Hillary is 44

This is an excerpt of the latest at Hillary is 44:

One group that supported Obama is clearly waking up from the Hopium. 2010 Obama Dimocrats have a money problem and vote problem as voters one-by-one and interest group by interest group wake up to the Obama Dimocrat lies. As individuals and groups wake up to the Obama lies they immediately close their wallets. Closed “gay” wallets are forcing Obama to try his usual FAKE today:
Mr. Obama, in an Oval Office announcement, is expected to offer details about which benefits will be provided. It is the most significant statement he has made on gay issues, and it comes as he faces intense criticism from several gay rights leaders over what they suggest has been a failure to live up to campaign promises in the first months of his presidency. [snip]
“Extending benefits to partners of gay federal employees is terrific, but at this point he is under enormous pressure from the gay civil rights community for having promised the moon and done nothing so far,” Richard Socarides, an adviser to the Clinton administration on gay issues, said Tuesday evening. “So more important now is what he says tomorrow about the future for gay people during his presidency.” [snip]
But administration officials said the timing of the announcement was intended to help contain the growing furor among gay rights groups. Several gay donors withdrew their sponsorship of a Democratic National Committee fund-raising event next week, where Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. is scheduled to speak.
With Obama it’s always about the money. Whether it’s Rezko or healthcare (Obama sent out yet another email request for money yesterday) it’s always about the money.
The presidential memorandum — scheduled for signing tomorrow at 5:45 p.m., may in the short term, give Joe Biden something positive to say at a June 25 fundraiser that has seen prominent guests drop out, a host sharply attack the administration, and which is expected to be marked by protests.
Gay “leaders” have been secretly winking and nodding and promising their constitutents for months now that Obama was going to do great things for the Gay community “soon” These Gay “leaders” were complicit in the Obama bamboozle. But now these Gay “leaders” are running to get ahead of the parade as Gay-Americans put aside the Hopium syringes:
The order is one of several lower-profile moves the administration had promised gay groups this month, but appears to have been announced this evening to stem rising protest.
There is only one way to deal with a thug and Gay “leaders” are learning Obama is a thug:
And they’re shifting toward a more confrontational strategy, which could include a march on Washington later this year.

We shoulod be all be marching. Barack is a con artist and, yes, I knew that. That's why I voted for Ralph Nader, the real deal. But just because I knew he was a con artist doesn't mean he doesn't need to be held accountable for his lies.

Hold his feet to the fire.

And the gay community did so without 'leadership,' they were the leaders. If they'd left it to their 'leaders' excuses would have continued to float down.

There's a lesson in courage and action that the LGBT community is teaching if anyone's paying attention.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Wednesday, June 17, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, Nouri offers trash talk to Le Monde, house raids and arrests in Iraq, and Gordon Brown remains stuck in the trap of his own making.

Last night the Democratically controlled US House of Representatives passed the War Supplemental. 226 members (221 Democrats, 5 Republicans) voted for it, 202 members (32 Democrats, 170 Republicans) voted against it. (Six members did not vote, three Dems, three Republicans.) Perry Bacon Jr. (Washington Post) notes that Anthony Weiner caved and broke down like a do-nothing piece of trash despite claiming he wouldn't vote for it. He is quoting saying it "sucks." Yes, and this week so does Tony. Bacon reports the strong arming efforts by "Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner" as well as US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Janet Hook (Los Angeles Times) also notes the pressure, "Administration officials and Democratic leaders intensely lobbied holdouts among the Democratic ranks in advance of the House vote. The result was close because only five Republicans supported the bill and 32 antiwar Democrats opposed it." Hook quotes cowardly George Miller who voted for it after it opposing it last month. The coward insists, "I'm against the war." David Lightman (McClatchy's Miami Herald) quotes US House Reps Dennis Kucinich and Lynn Woolsey. Kucinich wonders, "How do we support the troops? We support them by bringing them home. That's what we should be appropriating money for, not to keep them there." Woolsey declares, "I don't vote to fund the troops in these situations, ever." Cindy Sheehan (Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox) states, "I am not even remotely surprised that the new supplemental bill for war funding passed the House today." She notes the War Hawks Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Obama and Rahm Emmanuel would not have allowed a vote to be taken if they were sure it would be rammed through and that Nancy, Steny, Barack and Rahm -- as members of Congress -- "gave George Bush every damn penny for war he demanded so why wouldn't they also fill their own WAR chests?" Cindy explains how she left the Democratic Party in 2007 because of disgust over exactly these sort of actions and encourages Woolsey and Kucinich to follow her lead. It was not just Democrats who voted against the measure, obviously by the count. Paul West (Baltimore Sun) reports that his state's conservative, Roscoe Bartlett, and liberal, Donna Edwards, voted against it ("the only Marylanders to"). Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) stated this morning, "The Republicans opposed a part of the bill to increase funding for the International Monetary Fund." That's painting with a broad stroke. Ron Paul would have voted against the measure regardless of the IMF provision. And it doesn't really matter why they voted "no," what matters is they voted "no." If I'm on trial for murder and you vote me not guilty but because you like my shoes, I don't give a damn. I'm just happy you voted me not guilty. There's a purity play going on that's not helpful. And, most importantly, the House Republicans demolished the talking point that they and a lot of Democrats fell back on repeatedly: Not to vote for the war funding was to spit on the troops! No. Not voting for the war funding was not voting for the war funding and, thanks to the House vote, maybe we can avoid that loco talking point for a few years. Goodman played Kucinich stating:

