Why?

Why I'm a community member?




Because of things like today's snapshot. That's the sort of writing that attracted all of us to The Common Ills in the first place. C.I. telling it like it is, no one else can match that.

It's why I do the comics. I find C.I.'s writing inspiring and dedication amazing. The comic is just my way of giving back something to the community. Things like today's snapshot remind me of that all over again.

So this is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Tuesday, March 17, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US miltiary shoots a 12-year-old girl dead, Kristoffer Walker makes a decision, we grade All Things Media Big and Small (hint, it's a big-fat F for nearly everyone!) and more..

March 17, 2003, Bully Boy Bush occupied the White House and announced that Saddam Hussein and his sons had 48 hours to leave Iraq. In other words, get out of town by sundown after next. And the media ate it up as much as they ate up the non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction. It was wall to wall but not much time for anyone to point out that Bush sounded like the bully of the global village. That would have required 'reporters' and 'journalists' to use observational skills and that was a no-no. Why, back then, they couldn't even correct the false linkage by the White House of Iraq to 9-11. But they could bore the hell out of us. Ever wonder what it would be like to be an embed?
Look, there's NBC's Richard Engel bent over at the waist with a tooth brush in his mouth showing us what 'life' will be like in these bad, non-news, farmed out to all the NBC affiliates footage. Nightline spent the night yacking about Bully Boy's 'bravado,' but everyone had time to get giddy over the oncoming slaughter.

Now it's six years later and where is the media? Apparently ABC's Nightline didn't disgrace itself enough with last night's freak story on the "memory like a hard drive" man. No, tonight they will answer the following (heavily promoted) question: "What happens when Jake Tapper and actor Pull Rudd 'accidentally touched hands?'" Yes, it should be "touch hands" but the steno pool that's taken over ABC News is just so giddy that their news-muffin Jake and Paul Rudd got a little hand contact. See, there are two names and that's a who! And their hands touch so that's a what! Who and What!!!! If they can just find a "when," they're pretty sure they've got a news story!!!!

It's the sixth anniversary of the start of the illegal war this week. The war the media sold. With their breathless and unsupported conjecture. They couldn't stop their heavy panting back then. Six years later and the illegal war drags on but their interest has gone limp. It was a case of premature declaration, you see. They just can't manage to muster the energy for Iraq these days.

Case in point, the evening news. ABC World News Tonight is 'reporting' on Iraq this week via a correspondent, Terry McCarthy, who is already out of Iraq. So it's really not a report so much as a recollection, apparently. Yesterday Charlie Gibson offered that upbeat coffee talk he served for years as the host of Good Morning America declaring "conditions there really are looking up." "There" would be Iraq. Last week Baghdad saw two of the worst bombings in months but, don't worry, baby, Charlie Gibson has a Beach Boys summer tune to sing. To watch the webcast, click here. Terry cites that ridiculous poll (we dealt with it yesterday). Whether the rest of the week will bring actual reporting or more propaganda passed off as 'reporting' -- when it doesn't even pass for editorial comment -- we'll see. It's a real shame that in this era of satellite phones, Terry McCarthy and ABC want to do commentaries as opposed to on-the-spot reporting. But probably on-the-spot reporting doesn't allow Terry the luxury of grabbing a shiny ribbon and tying a pretty bow around everything -- reality rarely does. Be sure to tune in tonight as Terry shows more slides from MidEast vacation.On The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric yesterday, Lara Logan interviewed (link has text and video) Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Stuart Bowen who opened with, "Billions of dollars were wasted in the Iraqi reconstruction enterprise" and that "$32 billion later, we don't know a whole lot about what's happened to that money." Bowen's been asked to offer input on Afghanistan reconstruction. That was it for Iraq reporting on CBS. NBC Nightly News was far too busy promoting The Tonight Show (and it's 'big' guest) to be bothered with doing too much else. Commercials are hard, aren't they Bri-Bri Williams?

Gee, if the networks had shown so little interest in the Iraq War this time in 2003, maybe it wouldn't have started? If they hadn't wasted your time and their own with baseless claims treated as fact, if they hadn't willingly marched to the drumbeat of war . . . That's "what if" and the press doesn't like to play that game -- except when it comes to their benefits. They deal in realities and the reality is they should pretty much all be out on the street because they're not doing much of anything. As the American people has grasped more and more that they were lied into an illegal war, you might think broadcasters would use the week of the sixth anniversary to review that. They wouldn't have to own up to their own mistakes, they could just present the claims by the White House in 2003 and fact check them now. They could do, something, anything to indicate that they gave a damn that the illegal war they sold continues. Nothing they did last night indicated they had any regrets or, for that matter, awareness. Over at public television, Jim Lehrer did what the commercial networks couldn't bother with. Headlines on PBS' NewsHour included Lerher noting, "Also today an American soldier was fatally injured during combat operations in Baghdad."

Six years is a long time. Children who were seven-years-old when the Iraq War started are now thirteen. Unless they're Iraqi children then they may be thirteen-years-old or, just as likely, they may be dead after their country being torn apart by six years of war and occupation. But, hey, Terry McCarthy was able to dine out and he only required three bodyguards for it -- that's three bodyguards which, for the record, ABC News failed to reveal to viewers. But Charlie couldn't shoot in his shorts while coozing that things were better in Iraq if viewers got to know that even in 'safe' Iraq, ABC News' fly-in correspondent traveled with multiple bodyguards.

That's Big Media. What about Panhandle Media? The Progressive is on spring break apparently. Who knows what Matty Rothschild will get tattooed on his fat ass before the week's over? But Iraq? Nothing. Pope and AIDS? Check. Ruth Conniff bubbling on about things she'll never understand? Absolutely! Anyone doing a damn thing that matters? Hell no, it's pathetic Matthew Rothschild. The man who thinks it's 'cute' when a woman's called the c-word, so cute that he has to link to it, even if it means The "Progressive" links to The Weekly Standard.

The Nation? Matty can take comfort that they're actually worse than The Progressive. While the former mag does nothing period, The Nation offers non-stop content that never says a damn thing. That tends to happen when LIE FACE Melissa Harris Lacewell (the latest chins on that woman are frightening -- she's truly getting the face she deserves) is brought in. Let's all be honest, Melissa Harris Lacewell is not a journalist, not an academic. She is a LIE FACE. Only a LIE FACE goes on TV to offer 'observations' about the candidates in the Democratic Party primary and 'forgets' to tell the audience that she's campaigning for one candidate (Barack Obama) and that she's been doing it since 2007. Only a LIE FACE tells Charlie Rose that people are ticked off at Tavis Smiley and 'forgets' to inform that this is the latest astro-turf campaign she's kicked off and she kicked it off with her "Who Died and Made Tavis King?" Melissa's a LIE FACE. Which makes The Nation a perfect fit for her. She can't write and that is always a plus at The Nation as well. She has no original thoughts or, for that matter, what might be seen as deep thoughts. It's as if she's finally been welcomed home to her mother ship. There's no time for Iraq at The Nation. They have a financial crisis! The kind that they've long wanted. Sadly, even in the midst of their wet dreaming, they can't muster anything worth reading.

In These Times is aware the Iraq War hasn't ended and they offer David Enders' "A Nation Divided: If the war in Iraq is winding down, what does peace look like?" which includes:

On one street corner, I asked the half-dozen men standing there how many of them had lost an immediate relative -- all claimed they had. Some raised shirts to show shrapnel wounds.
The United Nations recently estimated that as many as 500,000 of the approximately 2 million Iraqi refugees who fled the country might return this year. But they won't necessarily be returning to the houses, neighborhoods or cities from which they fled. Many are simply returning because they can no longer afford to stay in neighboring countries, especially Syria, where Iraqis refugees struggle to obtain official work permits.
"The Americans provided no security, they did nothing for us," says Hussein Fadhil, a Shiite and one of the estimated 2,000 people who remained throughout the fighting, despite the death of his father to a mortar. "They told us they didn't know where the mortars were being fired from."

In These Times is the exception to the rule. The almost folded up and doors closed LeftTurn has nothing to offer but that's been the case for, what, two years now? Three? Meanwhile at intentional distraction Yes! Magazine . . . nothing. They're paid to do nothing and to offer nothing and they live up to the purpose very well. WalkOn, WalkOn.org. The New Republic? Not a damn thing. They could have had a link but not a damn thing. Harper's magazine? Not a damn thing. Now Scott Horton can bore us -- and insult his own education -- by writing today about Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck, he just can't tackle the Iraq War. Pravda on the Hudson's Amy Goodman serves up War Hawk Juan Cole to talk about "Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel and Beyond" -- no link to garbage. Juan Cole flutters and flaps in the wind. In the segment Iraq gets a little more time than Saudi Arabia. "But Saudi Arabia isn't even in the title of the segment!" No, it's not. But if you need to hear Juan Cole declare, "Well, you know, for me, the issue is not so much the rate at which the United States withdraws from Iraq" -- well, if you need to hear that, you're one sick f**k -- in which case Juan Cole probably is a perfect match for you. Let us know where you're registered, we'll get you a nice gift.

