Saturday, November 14, 2009

Inquiries and 'inquiries'

What is the purpose of the Chilcot inquiry? Its stated objective is to "learn lessons" from the planning and execution of the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq. If only this were true, because this is what the British people demand, but reading between the lines, there appears a more insidious intent.
From 1998 to 2002, I was the UK's Iraq "expert" on the UN Security Council. I resigned from the Foreign Office after giving evidence to the
Butler inquiry in 2004. That inquiry produced an ultimately comforting outcome: that while the intelligence used to justify the war might have been exaggerated, it was not deliberately manipulated. The establishment might have made mistakes, but in the final analysis it could be trusted.
That Sir John Chilcot served on the Butler inquiry is like trying the same crime twice with the same judge and jury – not a credible standard for truth-seeking. Nor would a truth-seeker allow the inquiry's staff to be headed by the civil servant who was in a senior position in the foreign and defence policy secretariat of the Cabinet Office during Britain's military occupation of Iraq.

The above is from Carne Ross' "The country needs the Iraq inquiry. What a shame it will be a whitewash" (Observer). Staying with the topic of inquiries, the November 9th snpashot noted the developments that day in the ongoing inquiry into Baha Mosua's death. Baha died in Iraq, in British custody. The inquiry is taking place in England. On November 9th, British soldiers Gareth Aspinall and Garry Reader testified that Baha was abused repeatedly while in British custody, that he was beaten to death and that they were ordered to keep quiet about what took place. Last night, new allegations of abuse surfaced. BBC News reports that Phil Shiner, an attorney for some Iraqis, is calling for an inquiry into abuse allegations which include British soldiers raping "a 16-year-old boy". Robert Verkaik (Independent of London) adds, "Claims that British soldiers recreated the torture conditions of Abu Ghraib to commit the sexual and physical abuse of Iraqi civilians are being investigated by the Ministry of Defence. The fresh allegations raise important questions about collusion between Britain and America over the ill-treatment of Iraqi prisoners during the insurgency." BBC News (link has text and video) reports today that the UK Armed Forces Minister Bill Rammell is insisting that there's no need for a public inquiry and claiming that any investigation can be handled (privately) by the Ministry of Defence.

Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing wounded two police officers. Reuters notes a Garma roadside bombing wounded three members of the Iraqi military.

Shootings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 police officer and his brother were shot dead in Baghdad Friday night and that Economical Crimes Department Brig Gen Watah Nasrat was injured in an assassination attempt. Reuters notes 1 "Christian boy" shot dead in Mosul and 1 man shot dead in Kirkuk.

Meanwhile Dennis Campbell (Guardian) reports:

Professor Nigel Brown, an expert in the causes of birth defects and dean of the faculty of medicine and biomedical science at St George's, University of London, points out that war zones such as Falluja involve many of the risk factors that cause deformities in children.
"The whole of the war situation produces a very unusual set of circumstances to which the civilian population is exposed, mainly involving the destruction of the built environment and its knock-on effects," he said.
"Those include the degrading of sanitation, the stress [on people of being in a place of conflict], the disruption of the water supply, poor nutrition and air pollution caused by both chemicals and particulates."
It was impossible to identify any one of those particular factors that may lie behind the apparent dramatic increase of birth defects in Falluja.
In addition, despite suspicion to the contrary, there is no reliable evidence to show that the components of munitions causes birth defects, except for ionising radiation, Brown said.


Still on the toxic, illegal war that's damaged so many, Rebecca S. Green (Fort Wayne Journal Gazette) reports on Iraq War veteran John Pete Troost who is among the many veterans and contractors suing KBR in 39 (and counting) lawsuits against KBR in federal courts for exposure to health hazards in Iraq and Afghanistan:

Troost's case stems from a massive burn pit at the Balad Air Base in Iraq, where tractors pushed a variety of waste -- from trucks, tires, metals, medical waste, biohazards -- including human corpses, asbestos and hundreds of thousands of plastic water bottles, according to court documents.
The lawsuit alleges that KBR, in an effort to make more money, ignored contractual obligations and began burning the vast amounts of waste in 2003. The practice continues unabated today, according to court documents.
The smoke was so thick that, on some occasions, it compromised the military’s mission. The military did not prevent KBR and the other contractors from solving the problem in a safer way, according to court documents.
But KBR and its subcontractors, according to the lawsuits, continued to burn the trash, even trash that was known to cause cancer.


Since Thursday night, the following posts have appeared at community sites:

"Got War?"
"Deviled Eggs in the Kitchen"
"The economy is speaking"
"The Crook vs. the Fighter"
"Somerby, 44, American Dad"
"Anita Dunn doesn't know how to go away"
"Carly's performance"
"new action from now"
"some stand strong, some don't"
"Do headline writers read?"
"J.F.K."
"Joni"
"Carly Simon, Susanna Hoffs, Matthew Sweet"
"The ones holding us back"
"ACORN embarrasses again"
"Love Finds Andy Hardy"
"Stop whining"
"Barbra on The Doctors this Monday"
"Concert, what's Barack saying now, and abuse"
"His latest snit fit"
"Powerful?"
"THIS JUST IN! HE'S NOT POWERFUL, HE'S NOT!"
"THIS JUST IN! GROVEL IN CHIEF!"
"So eager to please"


The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.















thomas friedman is a great man






oh boy it never ends

US military brass forces a child into foster care and screams at a civilian woman that she's a "bitch"

The laughs and smiles outweighed the tears during services Saturday for Army Chief Warrant Officer Earl “Scotty” Scott III, an Army aviator killed when his helicopter crashed in Iraq on Nov. 8.
And that’s just how Scott, 24, would have liked it, based on the memories shared by Scott’s family and friends during the hour-long “Celebration of Life” service held in the All Saints’ Chapel at Jacksonville Naval Air Station.
One after another, they described to the roughly 300 in attendance a boy with a sense of humor and adventure who grew into a man known for his practical jokes and passion for flying.



The above is from Jeff Brumley's "Young Army aviator who loved adventure laid to rest
A fatal copter crash took Mandarin High grad's life in Iraq
" (Florida Times-Union). Earl Scott III is among 4362 US service members to die in Iraq since the 2003 start of the war and the 189th US service member from Florida to die in the Iraq War.