We are destroying our nation's moral and fiscal integrity with the war supplemental. Instead of ending wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan now by appropriating only enough money to bring our troops home, Congress abdicates its constitutional authority, defers to the President, and asks for a report. That's right. All we're asking for is a report on when the President will end the war. [. . . .] There's money, too, for the IMF, presumably to bail out European banks, billions for the IMF, so they can force low- and middle-income nations to cut jobs, wages, healthcare and retirement security, just like corporate America does to our constitutents. And there's money to incentivize the purchase of more cars, but not necessarily from the US because a Buy America mandate was not allowed. Another $106 billion and all we get is a lousy war. Pretty soon that's going to be the only thing made in America: war.

At Kokesh for Congress, Adam Kokesh speaks with Ron Paul (video). We're getting ready to vote for the supplemental bill which is a total disaster and going exactly the opposite direction. So in time, we're going to see a change because we can't continue this, we just can't spending money, borrowing money, and then printing what you don't have. That just leads to a disaster." At Antiwar.com, Scott Horton's posted Ron Paul's remarks on the House floor regrding the War Supplemental and we'll note this section:

I wonder what happened to all of my colleagues who said they were opposed to the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wonder what happened to my colleagues who voted with me as I opposed every war supplemental request under the previous administration. It seems, with very few exceptions, they have changed their position on the war now that the White House has changed hands. I find this troubling. As I have said while opposing previous war funding requests, a vote to fund the war is a vote in favor of the war. Congress exercises its constitutional prerogatives through the power of the purse.

Jeremy Scahill (Rebel Reports) concludes, "This vote has revealed a sobering statistic for the anti-war movement in this country and brought to the surface a broader issue that should give die-hard partisan Democrats who purport to be anti-war reason for serious pause about the actual state of their party. Only 30 Democrats voted against the war funding when it mattered. And these 30 did so in the face of significant threats to their political future from the White House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. That means that only 30 out of 256 Democrats are willing to stand up to the war and the current president presiding over it."

From sell out Dems to sell out New Labour Gordon Brown. BBC reports this afternoon that "Conservatives are to step up the pressure on the government to hold the Iraq war inquiry in public by staging a Commons debate on the issue. MPs will debate a Tory motion next week calling for the Iraq proceedings to be held in public 'whenever possible'." For those late to the party, Rebecca's been following Brown's problems for weeks now and she offered last night:and, as i pointed out when he managed to skate by, his 'saved' job is not 'good news' for him. he now has to deliver.right out of the gate, gordon's already demonstrated he can't deliver and that there's been no change. which means the next time they try to oust him, he won't have a card left to play.he can't say, 'i'll be transparent this time!' he promised that before. he promised every thing to hold on to his job.and he got to hold on to his job.and he went back to doing exactly what he'd always done.gordon doesn't grasp it but that 'saving' was actually the beginning of the end.

Gordon Brown came very close to losing his prime minister post. His first action after pinky swearing he was a changed politician was to announce (Monday) a closed door inquiry into the Iraq War staffed by his friends. Michael Evans (Times of London) reports General Lord Guthire of Craigiebank feels the inquiry Brown's proposing is insufficient and says a full inquiry would also "examine Mr Brown's role in the failure to supply the Armed Forces properly." David Pamment writes the Guardian to ask, "What has happened to his promises, made little more than a week ago, to being to listen to the people and would make parliament more transparent, open and accountable? Gordon is unable to change the way he does politics. We should stop colluding with a prime minister who is deep in denial, and clearly unable to deal with his addiction to secrecy and government by cabal."
Jim McCluskey writes the Independent of London:

In setting up an investigation into an alleged crime it would seem unwise to create an investigating panel composed of employees, ex-employees and friends of the alleged criminal. If the investigating panel is then told to work in secret and not find anyone guilty there is a chance that suspicions might be aroused with respect to the authenticity of the exercise. Groans of disbelief and despair echo round the country as Mr Brown's inquiry into the Iraq war is compared with his promise of more open government. As your columnist Adrian Hamilton says (16 June) this is an insult to the citizens and to Parliament. The response must be for the citizens, against whom the alleged crime of entering into an illegal and unjust war was committed, to set up their own parallel inquiry.

