"Opening Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold at a Hearing on Examining the History and Legality of Executive Branch 'Czars'" (Russ Feingold):
“I think it is fair to acknowledge that there has been a lot of discussion about the Obama administration’s appointment of so-called czars to various positions in the White House and other departments or agencies. I called this hearing today because I think this is a serious issue that deserves serious study. But I want to be clear that I have no objection either to the people serving as advisors to the president, or to the policy issues they are addressing. These are some very talented people working on some very important issues that this administration absolutely should be addressing, from climate change to health care. I hope that this hearing will enable us to get beyond some of the rhetoric out there and have an informed, reasoned, thoughtful discussion about the constitutional issues surrounding the president’s appointment of certain executive branch officials.
“I should note that while the term ‘czar’ has taken on a somewhat negative connotation in the media in the past few months, several presidents, including President Obama, have used the term themselves to describe the people they have appointed. I assume they have done so to show the seriousness of their effort to address a problem and their expectations of those they have asked to solve it. But historically, a czar is an autocrat, and it’s not surprising that some Americans feel uncomfortable about supposedly all-powerful officials taking over areas of the government.
“While there is a long history of the use of White House advisors and czars, that does not mean we can assume they are constitutionally appropriate. It is important to understand the history for context, but often constitutional problems creep up slowly. It’s not good enough to simply say, ‘well, George Bush did it too.’
“Determining whether these czars are legitimate or whether they will thwart congressional oversight requires analysis of the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and a discussion of some complicated constitutional and administrative law principles. I am therefore very pleased that we have such an accomplished group of witnesses who can help us determine whether there is a basis for concern here or not, and if so, what are possible remedies that Congress ought to consider. I want to thank the Ranking Member, Senator Coburn, for helping to put together this distinguished panel.
“I think it is helpful to break down the officials whose legitimacy has been questioned into three categories to better understand the potential legal issues. The first group are positions that I have no concerns about, and frankly, no one else should either. These positions were created by statute and are subject to advice and consent from the Senate. For example, some have called Dennis Blair the Intelligence Czar. But he is the Director of National Intelligence, a position created by Congress based on the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. Like his predecessors Mike McConnell and John Negroponte, he was confirmed by the Senate. Calling him a ‘czar’ does not make him illegitimate or extra-constitutional. There are roughly nine officials that fall into this category, yet have appeared on some lists of czars. Any serious discussion of this issue has to conclude that there is no problem with these posts.
“The second category of positions also does not appear to be problematic, at least on its face. These are positions that report to a Senate confirmed officer, for example, a Cabinet Secretary. All of these positions are housed outside of the White House and all of these officials’ responsibilities are determined by a superior who Congress has given the power to prescribe duties for underlings. I will leave it to our distinguished constitutional law experts to further discuss this category, but as I understand it, these officials are likely to be considered ‘inferior officers’ under the Appointments Clause, and therefore they are not automatically required to be subject to advice and consent of the Senate. Most of these positions are also housed within parts of the government that are subject to open records laws like the Freedom of Information Act, and many of them have already appeared to testify before Congress. Indeed, of the 32 czars on a prominent media list, 16 have testified this year and two others are in positions where their predecessors under President Bush or Clinton testified. There does not appear to be a constitutional problem with these positions in theory, although it is possible people could identify one in practice, if for example, some of these people were determined to be taking away authority or responsibility from a Senate-confirmed position. However, I do not have any reason at this point to believe that to be the case.
“I am most interested in the third category of positions, and I think we are talking about fewer than 10 people, in part because we know the least about these positions. These officials are housed within the White House itself. Three weeks ago, I wrote to the President and requested more information about these positions, such as the Director of the White House Office of Health Reform and the Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change. The response to that letter finally came yesterday, and I will put the response in the record and plan to question our witnesses about it.
“The White House decided not to accept my invitation to send a witness to this hearing to explain its position on the constitutional issues we will address today. That’s unfortunate. It’s also a bit ironic since one of the concerns that has been raised about these officials is that they will thwart congressional oversight of the Executive Branch.
“The White House seems to want to fight the attacks against it for having too many ‘czars’ on a political level rather than a substantive level. I don’t think that’s the right approach. If there are good answers to the questions that have been raised, why not give them instead of attacking the motives or good faith of those who have raised questions?
“No one disputes that the president is allowed to hire advisors and aides. In fact, the president is entitled, by statute, to have as many as fifty high-level employees working for him and making top salaries. But Congress and the American people have the right to ensure that the positions in our government that have been delegated legal authority are also the positions that are exercising that authority. If – and I am not saying this is the case -- individuals in the White House are exercising legal authority or binding the executive branch without having been given that power by Congress, that’s a problem. And Congress also has the right to verify that any directives given by a White House czar to a Cabinet member are directly authorized by the president.”
Senator Russ Feingold attempted to stand up for democracy and open government today. Stan and I discussed it and felt that was the thing to highlight. We also weren't interested in the 'great Digby' and Bob Somerby's uninformed praise of the little whore who stayed silent while Hillary was ripped to shreds.
See, speaking out would have cost her links. Speaking out would have meant having a spine.
Little whores like Digby never do anything that might cost them. It's only the courageous, people like C.I., who will take on AlterNet or BuzzFlash or others -- doing the right thing while knowing that links will be pulled as a result.
The strong woman is C.I. The weak little whore is Digby.
Digby refused to call out the liars attacking Hillary throughout 2008. Because more important to her than the truth is being linky loved. She's just a whore.
And she's also a liar. I've spoken of that many times and how I find it hilarious that after Ava and C.I. and I have talked honestly online about the way women get treated by men, suddenly Digby shows up stealing our stories. She's just a whore. There is no other word for her. She's as bad as Adam Nagourney or any other big media whore only she's small media getting smaller.
It takes a lot of nerve to steal the pain of others and pass it off as your own. But that's what the little whore did.
I won't be noting Bob Somerby tomorrow and find it hysterical that he's going to applaud someone who stayed silent while Hillary was smeared last year with all those 90s right-wing lies and was smeared with sexism and so much more.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Tuesday, October 6, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, the targeting of Iraq's LGBT population gets some press attention, Cindy Sheehan and others protest the continued wars, and more.
Earlier this year, four Iraqi gay males -- Fadi, Ahmed, Mazen and Namir -- discussed the targeting of Iraqi gays in a Baghdad cafe. Within a month, two of the four would be executed for the 'crime' of being gay. Matt McAllester (New York Magazine) notes them in his report on the continued assault on Iraq's LGBT population which observes:
As virulent as the violence against gay people (men mostly) was, it operated at a kind of low hum for many years, overshadowed by the country's myriad other problems. But in February of this year, something changed. There was no announcement, no fatwa, no openly declared policy by a cleric or militia leader or politician, but a wave of anti-gay hysteria hit the country. An Iraqi TV station, with disapproving commentary, showed a video of a group of perhaps two dozen young men at a private dance party, wiggling their hips like female belly dancers. Terms like the third sex and puppies, a newly coined slur, began to appear in hostile news reports. Shia and Sunni clerics started to preach in their Friday sermons about the evils of homosexuality and "the people of Lot." Police officers stepped up their harassment of openly gay men. Families and tribes cast out their gay relatives. The bodies of gay men like Mazen and Namir, often mutilated, began turning up on the street. There is no way to verify the number of tortured or harassed, but the best available estimates place that figure in the thousands. Hundreds of men are believed to have been killed.
Yesterday on NPR's Talk of the Nation (here for audio and transcript links) discussed the issue with Matt McAllester.
Neal Conan: As the conditions improved in Iraq, general security, the militias had time to start feeling that gay people were a real threat and punishing them.
Matt McAllester: Yeah. I'm not sure that they ever felt that they were a threat. I felt that there was, in a sense, there seemed to have been a lack of targets. American troops were armed, much less visible and much less numerous and really just aren't in the major cities in Iraq anymore. The government of Iraq is much stronger than military and police forces in Iraq. And the power of the militias has faded in terms of the civil war that was going on and really has been over for sometime. So some of the militias, one in particular, Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, which had been extremely powerful, had lost their sort of raison d'etre in their power base, and, in a sense, needed someone to pick on. And there was no more hated and is no more hated group across just about every ethnic barrier that you can think of and social group in Iraq than gay people. And --
Neal Conan: Yeah. You just described them as being utterly defenseless. There is no --
Matt McAllester: Mm-hmm.
Neal Conan: -- political advantage to anyone in Iraq for standing up for the rights of homosexuals.
Matt McAllester: That's right. I mean, it's incredibly difficult to get any comment from the Iraqi government about this. They're just not even comfortable talking about it. It took me several weeks, I think it was - certainly many days to get any response from the Iraqi embassy in Washington, and none that I get at all from emails that I sent to Iraqi government spokesman in Baghdad. Other journalists have had this problem in the past. It's not even something they're happy talking about it.
Nor is it something that the US State Dept or White House is "happy talking about" which is why they avoid the topic and are aided in that avoidance by a domestic press corps that finds the issue too 'icky' to bring up. (The one time the issue was seriously raised in a State Dept briefing, the correspondent pressing the issue was with BBC News.)
Matt McAllester and Neal Conan discuss "Nouri" (not his real name) and how he was not only targeted, not only kidnapped, but it was done by the Interior Ministry and he was taken to one of their prisons (they have many -- most 'off the books') where he was shown five corpses and told that was his fate if his family didn't pay a ransom.
Kidnapping is just another way to raise additional funds apparently. Richard Kerbaj (Times of London) reports how it "has overtaken burglaries, robberies, car theft and other crimes to become the biggest criminal activity in many areas of Baghdad, an investigation by The Times has discovered insurgents and gangsters are increasingly using abducted children to raise funds for terrorism operations and personal wealth." Kerbaj explains how posters of mmissing children have become common in Baghdad's richer neighborhoods while, in "unstable neighborhoods," "several children were found beheaded and dumped in the rubbish after their parents failed to come up with ransom payments." That was the fate of 11-year-old Muhsin Mohammed Muhsin whose parents were unable to raise "$100,000 in 48 hours".
That's 'liberated' and 'democratic' Iraq. Where children and the LGBT community (along with Iraqi Christians and many others) are targeted with nary a word from the US administration and little interest from the press. Grasp that despite all the money spent, it wasn't the Times of New York that reported on the kidnappings, it was the Times of London. The paper that sold the illegal war (Times of New York) seems to think that they deserve praise when they manage to do a violence brief once or twice a week -- the sort of thing Reuters does daily without breaking a sweat.
Though the US press largely lost interest in Iraq, US forces did not leave the country. And today the US military announced: "A Soldier assigned to Multi-National Division-South died of a non-combat related injury October 6. The Soldier's name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin." The announcement brings the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4349.
Since the start of the illegal war? Today US House Rep Dennis Kucinich observes, "Seven years ago this week the House of Representatives debated the Iraq War Resolution which was presented by President Bush. I made the case for NOT going to war. I analyzed the Bush war resolution, paragraph by paragraph, and pointed out 'Key Issues' which argued against Congress voting to go to war. I distributed the attached analysis, personally, to over 200 members of Congress from October 2, 2002 until October 10, 2002 when the vote occurred. When you hear people say: 'If only we had known then what we know now,' remember, some did know of the false case for war against Iraq. And since so many know now that we should not have gone to war against Iraq, then why are we still there?" A good question and we'll end the snapshot with Kucinich's list, but first.
As noted in yesterday's snapshot, protests took place in DC yesterday against the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, Guantanamo and US government torture policies. Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan was present, protesting outside the White House where she was arrested. Kelly Marshall (CNN) notes Cindy observed "that President Obama has been in office long enough to start working towards peace in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that his supporters want him to make those changes." Marshall then notes xenophobic fat-boy Robert Gibbs issued some prattle. Left unstated was that Robert Gibbs was a huge, huge cheerleader for an Iraq War in 2002 and 2003. Brian Montopoli (Political Hotsheet, CBS News) notes Cindy was arrested "dressed all in black with the words 'greed kills' printed on her chest" after she chained "herself to a White House fence as part of a protest against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq." Garance Franke-Ruta (Washington Post) reports on Monday's protests here. Cindy (Cindy Sheehan's Soap Box) observes, "I had just walked back into my hotel room yesterday after chaining myself to the White House fence and being arrested, when I saw White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, say that removing troops from Afghanistan was 'not an option'. When I saw such a quick response to our protest, I was angry, of course, but I was also excited. First of all, when Obama said that we had to 'make him do it,' I knew Obama was just blowing smoke out of his hind end, like he blows cigarette smoke out of his mouth. Secondly, I know we are being heard and I have complete realistic hope that this is the time for US in the USA to make a difference." Yunji de Nies and Sunlen Miller (ABC News -- link has text and video) report on Cindy's announcement to move to DC and her protesting today and quote her stating, "We're going to create a movement that's going to demand a change of policy. It's going to be massive." How so? Cindy writes:
To that end, we are organizing the most ambitious anti-war, peace event ever. We are planning what we are calling, Peace of the Action which will be the largest, most aggressive and sustained action ever done in DC. We are calling for 5000 people to commit to come to this Nation's Capitol to participate in daily civil resistance to stop "business as usual," because "business as usual" in this town is so corrupt and disordered. We are not calling for this commitment for a day, a week, or a month. We are not even interested in making symbolic gestures. We are calling for this commitment until our demands of: All troops and para-military mercenaries, are ordered out of Iraq and Afghanistan, the drone bombings in the tribal regions of Af-Pak are discontinued and we get about the business of healing, reconciliation and REPARATIONS. I am going to move to DC to help coordinate these actions and I will be 100% committed with you to be: "all in it to win it." This time true change will happen, it must.
An Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy writes in "Why U.S. shouldn't Give Iraq the Blind Eye?" (Inside Iraq):For all past years I have been against the presence of the U.S. troops in Iraq, and I still am. This war brought nothing but sorrow for families in both countries. But I think the U.S. government and the people of America shouldn't put Iraq in the dark far corner for good reasons, I believe. Let the soldiers leave Iraq, let the country restore its national unity. Let it have its problems and solve them internally; let the country find its own way -- but don't let the people down. Six years after the U.S. led invasion of Iraq, Iraqi civilians are still the biggest casualty of war. Six years after what was supposed to be an easy swift and welcomed liberation, Iraqi civilians and U.S. soldiers are dying because of that invasion.
And the dying continues today throughout Iraq -- with most attention on an Amiriyah bombing. Anthony Shadid (Washington Post) reports 9 dead from the truck bombing "in front of a restaurant" in which "the explosion was so powerful that corpses were hurled onto the roofs of neighboring buildings. The victims appeared to be civilians, police and members of Sons of Iraq [Sahwa, "Awakenings"], a U.S.-backed militia that fought the insurgency in 2007 and 2008." Xinhua adds that thirty-one people were wounded. Fadhel al-Badrani, Tim Cocks and Andrew Dobbie (Reuters) provide this context: "It was the second big bomb in the large, desert province in as many days. On Monday, a suicide bomber walked into an Iraqi funeral tent and blew himself up in the western town of Haditha, killing at least six mourners."
That was far from the only violence today in Iraq. Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two Baghdad roadside bombings which claimed 1 life and left six people injured, another Baghdad bombing (on a blast wall) which claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier and left four people injured, a Mosul roadside bombing which wounded two people and, dropping back to Monday, notes a Basra liquor store was bombed.
Robberies?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a robbery at a Basra currency exchange today in which 2 people (owner and employee) were killed, a third person was wounded and $150,000 was stolen.
We're low on space. Adam Lictenheld and Byron Moore (DC Bureau) are examining contractors and the way they US service members lives were risked in Iraq and a four-part series entitled "No Contractor Left Behind." Click here for part one. DC Bureau notes:
Using videotaped depositions from KBR workers and internal company documents, No Contractor Left Behind shows KBR knew about the presence of sodium dichromate at Qarmat Ali early in 2003, but failed -- even after repeated warnings from its own safety managers -- to properly notify KBR employees and military personnel. When the company finally performed an environmental evaluation of Qarmat Ali it found extremely toxic levels of the chemical at the facility. Yet KBR has continued to deny that it recklessly exposed U.S. troops to the deadly poison.
The Defense Department also tried to downplay soldiers' concerns that their health problems are a direct result of their exposure at Qarmat Ali. The Army has relied on a faulty medical test performed on its National Guardsmen back in 2003 - a test that a leading sodium dichromate expert told DCBureau.org was inadequate. The Department of Veterans Affairs has used these findings to deny health coverage to sick veterans.
Congress, meanwhile, has entrusted the Qarmat Ali probe -- and the slew of contracting scandals that have plagued the Pentagon over the past half-decade - to the Democratic Policy Committee (DPC). But the DPC lacks the power to subpoena documents and compel testimony, rendering it unable to conduct a full investigation. Despite Qarmat Ali being the most recent controversy in a string of accusations against KBR including contracting fraud, bribery, wrongful death, sexual assault, and shoddy work that has killed several soldiers, KBR remains the Army's largest war contractor.
Regarding the DPC, the point is valid and it's one Kat's made her site repeatedly.
We'll close with US House Rep Dennis Kucinich's "Analysis of Joint Resolution on Iraq" from October 2, 2002 (a) because Dennis has a right to say "I was right" and (b) he appears to be the only one who remembers this took place seven years ago:
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq; KEY ISSUE: In the Persian Gulf War there was an international coalition. World support was for protecting Kuwait. There is no world support for invading Iraq. Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism; Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated; KEY ISSUE: UN inspection teams identified and destroyed nearly all such weapons. A lead inspector, Scott Ritter, said that he believes that nearly all other weapons not found were destroyed in the Gulf War. Furthermore, according to a published report in the Washington Post, the Central Intelligence Agency has no up to date accurate report on Iraq's WMD capabilities. Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998; KEY ISSUE: Iraqi deceptions always failed. The inspectors always figured out what Iraq was doing. It was the United States that withdrew from the inspections in 1998. And the United States then launched a cruise missile attack against Iraq 48 hours after the inspectors left. In advance of a military strike, the US continues to thwart (the Administration's word) weapons inspections. Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235); Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; KEY ISSUE: There is no proof that Iraq represents an imminent or immediate threat to the United States. A "continuing" threat does not constitute a sufficient cause for war. The Administration has refused to provide the Congress with credible intelligence that proves that Iraq is a serious threat to the United States and is continuing to possess and develop chemical and biological and nuclear weapons. Furthermore there is no credible intelligence connecting Iraq to Al Qaida and 9/11. Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait; KEY ISSUE: This language is so broad that it would allow the President to order an attack against Iraq even when there is no material threat to the United States. Since this resolution authorizes the use of force for all Iraq related violations of the UN Security Council directives, and since the resolution cites Iraq's imprisonment of non-Iraqi prisoners, this resolution would authorize the President to attack Iraq in order to liberate Kuwaiti citizens who may or may not be in Iraqi prisons, even if Iraq met compliance with all requests to destroy any weapons of mass destruction. Though in 2002 at the Arab Summit, Iraq and Kuwait agreed to bilateral negotiations to work out all claims relating to stolen property and prisoners of war. This use-of-force resolution enables the President to commit US troops to recover Kuwaiti property. Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council; KEY ISSUE: The Iraqi regime has never attacked nor does it have the capability to attack the United States. The "no fly" zone was not the result of a UN Security Council directive. It was illegally imposed by the United States, Great Britain and France and is not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution. Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; KEY ISSUE: There is no credible intelligence that connects Iraq to the events of 9/11 or to participation in those events by assisting Al Qaida. Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens; KEY ISSUE: Any connection between Iraq support of terrorist groups in the Middle East, is an argument for focusing great resources on resolving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. It is not sufficient reason for the US to launch a unilateral preemptive strike against Iraq. Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations; KEY ISSUE: There is no connection between Iraq and the events of 9/11. Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself; KEY ISSUE: There is no credible evidence that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. If Iraq has successfully concealed the production of such weapons since 1998, there is no credible evidence that Iraq has the capability to reach the United States with such weapons. In the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq had a demonstrated capability of biological and chemical weapons, but did not have the willingness to use them against the United States Armed Forces. Congress has not been provided with any credible information, which proves that Iraq has provided international terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949; KEY ISSUE: The UN Charter forbids all member nations, including the United States, from unilaterally enforcing UN resolutions. Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677"; KEY ISSUE: The UN Charter forbids all member nations, including the United States, from unilaterally enforcing UN resolutions with military force. Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688"; KEY ISSUE: This clause demonstrates the proper chronology of the international process, and contrasts the current march to war. In 1991, the UN Security Council passed a resolution asking for enforcement of its resolution. Member countries authorized their troops to participate in a UN-led coalition to enforce the UN resolutions. Now the President is asking Congress to authorize a unilateral first strike before the UN Security Council has asked its member states to enforce UN resolutions. Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime; KEY ISSUE: This "Sense of Congress" resolution was not binding. Furthermore, while Congress supported democratic means of removing Saddam Hussein it clearly did not endorse the use of force contemplated in this resolution, nor did it endorse assassination as a policy. Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable"; Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary; KEY ISSUE: Unilateral action against Iraq will cost the United States the support of the world community, adversely affecting the war on terrorism. No credible intelligence exists which connects Iraq to the events of 9/11 or to those terrorists who perpetrated 9/11. Under international law, the United States does not have the authority to unilaterally order military action to enforce UN Security Council resolutions. Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations; KEY ISSUE: The Administration has not provided Congress with any proof that Iraq is in any way connected to the events of 9/11. Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations; KEY ISSUE: The Administration has not provided Congress with any proof that Iraq is in any way connected to the events of 9/11. Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that Iraq has harbored those who were responsible for planning, authorizing or committing the attacks of 9/11. Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and KEY ISSUE: This resolution was specific to 9/11. It was limited to a response to 9/11. Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region; KEY ISSUE: If by the "national security interests" of the United States, the Administration means oil, it ought to communicate such to the Congress. A unilateral attack on Iraq by the United States will cause instability and chaos in the region and sow the seeds of future conflicts all other the world. Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq". SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to- (a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and (b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions. KEY ISSUE: Congress can and should support this clause. However Section 3 (which follows) undermines the effectiveness of this section. Any peaceful settlement requires Iraq compliance. The totality of this resolution indicates the Administration will wage war against Iraq no matter what. This undermines negotiations. SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1)defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2)enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq. KEY ISSUE: This clause is substantially similar to the authorization that the President originally sought. It gives authority to the President to act prior to and even without a UN resolution, and it authorizes the President to use US troops to enforce UN resolutions even without UN request for it. This is a violation of Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which reserves the ability to authorize force for that purpose to the Security Council, alone. Under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace... and shall make recommendations to maintain or restore international peace and security." (Article 39). Only the Security Council can decide that military force would be necessary, "The Security Council may decide what measures... are to be employed to give effect to its decisions (Article 41) ... [and] it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security." (Article 43). Furthermore, the resolution authorizes use of force illegally, since the UN Security Council has not requested it. According to the UN Charter, members of the UN, such as the US, are required to "make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces..." (Article 43, emphasis added). The UN Security Council has not called upon its members to use military force against Iraq at the current time. Furthermore, changes to the language of the previous use-of-force resolution, drafted by the White House and objected to by many members of Congress, are cosmetic: In section (1), the word "continuing" was added to "the threat posed by Iraq". In section (2), the word "relevant" is added to "United Nations Security Council Resolutions" and the words "regarding "Iraq" were added to the end. While these changes are represented as a compromise or a new material development, the effects of this resolution are largely the same as the previous White House proposal. The UN resolutions, which could be cited by the President to justify sending US troops to Iraq, go far beyond addressing weapons of mass destruction. These could include, at the President's discretion, such "relevant" resolutions "regarding Iraq" including resolutions to enforce human rights and the recovery of Kuwaiti property. PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION. In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and (2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. (c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. - (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. - Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. - Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS (a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998). (b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress. (c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1. Dennis J Kucinichwww.Kucinich.us
iraq
npr
cnn
cindy sheehan
cbs newsbrian montopoli
abc newssunlen miller
the washington postanthony shadid
fadhil al-badranitim cocksangus mcswan
mcclatchy newspaperslaith hammoudi
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Monday, October 05, 2009
Mondays
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Dream Team Take Two."
That's priceless and Valerie Jarrett and Oprah really perfect. Brilliant. Also brilliant was Kat's "Kat's Korner: Combo is the answer" -- her review of Barbra Streisand's new album.
"THOMAS PLAYS THE FOOL! Evan Thomas played the fool—and helped us recover some history" (Bob Somerby, The Daily Howler):
Last Thursday, Chris Matthews played the fool in a session with Branch. (See THE DAILY HOWLER, 10/2/09.) Sunday, it was Thomas’ turn. He reviewed Branch’s fascinating book in the Washington Post’s Outlook section.
As with Matthews, so with Thomas. Branch’s book covers a wide range of topics, topics defining a decade of history. But one sole topic remains in the minds of journalistic children like these: Clinton’s disastrous mini-affair with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. Little else entered Matthews’ head during his silly session with Branch. Little else seems to have occurred to our poor floundering Thomas.
What did Clinton tell Taylor Branch about the war conducted on his health care proposal? That topic might even seem relevant now. But not to millionaire toad stools like these, who are hired to go on TV and pretend to be a “press corps.” When fellows like Matthews and Thomas skim books, they look for talk about “that woman”—and for little else.
Only one other topic intrudes: Each fellow was brought up short by Clinton’s inappropriate, real-time comments about their own fraternal order—about the Washington “press.” When Thomas discusses this part of the book, he provides real comedy entertainment. In the process, he helps us see how our recent history has been stolen and lost—disappeared.
And this same refusal to focus on issues by the press? It's why we have Barack in the White House and not Hillary. Hillary gave them real issues and they just wanted to talk sex. Hillary gave them substance and they wanted to mock her.
The country's in huge trouble -- multiple wars, the economy, etc. -- and we needed a real leader. That leader was Hillary. We didn't get her. They took her out.
And we suffer as a result.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Monday, October 5, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Iraqi Christians remain under attack but the attacks have been amplified, Camp Ashraf residents are ordered released but get tortured instead, the US sends more troops to Iraq, and more.