Turning to California which has seen 464 service members die in the Iraq War, Dhar Jamail (IPS via MidEast Dispatches) reports on the military's attempt to destroy a home and place a child in foster care:

VENTURA, California - U.S. Army Specialist Alexis Hutchinson, a single mother, is being threatened with a military court-martial if she does not agree to deploy to Afghanistan, despite having been told she would be granted extra time to find someone to care for her 11-month-old son while she is overseas.
Hutchinson, of Oakland, California, is currently being confined at Hunter Army Airfield near Savannah, Georgia, after being arrested. Her son was placed into a county foster care system.
Hutchinson has been threatened with a court martial if she does not agree to deploy to Afghanistan on Sunday, Nov. 15. She has been attempting to find someone to take care of her child, Kamani, while she is deployed overseas, but to no avail.
According to the family care plan of the U.S. Army, Hutchinson was allowed to fly to California and leave her son with her mother, Angelique Hughes of Oakland.
However, after a week of caring for the child, Hughes realised she was unable to care for Kamani along with her other duties of caring for a daughter with special needs, her ailing mother, and an ailing sister.
In late October, Angelique Hughes told Hutchinson and her commander that she would be unable to care for Kamani after all. The Army then gave Hutchinson an extension of time to allow her to find someone else to care for Kamani. Meanwhile, Hughes brought Kamani back to Georgia to be with his mother.
However, only a few days before Hutchinson’s original deployment date, she was told by the Army she would not get the time extension after all, and would have to deploy, despite not having found anyone to care for her child.
Faced with this choice, Hutchinson chose not to show up for her plane to Afghanistan. The military arrested her and placed her child in the county foster care system.


On the above, Courage to Resist has issued the following alert:

Army sends infant to protective services, mom to Afghanistan this weekend
Army has mom, Alexis Hutchinson, arrested and 11-month old son put into county foster care system. Alexis has now been ordered to deploy to Afghanistan on Sunday, November 15, where she will be court martialed.
Action Alert: Contact Congresswoman Barbara Lee to urge her to "Request that the Army not deploy Alexis Hutchinson to Afghanistan so that she can care for her son." From the 9th District (Oakland-Berkeley, CA) phone: 510-763-0370 (fax: 510-763-6538). Nationwide: 202- 225-2661 (fax: 202-225-9817).
Donate to Alexis' legal and family support fund (couragetoresist.org/alexis)
Alexis' attorney now available for media interviews.
By friends of Alexis and Courage to Resist. November 12, 2009
Specialist Alexis Hutchinson of Oakland, CA is the single mother of an 11-month old boy, Kamani. Currently she is confined to Hunter Army Airfield near Savannah, Georgia, where she has been posted since February 2008, and threatened with a court martial if she does not agree to be deployed to Afghanistan, even though she has not found anyone to take care of her child while she is away.
In anticipation of going overseas Specialist Hutchinson flew to California and left her son with her mother Angelique Hughes of Oakland, as per her Army family care plan. However, after a week of caring for the child Specialist Hutchinson’s mother realized that she was unable to take care of Kamani on top of her other duties to her special-needs daughter, her ailing mother, and her ailing sister. In late October Angelique Hughes informed Hutchinson and her commander, Captain Gassant, that she was not able to care for her daughter's baby after all. The Army gave Specialist Hutchinson an extension of time to find someone else to care for her son, and in the meantime her mother brought Kamani back to Georgia. However just a few days before Specialist Hutchinson was scheduled to deploy she was told that she would not get the extended time after all and would have to deploy, even though there was no one to care for her child.
Faced with that choice Specialist Hutchinson did not show up for her plane. The military had her arrested and they put her child in the county foster care system. Currently, Specialist Hutchinson is scheduled to fly to Afghanistan for a special court martial on Sunday and is facing up to one year in jail. Her mother flew to Georgia and retrieved the baby but is overwhelmed, and does not feel able to provide long-term care for Kamani.
Specialist Hutchinson would like to have more time to find someone to care for her infant. However, she does not have a lot of family or friends who could do so. She says: “It is outrageous that they would deploy a single mother without a complete and current family care plan. I would like to find someone I trust who can take care of my son, but I cannot force my family to do this. They are dealing with their own health issues.”
Also in the news:
Army Sends Infant to Protective Services, Mom to Afghanistanby Dahr Jamail, Inter Press Service. November 13, 2009
Online version with possible updates
(photo above: Alexis Hutchinson and son Kamani / Facebook)


You need to ask yourself where the hell Congress is? How the hell do things like the above happen when the US military is supposed to be under civilian control? Where does anyone in the military get off placing and forcing a child in foster care? Where the hell are the Armed Services Committees in the House and Senate and why the hell aren't they doing their damn job?

They're not doing their job and if that fact escapes you, all you have to do is refer to another report by Dahr from this week. In this one, he's reporting on Tim Rich who self-checked out of the military for reasons which included the military's refusal to let him marry the woman he wanted to (they forced him to take out a loan and buy a plane ticket to send her away) and, after the two got married in spite of that, the abuse never ended. Where the hell does the military get off thinking that anyone's marriage is their damn business? Where do they get off, commanders, calling a woman a bitch?

They certainly shouldn't call a woman serving a bitch but how the hell dare they snarl that a civilian woman?

From Dahr's article:

At the time he was in a “holdover” unit, comprised mostly of AWOL soldiers who had turned themselves in or had been arrested. Others in his unit had untreated mental health problems like him or were suffering from severe PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) from deployments in Iraq and or Afghanistan.
According to Rich, every soldier in his platoon was subjected to abusive treatment of some kind or the other. “It even got to the point when our 1st Sergeant Cisneros told us that if it were up to him we all would all be taken out back and shot, and that we needed to pray to our gods because we were going to pay (for our actions).”
Tim’s wife Megan had to bear his never-ending ordeal in equal measure. She witnessed the military’s callousness up close. She informed Truthout, “Since February of this year, Tim’s unit had been telling him he would be out in two weeks. After two weeks when he asked, they would repeat the same thing. At times he would get excited and start packing his belongings and I would try to figure out how to get him home to Ohio. He would call me crying in relief because he thought we were going to be together again real soon. The military forced me to lie to him too. When he realized they did not mean to release him he grew very destructive during his black out spells. Eventually he simply gave up on coming home.”
Megan first realized there was a problem with the way the military was treating her husband when she noticed him doing and saying things that were out of character for him, like apologizing for not being a good husband and father and being openly suicidal. He had also begun to self-medicate with alcohol, an increasing trend among soldiers not receiving adequate mental-health treatment from the military.
She revealed to Truthout, “He had quit for the girls and me but it seems like he could not handle the stress and needed an escape. This caused a huge problem between us and we began to argue about it. He became severely depressed, pulled away from me, and started to do things he normally doesn’t do, such as giving away his money and belongings, and telling the recipients that he wouldn’t need those things in hell.”
She sensed that her husband would be in trouble if he were to stand up for himself, so she began to advocate on his behalf. Her attempts to do so met with fresh abuse from his commanders. The chain of command banned her from the company barracks and had her escorted off post. The couple was commandeered into Sergeant Fulgence’s office where they were chastised. The sergeant referred to Megan as “a bad mother” and “a bitch.” When Megan attempted to leave the office in protest, the sergeant ordered her to stay and listen to what he had to say.


The command is clearly out of control and the Congress is obviously derelict in their own duty or these kind of things would not be taking place. These are abuses, yes, these are also more than that. And those involved in forcing a child into foster care and those involved in injecting themselves into a married couple's relationship, judging a civilian parent and calling a woman a bitch need to brought up on charges.