KPFA's The Morning Show is the audio exception as In These Times is the print one. Today Philip Maldari interviewed Thomas E. Ricks, author of the new bestseller The Gamble. In the excerpt below they're discussing the "Awakeing" Councils.


Philip Maldari: Well we've got a situation that's very dicey though. We've got 100,000 young men with guns on the payroll -- the Sunni militias, we've got a Shia dominat central government in Baghdad that is not particularly interested in integrating this 100,000 force into the largely Shia government army and consequently the government in Baghdad is very nervous about the possibility of the US funding a force that ultimately could become their rival in a civil war.

Thomas E. Ricks: As one Shi'ite politician says in the book, "Baby crocodiles are cute but you can't keep adult crocidiles in the house." And the feeling of a lot of a lot of the Shi'ite leadership is the Americans have been feeding baby crocodiles and then we're going to bug out at them and leave them to deal with these adult crocodiles snapping at them. This is one reason that I say in the book while I have a lot of admiration for what the American military did in Iraq over the last couple of years, especially the people who were against the war but thought that they should try to help the Americans minimize the damage, despite all of that, my conclusion is that the surge failed. There's a conventional wisdom in this country that the surge succeeded and that the war is over -- and I think both those conclusions are badly wrong and dangerous because they repeat the over optimism of the Bush administration id dealing with Iraq.

Phillip Maldarai: So, um, if it failed -- it doesn't -- deaths are down right now, uh, there are these massacres, these suicide bombings but there are fewer of them, uh, and we're seeing fewer US military personnel being ambushed and killed but are you saying this is just the lull before the storm?

Thomas E. Ricks: I'm saying that the surge kicked the can down the road. That it probably is a lull before the storm because the purpose of the surge was to improve security but not just to improve security for itself -- to improve security to create a breathing space in which a political breakthrough would occur. Well here the surge is over and none of the questions that faced Iraq before the surge have been solved. All the big questions are still hanging fire out there. For example, how do you share oil revenue? Another is will Iraq have a strong central government in Baghdad or be a loose confederation? A third is what is the basic relationship between Sunni, Shia, Kurd? A fourth is who holds power within the Shia community? A fifth is what is the role of Iran which, by the way, is the big winner in the war so far? All these questions are still out there, all these questions have led to violence in the past, all of them may well lead to violence again.

Phillip Maldari: My guest is Thomas Ricks, his current book The Gamble: General David Petreaus and the American Military Adventure in Iraq 2006 - 2008. We've sort of left out of the picture Muqtada al-Sadr -- the rebel cleric leading a huge Shia militia in the slums of Baghdad. He and his militia have agreed to stand down for the time being but these men are fully armed, they, uh, are militant. They are, at times, quite critical of the centeral government even though the central government is also Shia and they at any time can decide to go back to combat, right?

Thomas E. Ricks: They can. And Ambassador Crocker, who is one of America's most experienced diplomats in the Middle East, talks about Lebanon as the future of Iraq. People don't seem to want to hear him when he says that. Here's a guy who has lived in Lebanon, actually was in the US embassy when it was blown up and about three doz - or four dozen of his colleagues were killed. When he talks about Iraq as Lebanon, what he means is exactly you'll have outfits like Sadr who has a role in the government but also has an independent militia outside the government. And that's very much the model that Hizbollah has pursued in Lebanon. It's not a model for civility, nor is it a model for a country at peace with its neighbors.

Phillip Maldari: Well and we're going to see the Sunni minority in Iraq with -- with their militia, 100,000 well armed young men, and we're spending what? 30 million dollars a month to pay them?

Thomas E. Ricks: We were. We're trying to make the Baghdad government pay it now and they're kind of cranky about that as you might expect

Phillip Malderi: But is that going to go on indefinitely? I mean if we ever cut off the flow of money, what would happen?
Thomas E. Ricks: Well they're supposed to become part of the Iraqi army, we'll see. This is one of the big questions: Will that work out? This is -- I mean, you're pointing to all the reasons that I think Iraq is a far more troubled place than Americans seem to think it is. This is why I'm very concerned when President Obama talks about getting out of Iraq quickly that he's not departing from President Bush but that he's repeating the mistakes of President Bush. Bush didn't invade Iraq and say, "Listen I have a great idea, let's invade Iraq and get stuck there for ten years." He said, "Let's go into Iraq and get out quickly." The original American war plan was to be down to 30,000 troops by September 2003. When Obama talks about getting down to 30,000 to 50,000 troops by August or September of next year that sounds a lot to me like Bush.


We found two exceptions in an allegedly 'diverse' and 'alternative' media. Reality tells on them. Another example would be Kristoffer Walker. The 28-year-old Iraq War veteran's name was mentioned by the bulk of Panhandle Media. Search the archives of Democracy Now! and you'll never find his name mentioned, not even in a headline. Amy Goodman never had time for the soldier who told the military "no." Last month he went public with his decision not to return to Iraq. If he was hoping for the kind of support he needed, he really didn't get it. Associated Press covered him, his state's media (Wisconsin) covered him and that was pretty much it. Some websites covered him. At his website, he links to Courage to Resist but Courage to Resist never covered him, never did a blurb on him. A US soldier -- in the US -- announces he's not returning and Courage to Resist can't cover it? Sarah can bore us all with her hopes and dreams of Bambi Obama but Courage to Resist can't make time to cover Kristoffer? That's f**king bulls**t. And before they ask for money again, they need to explain how the hell that happened. I'm not joking and I'm not in the mood to be nice. Kristoffer needed support. He needed his story to be told. And who the hell bothered to help? Wisconsin? Hmmm. Madison Wisconsin. Home of Matthew Rothschild! But of course The Progressive didn't have time for Kristoffer.

He went public about needing an attorney. He made it clear that he was struggling and he needed support. Not money; support. He didn't get it. He never got it. Not what he needed. Not what he deserved. Not what his brave stand warranted. The sixth anniversary of the illegal war will be 'celebrated' by Kristoffer returning to Iraq. To a war he's called not only illegal but immoral. He explains to WFRV that, "the Army has a gun to my head. They have the authority to level an incredible amount of force against me and can thereby ruin my life. I have been placed in a very dangerous situation. It is not my intention to allow the Army to use their gun and ruin my life." It's too bad so few cared about Kristoffer or his stand. It's too bad that when we have someone stand up and say "no," no support group emerges. No one's there to provide the system of support needed. It's too bad. And it sends a message. But don't worry, everyone, Mitch Jesserich is in love with Barack and thinks his laughable audio "letters" fawning over Barack, using the a Beatles love song, a love song John wrote for Yoko, to 'illustrate' what America feels for a president? How f**king pathetic and how offensive to the actual love that John and Yoko had. Is there one damn grown up left in Panhandle Media? If so, can they please send Mitch to a lengthy time out? Mitch, while you were juking on tape and smirking at your smutty wet dreams, a real world was out there and people were struggling. They weren't the egg heads from Harvard, but their lives did matter even if you do everything you can to render them invisible. Ehren Watada. Still no decision. Still in the US military. All this time later. It happens because of people like Mitch. It happens because it's more improtant to people like Mitch that a fan club for Barack exists -- that they build a fan club -- than that a war be ended or that those who speak out against it get the recognition they deserve. Kristoffer Walker was betrayed by the alleged 'anti-war' movement in the US. They had no time for him. They were too busy fingering themselves and moaning "Barack."

The illegal war hits the six year mark this Thursday and World Can't Wait offers a list of other cities holding demonstrations. The Grannies Peace Brigade is kicking things off early in NYC on Wednesday with a demonstration at noon, 44th St and Broadway, outside the Time Square recruiting station. Saturday, those wanting to call out the illegal war can join with groups such as The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War -- all are taking part in a real action. Iraq Veterans Against the War explains: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: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.



Please note CounterPunch and Dissident Voice regularly cover Iraq -- they weren't included in the above for that reason. US Socialist Worker usually covers Iraq as well. In terms of Kristoffer Walker, he was ignored by all three outlets. AP reports on Kristoffer's decision here. Tony Walter reports on it for the Green Bay Press-Gazette here.


Meanwhile Missy Ryan, Mohammed Abbas, Ahmed Rasheed and Samia Nakhoul (Reuters) offer the sort of overview the MSM should be providing on the sixth anniversary:

People like analyst Ghassan al-Attiyyah blame the United States for stoking sectarian and ethnic killing as they sought in the early days to empower majority Shi'ites sidelined under Saddam's Sunni-led regime and to forge a government that represented the majority. "They failed to understand Iraq. They made great mistakes, basically enhancing divisions among Iraqis," said Attiyyah, who heads the Iraq Foundation for Democracy and Development. Today, the U.S. military approach is seen as more adroit, based more on community outreach and tutoring increasingly competent, though far from independent, local forces rather than using sheer force. But some say it's far too late. "The genie was let out of the bottle, and society is now polarised between sectarian and ethnic forces," Attiyyah said.

