He'll get to work one day
BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLECELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O PROMISED HIS CORPORATE BAIL OUT, POPULARLY KNOWN AS A "STIMULUS," WOULD FIX OR "STIMULATE" THE ECONOMY.
THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
NOW BARRY O ANNOUNCES THE "STIMULUS" WILL COME . . . SOME DAY. NOT ANY TIME SOON. BUT GIVE IT TIME.
MEANWHILE, HE'S BUSY GLOBE TROTTING AND HAVING "DATE NIGHTS" WHILE AMERICA'S ECONOMY CONTINUES TO TANK. NOT READY ON DAY ONE, WON'T BE READY ON DAY 365.
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Yesterday the House Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee on Joint Readiness, Air and Land Forces and Seapower and Expeditionary Forces met to take testimony from General James Amos with the Marines and General Peter Chiarelli with the Army. Amos' big news is that all the marines equipment will be out of Iraq at the end of 2010 but not all of the marines. The press has maintained otherwise. We will be out of Iraq, the marines will be," declared Amos, "with the exception of just a few, by this time next year, the equipment will be out of Iraq, being repaired and going to the home stations."
Repaired? With regards to Chiarelli and the army, the big news appeared to be that money was being wasted because military equipment being reset is not also being repaired. This was referred
Roscoe Bartlett: I want to follow up with a question asked by Mr. Forbes, the army's 2010 request for reset is about $11 billion which nearly 8 billion -- 7.9 billion is for operations and maintenance and 3.1 billion for procurement. Now from 2007 to 2010, the O and M portion has been pretty constant at about 8 billion but the procurement portion has dropped to less than fifty percent of what it was in '07. I know '07 was a bit higher than it might have been because we were short in '06. But at just the time when we need more money because of all this reset, now we have less money. And if we're going to justify this on the basis of this new rule that you can't upgrade when you're repairing the equipment than I have a problem with that because what an opportunity we have when it's in there for maintenance repair why can't we upgrade? It seems to me to be very short sighted and I'm wondering why the money wasn't there? Did the army ask for more than 11 billion and 11 billion was all you could get?
Peter Chiarelli: My understanding is no, sir, we did not. We understood with the new overseas contingency operations rules were going to be, that amount, that three-billion-plus in procurement can only be used for washouts or vehicles or aircraft that are destroyed. And for the most part -- although like all these rules, they change -- for the most part, the recap -- or adding on -- is not allowed in FY10 and that drove down the amount of money we needed for procurement.
Roscoe Bartlett: But sir, why not? Isn't it our goal to have a better and better military? To support our people? Why shouldn't we upgrade? And isn't this a very short sighted program?
Peter Chiarelli: Sir, you'd have to ask the folks who wrote the new rules. Uhm. I-I think that it makes a lot of sense to upgrade when we can. It's kind of like paving a road. Uh, you know, it's better to put the sewer system in before you pave the road. It's-it's not a good idea to, in fact, pave the road and then decide to dig it up to put the sewer system in. So when we have equipment in and are able to do that -- that was a plus and allowed us to recap equipment. But the new rules are that we cannot do that.
Roscoe Bartlett: Well I think Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says that the Congress makes the rules. And, Mr. Chairman [Ortez], I think we need to take a look at that. Thank you very much and I yield back.
Solomon Ortez: Chairman Abercrombie.
Neil Abercrombie: I want to follow up, General, on what Mr. Bartlett just was dealing with when he says the Congress makes the rules. I'm not clear from your answer to Mr. Bartlett. What-what part of what the Congress wants you to do is being thwarted by whomever is making these rules? Who made this rule?
Peter Chiarelli: Sir, my understanding is they come out of OMB
Neil Abercrombie: I'm sorry?
Peter Chiarelli: Sir, my understanding is they come out of OMB. They write --
Neil Abercrombie: So you -- this is very important to me -- you take orders from OMB and not from the Defense Bill?
Peter Chiarelli: I, um, I can only tell you what I know now right now, sir, is the rules -- and I don't question who makes rules --
Neil Abercrombie: Well maybe rules is the wrong way. I'm not trying to be argumentative here at all. But this is serious business because the questions I have have to do with inventory and our capacity to do an accurate inventory so that I can make from -- Mr. Bartlett and I, I should say, because we do this together -- make recommendations to our subcommittee members and the committee as a whole. We try to this in a way that reflects your needs and if you're telling me that -- or telling Mr. Bartlett -- that someone in the Office of Management and Budget is able to countermand, I guess, what we're doing, how on earth are we supposed to make an accurate assessment, let alone recommendation, to follow up on, uh, requests that you're making today, let alone what has been made in the past. I'm not quite sure about your answer. Are you saying that your present -- your present course of action, when you make decisions with regard to the context established by Mr. Bartlett, that you're not paying any attention to the Defense Bill?
Peter Chiarelli: I'm not saying that. I'm saying --
Neil Abercrombie: Then why -- I really need to know what it is that we're dealing with here.
Peter Chiarelli: I can only tell you what the people I trust to put together our request to Congress have indicated to us: In FY10, as a general rule, we are not allowed to recap equipment. And that has brought down the amount of money that we requested for procurement as part of reset.
Neil Abercrombie: So you don't need additional funds? Is that right?
Peter Chiarelli: I am telling you --
Neil Abercrombie: Because we could reallocate funds. Believe me, I've got requests, Mr. Bartlett has requests right now, if your answer is is that you don't need this money and that which was represented to us -- whether I was in the minority or the majority because we've been on this subcommittee for some period of time now -- so those estimates from before were inaccurate?
Peter Chiarelli: Let me be perfectly clear --
Neil Abercrombie: I hope so.
Peter Chiarelli: -- this --
Neil Abercrombie: Because believe me I'll make some recommendations for re-allocations. Absolutely, I will.
Peter Chiarelli: We are in fact able -- with the budget we have and what we've requested to you to do what you asked me to come here and talk about today and that is reset our equipment. That is bring our equipment up to 1020 standards and 1020 standards meaning that it is fully capable to do its mission with minor deficiencies at best. We do not bring it to a recap situation. We are able to reset our equipment exactly as defined with the money we've been given by Congress.
Neil Abercrombie: Okay, if that's the case then, what do -- what system is in place then, whether it's from the OMB or yourself, to accurately asses inventory. The reason that I ask this question, in following up on Mr. Bartlett's observations and inquiry, is that just in shipping containers alone, you read the GAO reports, shipping containers alone, we can't get, our subcommittee staff, is unable to get an accurate answer as to what we need even from containers for equipment because we can't get a handle on your inventory. What inventory process is in place right now? And do you have confidence in it?
Peter Chiarelli: I have confidence in our inventory. I have confidence not only that commanders down range like I was twice maintaining inventory of both their TO and E equipment that they bring over with them plus the troop provided equipment. Uh, we have had many looks at our equipment down range to make sure that accountability standards are high. Uh, and they are. Uh and we feel very, very good that we know what we've got down range and what we will in fact be bringing back and what is in troop provided -- theater provided equipment which they issue to units when they arrive in theater
Neil Abercrombie: So the GAO reports on the capacity for you to accurately assess inventory is incorrect.
Peter Chiarelli: I believe --
Neil Abercrombie: I'll send it to you.
Peter Chiarelli: Thank you, sir.
Neil Abercrombie: And I would appreciate your response. This is a serious question because, again, this involves numbers, including billions of dollars. Believe me, we are looking right now for billions of dollars possibly for reallocation because of other demands. So-so if you don't need this money and you're sure your inventory assessment is absolutely correct seems to me I'm going to have a hell of a lot more flexibility than I thought I had.
Peter Chiarelli: Uh, we too understand the tru-tremendous fiscal re - crisis that our country has gone though. The economic situation. And one of the reasons why there's no question as long as we can reset our equipment we understand because of fiscal requirements it may be in the best interest of our country as a whole to cut back on the amount of recap we're doing so it did not seem odd to me --
Neil Abercrombie: Okay, excuse me. In the fiscal interests, is that the basis? Are you in conversations with these folks at OMB?
Peter Chiarelli: I have not, sir.
Neil Abercrombie: Who would have had these conversations?
Peter Chiarelli: It would have taken place at the Office of Secretary of Defense, OSD.
Neil Abercrombie: So the Secretary of Defense is saying that you need -- at least from my calculations here -- approximately 2 billion dollars less than you said you needed previously with regard to reset on the basis of -- what was the phrase you used? Fiscal discipline or fiscal necessity?
Peter Chiarelli: We understand that we all have to be very, very careful with the dollars that we spend. And, uhm, people have made a decision that we will not recap equipment in FY10. That seems to me to be understandable.
Neil Abercrombie: Okay, it's understandable, yes. Do you think it's good policy?
Peter Chiarelli: If-if-if I had the ability to recap equipment, if we had the money to recap equipment I think it would make sense --
Neil Abercrombie: That's not the question I asked. Do you think you need the money to recap? In you professional judgment, that's what we're asking for today, not from a politician appointed in the OMB. I'm asking for your professional judgment today with regard: Do you need money to recap?
Peter Chiarelli: If I had the ability to recap, I would recap for all the reasons I have stated.
Neil Abercrombie: You think the policy then of not being able to do that which is reflected in your -- in the numbers that are given to us -- is not good policy?
Peter Chiarelli: I-I-I can't say that and I won't say that. And I won't say that because I understand that the people who make those rules, make those decisions, have to take many other things into consideration. And that is why --
Neil Abercrombie: Yes, they have to take into consideration what we say is in the Defense Bill because we're reflecting -- we are trying to reflect -- I'm trying to help you here. Because, believe me, if you give me this answer, I want to know, and right now what you're telling me is is that -- is that in your professional judgment the-the rules or the-the policy or the-the-the admonitions that you've been given or the directions that you're operating under reflects your professional judgment of what the necessities for the army are right now.
Peter Chiarelli: If I had the authority and the ability to recap, I would. I --
Neil Abercrombie: Okay, thank you. If Congress gives you the authority under the Defense Bill then that would reflect your professional opinion that you could use at least 13 billion dollars a year rather than 11 billion --
Peter Chiarelli: I can't -- I can't give you those numbers.
Neil Abercrombie: Well okay. You don't have to -- well, those are the numbers we have been given previously.