If you don't get, it falls under conduct unbecoming an officer. In a country where the Congress actually functioned, there would be so much pressure brought to bear that within one week everyone in the brass responsible would be busted down to private because their own actions have demonstated they are not fit to be officers.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.



dahr jamail

Friday, November 13, 2009

Iraq snapshot

Friday, November 13, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, a war cheerleader need to profit from the war gets even messier, McClatchy becomes the first US outlet to speak out in support of the Guardian and press freedom, more lawsuits are filed against KBR and more.

This afternoon, Jenan Hussein and Warren P. Strobel (McClatchy Newspapers) report a satire by Warid Badr Salim in al Mada has led over 150 members of Parliament sign on to suing the newspaper.  The reporters note, "The chilling atmosphere for the news media was underscored this week when an Iraqi court fined the London-based Guardian newspaper nearly $87,000, finding that it had defamed Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki. An article in the paper in April quoted unnamed Iraqi intelligence officials describing what they said was Maliki's increasingly authoritarian rule. [. . .] Free expression is one of the few benefits that Iraqi count from the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion. Basic services such as electricity and sewage are still in disrepair, and sectarian violence, while much reduced, is still a daily occurence. The backlash against journalists and curbs on book, cartoons and plays, often for religious reasons, raise questions about what kind of society the United States will leave behind when American troops withdraw from Iraq at the end of 2011." The article in question is Ghaith Abdul-Ahad's "Six years after Saddam Hussein, Nouri al-Maliki tightens his grip on Iraq" (April 30, 2009).  Tuesday the court or 'court' rendered their or 'their' verdict
 
As Elaine observed Wednesday, "The above topic should have been the front page of every daily paper this morning. Instead everyone turned their heads, averted their eyes and, in doing so, endorsed the assault on the press. If Nouri al-Maliki saw that the entire world would jeer him over these nonsense law suits, you better believe he'd think twice about doing it again. As it is, he's been allowed to attack the press. Let me add: Yet again." And let me add, because I've been waiting to see if this would be the case, that's All Things Media Big and Small.  ALL.  Get the picture?  Thursday the Guardian editorialized, "But the case against the Guardian in Iraq is notable alarming. Despite repeated hearings over several months, the paper was not asked to present written evidence or provide statements from the editor or the reporter invovled. Compensation was apparently awarded for damage to the Iraqi prime minister, even though he was not a party to the legal action. The Iraqi people were promised freedom after the fall of Saddam.  They deserve a free press and fair courts, robust enough to stand up to government."

Exactly.  And yet where has the media been on this story? 
 
I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.
See how they run like pigs from a gun, see how they fly.
I'm crying.
-- "I Am The Walrus" (recorded by the Beatles, written by  John Lennon, credited to Lennon & McCartney)
 
Thursday we noted that the Guardian is out there pretty much all alone. No outlet has stepped forward to stand with them. That's disgraceful. And when Nouri's other cases (both pending ones and ones yet to be filed) against news outlets come forward, some of these same outlets are going to want others to stand up for them and stand with them. Why should anyone bother? When none of them can stand up for the press right now, why should anyone later stand up for the cowards?
 
Thursday night, it turned out I might have been a bit harsh.  That's when Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, took a brave stand and stated:
 
This rulling has to send a shiver up the spin of anyone who hopes for a genuinely democratic Iraq. What the court calls libel is, in most countries, called journalism. Indeed, if a respected journalist like Ghaith Abdul-Ahad can be punished for reporting on concerns about a trend toward authoritarian government, the verdict would seem to lend credence to those very concerns.
 
What a brave editorial statement from Bill Keller and thank goodness he was not afraid to put that in print in his paper because . . .
 
Oh, wait.
 
That didn't appear in the New York Times.
 
Bill Keller was quoted in Julian Borger's article for the Guardian that posted Thursday ngiht and appeared in Friday's paper.  You know what, Bill, I think Guardian readers have some idea about the case.  It's readers of the New York Times that might be helped by hearing your comments.  But the New York Times has been so very busy on so many other things.  Certainly, they're some panty sniffing they're prepared to splash on the front page any day now and pass it off as journalism, right? 
 
There's not a damn thing wrong with Bill Keller's statements.  And I'll applaud them  . . . when they appear in the New York Times.  Instead, it's as though Nouri attacked Guardian at school and Billy stood by and didn't nothing but later that day Billy ran over to Guardian's house and said, "Oh man, that was so wrong. I'm so mad.  Man, I could just kick Nouri's ass."  Brave statements become less brave when they're not made where it matters.
 
What the press tried to ignore, groups we spoke to about Iraq after the Tuesday verdict got.  They got it instantly.  They got that it was about press freedom.  They got that it was about Iraq.  They understood that a messages were being sent globally.  They grasped that one message was that Nouri could get away with what ever he wanted and that he would be emboldened as a result.  They also grasped that a message was sent to the Iraqi people to let them know that they were once again on their own and that the world press would look the other way as they did so often under Saddam.  Those pulling a blank on what I'm referring to can jog their memories by reading Eason's now infamous NYT column where he whined for forgiveness for CNN's efforts at covering for Saddam in order to have continued access to Iraq.

This is not a minor issue but outside of the Committee to Protect Journalists, Chris Floyd and one or two others, find anyone commenting on it outside of the Guardian.  Imagine what it must be like to be the average Iraqi right now.  Following the start of the illegal war, you might have had some internet access and some access to satellite TV and you could see the press get lively (too lively for Paul Bremer who launched an attack on Falluja largely because he didn't like a cartoon -- no, it wasn't of his butt, the newspaper wasn't a broadsheet).  And now you've seen the US install exile puppet Nouri al-Maliki.  And you've seen him crack down on the internet and satellite channels.  You've seen him run Al Jazeera out of the country.  Now you're seeing him go after a Western outlet (the Guardian) and trash the work of Iraqi journalist Ghaith Abdul-Ahad.  And you look around to see that world press you hear so much of.  That brave, strong, independent, call out the tyranny where ever it is press.  And you see silence.  From the East to the West, you see silence. 
 
And slowly it sinks in that today's thug is going to get away with the same things the previous one did because your life isn't very important on the world stage.  And let's get real damn honest, that's why Iraqis suffered in silence all those years.  They suffered in silence because they were less important -- to the world press -- than their leader. They suffered because the press wanted to curry favor with Saddam.  And now the same world press is sending the message -- with few exceptions (count McClatchy now as one exception) -- that they will cover for Nouri because freedoms and the people of Iraq are unimportant.