In Iraq, various populations are targeted -- including women who are targeted regardless of sect, religion, education, what have you. Among the targeted groups are Iraqi Christians. Today alarms are sounded again against assaults on Christians. Xinhua interviewed Archbishop Lois Sako who tells them, "It seems clear that the operations of targeting Christians have returned again. Before kidnapping the Christian man Imad Eila two days ago, there were several incidents occurred against other Christians in Kirkuk such as the killing of one of them, kidnapping a physician, and the storming of two houses of Christians by unknown gunmen in the city. These horrible attacks against the Christian families here began to arouse horror among the unprotected minority, and the new attacks also raise fears of a new wave of violence against us." Alsumaria adds, "Then families comprising around 60 people have left the city last week in fear of being targeted for political motiviations or because of religious unawareness". ZENIT explans that Imade Elias Abdul Karim, a Christian nurse, was kidnapped in Kirkuk last night and is corpse was discovered today. Asia News explains that he was tortured to death, that he leaves behind two children. September 27th, Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reported Dr. Mehasin Basheer has been released after being kidnapped from her Bartala home. AFP revealed the "Chrisitan doctor [was] abducted by an armed gang overnight from her home" in northern Iraq and quote a police officer stating, "The gang kidnapped the doctor, Mahasin Bashir, in her home late at night, as her children watched." Hammoudi says a ransom was paid. Doctors and Christians have been repeatedly targeted in Iraq and, at this point, it's not known if Dr. Basheer was targeted for either of those reasons or something else. September 24th's snapshot included, "INA reports that Dr. Sameer Gorgees Youssif was released by his kidnappers following his August 18th abduction. The explain the fifty-five year-old man is at least the fourth doctor kidnapped in Kirkuk in the last two years. His family paid $100,000 for his release. His injuries include sever pressure uclers along the right side of his body, 'open wounds around his mouth and wrists' (from being bound and gagged) and bruises all over his body." Like Dr. Basheer, Dr. Youssif is both a medical doctor and a Christian. Jareer Mohammed (Azzaman) noted the kidnapping of Dr. Basheer and that "Basheer serves in a small hospital in the Christian village of Bartella, just a few kilometers to the east of Mosul. More attacks targeting the string of Christian villages to the east and north of Mosul have occurred recently. Christian liquor shops are attacked and owners either kidnapped or killed. The villages have preserved their Christian identity for centuries but the inhabitants now seriously fear for their future." Over the weekend, Last week, John Pontifex (Aid to the Church in Need) explained:
CHRISTIANS in Iraq are beginning to flee the only place where they thought they were safe -- their ancient homelands in the Nineveh plains. Reports have come in from clergy in the north of the country that in the past few months, a slow but steady emigration has got under-way from the villages and towns close to Mosul city, which trace their heritage back to the earliest Christian centuries. It comes after warnings of another blow to the Church expected in the immediate run-up to the January 2010 general elections. With government ministers publicly expecting a surge in violence as people prepare to go to the polls, Church leaders fear that a new security crisis could spark another mass exodus of Christians, which in some areas may mean the departure of the last remaining faithful. In an interview with the Catholic charity Aid to the Church in Need, leading Iraqi priest Fr Bashar Warda made clear that Christians in the Nineveh region are now beginning to feel threatened by the kind of security problems which have blighted the lives of people in so many other parts of the country.
Speaking from northern Iraq today (Monday, 28th September), Fr Warda told the charity for persecuted and other suffering Christians: "I am sad to say that the emigration of Christian families that we have seen in places like Mosul and Baghdad has now begun to affect the Nineveh area. "We are not seeing -- at least not yet -- a large emigration from places like Alqosh and other [Nineveh] villages but it is definitely happening." Fr Warda said he could not give precise estimates of the number leaving the region but he said that a number of exclusively Christian villages have each been losing 30 or 40 faithful every month, sometimes more. The news has added significance because the many almost completely Christian villages in the region had become a refuge for faithful under threat in other parts of the region.
UPI reminds, "The Christian community in Iraq was the target of attacks in late 2008, forcing nearly half of the population to seek refuge in neighboring Syria."
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing which wounded four people (one was a police officer), a Mosul hand grenade explosion claimed the life of 1 child, an Al Sinuni car bombing which injured Peshmerga with either three wounded or over thirty, a Mosul roadside bombing wounded two police officers, a Mosul roadside bombing wounded two Iraqi soldiers, a Mosul roadside bombing injured one person, a Falluja sticky bombing claimed 1 life and wounded two people and a Falluja roadside bombing injured one person. Fadhil al-Badrani, Tim Cocks and Angus MacSwan (Reuters) report a Haditha suicide bomber took his own life and the lives of "at least six mourners" in a funeral tent with at least fifteen more people left injured.
Shootings?
Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 man was shot by Iraqi security forces in Mosul. Reuters notes the person was a civilian.
Meanwhile September 24th, there was a prison break in Tikrit with sixteen prisoners escaping and, by the 25th, 6 of the 16 were said to have been captured. CNN reported 2 more escapees were captured on the 26th during "house-to-house searches" for a total of 8 prisoners now captured. Fang Yang (Xinhua) reported September 29th that three more were captured (9 total) and that, with the latest three, all five who were on death row have been captured. Yang notes Col Mohammed Salih Jbara ("head of anti-terrorism department of Salahudin province) has been "sacked" as a result of the prison escape. Anne Tang (Xinhua) reported Sunday that two more escapees were captured "bringing the number of recaptured prisoners to 11".
Staying on the topic of Iraqi, prisons, members of the MEK are being held in them. Backtracking,July 28th was when the assault on Camp Ashraf by Nouri al-Maliki's 'troops' began. During Saddam's time, Iranian exiles were allowed safe harbor in Iraq. The exiles were leftists who were opposed to the religious fundamentalist leaders following the toppling of the Shah (the exiles did not favor the Shah). They utilized violence and are known as the People's Mujahedeen Organization of Iran or the MEK. They remained in Iraq in the 80s, the 90s and this decade. The European Union and England are among the organizations and countries that listed the MEK as a terrorist group -- past tense. The MEK has renounced violence and was removed from the terrorist listing. The US still has the MEK listed as a terrorist organization. There were efforts to remove it from that listing by Congress beginning in 2008; however, the previous administration wasn't interested in that or anything else to do with MEK. It is a hot button issue and it was ignored repeatedly by the Bush administration. This is one of the hot potatoes dropped into the current administration's lap. I have no problem criticizing the Barack Obama administration (or criticizing Barack) but this was a problem that was dumped in their lap. That said, there's no excuse all this time later for no movement on it. The US military brass in Iraq tends to feel the same way and look askance at Chris Hill. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports today that the 36 MEK members who were hauled off during the July assault on Camp Ashraf were beaten and then "forcibly transferred [. . .] to a remote southern prison despite an Iraqi judge's order to free them, the judge and the group's leader said Monday."
This was the third ruling to release the 36 according to Rebecca Lowe (Edgware & Mill Hill Times) who reports on the UK protests outside the US Embassy in support of the Camp Ashraf residents -- 20 people have been on a hunger strike since Nouri's assault on Camp Ashraf and 300 people joined the fasters on Saturday to demonstrate their solidarity. From the start of the Iraq War until the start of this year, Camp Ashraf has been under US protection. Nouri now has control of it and has no interest in keeping his promise to offer protection. Ron Naso (KCBS -- audio link) reports on protests in the Bay Area where twenty-five gathered to show their support for the residents of Camp Ashraf and chanted, "US, US recognize, Ashraf residents human rights!" and "President Obama, take action! Take back Ashraf protection!"
Al Jazeera's latest installment of Inside Iraq began airing on Friday. The topic explored was the sanctions on Iraq for that country's armed assault on Kuwait under the previous leadership of Saddam Hussein.
Jasim Azawi: To discuss the continued tension between Iraq and Kuwait, I'm joined by an Iraqi professor at Baghdad University Saad Naji Jawad and by Abdullah Alshayji, chairman of the American studies unit at Kuwait University. Gentlemen, welcome to Inside Iraq.
Abdullah Alshayji, Iraq is no longer threat to international peace and security and yet Kuwaiti officials refuse to get Iraq out of chapter seven. As a matter of fact, politicians keep lobbying the P5 -- the permanent members of the [UN] Security Council to keep Iraq hemmed in under that chapter. Why is that? Is it a question of the money Kuwait needs or is it something else?
Abdullah Alshayji: No, it's not the issue of the money, it's the issue of the recrimination, reparation. Iraq has done great damage to Kuwait. The hardship has not been buried yet. Between now and then -- as you said in your intro -- there has been reoccurence of claims by Iraqi officials. Last summer, we had another round of this recrimination. Although the relationship at the governmental level between the two governments have been excellent, we have donated to Iraq hundreds of millions of dollars. The last one was $10 million just couple of weeks ago. We have received Iraqis -- injured Iraqis -- from the Bloody Wednesday on August 19th and we were thanked by the
Jasim Azawi: If that is the case, Abdullah Alshayji, what is the reason for the refusal to allow Iraq escape chapter seven?
Abdullah Alshayji: I mean, as you know Jasim, let's be frank here, it's not Kuwait. Kuwait does not have leverage to keep Iraq under chapter seven. Iraq has to fufill --
Jasim Azawi: And yet you keep lobbying.
Abdullah Alshayji: -- its international obligations. We have the right to ask Iraq to fulfill its obligations., international obligations. There have been numerous United Nations security resolutions that have been passed. Iraq is not the only country that was subjected to chapter seven. So as long as Iraq and once Iraq fulfills its obligations under chapter seven, then Kuwait welcomes that, and Kuwait finally --
Jasim Azawi: Let me engage Saad Naji Jawad and see --
Abdullah Alshayji: [Crosstalk] -- willing to help Iraq get out of chapter seven.
Jasim Azawi: Saad Naji Jawadm, according to Abdullah Alshayji, Kuwait wants and is actively seeking good relationship and yet Iraq must remain under chapter seven. And he also acknowledges that it is not up to Kuwait really to say whether Iraq remains or does not remain in chapter seven, it is the United Nations, it's the big P5. Shouldn't the Iraqis address their greivances towards the US, the UN and P5 instead of Kuwait?
Saad Naji Jawad: Well, Jasim, thank you very much. There are subjects which I always avoided to speak about. But one of them is the Kuwait-Iraqi situation or relations. I have a weak spot for the Kuwaitis. I have good friends from Kuwait. On the family side, we have historical good relations with the families from Kuwait. But the problem is what my friend Dr. Alshayji is saying is contradictory. One time he says, which I agree with him, it's not in the hands of the Kuwaitis to keep Iraq under chapter seven. And on the other hand, he says we have the right to keep on pressing Iraq until it fills -- it fills its obligations. I should think the matter is, the matter is in the hand of other powers. I think if the Americans want to get Iraq out of chapter seven they will ask them to do it immediately. And I should say more of the Americans or other European powers want Kuwait to pay reperation to Iraq instead of Kuwait paying reperations to Iraq. They can't do it without the Kuwaitis or the Iraqis having anything to say. I also believe that to speak about good relations with the present Iraqi government is not something that could give positive or could satisfy the Iraqis about the future of Iraq-Kuwait relations. I think the present government does not represent really the real intentions or the real Iraqi people. I think these people are really looking after their own interests and they are representing the American policy in Iraq rather than representing the Iraqi real policy --
Jasim Azawi: This is standard --
Saad Naji Jawad: -- objectives.
Jasim Azawi: -- Saad Naji Jawad, is creating bitterness. Abdullah Alshayji, that bitterness is seeping into the body politics of Iraq. So chapter seven, sooner or later, will be lifted. And not by Kuwaiti intervention but by the will and the decision by the United Nations. So why wouldn't the --
Saad Naji Jawad: Let me --
Jasim Azawi: Americans do it, Abdullah Alshayji?
Saad Naji Jawad: Let me say one thing.
Jasim Azawi: Go ahead.
Saad Naji Jawad: There is nothing called chapter seven under reperations in international law and in the charter of the United Nations. Yes, chapter seven says if a country is a threat to international peace and security, there should be an action to be taken, even the use of armed forces to stop this threat. Once this threat is stopped, chapter seven does not apply to anything else. This is a new innovation by the Americans to put Iraq under continuous pressure and I think one day the International Court of Justice will rule that whatever Iraq paid under this chapter was not legal and that should be paid back.
Jasim Azawi: Let's hear from Abdullah.
Abdullah Alshayji: Let's cut through the chase here, I think Iraq has the obligation -- whether it's Saddam Hussein's regime or this regime. International law does not look at the difference of a regime or the change of regime means forgiving the regime obligations that should be applied to the new regime. This is number one. Number two, I take issue with my friend from London here, and that is that United States although it plays a major role in protecting Kuwait and helping Kuwait standing on its feet but still Kuwait is a soverign country here and Kuwait has the right to do what is right under the United Nations charter. Kuwait is a member of the United Nations body. And Iraq has really -- Kuwait has come a long way, in my opinion. We sent an ambassador in the summer of 2008. Our foreigh minister visited Iraq on the day of Kuwait libertation from Iraq on the 26th of February.
Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) reports that plans for a January referendum have been put aside in Iraq. This would be the referendum promised when the Iraqi Parliament voted on the treaty masquerading as a Status Forces Agreement (Thanksgiving Day 2008), those who voted (many skipped the vote due to the vote's controversial nature) were told there would be a referendum in six months on the matter. Six months came and went. As late as May, some foolish gas bags were stating the vote would take place in June or July. Forgetting all that's needed before any vote can take place. The vote wasn't happening. Nouri al-Maliki, thug of the occupation, declared it would take place in January 2010 along with the planned national elections. More lies.More lies and the lies never end. This is a huge slap in the face to the Iraqi Parliament, to the Iraqi people and to the democratic process. But it's also more than that. Business Week runs Sameer N. Yacoub's AP story where Iraq's Parliament notes that there will be no vote on the draft oil law. That's not much of a surprise. US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill told Congress that last month.It's among the issues causing tension (to put it mildly) between Hill and Gen Ray Odierno, top US commander in Iraq. But grasp that NOTHING has happened. All this time later, NOTHING has happened.This community opposes the oil draft law which we see as the theft of Iraqi oil.But what is taking place?Elections are (supposedly) being held. And?And?Elections were held in 2005.What's been accomplished since? (Provincial elections were held in 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces in January 2009 and in 3 more in July of 2009 -- but these are the first national elections since 2005).Congress demanded measurements, metrics. In 2007, the then-administration came up with a series of benchmarks. Nouri agreed to them and signed off on them. The benchmarks were never met.These benchmarks became 'confusing' because the press (and the the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction) began measuring them 'partially" as if that was the point.No, that was never the point.The benchmark says you will ___ then you do ___.You moved an inch when you were supposed to travel a mile? Well, let's give you a smiley face sticker if it makes you feel better but let's not pretend that you've accomplished your benchmark.Those benchmarks were not open-ended. They were supposed to be met.It's two years later and they have not been met.It's two years later and why are US forces still there?No, they shouldn't have been sent there to begin with. Yes, the Iraq War is an illegal war.But the 'excuse' for it was that the (US installed) Iraqis were moving forward.In 2005, they had national elections. In 2010, they're supposed to hold national elections again. And what's been accomplished between the two?It's no longer just Nouri disrespecting US forces stationed in Iraq. Hannah Allam (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that Capt Abdullah al Maliki made a point of delivering a speech in front of US soldiers where he offered an insult "speaking slowly so the interpreter wouldn't miss the implicit insult that the U.S. military had avoided hand-to-hand combat" by using air strikes on Baghdad at the start of the Iraq War. US forces disrespected to their faces (and that behavior tends to escalate -- is anyone in the administration worried about the safety of US forces?). And for what?