Peter Chiarelli: Previous years?
Neil Abercrombie: Yes.
Peter Chiarelli: I'd have to go back and ask the -- we just don't go --
Neil Abercrombie: I won't go further. Mr. Chairman, this is serious business. We're under the gun here in the Defense Bill to make accurate numbers and put them forward for everybody to consider and now we have to make a decision whether OMB does this because, what the hell, we don't need a committee here if-if-if somebody down in OMB, this is a political appointment. It's all political appointments and if we're going to do it on the basis of-of what somebody else decides in the executive is-is a budget number as opposed to what our obligation is which is to provide for you and the people who serve under you and under your command then we have a real dilemma here. I have a real dilemma because I can't accurately, I cannot in good conscience say to Chairman Ortiz or to the other members that we're giving a number that adequately responds to what you believe to be in your professional judgment a necessity. Understand my motivation here?
Peter Chiarelli: I hope you understand mine. I-I understand also that you have to take many other things into consideration when putting together our budget. That's all I'm saying to you.
RECOMMENDED: "
Iraq snapshot"
"
The violence and the disputed region in the north"
"
Release of prisoners"
"
I Hate The War"
"
More wisdom from Bill Bennett's Book of Virtuous Weight Loss"
"
We need answers"
"
Talking post"
"
Baked tuna casserole"
"
grab bag"
"
gordo and british escapades"
"
Politco goes down on Huffington Post"
"
Barack's attempts to bury universal health care"
"
House Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee"
"
Abortion rights"
"
The shameful David Kris"
"
Quick"
"
Roland Burris announces he won't run in 2010"
"
John Pilger, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Senator Burris"
"
Snapshot (C.I.)"
"
Legal abuses by Bush and Barack"
"
War Hawks, CIA"
"
Barry and his dresser"
"
THIS JUST IN! CELEBRITIES NEED DOWN TIME!"
Barry and his dresser
BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLECELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O PLEDGED THE HEALTH CARE DEBATE AND PLAN WOULD BE OPEN BUT THAT WAS THEN AND NOW HE SAYS NO WAY WITH HIS WARDROBE MISTRESS DICK DURBIN BACKING HIM UP.
REACHED FOR COMMENT, FORMER SENATOR DURBIN EXPLAINED HE WAS RINSING OUT BARRY'S LEGGINGS "SO I JUST HAVE A FEW MINUTES BUT, YES, THE PUBLIC DOESN'T NEED TO KNOW. BARRY IS A CELEBRITY, OKAY? THEY DID. THEY DIE FROM OVEREXPOSURE. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT BARRY CONSERVE HIS STAR POWER AND IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE JUST GO AWAY. LEAVE HIM BE, AMERICA, LEAVE HIM BE!"
FROM THE TCI WIRE:Yesterday violence made a strong impression in Iraq even if the press wasn't paying attention. (See
Timothy Williams' article in today's New York Times which reduces the deaths to an aside saved for the final paragraph of the article and note that Williams was one of the few reporting on Iraq that you could find in a US paper today.) If the ongoing, never-ending illegal war has demonstrated anything over the last six years and counting, it's that reality always crashes into the latest wave of Operation Happy Talk.
Jamal al-Badrani (Reuters) counts 50 dead in Iraq today from bombings in northern Iraq and Baghdad.
Ned Parker and Usama Redha (Los Angeles Times) report on two suicide bombers in Tal Afar where one bomber detonated outside the home of a police officer causing a crowd to gather, at which point, the second bomber detonated.
Nada Bakri (Washington Post) adds that the police chief states the bombers wore police uniforms and, "The first suicide bomber managed to sneak inside the house of a counter-terrorism officer and blew himself up, causing the home to collapse. The attack took place in a neighborhood called al-Qala, inhabited by mostly Shiites. When neighbors gathered to help the family trapped inside, a second suicide bomber struck, increasing the bloodshed."
Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) explains, "Tal Afar, a mostly Turkmen town about 30 miles (48 kilometers) west of Mosul, has been targeted by militans before. In March 2007, it was hit by one of the deadliest single attacks since the U.S.-led invasion of 2003 when a suicide truck bomb killed more than 150 people."
Jomana Karadsheh and CNN count 35 dead and sixty-five injured from the two bombings. The two Tal Afar bombings were not the only reported violence today . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi and Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) report a Baghdad market bombing which claimed 7 lives and left twenty injured, a Baghdad roadside bombing which left five people injured, a Baghdad sticky bombing which injured two people, a Baghdad bicycle bombing which left four people injured, two Baghdad bombings which claimed 9 lives and left thirty-five people wounded and a Ramadi car bombing which claimed the life of the bomber and left four police officers wounded.
Reuters notes a Mosul roadside bombing which injured one person and a Kirkuk roadside bombing which claimed 1 life and left three injured.
Shootings?
Reuters notes one woman and one man were wounded in a Mosul attack by unknown assailants and 1 Iraqi soldier was shot dead in Kirkuk.
Today the
US military announced: "BAGHDAD – A Multi-National Division–Baghdad Soldier died July 8 after being found unresponsive at a Coalition forces facility. The Soldier's name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin. The names of deceased service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense Official Web site at
http://www.defenselink.mil/ . The announcements are made on the Web site no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. MND-B will not release any additional details prior to notification of next of kin and official release by the DoD. The incident and cause of death are currently under investigation." It's the first US service member announced death in Iraq for the month and it brings the total number of US service members killed in the illegal war to
4322.
"I don't know the exact percentage but I'm sure it's well over 70% that want the US out as soon as possible,"
explains Mike Tharp in a video posted at McClatchy. He's speaking with Paul Jay for The Real News Network (
click here for the clip at TRNN). Tharp states, "They've seen the last six years as an occupation, not as a liberation, not as bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq but instead the loss of tens of thousands of Iraqi lives as well as over 4300 American troop losses, a trillion dollars spent by the US, I don't know what estimates are put on the damage done to the Iraqi society and economy but it's incalcuable." On the topic of the physical damage done to Iraq . . .
Today the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has issued [PDF format warning] "FINAL REPORT on Damage Assessment in Babylon." The twenty page report prepared by the International Coordination Committee for the Saveguarding of the Cultural Heritage of Iraq explores the damage done by the US' decision to install a military base on an archaeological site in Babylon after the issue was raised by Iraq's Minister of Culture. The report explains the historical context:
Babylon is unquestionably one of the most important archaelogical sites in the world. It was the capital city of two of the most famous kings of antiquity, Hammurabi (1792-1750 BC) who introduced one of the world's first law codes, and Nebuchadnezzar (604-562 BC) who built the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, one of the Seven Wonders of the World. Alexander the Great chose Babylon as his new capital but died before he could implement this plan. The existence of Babylon is first mentioned in cuneiform texts of the Akkadian period (2371-2230 BC), but the city did not become significant until the time of Hammurabi. It was substantially enlarged in the Neo-Babylonian period (626-539 BC) when it became the largest city of the contemporary world. Although its location was forgotten for centuries the fame of Babylon survived through a number of historical and religious texts. In view of the historical and archaelogical significance of Babylon, recent allegations of damage to the site during its occupation as a military camp are particularly serious.
Since 1935, Bablyon has been listed as an archaeological site. In 2003, the US invaded and the Iraq War started, the Hammurabi and Nebuchadnezzar museums were looted ("Fortunately, the objects in the two museums were plaster replicas rather than the origianls"). April 21, 2003, the US military created Camp Alpha -- a US base that continued through December 22, 2004 during which time the US military and contractors such as KBR "directly caused major damage to the city by digging, cutting, scraping, and leveling." Nine trenches and two pits were dug including on areas that had not been excavated. This was true of cuts, scrapings and leveling efforts by the US military and contractors as well. In addition the report notes:
The Ishtar Gate serves as a ritual gate leading into the northern part of the inner city. The damage to the gate includes smashed bricks on nine of the bodies of the animals adorning the gate. These animals depcit the legendary dragon-snake, the symbol of Marduk, the god of the city of Babylon. [. . .] Major damage can be observed in the southern part of the Proecessional Way, which was rediscovered during the Babylon Revival Project excavations in 1979. Starting from the Nabu-sha-Hare Temple, the effects of heavy vehicle wheels are clear, breaking the paving of the street. Three rows of 2-ton concrete blocks were placed in the middle of the Processional Way on top the paving by heavy vehicles, which is itself an encroachment. These blocks were removed by helicopter on November 29, 2004 to prevent further damage to the Processional Way. In addition, a row of HESCO containers with soil taken from the eastern wall of the sacred precinct were placed on the way, and barbed wire was attached by steel stakes to the wall itself and in the middle of Processional Way. There is also a cut in the wall itself with a length of 2.5 m, a depth of 50 cm, and a height of 1.5 m.
UNESCO's director of the Office for Iraq
Moahmed Djelid states, "In view of Babylong's historical and archaeological significance, recent allegations of damage to the site during its military use were particularly serious. The report is key because it establishes a description of damages on which there is international agreement. Without pointing fingers, we now have a clear picture of the situation. It provides the starting-point for the major challenge of restoration and conservation."
RECOMMENDED: "
Iraq snapshot"
"
US military announces another death, violence sweeps Iraq"
"
Voices of Honor"
"
Hawaii"
"
Action"
"
gordo, gordo, anchor drag"
"
October action"
"
National Press Club"
"
Greenpeace, McNair, more"
"
SEIU corrupt and crooked"
"
International Socialist Review"
"
Larry Jones and a film to skip"
"
You don't know how lucky you are"
"
THIS JUST IN! BOMBING IN BIRSK!"
You don't know how lucky you are
BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLETHE WORLD'S JUST NOT THAT INTO HIM.
AND HE BOMBED BIG.
DESCRIBED BY THE U.S. PRESS AS "TIRED," CELEBRITY-IN-CHIEF BARACK LIVED UP TO THAT AS HE WAS CAUGHT "SEVERAL TIMES FUMBLING THE PRONUNCIATION OF MR. [VLADIMIR] MEDVEDEV'S NAME AND MR. PUTIN'S TITLE. BEGINNING A SPEECH HERE, HE MISTAKENLY SAID HE FIRST MET HIS WIFE IN SCHOOL INSTEAD OF AT THE LAW FIRM WHERE THEY ACTUALLY MET. AND HE MISSTATED HIS YOUNGER DAUGHTER'S AGE."
