BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE GROWN UPS TABLE
Rebecca: We're doing an unplanned roundtable and participating are The Third Estate Sunday Review's Ava, me, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Trina of Trina's Kitchen and Wally of The Daily Jot, Kat, you want to explain how we ended up with a roundtable.
Kat: Except for Betty and Cedric, everyone's at Trina's. And Rebecca and I were on the couch with out laptops and I was scanning and scanning the net for topics to write about and just couldn't find anything. Rebecca groaned, I said, "I know!" And we're doing a roundtable with anyone else who hadn't already done a post tonight plus dragging Ava and C.I. into it.
Trina: Ava and C.I. are taking notes and will type up the rush transcript. If they speak one after the other, I'll help out with note taking.
Rebecca: So let's start with Iraq. The Iraq War is over, right? That's what the press has told us, so it's over and all is peachy keen in Iraq.
Mike: It really seems like they -- the press -- lost interest in Iraq and, now that so many are leaving Iraq and rushing off to Afghanistan, they want to find a way to justify their decreased coverage of Iraq. So they try to write it off as a 'success.'
Ava: I think that's a really solid point and that, yes, when you are, for example, ABC pulling your news staff out of Iraq and partnering with the BBC to provide you with Iraq content when needed, you're going to really gas bag a river in order to justify the fact that you've killed your coverage. You're going to justify your actions in any way you can.
Betty: But they didn't really get to get away with that this week. They tried to. C.I.'s documented, for example, the New York Times' effort to downplay Iraq all week while 'reporting' on it. Wednesday's violence ended up being buried at the end of the Thursday article despite the fact that more people were reported dead in Iraq than in Afghanistan and they tossed Afghanistan on the front page. Then Thursday's violence, reported today, is curious for what it leaves out.
Cedric: I agree with Betty and one of the things C.I.'s really great at is noting the patterns before anyone does. I'm sure a lot of people reading today's New York Times article on Thursday's violence didn't even register that there were three assassination attempts --
Mike: Two successful.
Cedric: Two successful, flowing from the provincial elections. The paper reports one and mentions another in passing without even noting the name of the guy. This is a pattern and C.I. was the first to note, we're going back years, the targeting of government officials, the first to notice that Mosul was becoming the most violent city in Iraq, just go down the list. I have no idea why the New York Times would ignore what appears to be a pattern. It's hard for me to believe it's accidental.
Trina: I don't believe it's accidental at all and considering that paper's history, even just the most recent history, they've lost the right to the benefit of the doubt after selling the illegal war. They promised, in their sort-of-culpa, a greater look at their actions in selling the illegal war and they never provided it. Howard Kurtz, in the Washington Post, did a lengthy report on how the Post got it wrong. The New York Times never did anything like that. But the week started with the nonsense that things were going great in Iraq and the reality is completely different.
Wally: I could be wrong but I'm finding -- when Ava, Kat, C.I. and I are speaking to college groups about the illegal war -- a lot more interest. And there's always been an interest but it seems like it's increased. Kat, Ava, C.I., anyone else noticing that?
Kat: Yeah. And I think it goes hand in hand with the fact that our news outlets are not reporting as they need to be. So when we're discussing Iraq, this is often the first some are hearing about whatever examples or details we're addressing. I'll give an example, at the start of this week, when C.I. was talking about the reports that [Nouri] al-Maliki was making overtures to Baathist officials who had left the country and how al-Maliki and his supporters were denying that, no one knew about that, no one we spoke to. They had a lot of questions about that. Then, Thursday, Trenton Daniels does his really bad article on it. Which leaves out Dawa's strong, public denial. It really was a white wash article but I don't really have any respect left for McClatchy.
Rebecca: I'm going to jump in with an Iraq and media question that Lilly e-mailed to ask me. Last week, C.I. noted the reputation McClatchy had for bias re: Iraq coverage and she wondered if I could write about that. I can't. C.I. could but, C.I., I'll put you on the spot here now.
C.I.: McClatchy's Iraq coverage has always been seen as tilting towards "Awakening" Councils. That's due to Nancy A. Youssef's reporting, yes. It's do to Leila's and others. But it's also due to blog posts by Leila and Iraqi correspondents where they have revealed opinions and, time and again, it has been pro-"Awakening." The Los Angeles Times, by contast, is thought to be biased towards the KRG and the reason for that has to do with their Kurdish ties. The New York Times is only interested in officials and the State Dept will always trump the military at the paper. The Washington Post has had too much of a change over and too many strong voices to get one reputation pinned on them. Certain things you might have noted in, for example, Ellen Knickmeyer's reporting would be countered with Sudarsan Raghavan's who would be countered with Ernesto Londono who would be countered by Anthony Shadid. And to be really clear, the bulk of the outlets have reporters capable of strong reporting. McClatchy harmed itself partnering up with an 'NGO' and whether they can recover or not, I don't know. But the New York Times, for example, I can't think of anyone that's not capable of strong writing. Time limitations, rewriting and editing from outside Iraq can destroy a strong report. There are other things as well. But the days where the Times just had a propagandist in Iraq are gone.
Rebecca: You've praised Tina Susman recently, at the Los Angeles Times, and I'm wondering who else has strengths?
C.I.: Everyone. Leila Fadel has let her division slip out of control but even Leila has talent -- even at this late date. I'll praise anyone reporting from Iraq for any of those four papers tomorrow. Tina Susman, for example, usually has the context. You can expect that in her writing. But is there anyone that hasn't had praise? Other than Trenton? I don't care for him and if I don't care for you, there's a reason. And if I really don't care for you, I've checked you out and spoken to editors who've worked with you. I really don't care for Trenton. But if he wrote an amazing article, I'd praise it tomorrow. If he even wrote a good one, I'd praise it.
Cedric: You called out Helen Pidd today and I loved it. It was funny and it was important and I don't think that's really grasped. The funny part, yes. But the important part, no. You're calling Helen Pidd because she's repeating a falsehood. And if it doesn't get called out, and called out loudly, it seeps into the coverage. We all saw that when Barack put out the lie that Bill Clinton pardoned two women with the Weather Underground. The next morning, after that debate, you and Ava wrote a piece and you walked people through it. And the lie stayed in. That night, you let it rip and tore into people by name for repeating the lie and only then did the public record start getting it right.
Ava: I'm grabbing because C.I. nodded to me. First, Barack floated two things in that debate and the press -- gee, which side were they on? -- went with the worst. David Corn couldn't let it go and was screaming about it in a press conference and writing his high drama posts at Mother Jones. When he was finally forced to issue a limited correction, he did so minimizing his actions. But, yeah, we did think it would straighten out in the course of the news cycle. That morning, when we wrote that Bill Clinton didn't issue two pardons to the Weather Underground -- or any pardons, we were writing an entry and thinking it would all come out during the day. It didn't. And C.I. had to hit hard. And when people lie, C.I. has to hit hard. When people refuse to correct mistakes, C.I. has to hit hard. Kat and I were talking about that this week, about how difficult, for example, the morning entries are and how C.I. has to include this and that and cover this and that and is going from one cell phone to the other over and over and there are plenty of times where C.I.'s speaking to someone, in the press, who is saying, "Call it out or it's in the cycle and it stays in." It is not easy for the press cycle to self-correct. And to drop back to the Weather issue, credit to ABC News who quickly self-corrected, to Jake Tapper and ABC News who quickly self-corrected. But that's very rare. Much more likely is the David Corn who refuses for days and days to correct and then, when he finally does, does so in a snarky manner where he refuses to take responsibility for repeating falsehoods and then has to make a Marc Rich 'joke' to try to excuse the seriousness of the matter. It is a serious matter. For days and days, the press ran with, "Barack's friends with Bill Ayers but Bill Clinton pardoned two people in Weather Underground!" That created a dynamic to the story that was never true.
Trina: I have no idea why Helen Pidd couldn't get her facts straight. That's really embarrassing to be reporting something, a month after it took place, that is not true and that many, many MSM news reports have established wasn't true. As for McClatchy, I think they're useless at this point. I repost the snapshot once a week, sometimes more but usually I just post once a week. And the drive-by e-mails, oh. "Never anything nice." Along with Tina Susman, Ned Parker's been praised recently, Alissa J. Rubin's been praised several times recently, Sam Dagher and I can think of many others. And guess what, it's really not required that C.I. praise. But I do love the drive-bys -- most of whom seem to never grasp that "Here's C.I.'s 'Iraq snapshot'" means "Here's something I didn't write." But if Rebecca's reader's question got answered, I'd like to move to the issue of the elections because I'm really getting sick of the nonsense where they supposedly mean something. Am I alone on that? I know C.I.'s sick of it, anyone else?