It's not as 'fun' as Jake Tapper and Paul Rudd cock-knocking around possibly but it would qualify as news.

The illegal war continued today and so did the violence . . .

Shootings?

Sahar Issa and Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) report the US military shot (wrongly) at a civilian car, missed the car and killed a 12-year-old gril who was "passing by," 1 person was shot dead in Mosul, 1 college student was shot dead in Mosul, 1 suspect was shot dead by police in Mosul, unknown assailants shot dead 1 Iraqi soldier in Mosul and 1 person was shot dead in Diyala Province today.

Corpses?

Sahar Issa and Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) report 1 corpse (Iraqi soldier) was discovered in Qayara adn 2 corpses were discovered in Aluthaim.


iraq
abc world news tonightcharlie gibsonterry mccarthythe cbs evening news with katie couriclara logannbc nightly newsbrian williamspbsthe newshourjim lehrer
thomas e. ricks
philip maldari
kpfathe morning show
missy ryanmohammed abbasahmed rasheedsamia nakhoul


Read on ...

Condi Plots Her Own Charm Offensive

"Condi Plots Her Own Charm Offensive" went up May 29, 2005. Condi saw herself as musical. She would play the piano and she would sing. I wasn't yet ready to try drawing a piano, this was like my fourth cartoon or something, so I went with singing.

I can still remember having no idea what to do that Sunday morning. And thinking of her singing. I drew that first and thought I'd have an idea. I didn't. I ended up having a half-thought, the list of songs she'd cover, like "Raised on Robbery."

I still never know what I'm drawing most of the time. That can be a real stressful time. I'm trying to draw something and have no idea what to do. I recently did an Al Distraction: Domestic Arts Czar series. The first one was Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Al Distraction" and after I drew it, I had two strong ideas for the same theme and a few softer ones. I ended up doing four more -- Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Domestic Arts Czar", Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Rounding up Lucy"; Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Making Dennis the Menace" and Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Shutting Down The Domestic Arts Czar" -- and it was nice to have an idea of what was coming next. I've got a new character this year, Little Dicky, popping up and that's because characters are easier. Anytime I could bring Barbara Bush (the former First Lady) in for a Bully Boy comic, it wrote itself. And that's what good characters can do.

This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Thursday, March 12, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, shoe-toss gets you one-and-a-half-years or three if you toss two, England's rocked by more evidence of manipulating the pre-war intelligence, the US military pretends to address suicides, and more.

We're going to start in England, move to the US, then to Iraq and finally to Australia. In the UK today new calls for an inquiry into the Iraq War pre-war 'intelligence.' BBC News reports a freedom of information request resulting in, among other things, an e-mail where the head of intelligence "Sir John Scarlett was pressed . . . to make analysis of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as 'authoritative' as he could" is prompting the latest calls for an inquiry. The Belfast Telegraph explains, "The emails show officials complained the dossier suggested Saddam Hussein's biological warfare programme was more advanced than they actually believed was the case." Paul Waugh (This is London) reports, "Intelligence experts explicitly warned Tony Blair's aides that Britian was not in 'imminent danger of attack' from Saddam Hussein, a confidential memo revealed today. . . . today Whitehall released a memo from former Cabinet Office defence expert Desmond Bowen, who later won promotion to policy director at the Ministry of Defence, which shows he disagreed Saddam posed an immediate threat. The September 2002 memo, written to then Joint Intelligence Committee chairman John Scarlett and copied to Alastair Campabell, provides comments on an early draft of the government dossier on Iraq." Waugh notes how aware Tony Blair's cabinet was of the need to manipulate the people via the media with Jack Straw's office focusing on Sky News and how the dossier needed to be a "video 'wall'" for the network and this could be done by adding one "very simple table" needed to be added to the dossier -- "This should be brief enough to get onto the Sky wall ie no more than 5 bullets." Adrian Croft (Reuters) reminds, "British weapons expert David Kelly committed suicide in July 2003 after being identified as the source of a BBC report alleging the government had 'sexed-up' intelligence on banned Iraqi weapons." With each revelation comes a cry for a full inquiry. Thus far, the cries have been ignored.

In the US, Saturday Julie Sullivan (The Oregonian) reported on hexavalent chromium which many Oregon National Guard soldiers were exposed to in Iraq -- the many may include 93 soldiers in the state whom the military sent out register letters to last Friday. While working to protect an Iraq plant then overseen by Halliburton's Kellogg, Brown & Root, they were exposed to it, as Ed Blacke (KBR safety officer) testified to Congress last summer. Sullivan explains KBR termed it a "non-issue" at the time. Among those who have attempted to address this issue in Congress are Senators Evan Bayh and Byron Dorgan, Russ Feingold and US House Rep Tim Bishop. Feingold specifically wants answers about the burn pits and how they may expose soldiers to hazards and toxins. This week, Wikileaks releases a [PDF format warning] December 20, 2006 Dept of the Air Force memo whose subject heading is "Burn Pit Health Hazards" which is a risk assessment done by Lt Col Darrin L. Curtis ("Bioenvironmental Engineering Flight Commander") and seconded (in writing) by Lt Col James R. Elliott ("Chief, Aeromedical Services"). Curtis raises six points regarding the Balad Air Base burn pit. First, the burn pit "has been identified as a health concern for several years in numerous after action reports". The second point boils down to guidelines not being followed because contaminants burned off in the pits are difficult "to quantify". We'll close with the third point so move on to number four right now. Curtis cites the "smoke hazards" involved in the burning of contaminants. Point five: "In my professional opinion, there is an acute health hazard for individuals." Sixth is his noting the "operational health risk" to those around the burn pits. Now we're dropping back to the third point and noting it in full:

The Air Force documents exposure to the burn pit for those stationed at Balad AB as an environmental health hazard by placing detailed information in each Airman's medical record during their post-deployment medical outprocessing. This is a permanent part of their medical record and is a mandatory document that assists the Air Force in complying with Presidential Review Directive 5. It is amazing that the burn pit has been able to operate without restrictions over the past few years without significant engineering controls being put in place. I would hope in the future that issues such as burn pits are identified early on and engineering controls such as incinerators would be used to mitigate these hazards. It seem that money has been the issue of why engineering controls are not currently in place.

Money. Playing it cheap. Julie Sullivan reports 21-year-old Nicholas Thomas returned from Iraq and "died of complications of leukemia . . . Three others have reported lung problems to headquarters. Five more told The Oregonian they suffer chrnoci coughs, rashes and immune system distorders." Larry Roberta returned from Iraq with numerous problems: "he was rated 100 percent disabled by lung disorders, tinnitus and post-traumatic stress disorder. He needs two inhalers to breathe and swallows eight kinds of pills a day for upper chest pain, migraines, high blood presure, mood swings and a mystifying low level of testosterone."

This is what happens when human lives are not valued -- not the ones being attacked, not the ones serving the interests of their own governments. The battle field just a big playlot and the ones far from don't give a damn what happens to the ones living there or the ones sent there. Perfect example, Chris Rizo (Legal Newsline) reported Tuesday that Dow Chemical Company will not be held accountable for Agent Orange and all the destruction it did to Vietnam. You need to look at who brought the suit -- it was the Vietnamese and US veterans. LBJ, Richard Nixon and all their underlings didn't suffer. They lived long lives with little to complain of other than (reportedly) nightly gas. (Poor Lady Bird and Pat.) But the people they ordered attacked, the people they ordered sent over to do the attacking, those are the ones who suffered. Rizo notes the lower court rulings now stand which argued "federal law protects government contractors" and no standing for the Vietnamese ("because Agent Orane was used to protect U.S. troops from abumsh"). The ones who suffered (and continue to suffer) get no voice in court and that's only made more clear by Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens decision to recuse himself. His son served in Vietnam, John Joseph Stevens, and died in 1996 of cancer which may or may not have been connected to exposure to Agent Orange. So the only one on the Court who might understand the defendants plight has to recuse himself? Debra Cassens Weiss (ABA Journal) quotes Susan Mullen stating "her brother died of a brain tumor" at age 47, that "he got ill and died too quickly for him to get involved in any legal matters," and that she's not sure why her father recused himself from the decision of whether or not the Court should grant cert to the Agent Orange cases. Cassens Weiss notes that Stevens recused himself from a similar review in 2006.

