyone non-White."

I was happy to identify as a PUMA until this year when it was one xenophobic, racist post at The Confluence after another. I love Gary Chapel Hill. There are others I enjoy. But I publicly drew a line (and thank those who stood with me) because I'll be damned if I'm going to be silent while racism is pushed.

Look, if some of the same stuff had gone up during the primary, I wouldn't have batted an eye. I know how charged that time was. I know we were all at the end of our fraying ropes as we watched Hillary earn the nomination but have it stolen from her by Barack.

So there were some things I saw at The Confluence around that time and after that did hurt my feelings for about 30 seconds and then I said, "Oh, Betty, they're just angry. It's not directed at you." And I can understand that, I get angry too.

But in January to be offering attacks on immigrants and to be offering attacks on our only Black senator -- attacks that aren't factual and are just some crazed fool's inventions -- it gets old real quick.

That's not "Get over it!" I will never forget that Barack was installed, that the nomination was robbed from Hillary. I will never forget the attacks on her non-stop.

And that's what The Confluence doesn't get.

Those attacks on Hillary, those non-stop attacks, that was something that we were supposed to have bonded over, we were supposed to have shared our outrage. So when they turn around and post lies about Roland Burris, when they want to claim that he was the establishment's choice (do they read?) and just slime him, it goes to an emerging pattern.

On the woman there who's been called a racist by many sites, I don't know her name. She's their economic wiz. I don't think she's a racist. She had an essay that included a segment on those who got dubious house loans. I do believe that was a racist talking point and also a right-wing one (blame the victim). But I never saw that essay as being racist. I thought,"That's why we need to really get honest." Not, 'Cause that girl be racist!' But because, "These are the right-wing memes we accept."

I've accepted my share. In the mid-90s, I was part of the attacks on Social Security. I didn't believe it would be around. I remember the 20/20 special and just running with that because it was news and the news wouldn't lie, right?

And I saw that essay the same way. The woman who wrote it found a source (and she attributed it in her essay). She was trying to make sense of the economic crisis and she was pulling in a huge amount of information.

If Heidi Li hadn't lied about Roland Burris, I wouldn't call anyone at The Confluence racist. I would talk about the attitude -- one they need to deal with but their way of 'dealing' is to censor the only Black woman they had who commented regularly. (I know her. I'm not related to her but we went to high school together in Atlanta.)

As she told me, "Melissa [Shakey the Ugly Clown] kicked me off her site because I wouldn't stop defending Hillary, so I guess it's really saying something that the supposed Hillary loving Confluence refuses to allow my comments to post."

And I've read her comments, comments that never appear, because at first she was upset. I told her to copy and paste and e-mail them to me. They never go up. She's not using abusive language. And, most of her comments, are favorable about an article. But she had the 'nerve' (self-respect) to challenge the strain of racism and she got kicked off The Confluence.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Thursday, March 5, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the UN talks of war crimes in Iraq, the US Defense Dept puts a number to TBI, Iraq trims its budget (slightly), the lies of 'withdrawal' garner more attention, and more.

Starting with talk of war crimes. Yesterday in Geneva the United Nations General Assembly President Miguel D'Escoto, speaking before the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, called for an investigation into the crimes going on in Iraq.
Donn Bobb (United Nations Radio, link has text and audio) reports:UN General Assembly President, Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann on Wednesday urged the Human Rights Council to investigate "massive human rights violations" in Iraq.The Nicaraguan diplomat describes Iraq as "a contemporary and on-going example of how the illegal use of force leads inexorably to human suffering and disregard for human rights."He says "it sets a number of precedents that we cannot allow to stand.""The illegality of the use of force against Iraq cannot be doubted as it runs contrary to the prohibition of the use of force in..the United Nations Charter. All pretended justifications notwithstanding, the aggressions against Iraq and Afghanistan and their occupations, constitute atrocities that must be condemned and repudiated by all who believe in the rule of law in international relations."General Assembly President D'escoto suggests the Council consider appointing a special mechanism to report on Iraq.Mr. D'escoto cites "reliable" estimates of over a million deaths in Iraq "as a result of the US-led aggression and occupation", saying " and still there is no rapporteur".He says this was a serious omission that should be corrected.D'Escoto also called for human rights to be seen in a more encompassing manner stating, "I see a profound relationship between access to safe drinking water and sanitation and the enjoyment of the right to life or health. Indeed, access to water is indispensable for a life in dignity and a prerequisite for the enjoyment of other human rights." Iran's Press TV states, "The UN General Assembly president's fiery speech coincided with the Obama administration's decision to take up observer status on the Human Rights Council -- which the Bush administration had boycotted. "