Adrian Hamilton's column (mentioned in the letter above) concluded with this: "The invasion of Iraq did not have full public support, it has not ended in victory and it is impossible to deal with the questions it poses without apportioning blame. This inquiry is a classic establishment exercise in driving a thorny subject into the long grass -- par for the course, yes; predictable, no doubt; but nonetheless an insult to the public and to Parliament for all that." Chris Irvine (Telegraph of London) reports General Sir Mike Jackson is also calling out the behind-closed-doors nature Brown is proposing with Jackson saying it fees "the climate of suspicion and skepticism about government". Kim Sengupta and Michael Savage (Independent of London) note, "Senior military and intelligence officers have condemned Gordon Brown's decision to hold the Iraq war inquiry in secret, warning that it looks like a cover-up. Military leaders, who have lost 179 personnel in Iraq, want their actions judged by the public, and intelligence officials say the politicans' manipulation of intelligence should be thoroughly examined." Dubbing it "scandalous," Jonathan Steele (Guardian) wonders, "Does he [Brown] seriously imagine he can dictate its mandate and procedure on his own? At the very least, he should have discussed these issues with the leaders of other parties first. Better still, he should allow a day's debate in parliament on it." Binoy Kampmark (CounterPunch) observes, "The difficulty with this inquiry is that it already has an appearance of being toothless even before it begins in earnest. The procedure of this paper tiger will take place in camera. It has no powers of any consequence, lacking such important means as that of subpoena, relying on the goodwill of those it asks to attend. (Tony Blair will, in all probability attend to spite his long time rival, though he need not.) Evidence need not be given on oath. When ultimately published, sensitive material will be abriged for the public readership."

Joey Jones (SKY TV -- link has text and video) noted this morning that Brown's Children's Secretary Ed Balls ended up being put on the spot when he showed up for an interview on a different topic and he did say "he hoped the inquiry team would hold some hearings in public". Paul Waughn (This is London) reports Balls "threw No.10 into a panic when he suggested in a TV interview that his 'personal view' was that the Iraq inquiry should be accessible to the public." MP George Galloway of the Respect Party issued the following statement: "This was a war that has killed a million people, conceived in secrecy and justified with lies. Now we are to have an inquiry in secret presided over by figures who are thoroughly compromised. This is an insult and belies the commitment to 'transparency' that Gordon Brown made just days before. Not even the generals who carried out the orders to attack Iraq have any confidence with the terms under which the inquiry has been set up. It will not have the right to apportion blame and it will only report after the next election. This is an utterly cynical manoeuvre that will convince no-one. In the meantime, the war in Afghanistan is growing and getting worse."

From the British Parliament to the Iraq one, MP Harith al-Obeidi (also spelled Obaidi) was assassinated Friday outside his mosque. The day before he was assassinated, he had called for an independent investigation into reports of abuse and torture in Iraqi prisons. Amnesty International issues the following:


Iraq: Amnesty International calls for an independent investigation into the assassination of Dr Hareth al-'Ubaidi
In a letter sent to the Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamil al-Maliki, Amnesty International has expressed grave concern at the killing of Dr Hareth al-'Ubaidi, Vice-President of the Human Right Committee of the Iraqi parliament, and requested urgent clarification as to what steps the government has undertaken to investigate the murder. The organization has also called for an independent investigation into reports of torture of detainees in a prison in the city of al-Diwaniyah.
Dr al-'Ubaidi, who also headed the Sunni Accord Bloc in parliament, was shot dead at the end of Friday prayers on 12 June 2009 at al-Shawwaf Mosque in the Baghdad district of al-Yarmuk. After firing at Dr Hareth al-'Ubaidi with a pistol the killer is reported to have thrown a hand grenade at other prayer attendees, killing five people and injuring 12 others, before he was shot and killed by police.
A number of Iraqi parliamentarians have since denounced the killing and attributed Dr Hareth al-'Ubaidi's murder to his human rights work, especially his recent exposure of cases of torture, including rape, of detainees following a visit he undertook a few weeks ago to a women's prison in al-Kadhmiya in Baghdad. Dr al-'Ubaidi told the media that several women detained at the prison told him that they had been raped during interrogation.
Further evidence of torture of detainees is reported to have been brought to light by a human rights body affiliated to al-Diwaniyah Governorate, which has accused the security authorities of torturing detainees during interrogation in order to extract "confessions". Investigators from the Interior Ministry are reported to have identified bruising on 10 of the 170 prisoners in al-Diwaniyah Prison that may have been caused by torture or other ill-treatment.
In its letter, Amnesty International has requested prompt clarification of the steps being taken by the Iraqi authorities to investigate the attack on Dr al-'Ubaidi and other worshippers at al-Shawwaf Mosque, which it strongly condemns, and to establish whether it was perpetrated by a gunman acting alone or with the active assistance of others. Further, the organization has requested prompt clarification of the steps being taken by the Iraqi authorities to investigate the allegations of torture cited above and to bring to justice those responsible for such abuses. In accordance with Iraq's obligations under international human rights law, including the UN Torture Convention (CAT), such investigations should be independent, impartial and conducted and completed without delay. The outcome should be made public and anyone found responsible should be brought to justice through fair trial procedures and without recourse to the death penalty.
The organization has called on the Iraqi authorities to ensure that all detainees have access to regular medical care, families, lawyers of their own choosing and the right to challenge the legality of their detention. In addition, all persons in custody should either promptly charged with recognizable criminal offences and trial in accordance with international standards of fair trial, or released. Public Document
For more information please call Amnesty International's press office in London, UK, on +44 20 7413 5566 or email: press@amnesty.org
International Secretariat, Amnesty International, 1 Easton St., London WC1X 0DW, UK www.amnesty.org