That is the message being sent and you better believe that is the message being received.
Amy Goodman couldn't give us that today or yesterday or the day before.   In fact, Goody missed Iraq a lot this week but Ava and I will tackle that at Third on Sunday.  Mad Maddy Rothschild likes to pretend he gives a damn about the free press (in 2008, he liked to pretend he was a Democrat, this year he finally outed himself publicly as a Socialist so maybe in 2010 he'll reveal that he really doesn't give a damn about the press?).  But for all of his bluster, Mad Maddy didn't have time to defend the Guardian.  And then there's The Nation.  Did John Nichols losing his daily paper mean that he lost interest in the press?  Apparently because he's tossing more sop out about Sarah Palin.  But then John Nichols HATES women.  Is there any woman he hasn't attacked this decade?  This is the man, please remember, who attacked Barbra Streisand, BARBRA STREISAND, for the Iraq War.  That was Barbra's fault.  Now not in the mind of any sane person, but as you read his attack on Barbra, you knew you weren't dealing with a sane person.  (The basic 'logic' of his argument was that Barbra donated her money -- HER money -- as she saw fit to Democratic politicians and not as John Nichols felt she should donate HER money. Therefore, Barbra was responsible for the Iraq War.)  At some point, Panhandle Media's going to have to have to start offering group therapy for all these misogynists but in the meantime, we all suffer because they can't address what really matters.  Another swipe at Palin or advocating a free press?  Nichols goes with another slam at Palin. 
 
The topic wasn't discussed on the second hour of NPR's The Diane Rehm Show today, but guest host Susan Page and panelists Karen DeYoung (Washington Post), Roy Gutman (McClatchy Newspapers) and David E. Sanger (New York Times) did discuss other Iraq issues. 
 
 
Susan Page: Roy Gutman, I know that you were reporting from Iraq last month. This week we hear that Iraq's Parliament finally has approved a law for its election in January. There had been a kind of stalemate before that.
 
Roy Gutman:  Well there had been and it was a very damaging stalemate. If they hadn't approved the law by this point then you begin to have to predict the country going downhill rather quickly.  Uhm, had they approved it a month ago, you could have said Iraq is almost heading towards a normalcy despite all of the violence.  This kind of muddled middle that took a long time to decide actually is nevertheless huge progress. This election, uh, is in a way is going to create a new Parliament. There will be what they call open lists -- every parliamentarian or every person running for a seat uh will be named before the elections so it's possible for people to find out who they are and rather they have dual citizenship. You know I heard while I was there that as many as 70% of the Iraqi -- of the current Iraqi Parliament has dual citizenship. Many of them Iranian-Iraqi dual citizenship.  So that-that part will end and it looks like -- they have an independent election commission, they run elections that I think, in comparison with Afghanistan,  certainly in comparison with Iran, are going to look good, very clean. It's possible that this election could make a real big difference.
 
Susan Page: Karen, this week we found out that top executives at Blackwater, the private military company, okayed bribes for Iraqi officials. Why were they going to bribe them?
 
Karen DeYoung: This was in connection to the late 2007 attacks in Baghdad for which I believe five Blackwater employees who were working for the State Department have been charged. 17 Iraqis were killed. At a time when it was not clear which way the Iraq government was going to go in terms of prosecuting them, preventing them from leaving the country. This was reportedly Blackwater's attempt to influence those decisions and also the decision whether Blackwater whose-whose income is derived from -- has been derived from -- huge contracts in Iraq would be continued to allow -- be allowed to work there.
 
Susan Page: Alright. Yes, Roy?
 
Roy Gutman: One of the -- one of the most incredible things about the American war in Iraq is that we relied on outside contractors to the extent that we did. I heard the figure while I was there of -- from American military -- that there was as many as  170,000 contractors, maybe even more than that, to 140,000 troops. I think that -- obviously it drove up the cost -- but it was the idea of outsourcing the war obviously to people like Blackwater to do all the functions that would normally be carried out by the military. It's a hell of a way to run a war. It's -- maybe it's the modern way of war but I think that the Bush administration in a way into thinking that it was only 140,000, only 160,000, in fact the numbers were far, far higher.
 
Karen DeYoung: I-I think that's true and the bulk of the contractors certainly work for the Defense Department. [Clears throat.] Excuse me. The bulk of the controversy has been over-over personal security contractors working for the State Department and that's what -- that's what Blackwater was doing. This is a problem as policy becomes a sort of civil-military hybrid where we're trying to do reconstruction in a war zone, we're trying to boost the civilian components of our efforts in places like-like Iraq and in Afghanistan. And now the question is always: Who is going to protect these people? Is this the proper role for the military, is this something that we want soldiers to do? The State Department doesn't want soldiers to do it and so you're going to have this problem increasingly going on.
 
Susan Page: Do private military contractors continue to play as big a role during the Obama administration as they did during the Bush administration, David?
 
David E. Sanger: Well certainly as the war has moved to Afghanistan and as our attention is focused to Afghanistan -- we still have more troops in Iraq today than we have in Afghanistan -- something you could lose sight of --

Karen DeYoung: Twice as many.
 
David E. Sanger: -- picking up -- picking up the newspaper. Yeah. That may not be true six months from now but it certainly is true now. Uh, I don't believe that there are as many contractors at work in the Afghan theater. But it's a very different kind of situation.  The exception to this, again, is the personal security forces including around the embassies.
 
Roy Gutman: But you know when you enter the American Embassy in Baghdad, you get first questioned by Peruvians who are contractors. I-I think the traditional role of the marines as being the guard for embassies is actually a good one. And I think the idea of contracting that out, however necessary it was during the war because there simply weren't enough troops of any force to do it -- is a real question. I don't see -- and the State Department didn't master having these private contractors.  They-they lost control of them again and again and again.  There not able to manage them, frankly. And, uh, the whole embassy.  You go to this embassy, it's an immense thing really. It was built kind of for a pro-counsel's role.  And you have to ask: 'Why did we do this in the middle of the war?'
 
Susan Page: Roy, Roy, I don't understand. So this security at the US Embassy in Baghdad is Peruvian?
 
Roy Gutman: The first line.
 
Karen DeYoung: The outer parameter.
 
Roy Gutman: The outer parameter.
 
Susan Page: And who's employing the Peruvians to provide the security?
 
Roy Gutman: Uh, I don't know. Maybe it's Triple Canopy. I forget the name of the contractor.
 
Susan Page: But it's a contractor working for the US government?
 
Roy Gutman: Oh yeah.

Susan Page: Huh. Alright. That surprises me.
 
Roy Gutman: In fact, going into -- into what is now the International Zone, the former Green Zone, you get queried by Ugandans, Uruguayans, Peruvians are there. It's-it's like a small United Nations. Most of them being ill paid.  And go to any of the bases, the American bases, the first lines and the second lines of-of checkpoints are all run by non-Americans.
 
Afghanistan is not our focus ("Iraq snapshot") but since it was mentioned above, we'll note that the Democratic Policy Committee (Democratic members of the Senate and Senator Byron Dorgan chairs the committee) has released a new report on Afghanistan "Our Best Chance for Success in Afghanistan: Getting the Strategy Right First."
 