IF SARAH PALIN HAD DONE THAT, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE CALLED HER "TIRED," THEY'D HAVE CALLED HER "CRAZY." BUT THE PRESS ALWAYS ATTACKS ANYONE WITH A VAGINA.
FROM THE TCI WIRE:Today the Chair of the Joint chiefs of Staff, Adm Mike Mullen, spoke at the National Press Club in DC.
Adm Mike Mullen: Clearly we're at a point now, in Iraq, where the violence level is down -- dramatically so. In fact, it's the lowest level of violence since 2003, 2004. And-and we are at a point -- we're on our plan to support the draw down which will start significantly really early in 2010, next year. And-and our ability to do all of this is, in great part, contributed to the 2.2 million men and women who-who served -- and so many so nobly, including those that uh paid the ultimate sacrifice and there isn't a day that goes by uh or uh very many issues that I'm dealing with where our young people uh in the best military I've ever seen aren't very much on my mind and I'm privileged to be with them. So as we move forward in Iraq -- and clearly that doesn't mean it's -- we still don't have our challenges. I think most of the challenges there right now are political challenges, economic challenges and that heavy focus in those areas is absolutely critical. And elections which come up next year, early next year, are vital and then after that my expectation is that we will draw down rapidly to get to about 35,000 to 50,000 troops in the August of 2010 and at that point certainly turn over -- we transition our combat forces totally uh to uh advisory and assistance forces. as you know the significant date last week was the 30 June date where we pulled out of the cities. The last two big areas were Mosul and Baghdad. That actually has gone very well. That doesn't mean that it isn't a vulnerable time -- uh times of transition al-always are -- but I'm confident right now that we've got the strategy right and the support of the Iraqi security forces.
Mullen is incorrect about the violence being low.
AFP observes today that June's official death total (from Iraqi ministries) was 437 -- "the highest toll since July 2008." But it wasn't just AFP who fact checked him, it was also events on the ground in Iraq today.
He noted stresses on family members and service members and noted the suicide rate has been increasing for the military and otherwise focused on the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Kimberly Hefling (AP) reports on the increase in service members' children seeking mental health treatment in 2008, noting that the number has doubled since the start of the illegal war. Mullen did not note that and no one asked about it.
The press? They did ask questions. They didn't ask about Iraq. When do they ever? The Iraq War is over -- or that's what they pretend. An exception being the Raleigh News & Observer which editorializes on the four most recent deaths in Iraq (Roger Adams, Juan Baldeosingh, Robert Bittiker and Edward Kramer) in "
Four of the brave:"A war that is said to be "winding down" isn't winding down at all for those who remain in the middle of it. The N.C. Guard knows that well. It has lost 15 troops there since the Iraq war began in 2003. A strong military presence in North Carolina, with multiple bases, brings pride to the state, and in times of war, a keen and painful shared sense of what it takes to fight. (In 2004, the 30th was the first major National Guard unit in the country to be sent to Iraq. It lost five soldiers on that tour. And just this past May, three died because of a suicide bomber.) For the families of those in action, and all who know them and all who admire them, a war is not gauged merely by victory. It is about wives and children left behind, about all the good times shared, and all those that will never be shared.
As DC speeches go, Mullen's was a bust. Far better today, also at the National Press Club, was US House Rep Patrick Murphy who kicked off the Voices Of Honor campaign.
US House Rep Patrick Murphy: My name is Patrick Murphy, I'm a Democrat from the eighth district of Pennsylvania which is Bucks County and far north east Philadelphia. I am now a United States Congressman in my second term but prior to that I was in the military since 1993. I rose up to through the ranks to become a professor at West Point. And then when 9-11 happened, I served on two deployments. My first one with General [David] Petraeus and my second one as a paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division in Baghdad from 2003 to 2004. That's why every day I wear the 82nd Airborne pin on my lapel, I don't wear the Congressional pin because 19 of my fellow paratroopers never made it home. I am proud to be the lead sponsor today of the Military Enhancement Readiness Act -- a bill that will finally repeal the discriminatory Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. Our troops are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and are stretched dangerously thin. These men and women in our military understand what it takes to serve our country and the values that our military and our nation hold dear. They take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, yet the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy when it took effect in 1993 has discharged over 13,000 troops -- honorable men and women. That is the equivalent of three and a half combat brigades. They have been discharged not for any type of sexual misconduct but because of their sexual orientation. The policy is not working for armed services and it hurts national security. Attitudes on Don't Ask, Don't Tell have changed -- have changed in our military and have changed in the public at large. Up to 75% of Americans support repeal and the number is even higher in the age bracket of those we are recruiting from 18 years of age to 29. Former senior military leaders agree that it is time to re-evaluate and to repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. Opponents of lifting the ban arguing that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly will be detremental to unit cohesion and morale. As a former Army officers and West Point professor, that is an insult to me and to all the troops serving in uniform. In Iraq, my men did not care what race, color, creed or sexual orientation their fellow paratroopers were. They cared, whether they could get the job done. We cared about serving with honor and coming home alive. Over 20 nations, include our two strongest allies, Great Britain and Israel, allow gays and lesbians to serve openly without any determental impact on unit cohesion or morale. Believe me, our heroes serving in the US military are the best fighting forces in the entire world. We are second to none. And we are just as good as those who serve in Great Britain and Israel. Our president, President Barack Obama, has stated that if Congress will get a bill to his desk repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, he will sign it into law. It is now our job, and my job specifically, to quarterback this through the Congress of the United States to do just that. I cannot tell you today how long it is going to take. All I can tell you is that paratroopers don't quit and paratroopers get the job done. To remove honorable, talented and committed Americans from serving in our military is contrary to the values that our military life holds dear. My time in Iraq and at West Point teaching the next generation of military leaders taught me that our military deserves and expects the best and the brightest that are willing to serve. I stand here today with these honorable and noble veterans. Together we will continue the fight to make our nation and our military stronger.
Meanwhile Iraq wasn't an issue at Mullen's appearance before the National Press Club -- wasn't an issue to the press (Mullen addressed it as the first topic when he spoke, it's the press that didn't give a damn). Somewhere after weaponry program questions (yes, they had time for that in both costs -- FY2010 and beyond -- and wide-eyed dreaming of future wars), in the final minutes of Mullen's appearance (the second to last question), it was noted he had "called for an evolution in the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy" and he was asked if he could write the new policy, what it would be. "Well I'm not a policy guy," Mullen began indicating he would punt on the issue and avoid addressing it. "Uh, uh, I'm charged with carrying out the law I'm charged with carrying out policy and right now the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy and law from 1993 is in effect." He then started mentioning Obama and US Secretary of Defense of Robert Gates. And, no, he never answered the question. So, yes, he could have stopped at "I'm not a policy guy." Yet still he continued, splitting sentences, serving up fragments, uh and uhm. He repeated that he just follows the law, for anyone who might have missed it, and "like the law that exists now, should the law change, certainly we would carry it out." In other words, how would he change it? He never said. But he went to great lengths to say he follows orders. For any who were confused by that point, Mullen follows orders.
And the press refused to care about anything other than the meal on their plates. And dessert. They cared about dessert. Your working press corps in their natural habitat, up close and scary.
At the Voices of Honor Campaign press conference, retired US Navy Captain Joan Darrah, of the Sevicemembers Legal Defense Network, expressed her confidence in Murphy's ability to lead in the House on this issue and get the needed 218 needed votes and shared her story.
Joan Darrah: When I first joined the Navy, I didn't realize I was gay. By the time I figured it out, I had about 10-plus years of service. Based on my promotion record and fitness reports it was clear to me that the Navy felt that I was making a difference so I opted to stay. Now that I am retired and out from under Don't Ask, Don't Tell I realize how incredibly stressful and frankfully just plain wrong it is to have to serve in silence. Each day I went to work wondering if that would be the day of my last service. Whenever the admiral would call me to his office 99.9% of me would be certain it was to discuss an operational issue but there was always a small part of me that feared the admiral was calling me into his office to tell me that I had been outed, that I was fired and that my career was over. On September 11th, I was at the Pentagon attending the weekly intelligence briefing when American flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon, I was at the Pentagon bus stop. The office I had been in seven minutes earlier was completely destroyed and seven of my co-workers were killed. The reality is if I had been killed, my partner would have been the last to know because her name was nowhere in my records and I certainly hadn't dared to list her in my emergency contact information. It was the events of September 11th that made me realize that Don't Ask, Don't Tell was taking a much bigger toll than I had ever admitted. On 1 June, 2002, a year earlier than originally planned, I retired. I am incredibly proud of our military and our country. And I know that we will be stronger once Don't Ask, Don't Tell is repealed. More than 26 countries have already figured this out and now allow gay people to serve openly. What we need now is for Congress to act and they must act now. Every day the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is delayed, more highly qualified, motivated, valuable service members are discharged simply for being gay. Our great country can do better than this.
Among the others speaking, Iraq War veteran
Eric Alva.
Eric Alva: Six years ago on March 21, 2003 I was part of a logistical convoy with 3rd Batallion 7th Marines. My unit was part of the first wave of ground troops that entered the country of Iraq from Kuwait to start the ground invasion of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I had been in Iraq no more than three hours when I stepped on a landmine near the city of Basra wuffering life threatening injuries. I had a broken left leg, a broken right arm with severe nerve damage and a badly injured right leg that doctors had to ampute it in order to save my life. I had become the first American injured in Operation Iraqi Freedom. It was not until February 28, 2007 that I announced not only to the people of the United States but to the rest of the world that the first American injured in Operation Iraqi Freedom was a gay marine. I decided to be true to myself and my country by coming forward and announcing who I am. My coming forward was to tell the people of this country that as a patriotic American when I went to fight the war on terrorism it was for the rights and freedoms of every single person in this country not just selected individuals. That means every single individual regardless of who they are. I stand here today on two good legs again with my fellow service members and a courageous Congress member Patrick Murphy to show my support for the Military Readiness Enhancement Act. It is time to let people be judged for their merit, professionalism and their leadership. This is a time when we should not be firing anyone from their job in the United States Armed Forces for being gay.