War after war, the point becomes very clear: governments see those on the battlefield as expendable. For the US government, that's the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, and, yes, the US service members. Jason Notte (Providence Phoenix) reviews the experiences of Iraq War veteran Jeff Lucey who returned to the US and was given no medical help for his problems: "On [June] 22, 2004, unable to handle the intesity anymore -- the daily vomiting, the feeling that he was a murderer, the fear that none of his military higher-ups even cared -- Lucey wrapped a garden hose around his neck in the basement of his family's Belchertown, Massachusetts, home and hanged himself." Jeff Lucey died June 22, 2004, the paper has the month wrong. In January, the US government, made an offer of $350,000 to the Lucey family but claimed that this was not an admission of guilt or wrong doing on the part of the US government or the VA medical system. Notte notes a 2004 study where 30% of soldiers in the survey self-disclosed thoughts of suicide "within the past week" and how the number of Army deaths from suicide hit a high of 138 last year. Dina Greenberg (Houston Chronicle) offers, "While Army leadership is to be commended for breaking the barrier of silence regarding mental illness in the military, the underlying culture of secrecy that has contributed to the current trend is in dire need of reform. According to figures obtained by the Associated Press, there has been a steady increase in suicides since 2003, totaling 450 active duty soldiers, with the highest numbers occurring in the past year." Yes, a break in the silence barrier would be something . . . if it didn't appear to be part of something else. In this case, "We talked, now it's your problem!" AP reports that Fort Campbell officials want service member's family members to catch "signs that soldiers may be depressed" leading one to wonder exactly what is the military responsible for? It's not responsible for protecting those who serve (as evidenced by Agent Orange victims, the victims from KBR's shoddy 'work habits,' etc.) and it's not responsible for a failed mental health system. Now it's the families that better be on their toes and spot those signs. Every tiny move the military brass makes is done under immense pressure. If they'd attempt to address the problem themselves, they'd find the numbers of suicides and attempted suicides would be greatly reduced. But they won't do that. They won't confront the attitude that they instill that mocks mental health issues and that scorns treatment. They do little song and dances about how you leave quicker if you don't tell the doctors about any problems. So you can go through various exit interviews and possible treatment or you can say "Just fine, no problem" and be walking out the door. The military command could have and should have addressed the culture of silence and how they encourage it. Until that's done, the military can keep farming out the responsibilities to the families but the problem's not going away.

March 5th, Col Catherine Abbott issued a press release noting 2 suicides for February in the Army with "16 cases of death . . . pending a determination." Col Abbott noted the "stand-down, From February 15 to March 15, 2009. The stand-down includes training for peer-level recognition of warning signs that may lead to suicidal behaviro, and intervnetion at the buddy level." More hogwash. Commanders are the ones who set the tone. They're the ones quick to brag about how they run things. They are the ones, in the military, who are supposed to be accountable for all serving under them. Where is the Army's announcement about how commanders will be addressing this growing problem? They can keep farming out watch duties to families and peers but until they take accountablility and address the culture of silence and denial, the problem's not going away. Pat Hatfield (The DeLand - Deltona Beacon) reports on what may be the two latest victims: 21-year-old Kristin Kouis and 24-year-old Jason Kouis. The sister and brother were discovered Feburary 27th in a car with "[a] hose . . . from the vehicle's tailpipe into the rear passegener-side window, which was taped shut. The vehicle was still running." Florida's Sun-Sentinel editorializes about another silence:

News about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan takes a back seat to the economic doom and gloom. But just because foreclosures and unemployment seem to hit closer to home for most of us, it doesn't mean we should forget what our soldiers are doing. And certainly we shouldn't forget about the problems they face on the battlefront and when they return home, which have come to light again with the latest spike in Army suicides. While there are no specific numbers as to how many of the suicides took place on the war fronts, there were 18 suspected Army suicides in February, following a horrific January in which it was believed 24 soldiers committed suicide.

The editorial concludes, "And the general public needs to remember that Wall Street doesn't have a monopoly on all the problems these days." John Ross (CounterPunch) observes:Iraq has been erased from public discourse in the wake of an economic meltdown at least partially invoked by the vast outlays Bush pumped into the war to keep his killing machine choogling. The television networks long ago rolled up their crews and there will be no film of today's massacre on the Six O'clock news. U.s. news media have airlifted out their aces or recuded in-country staffs to a skeleton crew. When after seven years of corpses coming home to the Dover Delaware death distribution center, Obama-Bush Secretary of Defense Robert Gates authorized the press to run photos of flag-draped coffins (if they first obtain family permission), it came much too late for both those Americans who had perished in this heinous aggression and a newspaper industry that is now being interred in its own flag-draped coffin. The New York Times daily Iraq body count has now been conbined with the U.S. dead in Afghanistan and the box wedged into a rat hole on the Middle East page.
Even the Left has abandoned Iraq, justifiably shifting its attentions to the horrors of Gaza. This year's sixth anniversary marches to denounce the invasion and occupation of Iraq are doomed to be the most miserable yet. Many who once marched will pause and scratch their heads. Didn't Obama just say the war is over?
Of course the war is not over. Obama's speech to the leathernecks at Lejeune was stuffed with caveats and canards. Combat troops will be gone from Iraq by August 2010 the Prez pledged, leaving 35,000 to 50,000 residuals in country -- but the small print gives Baracko fiat to reclassify combats as residuals. The remaining troops' departure by 2011 hinges on Iraqi acceptance of a status of forces agreement to be voted up this June and not what the White House decrees. Nonetheless, U.S. withdrawal is subject to Pentagon review with options extended for many years to come. No mention is made of 150,000 private contract killers or permanent bases on Iraqi soil.

We noted Collateral Repair Project in yesterday's snapshot. John Ross closes his piece noting the group run by his "pal Sasha Crow and her Iraqi counterparts" and he urges people to note the anniversary of the start of the illegal war by making a donation to Collateral Repair Project. Yesterday's snapshot also noted Alyssa J. Rubin and Marc Santor's article on the bombing which claimed 33 lives but the link was omitted. My apologies. John Ross feels that the turn out for this month's events will be low. He may be right. If he is, reasons will include no real action on a national scale in 2008 -- must not embarrass the Democrats in an election year is a 'core principle' according to Leslie Cagan -- and the fact that so many are trying to distract from what's planned. I do not mean John Ross. I'm talking about the ones Leslie Cagan's released from her kennal who are pushing UPFJ's non-action and acting as if no actions are taking place this month. The always useless Leslie Cagan should be aware that works both ways and it won't be very hard to take their faux 'action' and making it as big a disgrace as the little attempt last year at non-action. How did that work out? Hmm. Big names. Lot of advance work for the tin anniversary -- no, tin is never a practical gift. And then it got a little curse put on it that prevented the press from covering it, right? A few phone calls and suddenly no respectable outlet was reporting on it. That was an April event as well. And the 'leader,' the Red Queen, even bought herself a new wig (it looked vinyl -- maybe that was just when contrasted with her alabaster complexion?) So they should be aware that, as the Beatles once put it, in the end, the love you make is equal to the love you take. And then some.

Those wanting to call out the illegal war can join with groups such as The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War -- all are taking part in a real action. Iraq Veterans Against the War explains: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: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.

Camilo Mejia is the author of Road from Ar Ramadi. He is an Iraq War veteran. He is a conscientious objector. He stood up to the full power of the US military and he survived and then some. He is the chair of Iraq Veterans Against the war. All of that, before you even get into the adventures of his father and mother, is more than worth hearing about and those makes him someone worth hearing. Those in South Bend and Goshen Indiana have the opportunity to hear him next week. Monday, he will be speaking at 7:00 pm on the Indiana University South Bend's campus and Tuesday at 7:00 p.m. he will be speaking in Goshen at Iglesia Menonita Del Buen Pastor. Both events are free and open to the public and more information can be found here. Mejia is among the early resisters and his actions are noted by Michael J. Mooney (Broward Palm Beach) who explains the struggle war resister Aslan Lamarche is currently undergoing. He joined the military at the age of 18, he then self-checked out and went to Canada. His attempt to be granted refugee status in Canada was denied. His parents (from Trinidad and Cuba) remain in Flordia and Aslan states, "It's sad. My parents came to the U.S. for a better way of life. And now, their oldest son had to leave that same country for the same reason." He is taking classes in Toronto and hoping for some good news. He says, "It's hard to be 20 years old and be hated by two governments. And Canada is a very strange country in a lot of ways. They just have this blind trust that their government will do the right thing. The majority of Canadians want us to stay. They say, 'Don't worry. Everything will be fine.' But at the end of the day, none of them are willing to fight for us."