Friday Barack gave his kind-of-sort-of-leaving-Iraq-if-you-pretend-with-me speech at Camp Lejeune. Monday, USA Today's Susan Page hosted The Diane Rehm Show and the first hour was a discussion on Iraq (here for just that hour). Her guests were Tom Andrews (Win Without War), Michael O'Hanlon (right-leaning, War Hawkian Brookings Institution), Paul Pillar (former CIA, Georgetown University professor) and Thomas E. Ricks whose most recent book is The Gamble:
Susan Page: Well Tom Ricks, in brief, what is this new strategy that the president outlined on Friday?

Thomas E. Ricks: It was presented as a way to end the war . He said that we'll start drawing down troops at an undetermined rate over the next couple of years and that by August of 2010, next year, we'll be down to what he called a non-combat force that would then do the next year of transition to Iraqi forces. Oddly reminescent in many ways of President Bush's plan to accomplish the mission and stand down as they stand up.

Susan Page: Do you see, Michael O'Hanlon, big differences in what we would be doing in Iraq if President Bush were still in office and what President Obama has outlined?

Michael O'Hanlon: That's a good question, Susan. Probably not enormous. [. . . ] I think Mr. Obama, by going with the 19 months and then, as Tom says, keeping 50,000 thereafter is perhaps a little faster than Bush or [Senator and GOP presidential nomine John] McCain would have been but that 50,000 number is key and I'm sure we'll come back to that. That retains a lot of capability and that, I think, closes the difference between Obama and McCain - Bush which is why I'm sure Senator McCain endorsed it the other day.

Susan Page: Well, Paul Pillar, is there -- President Obama says he's withdrawing combat troops but leaving 35,000 to 50,000 US troops there. Is it a meaningful distinction that they will not be combat troops?

Paul Pillar: Good question. It's not an obvious distinction because -- well the president laid out three missions for the so-called transitional force. The residual is not the preferred term, it's a transitional force. One was training. A second was counterterrorism. A third was protect everything else we're doing there. If you talk about something like training, it's not a matter of US officers standing up in a safe classroom and lecturing. We're talking about side-by-side operations, we're talking about American troops still being in harms way. There will still be casulties incurred. So I think some of the questions we heard on Capitol Hill from Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi and others about whether this 35 to 50,000 troop range really makes sense is not just disatisafaction or impatience with getting this thing over with. It reflects a real question about what the mission is going to be so that the combat versus noncombat distinction is still a question that hasn't really been resolved.

Susan Page: Well Tom Ricks is it clear to you what the mission of these transitional US forces will be?

Thomas E. Ricks: It's clear to me what President Obama said it would be: not to fight. But as Professor Pillar points out it's just a bizarre thing to say, that these are troops who are not combat troops. The heart of this mission is going to be two combat brigades. Now they're going to be renamed something like advisory units but look you can call them Mousekateers if you want. They are US army soldiers going in harm's way with bombs going off, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars. Troops will still be dying after August 2010 and I don't think a lot of Americans get that. For that matter, I think US troops will be dying in Iraq after the SOFA [Status Of Forces Agreement] comes to fruition in 2011.

Susan Page: Now the SOFA agreement is the Status Of Forces Agreement and that calls for all US troops to be out by when?