The escalation ("surge") was sold as a way to buy time for political movement. No political movement took place. How long are US forces going to have to remain on the ground for the US-installed puppet government of exiles in Iraq?AFP quotes MP Ali Hussein Balo stating, "There is no agreement on the contents of the oil law . . . because this government wants the management of the oil sector to be centralized. Due to these conflicts, we have decided to delay the oil law enactment until after the eleciton."As Chris Hill stated.We're told the 'problems' in Iraq are political not military. So why is the military remaining on the ground in Iraq month after month when the US-installed puppets are in no hurry to move?It's past time for all US forces to leave Iraq.
Meanwhile Erin Alberty (Salt Lake Tribune) reports 45 soldiers from Utah's Army National Guard's 2-285th Aviation Battalion are deploying to Iraq for one year while AP notes that Arizon's Army National Guard's 2-285th Assault Helicopter Battallion is sending over 250 soldiers to Iraq. The War Resisters League notes:
As the U.S. led war in Afghanistan begins its ninth year this week, 82 were arrested bringing a strong message to the White House that war, torture and drone bombing are outrageous, unacceptable and must end immediately. National anti-war groups and people from around the country joined together to say "No to War in Afghanistan. No to Torture and Vengeance." The day opened with a "Guantanamo prisoner" presence at the U.S. Supreme Court as Justice Sonia Sotomayor begins her tenure on the country's highest court. The group distributed the Center for Constitutional Rights' "Torture Team" baseball cards and had four large puppet heads of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Riceall dressed in prison stripes as they called for accountability for the architects of the Bush administration's torture policies. Then, hundreds of people gathered this morning in McPherson Square for song, poetry and rousing speeches to kick off a day of action. Led by the "Mourn the dead, heal the wounded, end the wars" banner, those gathered then marched to the White House in a solemn procession, carrying large photographs of war victims, signs and banners. The group assembled on the sidewalk in front of the White House and Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey Sheehan was killed in Iraq in 2004 while serving in the U.S. Army, read a statement and welcome the group, which by this time had grown to more than 500 people. As the "March of the Dead" wound through the crowd wearing white masks and carrying the names of dead U.S. service people and Iraqi and Afghan war victims, more than 20 people dressed at Guantanamo prisoners assembled near the White House fence. Members of "Witness Against Torture," a group committed to the shuttering of Guantanamo and the quickly enlarging Bagram air base in Afghanistan, many chained themselves to the fence. On their backs, they wore the names of Guantanamo detainees cleared for release who remain detained under the Obama administration despite the White House's heralded decision to shutter the prison. The group read the names of those killed in war and newspaper accounts of U.S. bombings and their devastating consequences in Afghanistan and Iraq. Code Pink, World Can't Wait and many others also participated in the day of action. Veterans for Peace carried large American and peace flags and processed with three coffins representing those killed in war. Each coffin was draped with a flagAmerica, Iraq and Afghanistan all represented. Members of the War Resisters League held a large banner than said "End the War in Afghanistan" and wore white shrouds emblazoned with the pictures of Afghan civilians. All those who remained on the White House sidewalk were eventually arrested. In total, 82 people were taken into police custody as the readings of the names of the deada tragic litany of warcontinued. Meanwhile, the National Call for Nonviolent Resistance, the group that convened the day of action, and members of PeaceAction left the area to deliver a letter to the Obama Administration. Rebuffed at the press gate, the group held a die-in, read statements and were eventually arrested. The protests today send a strong message that Americans are sick of war, gravely concerned that the Afghan conflict is spinning out of control and hopeful that the President will listen to the American public and end the occupation. Continuingand surgingBush era policies means more American deaths, more civilian casualties, an intensified insurgency and the further waste of precious resources that are so badly needed at home. The October 5 Anti-War Coalition includes National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance, the War Resisters League, Witness Against Torture, Code Pink, Peace Action, World Can't Wait, Veterans for Peace and Voices for Creative Nonviolence
Lastly, over the weekend, Kat's "Kat's Korner: Combo is the answer" went up Sunday as did Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Dream Team Take Two."
iraq
al jazeerainside iraqjasim al-azzawi
mcclatchy newspaperslaith hammoudi
the wall street journalgina chon
sameer n. yacoubfadhil al-badranitim cocksangus mcswan
erin alberty
hannah allam
cindy sheehan
That's priceless and Valerie Jarrett and Oprah really perfect. Brilliant. Also brilliant was Kat's "Kat's Korner: Combo is the answer" -- her review of Barbra Streisand's new album.
"THOMAS PLAYS THE FOOL! Evan Thomas played the fool—and helped us recover some history" (Bob Somerby, The Daily Howler):
Last Thursday, Chris Matthews played the fool in a session with Branch. (See THE DAILY HOWLER, 10/2/09.) Sunday, it was Thomas’ turn. He reviewed Branch’s fascinating book in the Washington Post’s Outlook section.
As with Matthews, so with Thomas. Branch’s book covers a wide range of topics, topics defining a decade of history. But one sole topic remains in the minds of journalistic children like these: Clinton’s disastrous mini-affair with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. Little else entered Matthews’ head during his silly session with Branch. Little else seems to have occurred to our poor floundering Thomas.
What did Clinton tell Taylor Branch about the war conducted on his health care proposal? That topic might even seem relevant now. But not to millionaire toad stools like these, who are hired to go on TV and pretend to be a “press corps.” When fellows like Matthews and Thomas skim books, they look for talk about “that woman”—and for little else.
Only one other topic intrudes: Each fellow was brought up short by Clinton’s inappropriate, real-time comments about their own fraternal order—about the Washington “press.” When Thomas discusses this part of the book, he provides real comedy entertainment. In the process, he helps us see how our recent history has been stolen and lost—disappeared.
And this same refusal to focus on issues by the press? It's why we have Barack in the White House and not Hillary. Hillary gave them real issues and they just wanted to talk sex. Hillary gave them substance and they wanted to mock her.
The country's in huge trouble -- multiple wars, the economy, etc. -- and we needed a real leader. That leader was Hillary. We didn't get her. They took her out.
And we suffer as a result.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Monday, October 5, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Iraqi Christians remain under attack but the attacks have been amplified, Camp Ashraf residents are ordered released but get tortured instead, the US sends more troops to Iraq, and more.
In Iraq, various populations are targeted -- including women who are targeted regardless of sect, religion, education, what have you. Among the targeted groups are Iraqi Christians. Today alarms are sounded again against assaults on Christians. Xinhua interviewed Archbishop Lois Sako who tells them, "It seems clear that the operations of targeting Christians have returned again. Before kidnapping the Christian man Imad Eila two days ago, there were several incidents occurred against other Christians in Kirkuk such as the killing of one of them, kidnapping a physician, and the storming of two houses of Christians by unknown gunmen in the city. These horrible attacks against the Christian families here began to arouse horror among the unprotected minority, and the new attacks also raise fears of a new wave of violence against us." Alsumaria adds, "Then families comprising around 60 people have left the city last week in fear of being targeted for political motiviations or because of religious unawareness". ZENIT explans that Imade Elias Abdul Karim, a Christian nurse, was kidnapped in Kirkuk last night and is corpse was discovered today. Asia News explains that he was tortured to death, that he leaves behind two children. September 27th, Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reported Dr. Mehasin Basheer has been released after being kidnapped from her Bartala home. AFP revealed the "Chrisitan doctor [was] abducted by an armed gang overnight from her home" in northern Iraq and quote a police officer stating, "The gang kidnapped the doctor, Mahasin Bashir, in her home late at night, as her children watched." Hammoudi says a ransom was paid. Doctors and Christians have been repeatedly targeted in Iraq and, at this point, it's not known if Dr. Basheer was targeted for either of those reasons or something else. September 24th's snapshot included, "INA reports that Dr. Sameer Gorgees Youssif was released by his kidnappers following his August 18th abduction. The explain the fifty-five year-old man is at least the fourth doctor kidnapped in Kirkuk in the last two years. His family paid $100,000 for his release. His injuries include sever pressure uclers along the right side of his body, 'open wounds around his mouth and wrists' (from being bound and gagged) and bruises all over his body." Like Dr. Basheer, Dr. Youssif is both a medical doctor and a Christian. Jareer Mohammed (Azzaman) noted the kidnapping of Dr. Basheer and that "Basheer serves in a small hospital in the Christian village of Bartella, just a few kilometers to the east of Mosul. More attacks targeting the string of Christian villages to the east and north of Mosul have occurred recently. Christian liquor shops are attacked and owners either kidnapped or killed. The villages have preserved their Christian identity for centuries but the inhabitants now seriously fear for their future." Over the weekend, Last week, John Pontifex (Aid to the Church in Need) explained:
CHRISTIANS in Iraq are beginning to flee the only place where they thought they were safe -- their ancient homelands in the Nineveh plains. Reports have come in from clergy in the north of the country that in the past few months, a slow but steady emigration has got under-way from the villages and towns close to Mosul city, which trace their heritage back to the earliest Christian centuries. It comes after warnings of another blow to the Church expected in the immediate run-up to the January 2010 general elections. With government ministers publicly expecting a surge in violence as people prepare to go to the polls, Church leaders fear that a new security crisis could spark another mass exodus of Christians, which in some areas may mean the departure of the last remaining faithful. In an interview with the Catholic charity Aid to the Church in Need, leading Iraqi priest Fr Bashar Warda made clear that Christians in the Nineveh region are now beginning to feel threatened by the kind of security problems which have blighted the lives of people in so many other parts of the country.
Speaking from northern Iraq today (Monday, 28th September), Fr Warda told the charity for persecuted and other suffering Christians: "I am sad to say that the emigration of Christian families that we have seen in places like Mosul and Baghdad has now begun to affect the Nineveh area. "We are not seeing -- at least not yet -- a large emigration from places like Alqosh and other [Nineveh] villages but it is definitely happening." Fr Warda said he could not give precise estimates of the number leaving the region but he said that a number of exclusively Christian villages have each been losing 30 or 40 faithful every month, sometimes more. The news has added significance because the many almost completely Christian villages in the region had become a refuge for faithful under threat in other parts of the region.
UPI reminds, "The Christian community in Iraq was the target of attacks in late 2008, forcing nearly half of the population to seek refuge in neighboring Syria."
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing which wounded four people (one was a police officer), a Mosul hand grenade explosion claimed the life of 1 child, an Al Sinuni car bombing which injured Peshmerga with either three wounded or over thirty, a Mosul roadside bombing wounded two police officers, a Mosul roadside bombing wounded two Iraqi soldiers, a Mosul roadside bombing injured one person, a Falluja sticky bombing claimed 1 life and wounded two people and a Falluja roadside bombing injured one person. Fadhil al-Badrani, Tim Cocks and Angus MacSwan (Reuters) report a Haditha suicide bomber took his own life and the lives of "at least six mourners" in a funeral tent with at least fifteen more people left injured.
Shootings?
Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 man was shot by Iraqi security forces in Mosul. Reuters notes the person was a civilian.
Meanwhile September 24th, there was a prison break in Tikrit with sixteen prisoners escaping and, by the 25th, 6 of the 16 were said to have been captured. CNN reported 2 more escapees were captured on the 26th during "house-to-house searches" for a total of 8 prisoners now captured. Fang Yang (Xinhua) reported September 29th that three more were captured (9 total) and that, with the latest three, all five who were on death row have been captured. Yang notes Col Mohammed Salih Jbara ("head of anti-terrorism department of Salahudin province) has been "sacked" as a result of the prison escape. Anne Tang (Xinhua) reported Sunday that two more escapees were captured "bringing the number of recaptured prisoners to 11".
Staying on the topic of Iraqi, prisons, members of the MEK are being held in them. Backtracking,July 28th was when the assault on Camp Ashraf by Nouri al-Maliki's 'troops' began. During Saddam's time, Iranian exiles were allowed safe harbor in Iraq. The exiles were leftists who were opposed to the religious fundamentalist leaders following the toppling of the Shah (the exiles did not favor the Shah). They utilized violence and are known as the People's Mujahedeen Organization of Iran or the MEK. They remained in Iraq in the 80s, the 90s and this decade. The European Union and England are among the organizations and countries that listed the MEK as a terrorist group -- past tense. The MEK has renounced violence and was removed from the terrorist listing. The US still has the MEK listed as a terrorist organization. There were efforts to remove it from that listing by Congress beginning in 2008; however, the previous administration wasn't interested in that or anything else to do with MEK. It is a hot button issue and it was ignored repeatedly by the Bush administration. This is one of the hot potatoes dropped into the current administration's lap. I have no problem criticizing the Barack Obama administration (or criticizing Barack) but this was a problem that was dumped in their lap. That said, there's no excuse all this time later for no movement on it. The US military brass in Iraq tends to feel the same way and look askance at Chris Hill. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports today that the 36 MEK members who were hauled off during the July assault on Camp Ashraf were beaten and then "forcibly transferred [. . .] to a remote southern prison despite an Iraqi judge's order to free them, the judge and the group's leader said Monday."
This was the third ruling to release the 36 according to Rebecca Lowe (Edgware & Mill Hill Times) who reports on the UK protests outside the US Embassy in support of the Camp Ashraf residents -- 20 people have been on a hunger strike since Nouri's assault on Camp Ashraf and 300 people joined the fasters on Saturday to demonstrate their solidarity. From the start of the Iraq War until the start of this year, Camp Ashraf has been under US protection. Nouri now has control of it and has no interest in keeping his promise to offer protection. Ron Naso (KCBS -- audio link) reports on protests in the Bay Area where twenty-five gathered to show their support for the residents of Camp Ashraf and chanted, "US, US recognize, Ashraf residents human rights!" and "President Obama, take action! Take back Ashraf protection!"