al-Obeidi was assassinated Friday. Monday reports emerged of a Baghdad prison where prisoners were on a hunger strike to protest the conditions. Naturally the Ministry of the Interior runs it. And naturally no one notes that over two years ago the Ministry of the Interior was supposed to have STOPPED running prisons -- in fact, they were supposed to have only run detention centers (not prisons) and that was supposed to have een stopped with CPA Order No. 10. June 5, 2003, PDF format warning, the order in question read: "Full authority and control over all detention and prison facilities, currently exercised by the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs and the Ministry of Interior, is hereby vested in the Ministry of Justice. The Directorate of Adult Prisons and Directorate of Juvenile Prisons in the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, all facilities under their authority, and all employees thereof, are hereby transferred to the Ministry of Justice." AP reports Jawad al-Bolani, Interior Minister, assured the press that at least 40 'bad apples' employed at the prison would be fire. In other distractions, Middle East Online reports a raid today in Baghdad in which Ahmed Abed Oweiyed was arrested. Who? Exactly. Aljazeera magazine reports the claim is he's a member of al Qaeda in Iraq and he's responsible for the assassination of al-Obaidi. "Wait," you say, "a fifteen year-old . . . who turned out to be 25 or 27 depending upon reports, is supposed to have been responsible." The 'logic' goes that Ahmed Abed Oweiyed was the "mastermind" of the assassination. Al Qaeda in Iraq targeted al-Obaidi specifically because . . . Well no one's supposed to ask that. It's supposed to fall under the generic "Sunni MP too close to Shi'ite" 'logic.' Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) reports that while the convicted-let's-sentence-him claims were being made, "[o]ther officials were more cautious in their assessments. . . . Al Qaeda and Sunni hardliners accuse members of Ubaidi's Accordance Front of being traitors for taking part in the political process with a Shi'ite-led government. But Ubaidi was also a leading rights defender, in particular of Iraqi prisoners, and some fellow politicians have tried to point the finger at other potential culprits, such as Interior Ministry officials."

Kim Gamel (AP) covers the raid and also notes that Nouri al-Maliki was interviewed by Le Monde and that he states of the American troops, "We will not ask them to intervene in combat operations or in operations related to maintaing public order." Yeah, that's the feel good quote which is why we skipped it this morning -- any outlet that covers will note that and ignore all the rest. Le Monde offers a Q & A with Nouri al-Maliki entitled "Les Arabes doivent prendre Obama au sérieux." al-Maliki maintains US and Iraqi relations are "good" and must continue to have mutual respect and non-interference. (No, the US and Iraq relationship has never had either.) He claims Iraqi sovereignty is restored and, with it, civil order which allows his (puppet) government to now rule.
On the Iranian group of rebels or terrorists (considered terrorists by Iran), the ones Saddam welcomed in Iraq and the ones the US military has protected since 2003, Nouri declares that they killed Iranians (at least 12,000) in Iran and that they killed Kurds and Shi'ites once Saddam let them into Iraq. He states that no country will take them but they must leave Iraq. They have no place in Iraq, he insists, but Iraq will not turn them over to Iran.Claims Iraq will have a national identity and not a Shi'ite one or Kurdish one or Sunni one. On the Sahwa ("Awakening" Councils, "Sons Of Iraq"), Nouri states he was lied to.Nouri states the United States lied to him.Nouri states that he asked the US how many Sahwa there were and he was told only 53,000. At which point, he says, he agreed to integrate them into Iraqi forces and asked only for lists. When the lists finally arrived (he says six weeks after being requested), there weren't 53,000 names there were 107,000. He gets a snide remark about the US military officers not being very selective. He compares it to the Iraqi police of 2003-2004 which he claims were actually members of al Qaeda in Iraq or militias and argues he had to fire 30,000 such people as a result (fire from the police).He states only 20% of Sahwa will be integrated into Iraqi forces. He states many broke the laws and those who did are going to the courts. Everyone, he maintains, cannot be integrated. Nouri lies throughout and, on the point of Sahwa, he knew it was more than 50,000. The US Congress, in April of 2008, was making a very big deal about the huge number -- approximately 100,000 -- and Nouri was following those hearings (Petraeus and Crocker) and he was also given a briefing on them by then US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker.

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


Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing wounding five people.

Shootings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports armed clashes in Mosul with at least one civilian wounded and at least 1 civilian dead. Reuters note 1 man was shot dead last night in Iskandariya.