Thomas E. Ricks: By the end of 2011. Except unless it's renegoiated and I think the SOFA was all about getting through 2009 and taking the American troop presence off the table as a divisive issue in domestic Iraqi politics. So you get to that point and they say, "Well actually, we'd like you to stay." And I think this residual force that President Obama laid out is the same thing I heard about in Baghdad last summer. They talked about the post-occupation force and oddly enough it's very similar to what they talked about in Baghdad with me last summer which was 30 to 50,000 troops because it's really hard to get smaller than that and still have an effective force. There's a lot of minimums you need. [. . .]

Susan Page: Well before you get to the post-occupancy force you've got to get to the point where you're actually withdrawing these troops and Michael O'Hanlon, he's -- President Obama's indicated that these troops wouldn't be coming out a brigade a month which is what he talked about during the campaign but that rather this withdrawal would be pretty backloaded after elections toward the end of the year in Iraq. And I wonder, do you think this timetable is likely to hold up? Will events allow it to proceed the way President Obama outlined it on Friday?

Michael O'Hanlon: I -- I hope so. There's a decent chance by the way let me agree very much in answering with Paul and Tom but add one additional point: I do think we should view the mission as being difficult and enduring and dangerous but I also think that if we can get through this next year, we will have gotten through a lot of the residual dangers and problems in terms of getting through big elections -- that second election in a young democracy, the peaceable transfer of power and also I hope a resolution or at least a partial resoultion of some of these Arab-Kurd issues that are so difficult up north right now that I heard about last week when I was in Baghdad and that could come to a head very soon. So I'm hopeful without being able to convincingly demonstrate this that we can get to a much better place within a year.

Tom Andrews wasn't on the first segment and had nothing of value to say when he did stammer onto the show via phone-in. He said that most Americans would give Barry the benefit of doubt. So nice of pathetic Tom Andrews to presume to speak for all of us. He had nothing of value to say and little that was factual. I don't believe I've ever agreed with one of Michael O'Hanlan's punditry moments but I'd rather sit through his nonsense (which O'Hanlan truly believes) than Tom Andrews spinning. Pillar is falling into the same trap that Phyllis Bennis already did, by the way, which is saying that two or three months doesn't matter. Currently 15 to 16 US service members die in Iraq each month. I would assume the families of those 15 to 16 could tell you that, yes, every month does matter. Michael O'Hanlan -- who is not, my opinion, very astute (to put it mildly) -- had enough sense not to make the kind of ridiculous statements others are.

Susan Page: Now we have notably seen praise from John McCain, his foe in the campaign, and criticism from Nancy Pelosi, his chief ally on Capitol Hill. What do you make, Tom Ricks, of the political situation the president now faces when it comes to Iraq?

Thomas E. Ricks: Well I think what that tells you, with respect, I disagree with Paul, I think it tells you that people understand what's going on here. Is that his speech on Friday at Camp Lejeune was much more about how to stay in Iraq than how to get out of Iraq.

Susan Page: Please expand on that idea.

Thomas E. Ricks: It's a formulation for walking away from taking a brigade out every month for 16 months and instead going to the post occupation force that the military has been planning for well over a year now.

Susan Page: When you go away from the pulling out a brigade out a month -- which is what he talked about during the campaign -- it then makes it possible if the situation after the elections isn't stable, doesn't seem right, I guess you could greatly delay the planned pull out of the forces there at the end.
Thomas E. Ricks: Well I think military feeling that I picked up in Baghdad is that there's a lot more things in Iraq that could go wrong than can go right. You really have to thread the needle to make this work right so they really do want to hedge they really think they're going to be there longer than the president thinks and I don't have the faith in the Status Of Forces Agreement I think that will be renegotiated and I think we're going to have US troops fighting in Iraq for a very long time to come.

Susan Page: If the situation there is less stable, not more stable, will the US forces stay or will the nation's patience basically have been exhausted and we pull out in any case? Paul, what do you think?