Al Jazeera's latest installment of Inside Iraq began airing on Friday. The topic explored was the sanctions on Iraq for that country's armed assault on Kuwait under the previous leadership of Saddam Hussein.
Jasim Azawi: To discuss the continued tension between Iraq and Kuwait, I'm joined by an Iraqi professor at Baghdad University Saad Naji Jawad and by Abdullah Alshayji, chairman of the American studies unit at Kuwait University. Gentlemen, welcome to Inside Iraq.
Abdullah Alshayji, Iraq is no longer threat to international peace and security and yet Kuwaiti officials refuse to get Iraq out of chapter seven. As a matter of fact, politicians keep lobbying the P5 -- the permanent members of the [UN] Security Council to keep Iraq hemmed in under that chapter. Why is that? Is it a question of the money Kuwait needs or is it something else?
Abdullah Alshayji: No, it's not the issue of the money, it's the issue of the recrimination, reparation. Iraq has done great damage to Kuwait. The hardship has not been buried yet. Between now and then -- as you said in your intro -- there has been reoccurence of claims by Iraqi officials. Last summer, we had another round of this recrimination. Although the relationship at the governmental level between the two governments have been excellent, we have donated to Iraq hundreds of millions of dollars. The last one was $10 million just couple of weeks ago. We have received Iraqis -- injured Iraqis -- from the Bloody Wednesday on August 19th and we were thanked by the
Jasim Azawi: If that is the case, Abdullah Alshayji, what is the reason for the refusal to allow Iraq escape chapter seven?
Abdullah Alshayji: I mean, as you know Jasim, let's be frank here, it's not Kuwait. Kuwait does not have leverage to keep Iraq under chapter seven. Iraq has to fufill --
Jasim Azawi: And yet you keep lobbying.
Abdullah Alshayji: -- its international obligations. We have the right to ask Iraq to fulfill its obligations., international obligations. There have been numerous United Nations security resolutions that have been passed. Iraq is not the only country that was subjected to chapter seven. So as long as Iraq and once Iraq fulfills its obligations under chapter seven, then Kuwait welcomes that, and Kuwait finally --
Jasim Azawi: Let me engage Saad Naji Jawad and see --
Abdullah Alshayji: [Crosstalk] -- willing to help Iraq get out of chapter seven.
Jasim Azawi: Saad Naji Jawadm, according to Abdullah Alshayji, Kuwait wants and is actively seeking good relationship and yet Iraq must remain under chapter seven. And he also acknowledges that it is not up to Kuwait really to say whether Iraq remains or does not remain in chapter seven, it is the United Nations, it's the big P5. Shouldn't the Iraqis address their greivances towards the US, the UN and P5 instead of Kuwait?
Saad Naji Jawad: Well, Jasim, thank you very much. There are subjects which I always avoided to speak about. But one of them is the Kuwait-Iraqi situation or relations. I have a weak spot for the Kuwaitis. I have good friends from Kuwait. On the family side, we have historical good relations with the families from Kuwait. But the problem is what my friend Dr. Alshayji is saying is contradictory. One time he says, which I agree with him, it's not in the hands of the Kuwaitis to keep Iraq under chapter seven. And on the other hand, he says we have the right to keep on pressing Iraq until it fills -- it fills its obligations. I should think the matter is, the matter is in the hand of other powers. I think if the Americans want to get Iraq out of chapter seven they will ask them to do it immediately. And I should say more of the Americans or other European powers want Kuwait to pay reperation to Iraq instead of Kuwait paying reperations to Iraq. They can't do it without the Kuwaitis or the Iraqis having anything to say. I also believe that to speak about good relations with the present Iraqi government is not something that could give positive or could satisfy the Iraqis about the future of Iraq-Kuwait relations. I think the present government does not represent really the real intentions or the real Iraqi people. I think these people are really looking after their own interests and they are representing the American policy in Iraq rather than representing the Iraqi real policy --
Jasim Azawi: This is standard --
Saad Naji Jawad: -- objectives.
Jasim Azawi: -- Saad Naji Jawad, is creating bitterness. Abdullah Alshayji, that bitterness is seeping into the body politics of Iraq. So chapter seven, sooner or later, will be lifted. And not by Kuwaiti intervention but by the will and the decision by the United Nations. So why wouldn't the --
Saad Naji Jawad: Let me --
Jasim Azawi: Americans do it, Abdullah Alshayji?
Saad Naji Jawad: Let me say one thing.
Jasim Azawi: Go ahead.
Saad Naji Jawad: There is nothing called chapter seven under reperations in international law and in the charter of the United Nations. Yes, chapter seven says if a country is a threat to international peace and security, there should be an action to be taken, even the use of armed forces to stop this threat. Once this threat is stopped, chapter seven does not apply to anything else. This is a new innovation by the Americans to put Iraq under continuous pressure and I think one day the International Court of Justice will rule that whatever Iraq paid under this chapter was not legal and that should be paid back.
Jasim Azawi: Let's hear from Abdullah.
Abdullah Alshayji: Let's cut through the chase here, I think Iraq has the obligation -- whether it's Saddam Hussein's regime or this regime. International law does not look at the difference of a regime or the change of regime means forgiving the regime obligations that should be applied to the new regime. This is number one. Number two, I take issue with my friend from London here, and that is that United States although it plays a major role in protecting Kuwait and helping Kuwait standing on its feet but still Kuwait is a soverign country here and Kuwait has the right to do what is right under the United Nations charter. Kuwait is a member of the United Nations body. And Iraq has really -- Kuwait has come a long way, in my opinion. We sent an ambassador in the summer of 2008. Our foreigh minister visited Iraq on the day of Kuwait libertation from Iraq on the 26th of February.
Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) reports that plans for a January referendum have been put aside in Iraq. This would be the referendum promised when the Iraqi Parliament voted on the treaty masquerading as a Status Forces Agreement (Thanksgiving Day 2008), those who voted (many skipped the vote due to the vote's controversial nature) were told there would be a referendum in six months on the matter. Six months came and went. As late as May, some foolish gas bags were stating the vote would take place in June or July. Forgetting all that's needed before any vote can take place. The vote wasn't happening. Nouri al-Maliki, thug of the occupation, declared it would take place in January 2010 along with the planned national elections. More lies.More lies and the lies never end. This is a huge slap in the face to the Iraqi Parliament, to the Iraqi people and to the democratic process. But it's also more than that. Business Week runs Sameer N. Yacoub's AP story where Iraq's Parliament notes that there will be no vote on the draft oil law. That's not much of a surprise. US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill told Congress that last month.It's among the issues causing tension (to put it mildly) between Hill and Gen Ray Odierno, top US commander in Iraq. But grasp that NOTHING has happened. All this time later, NOTHING has happened.This community opposes the oil draft law which we see as the theft of Iraqi oil.But what is taking place?Elections are (supposedly) being held. And?And?Elections were held in 2005.What's been accomplished since? (Provincial elections were held in 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces in January 2009 and in 3 more in July of 2009 -- but these are the first national elections since 2005).Congress demanded measurements, metrics. In 2007, the then-administration came up with a series of benchmarks. Nouri agreed to them and signed off on them. The benchmarks were never met.These benchmarks became 'confusing' because the press (and the the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction) began measuring them 'partially" as if that was the point.No, that was never the point.The benchmark says you will ___ then you do ___.You moved an inch when you were supposed to travel a mile? Well, let's give you a smiley face sticker if it makes you feel better but let's not pretend that you've accomplished your benchmark.Those benchmarks were not open-ended. They were supposed to be met.It's two years later and they have not been met.It's two years later and why are US forces still there?No, they shouldn't have been sent there to begin with. Yes, the Iraq War is an illegal war.But the 'excuse' for it was that the (US installed) Iraqis were moving forward.In 2005, they had national elections. In 2010, they're supposed to hold national elections again. And what's been accomplished between the two?It's no longer just Nouri disrespecting US forces stationed in Iraq. Hannah Allam (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that Capt Abdullah al Maliki made a point of delivering a speech in front of US soldiers where he offered an insult "speaking slowly so the interpreter wouldn't miss the implicit insult that the U.S. military had avoided hand-to-hand combat" by using air strikes on Baghdad at the start of the Iraq War. US forces disrespected to their faces (and that behavior tends to escalate -- is anyone in the administration worried about the safety of US forces?). And for what?
The escalation ("surge") was sold as a way to buy time for political movement. No political movement took place. How long are US forces going to have to remain on the ground for the US-installed puppet government of exiles in Iraq?AFP quotes MP Ali Hussein Balo stating, "There is no agreement on the contents of the oil law . . . because this government wants the management of the oil sector to be centralized. Due to these conflicts, we have decided to delay the oil law enactment until after the eleciton."As Chris Hill stated.We're told the 'problems' in Iraq are political not military. So why is the military remaining on the ground in Iraq month after month when the US-installed puppets are in no hurry to move?It's past time for all US forces to leave Iraq.
Meanwhile Erin Alberty (Salt Lake Tribune) reports 45 soldiers from Utah's Army National Guard's 2-285th Aviation Battalion are deploying to Iraq for one year while AP notes that Arizon's Army National Guard's 2-285th Assault Helicopter Battallion is sending over 250 soldiers to Iraq. The War Resisters League notes:
As the U.S. led war in Afghanistan begins its ninth year this week, 82 were arrested bringing a strong message to the White House that war, torture and drone bombing are outrageous, unacceptable and must end immediately. National anti-war groups and people from around the country joined together to say "No to War in Afghanistan. No to Torture and Vengeance." The day opened with a "Guantanamo prisoner" presence at the U.S. Supreme Court as Justice Sonia Sotomayor begins her tenure on the country's highest court. The group distributed the Center for Constitutional Rights' "Torture Team" baseball cards and had four large puppet heads of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Riceall dressed in prison stripes as they called for accountability for the architects of the Bush administration's torture policies. Then, hundreds of people gathered this morning in McPherson Square for song, poetry and rousing speeches to kick off a day of action. Led by the "Mourn the dead, heal the wounded, end the wars" banner, those gathered then marched to the White House in a solemn procession, carrying large photographs of war victims, signs and banners. The group assembled on the sidewalk in front of the White House and Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey Sheehan was killed in Iraq in 2004 while serving in the U.S. Army, read a statement and welcome the group, which by this time had grown to more than 500 people. As the "March of the Dead" wound through the crowd wearing white masks and carrying the names of dead U.S. service people and Iraqi and Afghan war victims, more than 20 people dressed at Guantanamo prisoners assembled near the White House fence. Members of "Witness Against Torture," a group committed to the shuttering of Guantanamo and the quickly enlarging Bagram air base in Afghanistan, many chained themselves to the fence. On their backs, they wore the names of Guantanamo detainees cleared for release who remain detained under the Obama administration despite the White House's heralded decision to shutter the prison. The group read the names of those killed in war and newspaper accounts of U.S. bombings and their devastating consequences in Afghanistan and Iraq. Code Pink, World Can't Wait and many others also participated in the day of action. Veterans for Peace carried large American and peace flags and processed with three coffins representing those killed in war. Each coffin was draped with a flagAmerica, Iraq and Afghanistan all represented. Members of the War Resisters League held a large banner than said "End the War in Afghanistan" and wore white shrouds emblazoned with the pictures of Afghan civilians. All those who remained on the White House sidewalk were eventually arrested. In total, 82 people were taken into police custody as the readings of the names of the deada tragic litany of warcontinued. Meanwhile, the National Call for Nonviolent Resistance, the group that convened the day of action, and members of PeaceAction left the area to deliver a letter to the Obama Administration. Rebuffed at the press gate, the group held a die-in, read statements and were eventually arrested. The protests today send a strong message that Americans are sick of war, gravely concerned that the Afghan conflict is spinning out of control and hopeful that the President will listen to the American public and end the occupation. Continuingand surgingBush era policies means more American deaths, more civilian casualties, an intensified insurgency and the further waste of precious resources that are so badly needed at home. The October 5 Anti-War Coalition includes National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance, the War Resisters League, Witness Against Torture, Code Pink, Peace Action, World Can't Wait, Veterans for Peace and Voices for Creative Nonviolence
Lastly, over the weekend, Kat's "Kat's Korner: Combo is the answer" went up Sunday as did Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Dream Team Take Two."
iraq
al jazeerainside iraqjasim al-azzawi
mcclatchy newspaperslaith hammoudi
the wall street journalgina chon
sameer n. yacoubfadhil al-badranitim cocksangus mcswan
erin alberty
hannah allam
cindy sheehan
Friday, October 02, 2009
Barbra
| Help Barbra Get To #1 Having trouble viewing this message? Click here | Add to your address book | |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Facebook
Myspace
iTunes
Amazon
Official SiteBarbra Streisand has won every award in the book. There's a reason for that.
She won an Oscar, Grammys, Golden Globes, a Tony and much more. She did it because of her intense talent.
On her new album, Love Is The Answer, she's back to the roots that brought her to fame and that had dee jay Sly Stone (who went on to become the Sly Stone) spinning "Happy Days Are Here Again" on the radio because she just sang so powerful and with so much soul.
That was her first album and she's done many things since then, things no one would have guessed.
She was already wowing them on Broadway so her going on to star in the play Funny Girl probably wasn't that huge of a stunner. But when you consider all the people who said she didn't have 'the looks' for films, her going on to become a film star and a box office draw (often the only one in that year's top ten) is pretty amazing.
She went on to direct three movies but when she made her first film, only Ida Lupino was directing.
She went on to break every record with her concert tour in the 90s. Then she turned around and broke some more.
She's known for her exquisite taste in design and those rare times when she opens up her home to the press are a real treat.
She's pretty much become a one-woman force for good and one to be reckoned with.