Cedric: I have watched in amazement as the press has spun these elections and turned it into some deep meaning for Nouri al-Maliki who was not a candidate. Each and every belief they espouse -- which they present as fact -- has at least one counter-belief but they ignore that to promote al-Maliki. Over and over.
Wally: And today, one of the reports was how al-Maliki's 'success' in the elections -- in elections where he was not a candidate but somehow found 'success' -- proved that Iraq wants a "strong man." Iraq wants it? Or the reporters want it? And, yeah, Trina, I'm sick of it. And I really do think the press wants a strong man or that they know the military does and they spin it that way for the military.
Betty: I'd agree with Wally on that -- I agree with Cedric's comments as well but specifically about what the military wants and what our government wants. We put thugs in charge in Iraq because thugs could frighten and scare the populace and if that happened quickly the efforts to privatize everything in Iraq could move quickly -- not to mention violence could diminish. So we put thugs in charge and I think we are trying to sell this belief that -- after we've put thugs in charge -- what Iraq really wants is what we did. It's a justification. An after the fact justification. Which brings us back to Ava's point about the justifications. Now Cedric's point about how they keep going with what shores up their view is good point as well.
Rebecca: Today's snapshot -- and link to that please -- includes a commentary that appeared last night, a commentary by C.I., and that was included at Trina's request. Trina, why don't you talk about that?
Trina: Sure and since Ava and C.I. are typing, we all agreed when we want a link, we will request it. That way they don't have to figure out what needs to be hunted down and what doesn't and we're also trying to avoid multiple links because we don't want to be up all night waiting to post it anymore than they want to be up all night hunting down links. But the commentary went up last night and I asked C.I. to please include as much of it as possible in the snapshot. I'm going to summarize it. Iraq held provincial elections January 31st. Iraq has 18 provinces. Only 14 held elections. al-Maliki's Dawa party did well in 9 provinces -- well, nothing that would resemble a mandate for Dawa -- and didn't do so well in 3 provinces. 4 provinces still haven't held elections. At least three will shortly. C.I.?
C.I.: The three Kurdish provinces have scheduled elections for May.
Trina: Thanks. And then there's Kirkuk that no one knows if or when it will be allowed to hold a vote. We can come back to that. But 3 provinces didn't go to Dawa -- southern provinces. 3 Kurdish provinces will not go to Dawa. It's doubtful that Kirkuk would -- due to the ethnic violence and ethnic splits in the region. So that's 6 Dawa will not have support in and you can toss in Kirkuk and make it seven. This is not a huge win for Dawa. This reflects a country that's a lot more split than is being noticed. And, as C.I. pointed out, if you want to use these still non-official results to make some sort of a statement, the statement has to be that the south and north are not on the same page as centeral Iraq, where Baghdad and al-Maliki are and that al-Maliki's got a little bigger space than Hamid Karzai to move around in. But that space could shrink at any time.
Cedric: Agreed and it also does, as C.I. noted, indicate support for a federation and not a nation with the south breaking off in the same way the north's KRG has.
Mike: Has anyone -- Wally, Kat, Ava and C.I. -- have any of you spoke of that in front of students or other groups? If so what was the reaction?
Wally: C.I.'s addressed it about seven or eight times this week. The way C.I. sets it up may mitigate some of the reactions because -- like with the commentary we're talking about -- C.I. notes that a decision for Iraqis and only them. So you don't get some of the response you might get. But there seems to be a collective gulp each time at the prospect of a federation.
Mike: That would be my reaction as well. Do we want to talk about why it's not a US decision? I know we grasp it but someone coming in late may not.
Kat: Well it's not for the US, an occupying power, to determine the fate of Iraq. Iraqis should make that determination. If they want a nation-state, that's their choice, if they want a federation, that's their choice. It's not up to the US to impose anything on it and, honestly, were the US to impose something it would be based on what they think would provide a quick fix. Not unlike the decision to allow Nouri to install his thugs in the ministries -- especially the Ministry of Interior -- decisions based on quick fixes that result in real damage.
Betty: And, I mean, it's like a marriage. Someone outside of it can't decide to end it or to continue it. That has to come from those in the marriage. If Iraq's going to move forward as a nation-state or become a federation that's up to them.
Mike: And the US shouldn't interfere if only out of selfish reasons. If the decision comes from the US or is imposed by the US or encouraged by it, then all the problems with the decision for years and years are the fault of the US. If only to avoid being the ones holding the bag, the US should stay out of it and allow Iraq to make the decision.
Wally: Exactly. It goes to s**t, the US really doesn't need to be any more responsible than it already is.
Kat: Which it already is. Responsible.
Rebecca: Thomas E. Ricks' new book is The Gamble. C.I. offered an opinion on it this week, clearly labeled "my opinion," in a snapshot and I'm wondering if anyone got any e-mail on that -- not C.I. but anyone who reposted?
Cedric: I got some loon screaming the book is pro-war and how dare we endorse pro-war. Is that the sort of thing you're talking about?
Rebecca: Exactly. It was clear that it was an opinon and C.I. had noted that the community would disagree with the idea that the US needed to remain in Iraq for some time but I still had a loon -- probably the same one you did -- e-mailing on a war path.
C.I.: I did label that "my opinion" and did so because I didn't want to cause anyone any trouble or for their to be any mistake that I was speaking for the community -- most of whom have not read the book or started reading it. It is a great book. It's wonderfully written. Think of some of the Iraq books by reporters and how badly written they have been. This isn't a book you have to grimace in order to get through. It's a pleasure to read. But, yeah, we can disagree with some of his conclusions. He's very clear as to why he comes to the conclusions and he could be right about them but I disagree, for example, that the US needs to remain in Iraq. I also disagree, to cite another example, that MoveOn's General Betray Us ads were off limits. I think when Colin Powell countermands Bill Clinton, 1993 on gays serving openly in the military, and does so publicly, undermines the campaign promise Clinton has made, I don't think we can say that the military isn't political or isn't fair game. The Gamble notes some examples, including Powell, but that really went beyond just politics, it went to an attack on civilian command of the military. It went to an attack on the entire system. After that, my opinion, this idea that the military command is off limits -- no, they aren't and no one is off-limits in a democracy. My opinion. But this is an amazing book and I think he's very clear when he's expressing his opinion and very clear when he isn't. I think it's the best book on Iraq that's been published this decade. It's a pleasure to read because he does have a style, he is a writer and he hasn't just clipped his old articles and done a copy and paste. He's also very generous to other reporters. He cites and names them and not just in the end notes but in the actual text. I think it's a weighty and ambitious work that succeeds in all of its goals, it's perfectly executed. My opinion.
Rebecca: I know Elaine's read it and loves it but other than that, Mike's the only one I know who's reading it. Mike?
Mike: I'm enjoying the book. I'm finally up to the half-way mark. It's like 170-something, where ever the section of pictures ends, that's the page I stopped on. It's jam-packed with information. And that's new information and new analysis. It's not a clip-job. I found the section on General Ray Odierno especially interesting.
Wally: Ava and I have read it. It's a big book, over 320 pages of text. And what stood out was the ending. A lot of the time, you end up with an author who starts winding down and the last chapter may or may not be worth reading. Ricks' final chapter contains information and observations that go to the conclusions he makes. And that includes Odierno's belief that at least 30,000 US troops will be needed in Iraq through 2014 or 2015.
Ava: That's really the big shock. We do talk about the book when we're speaking about Iraq because it is about Iraq, it's new and most college libraries have at least one copy or are getting one. So when we get to that point, you can hear and see puzzlement. And someone will bring up the treaty and we'll have to do the walk through. It's really amazing how badly the MSM bungled it and the Beggar so-called Alternative Media didn't give a damn. They were too busy with their orgasms over Barack. So we have to go into what the treaty masquerading as the Status Of Forces Agreement actually does and says.