Corpses?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 6 corpses discovered in Baquba.


The US military announced: "Multi-National Division – North CONTINGENCY OPERATING BASE SPEICHER, TIKRIT, Iraq – A Multi-National Division – North Soldier died as a result of a non-combat related incident in the Ninewa province of northern Iraq June 16. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. The names of service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense official website at http://www.defenselink.mil/. The announcements are made on the website no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. The incident is under investigation." The announcement brings the total number of US service members killed in the Iraq War to 4314.

At a roundtable at the US Socialist Worker, Jeremy Scahill and Anthony Arnove discuss Barack's wars and occupations. Excerpt:

Jeremy: Let's step back and look at what we've seen happen over five months of the Obama administration when it comes to foreign policy.
We've seen a radical escalation of the war in Afghanistan. We've seen Obama continue to use a quarter-million U.S. contractors--50 percent of the force that's fighting the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. He's increasing the number of mercenaries in Afghanistan by 29 percent and approximately 23 percent in Iraq.
He's continuing the U.S. occupation of Iraq, and maintaining the monstrous U.S. embassy that was built, in part, on the basis of slave labor. He's continuing to dole out contracts to KBR, the single greatest corporate beneficiary of the war, despite the fact that its work has electrocuted U.S. soldiers.
He's pumping up the National Endowment for Democracy, the leading organ to promote U.S. neoliberal economic policy and interfere in the elections and democratic processes of countries where the outcome might not be favorable to U.S. interests. He's continuing to use the rhetoric of the war on drugs in Latin America.
Overall, he's implementing a U.S. foreign policy that in some ways--or, I think, in many ways--advances the interest of the American empire in a way the Republicans could only have dreamed of doing.
What people, I think, misunderstand about Barack Obama is that this is a man who is a brilliant supporter of empire--who has figured out a way to essentially trick a lot of people into believing they're supporting radical change, when in effect what they're doing is supporting a radical expansion of the U.S. empire.
I think that it's a bit disingenuous for people to act as if though they were somehow hoodwinked by Barack Obama about this.
If people were playing close attention during the election--not just to the rhetoric of his canned speech that he gave repeatedly, and the commercials, and the perception of his supporters was that he somehow was this transformative figure in U.S. politics, but also to the documents being produced by the Obama campaign and the specific policies he outlined--you realized that Barack Obama was very much a part of the bipartisan war machine that has governed this country for many, many decades.
What we see with Obama's policies in Iraq, Afghanistan and the broader Arab and Muslim world, as well as his global economic policies, are a continuation of the most devastating and violent policies of the Bush administration--while placing a face on it that makes it easier to expand the iron fist of U.S. militarism and the hidden hand of the free market in a way that Republicans, I think, would have been unable to do at this point in history.

Anthony: I think the key word is perception. Whether or not people were paying enough attention, it's clear that Barack Obama was able to get elected by signaling, even if only rhetorically, a shift in U.S. foreign policy. But as Jeremy points out, the continuity is really disturbing on a number of fronts.
There are striking similarities to the policies of the Bush administration. Take, for example, habeas corpus rights. The Obama administration made a lot of noise about closing down Guantánamo. Yet in a series of briefs, the Justice Department has said that prisoners held in any base other than Guantánamo don't have habeas corpus rights--for example, prisoners being held in Bagram, Afghanistan.
The administration has also filed briefs saying people in Guantánamo shouldn't have the ability to challenge their detention in civilian courts, so it's preserved the military commissions policy of the Bush administration.
In Iraq, although Barack Obama promised he would have all troops out by 2012, the ground is being laid for troops to stay in Iraq for years and years to come. The army chief of staff, Gen. George Casey, said that the Pentagon was making preparations to keep troops in Iraq until the year 2019.

Anthony thinks the key word is "perception." Fine, Anthony, let's talk perception. Let's talk about the very clear "perception" the Socialist Worker presented all through 2008 that Saint Barack, the Christ-child, was the answer to all of society's ills. And, staying with "perception," when you and Howard Zinn agree to host a Barack inaugural ball, it creates a "perception." And don't e-mail me with that excuse about how you and Howard wanted your names taken off. Had you asked, your names would have been taken off. That ball wasn't staged by strangers, it was staged by your friends. There was never, NEVER, any excuse for you or Howard to lend your names to that event.