She can clear her throat and raise millions for a political cause. She can take a song and bring it to life equally well with either volume and power or by simply caressing it.
Whitney, Mariah and all the rest never got that Barbra can do the vocal gymanstics but it was her ability to also grab those quiet moments, to inhabit a song and bring to it what it needs, that really created her following.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Tuesday, October 2, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, Angelina Jolie urges the world not to forget Iraqi refugees, Cindy Sheehan urges the world to neither forget nor accept these continued wars, Ehren Watada historic struggle results in a victory, and more.
The US military announced: "CAMP VICTORY, Iraq – A Multi-National Corps-Iraq Soldier was killed today in an indirect fire attack on Camp Liberty. Release of the identity of the Soldier is being withheld pending notification of the next of kin. The name of the deceased service member 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 incident is currently under investigation." The announcement brings to 4348 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war. Sun Yunlong (Xinhua) adds, "The term 'indirect fire' in the U.S. military statements usually refers to rocket or mortar attack." Iran's Press TV notes (two hours ago) that the US military released this statement today (not Thursday as dated) and they note 127 US service members have died in Iraq so far this year. Chelsea J. Carter (AP) also notes the announcement was made Friday and that AP's count of 238 deaths for the month of September.
In other violence, Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing which wounded four people and a Baghdad sticky bombing which wounded two people. In addition, Issa notes an attack on a religious minority, Faraj Khairi Bek who is both a Yazidi prince and Zummar's chief of police. His home was blown up today in Mosul. Issa also notes an attack on a mosque in Nineveh Province which claimed the life of 1 Imam and wounded four people.
This morning on The Diane Rehm Show, Susan Page filled in as guest host and was joined for the second hour by Jonathan S. Landay (McClatchy Newspapers), David Loyn (BBC) and Barbara Slavin (Washington Times).
Susan Page: In Iraq this week, we had the prime minister announce a broad coalition for the elections in January, a little bit of a change in strategy on his part, Jonathan.
Jonathan S. Landay: Absolutely. This is a man who led a party called the Dawa Party, which was a conservative Shi'ite party, aligned with the other Shi'ite parties in Iraq. And what he seems to be doing, what al-Maliki seems to be doing, is trying to harness what is a very uh uh growing disastisfication, discontent with reglious parties in Iraq among many Iraqis who see the religious parties as being part and parcel of the violence that was unleased after the 2003 US interven -- invasion. Uh, he-he calls his new party State of Law bloc, he's casting it as being uh sectarian -- non-sectarian, secular and embracing not just uh Shi'ites but also Sunnis as well as Kurds and other minorities in Iraq. The thing though being, at this point really, it doesn't appear that there are any real major leaders from those other uh uh uh groups uh that have joined his party. Nevertheless he-he himself went up to Kurdistan to try and bring the major Kurdish parties into his coalition. Right now that may not be happening because there's still no agreement on what -- on the future of Kirkuk -- the oil-rich that the Kurds and the Arabs all claim. And-and he's also facing opposition from a conservative Shi'ite bloc that has the backing of many of Iraq's Shi'ite religious leaders.
Susan Page: Meanwhile we heard from General Odierno who's the US commander in Iraq about troop levels. Barbara, what did he say about when more Americans could come home?
Barbara Slavin: Well, he had a pretty optimistic report and one thing also is good. Apparently, civilian casualties are down for Iraq in this month. After a pretty horrific -- rather in September compared to August when there was horrific bombings. That seems to have stopped. At least for now, or at least it is less than it was. So Odierno, is saying he can bring back an additional 4,000 troops by the end of the year that he hadn't expected [C.I. note, as he said to Congress Wednesday and he declared at the Pentagon yesterday this so-called 'addtional troops' was already planned -- it was also already announced.]. There are about 124,000 troops in Iraq right now so that would still bring the US down to about 120,000.
We're stopping there on Barabra and Odierno. Where she's getting her information, I do not know. I was at the hearing and I was even at the press conference. We've reported what Odierno said. I don't make a point to disagree when we do the transcripts but she's getting her information from where? She wasn't present and she's completely heard wrong. Did Odierno give an optimistic view to the US Congress? That's a judgment call. And if you're just going by the prepared statement (prepared by him and the White House) you are correct. But if you were actually at the hearing of the House Armed Forces Committee and you heard the testimony from Odierno, you know the general did issue qualifiers. Of course for the public to know that, it would require the press cover it. There were very few members of the press at the hearing. And that number thinned significantly by 30 minutes into the hearing. I'm not calling Barbara a liar. Nor do I believe she meant to spin Odierno's testimony. But she does not know what he said. And she's as uninformed on that as anyone dependant upon the press because the press did not report on Odierno's testimony. To do that, they would have been required to have been present and if I get in a really nasty mood about this topic, I may start naming the people who had bylines on 'reports' about the hearing but they weren't actually present.
No offense to Barbara Slavin and, repeating, I am not accusing of her lying or attempting to shade or spin the truth. I am stating the press reports she's relying to be informed are inaccurate. Odierno repeatedly stressed that he did have the power to speed up . . . and he did have the power to slow down. Reporters (reporting on the hearing) intentionally lied or just heard what they wanted to. As someone who takes notes throughout any hearing (sometimes just to stay awake), I know what was said. I know his qualifiers, I know when he squirmed, I know his nervous tic when he doesn't want to answer a question fully. And anyone present for the entire hearing -- his first Congressional appearance as the top US commander in Iraq -- would know those things to. However, most of the press corp skipped it and the few that showed thinned out by the first half-hour. (Added: You can stream the entire thing online at the committee website here. I've called a staffer to make sure my impressions weren't me being off the wall. No, his qualifiers were very clear.)
Susan Page: Although 50,000 troops still is a significant presence there.
Barbara Slavin: It is, but you know, most of these people will be trainers, will be sort of working in liason capacity with Iraqis and the Iraqis are very much taking the lead now on -- on policing their own country.
Barbara's second remarks quoted in full? I don't agree with them at all. I'm not going to comment on them. She's entitled to her opinion. But the point prior to that, of cutting off her response, wasn't that I was disagreeing. It was that the observations she was offering were incorrect. They were based on the (limited) press coverage (of the first minutes of the hearing -- often due to the fact that Odierno's opening remarks were distributed to the press). The press coverage was incorrect. I am not going to allow that to appear here without noting it was wrong. I could have been at home, I could be traveling (for fun), anything. Instead, I was -- Kat, Ava, Wally and I were -- in that hearing from the start to the end. We know what happened and we know the press didn't report it accurately. If I had to waste my time, I'm not going to further waste my time by having my already wasted time further wasted by allowing a 'recounting' of events when the summary is completely incorrect. Repeating, I am not calling Barara a liar or stating she was attempting to deceive. I am stating she was wrong and her errors are from the (limited) press coverage.
She, like anyone else, has a right to expect that press coverage is accurate. It wasn't. Kat covered the hearing again last night, noting humorous exchanges -- did anyone but Kat report that Stephen Colbert was mentioned in the hearing? No. Why? Because the (limited) press had long ago left. The same reason that Carol Shea-Porter's questions about contractors -- see yesterday's snapshot -- didn't make the press. (And yesterday's snapshot stated it was October 1st -- correct -- and Monday -- incorrect. That was an error when it was typed.) For more on the hearing, Wednesday's snapshot and Kat's Wednesday post covered it last night. UPI notes that Odierno notes yesterday's press conference and notes that 50,000 by next September, according to Odierno, will result from a judgment call as that time approaches. The spin that many in the press created is not reality. It does do its part to ensure that an already weak peace movement doesn't grow any stronger -- which, after all, is the point.
Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan knows the Iraq War has not ended (despite Barack's promise to end it in 16 months and then in 10 months) and that there is an undeclared war on Pakistan and the war in Afghanistan. Cindy (Cindy's Soapbox) writes:
I know that you are only fulfilling your campaign promises to increase the violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan and I notice that not a significant amount of troops have been withdrawn from Iraq. However, even with your hostile rhetoric and promises to escalate the violence, many people voted for you because they believed you were the peace candidate.
Since the election, you have betrayed the progressive base that gave you victory on many occasions already, but the cause that keeps many of us motivated is the continued carnage in the Middle East. What bothers me even more, especially, is the fact that the so-called anti-war movement has given you a nine-month free pass and thousands of people have died, including hundreds of our own troops.
Since you took office, 125 of our irreplaceable young have been killed in what you called a "dumb war" in Iraq and 223 in what I call the "other dumb war," Afghanistan. I have been waiting for a mother of one of those needlessly killed troops to demand a meeting with you to ask you: for "What Noble Cause?" her child was sacrificed.
No such mother has come forward and since your rhetoric is eerily similar to the Bush regime and you are reportedly considering strategies for Afghanistan before you condemn more than the 21,000 troops you have already condemned, I am requesting that you meet with a contingent of the true Peace Movement that will be assembling outside your house this Monday, October 5th at noon.
Yesterday, Nouri al-Maliki, thug of the occupation and holding the honorary title of Prime Minister, announced that he was putting together his own slate of oddballs and never chosen because this slate would allow him to be prime minister if the slate was successful in elections expected to take place in January. Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) observes that "few" of those on Nouri's slate "are truly national leaders likely to lure major blocs of votes." Mohammad al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) explains, "The announcement, made from a heavily guarded Baghdad hotel and broadcast live on television, ended weeks of speculation over whether Maliki's State of Law bloc would join the Iraqi National Alliance, a more Islamist faction that includes the largest Shiite party and supporters of rebel cleric Muqtada al Sadr." Alsumaria (link has video of the speech) explains, "Al Maliki pursues efforts to join 30 new political entities and parties to 40 other entities and political figures into the State of Law Coalition that gathers prominent figures mainly first deputy speaker Sheikh Khaled Al Attiye and a number of ministers including Oil Minister Hussein Al Shahristani, and ministers of Education, Health, Tourism, Labor, Immigrants, Youth and Sports as well as Parliament affairs." Jamal Hashim (Xinhua) reports on Nouri's speech which used terms such as "historic" -- offering a window into the deep pool of vanity overlooding Nouri's psyche. Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) slaps some cold water on the fantasies, "The prime minister will face tough competition in the Shiite south. He enjoyed a surge in popularity there following a military offensive against Shiite militants in the spring of 2008. Since then, Iraqis have grown frustrated with lagging basic services, such as adequate clean water. Mr. Maliki also has been criticized for recent security lapses, including those related to the August bombings." Ben Lando (Time magazine) offers an overview:
Now, with State of Law, he must go toe-to-toe with the Iraqi National Alliance (INA) which, in the shape-shifting politics of Iraq, is the current manifestation of the coalition that Maliki rode to power in 2006. To stay in charge of Iraq, Maliki must defeat his former coalition allies in what are expected to be tough elections on January 16. [. . .]
INA is a formidable organization. Its predominant partners are the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq -- the largest Shi'ite political party now led by Ammar al-Hakim, the son of the recently departed and revered cleric Abdulaziz al-Hakim -- and the militant Moqtada al-Sadr's party, which has its pulse on the much of the country's poor and frustrated Shi'a underclass. (Read how the shoe-thrower put Maliki in a sensitive spot.)
Caesar Ahmed (Los Angeles Times) speaks with a variety of Iraqis on the street in Baghdad about Nouri's slate.
Academy Award winning actress Angelina Jolie is also the UNHCR Goodwill Ambassador. Today, visiting Syria, she issued a call for the world not to forget the Iraqi refugees who have been forced to flee their own country for safety. The UNHCR notes:
Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have returned to their country from Syria and other nearby countries over the past year, but many more are unable or unwilling to return to a country still rocked by violence. As the Iraqi story has largely disappeared from global headlines, so has the plight of the refugees.
Jolie, returning to visit Iraqi refugees in the poorest suburbs of the Syrian capital of Damascus after a 2007 visit, said these refugees still needed vital help and support. "Most Iraqi refugees cannot return to Iraq in view of the severe trauma they experienced there, the uncertainty linked to the coming Iraqi elections, the security issues and the lack of basic services. They will, therefore, be in need of continued support from the international community."
The acclaimed American actress, travelling with her partner Brad Pitt, was welcomed into the homes of two Iraqi families in the Jaramana district of southern Damascus. The first family, grouping seven people, fled to Syria in 2006, while the second family, members of a minority religious group, fled to Iraq in July this year after a son, Waleed,* was twice abducted and his mother, Hoda,* physically abused. The family patriarch, Fares,* had to pay US$25,000 in ransom the first time Waleed was abducted.
The second time, both son and mother were snatched, and Fares had to find US$40,000. The two were released, but they had suffered a terrible ordeal, including torture. "I was assaulted every day for 13 days by up to 10 men," Hoda* recalled, her voice trembling. "I wanted to kill myself and the only reason I decided not to go ahead is because of my children," she added.
On the release of Hoda and Waleed, the family fled to Syria.
RadarOnline offers photos of Angelina's visit to Syria.
This afternoon Fort Lewis's Media Relations department announced that Ehren Watada had completed his out processing and was discharged from the US military. We're going to stay with this topic for a bit because (a) it is important and (b) it is historical. 1st Lt Watada was the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. As Ann noted last night, "there are people who have no idea what a brave thing he did." Ehren Watada was informed he would be deploying to Iraq in June 2005. He had not given much thought to Iraq. To prepare for the deployment, his superior advised him to study up on the war so that he could answer any questions that might come up from those serving under him. He started researching the basics about the country itself, topography and geography and continuing through the history up to the current war. He came across the Downing Street Memos which exposed that the 'intelligence' for the Iraq War was fixed. He was now firmly convinced that the Iraq War was illegal and immoral. From eager to serve in Iraq to realizing he'd be violating his oath to the Constitution, Ehren was now confronted with a decision. He could keep his mouth shut and just do as he was told. Or he could take a stand which would risk the wrath of the military as well as a portion of the public.