Rep Murphy's office has released a statement on the confrence today.
Voices of Honor is a partnership between the
Human Rights Campaign the
Servicemembers United.
Emily Sherman (CNN) reports, "A 'Voices of Honor' tour, sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign, will travel across the country sharing stories of gay, lesbian and straight servicemen and -women in hopes of garnering support for the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which would repeal the law that established the policy. The act would allow gay and lesbian Americans to serve in the military without concealing their sexuality." Sherman notes Colin Powell was the architect (Powell refused to go along with then President Bill Clinton's effort to allow gays and lesbians to serve in 1993 and made many threats about what would happen if the policy went forward -- it was the first step in the disrespect for the president among the military that Powell fostered and had he been punished for it, he might not have been able to lie to the UN in 2003). Sherman has a few mealy mouthed words from Powell today and he's only saying those because he realizes the shame that his actions and that policy carry. More pointing out Colin's role in Don't Ask, Don't Tell could force him to actually speak out in favor of allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the military openly. He's desperate to (white)wash his image and he's trying so very hard to get himself back into the news cycle. Which is why, Sunday, Colin Powell made a fool of himself -- as is to be expected. On CNN's
State of the Union today,
Collie The Blot Powell, who lied to the United Nations in an attempt to make the case for illegal war, declared the mistake about the Iraq War was . . . not doing an escalation ("surge") sooner. He lied the nation into illegal war and he's never apologized for it. He did fret a bit over his blot for a little while. Now instead of hanging his head in shame, fueled by the Cult of St. Barack, he's attempting a comeback. Smart would be using his ambition against him to force him to take a stand.
RECOMMENDED: "
Iraq snapshot"
"
The fallen"
"
Service members' children increase use of mental health care"
"
What gathers a crowd"
"
Trina back with you next time"
"
gordo killed the mg?"
"
Back"
"
Senate Armed Service Committee"
"
Tennesse Guerilla Women: Home to Racists"
"
Sex-segregation in Alabama and on PBS"
"
ACLU, McNamara, Trash TV"
"
ACLU on state secrets, Third"
"
Little Man On Campus"
"
THIS JUST IN! BAD NEWS FOR BARRY
Little Man On Campus
BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLETURNS OUT, HE CAN'T TURN THE WHOLE WORLD ON WITH HIS SMILE.
FROM THE TCI WIRE:"Good morning, everybody," declared US Senator Carl Levin bringing to order the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on Military Commission and the trial of Detainees for Violations of the Law of War. "In its 2006 decision in the Hamdan case, the Supreme Court held that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convetions prohibts the trial of detainees for violations of the law of war unless the trial is conducted 'by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.' The Court concluded that 'the regular military courts in our system are the courts-martial established by congressional statutes' but that a military commission can be regularly constituted by the standards of our military justice system 'if some practical need explains deviations from court-martial practice'.'' His opening remarks set up the hearing so we'll also note this section.
Senator Carl Levin: Of great importance, the provision in our bill would reverse the existing presumption in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that rules and procedures applicable to trials by courts martial would not apply. Our new language says, by contrast, that: "Except as otherwise provided, the procedures and rules of evidence applicable in trials by general courts-martial of the United States shall apply in trials by military commission under this chapter." The exceptions to this rule are, as suggested by the Supreme Court, carefully tailored to the unique circumstances of the conduct of military and intelligence operations during hostilities. Three years ago, when this Committee considered similar legislation on military commissions, I urged that we apply two tests. First, will we be able to live with the procedures that we establish if the tables are turned and our own troops are subject to similar procedures? Second, is the bill consistent with our American system of justice and will it stand up to scrutiny on judicial review? I believe that those remain the right questions to consider and that language we have included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 meets both tests. Over the last three years, we have seen the legal advisor to the Convening Authority for military commissions forced to step aside after a military judge found that he had compromised his objectivity by aligning himself with the prosecution. We have had prosecutors resign after making allegations of improper command influence and serious deficiencies in the military commission process. We have had the Chief Defense Counsel raise serious concerns about the adequacy of resources made available to defendants in military commissions cases, writing that: "Regardless of its other procedures, no trial system will be fair unless the serious deficiencies in the current system's approach to defense resources are rectified." So even if we are able to enact new legislation that successfully addresses the shortcomings in existing law, we will have a long way to go to restore public confidence in military commissions and the justice that they produce. However, we will not be able to restore confidence in military commissions at all unless we first substitute new procedures and language to address the problems with the existing statute.
The hearing was composed of two panels. The first panel was composed of the Dept of Defense's Jeh C. Johnson, Dept of Justice's David S. Kris and JAG's Vice Adm Bruce E. MacDonald. The second panel was composed of Retired Rear Admiral John Hutson, Retired Maj Gen John Altenburg Jr. and the American University's Daniel Marcus.
Senator Carl Levin: Let me ask you first, Mr. Johnson, I quoted from the Hamdan case in my opening remarks, saying that the Court in Hamdan said: "The regular military courts in our system are the courts-martial established by congressional statutes." But they also said that a military commission can be regularly constituted if there's a practical need that explains the ndeviations from court-martial practice. We have attempted in our language to do exactly that. And my question first of you is, in your view, does our bill conform to the Hamdan standards?
Jeh C. Johnson: Senator, as you, as you noted, Hamdan uh-uh requires -- and of course Hamdan was at a time that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 did not exist, as I recall. The holding of Hamdan was that military commissions -- and I'm not going to get this exactly right -- but that military commission should depart from UCMJ courts only in situations of evident practical need. The proposed legislation, uh, in our view definitely brings us closer to the UCMJ model and the circumstances under which the military commissions, uhm, contemplated by this bill and UCMJ courts differ are, in our judgment, circumstances that are necessary, uhm, given -- given the needs here. Uh, for example, uh, there is no Miranda requirement imposed by-by this-by this legislation. Article 31 UCMJ is specifically excluded from application here. Article 31 is what uh calls for Miranda warnings in uh UCMJ circumstances. The legislation also takes what I believe is a very appropriate and practical approach to-to hearsay. As you noted in your opening remarks, Mr. Chariman, the-the-the burden is no longer on the opponent to demonstrate uh-uh that hearsay should be excluded. There is a notice requirement in the proposed legislation and if the proponent of the hearsay can demonstrate reliability and materiality and that the declarant is not available as a practical matter given the unqiue circumstances of military operations and intelligence operations, the hearsy could be admitted.
And people make fun of the way Sarah Palin speaks? The Dept of Defense sends that stammering uh-uh dofus into a hearing? He's the Dept's General Counsel?
First off, Article 31 is not the military's Miranda. UCMJ's Article 31 predates Miranda by 16 years. Don't confuse the two. Article 32 is not a copy of Miranda. Miranda can be seen as a civilian copy of Article 32. What an idiot. And, no, he has no knowledge of the law. Admitting hearsay goes against everything the US justice system stands for and that includes the US military justice system. The Senate should be ashamed of himself for authoring legislation that shreds the US justice system. Let's not let them off (and I don't) but let's be clear that Johnson's a stammering fool who came off like a drunk barely able to keep his head up at the bar (you really needed to see the way Johnson's head dipped and swung to this side and to that side). David Kris was just as much of an ass as Levin's being but he could speak. What he had to say was frightening. Terrorism, Kris said speaking for the Dept of Justice, should be prosecuted in military courts, not civilian ones and proscuted, pay attention to this, by the Defense Department. Slippery slope is apparently a concept foreign to the idiots Barack's appointed. Senator John McCain, the Ranking Member of the Committee, wanted to know if there was a difference in the proceedings based on whether the trials were held in the US or at Guantanamo? Johnson fretted that "due process" would apply if held in the US and "that the courts have not determined applies -- applies now" at Guantanamo. Johnson had a real problem being concise. Not because he was adding detail but because he was restating the same thing over and over. He did that with Levin in Levin's first round of questioning (leading the Chair to note that there was only six minutes in the round) and he tried that with McCain who cut him off.
Senator John McCain: So what you're saying is that you believe that there could be some differneces in procedure if the trials were held in Guantanamo or the United States of America?
Jeh Johnson: I'm not sure I would be prepared to say significant difference, Senator.
Senator John McCain: It would be important for this committee to know what your view is? It might have something to do with the way that we shape legislation. If they're going to have all kinds of additional rights if they're tried in the United States of America as opposed to Guantanamo, I think that the committee and the American people should know that.
Jeh Johnson: One of the things that I mentioned in my prepared statement, Senator, is that when it comes to the admissability of statements, the administration believes that a volunatriness standard should apply on account of the reality of military operations and we think that that is something that uh due process may require particularly if military commissions come to the United States, that the courts may impose a voluntariness standard.
Senator John McCain: Well I hope that you and Mr. Kris will provide for the record what you think the difference is and the process would be as to the location of uh those trials. I think it's very important. Certainly is to me.