"Perceptions"? Yeah, there are a ton of them and it's really time to own the ones that you are responsible for. It gives me no pleasure to point that out. But it needs to be said and we need to quit playing like we had bravery. We had nonsense. And it was especially disappointing to be calling out a Corporatist War Hawk in 2008 and grasp that the bulk of the Socialist Worker -- SOCIALIST! -- wouldn't even join in because they were too vested in Barry O's victory. You need to own your part in creating "perceptions." I'm not in the mood for revisionary history. You need to get honest, do a self-inventroy and take some accountability. It's not that easy, Anthony. Those of us who stood up when it mattered, who screamed loudly about the War Hawk aren't going to let those of you who promoted him suddenly pretend that they were also calling him out. Uh-uh. We put it on the line, you coasted. That's reality. You were an enabler for Barry, but you were not a liar for him. (Many others were and they get ripped apart by me here with glee. With glee!) You could have been much worse and many were and those people wouldn't get a link in any snapshot. But we're not playing that game. Too many of us stood up for the issues that mattered when they mattered and too many others coasted. There's not going to be any revisionary history. And, one other thing, Socialist Worker will never have any growth in readers in the US until it's political gas bags (I mean that gas bags, I don't mean writers-thinkers like Lance) grasp that insulting the working class doesn't make them want to read you. 2008 was a shameful period for the Socialist Worker and they either need to clean house or they need to implement a sensitivity training because the bulk of the writers demonstrated no ability to relate to the working class -- they did, however, demonstrate how much 'fun' it was for them to insult the working class. Repeatedly.

This morning I shared my thoughts re the media frenzy on Iran. Shirley and Martha say that's the big topic in the e-mails. Repeating, Kat has been covering this. Click here and here. And Jeremy Scahill weighed in this morning. And he highlights Sibel Edmonds take. It's not an Iraq subject and that was my excuse for not weighing in until this morning (also true, I've still got that stupid cold and this morning was the first morning this week I read the Times in full) but the opinion I expressed was neither novel nor unique. Kat was already on the terrain before me and you can read Jeremy and Sibel's opinions as well. All are common sense opinions and the fact that you're not getting them goes to the fact that media is trying to emote you into a war with Iran.

Iraq War veteran and conscientious objector Josh Stieber is on a cross-country trip in the US. Meghan Tierney (Maryland's Gazette) reports he's taking eight months to travel to California on foot and on bicycle. He states, "I hope to encourage people to live closer to the things they say they believe and demonstrate that violence isn't the only way to solve problems." Josh Steiber is a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War. More information on his journey can be found at Contagious Love Experiment.

Meanwhile, as Cedric and Wally noted last night, after the offensive DOMA brief (comparing same-sex relationships to incest and pedophilia) the "very least" Barack could do was to extend benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees, the very least. Kilian Melloy (Boston's The Edge) reports that "critics charge that the memorandum, which has limited scope and staying power, is an anemic gesture that will do little to redress the inequalities in federal benefits faced by gay families. Partly because of DOMA itself, full equality of family benefits for federal employees would be difficult to come by without comprehensive legislative action." USA Today adds, "Response from gay rights groups to President Obama's offer of some federal benefits to same-sex partners of government employees: The sound of one hand clapping." Holly Bailey (Newsweek) notes the offensive DOMA brief and the Don't Ask, Don't Tell cave while pointing out, "All the bad publicity prompted the White House to schedule Obama's announcement today, though an administration official insisted to Newsweek that the 'memo' had been in the works all along. Indeed, privately, White House aides have been giving the wink and nudge treatment to the gay community for weeks, saying that Obama still believes everything he said in the campaing but he's had to deal with other pressing issues. (Btw, that sounds a lot like what Obama has said about abortion.)" The Baltimore Sun observes, "Mr. Obama has been disappointingly tepid in his commitment to affirming civil rights for gays at a time when he should be not only using his powers as chief executive to extend those rights but also his powers of moral persuasion to get the country behind them."

Lastly, David Zurewik (Baltimore Sun) continually demonstrates that TV criticism need not be reduced to the Water Cooler nonsense served up by the Idiot Bellafante (who just makes up moments on TV shows she 'reviews,' click here for Ava and I noting that) and so many others but something that actually resembles thought because it is actual thought and an actual critique:

It really is a cozy game that the White House is playing with the TV news industry, and it will be too late for us as citizens when some enterprising journalist (are there any left?) chronicles it in a book that is published two years from now. But wait, she or he will have to have access to the White House to get a decent advance, which demands its own kind of getting into bed with the administration.
Perhaps, the best measure of how compliant the mainstream TV press has become is Obama's complaint Tuesday about having "one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking" his administration. Obama declined to name the "station" when asked by CNBC interviewer John Harwood -- what a childish, silly bit of gamemanship by a president. How could anyone not think it is Fox?
When Harwood said he assumed Obama was speaking of Fox, the president replied, ""That's a pretty big megaphone. You'd be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front."
Given all the reckless and irresponsible words uttered by the likes Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, I hesitate to write these words, but good for Fox. It must be doing something right, if it has the president complaining about the tiny bit of scrutiny he gets on TV.
On the other hand, if Fox News is our last, best TV watchdog on the White House, then the TV press, as well as media critics like me, should be profoundly embarassed, and vow to start doing a better job -- immediately.

iraqthe washington postperry bacon jr.the los angeles timesjanet hook
cindy sheehandavid lightmanmcclatchy newspapers
adam kokeshpaul west
killian melloy
amnesty international
amy goodmandemocracy now
mcclatchy newspaperssahar issa
waleed ibrahim
michael evanschris irvinekim sengupta
le monde
jeremy scahill
anthony arnove
david zurawik