Kat: And people are always shocked. And they have been since since last year when C.I. was sketching it out. So one thing I'm really hoping the book does -- and I've got fifty or so more pages before I'm done with it but I am enjoying it -- is get the word out on the realities. Getting back to C.I.'s point, I never had a problem telling when Ricks was expressing his opinion. He doesn't try to present it as fact. He explains his take and why he has it. I wish he was saying, "The US needs to get out! And now!" He's not but this wasn't a piece of propaganda. And he's synthesizing and it's just an amazing book. Trina, are you reading it?
Trina: Yes, but remember I'm taking care of my grandbaby --
Ava: Emphasis on baby and noting that because a child under two requires a lot more direct care than a child of eight or older who can have play time on their own and who would be in school for some of the day.
Trina: True, thank you for that. And we're teething.this week so it's a little more hectic. So I'm only on page 201. So I've really just finished the period where Robert Gates is house cleaning Donald Rumsfeld's people -- including Peter Pace. It's a serious book and that alone is reason enough to read it. If you're interested in the Iraq War, whether you support it ending or continuing, now or in the immediate future, you will find the book absorbing. And to back up what C.I. was pointing out about the genoristy, Michael Ware, for example, of CNN gets cited by name. A lot of these books -- and they have been cut and paste books -- just say CNN. If you're saying something was reported right, if something deserves noting, it deserves naming. And Ricks doesn't balk at giving credit.
Rebecca: Okay a question just for two people. I have a young child. That's my question. No, I'm joking. I have a young child who is just a few months older than Trina's grandbaby and Betty has three young children. I know that, for me, a lot of my feelings regarding the illegal war and the need to end it come from that. I was against the war before I gave birth and before I was pregnant. But what I'm getting at is that, yes, for me, having a child has intesified my opposition to the Iraq War and I'm wondering if Trina or Betty has anything similar going on? And Betty, Trina's indicating for you to go first.
Betty: Okay. Thank you. For me, all my decisions go through that filter. I'm a single parent and that may be why but I do think about my kids. I hear the peanut crisis and immediately think of my kids. I'm listening to the weather report/prediction for the next day and I'm thinking, "What do my kids need to wear for that?" So I've got that going on all the time and, yes, when I hear about a young man or woman dying -- Iraqi, US -- Thursday the British soldier, I am thinking of it in terms of, "What if it was one of my three children?" I would say that is very true for me. And let's talk about this aspect of the Iraq War continuing past 2015 -- because 35,000 US service members in Iraq up to 2015 means still there past it. I do think, "Well are they going to draft?" I do think, "What if one of my kids wants to rebel and do it by enlisting?" These are serious concerns and not fleeting thoughts for me.
Trina: I would agree with that. Mike was our big concern, he's our youngest son, when the Iraq War started. His father had a long talk with him about that -- about the war that was coming -- for that reason. Mike has a younger sister but she's a girly-girl and who begged for excuses to get out of gym class so we didn't really see her as possibly enlisting in the military. And once my husband talked with Mike and that was straightened out, I did feel an easing of tension. So I do think there is a personal aspect. I'm not saying it made me object less to the illegal war but, as it was gearing up to start, it did take one worry off my mind. One aspect -- and I think Betty and Rebecca will agree with that -- of parenting during a time of war is grasping, especially when the kids are very small, how much they depend on you and how instrumental you are in shaping and mis-shaping them. And that does lead you to wonder about the childhood experiences of some who make the news -- someone who died while serving or someone who was killed by a mortar like the two children today. I'm sure a young father would have a similar story to share and I just want to note that we're not saying, "This is a mothering issue." I also think that, for those who support the Iraq War, the same news is greeted differently and they see it from a different perspective. But their being a parent would also impact their reaction.
Rebecca: I think that's a good point. In 2006, C.I. regularly started asking the question of whether those who support the illegal war are more committed to continuing it than those opposed to the illegal war are committed to ending it. Just going around, and starting with Cedric and then Betty, true or false today?
Cedric: Absolutely true. I thought it was true when C.I. first started asking that question. And it's only more so today. C.I.?
C.I: Same page. There is an action coming up next month. Iraq Veterans Against the War notes:
IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21st
As an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.)
To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.
For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: http://www.pentagonmarch.org/ or http://www.answercoalition.org/.
Cedric: Thanks. We do need to note that when talking about this topic. But most of the movement broke off a long time ago. They give lip service at election time because it's an issue that energizes voters but they really aren't concerned with ending the illegal war. I think the small number still committed to continuing the illegal war are much more dedicated than the bulk of the left. Betty?
Betty: United For Peace and Justice does nothing. They hold their 'strategy' session and cast themselves as the cheering squad for Barack Obama and suddenly some politician -- a politician! -- is more important to an alleged peace group than is ending the Iraq War. United For Peace and Justice is disgusting. That's true of the bulk of them. They've disgraced themselves. I agreed we need to include the news of that action and I'll also note that Military Families Speak Out just finished up a four-day action. I'm not really impressed with these other people and their "How we can help Barack" articles. It's not the peace movement's job to "help" Barack. It's the peace movement's job to make demands, to make noise and to force politicians to end the illegal war.
Rebecca: Okay, now for those of us physically in the same room. How about we start with Mike, who's seated next to me, and just work our way around which means we end with C.I.?
Mike: I agree so much with what Betty and Cedric just said and it's not just CODESTINK or United For Peace and Justice that's become an embarrasment. The Center For Constitutional Rights is a joke. They refuse to call out Barack. They couch every criticism and cower. The ACLU has shown some real strength -- could I get a link for them for that reason -- but the Center, which is supposed to be radical, is just this huge, huge disappointment. The bulk of the left and 'left' has disgraced themselves. And it's why, even though those wanting the Iraq War ended are in the majority, nothing's forcing the end. Nothing will until people learn to demand it. We are the government. As long as we act like our employees are movie stars we worship, we're powerless and chicken ass cowards who can't accomplish a damn thing.
Kat: I don't think anyone's going to disagree with which side is more committed at this point. And it's pathetic because, as we've noted before, if Hillary had been elected, the same left that plays the quiet game currently would be demanding action. A lot of it is people being scared to criticize Barack, a lot of it is them believing the hype, a lot of it is the desire to worship a man. But it's pathetic and it's pathetic that they believed his lies about Iraq and it's pathetic that they played Sophie's Choice with Iraq and Afghanistan -- that knowing that while he was saying he'd pull 'combat' troops from Iraq, he was saying he'd send more to Afghanistan, these same so-called lefties endorsed him and lied for him and covered for him.
Trina: You know, I look back on Vietnam and I remember LBJ being called out and Nixon. Today, I look around and feel like we have nothing but immaturity at the top of the peace chain. And I feel we have people cutting private deals at the expense of the peace movement. I do not consider Kim Gandy a voice of peace. I know some people do. I know some idiots, like Pundit Mom, think Kim did something wonderful to end the Iraq War. Buy a clue, you idiot. But Kim's not criticized Barack and what do we have now? Kim angling for a job with the administration. Please, our so-called leaders have been bought and paid for and seem, in retrospect, to have existed completely to tap down on actions and outrage. They've repeatedly -- and The Nation has been the worst here -- attempted to turn a vote for the Democratic Party into a peace action. And then they've done nothing but offer excuses for Dems in office -- despite that laughable editorial they ran starting on the cover about how they wouldn't support any candidate who blah, blah, blah.
Wally: Yeah, that's true. And you have to wonder, since Katrina vanden Heuvel used the Roosevelt board position to hook up early members of Barack's team -- like his Facebook connect, you have to wonder how genuine that editorial was and how much it was about setting up Barack because The Nation was pimping him long before 2007. I want to turn it to a point that C.I.'s made for five years now. The Iraq War hits the six year mark in March. Where is the Pacifica Radio program devoted to Iraq. There's not one. There's not even a half-hour program once a week that's sole focus is Iraq. So let's quit pretending that any of our leaders give a damn about Iraq. They don't. An illegal war is ongoing and they've refused to cover it as such. What show started covering the first Gulf War?
C.I.: KPFA's Flashpoints.
Wally: Thank you. There has never been a focus on Iraq. You can actually see these Beggar outlets spike their coverage -- increase it -- of Iraq -- which is really just discussions because they don't report from Iraq -- as elections approach. Otherwise, they ignore it. So, no, they don't care.