Vice Adm Bruce E. MacDonald made clear to Senator Lindsey Graham that the US has more restrictive use on hearsay than, for example, an international tribunal in Rawanda. Boo-hoo. What Constitution did MacDonald swear to uphold and is not coherent enough to grasp what oath he took? And someone tell the idiot to comb his hair. That fallen lock wouldn't play on a guy half his age and for a man showing up before Congress in military dress it was flat out embarrassing. (His hair was comparable to Paul Wolfowitz for any needing a visual. Only worse.) Senator Mark Udall praised Lindsey Graham and had nothing to add. Disappointing. If any Senator did a half-way decent job and seemed to have an understanding of the law it was Senator Jack Reed who did speak up for at least some civilian courts, at least some of the trials needing to take place in civilian courts and he also noted that a number of criminals are being glorified by having their actions, their crimes, inflated into something more than that. It was a very sad hearing and the first panel lasted about one hour and seventeen minutes. The second panel moved more quickly. Former Judge Advocate General of the Navy and Retired Rear Admiral John Hutson made it very clear that he was opposed to the notion of allowing the Defense Dept to begin conducting trials. He spoke of the US system of justice and it would be wonderful if the senators present had either stood up and applauded or slapped their heads in I-didn't-not-know-that gestures. Instead, his words appeared to sail over their clueless heads. We're going to note his remarks at length:
Even greater than democracy itself, the greatest export of all from the United States is justice. Daniel Webster once said, "Justice, Sir, is the greatest interest of man on earth. It's the ligament which holds civilized beings and civilized nations together." But justice is fragile and easily disparaged. It must be nurtured and handled with great care. I was an early and ardent supporter of military commissions. Initially, I was drawn to their historical precedents and, more importantly, I was confident that the United States Armed Forces could and would conduct fair trails even of reprehensible defendants. My own experience gained during 28 years in the Navy and our long history of providing due process while trying our own military personnel in courts-marital gave me this confidence. Unfortunately, as it turned out, the commissions that were created did not live up to the traditions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Predictably, they became a significant distraction for the military. I hasten to add that this was in spite of the stalwart, honorable effort of many, many military personnel themselves. Indeed, that is one of the great tragedies of this saga, and largely makes one of the points that I wish to underline. The primary role of the military is to fight and win our nation's wars or, stated more precisely, to provide the time and space necessary for real solutions -- economic, cultural, social, religious -- to take place. Prosecution of miscreants is an occasionally necessary sidebar to that mission but shouldn't distract from it. We have the UCMJ and the military court-martial system to expedite the legitimate role of the military, not interfere with it. If a sailor on a ship is alleged to have committeed a crime, we must expeditiously and fairly resolve that problem. Otherwise it can fester and interfere with unit cohesion and impede an effective fighting force. The UCMJ and the Manual for Courts Martial serve that purpose alone. They solves problems for the armed forces; not create them. Our recent history with military commissions has been the opposite. I've come to realize that even a perfect commission regime would be a distraction for the military. It's simply not part of its mission. I am very concerned when the military is called upon to perform functions outside of its core mission even when I'm confident that it can do it well. Preserving and ensuring justice in the United States is the primary mission of the Department of Justice, not the Department of Defense. If there will be criticism of our prosecution of alleged terrorists -- and there will be -- the Department of Justice and the US Federal Court system are equipped to deal with that criticism. Indeed, it is part of their responsibility to face it, address it and resolve it.
Monday
Kat reviewed Regina Spektor's latest album. I should have noted that this morning but was in rush to get to the hearing (see, it's connected) and (still connected),
Kat will share her thoughts on the hearing tonight so be sure to visit her site.
Turning to peace and justice news, infamous War Criminal and scourge of the globe
Robert McNamara is dead.
In an online discussion at the Washington Post (conducted by Robert G. Kaiser), Promise and Power author Deborah Shapley provided this context:
Washington, D.C.: Hi Bob -- I wrote a biography of McNamara, "
Promise and Power," published in 1993. For the record, he told me he did not quit over the grim outlook in Vietnam because he wasn't that sure he was right, and because holding on could force Hanoi's hand politically, in his view. Therefore, the deaths of additional Americans at that time (1965 ff) were not in vain. My personal opinion is that his 1995 book "In Retrospect" gave the impression he thought the war was 'totally wrong' at the time -- which is not what his record shows -- at all! He went on telling the president they could bring off something-or-other, albeit in more pessimistic terms. Some people want to seem on the right side of history even when they were on what 'in retrospect' was the wrong side of history. Too bad for the servicemen that he misrepresented (or seemed to misrepresent) his own record.
In this decade, the War Criminal recast himself as a bra-less starlet followed around by professional gadfly Errol Morris for the mockumentary Fog Of War (aka The Bore Never Shuts Up). As with any Morris revisionary opus, the point of the mocumentary was that no one was really guilty.
Alexander Cockburn (CounterPunch) observes:
He faded comfortably away. The last time we saw him vividly was in 2004 as the star of Morris's wildly over-praised, documentary The Fog of War, talking comfortably about the millions of people he's helped to kill.
Time and again, McNamara got away with it in that film, cowering in the shadow of baroque monsters like LeMay or LBJ, choking up about his choice of Kennedy's gravesite in Arlington, sniffling at the memory of Johnson giving him the Medal of Freedom, spouting nonsense about how Kennedy would have pulled out of Vietnam, muffling himself in the ever- useful camouflage of the "fog of war."
Danny Schechter (News Dissector) explains, "McNamara returned to his Waterloo (Hanoi) some years back for a conference on the "lessons of the war" with General Giap, the winner, and several American Generals, the losers. He was challenged by the feisty Vietnamese American documentary director, Tiana [Thi Thanh Nga], who made '
From Hollywood to Hanoi' and other films for all the deaths he caused. There is precious footage of him freaking out and arrogantly lecturing her. The Vietnamese government was too diplomatic to express its rage."
On Democracy Now! today, Marilyn Young, Howard Zinn and Johnny Apologist Schell appeared to discuss War Hawk McNamara. Historian Marilyn Young (author of many books and recently co-editor of
Iraq and the Lessons of Vietnam) is worth noting. She explained of McNamara:
One of the legacies is that there is none, in a sense. The first clip that you ran, you could have run it now. About Iraq, several years ago, about Afghanistan today. It's as if it doesn't go anywhere. There is knowledge, and then it's erased in between McNamara should be kind of a morality tale. During his tenure as Secretary of Defense, he initially -- he was responsible really -- for the initial escalation. In 1964, he and Bundy gave -- '65, I'm sorry -- gave Johnson what's called "The Fork in the Road Memorandum," in which they said, "Now, we have really thought this over and we have two choices. We could increase military pressure or we could negotiate." And they strongly urged the increase of military pressure and Johnson went along with that. Not that he was, you know, I think he was a little unwilling, but that is another subject. Gradually, by later in 1965, by 1966, and certainly by 1967, he was completely disenchanted with the war. And he said it in public at the Senate hearings on bombing targets. And he said, "This bombing is just not going to work." The next thing he knew, he was out. And he said later he never knew whether he had quit or Johnson had fired him. And then, as Howard [Zinn] said, he was absolutely silent. You can imagine that the silence was expressed in onse sense by his opposition to nuclear weapons, which was very sincere and I'm sure Jonathan can talk about that. He and Bundy both focused on the dangers of nuclear war as if that attempt to prevent a future war was going to erase the war they had both just conducted. And then in 1995 he comes out with In Retrospect and everybody quotes, "We were wrong, terribly wrong." But if you read the full paragraph, what it says is: "We weren't wrong in our values and our intentions, we were wrong about our judgments and capabilities." And the book as a whole is an excuse. It's a struggle -- he almost comes to terms and then he runs away from coming to terms. And he does the same thing, I think, in Fog of War. And he did the same thing for the rest of his life -- and approach to what he had really been responsible for, and then a bouncing off it, too awful to face. And it happens over and over again. He says, for example, he lists all the terrible mistakes that he made -- that "they" made. He never says "I." He says "they." And he says, "We just didn't understand that Vietnam was about nationalism." He doesn't ask why they didn't understand that. There were internal critics. George Ball, Paul Capenburg, but also, he was surrounded, if you read the newspapers, by Lidman, by Morgenthau, by I.F. Stone, who was vigorously writing about the Vietnam war. By George Cain, a great historian of South East Asia. So, if he wanted to know what the upsurge, the insurgency in South Vietnam was about, he had lots of sources. He never comes close to explaining why he didn't pay attention to any of that. Instead he says, "Oh my God! We just didn't know they were nationalists." How come?
RECOMMENDED: "
Iraq snapshot"
"
Iraq's LBGT Community"
"
The targeting of the Iraqi police"
"
Homeless female veterans"
"
Pilger, US role in Iraq"
"
Kat's Korner: Regina Spektor takes you Far"
"
And the war drags on . . ."
"
Rally for Kimberly Rivera on Wednesday"
"
Biden in Iraq"
Truest statement of the weekA note to our readersEditorial: Taking sexism seriouslyTV: Trash TVWomen actively challenging the spinThe Nation: Can't get it up, you won't get in prin...Bill Moyers Journal: Find the girl!Washington Week: Gwen must be belle of the ballCounterSpin: Let the men talkMatt Rothschild: twice as likely to speak to a man...Harper's magazine: Only pencil neck males allowedQueen Bees v. Quota QueensLiz Smith: Women who hurt women and themselvesJuly 8th rally for Kimberly RiveraIndonesia President SBY Covered Up MurderAccountability in the Run-up to Indonesian Electio...Highlights"
Talking post"
"
Sexism"
"
THIS JUST IN! WHEN BOY PALS ATTACK!"
"
Colin gets a little bitchy"
Colin gets a little bitchy
BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLECELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS INVOLVED IN A NASTY CAT FIGHT WITH FORMER ROLL DOG AND BOY PAL
COLLIE POWELL.
ON CNN TOMORROW, COLLIE WILL DISH THAT BARRY'S GOT A FULL TABLE AND IS BITING OFF MORE THAN HE CAN CHEW.
REACHED FOR COMMENT, COLLIE TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "BARACK TRYING TO BRIAN AUSTIN GREEN ME! I TOLD HIM, 'YOU AIN'T ALL THAT, BARRY. YOU AIN'T JASON PRIESTLEY AND LUKE PERRY! YOU AIN'T THE WHOLE SHOW!' HE TOLD ME I WAS LIKE BRIAN AUSTIN GREEN AND THAT IF YOU DROP ME OUT NO ONE WOULD NOTICE. I WAS ALL, 'OH, NO, YOU DIDN'T! I AM SO SPEED DIALING GISELE AND MILEY AND YOU ARE LIKE SO OVER.' AND I MEAN IT TOO. YOU DON'T DISS COLLIE POWELL AND DINE TO TELL, FORGET THAT. I AM COLIN ***DAMN POWELL, YOU FEEL ME?"
FROM THE TCI WIRE:"Biden has come here to divide Iraq according to his plan." Vice President Joe Biden arrived in Iraq
yesterday and among today's activities is a protest of his visit by supporters of Moqtada al-Sadr.
Andrew Quinn and Sattar Rahim (Reuters) report al-Sadr supporters marched in Baghdad and remarks from al-Sadr (including "Biden has come here to divide Iraq according to his plan") were read aloud to the crowd. The remark by al-Sadr refers to Biden's support for a federation of three autonomous areas in Iraq: Shia, Sunni and Kurd. That plan is among the reasons Biden has become the point-person for the administration on Iraq because the Kurds are increasingly unhappy with the US and increasingly vocal about what they see as US abandonment of their interests and needs.