Fighting continues in Iraq as does injustice. Today a verdict was issued in the one-shoe, two-shoe case. December 14th Bully Boy and Nouri al-Maliki gathered for a photo op to sign two documents. The photo op was marred when Iraqi journalist Muntadhar al-Zeidi declared, "This is a gift from the Iraqis. This is the farewell kiss you dog. This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq." He made those statements while huring one of his shoes and then the other at Bully Boy. Both shoes missed and Bully Boy grinned and did not take it seriously or perceive it to be a threat ("And if you want some -- if you want the facts, it's a size 10 shoe that he threw. Thank you for your concern, do not worry about it.")Muntadhar was immediately pounced on and beaten by al-Maliki's thugs. He was then carted off to jail and denied visitation with his family and denied consulation with his attorneys. A public outcry forced al-Maliki to allow a token visit and it was learned that Muntadhar stated he had been beaten while in prison. Less widely reported was that Muntadhar also denied the statements attributed to him by al-Maliki's government. Today Muntadhar shouted, "Long live Iraq!"He was in court again today. His third appearance this year. February 19th, Muntadar al-Zaidi (also spelled Muntadhar al-Zeidi) appeared before a judge who adjourned unsure whether or not Bully Boy's visit was an official one. As noted here then, "But it was an official visit. (They think Bush takes pleasure cruises? The man who had to have his pillow to campaign in 2000 and still whined about being out on the road?) And it's rather frightening that the presiding judge felt the need to halt the trial so that the nature of the visit could be determined." The judge ruled this week that it was an official visit. Of course, he did. Unless the defense was attempting to delay via that ploy, it was a dumb legal move. They were at a table, they were signing two official government documents. It didn't matter, as Muntadhar's attorneys attempted to argue, that the visit took place in the Green Zone (under US control) and not in another part of Iraq. Why would it? Except for the Kurdistan Region, Iraq was all under US control at the time of the visit. Michael B. Farrell (Christian Science Monitor) points out the judge "read a statement from Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's office stating that Bush's visit was indeed official."So Tuesday Muntadhar was back before the judge and his brother attempted to lead a demonstration which the police shut down claiming there was no permit. Marc Santora (New York Times) reports this morning (online -- no article on Iraq in the paper) that the judge, Abdulamir Hassan al-Rubaie, found it was an official visit and made that announcement Tuesday. Today, McClatchy's Laith Hammoudi reports, Muntadar had none of the excitement and verve he showed in Jaunaruy, instead, "arriving under heavy guard, he almost stubmled in, exhausted and looking worried, and no longer wearing an Iaqi flag scarf." Pauline Lockwood (The Mirror -- link has video of the shoe toss) explains, "Muntadar al-Zaidi pleaded not guilty during his trial and said that his reaction at the time had been natural and represented the feeling of the Iraqi population." (Santora quotes him stating, "I am innocent. It was a natural reaction to the crime of occupation.") Hamza Hendawi (AP) notes that Muntadhar, if found guilty, could have faced up to 15 years in prison; however, he was found guilty and sentenced to three years. CNN explains, " Family members and journalists were cleared from the courtroom before Thursday's verdict. After news of the verdict reached family members, al-Zaidi's brother appeared close to fainting. Other family members were seen crying and shouting curses about al-Maliki and Bush." David Byers (Times of London) adds:His sister, Ruqaiya, was seen to burst into tears and shout: "Down with (Iraqi Prime Minister) Maliki, agent of the Americans" and several family members stood outside Iraq Central Criminal Court shouting anti-American slogans.Dhiaa al-Saadi, the chief defence lawyer, said that his team would appeal. "This sentence is harsh and is not in harmony with the law, and eventually the defence team will contest this in the appeals court," he was quoted as saying by the Reuters news agency.

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) quotes Udai declaring, "This was expected from an American court. We don't feel sorry for Muntathar, we only feel sorry for Americanized Iraq." Raheem Salman (Los Angeles Times) quotes Haidar abu Karra, Muntathar's uncle, on the refusal to punish real criminals, "Nobody summoned [guard with the U.S. security firm] Blackwater for what they did to Iraqis. [Parliament member] Mohammed Daini, who is suspected of killing dozens of Iraqis, in in Baghdad now. Why are they not able to detain him? Why do they do this with Muntather." Anthony Shadid (Washington Post) quotes his mother stating, "My son, Muntadar. Why did you do it? You've lost three years of your life." Al Jazeera notes the family plans to appeal, to bring torture charges against Nouri, Bully Boy and Nouri's bodyguards and that they question the verdict:One of his brothers, Uday, said the decision was political."This is a political court. Muntadhar is being treated like a prisoner of war. He is not a normal prisoner ... This decision has been taken by the prime minister's office."Al-Zaidi shouted "Iraq, long live Iraq" after the verdict was read out, Yahia Attabi, a defence lawyer, said."We expected the decision because under the Iraqi criminal code he was charged with assaulting a foreign leader on an official visit."Gary Langer (ABC News) reports a poll of Iraqis by ABC News, BBC and NHK finds:Twenty-four percent of Iraqis see al-Zeidi as a criminal for assaulting a visiting foreign head of state. But 62 percent instead call him a hero, for expressing the views held by many Iraqi people. Al-Zeidi is scheduled to appear in court today in Baghdad. His highest support in the polls comes from Sunni Arabs who hail him as a hero by 84%. Citing the poll, Jon Cohen (Washington Post) notes of the guilty verdict and three year sentence, "It's a decision that is unlikely to go over well with the Iraqi public". Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) provides other recent shoe-throwings which include Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's president, last week, Wen Jiabao, Chinese Premier, last month as he spoke at Cambridge. Meanwhile Marc Abizeid (Lebanon's Daily Star) reports that the Iraqi Embassy in Beirut was the location for a protest by approximately thirty members "of the Union of Lebanese Democratic Youth" who shouted, "Mr. Obama, remember the shoe that Bush got, and we have another one ready for you."

Meanwhile Iran's Press TV reports the Islamic State in Iraq released a statement today claiming credit for Tuesday's bombing which claimed 33 lives: "A knight of the Islamic State in Iraq from the martyrs battalion . . . on March 8, 2009, infilitrated with his explosives vest a big crowd of apostate police recruits near the gate of the police academy in Baghdad." To make it mean more, most outlets are tossing around "al Qaeda linked" which allows them to note the claimed credit comes a bit late for a group allegedly responsible. Not saying ISI isn't responsible, just stating in most countries, that would be a bit late to claim credit today. Nothing is known at this point except today's reported violence.

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing which left four people wounded, another which left three people ("including the brigadier general, Taha Khudhair, of the civil defense") wounded and a Mosul roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 police officer and left another injured.

Shootings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 people shot dead in Baghdad and the Southern Scholars and Educated Collection's Sheikh Abdullah Al Timiimi was shot dead in Basra. Reuters notes 1 police officer shot dead in Mousl.

Corpses?

Reuters notes 1 corpse discovered in Mosul.
Finally, al-Maliki and Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister of Australia, met today in Australia. Rudd's office noted the meeting with a press release which noted oil, gas and wheat opportunitis for Australia in Iraq. Xinhau reports the two toured the Australian War Memorial an al-Maliki declared, "I extend my sympathies to the families of loved ones who lost their lives while helping Iraq." Three Australian service members died in Iraq. We covered Jake Kovco throughout 2006 (throughout the joke of an inquest into his death) who died while only 25-years-old, April 21, 2006. Paul Pardoel died January 30, 2005 at the age of 35 and David Nary died at the age of 42 on November 5, 2005.


iraqthe new york timesmarc santorahamza hendawipauline lockwoodgary langerdavid byerscnnthe washington postjon cohen
anthony shadid
mcclatchy newspaperslaith hammoudi
the los angeles timesraheem salman





Read on ...

The Charm Offensive

That's "The Charm Offensive" from May 22, 2005 and it's Condi Rice declaring, "We are slipping in the polls. Send in the Fem-Bot!" Laura smiles and waives, "Hello, freedom lovers." There are probably at least five more comics I did featuring Laura Bush and, point of fact, I never got an e-mail complaining. Before Michelle Obama's husband was even the Democratic Party presidential nominee, I got whiners saying, "You can't do comics of Michelle." To repeat the Pointer Sisters and all their fans, "Yes, we can!" The e-mails don't come in now because I didn't back down. I'm not Jon Stewart trying to figure out how to make a Barack joke. I treated him (and Michelle) the same way I did everyone else. He's the president. Jokes come with the title. Ditto First Lady. That's how it goes. If Hillary had won, I'd be doing jokes on her and jokes on Bill.

I wouldn't have done Bill sex jokes because those are obvious and old. But I would have found a way to do a Bill joke or two probably every four weeks minimum. That's what editorial comics are supposed to do, make fun.

Kat's "Kat's Korner: The charity album that just takes" went up Sunday and it's a really funny review so be sure to check that out if you haven't already. And this is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Monday, March 2, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Barack's Friday speech gets some analysis, the US military announces deaths, a RAND report shows up on Wikileaks and more.

Friday Barack Obama spoke at Camp Lejeune. The spin was his decision to go from a 16-month 'withdrawal' to a 19 one was no surprise and he had always, always, always said he would listen to commanders on the ground. No. That's a lie. Sunday, Ava and my "TV: Felons, Frauds and Fluff," covered the exchange between ABC's Charlie Gibson and Barack Obama during the April 16, 2008 debate. But anyone who followed the Democratic Party's campaign for the presidential nomination knows the way it worked: Hillary gave an answer and then Barack tried to make it his own. So today we'll start by noting Hillary's answer. And you should notice that when Charlie Gibson moves over to Barack, he is clearing asking Barack if he is giving "the same rock-hard plegde" that Hillary just gave. From the transcript:

GIBSON: Let me just add a little bit to that question, because your communications director of your campaign, Howard Wolfson, on a conference call recently was asked, is Senator Clinton going to stick to her announced plan of bringing one or two brigades out of Iraq every month, whatever the realities on the ground? And Wolfson said, I'm giving you a one-word answer so we can be clear about it. The answer is, yes. So, if the military commanders in Iraq came to you on day one, and said, this kind of withdrawal would destabilize Iraq, it would set back all of the gains that we have made, no matter what, you're going to order those troops to come home?