Ava: I -- I'm going to need another question. This gets into something C.I. and I have agreed to write about for Third this weekend. I can't comment. I doubt C.I. can.
Rebecca: Okay. How about this for your question: If the left doesn't find a way to get active, when does the Iraq War end?
Ava: I have no idea. If they don't get active, the illegal war does not end before 2013. I don't know that it ends in 2013. Rebecca, you remember how, summer 2005, we were all working on Third -- Betty, Rebecca, Mike, C.I and I. The others weren't doing their own sites and weren't working on it with us then. But Rebecca, you remember how it was an awful, awful writing edition and we were all stressed and C.I. brings up the fact that ideally The Common Ills should go dark in 2008 and we're all shocked by that and then really shocked when C.I. says that the Iraq War will still be going on past 2008. That was 2005. And the idea that the Iraq War would continue three more years was just unbelievable to us. A few of us even thought C.I. was joking. But it's 2009 and the Iraq War is ongoing. So I return to the points C.I. made then about who wants it more -- those who want to end it or those who want to continue it -- and who treats it as a serious issue. We have a left that defocuses and hops all over the place. I mean, Rebecca, you were writing about this recently, how the Beggar outlets are all over Gaza this week and completely ignoring Iraq. And pair that up with Wally's point about, all this time later, still not having one program -- even a half-hour, once a week -- on any of the Pacifica Radio stations that focuses solely on Iraq. There is no concern for ending the Iraq War. There was once a desire to make a few fast bucks off the illegal war on the part of many writing bad books and making bad 'documentaries.' The Amy Goodmans will continue to trot out Iraq when it's pledge drive funding time but that's just lip service. They only care about what they can make a buck off. Typical Panhandle Media.
C.I.: Everybody's said what needs saying. If you want a specific example, I think we can offer up Free Speech Radio News. Betty started the roundtable noting the huge amount of violence all week in Iraq and she specifically stated Wednesday's violence and Thursday's violence as well as today's -- Fridays. I think it takes a lot of nerve to do what Free Speech Radio News did this week. Today -- Friday -- the violence was the worst of the year thus far. And every outlet had to weigh in. So what does Free Speech Radio News do? They show up declaring, "A female suicide bomber in Iraq killed nearly 40 women and children today as they made the annual Shiite pilgrimage to Karbala to mark the death of the grandson of the Prophet Mohammed. This is the most deadly bombing in Iraq so far this year. And the third day in a row of attacks against the Shiite Pilgrims." Oh, it's the third day in a row, is it? Well, where was your Wednesday coverage, where was your Thursday coverage? They didn't offer any. And that quote, that's the extent of their Friday coverage. So if you're looking for the perfect example, take that program. Ignoring Iraq all week. Ignoring the House and Senate hearings on Iraq and Afghanistan that took place Thursday, ignoring this and ignoring that. And when forced to comment, they serve up a news item that makes it sound like they have been covering the attacks when they haven't. It's all a bunch of frauds and fakers and I'm sick of it. I think we all are.
Rebecca: And the oven buzzer just went off so this is going to be it. I don't know about Betty and Cedric, but here we've been drinking -- alcohol -- throughout this. And, except for Ava and C.I., eating. Ava and C.I. have been taking notes so we're going to end now that Trina's loaf of French bread is coming out of the oven. This roundtable focused exclusively on Iraq. Sites other than The Common Ills will offer C.I.'s Friday snapshot below this.
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Friday, February 13, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Thomas E. Ricks tries to drag Americans to the grown ups table (no word on how successful the attempt was), Blackwater changes its name, at least 40 dead from a single bombing, and more.
Today Alan Gomez (USA Today) reports Maj Gen Michael Oates declaring he has no idea why US troops are in southern Iraq and "that he believes recent security gains there are permanent -- and that some of his troops are openly wondering why they're still there, even though he believes their presence remains crucial." Oatest acknowledges problems in Mosul but appears to think that's it. This as Iraq's rocked with the worst bombing of the year this morning. Iskandariya is south of Baghdad but it is considered to be "central Iraq" and not "southern Iraq." Wisam Mohammed, Sami al-Jumaili, Waleed Ibrahim, Khalid al-Ansary, Mohammed Abbas and Michael Christie (Reuters) report, "The attacks occurred despite heavy security on the pilgrimage route. The ranks of troops and police patrolling Kerbala were boosted by 5,000 to 30,000, a city official said. The Arbain rite, which culminates early on Monday, is difficult to secure. Many pilgrims walk all the way to Kerbala, and are easy targets as they cover hundreds of miles clutching religious banners." Michael Evans (Times of London) states, "A female suicide bomber disguised as a Shia pilgrim on the annual trek to the holy city of Karbala today killed over 30 people, mostly women and children. The woman set of a device hidden beneath the traditional abaya Muslim garment. At least 60 were wounded with head and chest injuries." The death toll and the number wounded have continued to rise throughout the day. Monte Morin (Los Angeles Times states, "The bomber had reportedly tried to pass through a checkpoint at Abu Al Jassim village, but failed. It was then that she entered the crowd of women and children who were eating lunch and detonated explosives strapped to her body." Saad Sarhan and Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) provide this context, "The bombing, which occurred shortly before noon, was the deadliest in Iraq this year. . . . Millions of Shiite pilgrims make a yearly pilgrimage to Karbala for the end of a 40-day period of mourning commemorating the death of Hussain bin Ali, one of the most revered figures in Shiite Islam." Wisam Mohammed and Sami al-Jumaili (Reuters) report 40 dead and sixty-nine injured. At the United Nations, the following statement was released on behalf of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon:
The Secretary-General is appalled by the suicide bomb attack against Shi'a pilgrims near Baghdad today, and similar attacks targeting innocent civilians in the past days which have left dozens of people dead and wounded, including many women and children. These acts cannot be justified by any political or religious cause and must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. The Secretary-General joins with the people of Iraq in rejecting these cruel and reprehensible attempts to reignite sectarian violence in the country. He also calls on Iraqi leaders to work together in a spirit of national dialogue and mutual respect as demonstrated during the peaceful provincial elections held last month.
Helen Pidd (Guardian) notes the death toll has now risen to 35 and then she pimps the following, "Today's bombing is at least the second attack by a female suicide bomber this year in Iraq: on 4 January a woman blew herself up among a crowd of pilgrims worshipping at the Imam Musa al-Kazim shrine in northern Baghdad, killing 38 people and wounding 72. Though the overall number of suicide attacks has dropped off in recent months, attacks by women are becoming more common." Actually, Helen, the January 4th bomber was a MAN. See the January 6th snapshot, see the January 14th snapshot (at this point al-Maliki's government is admitting the Jan. 4th bomber was a man). Second of all, 30 female bombers in all of 2008 is not "more common" but how nice of you to play the alarmist. How about you tell your readers how many bombers there have been and then explain to them what a tiny percentage of that female bombers actually are? Oh, that wouldn't allow you to play the alarmist. The UNINFORMED alarmist. The scariest thing may be that Pidd is paid to write. The Feb. 2nd Khanaqin bombing is said to be a male suicide bomber or a female suicide bomber. And the gender there was actually worth following up on since al-Maliki's government was pimping the alleged confession of the woman they claimed was the 'Mother of all Bombers' (no, that's not the translation, that's what they were saying -- remember, she recruited, she had them raped, remember all those completely unverifiable claims?). If Mommy of all was indeed captured, who was overseeing these female bombers!!!! Daddy of all Bombers? Aunt of all? Who? Who????? Helen Pidd, please, please, wrap your limited capabilities around that story. McClatchy's Idiot in Iraq, Trenton Daniels also repeats the false claim that January 4th was a woman -- it was a man disgusied as a woman and you'd think as much water as McClatchy carries for Nouri al-Maliki, they'd gladly get it right just because he said so.