Paul Pillar: Well we should note that in the speech last week, the president did give himself some rhetorical wiggle room when he said "I intend" -- that was his word -- "I intend to have forces out by December 2011." Which was a somewhat weaker statement than his one about "Let me be as clear as I possibley can," you know, "no combat after August of 2010." So it's not totally out of the realm of possibility. The only thing I would say about these things, about getting over the next election or getting over the next whatever it is, there's always the next something or other. We've heard about that all in the past. There was the transfer of sovereignty way back in 2004. There were the constituent assembly elections. There was the next round of parliamentary elections. There's always another hump to get over, another reason for us to say, "Oh, the next year is going to be the critical year." We'll be saying that five years from now if we're still in Iraq just as we were saying it five years ago.

On the Status Of Forces Agreement,
Ricks (Foreign Policy) notes today, "Meanwhile, Sen. James Webb (D-A Country Such as This) notes with alarm in an interview with NBC's Andrea Mitchell that the Status of Forces Agreement between the U.S. and Iraq has "plenty of loose language in there that would allow our troops to stay longer." He dislikes that idea. I think it is going to happen and think, on balance, that it is better than leaving. But I don't much like either option. "

Tom Andrews' comment about most Americans giving Barack the benefit of the doubt is echoed in another coward's comments.
Robert Fantina (link provided for laughter purposes only, CounterPunch) slobbers, "One hesitates to criticize Mr. Obama too strongly. Rarely, if ever, in the history of the United States has a president inherited such a colossal mess, ranging from the implosion of the U.S. and world economy, to two disastrous and ill-conceived wars." Really? And this is a surprise because? It's a shocker? You go out for a job and you get it, you have no right to whine about it. No one has sympathy for the actress who complains about the loss of her privacy and no one should have sympathy for Barack's 'new problems' that were all known some time ago. He wanted to run. He did. He won. And maybe cowards who run to Canada should just stop commenting on US politics? How 'bout that? And to be clear, we're not talking about someone in the US military making a brave decision to resist by going to Canada. We're talking about an alleged grown up -- who worked on John Kerry's campaign -- being such a coward that after the 2004 election, due to those results, he had to high tail it to Canada. What a coward, what a loser. No one needs to hear from people like that. They have no 'authority' with which to speak. They're the turncoats, the ones who go running whenever things get tough. And how embarrassing for John Kerry that someone associated with his presidential campaign (and associated with MoveOn) could be seen as so unAmerican as to flee the country in a panic over the results of an election. How very, very sad.

If you want to end the illegal war, you fight to end it. And it is always a fight to end an illegal war.
Debra Sweet (World Can't Wait) observes, "Those who are breathing a sigh of releif that US troops are being slowly removed from Iraq should stop and realize that this is part of an overall strategy to deepen and strengthen, not end, US domination of the region. Those who think our job is to 'help' Barack Obama carry out this plan are not looking at the interests of the people here, or in the Middle East, in stopping this occupation immediately." Those who want to stop the Iraq War can join with The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War for an action this month. From IVAW's announcement:IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21stAs an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.) To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: or

Those not sure whether it's necessary to protest the ongoing, illegal war should consider
the evaluation of the draw down offered by Steve Chapman (Chicago Tribune):

During the campaign, Mr. Obama pushed a plan to withdraw one or two combat brigades per month until they were all out. Only two things have changed in Mr. Obama's 16-month departure plan: It will take longer than 16 months, and we won't depart.Instead of May 2010, the target date has been pushed back to August of that year. Nor will he bring back one or two combat brigades each month. Instead, The New York Times reports, Mr. Obama plans to withdraw only two between now and December, or one combat brigade every five months.The administration claims it will speed up the pace of withdrawal next year. But if someone says he's going to sober up tomorrow, it doesn't mean he will definitely do it tomorrow. It just means he definitely won't do it today.