Quinn and Rahim note that al-Sadr's supporters were vocal as well, chanting "down, down USA" while burning US flags during their protest.
Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) reports the Kurds aren't the only ones worrying that Iraq has been abandoned and she quotes Hoyshar Zebari, Iraq's Foreign Minister, stating, "My message to them [US] is . . . you lost Afghanistan in 2001, 2002, and 2003 because you turned your attention to Iraq from Afghanistan -- now you are redirecting your attentions of Afghanistan and if you disengage with Iraq, it could be another failure. The situation is not that solid."
Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Timothy Williams (New York Times) quote Biden declaring he is there to ask: "What is their plan to resolve the real differences that exist?"
Mark Silva (Chicago Tribune) quotes Biden stating, "The reason I came is the president wants focus within the White House on the implementation of our administration's plan to both draw down troops in Iraq and also to promote a political settlement on unresolved issues from boundary disputes to the oil law."
Alsumaria notes it is is a three-day visit and that the vice president "arrived to Baghdad Airport amidst a sand storm which prevented him from conducting a scheduled visit to the US Embassy." The
White House offers three photos of the arrival and Biden being greeted by Zebari and the top US commander in Iraq Gen Ray Odierno.
Thomas M. Defrank (New York Daily News) reports Biden had breakfast with son Beau. Delware's WDEL has an audio report
here. Beau Biden is the Attorney General for the state of Delaware and serving in Iraq as a captain in Delaware's Army National Guard. Biden's the first child of a president or vice president to serve in this decade's Iraq War. (The 2008 Republican presidential ticket had two candidates with children serving in Iraq. US Senator John McCain's son Jimmy served in Iraq. Governor Sarah Palin's son Track is serving in Iraq.) Despite George W. Bush sending other people's children into harm's way, neither of his daughters served in his illegal war of choice. Nor did Mary or Deferment Cheney, Dick Cheney's daughters, serve.
Taking a sidebar on Dick Cheney, for those who have forgotten, retired Ambassador Joe Wilson was sent by the CIA to Nigeria to vet accusations that Saddam Hussein (then president of Iraq) was attempting to obtain yellow-cake uranium from the country. Wilson found no evidence to support the claims. Despite that investigation, the false assertion began working its way into cases for the illegal war made by the Bush administration and Bully Boy Bush himself would say that they'd recently learned Saddam attempted to obtain yellow-cake uranium from Africa. Was that Nigeria?Wilson, at that point didn't know, and attempted to find out. Maybe Saddam had tried with another African country? Nope. It was Nigeria. The administration was lying.What do you do?Wilson began warning reporters and then began speaking out publicly.In retaliation, the administration that LIED and attacked. This was their pattern repeatedly. When former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill went public with issues, the administration attacked him and the press -- hey, David Gregory -- ran with the administration's lies and presented them as fact. In O'Neill's case, he was being accused of stealing government information on discs. Gregory stood on camera, for Today, waiving a copy of Ron Suskind's The Price of Loyalty and repeating the White House charges with a who-knows-what-really-happened spin. Apparently the only one who could know reality would be the non-idiots who knew to read the introduction of a book before repeating baseless charges because the discs are covered in the intro. (As was so often the case on Today, Katie Couric would have to grab the mop and clean up for her co-workers the following day.)Now they were going after Joe Wilson.And it wasn't enough to go after Joe Wilson because this was a petty, mafia-like administration. They didn't just go after Wilson, they went after his wife and began outing her to the press as a CIA agent until they found some one (Robert Novak) willing to print their tale.Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent and her cover was blown by the government she worked for.Thanks to the efforts of George H.W. Bush and his administration, what had just taken place was a crime. Not for reporters, but for government officials or workers involved in the outing.Dick Cheney's right-hand I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby ended up convicted from the investigation. Many thought and hoped others would be as well. That was not the case. It was hoped that with a new administration, Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson would have the support of the government on their side as they attempted to discover what had happened to them.That has not been the case. "Status quo you can believe in" is the Obama administration's slogan and they've done everything they can to prevent the truth from coming out.R. Jeffrey Smith's "
New Evidence Cheney Swayed Reaction to Leak" (Washington Post) takes you through the latest that's emerged as Barry O's Justice Dept argues the truth must be buried. One of their claims is that to allow Cheney's testimony during the Plamegate investigation to be known would prevent other vice presidents from offering testimony to a criminal investigation. Uh, no, it wouldn't. And if testimony means anything, it means that it's not buried out of fear of what might happened some day.Barack's administration is not open, it's not trying to be open and is not attempting to put the US back on balance. It is attempting to continue all the abuses from the Bush administration. And it gets a lot of help from a cowardly Congress. (It's noted in the article that Congress once fought the Bush White House to make Cheney's testimony public. Not noted in the article is that any member of Congress could make Cheney's testimony public on the House or Senate floor.)
Back to Iraq, Biden is not the only official visiting Iraq.
Alsumaria reports that France's Prime Minister Francois Fillon met with Nouri al-Maliki and Jalal Talabani today with Fillon and Maliki doing a joint-press conference at Baghdad International Airport ". . . Fillon pointed out that Iraq is on the right track. No one should be worried over Iraq redress for it intends to cooperate with its neighbor and it constitutes an intergral part of the region's stability. France undertakes to help Iraq to reach stability as soon as possible, to resolve conflicts with its neighbor and to get fast result, Fillon said. He also added that France takes upon itself assisting Iraq to emancipate from international sanctions which hinder development process."
Xinhua reports the two "signed a cooperation agreement to promote bilateral economic, cultural and scientific relations. According to the statement, the agreement stated that France comitted to support Iraq to join the World Trade Organization (WTO) and to conclude a partenership agreement with the European Union."
CCTV observes (link has text and video) that Fillon was heading a delegation of "30 high-level business executives" and quotes him stating, "It is high time now we look to the future. The team accompanying me represents major French firms. Currently we have firms working in Iraq in the field of transportation and airports."
At the start of the week, Jonas Gahr Storra met with Zebari. Store is the Norewegian Foreign Affairs Minister.
Among the topics discussed were assisting Iraq in clearing land mines. Yesterday
Patrick Quinn (AP) explained that the United Nations sees Iraq as "one of the world's most contaminated countries" when it comes to land mines and quotes the UN"s Development Fund's Kent Paulusson stating, "The government needs to recognize the size of the problem and deal with it. [. . .] Some areas are so contaminated that people can't live there."
CNN notes that UNICEF joined the UN Development Fund in drawing attention to the land mine problem in Iraq and notes UNICEF's report: "The report says about 1 million Iraqi children are at risk of being injured or killed by mines and unexploded ordnance. Some 2,000 children -- a quarter of all victims -- have been maimed or killed by cluster bomblets since 2003, the report said."
Aseel Kami (Reuters) adds Iraq's Environment Ministry estimates there are 25 million land mines in Iraq and that the border between Iraq and Iran "is particularly mine-infested."
David Morgan (Global Arab Network) observes, "Vast stretches of potentially highly productive agricultural land cannot be cultivated because of the potentially lethal hazards presented by explosive materials that still lie undetected. Hundreds of Iraqi people continue to suffer injuries and dozens have been killed."
Today the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees notes a new "special residentail centre for Iraqi refugees in the southern Armenian village of Darbnik. The building, a former agricultural college provided to UNHCR by the government last year, features 46 apartments and a social and recreation room. It was rehabilitated by UNHCR implementing partner, YMCA/Shelter." The Iraq War has resulted in a refugee crisis of both external and internal refugees. The refugees are a diverse group but a large number of them are Iraqi Christians. The assault on Iraq's LGBT community has led to a number of them becoming refugees as well. Sunday July 5th
BBC Radio 5 airs Gay Life After Saddam (7 to 8 p.m. in England -- that will be eleven to noon PST). Ashley Byrne and Gail Champion produce the special for Made in Manchester.
James Chaperlard (Crain's Manchester Business) reports:
In Gay Life After Saddam, presenter Aasmah Mir finds out how life for the country's gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community (LGBT), has got worse since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. Human rights campaigners claim hundreds of LGBT people have been killed or tortured while others have fled the country fearing for their safety since Saddam was toppled from power six years ago.
Not noted in the article but among the people interviewed for the special is Nouri al-Maliki, puppet of the occupation.
RECOMMENDED: "
Iraq snapshot"
"
Banks failing"
"
KPFA, half-assed radio"
"
An Injustice Is Born"
"
the lady doth protest too much"
"
Iraq, Fort Worth"
"
Real coup and faux coup"
"
The reset at Pacifica"
"
Foul Play"
"
Sexist Melinda Henneberger embraces her own"
"
Helen Thomas (yea!), Arianna (boo)"
"
THIS JUST IN! GAS BAGS REEL!"
"
What will they do????????"
What will they do????????
BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLEGOVERNOR SARAH PALIN'S ANNOUNCEMENT TODAY THAT SHE WILL BE STEPPING DOWN JULY 26TH HAS SENT A COTTAGE INDUSTRY REELING.
TODD S. PURDUM WAS SEEN STOMPING HIS FEET, HURLING CURSES AND
SOBBING INTO HIS DIRTY JOCK STRAP INSISTING THAT HIS VANITY FAIR HIT ARTICLE WOULD HAVE MADE A BEST SELLER AFTER HE PADDED IT OUT WITH ADDITIONAL JACK OFF FANTASIES.
LAURA FLANDERS ALSO WAS INTENDING TO PUT HER MEAGER WRITING TALENT (NON PLURAL) TO USE IN DASHING OUT ANOTHER WATCH-ME-TRASH-WOMEN-WHILE-I-PRETEND-I'M-A-FEMINIST. REACHED FOR COMMENT, FLANDERS INFORMED SHE WAS "AT MY WIT'S END! I'M TOO OLD TO WHORE IT ON THE STREETS! DON'T ARGUE WITH ME, I'M TOO OLD! AND TOO UGLY! HAVE YOU NOTICED HOW WEIRD MY FACE HAS GOTTEN IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS? HAVE YOU! IF I DON'T HAVE PASSABLE LOOKS, WHAT DO I HAVE!!!!!"