CLINTON: Yes, I am, Charlie. And here's why. Thankfully, we have a system in our country, of civilian control of the military. And our professional military are the best in the world. They give their best advice. And then they execute the policies of the president. I have watched this president, as he has continued to change the rationale and move the goal posts when it comes to Iraq. And I am convinced that it is in America's best interests, it is in the best interests of our military, and I even believe it is in the best interests of Iraq that upon taking office I will ask the secretary of defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and my security advisers to immediately put together for me a plan so that I can begin to withdraw within 60 days. I will make it very clear that we will do so in a responsible and careful manner because, obviously, withdrawing troops and equipment, is dangerous. I will also make it clear to the Iraqis that they no longer have a blank check from the president of the United States. Because I believe that it will be only through our commitment to withdrawal that the Iraqis will begin to do what they have failed to do for all of these years. I will also begin an intensive diplomatic effort, both within the region and internationally, to begin to try to get other countries to understand the stakes that we all face when it comes to the future of Iraq. But I have been convinced and very clear that I will begin to withdraw troops within 60 days. And we've had other instances in our history where some military commanders have been very publicly opposed to what a president was proposing to do. But I think it's important that this decision be made. And I intend to make it.

GIBSON: But Senator Clinton, aren't you saying -- General Petraeus was in Washington. You both were there when he testified. Saying that the gains in Iraq are fragile and are reversible. Are you essentially saying: I know better than the military commanders here?

CLINTON: No, what I'm saying, Charlie, is that no one can predict what will happen. There are many different scenarios. But one thing I am sure of is that our staying in Iraq, our continuing to lose our men and women in uniform, having many injured, the Iraqi casualties that we are seeing, as well, is there -- is no way for us to maintain a strong position in the world. It's not only about Iraq. It is about ending the war in Iraq so that we can begin paying attention to all of the other problems we have. There isn't any doubt that Afghanistan has been neglected. It has not gotten the resources that it needs. We hear that from our military commanders responsible for that region of the world. And there are other problems that we have failed to address. So the bottom line for me is: We don't know what will happen as we withdraw. We do know what will happen if we stay mired in Iraq. The Iraqi government will not accept responsibility for its own future. Our military will continue to be stretched thin. And our soldiers will be on their second, third, even their fourth deployment. And we will not be able to re-assert our leadership and our moral authority in the world. And I think those are the kind of broad issues that a president has to take into account.

GIBSON: And, Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said, "When he is" -- this is talking about you -- "When he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most. There should be no confusion about that." So you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order to bring them home?

OBAMA: Because the commander-in-chief sets the mission, Charlie. That's not the role of the generals. And one of the things that's been interesting about the president's approach lately has been to say, "Well, I'm just taking cues from General Petraeus." Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission. And, unfortunately, we have had a bad mission set by our civilian leadership, which our military has performed brilliantly. But it is time for us to set a strategy that is going to make the American people safer. Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics, once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately, in an orderly fashion, out of Iraq, and we are going to have our combat troops out. We will not have permanent bases there. Once I have provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration. But, ultimately, the buck stops with me as the commander-in-chief.

The buck does stop with Barack Obama who is now the president of the United States and he told the American people in the debate last April that he would stick to a 16-month withdrawal and that was the "mission." He would listen to the military commanders about how to implement the "mission," but the civilian command was the one responsible for setting the mission. He mocked Bully Boy Bush for falling back on "I'm just taking cues from General Peteraeus." And yet, Friday, when Barack sold his broken promise, he pushed the blame for it off on the military commanders. The buck stops with Barack Obama. He told the American people one thing in April and did another thing Friday. That's called "lying."

A lot of people believe that his announcement of a draw down means that the approximately 144,000 (or 142,000) troops in Iraq will begin leaving Iraq at a steady pace. That is not the case. For this year, the expectation is that it will drop 10,000 -- to either 134,000 or 132,000 -- and no more. January 2010, a 'draw down' is expected to begin. If nothing changes, of course, and something always changes. ABC News' Martha Raddatz explained this on Friday's Washington Week:

Gwen Ifill: And then, Martha, we get to today, in which he goes to Camp Leujune and he says 'we are -- I'm going to keep another campaign promise. I said we were going to be out of Iraq in sixteen months, well, maybe eighteen months, and then he says -- Martha Raddatz: Or nineteen. Gwen Ifill: Or nineteen. 50,000 troops are going to stay behind. But they'll be gone by 2011. Is any of this possilbe. Martha Raddatz: I, well, I think first of all you've got to look at his language. Certainly, they're going to start the draw down. And what I've been told is in the next six months, they'll only have eight to ten thousand soldiers and Marines leaving Iraq. The bulk of the draw down that he promised will start in probably January and February and then you'll have 80,000 troops pulling out of Iraq from January to August. That would leave 50,000 trooops. The thing I would quibble with is they will no longer have combat missions. Look at what the mission will be. And General Ray Odierno sent a letter out to the troops today saying essentially their goals would be training Iraqi secruity forces, conducting coordinated counterterrorism mission and protecting our ongoing civilian and military efforts within Iraq. I don't really know how you do that without combat troops and frankly all of the US forces are trained combat troops.

Note that as this is dicated, Washington Week has streaming video up of Friday's show but has not yet posted the transcript. Thomas E. Ricks (author of the new book The Gamble) evaluates Barack's speech today and offers, "The more I consider it, the more I think President Obama's Camp Lejeune speech last Friday was about how to stay in Iraq for a while, not about how to get out. . . . What's more, the planned troop reductions won't really happen in a big way until sometime in 2010, so Iraq can get through its national elections. (And a memo to everyone who is counting on the SOFA to bail us out of Iraq: Guys, that was about getting Iraq through 2009, not about what happens in 2011.)" He could have been directing the parenthetical to Phyllis Bennis (but he wasn't) who showed up last week so uninformed that The Third Estate Sunday Review awarded her a Katrina. (Ava and I were working on our TV pieces, we didn't help write the Katrina article.) Phyllis repeats the lie Crazy Ass Patrick Cockburn's been pimping that the White House was forced to sign that treaty. (If link to Phyllis article doesn't work, it's because you have to be a ZNet sustainer to see it.) The Third gang takes Phyllis to school, "Reality, Phyll, the White House pushed that treaty masquerading as a SOFA through. They did so over Democratic Congressional opposition -- that was Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Russ Feingold, Susan Davis and pretty much everyone including, yes, Barack. The White House ignored the objections, just as they ignored the Constitution. . . . Lying to yourself that the treaty the White House wrote and pushed through was forced on the White House may help you cum, Phyllis, but it's not reality." Phyllis also foolishly appears to have no idea on when (some) US troops might start leaving. When she grasps that only 10,000 tops will leave in the ten months left in this year -- and maybe grasps that will put the number at around the same number before Bully Boy Bush's 2007 'surge' -- she may feel that "three months" or one day more matters. Right now, she's worthless. Sorry, Phyllis, that's the reality. Chris Hedges (World Can't Wait) never saw himself as Barack's handmaiden which is why he can speak the truth so many others silence:

Barack Obama has shown that he is as capable of doublespeak as any other politician when he announced an end to the war in Iraq. Combat troops are to be pulled out of Iraq by August 2010, he said, but some 50,000 occupation troops will remain behind. Someone should let the Iraqis know the distinction. I doubt any soldier or Marine in Iraq will notice much difference in 19 months.
Many combat units will simply be relabeled as noncombat units. And what about our small army of well-paid contractors and mercenaries? Will Dyncorp, Bechtel, Blackwater (which recently changed its name to Xe), all of whom have made fortunes off the war, pack up and go home? What about the three large super-bases, dozens of smaller military outposts and our imperial city, the Green Zone? Will American corporations give up their lucrative control of Iraqi oil?
The occupation of Iraq will not be disrupted. Lies and deception, which launched the war in the first place, are being employed by Democrats to maintain it. This is not a withdrawal. It is occupation lite. And as long as American troops are on Iraqi soil the war will grind on, the death toll on each side will continue to mount and we will remain a lightning rod for hatred and rage in the Middle East. Add to this Obama's decision to increase troop levels in Afghanistan and even his most purblind supporters will have to admit the new president is as intent on maintaining American empire as the old.