We'll use Trenton as our jumping off point to address the elections by noting the very bad article he wrote yesterday where he rushed to inform that al-Maliki was talking to Baathist officials in exile outside of Iraq. He left out a whole lot including the denials that such talks were taking place. Trent offered white-wash, not news. We'll again note Ma'ad Fayad's "Iraqi Dawa Party Official: No dialogue with Armed Groups" (Asharq Alawsat -- and Haydar al-Ibadi who is spokesperson for Dawa , Nouri's party):Al-Ibadi categorically denied that any official in the state spoke to Baathist leaders whether inside Iraq or abroad. He explained: "The Iraqi constitution does not allow this. Besides, the public' general mood does not support the Baath Party because it committed a lot of crimes during and after the rule of the [former] regime."He added: "The Baathists have committed a lot of crimes and killed a large number of Iraqis since 2003 to date. It is they who allowed the Al-Qaeda Organization to enter the country and who were involved in the killing of hundreds of Iraqis." He asked: "So, how can such a party rejoin the political process?"However, Al-Ibadi noted: "There are Baathists who returned to their jobs and who live a normal life without any problems. But they did so as Iraqis, not as members of the Baath Party, which is known for being a conspiratorial military party that does not believe in democracy and does not allow the establishment of a democratic rule."He added: "Permission for the return of the Baath Party to political action needs a constitutional amendment, and I very much rule out the possibility of such a move."Trenton quotes al-Ibadi in his article, though he downgrades his position in the party. And he leaves out the whole denial that invitations were taking place. Here's reality, al-Maliki's being built up by the press and they never intended to report on the Baathist issue. The fact that some Americans were noticing the situation meant it was time for a white wash and look who shows up.So what he gives you is, 'Guess what, invitations to Baathists are going out!' He leaves out the entire denial that they were taking place -- a HUGE story in Iraqi media at the start of the week. He leaves out the claims of Constitutional issues at play.He reveals himself as something other than a journalist. Toss a Hershey bar on the ground in front of him and he will drop drawers and drop to all fours.There's Trenty, in too much make up and heels that will kill his back and feet, cooing about "Iraqis' desire for a strong ruler. In the poll's preliminary results, Maliki's State of Law coalition won a plurality of the votes in nine of 14 provinces -- more than any other party. Maliki has reinvented himself as a pragmatic, non-sectarian leader. He was the bold figure who crushed both Sunni and Shiite militias, although his opponents charge that he's becoming a dictator." His opponents say that? I can think of many NGOs that say similar things off the record. al-Maliki has not "reinvented himself," the press has and it takes idiots like Trent -- the equivalent of a general studies major -- to continue to pimp the equivalent of state legistlature elections (only in 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces*) as 'heavy on the symbolism.'The portent was there when al-Maliki began campaigning around the country, offering empty promises and bribes, and he wasn't a candidate. If the President of the United States started trying to pull that stunt in Vermont, people would be outraged. They would rightly point out that the President has no business sticking into his nose into the election of a state legislature. But al-Maliki sits on billions and he controls how it is spent. He completely thrwarted the democratic process and he should have been called out for it. The elections do not indicate a damn thing. The country remains split. Iraq has 18 provinces, nine -- if you misread the results -- are for al-Maliki!Well nine aren't. Kirkuk might go for him. It's doubtful but it could happen. The three Kurdish provinces will not be hopping on board the Dawa Party wagon.And if people want to get really honest, what the results indicate is a federation just became more likely. Look at the provinces. The north won't go with al-Maliki's party, nor will the south. The support cuts straight along the lines of proposal for breaking up Iraq.What the results -- if people want to read them as support or non-support for al-Maliki (and that's how the press has played this) -- indicate is that the southern section of Iraq stands a good chance of becoming its own regional government the way the northern section is now the KRG. That's good news for al-Maliki?No, it's not. All the oil rich areas and the ports are denied him with 'control' over central Iraq only. Not only is not good news, it indicates that should al-Maliki do something that the KRG and the southern region do not support, he's about as powerful as Hamid Karzai. If the press insists upon wrongly maintaining that the results (still not official results) say something about al-Maliki, then what it actually says is he has very tiny base of power, it is centrally located in Iraq and he's hemmed in there with only slightly more room than Karzai. Meanwhile Marc Santora (New York Times) points out regarding today's deadly bombing, "For the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, which has been widely credited with improving security significantly in the past year, the pilgrimage had represented an opportunity to showcase the efficiency of its security forces. But after the recent spate of attacks, including four in Baghdad alone this week targeting pilgrims, his government is now facing criticism." Today Thomas E. Ricks reminded everyone, "Remember the elections a couple of years ago, puple fingers, people coming out? Followed by a civil war. So I think there's a lot of reasons that Iraq '09 is going to be very tough and harder, in fact, than the last year of Bush's war. And I think there's a good chance that Obama's war in Iraq will last longer than Bush's war." We'll come back to Ricks and that CBS interview in a minute.
But tensions continue to rise between Iraq and the Kurdish Regional Government. At yesterday's State Dept briefing, AP's Matthew Lee raised that issue (here for text, here for video).
Matthew Lee: Robert, speaking of the people who feel ignored by the United States, the Kurds, there seems to be growing concern and some resentment in northern Iraq that the United States is not paying enough attention to the situation there and to the concerns that they have. Can you offer any reassurance to the Kurdish leaders who think that? I mean we've got one here, the regional prime minister saying, "We love the U.S., and they don't care."
Robert Wood: Well I haven't seen those remarks. I don't actually know what they mean. But look, we have been working with the Iraqi Government to do what we can to support a democratic process going forward in Iraq that encompasses the views, the aspirations of all peoples who live in Iraq. Iraq has made a lot of strides, as you know, Matt. It's been a very challenging several years for the people of Iraq. Yes, there are concerns from various groups. There is a democratic government in place. There is a system in Iraq that allows for complaints from various groups, parties to seek, you know, restitution. The democratic experiment in Iraq continues. The recent elections were very positive. That's the best I can tell you, with regard to -- I haven't -- while I've seen these types of comments --
Matthew Lee: Your response? You went on for awahile, but you didn't mention, you know, you didn't mention who I was asking about. What can you do to reassure the Kurds specifically that -- that you are --
Robert Wood: Well it's not so much what the United States has to do. It's really what the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people decide is going to be the future of their country. And I think the Iraqi Government has chosen a path of democracy. It's experiencing, as I said, a number of challenges. But there are ways for peoples in Iraq to bring the concerns that they have to the levers of power. And it's a democracy, and it's not really up to the United States to reassure anyone. It's the Iraqi people and -- through -- and with the Iraqi people, their government, to deal with questions like those.
Matthew Lee: Okay. But you still haven't used the word that begins with K. Is there some reason why you're reluctant to do that?
Robert Wood: No, there's no specific reason at all. I've just given you, I think, is what our views are with regard to Iraq and its future, and where there may be some issues that some of the ethnic groups have.
Matthew Lee: Right. But -- well, your response, I don't think, is going to reassure anyone. In fact, it's going to reinforce their concerns --
Robert Wood: Well, I would disagree with you. What I've said, and I've been very clear about this, is that there is an Iraqi Government, a democratically elected government that's responsible for dealing with the issues that confront its people. And the United States is -- has been a helpful partner. We will continue to be a partner and friend to the Iraqis. But with regard to complaints that various groups may have about their future in Iraq, in the end, that's going to be a decision determined by the Iraqi people and its government -- and their government.
No, press spokesperson Robert Wood never did answer the question. And tensions continue on the border between northern Iraq and Turkey. Xinhua reports that Turkey's latest air strike resulted in 13 deaths, supposedly all PKK which the US, Turkey and the European Union have labeled a terrorist organization.
"I think there are a lot of reasons Iraq '09 is going to be very tough and, in fact, harder than the last year of Bush's war. And I think there is a good chance that Obama's war in Iraq will last longer than Bush's war." That's Thomas Ricks speaking today on CBS' Washington Unplugged (link is video). Thomas E. Ricks has released a new book:
Two excerpts from my new book The Gamble are running in the Washington Post Sunday and Monday. There also are some cool on-line only things -- not just another excerpt, but also a great video about how one officer, Capt. Samuel Cook of the 3rd Armored Cavalry, conducted counterinsurgency operations in one part of Iraq last year. (To read more about how Cook talked an insurgent leader into cooperation, read this excerpt from the book, a section called "The Insurgent Who Loved Titanic.")