Media Lens issues a call for sobriety:

But Obama's lies matter little to much of the public, anti-war activists among them. 'You don't understand,' they tell us. 'Obama +has+ to say all this stuff - it's not what he believes. He's out to change all this, but he has to say it.' This involves a kind of treble-think. Politicians typically hide their ruthlessness behind compassionate verbiage. Obama, we are to believe, is hiding his compassion behind ruthless verbiage - Machiavellianism in reverse.Which is exactly what was said of Clinton and Blair in the 1990s. Of course it could be the case now. But should we not aim to be a little more socially scientific in our political analysis? We can observe that, in a way that mirrors Newtonian physics, enormous political forces tend to act unimpeded unless challenged by powerful oppositional forces. We can observe, further, that there is no reason whatever to believe that the greed and violence that have become entrenched in American politics over decades and centuries have simply gone away. Certainly they have not been countered by mass democratic movements rooted in compassion rather than greed. There are no new, mass-based parties rooted in progressive values; no city-stopping protests erupting out of a transformational political process.If a brand new, benevolent face now fronts the system in which traditionally ruthless forces dominate, rationality demands that we assume it to be a makeover, a brand alteration, an attempt precisely to reduce pressure on the system to change. The Bush-Blair crimes contaminated the American brand with Iraqi and Afghan blood products - we have to assume that the same ferocious system is now in the process of rehabilitating, not revolutionising, that brand. Greed, ignorance and hatred do not miraculously transform into compassion, wisdom and peacefulness, in individuals or in superpowers. Call it Newtonian political physics. Call it Buddhist psychology. Call it common sense.

Today at the Washington Post online, Dana Priest participated in a discussion and, asked about what the US military commanders wanted, said she wasn't sure there was a consensus but she believes "many in the military are hoping for . . . some flexibility so the drawdown deadline doesn't become hard and fast." Asked about similarities between the Cold War and the current wars, she responded, "I agree that there are parallels between those who saw a Commie behind every bush during the Cold War and those who see a terrorist behind every Mid-Eastern face now. Such generalities always backfire, causing the U.S. to spend too much, waste too much and misdirect a lot of our foreign policy effort. But here's where the difference ends: the U.S. helped topple Communism abroad by enabling dissent (not by invading) from within and standing as an ideal for those who wanted out; for many reasons we (capitalists, promoter of equal rights and free speech, etc.) are not the model that moderate Islamic governments and believers want to follow. It's a third way we have not figured out how to effectively promote." Asked to explain why Barack's draw down so closely resembles George W. Bush's statements (Jon Stewart did a mash up on The Daily Show), Preist responds Barack "was being politically expedient during the campaign when he promised at first to get out of Iraq lickety-split. His base did not listen closely when he began to hedge on that later, so now they are surprised. Sorry."

Max Delany (Christian Science Monitor) reports on Ugandans, suffering from extreme poverty, being exploited by contractors in Iraq. Paul Mugabe is paid $600 a month for being a guard at American Camp Diamondback -- while US mercenaries would make $15,000 a month for the same job -- and he observes, "If I am earning $600 a month and these companies are making billions, it is not fair." And it's not fair that US service members make pennies while the mercenaries get rich. The US military offers its own form of pennies: Fight in the US armed forces and maybe you can become a citizen! Today M-NF announced that 251 members of the US military in Iraq ("from 65 countries") took part in a naturalization ceremony becoming US citizens on March 3rd. Tuesday, M-NF noted that the age range was from 19 to 45 and from places as varied as Micronesia and Vietnam. Spc Rosemarie Narvaez is excited because, "I get the right to vote which is something I've looked forward to doing." One might think she should have that right just for being deployed to Iraq by the US government. Possibly she and others should take comfort in that they were made citizens while they were alive -- some US service members have become US citizens posthumously.