USA Today offers the editorial "Obama declares end to U.S. presence in Iraq -- sort of:"

Despite Obama's certitude, the best answer is: maybe. Yes, the war is winding down, and Iraq is far calmer than it was two years ago. But the situation remains fluid, and Obama's commitment to get out is part goal, part guessing game.The president's bid to fulfill the promise he made on the campaign trail -- to remove all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office -- always came with a big asterisk. He would leave 35,000 to 50,000 "non-combat" troops in Iraq well beyond that promised drawdown period, now extended from 16 to 19 months. That's about a third of the 142,000 troops there now. What's more, the drawdown will be back-loaded, with troops leaving only slowly until after national elections this December. And when would those "non-combat" troops come home? Under a status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government, by the end of 2011. Even that isn't set in concrete, however. "If we're there beyond that, it'll be because of a new agreement ... negotiated with President Obama and based on what he thinks is in the best interests of our country," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday on Meet the Press.

At the New York Times, Emily S. Rubb covers the same Meet the Press apperance USA Today only mentions but somehow Rubb forgets to include the pertinent section. Intent on offering a feel-good experience, Rubb ignores that Gates repeated what he'd emphasized on Friday: "I think what he was referring to was that under the terms of the Status Of Forces Agreement, which is what we are operating under now, all US forces must be out by the end of 2011. It will require a new agreement -- or it would require a new agreement, a new negotiation -- almost certainly an Iraqi initiative -- to provide for some presence beyond the end of 2011. So in the absence of that agreement, in the absence of any negotiation for such an agreement, it is in keeping with the SOFA that, to say definitively, that we will be out at the end of 2011." And could the US remain in Iraq after 2011, Secretary Gates? "Well, I think we'll have to wait and see. I mean, it's a hypothetical. The Iraqis have not said anything about that at this point. So it remains to be seen whether they will take an initiative. I think what we should be -- my own view would be that we should be prepared to have some very modest-sized presence for training and helping them with their new equipment and providing, perhaps, intelligence support and so on beyond that. But again, it's hypothetical, because such a -- no such request has been made, and no indication that it will be at this point." Back to Sunday's Meet the Press (transcript to Gates' segment here) where Gates admitted that, yes, troops could be sent back in. (The Times wasn't interested in that despite the fact that their own Michael Gordon pressed Barack on that point in November of 2007 and Barack admitted that was the case.) At the Washington Post's Post Global Rami G. Khouri offers this opinion on troops going back in after some being leaving, "Absolutely not. American troops should leave Iraq and stay out. If ethnic strife flares up again in Iraq beyond its current levels, it will probably be due to three possible causes: lingering resentments and active revenge for the abuses of the Baathist regime; destructive forces unleashed by the American-led invasion that removed the entire state structure; or, meddling by external forces from neighboring countries. A return of American forces would not resolve any of those issues or lower their intensity, but would only exacerbate them." Meanwhile, link provided for laughter, Tom Hayden pretends he's of some use to the world and wants to insist that Thomas E. Ricks is wrong, wrong, wrong and Barack's announcment proves it and . . . Wipe the drool from your mouth, Tom-Tom, or use it to soak Barack's balls. But don't pretend you've offered anything resembling critical thought or even a summary. Ricks remains an analyst, you remain the ex-husband who pulled a Brinks truck up to your divorce settlement. Not content to spew at Thomas E. Ricks (who's actually been to Iraq, Tom, what's your excuse?), Tom-Tom goes after Chris Hedges, Ralph Nader supporters, Cynthia McKinney supporters and any lefty who refused to support the Christ-child at the ballot box, "When there was a choice between supporting Barack Obama and attending rallies organized by various Maoists, Trotskyists and neo-anarchists opposed to Obama and electoral politics, the grassroots peace movement headed for the precincts by the thousands." You just have to laugh, you just have to laugh.

Turning to one of the costs of the illegal war. Saturday the US military announced: "AL ANBAR PROVINCE, Iraq -- A Multi National Force -- West Marine died as the result of a non-combat related incident here Feb. 28." Today they announce, "A Multi-National Division-Baghdad Soldier died March 2 from combat related injuries while conducting a patrol north of Baghdad." The announcements bring the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4254. The month drew to a close Saturday and while the media dropped interest in Iraq, violence increased. China's Xinhua explains, "Iraq's monthly civilian death toll in February rose slightly to a total of 258 from the previous month that showed the lowest level since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, authorities said on Sunday." These are figures which come from Iraq's ministries so these are low balled figures. AFP reports it's a 35% increase from January, "A total of 258 Iraqis were killed in violence in February, a sharp rise from the previous month that saw the lowest casualty figures since the 2003 US-led invasion, authorities said Sunday. Statistics compiled by the Defense, Interior and Health ministries showed that 211 civilians, 17 soldiers and 30 policemen lost their lives to violence across the country in February." So what can you do? You can stand up and join with The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War for an action this month. From IVAW's announcement:IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21stAs 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: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.

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

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Mosul roadside bombing which left three people injured, a Balad Ruz roadside bombing that claimed the lives of 2 Iraqi soldiers and left three more wounded and a Khalis bicycle bombing that claimed 3 lives and left sixteen people injured.

Shootings?

Reuters notes 1 person shot dead in Mosul.

In Iraq, Kim Gamel (AP) reports the January 31st provincial elections remain a sore spot (and can be appealed through March 9th with seating of the winners to take place March 24th) as approximately two-thousand demonstrated against the results in Diyala Province today. Gamel reports they were Shi'ites and claim fraud in the voting whose results or 'results' gave 15 seats to Sunnis, 6 to Kurds, 5 to Shi'ites and 3 to an unnamed "secular party." Zaid Sabah and Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) call this demonstration "the first significant" one and note the demand "that the electoral commission be replaced, declaring that it was influenced by Sunni officials. Many Shiite voters in the province could not find their names on voter lists while large numbers of people displaced by violence could not return to their home areas to cast ballots, Shiite politicians have said."
Staying with Iraqi politics, let's drop back to the Jan. 12th snapshot:Willam Brockman Bankhead was the Speaker of the US House of Representatives for over four years. He died unexpectably of a heart attack on September 15, 1940. (For those unfamiliar with Bankhead, he was the father of Tallulah Bankhead.) The following day, Sam Rayburn became Speaker of the House. The following day. December 23rd, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani was forced out of the Speakership of the Iraqi Parliament. The week prior he had stated he was resigning. He attempted to take that back but a large number wanted him gone as Speaker and had wanted him gone for some time with repeated public efforts to oust him. Today's March 2nd. They've had over two months to find a new Speaker -- it was their decision to oust Mahmoud al-Mashhadni -- and they still haven't done their job. Friday afternoon, Gina Chon filed "Iraq Parliament Members Squabble Over Next Speaker" (Wall St. Journal's Baghdad Life) noting that Parliament still cannot pick a Speaker:Now lawmakers are waiting for the country's Supreme Court to rule on how many votes are needed to select the next speaker. About a week ago, 136 lawmakers of the 230 who were present chose the Iraqi Islamic Party nominee Ayad al-Sammaraie as the next speaker. But some argued that the rules say he needs an absolute majority of the 275-member parliament, which is 138 votes.The Iraqi Islamic Party, the largest Sunni political party, accuses Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his Shiite Islamic Dawa Party, of unfairly trying to block Mr. al-Sammaraie, who is seen as a strong personality who could challenge Mr. Maliki's agenda in parliament. Those who opposed the vote say they are just following the rules.In addition to fighting to become speaker of the parliament, Mr. al-Sammaraie also has the tough job of being head of the body's finance committee, which is currently studying ways to trim Iraq's $60 billion proposed national budget for 2009 by an additional 7 percent. Alarmed by falling oil prices, lawmakers say the current budget based on oil at $50 a barrel is unrealistic and further cuts are needed. There have already been three different versions of the budget submitted by the ministry of finance because of the falling oil prices.
In news of governmental leaks, Wikileaks posts a RAND study today. The November 2008 study is over 300 pages and [PDF format warning] entitled "Intelligence Operations and Metrics in Iraq and Afghanistan, Fourth in a Series of Joint Urban Operations and Counterinsurgency Studies" Russell W. Glenn and S. Jamie Gayton and it's noted, "The research described in this report was prepared for the United States Joint Forces Command. The research was conducted in the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Department of the Navy, the Marine Corps, the defense agencies, and the defense Intelligence Community under Contract W74V8H-06-C-0002." The American people paid for the study and they didn't even toss out "And by viewers like you."

The text of the actual report is 86 pages. Appendixes and bibliography take it to over 300 pages. From page two, we'll note this passage:

The many overlapping insurgent, terrorist, criminal, and other foes that together comprise the heterogeneous enemy in Iraq -- and an only somewhat less varied one in Afghanistan -- continue to feed on their damaged societies. What appear to be randmo bombings, kidnappings, and other atrocities sometimes constitute a well-conceived insurgent campaign of exhaustion.