Meanwhile James Bone (Times of London) reports on the problems for an adivsor to the KRG: "A prominent former United Nations official was forced to defend himself yesterday against accusations that he used his influence in Iraq to enrich himself. Peter Galbraith, 58, a former US ambassador who recently quit as deputy head of the UN mission in Kabul, struck a potentially lucrative oil deal in Iraqi Kurdistan which could reportedly earn him $100 million (£60 million). He helped the Kurds to negotiate provisions in the 2005 Iraqi Constitution that gave them control over new oil finds on their territory."  Peter Galbraith is denying any wrong doing.  He repeated his denials in Melissa Block's interview which aired on yesterday's All Things Considered:
 
Melissa Block: Ambassador Galbraith, you've been on our program many times before, you've published many op-eds, you've written books. Why not disclose your business ties before this? Put this out in the open if it is so-so benign as you say.                       

Peter Galbraith: It's obviously quite common for people to be in government, to be in private business. And it is the nature of private business that the precise arrangements are often confidential. And, indeed, some of my arrangements were subject to confidentiality agreements. But I did disclose that I was in business and that I had corporate clients in Iraq. So I think that people did know that I had these interests.
 
Melissa Block: Ambassador Galbraith, do you see how this business connection, your connection with the oil company, would fuel the anger that US interests in Iraq are purely about oil and about profit?           

Peter Galbraith: I -- uh, well I can understand that there will be politicians that will want to use that as part of their debate with the Kurds but, uh, frankly, I was a private citizen at the time, I had no role in the US -- with the US government. The US government did not, in any way, facilitate any of my visits to Iraq. Uh, so, I was like many other former government officials who have become private citizens and who, uh, in -- generally the practice do not disclose what clients they may have in their business activities.
 
 
While he was happy to share his notions of discosure to Melissa Block yesterday, others attempted to address his lack of disclosure.  Noting that he's written columns on the Kurdistan issues for the New York Times since 2004 (when his relationship with DNO began), an "Editor's Note" in today's paper (published online yesterday) concludes:

Like other writers for the Op-Ed page, Mr. Galbraith signed a contract that obligated him to disclose his financial interests in the subjects of his articles. Had editors been aware of Mr. Galbraith's financial stake, the Op-Ed page would have insisted on disclosure or not published his articles.
 
The New York Times is stating Peter Galbraith didn't disclose to them and that, had they known about the deal, they would have either not published his columns on Iraq or required that he disclose those interests -- those financial interests. Please note that Melissa Block conducted a lengthy interview with him (over four minutes) and those are only excerpts above.  Peter Galbraith continues to maintain he has done nothing illegal, wrong or unethical.  Chris Floyd (Empire Burlesque) weighs in:
 
The New York Times is shocked -- shocked! -- to find personal enrichment of American elites at the heart of the rape and gutting of Iraq. Who could possibly have ever foreseen such a scenario as the Times revealed on Thursday, describing how "influential American adviser" Peter Galbraith helped "ram through" highly controversial provisions in the constitution that the occupying force and its collaborators imposed -- provisions that could put more than $100 million in Galbraith's pocket.

Of course, Galbraith's war-profiteering machinations are hardly unique; the roll call of "advisers" and officials and other insiders feasting on Iraqi corpseflesh is longer than the Mississippi, and considerably more muddy. Just this week,
the Financial Times noted that another gaggle of occupation geese, "including Zalmay Khalilzad, former US ambassador to Baghdad, and Jay Garner," the first appointed satrap of the conquered land, are now cashing in on their blood-soaked connections in Iraq.
 
Chris Garofolo (Brattleboro Reformer) notes that Galbraith was speaking at an event at the Brattleboro Centre Congregational Church last night when the issue was raised and he said of the New York Times article (by James Glanz and Walter Gibbs ), "I actually find the article quite, well, it is full of innuendo. If you read the facts [with the implications and innuendo], I find [it] offensive. [. . .] The article argues, or suggests, that somehow I had a conflict, hmm, it doesn't say it, but there's innuendo there. That there's a conflict of interest because I advised the Kurds on the constitution at the same time I had business interests, including a contract with a Norewegian oil company DNO, in which I assisted them to make investments in the oil industry." Garofolo also notes that Peter Gailbraith supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
 
From greed to the violence it led to . . .
 
Bombings?
 
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad sticky bombing (no one wounded or killed apparently)
 
Shootings?
 
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 13-year-old Iraqi Christian male shot dead in Mosul. AFP notes the shooting but says the male was 16-years-old and was Rami Katchik who "had been hosing down the entrance to his family home when the shooting occurred."  Iran's Press TV drops back to yesterday to note  "a man working for a weaving factory in Mosul" shot dead yesterday."
 
Corpses?
 
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse (20-year-old man) discovered in Mosul.
 
Turning to the United States, Jake Armstrong (Pasadena Weekly) notes "lawsuits in 32 states have been filed against Halliburton, KBR and other military contractors over so-called 'burn pits' the companies allegedly used in Iraq to burn everything from human body parts to tires, the Associated Press reported Tuesday." Ed Treleven (Wisconsin State Journal) reports Iraq War veteran Michael Foth and Afghanistan War veteran Brett Mazzara have filed against KBR: "The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Madison, brings to 34 the number of similar lawsuits pending across the United States, said Susan Burke, a Washington, D.C., lawyer representing the soldiers, including Mazzara and Foth. A first wave of lawsuits filed earlier this year have been merged for pretrial proceedings in Greenbelt, MD., she said." Lisa Guerriero (MetroWest Daily News) reports on Iraq War veteran Jeffery Cox (we've noted his lawsuit against KBR already this week). O fthe KBR burn pit he was exposed to, Cox notes, "This is not your little leaf fire. This is 10 acres or greater." On the health issues relating from exposure to the burn pits, Cox observes, "It's widespread. A lot of people have some type pulmonary issue. It's the Agent Orange of the Iraq war." Meanwhile the Houston Chronicle offers the editorial "Invisible wounds: Returning soldiers with mental health problems are ill-served by their country" which includes this: "It's also ironic that the same legislators who sign off on billions to wage wars -- conservatively estimated at almost $700 billion to date for Iraq and Afghanistan -- are often loath to invest even modest sums for the care of the soldiers wounded in those wars." 
 