Yesterday's snapshot included two paragraphs of Ricks' book on where the top US commander, Gen Ray Odierno, he sees the Iraq War in 2014. Today on CBS News' exclusive webcast, Ricks spoke with Slate's John Dickerson about the reclassification game -- Barack's promised on the campaign trail that he would withdraw "combat" troops within 16 months of being sworn into office -- and noted "there is no pacifisitic branch of the US Army." He detailed the realities everyone tries to avoid, "Newsflash for Obama, there is no such thing as non-combat troops."
Everyone also attempts to avoid the realities of the resistance. This week NPR's Lourdes Garcia-Navarro (Morning Edition -- text and audio) reported on resistance fighter Abu Abdul Aziz (not his real name) who informs, "I have killed many Americans, not just one or two. When I kill them, I feel happy, like victory is coming. . . . If you look into my heart, you won't find any sympathy for the Americans at all. That's not because I have no human feelings, but because I feel that they are here to harm us, to steal from us, to kill our women and our children. . . . The honorable resistance does not do suicide bombings. That's al-Qaida. We do not harm innocent people, Muslims or not Muslims. Our target is only the Americans." Garcia-Navarro also reported on the Iraqi police:
Inside Samarra's local police station, officer Adnan Shakir, who works in the investigation unit, says things are better, but "it's a fragile safety, it's a cautious quiet."
The problem, he says, is mistrust between the different branches of the security forces here, especially between local Sunni policemen like himself and the mostly Shiite national police.
"The national police, they don't know how to deal with the people here. They are outsiders. There are always problems; when there is any problem, they use their weapons," he says.
Shakir says many of the complaints they investigate come from local residents regarding abuses by national police. Some are serious. Several women have come forward saying they were raped or assaulted by members of the national police.
Capt. Waleed Abdul Rahman is the head of the major crimes division at the local police station.
"One girl claimed that the police commandos violated her. In another case, a girl was kidnapped, and her family claimed that she had been forcibly abducted by a national policeman as well and taken to Baghdad," he says.
Abdul Rahman says the first case was never investigated. The second girl was slain by her family in a so-called honor killing when she returned home.
The captain says they generally don't take the complaints of assault and rape seriously.
But without an investigation, it's hard to determine the truth of the allegations or how widespread the problem may be.
They don't take the complaints seriously? Well why should they? With the delightful prospect of an 'honor' killing, what girl or woman wouldn't rush to their police station to declare a rape falsely! That attitude of assuming the woman is lying is part of the problem in Iraq. That attitude gets backed and stroked when the US installs thugs because they are cheaper to work with and may bring quicker 'stability' (widespread fear).
In some of today's other reported violence . . .
CNN reports a Mussayiab mortar explosion that claimed the lives of 2 children. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad grenade attack that left three police officers wounded.
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a home invasion in which the Ministry of Defense's Thamir Yousif and his son were shot dead.
In other news, do you know Xe? Mercenaries hope you don't. Maddy Sauer and Megan Churchmach (ABC News) report, "The scandal-ridden security firm Blackwater USA is officially changing its name effective immediately as the company moves to rebrand itself after being fired last month by the State Department from its job protecting diplomats in Iraq." Why Xe? Maybe because XYZ would have left them feeling exposed? For those keeping track, this is the third name change in recent years for the company. Blackwater USA was the name until the infamous Baghdad slaughter September 16, 2007. Then it became Blackwater Worldwide. And it has many new names. For example, Blackwater USA is now know as US Training Center which is "An Xe company." This includes not only their physical facilities in Moyock, NC, Mt. Carroll, Il and San Diego, CA but also their home study courses, where they let you tailor your killing needs specifically for your company in the designing of "custom courses." The name change is rather surprising when you consider that if an individual appeared before a judge and asked to change their name, he or she would be asked if there were any outstanding debts or liability actions? Xe is pronounced "Z," Jennifer Wells (Globe and Mail) explains and notes the September 16, 2007 slaughter and how "a company spokesman told The Associated Press that the rebrand was 'not a direct result of a loss of contract, but certainly that is an aspect of our work that we feel were defined by'." Howzit Howard (Hawaii's KGM9) wryly observes, "Blackwater Worldwide, an employer of mercenaries that arguably made life more dangerous for the real U.S. soldiers in Iraq, has decided to take decisive action about its bad name. It is changing it."
Yesterday the UK Ministry of Defence announced the death of a soldier in Basra. He's been identified as 21-year-old Ryan Wrathall. They note Ryan Wrathall "deployed to southern Iraq in November 2008 and was about halfway through a six-month tour of the country as a member of the 5 RIFLES (Strike) Battle Group" and that "The incident, which occurred at approximately 0630 hours local time, will be subject to a full investigation. No enemy forces were involved and there is no evidence to suggest that anyone else was involved. "
Turning to US politics, the stimulus is in the news and it is being analyzed. Michael Hudson (CounterPunch) offers:
The first question to ask about any Recovery Program is, "Recovery for whom?" The answer given on Tuesday is, "For the people who design the Program and their constituency" – in this case, the bank lobby. The second question is, "Just what is it they want to 'recover'?" The answer is, the Bubble Economy. For the financial sector it was a golden age. Having enjoyed the Greenspan Bubble that made them so rich, its managers would love to create yet more wealth for themselves by indebting the "real" economy yet further while inflating prices all over again to make new capital gains.The problem for today's financial elites is that it is not possible to inflate another bubble from today's debt levels, widespread negative equity, and still-high level of real estate, stock and bond prices. No amount of new capital will induce banks to provide credit to real estate already over-mortgaged or to individuals and corporations already over-indebted. Moody's and other leading professional observers have forecast property prices to keep on plunging for at least the next year, which is as far as the eye can see in today's unstable conditions. So the smartest money is still waiting like vultures in the wings – waiting for government guarantees that toxic loans will pay off. Another no-risk private profit to be subsidized by public-sector losses.While the Obama administration's financial planners wring their hands in public and say "We feel your pain" to debtors at large, they know that the past ten years have been a golden age for the banking system and the rest of Wall Street. Like feudal lords claiming the economic surplus for themselves while administering austerity for the population at large, the wealthiest 1 per cent of the population has raised their appropriation of the nationwide returns to wealth – dividends, interest, rent and capital gains – from 37 per cent of the total ten years ago to 57 per cent five years ago and it seems nearly 70 per cent today. This is the highest proportion since records have been kept. We are approaching Russian kleptocratic levels.
Left Business Observer's Doug Henwood (LBO News from Doug Henwood) explains:
And it looks like the Treasury and the Fed will pump up some $250-500 billion to help hedge funds buy bad assets - with the FDIC guaranteeing the buyers against losses.
At this point, the only thing that makes any sense is to nationalize the weakest banks, kick out management, wipe out the shareholders, clear the decks, and start over with a tightly regulated system. This isn't even all that radical a position anymore - and it may be inevitable, if these sick and devious "public-private partnership" schemes don't work out, which seems likely. There is a radical nationalization position - take the banks over and convert them to public institutions - but I know that's completely out of the question with this gang. But they're doing absolutely everything they can to avoid even an orthodox nationalization. This is looking more and more like Japan's disastrous indulgence of their "zombie banks" in the 1990s than Sweden's successful bailout, the model for the "nationalize them and clear the decks" approach. Instead of a few rough years, we're likely to get a miserable decade.
They've botched the stimulus, and they're botching the financial rescue. They're worse than I expected, and I wasn't expecting much in the first place (see: Obamamania, a febrile disease).
Bill Moyers Journal's Michael Winship explores the bailout:
You know what they say - half a million dollars just doesn't go as far as it used to. News from the White House that $500,000 was the cap the government wants to put on executive salaries at the banks receiving bailout cash had some on Wall Street and along the plush corridors of Manhattan's swank Upper East Side hollering "Unfair!" (But without those unsightly street demonstrations and picket lines, of course.)"You Try to Live on 500K in This Town" was the tongue-in-cheek headline in last Sunday's New York Times. Just add up private school tuition, mortgage payments, maintenance fees and wages for the nanny and you're already up to more than $250,000 a year - and that's pre-taxes, assuming you're paying any. Then tote up payments and upkeep on vacation and weekend homes, charity balls, car and driver - pretty soon you're maxing out your American Express Black Card.But they work hard for their multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses, perks and solid gold benefits, complained some of the financiers. Besides, executive headhunters say, the money giants just can't get good help for anything less. Good help? Spare us the kind of moguls who helped us straight into the current deep, dirty hole we're trying to climb out of."Like spoiled, petulant children," is how Washington Post columnist Steven Pearlstein described them. "These guys won't be happy until the government agrees to relieve them of every last one of their lousy loans and investments at inflated prices, recapitalize every major bank and brokerage and insurance company on sweetheart terms and restore them to the glory days, so they can once again earn inflated profits and obscene pay packages by screwing over their customers and their shareholders."