Ehren's mother, Carolyn Ho, has explained what happened next many times as she's spoken to raise awareness of her son's case. WBAI's Law and Disorder shared one of her talks on their January 22, 2007 broadcast. Carolyn Ho explained it was the new year, January 2006, and her son called her. He explained that he had something to tell her, he'd decided decided he wouldn't deploy to Iraq when the time came. She was very upset and asked him if he understood what might result from his decision? Ehren told her that he had no choide, he'd taken an oath to the Constitution, this was what he had to do and he was going to inform his superiors.
Ehren didn't hestitate to inform his superiors. This was in January 2006. They at first attempted to change his mind. He could not be budged. So they stated they wanted to work something out. They brainstormed together. Ehren came up with ideas including, he could deploy to the Afghanistan War instead, he could resign (his service contract expired in December 2006). His superiors appeared to be eager to consider every possibility; however, they were just attempting to stall. They appear to have thought that if they put him off and put him off, when the day to deploy came, he'd just shrug his shoulders and deploy.
They did not know Ehren. June 7, 2006 ("the day before his 28th birthday," Carolyn Ho likes to remind), Ehren went public with his refusal to deploy. Jake Armstrong (Pasadena Weekly) notes Ehren stated to participate in the Iraq War would be participating in war crimes.
In August 2006, an Article 32 hearing was held. Watada's defense called three witnesses, Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois' College of Law, Champagne; Denis Halliday, the former Assistant Secretary General of the UN; and retired Colonel Ann Wright. These three witnesses addressed the issue of the war, it's legality, and the responsibilities of a service member to disobey any order that they believed was unlawful. The testimony was necessary because Watada's refusing to participate in the illegal war due to the fact that he feels it is (a) illegal and (b) immoral. Many weeks and weeks later, the finding was released: the military would proceed with a court-martial.On Monday, February 5, 2007, Watada's court-martial began. It continued on Tuesday when the prosecution argued their case. Wednesday, Watada was to take the stand in his semi-defense. Judge Toilet (John Head) presided and when the prosecution was losing, Toilet decided to flush the lost by declaring a mistrial over defense objection in his attempt to give the prosecution a do-over. Head was insisting then that a court-martial would begin against Watada in a few weeks when no court-martial could begin.January 4, 2007, Head oversaw a pre-trial hearing. Head also oversaw a stipulation that the prosecution prepared and Watada signed. Head waived the stipulation through. Then the court-martial begins and Ehren's clearly winning. The prosecution's own military witnesses are becoming a problem for the prosecution. It's Wednesday and Watada's finally going to take the stand. Head suddenly starts insisting there's a problem with the stipulation. Watada states he has no problem with it. Well the prosecution has a problem with it and may move to a mistrial, Judge Toilet declares. The prosecution prepared the stipulation and they're confused by Head's actions but state they're not calling for a mistrial or lodging an objection. That's on the record. Head then keeps pushing for a mistrial and the prosecution finally gets that Head is attempting to give them a do-over, at which point, they call for a mistrial.The case has already started. Witnesses have been heard from. Double-jeopardy has attached. The defense isn't calling for a mistrial and Head rules a mistrial over defense objection and attempts to immediately schedule a new trial. Bob Chapman (Global Research) observes, "With little fanfare the Army at Fort Lewis, Wash., accepted the resignation of the 1966 Kalari High School graduate, and he will be discharged the first week in October." With little fanfare indeed. And to those 'lefty' sites that want to smear opposition of Barack Obama's ObamaBigBusinessCare passed off as something to do with "health care"? I'd say before you accuse anyone of racism, you might take a look at your own damn ass -- which, Red or not, appears highly racist when you claim to be "anti-war" and yet 'forget' all damn week to note Ehren Watada.
And, related, like Elaine, I was disgusted that Free Speech Radio News had time for a ceremony for Glenn Beck but not time to cover Ehren Watada. Today they sort of cover him (link has audio and text):
Lt. Ehren Watada, the first US Army officer to refuse to serve in the war in Iraq, will finally be allowed to resign from the US Army today at Fort Lewis in Washington. Mark Taylor-Canfield has more from Seattle.
Spokespersons at Fort Lewis have confirmed that First Lt. Ehren Watada will be allowed to resign from the US Army. In 2003, Lt. Watada was the first US military officer to refuse to serve in Iraq, which he claims is an illegal war. In 2007 his court marshal was declared a mistrial by a civilian judge. Watada's enlistment was supposed to be up two years ago but he has not been allowed to leave the service.
According to Watada's attorney, Kenneth Kagan, he will receive a "less than honorable discharge." Watada took a leading role in the anti-war movement, speaking out publicly against the war, and criticizing President George W. Bush at the Veterans For Peace national convention in Seattle in 2006. Watada has been under a military imposed gag order since his original court marshal proceedings. Mark Taylor-Canfield, FSRN, Seattle.
Sort of? Two hours before that aired, I'd confirmed on the phone that he'd been discharged and his paper's processed but they're broadcasting, two hours later, that he is supposed to be discharged. People, it's one damn call. You pick up the phone, you call public affairs at Fort Lewis and you explain what you need. So to find people who love and people who hate Glenn Beck, FSRN can do some work. But when they finally note this historic development, they're left with nothing really to say. Not "will be," was. News. You're the ones claiming to be reporters, not me. I rejected that years ago. You're the ones begging for money, not me, I think it's incumbent upon you to do the work that makes someone feel money is well spent. (For those note catching the connection between the two -- both events, Ehren's historic day and that party for Beck took place in the Seattle region. One got an actual report and one got a brief headline. What did our 'independent' news program give us a report on? Glenn Beck's party. Look next for FSRN to woo Suzy for audio reports or possibly Cindy Adams.)
TV notes. NOW on PBS explores Afghanistan which they wrongly dub "the forgotten war." Washington Week is not airing this week. Most PBS stations will be airing The National Parks: America's Best Idea, Ken Burns' latest documentary. Washington Week will return next week. Meanwhile Bonnie Erbe will sit down with Linda Chavez, Kim Gandy, Tara Setmayer and Patricia Sosa to discuss the week's events on PBS' To The Contrary. Check local listings, on many stations, it begins airing tonight. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers:
The Swindler To understand how Bernard Madoff could have done what he did, listen to so-called "mini-Madoff" Ponzi schemer Marc Dreier tell Steve Kroft in his first television interview how he scammed $400 million. | Watch Video
130 Million Tons of Waste If coal ash is safe to spread under a golf course or be used in carpets, why are the residents of Kingston, Tenn., being told to stay out of a river where the material was spilled last December? Lesley Stahl reports. | Watch Video
The Great Migration Scott Pelley visits Kenya, the site of the great wildebeest migration, and looks at the threats to this natural spectacle comprised of over a million animals.
60 Minutes, this Sunday, Oct. 4, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
iraq
xinhuasun yunlongross johnsonpress tv
the new york timessteven lee myers
mcclatchy newspapersmohammed al dulaimy
the wall street journalgina chondolly partonjamal hashimxinhuaalsumaria
ehren watada
wbailaw and disorder
npr
cindy sheehan
ben landotime magazine
sahar issathe diane rehm show
60 minutescbs newspbsto the contrarybonnie erbe
Tuesday, October 2, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, Angelina Jolie urges the world not to forget Iraqi refugees, Cindy Sheehan urges the world to neither forget nor accept these continued wars, Ehren Watada historic struggle results in a victory, and more.
The US military announced: "CAMP VICTORY, Iraq – A Multi-National Corps-Iraq Soldier was killed today in an indirect fire attack on Camp Liberty. Release of the identity of the Soldier is being withheld pending notification of the next of kin. The name of the deceased service member 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 incident is currently under investigation." The announcement brings to 4348 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war. Sun Yunlong (Xinhua) adds, "The term 'indirect fire' in the U.S. military statements usually refers to rocket or mortar attack." Iran's Press TV notes (two hours ago) that the US military released this statement today (not Thursday as dated) and they note 127 US service members have died in Iraq so far this year. Chelsea J. Carter (AP) also notes the announcement was made Friday and that AP's count of 238 deaths for the month of September.
In other violence, Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing which wounded four people and a Baghdad sticky bombing which wounded two people. In addition, Issa notes an attack on a religious minority, Faraj Khairi Bek who is both a Yazidi prince and Zummar's chief of police. His home was blown up today in Mosul. Issa also notes an attack on a mosque in Nineveh Province which claimed the life of 1 Imam and wounded four people.
This morning on The Diane Rehm Show, Susan Page filled in as guest host and was joined for the second hour by Jonathan S. Landay (McClatchy Newspapers), David Loyn (BBC) and Barbara Slavin (Washington Times).
Susan Page: In Iraq this week, we had the prime minister announce a broad coalition for the elections in January, a little bit of a change in strategy on his part, Jonathan.
Jonathan S. Landay: Absolutely. This is a man who led a party called the Dawa Party, which was a conservative Shi'ite party, aligned with the other Shi'ite parties in Iraq. And what he seems to be doing, what al-Maliki seems to be doing, is trying to harness what is a very uh uh growing disastisfication, discontent with reglious parties in Iraq among many Iraqis who see the religious parties as being part and parcel of the violence that was unleased after the 2003 US interven -- invasion. Uh, he-he calls his new party State of Law bloc, he's casting it as being uh sectarian -- non-sectarian, secular and embracing not just uh Shi'ites but also Sunnis as well as Kurds and other minorities in Iraq. The thing though being, at this point really, it doesn't appear that there are any real major leaders from those other uh uh uh groups uh that have joined his party. Nevertheless he-he himself went up to Kurdistan to try and bring the major Kurdish parties into his coalition. Right now that may not be happening because there's still no agreement on what -- on the future of Kirkuk -- the oil-rich that the Kurds and the Arabs all claim. And-and he's also facing opposition from a conservative Shi'ite bloc that has the backing of many of Iraq's Shi'ite religious leaders.
Susan Page: Meanwhile we heard from General Odierno who's the US commander in Iraq about troop levels. Barbara, what did he say about when more Americans could come home?
Barbara Slavin: Well, he had a pretty optimistic report and one thing also is good. Apparently, civilian casualties are down for Iraq in this month. After a pretty horrific -- rather in September compared to August when there was horrific bombings. That seems to have stopped. At least for now, or at least it is less than it was. So Odierno, is saying he can bring back an additional 4,000 troops by the end of the year that he hadn't expected [C.I. note, as he said to Congress Wednesday and he declared at the Pentagon yesterday this so-called 'addtional troops' was already planned -- it was also already announced.]. There are about 124,000 troops in Iraq right now so that would still bring the US down to about 120,000.
We're stopping there on Barabra and Odierno. Where she's getting her information, I do not know. I was at the hearing and I was even at the press conference. We've reported what Odierno said. I don't make a point to disagree when we do the transcripts but she's getting her information from where? She wasn't present and she's completely heard wrong. Did Odierno give an optimistic view to the US Congress? That's a judgment call. And if you're just going by the prepared statement (prepared by him and the White House) you are correct. But if you were actually at the hearing of the House Armed Forces Committee and you heard the testimony from Odierno, you know the general did issue qualifiers. Of course for the public to know that, it would require the press cover it. There were very few members of the press at the hearing. And that number thinned significantly by 30 minutes into the hearing. I'm not calling Barbara a liar. Nor do I believe she meant to spin Odierno's testimony. But she does not know what he said. And she's as uninformed on that as anyone dependant upon the press because the press did not report on Odierno's testimony. To do that, they would have been required to have been present and if I get in a really nasty mood about this topic, I may start naming the people who had bylines on 'reports' about the hearing but they weren't actually present.
No offense to Barbara Slavin and, repeating, I am not accusing of her lying or attempting to shade or spin the truth. I am stating the press reports she's relying to be informed are inaccurate. Odierno repeatedly stressed that he did have the power to speed up . . . and he did have the power to slow down. Reporters (reporting on the hearing) intentionally lied or just heard what they wanted to. As someone who takes notes throughout any hearing (sometimes just to stay awake), I know what was said. I know his qualifiers, I know when he squirmed, I know his nervous tic when he doesn't want to answer a question fully. And anyone present for the entire hearing -- his first Congressional appearance as the top US commander in Iraq -- would know those things to. However, most of the press corp skipped it and the few that showed thinned out by the first half-hour. (Added: You can stream the entire thing online at the committee website here. I've called a staffer to make sure my impressions weren't me being off the wall. No, his qualifiers were very clear.)
Susan Page: Although 50,000 troops still is a significant presence there.
Barbara Slavin: It is, but you know, most of these people will be trainers, will be sort of working in liason capacity with Iraqis and the Iraqis are very much taking the lead now on -- on policing their own country.
Barbara's second remarks quoted in full? I don't agree with them at all. I'm not going to comment on them. She's entitled to her opinion. But the point prior to that, of cutting off her response, wasn't that I was disagreeing. It was that the observations she was offering were incorrect. They were based on the (limited) press coverage (of the first minutes of the hearing -- often due to the fact that Odierno's opening remarks were distributed to the press). The press coverage was incorrect. I am not going to allow that to appear here without noting it was wrong. I could have been at home, I could be traveling (for fun), anything. Instead, I was -- Kat, Ava, Wally and I were -- in that hearing from the start to the end. We know what happened and we know the press didn't report it accurately. If I had to waste my time, I'm not going to further waste my time by having my already wasted time further wasted by allowing a 'recounting' of events when the summary is completely incorrect. Repeating, I am not calling Barara a liar or stating she was attempting to deceive. I am stating she was wrong and her errors are from the (limited) press coverage.