Don't pass to Michelle, she's not open

Hillary is 44 has posted a letter from US Senator Charles Grassley (a Republican). You should read their entire post but check out this letter:



Dear Mr. Solomont:
As a senior member of the United States Senate and as the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Finance (Committee), it is my duty under the Constitution to conduct oversight into the actions of the executive branch, including the activities of the Corporation for National and Community Service (Corporation). In this capacity, I must ensure that the Corporation properly fulfills its mission of addressing a critical community need as the nation’s largest grantor supporting service and volunteering organization, as well as maintaining adequate accountability of millions of dollars in Federal funds.
An issue was recently brought to my attention by the Office of Inspector General (OIG), which concerns the misuse of Federal grant funding by St. HOPE Academy, a grantee of the Corporation. The investigation conducted by the OIG found evidence of the misuse of $850,000 of Federal grant funds provided to St. HOPE Academy from 2004 to 2007. It was reported that this particular investigation was contentious. Furthermore, according to some recent reports this investigation may have been a contributing factor in the decision to remove Inspector General Gerald Walpin. I am very concerned about the appearance that the IG’s communication with my office about this matter may have contributed to his removal. Inspectors General have a statutory duty to report to Congress. Intimidation or retaliation against those who freely communicate their concerns to Members of the House and Senate cannot be tolerated. This is especially true when such concerns are as legitimate and meritorious as Mr. Walpin’s appear to be.
In September 2008, after reviewing the facts that the OIG investigation presented, the Corporation’s Debarment and Suspension Official (Official) determined that the grantee’s two principals, Kevin Johnson and Dana Gonzalez were responsible for six acts of diverting grant funds to non-grant purposes, and found that “immediate action is necessary to protect the public interest.” In total about $850,000 was misused.
As a result, the OIG requested that the Official suspend all future Federal grant funding to both St. HOPE Academy and Kevin Johnson and Dana Gonzales individually. The Official ultimately suspended St. HOPE Academy and its principals “from participating in Federal procurement and non procurement programs and activities.” None of the respondents exercised their right to submit facts objecting to the suspension.
On April 9, 2009, a settlement lifting the suspension was executed by the Corporation’s General Counsel (GC), the designated Corporation Official, and the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California (USAO). For reasons that I do not yet understand, the OIG was excluded from this proceeding and the settlement lifting the suspension, was done in complete disregard of the OIG’s findings, as well as the previous determination of wrong doing identified in the Notice of Suspension. Perhaps the settlement agreement was reached without any input from the OIG, because less than half of what was misused by the Corporation grantees is being returned to the taxpayer and the OIG would not have agreed to this arrangement. In fact, an argument can be made that not even half of the misused funds is being returned, because the settlement does not require that payment in full be made. Rather the settlement places the grantees on a type of payment plan that will occur over a decade; to date less than 10% of the misused money has been recovered.
Not only did the evidence demonstrate that Johnson, Gonzalez, and St. HOPE misused about $850,000 in Federal grant funds, but they also acknowledged that they did not document the expenditures as required. And yet, Mr. Johnson continues to have access to Federal funds through the city of Sacramento, primarily because the settlement agreement ignored the Suspension and Debarment procedures {(2C.F.R §§180.700(b), 180.800 (a)(4),(b)} that the Federal Government put into place in order to prevent such grant misuse. These procedures are intended to protect Federal agencies by making the grantee’s accountable for the misuse of Federal funds under their control. Based upon the documents in my possession, it seems that the facts of this investigation were substantially disregarded and the blatant waste of federal taxpayer dollars were handled with little more than a slap on the wrist. [snip]
Moreover, according to documents in my possession, St. HOPE Board members ignored a Federal subpoena and erased Mr. Johnson’s emails during the course of investigation. This was discovered after Mr. Johnson’s replacement as Executive Director of St. HOPE, Rick Maya, resigned on the same date of the Settlement Agreement because of various improprieties and potential obstruction of justice issues by St. HOPE Board Members.
In light of the removal of the Inspector General, it is vital that Congress obtain a full understanding of the role that you and your colleagues at CNCS played in these matters. Accordingly, please provide any and all records, email, memoranda, documents, communications, or other information, whether in draft or final form, related to:
1) the performance of Gerald Walpin as Inspector General;

2) the removal of Gerald Walpin as the Inspector General;

3) contacts with the United States Attorney’s Office;

4) contacts with officials in the Executive Office of the President;

5) contacts with officials in the Office of the First Lady;

6) St. HOPE Academy;

7) Kevin Johnson;

8 ) or CUNY.
No records related to these matters shall be destroyed or otherwise made inaccessible to Congress. Subsequent to the production of the documents requested above, I request that you provide a detailed briefing to my staff regarding what steps you are taking to ensure that funds are not similarly misused in the future.



Now that might be one spotlight Michelle Obama decides to run from. Explain to me how, in an election where health care was allegedly important, no one showed any real interest in what exactly Michelle did on that hospital board?