WE LEFT HER IN HER 'FEMINIST' QUANDRY AND HEADED OVER TO MSNBC WHERE KEITH OLBERMANN STOOD ALONE AMONG THE PSUEDO LEFT IN REFUSING TO WALLOW. OLBERMANN INSISTED HE HAD AT LEAST 2 YEARS WORTH OF GOVERNOR PALIN'S PANTIES AND INTENDED TO SNIFF THEM "STRAIGHT THROUGH THE 2012 ELECTIONS."
FROM THE TCI WIRE:Despite the for-show hype, US troops haven't really pulled out of Iraqi cities. That revelation came from the top US commander in Iraq when he was being
interviewed by Judy Woodruff for yesterday's NewsHour (PBS):
GEN. RAY ODIERNO: Well, what we have is we have U.S. forces in joint coordination centers all over Iraq, inside of the cities, and they are there doing training, advising, assisting, and they also are coordinating with the Iraqis. So we have these relationships that are built from the lowest levels up to the highest levels that allow us to communicate. And if they need assistance, they can ask, and we will provide that.JUDY WOODRUFF: So they're not technically out of the cities. They're still there, but they're working side by side with the Iraqis?GEN. RAY ODIERNO: That's right, but we're at much lower numbers. These are just small advisory and coordination cells, and they're not related to combat formation, such as brigades and battalions. Those are now outside the cities. But we have coordination cells that work very closely with the Iraqis to enable them and train them and advise them and coordinate with them.
Technically? That's right, Odierno immediately agrees.
The non-change was the subject on NPR's Morning Edition earlier today:
David Greene: So 130,000 that's a big number -- the number of US forces remaining in these forward operating bases outside the cities and we'll probably be there until next fall. What exactly does this withdrawal mean? Is anything really different?
Thomas E. Ricks: I don't think it really is that different. I think politicians are trying to make more of it, especially Iraqi politicians, then is really warranted here. American troops are going to continue to fight in Iraq, they're going to continue to die in Iraq. In fact, I suspect, in the areas around Baghdad, the so-called 'belts,' you're going to see some real fighting this summer.
David Greene: One of the Iraqi politicians you're speaking of is probably Nouri al-Maliki. He's made some pretty significant pronouncements of optimism saying, 'We've got this covered.' Let's play out a scenario, if things don't go that well in the city, can he reach out and say to the Americans, 'I need you back?'
Thomas E. Ricks: He can pull the Americans back and, in fact, that's happened several times. This is not the first time the Americans have tried to transfer security responsibility to Iraqi forces. We tried it several times, it hasn't worked several times. Now we look back and say, 'Well that was a rush to failure.' So the question now is: Are Iraqi forces up to the job? And the answer is: nobody knows.
David E. Greene: You joined us on this program back in March and you said at the time you thought we might be half-way through this war. Is that about still where we are?
Thomas E. Ricks: Yeah. I might have been a bit optimistic.
David E. Green: Optimistic?
Thomas E. Ricks: Yeah, I think we have a lot longer road ahead of us in Iraq than anybody in this country seems to think. It worries me that Americans have turned their eyes away from Iraq and have almost gotten bored with it. The old 1960s slogan was: What if they gave a war and nobody came? Now we're in a situation: What if they gave a war and nobody paid attention?
David Greene: A lot of Americans would be shocked to hear we're less than half-way through this war Certainly President Obama seems to be sending a different message. You also said something about the president. You said that Iraq was going to change Obama more than Obama changes Iraq. Uh, what's your sense so far? Have you seen him adapting since taking office?
Thomas E. Ricks: Well, yeah. I think in fact, he has broken more campaign promises on Iraq than on any other area. He campaigned saying he would take a brigade out a month from the day he took office instead he's keeping troop levels about where they were during the entire Bush administration. Instead of getting out quickly, he's actually is looking at getting out rather slowly. Bush said the mission was accomplished when it wasn't and Obama's saying we're going to get the combat troops out. Well guess what? There are no non-combat troops in the US military. There is no pacifist wing in the military.
David Greene: So what does that mean when he says get the combat troops out?
Thomas E. Ricks: It's a meaningless phrase. Either you have troops there or you don't. If American troops are there, they will be involved in combat. In fact, American troops who are advisers to Iraqi units are going to be vulnerable.
Not all politicians are attempting to spin this into another wave of Operation Happy Talk.
US House Rep Dennis Kucinich explained the reality of the 'pull-back':
The withdrawal of some U.S. combat troops from Iraq's cities is welcome and long overdue news. However, it is important to remember that this is not the same as a withdrawal of U.S. troops and contractors from Iraq.
U.S. troop combat missions throughout Iraq are not scheduled to end until more than a year from now in August of 2010. In addition, U.S. troops are not scheduled for a complete withdrawal for another two and a half years on December 31, 2011. Rather, U.S. troops are leaving Iraqi cities for military bases in Iraq. They are still in Iraq, and they can be summoned back at any time.
This is not a great victory for peace. On May 19, the Christian Science Monitor reported that Iraqi and U.S. military officials virtually redrew the city limits of Baghdad in order to consider the Army's Forward Operation Base Falcoln as outside the city, despite every map of Baghdad clearly showing it wih in city limits. In afact, according to Section 24.3 of the "SOFA" U.S. troops can remain at any agreed upon facility. The reported reason for this decision is to ensure U.S. troops are able to "help maintain security in south Baghdad alon gwhat were the fault lines in the sectarian war."
This troop movement should not be confused with a troop withdrawal from Iraq. In reality, this is a small step toward Iraqi sovereignty as Iraqi security forces begin assuming greater control over security operations, but it is a long way from independence and a withdrawal of the U.S. military presence.
Also issuing statements were insurgent and resistance leaders.
Campbell Robertson (New York Times) reports that they issued statements which "all commanded Iraqis to continue fighting the American military until it has left the country completely; nearly 130,000 troops remain. The statements also insisted, in unusually clear language, that Iraqis not turn their violence on one another."
RECOMMENDED: "
The cause of the violence"
"
Biden protested in Iraq"
"
I Hate The War"
"
Iraq snapshot"
"
The economy and voting"
"
California earthquake (financial)"
"
Econmy and stocks tank"
"
more troubles for gordon brown"
"
gordon brown should resign for the good of the party"
"
Gail Collins and her ugly unibrow"
"
This is a 'pull-out'?"
"
Notes"
"
Crosby, Stills and Nash"
"
LGBT"
"
Dan Choi"
"
Dan Choi"
"
The administration just doesn't get it"
"
The tortured and torturing logic of the White House"
"
World Can't Wait, ACLU"
"
Mohammed Jawad and torture"
"
Barry O needs the adoration of the crowds"
"
THIS JUST IN! HE NEEDS HIS FANS!"
Barry O needs the adoration of the crowds
BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLEFOR SOMEONE WHO CLAIMS TO BE SO BUSY,
BARRY O CAN'T STOP CAMPAIGNING AND IS GEARING UP TO HIT THE ROAD AGAIN.
HERE'S THE REALITY ON BARRY O'S TOURING. IT COST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT A TON OF MONEY. IT PUTS A HUGE DRAIN ON LOCAL POLICE AND REQUIRES OVERTIME HOURS WHICH COST CITIES EVEN MORE. IN A BAD ECONOMY WHEN THEY ARE ALREADY LAYING OFF CITY EMPLOYEES.
BARACK DOES NOT BOOST THE ECONOMY. HE DRAINS IT. SO HE SHOULD KEEP HIS ASS IN D.C. AND START WORKING.
BUT BARRY O TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "SO SUE ME. I CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT THE ROAR OF THE CROWD. I BELONG TO THE PEOPLE NOW. NO 1 PERSON CAN SATISFY ME. I BELONG TO MY PUBLIC."
FROM THE TCI WIRE:Today US House Rep Patrick Murphy spoke about the need to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The Clinton era compromise came about when Colin Powell and others flaunted their homophobia and refused to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, a pledge Bill Clinton campaigned upon. The compromise was that you couldn't be asked about your sexuality and you couldn't talk about it. Unless you were straight. It was a compromise and, for that time period, a step forward. Today is out of date and out of step.
Josh Drobnyk (Pennslyvania Ave. Blog) reports that with Ellen Tauscher's departure from Congress (she's now Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security), Murphy will now take the lead on the Military Readiness Enhancement Act which would not only repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, it would also allow everyone to serve regardless of their sexuality and with no requirement that they hide who they are. Iraq War veteran Murphy states, "This is going to take months and months, but change is going to happen."
Yesterday Lt Dan Choi learned that a US Army board was recommending he be discharged because he is gay and refuses to hide in a closet.
Martin Wisckol (Orange County Register) quotes Choi, "I'm a leader. A setback is an opportunity to keep fighting, and I'm going to do that through my actions." Yesterday
Jasmyn Belcher (WRVO -- audio and text) spoke with Choi who explained, "My job is to be here and to continue being an officer everything I was trained to do regardless of the discomfort, regardless of the emotions that are going on, you still do your duty. I believe this is my duty to stand up and to fight to stay in." Choi is not done fighting and hopefully he will be successful at a higher level but if he's not he will be, as
Stan noted last night, the 266th US service member to be discharged for being gay since Barack Obama was sworn in as president. If Barack wanted to, all he need do is issue an executive order for a stop-loss on discharges under Don't Ask, Don't Tell. That would stop it right away. Congress could then address it but all the people (over 200 under Obama already) being discharged would no longer be drummed out of the military as a result of that executive order.
CNN notes this citing Knights Out's Sue Fulton: "Fulton said that while Obama can't change the law himself, he could sign an executive order halting discharges while the policy is under review." Barry O likes to play helpless but he's not. One executive order is all it would take. The
Syracuse Post-Standard editorializes for the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy to be eliminated and observes that "enforcing the policy has cost taxpayers more than $400 million since 1994."
Joe Garofoli (San Francisco Chronicle) adds, "Still, some analysts say Choi's case is another example of how Washington leaders aren't showing much urgency -- or leadership -- in overturning 'don't ask, don't tell.' Obama has said he wants Congress to overturn the law; congressional laders say they are waiting for the president to take the lead; and military leaders say they won't change the policy unless directed by Congress."