More of the essay can be found online at the show's blog. Tonight on most PBS stations, Moyers speaks with Simon Johnson (about the stimulus) and with poet Nikki Giovanni.
Which brings us to public TV notes, NOW on PBS offers a look at the stimulus package and zooms in mas transit and North Carolina as "part of a PBS-wide series on the country's infrastructure called 'Blueprint America'." And online, last week NOW dealt with the Housing Crisis and Manish Thakor ("financial guru") replies to questions viewers asked. NOW on PBS begins airing on most PBS stations tonight, check your local listings. Washington Week also begins airing on many PBS stations tonight and Gwen's roundtable gasbags this week include Gloria Borger (CNN, US News & World Reports), John Maggs (National Journal), John Dickerson (Slate) and Martha Raddatz (ABC News). And on broadcast TV (CBS) Sunday, no 60 Minutes:Coming Up On 60 Minutes:
Buy AmericanThe economic stimulus package includes a "buy American" clause that the steel and other U.S. industries lobbied hard for. However, American businesses that export overseas now worry foreign governments will retaliate and keep U.S. products out of their market, hurting their business. Lesley Stahl reports.
World Of TroubleThree years before the housing market crash, Paul Bishop says he warned his superiors at World Savings - the nation's second largest savings and loan company - that many of the mortgages they were granting were misleading and predatory. Scott Pelley reports.
War In PakistanSteve Kroft reports from Pakistan, where Islamic insurgents are trying to take over the country and he interviews its new president, Asif Ali Zardari.
60 Minutes, Sunday, Feb. 15 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
the washington posternesto londonosaad sarhanthe los angeles timesmonte morin
wisam mohammedsami al-jumailiwaleed ibrahimkhalid al-ansarymohammed abbasmichael christie
the philadelphia inquireralan gomezhelen pidd
ma'ad fayadmcclatchy newspaperstrenton daniel
thomas e. ricks
morning editionlourdes garcia-navarro
michael hudsondoug henwood60 minutescbs news
michael winshipbill moyers journalpbswashington weeknow on pbs
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq roundtable"
"Jan. 4th wasn't a female bomber, Helen Pidd"
"32 dead and 65 wounded in Iskandiriya bombing"
"I Hate The War"
Mikey Likes It!
Roundtable on Iraq
3 minutes ago
Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude
roundtable on iraq
3 minutes ago
Thomas Friedman is a Great Man
3 minutes ago
Iraq roundtable in the Kitchen
3 minutes ago
Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)
3 minutes ago
The Common Ills
17 minutes ago
Sherrod Brown flying on the people's dime
3 hours ago
3 hours ago
Oh Boy It Never Ends
3 hours ago
Like Maria Said Paz
An explanation for Siorta
3 hours ago
Cedric's Big Mix
The Not-So-Great Pretender
9 hours ago
The Daily Jot
THIS JUST IN! HE HAS ISSUES!
9 hours ago
Mikey Likes It!
Barack and his apologists
9 hours ago
Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude
9 hours ago
9 hours ago
Lock 'em up and throw away the key
9 hours ago
Oh Boy It Never Ends
What happens to Bonnie Newman?
9 hours ago
Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)
She's not really a fashion plate
9 hours ago
Thursday, February 12, 2009
TODAY BARACK OBAMA DECIDED TO PLAY ABRAHAM LINCOLN. SOME DAYS HE PRETENDS HE IS J.F.K. FOR THE RECORD, THE PRESS DIDN'T COMPARE J.F.K. TO OTHER PEOPLE. NORMAN MAILER FAMOUSLY COMPARED J.F.K. TO SUPERMAN BUT HE WAS NEVER CONSIDERED A SECOND-RATE COPY OF SOME PREVIOUS PRESIDENT.
AT SOME POINT THE COUNTRY MAY HAVE TO DABBLE IN A BIT OF SOCIOLOGY AND WONDER ABOUT BARACK'S HABIT OF PRETENDING TO BE SOMEONE ELSE AND WONDER EXACTLY WHEN THE CHANGELING BECAME THAT?
"Over 800 billion dollars" have been spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, declared Janet St. Laurent before matter-of-factly adding, "and billions more will be needed." St Laurent, the Government Accountability Office's Managing Director, Defense Capabilities and Management Team, was offering testimony to the US House Armed Service Committee this morning. "Addressing U.S. Strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan: Balancing Interests and Resources" was the title of the hearing and Laurent was the only person on the panel that anyone in their right mind would call to testify.
Jack Keane, called "General" throughout? Well golly, does General Dynamics really deserve a seat at the table? No, they don't and Jack Keane shouldn't be sitting on the board of a War Industry Corporation and offering 'unbiased' testimony to Congress. It's APPALLING and SHAMEFUL. As Keane babbled on about what was 'needed' in Afghanistan and evaluated the 2007 escalation in Iraq (the "surge"), no one felt the need to explain that he pushed for that and is considered the brains behind it. This was hardly unbiased testimony and it certainly wasn't testimony that disclosed to the public details they needed to know. Keane, of course, belongs to the Council on/for/of Foreign Relations because you can never have enough of those War Hawk misfits and freaks at a hearing. Enter Stephen Biddle who at least did some grooming before appearing this Congressional go-round. Rounding out the unqualified losers trio was Anthony Cordsman and with Cordsman and Keane both offering their 'expertise' to ABC on a regular basis, one wonders why a hearing was even needed? Or maybe the point is that next month, Congress will explore the wars by taking testimony from Al Roker and Regis Phiblin?
Roker and Philbin couldn't come off any worse than the rejects did and they'd probably both do a great deal better. Early in the hearing, Committee Chair Ike Skelton wondered aloud about the Afghanistan War, how long it's drawn on and the American people's attitude toward it. Keane's response should have alarmed the nation: "I would hope that we would craft a campaign in support of that [increasing troops in Afghanistan] . . . . With a new president here, it is an opportunity . . . . to connect with the American people on this issue" -- it gets worse, but let's stop it right there for one moment. Barack Obama is not the face of change. He is the new face of the empire and Keane grasps that and grasps how Barack's false image provides opportunities for empire building. Back to Keane who felt that the American people -- those supposedly in charge in a democracy -- should be given "a general sense without getting into specifics on our plans . . . if you sort of report out to the American people three or four times a year . . . our credibility stays intact."
It was a series of appalling statements (". . ." indicates editing on my part, he was very long winded) and equally appalling was that no one on the committee appeared bothered by it. The closest to reality in the 'full committee hearing' (many members bailed during the hearing, many never showed) came from Ranking Member John McHugh with the first of what he dubbed two "editorial comment"s, "There is going to be a damn tough war and there is going to be casualties and there is going to be losses." He was referring to Afghanistan Version 4.9 Rebooted and Expanded. And he wasn't calling it out (he's a Republican, they generally don't call out meaningless wars), but at least he was noting some of the costs.
McHugh wanted to know what we'd measure success in Afghanistan with and the fact that this farce continued without any member of Congress screaming out loud shows you that Barack is the tool of empire intended to provide the clean slate. There is no measure of success, not even from those advocating for more troops in Afghanistan. As the 'surge' there approaches, there is no definition of success, no clear goals. And we're all supposed to just forget that's how the US muddled through for the last eight years. It was disgusting. Cordsman tossed out a lot of words but had no answer -- though he clearly thought he'd provided them. "What you do have to do," he intoned at one point fancies himself a grand thinker, "is move towards a level of stability." Well, yes, Anthony, one would assume sending thousands of troops into a country should stabilize it but that's not really a way to "measure" success, now is it?