Like Michelle, I play women's basketball and so I think she'll grasp what I mean when I say this, "Ain't nothing like watching a big woman fall down." Yeah, the giants fall the hardest and make the loudest noise when they drop on the court. SMACK. DOWN. You'd think the phrase was invented for the likes of Michelle.



I'm going to enjoy watching this unfold and watching Michelle I Don't Know Nothing Bout Birthing No Business try to avoid the spotlight on this one.



"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Tuesday, June 16, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, a lot people play 'proud parents' of Iraq, a call to halt executions in Iraq, and more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bombings?

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

Shootings?

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

Stabbings?

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

Kidnappings?

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

Today the US military announced: "CONTINGENCY OPERATING BASE ADDER, Iraq -- A Multi-National Division-South Soldier was killed by an improvised explosive device near the city of Samawah June 16. The Soldier's name is being withheld pending notification of next-of-kin. The name of the Soldier will be announced through the U.S. Department of Defense official Web site at http://www.defenselink.mil/. The announcements are made on the Web site no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next-of-kin." The announcement brought to 4313 the number of US service members killed in the Iraq War.

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

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



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

Anne Frank

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "CIA Diva" went up last night.



I'm not aware of a CIA director having made bitchy remarks about a former vice president before, are you? I was talking to Ann about that tonight and I will just say, read her tonight. (She's subbing for Ruth.)

I want to steer you to Rebecca's "anne frank" and the piece we wrote at Third, "Politically driven assassinations." For that piece, the following illustration was used.



That's Anne Frank and I'm very proud of that illustration because my kids did it. (With help from Kat though Kat says it was only advice and they did the entire painting themselves.)

I think it's a wonderful piece of art and think even more so for the story behind it. My sons knew of Anne Frank which is not a surprise because my grandfather read The Diary of Anne Frank to us when we were kids and my father's taken that over with his grandkids. But my daughter was considered too young during the last reading. (I'm guessing. She may have been old enough but unwilling or unable to sit still during reading time. That does happen and those kids go off with mother and do other things because reading time's supposed to be fun, not punishment.)

So we were talking about Anne Frank, the adults, Saturday and my oldest son was asking C.I. to show him a chord on the guitar, which C.I. was doing, and he's listening to the conversation (which is fine) and starts talking about what he learned from my father reading from the diary. And my other son is nodding along but my daughter's all "Ann? Ceddy's wife?" (She calls Cedric "Ceddy" and I'm sure that gets on his nerves or else he thinks, "What is this? The Steve Harvey Show?") So we're explaining it and that's mainly me because I'm trying to figure out how much she can absorb. "Because she was Jewish!" My daughter's second best friend (back in Georgia) is Jewish and that just set her off. Not in tears but in anger. Which was a huge relief to me because I'd much prefer an angry daughter than a sobbing one.

And when she found out that Friday was her birthday she said, "Mommy, we have to have a party for her." And I was patting her on the shoulder and saying, "Sure, sure." But she was serious. C.I. ended up making a cake (and started it before I realized that's what C.I. was doing or how serious my daughter was about this).

So we had a little party for Anne Frank and my daughter asked everyone to say something about Anne. And when we were about to slice the cake, she said, "Wait! Wait! If we do a painting of Anne, can it go up" (meaning up at Third)?

So, yes, it could and we all had a slice of cake. (A very good cake. C.I. made that thing from scratch including the icing. I was blown away.)

Then later on, like they usually do on Saturdays before bed time, they were doing art with Kat and they did their Anne Frank illustration.

And I had to go over to the table because there was a loud fight with my daughter screaming.

"What? What?" I asked trying to get her to stop screaming.

The problem was Anne's coat.

The photo of the coat indicated it was probably brown. My boys wanted to paint it that way. My daughter wasn't having it.

"Mommy, you used to be a girl!" I assume she means I'm older and not gender re-assigned. "You know how girls like to be pretty. She needs colors. They didn't let her have colors, she had to hide. So we're giving her colors. Tell 'em!" Meaning her two brothers.

I didn't have to because they thought she was just picking a color to be stubborn. They didn't realize how much this meant to her and that she really wanted to give Anne Frank a brightly colored coat. They told her they could even add dots of color to her hair which my daughter liked a lot.

So that's the story of the illustration.

And the story of how Anne Frank lives on as each of us learns about her.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Monday, June 15, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Gordon Brown attempts a whitewash, Sunnis under attack, Iraq stages its first state funeral over the weekend, and more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bombings?

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

Shootings?

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

Poisonings?

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

Corpses?

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

Saturday the US military announced: "BAGHDAD -- A Multi National Corps - Iraq Soldier was killed by an improvised explosive device during combat related operations June 12.The Soldier's name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin. The names of the service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense Official Web site at http://www.defenselink.mil/ . The announcements are made on the Web site no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin." The announcement brings to 4312 the number of US service members killed in the Iraq War.

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

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


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

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


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