In political news from Iraq,
Ahmed Rasheed and Michael Christie (Reuters) report that, moaning over the drop in the price of oil per barrel, Iraq's Parliament has trimmed $4.2 billion from the budget ("nearly 7 percent"). For those wondering, the Parliament still has no Speaker. Meanwhile Manav Tanneeru (CNN) notes, "The Kurds, who have long sought to establish a state, have operated with relative autonomy for the past few years. They also hold oil-rich regions in the northern parts of Iraq." Daniel Williams (Bloomberg News) reports on expansion by the Kurdistan Regional Government:

Just north of Mosul, Iraq's second- biggest city, an ornamental metal gate spans the highway. Beyond it, the sunburst-on-tricolors of the Kurdistan flag proliferate in this region 20 miles (32 kilometers) south of the Kurds' agreed-to autonomous zone in the country's far northeast.
Neither Iraqi police nor soldiers venture beyond the gate.
[. . .]
In northern Nineveh Province, of which Mosul is the capital, political offices of the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan have sprouted in several villages. The parties jointly control the peshmerga -- the word means someone who is ready to die. Those forces occupy the Saddam Dam, the country's largest hydroelectric supplier of energy, which lies 35 miles northwest of Mosul.

Meanwhile, Iraqi women suffer in all provinces.
Amnesty International has issued a new report [PDF format warning] entitled "Trapped By Violence: Women In Iraq." The press release notes:

Women and girls are being attacked in the street by men with different political agendas but who all want to impose veiling, gender segregation and discrimination. Islamist armed groups have claimed and justified violent attacks on women not complying with their views.
Women are also suffering violence at the hands of their fathers, brothers and other relatives, particularly if they try to choose how to lead their lives. Many face terrible retribution if they refuse to be forcibly married or dare to associate with men not selected by their families -- even though Iraqi legislation specifically prohibits forced marriage, and the right to choose a spouse is guaranteed under international law applicable in all parts of Iraq.
Wars and conflicts, wherever they are fought, invariably usher in sickeningly high levels of violence against women and girls. Amnesty International is concerned that even if greater stability and peace return soon to Iraq, levels of violence against women may remain high if the authorities continue to allow men to kill and maim women with impunity, and if gender segregation and discrimination against women become further entrenched.
The eight page report will be covered tomorrow. The snapshot is late because it is too long (and not hitting when e-mailed) so we are quickly reducing a number of topics. Amnesty International's report will be addressed in tomorrow's snapshot. We can note right here, however, that Amenesty "International" would get a lot more respect if it treated all world leaders equally. They claim they do. And then you visit the website. Hint, check out the sidebar on the right and ask yourself when, for example, Hugo Chavez got such a following? If they don't want to be considered Amnesty "Provincial" they might try addressing (removing) that nonsense.

AP's Sinan Salaheddin reports a "cattle market south of Baghdad" was the location for a car bombing today which resulted in 10 lost lives and thirty-two people being injured. Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) adds, "The explosion occurred today in a crowded livestock market in Hamza, 30 kilometers (19 miles) south of Hillah in Babil province, President Jalal Talabani's political party, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, said on its Web site. The car had been parked near cattle traders. Rescue teams evacuated the wounded, several of whom were in serious condition, to the Hillah and al-Hashmiya hospitals, the PUK quoted Mahmoud Abd al-Rida, director of the health services in Babil, as saying." Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) notes the death toll rose to 14 and the wounded number fifty-five.

In other reported violence today . . . .


Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing left three people injured, a Baghdad roadside bombing claimed the life of one "Awakening" Council member and left three people wounded, a Mosul suicide car bombing claimed the life of the bomber and 1 Iraqi soldier and left seven people wounded. Reuters notes a Mosul car bombing that left one police officer and one woman injured and Salahuddin Province's head of education Muhsin Taha al-Mismar and his driver were wounded in a Tikrit roadside bombing (actually, just outside Tikrit).


Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Brig Gen Salam solaiman was wounded in a Baghdad shooting and 1 Iraqi service member was shot dead in Mosul last night.