Biddle wanted to ignore the question completely. He felt it was beneath him. "The question is not what the current trend is, the question is the projection forward," he would declare in part of his run-on answer and explain that it was much more difficult to project forward; however, he thought that was one of his gifts. No one else on the face of the planet thinks Biddle has even one gift. But, again, it was nice that he showered for a change. (He truly is -- as anyone who's attended his past performances can attest -- one of those men who believes it's shower OR cologne -- and generally he sticks with the latter.) Biddle was so focused on "projection forward" that he couldn't see today's reality clearly. He noted "many" diplomats are no longer needed in Iraq ("many of which we have less need for in Iraq") and "I would like to see a political surge" in Afghanistan.
A political surge? And he thinks that's worked in Iraq? In fact, he thinks that the US diplomatic corps in Iraq needs to be thinned out? He's the only one who feels that way and one longed for Senator Barbara Boxer to pop in and set the weasel straight. No one touched on his comment. No one followed up. No one asked, "Biddle, what political progress are you seeing in Iraq?" He can't even say provincial elections because Iraq has 18 provinces and only 14 have held the elections (plus the violence around the elections and the candidates has been intense). But he's convinced that Iraq's chug-chug-chugging along so nicely we can pull the limited number of diplomats there and install them in Afghanistan.
And how would we measure progress? Have we all forgotten George W. Bush's refusal to define success in Iraq? Keane has: "We clearly have to -- to win -- defeat the insurgency. When the insurgency's defeated" and leaves "the battlefield or, as in Iraq, it comes to the political process," it will be . . . what? Attempting to clarify that clear-as-mud statement, Keane created two groups: Reconcilables and Irreconcilables. Reconcilables, he says, will come into the process and Irreconcilables will not. He forgot to inform where the Irreconcilables go? Forced relocation? Victims of death squads? Who knows? But Keane is saying that there are two groups of people in Afghanistan -- who knew their society -- or any -- was that simplistic? -- and when some of them are part of a political process and some of them aren't it will mean . . . something. Clearly.
Struggling still to define success, Keane declared, "This will take resources" uh-huh "and it will take time" uh-huh "and it will take the blood of our troops." Left unsaid was that it will enrich General Dynamics. Left unsaid is that the sentence provides no measurables for success. Since Keane had just basically (in that sentence) repeated what McHugh had said before asking his question, McHugh rushed to say (ignoring Janet St. Laurent's comments), "I couldn't agree with General Keane more." Yes, active listening is a skill that is highly effective with young children and, apparently, members of Congress. Keane's use of it was so effective, he had McHugh cheering him on -- despite the fact that he never answered McHugh's question.
(St. Laurent -- in case anyone's interested in her comments, McHugh wasn't -- called for a civilian and Defense Department "integrated approach" and measures for "whether or not these resources are being applied effectively?" While a stronger answer on measures would have been appreciated as a member of the GAO, that might have been the most she could offer.)
US House Rep Gene Taylor was among the few Democrats to bother asking questions during the period where each representative could have had five minutes for questioning (this is where the hearing really began to thin out of of members and those who remained yawned, stretched, scratched themselves and looked bored -- as I'm sure did those of us in the visitor seats). He noted that in Iraq the military had "to pay the tribes to stop shooting at Americans . . . It looks like a power sharing agreement has been made with the sheiks and they are shooting a lot less Americans." This led to a curious claim on the part of Keane that "they're paying for it" -- the costs of the war, in Iraq. He actually told the committee -- and no one questioned him on this -- that Iraq was bearing the financial costs of the war to the US and paying for it with their oil money. And no one laughed out loud.
A fact US House Rep Duncan Hunter apparently missed or he wouldn't have tried out his own one-liner: "We do have victory [in Iraq] and I hope you'll let people know that." He hopes who will let people know that? Keane? Maybe when he's next on ABC? Who knows, the entire statement was exactly the nonsense the country's come to expect from Duncan Hunter. US House Rep Susan Davis noted of NATO allies and the Afghanistan War, "Their public opinion is worse than ours." This appeared to irk Biddle who straightened his spine as he spat out, "Many Europeans do not believe that this is a war." Silly Europeans! Maybe Keane's plot/plan to give limited updates three or four times a year can trick them and get them on board the way he seems to think it can fool Americans? US House Rep Tom Rooney (Republican and one of Congress' newest members) spoke last. He cited a book by Marcus Luttrell (presumably Lone Survivor -- written by Luttrell and Patrick Robinson). And that was pretty much it. A highly disappointing hearing but, considering the panel, that should have been expected.
And some say Nawal al Samurrai (also spelled al Samurraie in some press accounts) should have expected the lack of support as al-Maliki's Minister of Women's Affairs. But she didn't and thought she would receive assistance. Instead her ministry's tiny budget was cut further (from $7500 to $1500 a month). Tina Susman and Caesar Ahmed (Los Angeles Times) quote Parliamentarian Nada Ibrahim explains, "It's not a real ministry. It's one room with a woman, no budget, no staff. It's a trick." The reporters note that the issue "also highlights what many women say is the lip service paid them by the Shiite conservatives loyal to Dawa and other Shiite parties dominant in parliament. In August, Inaam Jawwadi, a female member of parliament from the Shiite bloc, called for Samarai's ministry to be turned into a Cabinet portfolio, but the proposal went nowhere." Susman and Ahmed explain, "Her eyes glistened with tears as she described the frustration of confronting widows and not being able to fofer them anything beyond promises that she would try to help. She found herself sitting in her small office appealing to nongovernmental organizations for money to launch the programs she had envisioned when she took the position in July." She tells them, "It's shameful for me in Iraq, a rich country, to have to ask NGOs for money." To The Contrary's Bonnie Erbe (US News & World Reports via CBS News) proposes, "Here's an idea: As a start, confiscate the Bush and Cheney family fortunes, which are voluminous, and use that money to feed the widows and orphans their war created." Corey Flintoff (NPR -- this is a text only report at NPR) explains, "Samarraie, a 47-year-old gynecologist and member of parliament, says that part of the problem is that Iraq is a patriarchal society, where women are considered adjuncts of their husbands or fathers. And part of it, she says, is political expediency." Parliamentarian Saleh al-Mutlaq declares the Shi'ite extremists don't support the women's ministry, "I mean, it was a joke from the beginning, and they will never support it. And this poor lady, she was a minister for some time, but she didn't have any kind of financial support to support women's issues." Flintoff reports women in Parliament are rallying around the issue, that a five hour meeting took place among them and that they are determined to address this leaving Samarrai debating whether or not to withdraw her resignation. Susman and Ahmed note that al-Maliki's underlings deny any "allegations that women's rights have eroded since the rise of the Shiite power structure. They point out that 25% of seats for the newly elected provincial councils are reserved for women" -- and we'll stop it right there. January 14th, Alissa J. Rubin and Sam Dagher (New York Times) broke the news that although the 25% was supposed to be set aside, it had not been. Instead, a new 'system' was put in place and it is not known how women will do under it but it is expected they will do far worse. When al-Maliki's people point to the 25% figure, they are LYING and pointing to something legally overturned. And while al-Maliki's thugs cut the 25% that was supposed to be law, the Kurdistan Regional Government ups their numbers. Alla Majeed (UPI) reports: "Kurdish lawmakers Wednesday made amendments to their provincial elections law to set aside 30 percent of the seats for females, al-Bayyna of the Iraqi Hezbollah reported Wednesday." And last night, the KRG posted an interview with Human Rights Minister Dr. Yousif Mohammad Aziz who noted, among other things, "One of our biggest challenges is preventing violence against women. Other challenges are street children and underage labour; terrorism and dealing with terror suspects according to the law. Another challenge is to raise the public's awareness of international human rights laws. I believe that since 1991, we have made some progress in these areas." Asked about statistis, Aziz responds, "The government statistics show a large increase in the number of women coming forward for protection because of the new specially dedicated directorates and the success of our campaign to raise awareness of the issue. The positive sign is that the number of honour killings is decreasing. Of course, the presence of such crimes is still appalling and our aim is to eliminate honour killings altogether, but we are seeing a definite improvement thanks to the multiple strategies we are employing." That's a section of the interview, click here to read it in full.
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Kurds to increase number of women on provincial councils"
"NYT undercounts Iraq to beef up Afghanistan"
"new cult decrees"
"Music, Elizabeth Gaskell"
"Don't let Dumb Asses drink"
"Michael Copps and the FCC screw the consumer"
"No, the Iraq War isn't ending"
"THIS JUST IN! THE GEITHNER!"