She, like anyone else, has a right to expect that press coverage is accurate. It wasn't. Kat covered the hearing again last night, noting humorous exchanges -- did anyone but Kat report that Stephen Colbert was mentioned in the hearing? No. Why? Because the (limited) press had long ago left. The same reason that Carol Shea-Porter's questions about contractors -- see yesterday's snapshot -- didn't make the press. (And yesterday's snapshot stated it was October 1st -- correct -- and Monday -- incorrect. That was an error when it was typed.) For more on the hearing, Wednesday's snapshot and Kat's Wednesday post covered it last night. UPI notes that Odierno notes yesterday's press conference and notes that 50,000 by next September, according to Odierno, will result from a judgment call as that time approaches. The spin that many in the press created is not reality. It does do its part to ensure that an already weak peace movement doesn't grow any stronger -- which, after all, is the point.
Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan knows the Iraq War has not ended (despite Barack's promise to end it in 16 months and then in 10 months) and that there is an undeclared war on Pakistan and the war in Afghanistan. Cindy (Cindy's Soapbox) writes:
I know that you are only fulfilling your campaign promises to increase the violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan and I notice that not a significant amount of troops have been withdrawn from Iraq. However, even with your hostile rhetoric and promises to escalate the violence, many people voted for you because they believed you were the peace candidate.
Since the election, you have betrayed the progressive base that gave you victory on many occasions already, but the cause that keeps many of us motivated is the continued carnage in the Middle East. What bothers me even more, especially, is the fact that the so-called anti-war movement has given you a nine-month free pass and thousands of people have died, including hundreds of our own troops.
Since you took office, 125 of our irreplaceable young have been killed in what you called a "dumb war" in Iraq and 223 in what I call the "other dumb war," Afghanistan. I have been waiting for a mother of one of those needlessly killed troops to demand a meeting with you to ask you: for "What Noble Cause?" her child was sacrificed.
No such mother has come forward and since your rhetoric is eerily similar to the Bush regime and you are reportedly considering strategies for Afghanistan before you condemn more than the 21,000 troops you have already condemned, I am requesting that you meet with a contingent of the true Peace Movement that will be assembling outside your house this Monday, October 5th at noon.
Yesterday, Nouri al-Maliki, thug of the occupation and holding the honorary title of Prime Minister, announced that he was putting together his own slate of oddballs and never chosen because this slate would allow him to be prime minister if the slate was successful in elections expected to take place in January. Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) observes that "few" of those on Nouri's slate "are truly national leaders likely to lure major blocs of votes." Mohammad al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) explains, "The announcement, made from a heavily guarded Baghdad hotel and broadcast live on television, ended weeks of speculation over whether Maliki's State of Law bloc would join the Iraqi National Alliance, a more Islamist faction that includes the largest Shiite party and supporters of rebel cleric Muqtada al Sadr." Alsumaria (link has video of the speech) explains, "Al Maliki pursues efforts to join 30 new political entities and parties to 40 other entities and political figures into the State of Law Coalition that gathers prominent figures mainly first deputy speaker Sheikh Khaled Al Attiye and a number of ministers including Oil Minister Hussein Al Shahristani, and ministers of Education, Health, Tourism, Labor, Immigrants, Youth and Sports as well as Parliament affairs." Jamal Hashim (Xinhua) reports on Nouri's speech which used terms such as "historic" -- offering a window into the deep pool of vanity overlooding Nouri's psyche. Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) slaps some cold water on the fantasies, "The prime minister will face tough competition in the Shiite south. He enjoyed a surge in popularity there following a military offensive against Shiite militants in the spring of 2008. Since then, Iraqis have grown frustrated with lagging basic services, such as adequate clean water. Mr. Maliki also has been criticized for recent security lapses, including those related to the August bombings." Ben Lando (Time magazine) offers an overview:
Now, with State of Law, he must go toe-to-toe with the Iraqi National Alliance (INA) which, in the shape-shifting politics of Iraq, is the current manifestation of the coalition that Maliki rode to power in 2006. To stay in charge of Iraq, Maliki must defeat his former coalition allies in what are expected to be tough elections on January 16. [. . .]
INA is a formidable organization. Its predominant partners are the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq -- the largest Shi'ite political party now led by Ammar al-Hakim, the son of the recently departed and revered cleric Abdulaziz al-Hakim -- and the militant Moqtada al-Sadr's party, which has its pulse on the much of the country's poor and frustrated Shi'a underclass. (Read how the shoe-thrower put Maliki in a sensitive spot.)
Caesar Ahmed (Los Angeles Times) speaks with a variety of Iraqis on the street in Baghdad about Nouri's slate.
Academy Award winning actress Angelina Jolie is also the UNHCR Goodwill Ambassador. Today, visiting Syria, she issued a call for the world not to forget the Iraqi refugees who have been forced to flee their own country for safety. The UNHCR notes:
Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have returned to their country from Syria and other nearby countries over the past year, but many more are unable or unwilling to return to a country still rocked by violence. As the Iraqi story has largely disappeared from global headlines, so has the plight of the refugees.
Jolie, returning to visit Iraqi refugees in the poorest suburbs of the Syrian capital of Damascus after a 2007 visit, said these refugees still needed vital help and support. "Most Iraqi refugees cannot return to Iraq in view of the severe trauma they experienced there, the uncertainty linked to the coming Iraqi elections, the security issues and the lack of basic services. They will, therefore, be in need of continued support from the international community."
The acclaimed American actress, travelling with her partner Brad Pitt, was welcomed into the homes of two Iraqi families in the Jaramana district of southern Damascus. The first family, grouping seven people, fled to Syria in 2006, while the second family, members of a minority religious group, fled to Iraq in July this year after a son, Waleed,* was twice abducted and his mother, Hoda,* physically abused. The family patriarch, Fares,* had to pay US$25,000 in ransom the first time Waleed was abducted.
The second time, both son and mother were snatched, and Fares had to find US$40,000. The two were released, but they had suffered a terrible ordeal, including torture. "I was assaulted every day for 13 days by up to 10 men," Hoda* recalled, her voice trembling. "I wanted to kill myself and the only reason I decided not to go ahead is because of my children," she added.
On the release of Hoda and Waleed, the family fled to Syria.
RadarOnline offers photos of Angelina's visit to Syria.
This afternoon Fort Lewis's Media Relations department announced that Ehren Watada had completed his out processing and was discharged from the US military. We're going to stay with this topic for a bit because (a) it is important and (b) it is historical. 1st Lt Watada was the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. As Ann noted last night, "there are people who have no idea what a brave thing he did." Ehren Watada was informed he would be deploying to Iraq in June 2005. He had not given much thought to Iraq. To prepare for the deployment, his superior advised him to study up on the war so that he could answer any questions that might come up from those serving under him. He started researching the basics about the country itself, topography and geography and continuing through the history up to the current war. He came across the Downing Street Memos which exposed that the 'intelligence' for the Iraq War was fixed. He was now firmly convinced that the Iraq War was illegal and immoral. From eager to serve in Iraq to realizing he'd be violating his oath to the Constitution, Ehren was now confronted with a decision. He could keep his mouth shut and just do as he was told. Or he could take a stand which would risk the wrath of the military as well as a portion of the public.
Ehren's mother, Carolyn Ho, has explained what happened next many times as she's spoken to raise awareness of her son's case. WBAI's Law and Disorder shared one of her talks on their January 22, 2007 broadcast. Carolyn Ho explained it was the new year, January 2006, and her son called her. He explained that he had something to tell her, he'd decided decided he wouldn't deploy to Iraq when the time came. She was very upset and asked him if he understood what might result from his decision? Ehren told her that he had no choide, he'd taken an oath to the Constitution, this was what he had to do and he was going to inform his superiors.
Ehren didn't hestitate to inform his superiors. This was in January 2006. They at first attempted to change his mind. He could not be budged. So they stated they wanted to work something out. They brainstormed together. Ehren came up with ideas including, he could deploy to the Afghanistan War instead, he could resign (his service contract expired in December 2006). His superiors appeared to be eager to consider every possibility; however, they were just attempting to stall. They appear to have thought that if they put him off and put him off, when the day to deploy came, he'd just shrug his shoulders and deploy.
They did not know Ehren. June 7, 2006 ("the day before his 28th birthday," Carolyn Ho likes to remind), Ehren went public with his refusal to deploy. Jake Armstrong (Pasadena Weekly) notes Ehren stated to participate in the Iraq War would be participating in war crimes.
In August 2006, an Article 32 hearing was held. Watada's defense called three witnesses, Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois' College of Law, Champagne; Denis Halliday, the former Assistant Secretary General of the UN; and retired Colonel Ann Wright. These three witnesses addressed the issue of the war, it's legality, and the responsibilities of a service member to disobey any order that they believed was unlawful. The testimony was necessary because Watada's refusing to participate in the illegal war due to the fact that he feels it is (a) illegal and (b) immoral. Many weeks and weeks later, the finding was released: the military would proceed with a court-martial.On Monday, February 5, 2007, Watada's court-martial began. It continued on Tuesday when the prosecution argued their case. Wednesday, Watada was to take the stand in his semi-defense. Judge Toilet (John Head) presided and when the prosecution was losing, Toilet decided to flush the lost by declaring a mistrial over defense objection in his attempt to give the prosecution a do-over. Head was insisting then that a court-martial would begin against Watada in a few weeks when no court-martial could begin.January 4, 2007, Head oversaw a pre-trial hearing. Head also oversaw a stipulation that the prosecution prepared and Watada signed. Head waived the stipulation through. Then the court-martial begins and Ehren's clearly winning. The prosecution's own military witnesses are becoming a problem for the prosecution. It's Wednesday and Watada's finally going to take the stand. Head suddenly starts insisting there's a problem with the stipulation. Watada states he has no problem with it. Well the prosecution has a problem with it and may move to a mistrial, Judge Toilet declares. The prosecution prepared the stipulation and they're confused by Head's actions but state they're not calling for a mistrial or lodging an objection. That's on the record. Head then keeps pushing for a mistrial and the prosecution finally gets that Head is attempting to give them a do-over, at which point, they call for a mistrial.The case has already started. Witnesses have been heard from. Double-jeopardy has attached. The defense isn't calling for a mistrial and Head rules a mistrial over defense objection and attempts to immediately schedule a new trial. Bob Chapman (Global Research) observes, "With little fanfare the Army at Fort Lewis, Wash., accepted the resignation of the 1966 Kalari High School graduate, and he will be discharged the first week in October." With little fanfare indeed. And to those 'lefty' sites that want to smear opposition of Barack Obama's ObamaBigBusinessCare passed off as something to do with "health care"? I'd say before you accuse anyone of racism, you might take a look at your own damn ass -- which, Red or not, appears highly racist when you claim to be "anti-war" and yet 'forget' all damn week to note Ehren Watada.
And, related, like Elaine, I was disgusted that Free Speech Radio News had time for a ceremony for Glenn Beck but not time to cover Ehren Watada. Today they sort of cover him (link has audio and text):
Lt. Ehren Watada, the first US Army officer to refuse to serve in the war in Iraq, will finally be allowed to resign from the US Army today at Fort Lewis in Washington. Mark Taylor-Canfield has more from Seattle.
Spokespersons at Fort Lewis have confirmed that First Lt. Ehren Watada will be allowed to resign from the US Army. In 2003, Lt. Watada was the first US military officer to refuse to serve in Iraq, which he claims is an illegal war. In 2007 his court marshal was declared a mistrial by a civilian judge. Watada's enlistment was supposed to be up two years ago but he has not been allowed to leave the service.
According to Watada's attorney, Kenneth Kagan, he will receive a "less than honorable discharge." Watada took a leading role in the anti-war movement, speaking out publicly against the war, and criticizing President George W. Bush at the Veterans For Peace national convention in Seattle in 2006. Watada has been under a military imposed gag order since his original court marshal proceedings. Mark Taylor-Canfield, FSRN, Seattle.
Sort of? Two hours before that aired, I'd confirmed on the phone that he'd been discharged and his paper's processed but they're broadcasting, two hours later, that he is supposed to be discharged. People, it's one damn call. You pick up the phone, you call public affairs at Fort Lewis and you explain what you need. So to find people who love and people who hate Glenn Beck, FSRN can do some work. But when they finally note this historic development, they're left with nothing really to say. Not "will be," was. News. You're the ones claiming to be reporters, not me. I rejected that years ago. You're the ones begging for money, not me, I think it's incumbent upon you to do the work that makes someone feel money is well spent. (For those note catching the connection between the two -- both events, Ehren's historic day and that party for Beck took place in the Seattle region. One got an actual report and one got a brief headline. What did our 'independent' news program give us a report on? Glenn Beck's party. Look next for FSRN to woo Suzy for audio reports or possibly Cindy Adams.)
TV notes. NOW on PBS explores Afghanistan which they wrongly dub "the forgotten war." Washington Week is not airing this week. Most PBS stations will be airing The National Parks: America's Best Idea, Ken Burns' latest documentary. Washington Week will return next week. Meanwhile Bonnie Erbe will sit down with Linda Chavez, Kim Gandy, Tara Setmayer and Patricia Sosa to discuss the week's events on PBS' To The Contrary. Check local listings, on many stations, it begins airing tonight. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers:
The Swindler To understand how Bernard Madoff could have done what he did, listen to so-called "mini-Madoff" Ponzi schemer Marc Dreier tell Steve Kroft in his first television interview how he scammed $400 million. | Watch Video
130 Million Tons of Waste If coal ash is safe to spread under a golf course or be used in carpets, why are the residents of Kingston, Tenn., being told to stay out of a river where the material was spilled last December? Lesley Stahl reports. | Watch Video
The Great Migration Scott Pelley visits Kenya, the site of the great wildebeest migration, and looks at the threats to this natural spectacle comprised of over a million animals.
60 Minutes, this Sunday, Oct. 4, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
iraq
xinhuasun yunlongross johnsonpress tv
the new york timessteven lee myers
mcclatchy newspapersmohammed al dulaimy
the wall street journalgina chondolly partonjamal hashimxinhuaalsumaria
ehren watada
wbailaw and disorder
npr
cindy sheehan
ben landotime magazine
sahar issathe diane rehm show
60 minutescbs newspbsto the contrarybonnie erbe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)