Meanwhile, KBR and others can profit off the war but telling the truth?  Apparently not allowed in the United States. Valerie Plame is a former CIA agent.  Former not by choice.  She was outed by the Bully Boy Bush administration in an attempt to get back at and attack her husband, former diplomat Joe Wilson.  The CIA sent Wilson on a fact-finding mission to Niger ahead of the Iraq War to determine whether or not Saddam Hussein was seeking or had sought yellow cake uranium (which would allow him to make deadly, nuclear bombs).  Wilson's investigation determined no attempt had been made.  Despite that, the administration (including Bully Boy Bush) began publicly making statements to the contrary.  Wilson originally corrected the issue with some members of the press.  When he came out publicly in the New York Times with "What I Didn't Find In Africa" (July 6, 2003), the administration began working to attack him and using adminstration friends in the press. These friends would include Matt Cooper who keeps trying to crawl out from under his rock despite the fact that he's never, NEVER, gotten honest about his part in this or his covering for so many in the administration and for Karl Rove. Robert Novak (now dead) was the one who finally outed her.  (As John R. MacArthur has noted, there's nothing wrong with outing CIA agents -- with the press doing it.  It is, however, a different story for the government to out you.  Valerie Plame worked for the United States government as an undercover agent and her cover was blown by the Executive Branch of the federal government.  That is wrong, that is a problem.)  David Kravets (Wired) reports that here efforts to go public with details (non national security details) such as the time of her employment are being withheld (despite them already being part of the Congressional record) and other petty measures are taking place.  Why?  A judge decided but never forget that a judge decided (wrongly, my opinion) only due to the fact that the Barack Obama administration decided to fight Plame on this.  Yes, Barack is yet again proving to be Bush III. So two administrations have now disgraced themselves in the manner in which they've treated Valerie Plame.
 
TV notes. NOW on PBS begins broadcasting on many PBS stations tonight (check local listings) and this week's show

What exactly is going on with the economy? Stocks are up and big bonuses are back, but while they're throwing parties on Wall Street, there's pain on Main Street. One out of every six workers is unemployed or underemployed, according to government statistics - the highest figure since the Great Depression.
This week NOW gets answers and insight from Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren, who's been heading up the congressional panel overseeing how the bailout money is being spent. NOW Senior Correspondent Maria Hinojosa talks with Warren about how we got to this point, and where we go from here.
What will it take to put both bankers and American businesses on the same road to recovery?

Washington Week also begins airing tonight (and throughout the weekend) on many PBS stations. Joining Gwen around the table this week are Peter Baker (New York Times), Naftali Bendavid (Wall St. Journal), John Dickerson (CBS News and Slate) and Ton Gjelten (NPR). Meanwhile Bonnie Erbe will sit down with Bernadine Healy, Melinda Henneberger, Star Parker and Patricia Sosa to discuss the week's events on PBS' To The Contrary. Check local listings, on many stations, it begins airing tonight. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers:

The Deadliest Weapon
Byron Pitts and 60 Minutes cameras spend two days on the road with a bomb-hunting unit in Afghanistan as they encounter one deadly bomb after another. | Watch Video


B. Rex
Lesley Stahl meets the inspiration for the lead character in the classic film "Jurassic Park" and reports on how famed dinosaur hunter Jack Horner is shaking up the paleontology world. | Watch Video


Resurrecting Eden
In Southern Iraq, where many biblical scholars place the Garden of Eden, Scott Pelley finds a water world where the "Marsh Arabs" are making a comeback after Saddam nearly destroyed the "cradle of civilization." | Watch Video

60 Minutes, Sunday, Nov. 15, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

 

 

Zebari's never ending drama

The devastating bombings that struck at the heart of Iraqi government institutions twice in the past three months were conducted by the same organization and for the same reasons, Foreign Minister Hoshyar al-Zebari said Thursday, blaming the second attack partly on security breaches.
"It was the same brains, the same strategic thinking, the same organization that carried out the Aug. 19 attacks and the Oct. 25 attacks," Mr. Zebari told reporters at a foreign ministry still being repaired after a suicide truck bomb in August killed more than 40 ministry employees and wounded 500. "They wanted to achieve the same goal, to paralyze the government to undermine confidence in the government that it is unable to protect its own institutions or buildings."

The above is from Jane Arraf's "Iraq government: Looking 'very seriously' at security branches that led to Oct. 25 bombing" (Christian Science Monitor) and you have to wonder if the bombers point was to show pathetic and self-serving the Iraqi government or 'government' is? Listen to the non-stop whining, the never ending boo-hoo. Contrast that against all the time Iraqi citizens are attacked, killed, run out of the country. No demands for an international investigation. No weeks and weeks of grand standing.

Attack the government buildings and, as judged by the statements of the officials, suddenly it's an outrage and suddenly you have their attention. Possibly that is why those buildings were targeted in August and in October?

How do you think that plays to the internally displaced in Iraq? Do you think they hear Zebari or Nouri al-Maliki or any of their flunkies whining and think, "Oh those poor victims?" Or do you think they hear the whining and think, "Uh, when the Ministry of the Interior's goons were kicking me out of my Baghdad home, where was all the public concern and sympathy for me?"

You have to wonder.

Yesterday's snapshot, "In other news, Reuters reports a prison break in Basra with three escaping last night." AP reports that, as is the now common practice, following the breakout, arrests were made 1 "prison director and 40 staff members".

Meanwhile in England, Tony Blair is supposed to offer some sort of testimony during the government's inquiry into the Iraq War. Iran's Press TV reports:

The panel will look into allegations of the premier's fabrication of intelligence intended to magnify Saddam's 'menace' in the region in order to dispatch 45,000 British soldiers to Iraq.
Sir John Chilcot, the probe director, announced on Friday that the five week public questioning of a number of Blair's senior officials and military advisers would start on November 24. Yet the ex-PM's interrogation has been scheduled to take place in early 2010.
"Early in the New Year, we shall begin taking evidence from ministers (including the former prime minister) on their roles and decisions," Chilcot said.


BBC has more on the story here. Iran's Press TV notes that the violence continues in Iraq with "a man working for a weaving factory in Mosul" shot dead yesterday." Reuters notes 1 corpse discovered in Mosul.

As noted repeatedly this week, an Iraqi court or 'court' has attacked freedom of the press. If you're late to the story, only one body (other than the Guardian) has called out the attack, the Committee to Protect Journalists issued this statement:

The Committee to Protect Journalists denounces a Baghdad court's ruling that the London-based Guardian newspaper defamed Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, left, in an April 2009 article depicting increasing authoritarianism in his government. CPJ calls on an appeals court to overturn the decision.
On Tuesday, the court fined the Guardian 100 million Iraqi dinars (US$86,000) in connection with the article, which quoted unnamed members of the intelligence service as saying that al-Maliki was conducting affairs of state in a more autocratic fashion.
Guardian Editor Alan Rusbridger described the verdict as "a dismaying development," Agence France-Presse reported. "Prime Minister Maliki is trying to construct a new, free Iraq . Freedom means little without free speech -- and means even less if a head of state tries to use the law of libel to punish criticism or dissent," he said. The newspaper said that it will appeal the verdict.

"We are very disappointed to see the politicization of the Iraqi judiciary in this way," said CPJ Middle East and North Africa Program Coordinator Mohamed Abdel Dayem . "That the courts would devote their time to this type of irresponsible suit is outrageous considering that scores of journalist murders remain unpunished. It is vital that this decision be reversed in the appeals process."
Of the 140 journalists killed in Iraq since 2003, at least 89 were targeted for murder, CPJ research shows. Iraqi authorities have not brought a single perpetrator to justice in any of those killings.