We note the above on Iraq for two reasons. First, because the news media, most recently David Martin on Friday's CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, too often tries to 'short-hand' it to "al Qaeda." (Not even al Qaeda in Mesapotamia, just "al Qaeda.") Second because it leads in to this passage on pages 5 - 6:

Western Baghdad in September 2007 provides us a window on how some insurgents ply a strategy of exhaustion at the tactical level, one that challenges coalition leaders in both the intel and metrics realms. Shi'a militia groups, often one or another form of Jaish al Mahdi (JAM), would find a Sunni mosque within or near a mixed Shi'a and Sunni neighborhood. JAM forces would attack the mosque to draw fire from Sunni defenders, thereafter making an anonymous report of the shooting to nearby Iraqi Army (IA) forces in conjunction with a request for action to subdue the alleged Sunni instigators. Army forces (comprised priemarily of Shi'a personnel) would respond and declare the mosque troublesome. The imam would be removed and the mosque closed. Having eliminated a vital community resource for Sunni worshipers, JAM members further encourage local Sunnis to leave, often employing one or more of the following tactics:

* denying the neighborhood public services
* threatening individuals, e.g., putting a bullet in someone's mailbox with a note that the receiving family will be killed if it does not depart within 24 hours
* moving Shi'a families into homes abandoned by Sunnis
* establishing local Shi'a prayer sites.

Page 14 again makes clear that the military -- and military intelligence -- see the 'enemy' differently than the media repeatedly portrays it. Counterintelligence (war on a people) is "COIN" in the passage below:

Previous U.S. experiences with COIN operations demonstrate how difficult it is to obtain informaion on even a single insurgent threat. Consider the situation confronted in Southeast Asia in the 1960s and 1970s. In that case, a single, coherent entity dominated threat analysis from the macro perspective (though it might have several interacting components, e.g., the North Vietnamese Army and Vietcong, of VC). In Iraq, the number of insurgent organizations alone makes intel collection and analysis several orders of magnitude more problematic. Add criminal, terrorist, supposedly legitimate political, rogue military and police, or other threats and the task is yet further quantum levels more difficult.

Page 16 makes clear that COIN is war on the people with the following statements, "Checking for weapons might be the primary reason for soldiers or marines stopping vehicles at a traffic-control point (TCP). However, the location of TCPs should be influenced -- if not driven -- by a desire to collect information in situations that permit communication without exposing the talkers to insurgent retribution." Page 17 informs of "plans for the U.S. Army to increase the strength of its military-intel branch by more than 7,000 personnel by 2013" while page 18 repeats the 'need' for those in military intel to serve longer tours of duty because "Counterinsurgencies are marathons, not sprints. They are measured in years if not decades" (page 19). Then it's on to some whines (Orrin DeForest on why, oh why, couldn't they have had a "databank" during Vietnam), some 'comparisons' (cops in "Anytown, USA" have access to a database) to argue the 'need' for a database. First off, a police database is on individuals with warrants, etc. That's not really what's being proposed here and everyone grasps that, so let's not kid. Second of all, the ones using the database in "Anytown, USA" and the ones accessing it are people entrusted by the local population. If the police in "Anytown, USA" become an occupying force, there would be a huge backlash to their access to a database. Translation, your comparisons are faulty and illogical.

The study then moves on the ways in which intel sharing is 'harmed.' Such as little sharing across branches or across countries. For all the pages spent on this problem, they never notice the most obvious reason for 'need-to-know' blocking in any environment: a petty tyrant setting her or himself as an 'expert' who must be in control and in the loop at all times.

The report then worships CIA and Ford Foundation (they're the same thing) gadfly Richard Bissell. There's no time for the report to note that Bissell recruited organized crime to do a hit (Sam Giancana, Johnny Roselli, Santo Trafficante, Meyer Lansky and Carlos Marcello) and when that failed then planned the illegal Bay of Pigs invasion. They do have time to note Bissell being fueled by the Cold War and working on aeral spying of the USSR, the sort of thing that the report's authors feel is needed today with all those 'war on terror' types breathing all over the globe. In that regard, they note how successful they feel the Predator drones have been. The authors then develop further the notion that soldiers and marines are "sensors" and must be utilized as such.

We'll come back to the report in a moment but are jumping away at the soldiers and marines as "sensors" for a moment. Saturday, Steven Lee Myers "Soldiers in Iraq React Cautiously to Obama Deadlines for Troop Withdrawal" appeared in the New York Times. In that article, he spoke with various troops about Barack Obama's speech. At the paper's Baghdad Bureau Blog, Stephen Farrell revealed, "Finding an American on the streets of Baghdad is not as easy as it used to be. . . . You still see convoys on the main highways, of course. Raids and operations continue. But on the streets, on a day by day, hour by hour basis, there are far fewer Americans visible, and designedly so." The authors of the RAND report might need to counsel those they're advising that you don't do that, that once you begin spying on a people, you can't put it down and pick it up at will, you either keep it up or quickly lose ground.

Back to the report which yammers on about "metrics" at length and wants the military to leave the concrete for the metaphysical (lots of luck with that). At page 68, it gets interesting again when the authors decide to offer praise they can't back up. You have to wonder if anyone objected to the assertion at any point? Or if they figured that US tax payers can be bilked to pay for hokum? The authors write:

Commander's Emergency Response Program (CERP) funds provide money at lower tactical echelons that permit a unit to have an immediate impact in addressing community needs. They have generally been used well in both Afghanistan and Iraq, but their distribution has sometimes been less efective than desired. In some instances, an immediate win later brought notable drawbacks, as when generators purchased to assist those without power in turn created a diesel-fuel shortage. In other cases, the resulting product -- a well of refurbished community center -- can prove a temporary respite, since no one in the receiving community has knowledge of how to maintain the end result or parts needed for repair are available.

They can evaluate the CERP funds? Really? Well they may be called before Congress to do that because, thus far, Congress has been repeatedly stonewalled during testimony.
CERP was an issue during the September 10th House Armed Services Committee hearing (and see this entry by Mike). This is Committe Chair Ike Skelton's exchange with DoD's Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Eric S. Edelman:

Ike Skelton: The department's understanding of the allowed usage of CERP funds seems to have undergone a rather dramatic change since Congress first authorized it. The intent of the program was originally to meet urgent humanitarian needs in Iraq through small projects undertaken under the initative of brigade and battalion commanders. Am I correct?Edelman: Yes, sir.Ike Skelton: Thank you. The answer was "yes." Last year the Department of Defense has used millions of CERP dollars to build hotels for foreign visitors, spent $900,000 on a mural at the Baghdad International Airport and, as I understand this second piece of art, that CERP funds were used for. I'm not sure that the American tax payer would appreciate that knowing full well that Iraq has a lot of money in the bank from oil revenues and it is my understanding that Iraq has announced that they're going to build the world's largest ferris wheel. And if they have money to build the world's largest ferris wheel why are we funding murals and hotels with money that should be used by the local battallion commander. This falls in the purview of plans and policy ambassador.Edelman: No, no, it's absolutely right and I'll share the stage here -- I'll share the stage quite willing with uh, with Admiral Winnefeld with whom I've actually been involved in discussions with for some weeks about how we provide some additional guidance to the field and some additional requirements to make sure that CERP is appropriately spent.Edelman then tries to stall and Skelton cuts him off with, "Remember you're talking to the American taxpayer." Edelman then replies that it is a fair question. He says CERP is important because it's flexible. It's important because they're just throwing around, if you ask me. They're playing big spender on our dime.Skelton: The issue raises two serious questions of course. Number one is they have a lot of money of their own. And number two the choice of the type of projects that are being paid for. I would like to ask Mr. Secretary if our committee could receive a list of expenditures of $100,000 or more within the last year. Could you do that for us at your convience please?Edelman: We'll work with our colleagues in the controller's office and - and . . . to try and get you --Skelton: That would be very helpful.
How did two authors evaluate a program (in time for a report issued in November) that Congress couldn't even get answers on? The truth is they didn't evaluate the CERP program despite their 'judgment' in the report. And around the time you start thinking this report will never end, they start quoting Sun Tzu (page 78). 20 years ago, they'd still have been padding the report with a quote from Niccolo Machiavelli. And that really takes us up to Appendix A which we may go into tomorrow. The key point is that the authors want a CIA-type military. That won't happen. Not just because the military on the ground sticks to the concrete tasks and not the esoteric but also because an intelligence apparatus already exists: Military intelligence. One of the most abusive elements when it came to spying on American citizens during Vietnam and the element everyone's played dumb on this decade despite the fact that they have been caught -- not just implicated -- in press reports of the last seven years spying on US citizens (citizens who are not serving in the military) who are on US soil. The RAND study forgets that when two abusive agencies collide, the citizenry tends to benefit. May that always be the case.

iraqpbswashington weekgwen ifillmartha raddatzabc newsthe new york timesemily s. rubb
steven lee myers
the washington postzaib sabahsudarsan raghavangina chonthe wall st. journalmcclatchy newspaperschris hedges
kim gamel
usa today

Read on ...