The violence from the ongoing illegal war has created the world's largest refugee crisis. As noted
yesterday, Europe plans to take in only 10,000 Iraqi refugees this year. Khaled Yacoub Oweis (Reuters) reports "disappointed" is term used by Swedish Migration Board's Dan Eliasson on that that level of 'welcoming' and "Eliasson said Sweden had taken 40,000 Iraqi asylum seekers and another 40,000 Iraqi refugees, many joining family there, since a spike in sectarian violence in Iraq in 2006 but expected the number of applicants to fall this year as violence declined." The topic of Iraqi refugees came up again today at the US State Dept press breifing and spokesperson Gordon Duguid explained, "Iraqi refugees receive the same resettlement benefits from the department of State and the Department of Health and Human Services that are provided to all incoming refugees. All refugees are able to receive from the Office of Refugee Resettlement social services for up to 60 months, that is, five years. These services include employment services, employment assessment services and on-the-job training, English langague instruction, vocational training, case management, translation and interpreter services."

In the US,
Gregg Zoroya (USA Today) reports that the Pentagon offered their first estimate for brain injuries among Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans yesterday: 360,000. AP's Pauline Jelinek observes that "roughly 1.8 million" American men and women "have served in Iraq and Afghanistan" and that, prior to yesterday's announcement, the highest estimate had been by the RAND Corporation which offered the figure of 320,000. Kathy Helmick of DoD's Defense Centers of Excellence noted that this is Brain Injury Awareness month and
cautions, "A very important misconception about traumatic brain injury (TBI) is that it equals a mental health problem -- it does not. TBI does have a number of different health components including mental, behavioral, physical and spiritual, however that does not make TBI a mental health issue." The
National Council on Disability is calling for more services for those suffering from PTSD and TBI. Their chairperson John R. Vaughn states:

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are resulting in injuries that are currently disabling for many, and potentially disabling for still more. They are also putting unprecedented strain on families and relationships, strain that can contribute to the severity of the service member's disability over the course of time. The Department of Defense (DoD) and the Veterans Administration (VA) have initiated a number of improvements in the delivery of health care for service members and veterans with PTSD and TBI. They are to be congratulated for these efforts, but more needs to be done. Medical and scientific knowledge needed to comprehensively address PTSD and TBI is incomplete. However, many evidence-based practices do exist. Unfortunately, service members and veterans face a number of barriers in accessing these practices including stigma; inadequate information; insufficient services to support families; limited access to available services, and a shortage of services in some areas. Many studies and commissions have presented detailed recommendations to address these needs. There is an urgent need to implement these recommendations.

NCD [warning, upcoming document opens in Microsoft Word] issued a report yesterday entitled
Invisible Wounds: Serving Service Members and Veterans with PTSD and TBI.

In other news
Stuart Tomlinson (The Oregonian) reports Army Captain Michael Dung Nguyen has been accused of stealing "narly $700,000 in case from an emergency fund while stationed in Iraq and shipp[ing] it back to the states". KOMO notes that he has been charged and was to appear in court this afternoon. For those wondering, Michael Dung Nguyen was not one of the people named in James Glanz, C.J. Chivers and William K. Rashbaum's "Inquiry on Graft in Iraq Focuses on U.S. Officers" (New York Times). None of those named has yet to be indicted. Should they be, we will note them here.

The lies of the US press on the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement were called out here starting in November. We're returning to
Media Lens' alert because they close with a critique of some of the spinners/liars in the British press:

The above was covered by the corporate press with the same wilful gullibility that is found in its reporting on all key issues - the pattern is systematic and unvarying. Patrick Cockburn announced dramatically in the Independent:
"The pullout will bring to an end one of the most divisive wars in US history..." (Cockburn, 'Obama announces troop pullout,' The Independent, February 28, 2009)
No reasonable person could use "will" in that sentence. Honest news reporting would begin: "It is claimed...". Instead, the Independent predicted:
"31 December 2011 "The date by which all US forces will have left Iraq." (Ibid)
Ewen MacAskill wrote in the Guardian:
"Almost six years after the invasion of Iraq, the end is finally in sight for America's involvement in its longest and bloodiest conflict since Vietnam. Barack Obama yesterday set out a timetable that will see all US combat units out by summer next year and the remainder by the end of 2011." (MacAskill, 'US withdrawal: Six years after Iraq invasion, Obama sets out his exit plan,' The Guardian, February 28, 2009)
There is no reason to believe this, but it is the required 'liberal' view of the new 'liberal' president's GIN. Stated with this level of confidence it is potent propaganda. MacAskill added for good effect:
"The prospect of 50,000 staying, even if only for another year, produced dismay among the Democratic leadership in Congress."
It is an interesting and significant reality of modern press performance that the right-wing media are often more honest about 'liberal' leaders than the 'liberal' press. Compare the Independent and Guardian's take on events with Tim Reid's in Murdoch's Times: "President Obama announced the withdrawal yesterday of more than 90,000 US combat troops from Iraq by August next year but his decision to keep a force of up to 50,000 was attacked by leaders of his party as a betrayal of his promise to end the war." (Reid, 'Obama promises to pull out 90,000 troops - but keep 50,000 there,' The Times, February 28, 2009)

And we'll bump a press conference that was pretty important for tomorrow (a press conference from February) and we'll hold off on another item (which will allow us to see how the press rushes to jump on the bandwagon -- or more likely doesn't -- tomorrow ) in order to close with this from
John Pilger's "War Comes Home To Britain:"

In January last year, a report by the respected Opinion Research Business (ORB) revised an earlier assessment of deaths in Iraq to 1,033,000. This followed an exhaustive, peer-reviewed study in 2006 by the world-renowned John Hopkins School of Public Health in the US, published in The Lancet, which found that 655,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the invasion. US and British officialks immediately dismissed the report as "flawed" -- a deliberate deception. Foreign Office papers obtained under Freedom of Information disclose a memo written by the government's chief scientific adviser, Sir Roy Anderson, in which he praised The Lancet report, describing it as "robust and employs methods that are regarded as close to 'best practice' given [the conditions] in Iraq." An adviser to the prime minister commented: "The survey methodology used here cannot be rubbished, it is a tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones". Speaking a few days later, a Foreign Office minister, Lord Triesman, said, "The way in which data are extrapolated from samples to a general outcome is a matter of deep concern."The episode exemplifies the scale and deception of this state crime. Les Roberts, co-author of the Lancet study, has since argued that Britain and America might have caused in Iraq "an episode more deadly than the Rwandan genocide". This is not news. Neither is it a critical reference in the freedoms campaign organised by the Observer columnist Henry Porter. At a conference in London on 28 February, Lord Goldsmith, Blair's attorney-general, who notoriously changed his mind and advised the government the invasion was legal, when it wasn't, was a speaker for freedom. So was Timothy Garton Ash, a "liberal interventionist". On 9 April, 2003, shortly after the slaughter had begun in Iraq, a euphoric Garton Ash wrote in the Guardian: "America has never been the Great Satan. It has sometimes been the Great Gatsby: 'They were careless people, Tom and Daisy – they smashed up things...'. One of Britain's jobs "is to keep reminding Tom and Daisy that they now have promises to keep". Less frivolously, he lauded Blair for his "strong Gladstonian instincts for humanitarian intervention" and repeated the government's propaganda about Saddam Hussein. In 2006, he wrote: "Now we face the next big test of the west after Iraq: Iran." (I have italicized we). This also adheres precisely to the propaganda; David Milliband has declared Iran a "threat" in preparation for possibly the next war.

thomas e. ricks
debra sweet
john pilger
steve chapman
the washington postdana priest
gregg zoroyausa todaypauline jelinek
ahmed rasheedmichael christie
media lens
the new york timesjames glanzc.j. chiverswilliam K. rashbaum
donn bobbsinan salaheddin