"This heavy-handed decision sends a chilling message to all journalists who have risked their lives to report from Iraq , and it resonates particularly now in the run-up to the general election scheduled for January," said Abdel Dayem. "The article accused the prime minister's government of being increasingly autocratic. This court case proved the point."
As the security situation has improved, many journalists have told CPJ that government harassment, physical assaults, and frivolous legal proceedings have replaced insurgent attacks as the greatest professional risk they face. Al-Maliki has appeared to lead the legal assault against Iraqi journalists: At least two other defamation complaints have been filed by his representatives in connection with articles critical of the prime minister, CPJ research shows. Those complaints were dropped after they came under heavy criticism.

In June, CPJ and the Iraq-based press freedom group Journalistic Freedoms Observatory sent a letter to al-Maliki expressing concerns about increasing official harassment. In the first six months of the year, the two organizations documented more than 70 cases of harassment and assault against journalists in Iraq .


(Chris Floyd has also called the assault out.) Ghaith Abdul-Ahad wrote the article in question, "Six years after Saddam Hussein, Nouri al-Maliki tightens his grip on Iraq" (April 30, 2009). Mark Tran and Julian Borger (Guardian) report on Ghaith today:

Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, a staff correspondent for the Guardian and a contributor photographer for Getty images, is one of the most widely respected correspondents writing on Iraq and Afghanistan, and has collected a string of prestigious awards in a short career.

The 34-year-old, who mastered English from listening to the BBC World Service, started writing for the Guardian in 2004 after a chance encounter with James Meek, who was covering the US-led invasion for the paper.

"I bumped into him … going through the grounds of Saddam's palaces," Meek said. "Out of carnage, smoke and bodies I saw this bearded figure who asked us for help getting through a checkpoint. He said the Guardian was his favourite paper and I said 'would you like to come with us'."



TV notes. NOW on PBS begins broadcasting on many PBS stations tonight (check local listings) and this week's show

What exactly is going on with the economy? Stocks are up and big bonuses are back, but while they're throwing parties on Wall Street, there's pain on Main Street. One out of every six workers is unemployed or underemployed, according to government statistics - the highest figure since the Great Depression.
This week NOW gets answers and insight from Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren, who's been heading up the congressional panel overseeing how the bailout money is being spent. NOW Senior Correspondent Maria Hinojosa talks with Warren about how we got to this point, and where we go from here.
What will it take to put both bankers and American businesses on the same road to recovery?

Washington Week also begins airing tonight (and throughout the weekend) on many PBS stations. Joining Gwen around the table this week are Peter Baker (New York Times), Naftali Bendavid (Wall St. Journal), John Dickerson (CBS News and Slate) and Ton Gjelten (NPR). Meanwhile Bonnie Erbe will sit down with Bernadine Healy, Melinda Henneberger, Star Parker and Patricia Sosa to discuss the week's events on PBS' To The Contrary. Check local listings, on many stations, it begins airing tonight. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers:

The Deadliest Weapon
Byron Pitts and 60 Minutes cameras spend two days on the road with a bomb-hunting unit in Afghanistan as they encounter one deadly bomb after another. | Watch Video


B. Rex
Lesley Stahl meets the inspiration for the lead character in the classic film "Jurassic Park" and reports on how famed dinosaur hunter Jack Horner is shaking up the paleontology world. | Watch Video


Resurrecting Eden
In Southern Iraq, where many biblical scholars place the Garden of Eden, Scott Pelley finds a water world where the "Marsh Arabs" are making a comeback after Saddam nearly destroyed the "cradle of civilization." | Watch Video

60 Minutes, Sunday, Nov. 15, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.




Radio notes. Today on NPR's The Diane Rehm Show, Susan Page is the guest host. For the domestic news round up during the first hour, the panel is Ross Douthat (New York Times), Ruth Marcus (Washington Post) and Karen Tumulty (Time). For the international news round up (second hour), she's joined by Karen DeYoung (Washington Post), Roy Gutman (McClatchy) and David Sanger (New York Times). The Diane Rehm Show begins broadcasting live on most NPR stations at 10:00 am EST and it also begins streaming live online at that time.



The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.












60 minutes
cbs news
pbs
to the contrary
bonnie erbe
npr
the diane rehm show

The ethically challenged Galbraith

Melissa Block: Ambassador Galbraith, you've been on our program many times before, you've published many op-eds, you've written books. Why not disclose your business ties before this? Put this out in the open if it is so-so benign as you say.

Peter Galbraith: It's obviously quite common for people to be in government, to be in private business. And it is the nature of private business that the precise arrangements are often confidential. And, indeed, some of my arrangements were subject to confidentiality agreements. But I did disclose that I was in business and that I had corporate clients in Iraq. So I think that people did know that I had these interests.

I don't want to get too deep into this story [ADDED: And a sure sign of that is that I forgot to link to Melissa Block's interview which aired on yesterday's All Things Considered] which involves facts, speculation and things that courts will most likely be involved in sorting out. I know Galbraith and have called him out repeatedly here for his work re: Iraq. If you are able to listen to the interview, you will hear the stress in his voice. That means either he's very upset or he's lying (or both) and I really don't want to get into my opinions on that and why. Maybe I'll change my mind on that when the snapshot rolls around. But I will note a few basics.

(A) Conflict of interest is misunderstood and apparently the whole country needs an ethics lesson. You are not just supposed to avoid a conflict of interest, you are supposed to avoid the appearance of one. That is a point that is repeatedly missed when someone's conflict of interest or apparent conflict of interest emerges and they immediately respond, "Well no one needs to be concerned because . . ." No, the fact that anyone's concerned makes it an issue. It's not just a conflict, it's the appearance of one.

(B) Mixing the private sector into an explanation on a topic like this begs people to bring the public sector into it. Meaning were something similar done on Wall Street, Galbraith would be under investigation for insider training.

(C) Don't talk about disclosures when, in fact, you haven't been above board.

(1) As anyone who's called Galbraith out publicly or privately (I've done both) knows, he offers a multitude of excuses and has done so for many years. Point? The above 'defense' won't hold up for anyone who's received admonishments over the years from him -- some of which are public -- for commenting on his, at best, porous relationship with the Kurds.

(2) Probably not a good idea to claim you've done all the necessary disclosures on the same day that it's revealed you haven't. Noting that he's written columns on the Kurdistan issues for the New York Times since 2004 (when his relationship with DNO began), an "Editor's Note" in today's paper (published online yesterday) concludes:

Like other writers for the Op-Ed page, Mr. Galbraith signed a contract that obligated him to disclose his financial interests in the subjects of his articles. Had editors been aware of Mr. Galbraith's financial stake, the Op-Ed page would have insisted on disclosure or not published his articles.