Mike McAndrew and Mark Weiner (Syracuse Post-Standard) report Choi "said he refuses to lie about being involved in a relationship with another man. Choi said the relationship has made him a better person, a better Christian and a better officer."
Alexa James (Times Herald-Record) quotes Choi explaining, "All I did was tell the truth. I refused to lie about my boyfriend. His name is Matthew, not Martha."
Today
McClatchy Newspapers' Sahar Issa
appeared on Democracy Now! to address Iraq.
Sahar Issa: National Sovereignty Day, of course, is a day that is celebrated by the hearts of all Iraqis, you must know that Iraqi's pride -- is a proud country -- Iraqis are proud people. It is difficult for them not to be happy at the action of foreign troops leaving their cities and streets. At the same time that they are happy to gain control over their streets and cities there is doubt in their hearts whether the Iraqi security forces are actually adequate to the task that is in front of them in the coming days and weeks and months of keeping the peace and keeping the population secure. This is as the bottom of the doubts that you see: Is the Iraqi force actually adequate to the task? Are the Iraqi forces infiltrated by many? The Iraqi force has been formed upon somewhat sectarian lines. The Iraqi force also because of the administrative corruption -- has many people who have brought in their relatives, their friends, their neighbors, people who are not professional. And after six years, perhaps it would be a legitimate question to ask and to forward to the American forces: after six years of training they have understaken to present Iraq with a new force after dismantling the old one, why isn't the Iraqi force actually adequate to the task? The people of Iraq ask this question. It is the first question they ask. They are still not confident that the Iraqi forces are capable.
Those observations jibe with those of
Alissa J. Rubin's (New York Times), "The excitement however, has run hollow for many Iraqis, who fear that their country's security forces are not ready to stand alone and who see the government's claims of independence as overblown." Back to the
Democracy Now! segment:
JUAN GONZALEZ: And, Sahar Issa, what about the ability of the Iraqi government to provide basic services to the population? There's obviously many reports of corruption within the government and continued infighting among the various factions. How has the public seen the ability of the government to administer the society?
SAHAR ISSA: To tell you the truth, if you look back a little bit, you will find that with the height of violence that only started coming down in the beginning of 2008, and while human life was at stake, violence was like a blanket, cutting off a cross-section of what is really happening inside the Iraqi government, because everything was so clouded, people were hurt, they couldn't look further than their lot.
But when the violence ebbed after the beginning of 2008, people started picking up the reins of their lives, looking around to see what was going on. And they found, horrendously, that the government is totally riddled with corruption. It is totally built on tribal and sectarian bases, where people have their relatives in very sensitive places simply to make the profit. And the confidence in Iraqis that they had at first when they went to elect their government, they lost this confidence. They said, "Then what is the difference, if it is going to be tribal again? What is the difference between this government and the past, even if it is elected, if it is going to use the same lines?"
And that is, of course, part of the problem, is that it is not a matter of just putting the government out there. The problem is this government needs to gain the confidence of the people. It needs to give them something that they can hold onto. It needs to look at their very difficult lives. They didn't have electricity when the -- you know, outside this building, if I walk out now, it is so hot, toys will melt in cars. To just to give you an idea, toys will melt in cars. That is the heat. And people don't have electricity. After six years, they don't have water in their homes.
I spoke to a person yesterday in Beya'a neighborhood, when we were touring the city for reactions. And she said, "How can I be happy with sovereignty, if sovereignty has not brought me enough water to bathe, I can't wash my clothes, if I don't have electricity so I can sleep at night? What kind of sovereignty is this?" We are struggling, my dear friend. We are struggling so hard to reach square one. And so far, we haven't achieved it yet.
AMY GOODMAN: Sahar Issa, are you afraid of having your image known, of being identified as a reporter?
SAHAR ISSA: Oh, certainly, certainly, certainly. Working for a foreign -- never mind a US, American -- news agency will have me very clearly titled as the pastor's pie or working for the occupation. People -- the simpler people, let us say -- can't differentiate between a person who is picking up information and lighting things and making things public for -- to, how do you say, to extend a hand to other people to know what is actually going on inside our country. They can't tell the difference between this person and the person who's gathering information perhaps for intelligence preferences. And therefore, yes, of course, I am afraid. No one knows. Only my parents and my children and the people working with me know. And even the people who are working with me, not all of them know where I live. That's how bad it is.
Jeremy Scahill was also a guest on the segment.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Right. I mean, this is a very contrived sort of Hallmark holiday here. I doubt that decades from now many Iraqis are going to be, you know, telling their grandchildren where they were on National Sovereignty Day. I mean, remember the whole stumbling of President Bush: when he declared Iraqi sovereignty, he talked about the definition of sovereignty as a sovereign entity. Paul Bremer already officially handed over sovereignty to the Iraqis five years ago, and yet we have 130,000 US troops that remain in the country. This really is George Bush's Iraq plan that Barack Obama is now implementing and taking the political risk of implementing, because if the violence blows up, then of course it looks very much like Barack Obama has been a failure in Iraq, and not George Bush. So Obama, in many ways, has played into the Bush administration's hand. But we can see the clearest endgame of the US occupation in the fact that the Iraqi government, on a day when they declare their own sovereignty and you have the US military commander handing over the keys to the Defense Ministry, the Iraqi Oil Ministry opens up the country for bidding now on its oil resources, and you had eight of the ten top oil companies in the world that are not part of a nationalized state apparatus. In other words, eight of the ten most powerful private oil corporations in the world are now bidding for large shares of the Iraqi oil supply. I mean, to me, this is a grotesque symbol of what exactly is happening in Iraq.
And let me just say, Juan, that while we're seeing the sort of contrived celebrations, where ordinary Iraqis, for the most part, are not permitted to go into these big celebrations -- it's largely off-duty police officers, Iraqi soldiers and dignitaries -- the reality is that US soldiers are simply going to the outskirts of the cities and could easily go in to strike at them. General Ray Odierno, the top US military commander there, would not be clear on how many US soldiers are going to remain in the region. At the end of the day, the US has a massive eighty-football-field-size embassy. They have thousands upon thousands of contractors, 130,000 troops still in the country. And they're going to keep a force of 35,000 to 50,000 residual US forces when Obama is officially done withdrawing from Iraq. So, in reality, we see Barack Obama implementing, almost to the letter, George Bush's and the neocons' plan for Iraq, while putting a Democratic stamp on it and essentially downsizing and rebranding what remains a US occupation. So, no, this is Hallmark holiday stuff. And I think it's clear for anyone who's been following this that this is the same situation as when Bush tried to declare Iraqi sovereignty, when Paul Bremer snuck out of Baghdad in June of 2004.
At Information Clearing House, Jeremy explains of the for-show play-day:
While a lot of the media hype today focuses on the U.S. "withdrawal," that is hardly the reality. As
previously reported, U.S. military commanders have said they are preparing for an Iraq presence for another 15-20 years, the U.S. embassy is the size of Vatican City, there is no official plan for the withdrawal of contractors and new corporate mercenary contracts are being awarded. The Status of Forces Agreement (SoFA) between the U.S. and Iraq gives the U.S. the right to extend the occupation indefinitely and to continue intervening militarily in Iraq ad infinitum.
Article 27 of the SoFA allows the U.S. to undertake military action, "or any other measure," inside Iraq's borders "In the event of any external or internal threat or aggression against Iraq." As the airwaves and internet are flooded with reports of this new Iraqi sovereignty and U.S. withdrawal, it is important to remember a bit of history. Five years ago -- almost to the day -- President Bush put on an almost identical show. His proconsul L. Paul Bremer "handed over sovereignty" to the Iraqi government just before he skulked out of Baghdad on a secret flight (right after he issued an order banning Iraq from prosecuting contractors). Despite the pronouncements and proclamations and media hype, the occupation continued and real sovereignty was non-existent.
Meanwhile
CNN reports that Moqtada al-Sadr has released a call for all US forces to leave Iraq and stated their presence "shows that the (Iraqi) government and the occupation are not serious about the withdrawal". Noting the silence on Iraq in the US, Dan Baltz asks "
Have We Forgotten Iraq?" (Washington Post) in which he wonders, "If they [the White House] are wrong [about Iraq being able to stand up], there may be questions about what kind of country Americans are preparing to leave behind. Obama could find himself under pressure to adjust the withdrawal timetable." Or he could realize that it was a mistake to delay withdrawal because there is nothing else the US military can do (even the war hawks should agree with that) and allowing them to remain in the country as babysitters really turns them into sitting ducks of the continued occupation. And let's stop pretending the White House doesn't have plans. As we noted in Third's "
Editorial: Save us from the panty sniffers" Sunday, US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill gave a press conference in the US June 18th:
What should have bothered Americans was Hill's refusal to discuss "contingency plans" for Iraq should the (partial) pull-back from cities (June 30th) result in increased violence. "Well, again," he repeated, "I don't want to discuss contingency plans." Why not? And why aren't these contingency plans known to the American public?
While
Thomas E. Ricks (Foreign Policy) ignored Hill's press conference, he feels something important is missed from the press conference Gen Ray Odierno held yesterday in Baghdad: "We'll be operating in the belts around Baghdad." Ricks takes that to mean "that the U.S. strategy in the coming months will be to try to protect Baghdad by cutting off insurgents and militias operating in the fields, towns and palm groves that surround much of the capital. And that was where some of the heaviest fighting took place during the spring and summer of 2007, as 'the surge' began." So that may be, that may be, as
Cass Elliot once sang ("California Earthquake") but equally true, and reporters know this, when a person loses it at a scheduled press conference, that's also known as "very telling." Translation, Reuters shouldn't have been the
only outlet to report on Odierno Earthquake
yesterday. And, no, Ricks hasn't written of that.
RECOMMENDED: "
Iraq snapshot"
"
The for-show play-day"
"
Dan Choi's crime"
"
Points in the kitchen"
"
The lies of Democracy Now! never end"
"
more shame for john edwards"
"
Embarrassing programs on Pacifica"
"
Melanne Verveer"
"
Do you 'remember the time'?"
"
Pathetic"
"
Assault on gays in Fort Worth"
"
Fort Worth cops go homophobic"
"
Barry O's No-Nos"
"
THIS JUST IN! NOT ALL ARE WILD ABOUT BARRY!"