Right there, you have a problem. Back to the NPR interview.

Melissa Block: Ambassador Galbraith, do you see how this business connection, your connection with the oil company, would fuel the anger that US interests in Iraq are purely about oil and about profit?

Peter Galbraith: I -- uh, well I can understand that there will be politicians that will want to use that as part of their debate with the Kurds but, uh, frankly, I was a private citizen at the time, I had no role in the US -- with the US government. The US government did not, in any way, facilitate any of my visits to Iraq. Uh, so, I was like many other former government officials who have become private citizens and who, uh, in -- generally the practice do not disclose what clients they may have in their business activities.

Melissa Block's done a strong (and fair) interview. We may or may not note in the snapshot.

Jake Armstrong (Pasadena Weekly) notes "lawsuits in 32 states have been filed against Halliburton, KBR and other military contractors over so-called 'burn pits' the companies allegedly used in Iraq to burn everything from human body parts to tires, the Associated Press reported Tuesday." Ed Treleven (Wisconsin State Journal) reports Iraq War veteran Michael Foth and Afghanistan War veteran Brett Mazzara have filed against KBR: "The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Madison, brings to 34 the number of similar lawsuits pending across the United States, said Susan Burke, a Washington, D.C., lawyer representing the soldiers, including Mazzara and Foth. A first wave of lawsuits filed earlier this year have been merged for pretrial proceedings in Greenbelt, MD., she said." Lisa Guerriero (MetroWest Daily News) reports on Iraq War veteran Jeffery Cox (we've noted his lawsuit against KBR already this week). O fthe KBR burn pit he was exposed to, Cox notes, "This is not your little leaf fire. This is 10 acres or greater." On the health issues relating from exposure to the burn pits, Cox observes, "It's widespread. A lot of people have some type pulmonary issue. It's the Agent Orange of the Iraq war." Meanwhile the Houston Chronicle offers the editorial "Invisible wounds: Returning soldiers with mental health problems are ill-served by their country" which includes this:

The following community sites updated last night:


And Ruth's "J.F.K.," Marcia's "ACORN embarrasses again," Trina's "The economy is speaking," Ann's "Carly's performance," Kat's "Carly Simon, Susanna Hoffs, Matthew Sweet" and Isaiah's "Got War?"

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.






the new york times









thomas friedman is a great man






oh boy it never ends

Thursday, November 12, 2009

I Hate The War

There was widespread condemnation from around the world today of an Iraqi court ruling fining the Guardian for reporting criticism of the country's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki.
A broad range of leading journalists, Iraq experts, civic society activists and former officials involved in Iraq's postwar reconstruction said the ruling and fine – for an article quoting intelligence officials as saying Maliki was becoming increasingly authoritarian – reflected a marked decline in press freedom in Iraq.
The article was written by Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, an award-winning Iraqi staff correspondent for the Guardian.
Bill Keller, editor of the New York Times, said: "This ruling has to send a shiver up the spine of anyone who hopes for a genuinely democratic Iraq. What the court calls libel is, in most countries, called journalism.
"Indeed, if a respected journalist like Ghaith Abdul-Ahad can be punished for reporting on concerns about a trend toward authoritarian government, the verdict would seem to lend credence to those very concerns."

The above is from Julian Borger's "Guardian fined by Iraqi court in ruling seen as attack on press freedom" (Guardian) and it's probably the most important story of the week.

While speaking to various groups today, we'd raise this topic, the chilling effect on journalism in Iraq, the desire of the court or 'court' to ignore the evidence and testimony and 'score one for the Thugger' Nouri al-Maliki.

And regardless of the age of the group we're speaking to, young adult, adult, teenagers in high school, everyone gets it. Everyone grasps that something wicked this way comes when Nouri's allowed to enrich himself and attack journalism at the same time.

Everyone grasps that the US military being on the ground to protect this new Saddam is disgusting.

This 'verdict' reveals the assertion of the 'good' that the US supposedly could do or would do or might do if they could just continue to stay X days to be a big joke. The US military has protected Nouri for over 3 years now. And it's been no help to the Iraqi people.

It's also frightening for what it says about the US press. Instead of rushing to the defense of the Guardian -- which is clearly under attack -- they all stick their heads in the sand.

A 16-year-old raised the issue of Barack, Anita Dunne and Valerie Jarrett's verbal attacks on Fox News and wondered how much Barack's behavior and Bully Boy Bush's before gave "Maliki the feeling that he had the go-ahead to go after the press"? It's a question that should be asked. The US repeatedly holds itself up as an example for Iraq. It does that by sending in their civilian 'surge' that's going to show Iraq how things are done. (Of course, if Iraqis -- as opposed to Iraqi exiles who returned to Iraq after the US invaded -- were in charge of their own country, they wouldn't need anyone to show them what to do. They know their country, they don't have to learn on the fly the way these exiles do.) So when the US presents itself as an example and President Barack Obama or Oval Office Occupant Bully Boy Bush starts attacking the press, starts spitting on it and putting it down, it sure does send a message to Nouri al-Maliki and any other US puppet around the globe.

If Nouri's not called out on this, forget about worrying about the foreign press in Iraq, start worrying about the press in Iraq when all the foreigners leave. Nouri needs to be called out and Iraqi journalists need to know the world supports them and the world supports a free press. Reporters are going to have an awful time in Iraq for many years to come. But letting them know that the outside world does care about a free press in Iraq? That kind of message could give them some comfort in what are going to be some very dark hours.

Think about the Iraqis, the citizens and the message that the world's silence right now sends. They emerged from Saddam. They were under the impression that things would be a little more open. Certainly the satellite dishes and the internet allowed them to enjoy some freedoms they couldn't experience in Iraq before. And Nouri's response, of course, is to try to censor the internet and try to limit the access to TV channels from outside Iraq. For 'moral' reasons. That's rich. Coming from Nouri al-Maliki who has several homes now -- though the press doesn't report, now do they -- after over three years as "prime minister" while Iraqis still don't have potable water or regular and dependable electricity, that's rich. Suddenly he cares about others, suddenly he wants to care.

The Iraqis are seeing something unfold before their eyes right now. Their rights are being curtailed, their own press is under attack, but the press from outside Iraq -- from the East and the West -- this press they've heard so much about, it's not saying a damn word. (Other than the Guardian.) And it's sending the message to them that, yet again, the world's media is going to avoid calling out an Iraqi despot. Yet again, Iraqis are being told, you will suffer and you will do so without the attention and the spotlight of the international press.

What an 'inspiring' message for the world press to send to Iraqis mere weeks before they intend to vote.


It's over, I'm done writing songs about love
There's a war going on
So I'm holding my gun with a strap and a glove
And I'm writing a song about war
And it goes
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Oh oh oh oh
-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!)

Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4359. Tonight? 4362.



The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.