Saturday, March 29, 2008

THIS JUST IN! LEAHY TRIES TO EXPLAIN!

 
ON THE HEELS OF HIS CRY FOR HILLARY CLINTON TO DROP OUT OF THE DEMOCRATIC RACE FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION, THESE REPORTERS CAUGHT UP WITH SENATOR "PADDY" LEAHY TO GET HIS THOUGHTS ON THE MATTER.
 
"WELL, I JUST THINK THERE'S NO ONE BETTER TO BE PRESIDENT THAN BAMBI OBAMA," LEAHY EXPLAINED. 
 
BECAUSE OF HIS RECORD, THESE REPORTERS ASKED CAUSING LEAHY TO BURST OUT LAUGHING.  AFTER THE OLD MAN GOT HIS BREATH BACK, HE SIGHED.
 
"WHEN I WAS A TEENAGER, I COULDN'T SUPPORT THOSE UPPITY NEGROES, YOU KNOW LIKE JOHNNY MATHIS.  ALWAYS IN YOUR FACE WITH THEIR BLACK SKIN.  BUT THEN ONE DAY, I SAW MICK JAGGER AND REALIZED SOME BLACK PEOPLE ARE OKAY."
 
WHEN THESE REPORTERS POINTED OUT THAT MICK JAGGER WAS A WHITE MAN LEAHY'S MOUTH DROPPED.
 
"WITH THOSE LIPS?" HE ASKED IN DISBELIEF.
 
"WELL, ALL I KNOW IS," LEAHY SAID, "AMERICA HAS WRONGED THE NEGRO MAN AND WE OWE IT TO THE NEGRO MAN TO MAKE HIM PRESIDENT.  IS HE QUALIFIED?  NO.  BUT, TO BE HONEST, I REALLY DON'T CARE FOR THE NEGROES AND IF WE DON'T GET OBAMA INTO THE WHITE HOUSE, NEXT THING YOU KNOW, WE GOT A SECOND NEGRO IN THE SENATE, THEN A THIRD.  I SEE PUTTING OBAMA IN THE WHITE HOUSE AS KIND OF LIKE BUSSING.  GET HIM OUT OF HERE!"
 
LEAHY STOPPED LAUGHING WHEN HE NOTICED THE SHOCK EXPRESSIONS ON THESE REPORTERS' FACES.
 
 
Moving quickly.  War resisters in Canada are attempting to seek asylum.  They need support as a measure is expected to be debated next month.  For those in Canada, the nation's Parliament remains the best hope for safe harbor war resisters have, you can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum. 

Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).  
 
The assault on Basra continues.  CBS and AP report that, added to the mix, "U.S. warplanes bombed sites in the southern Iraqi city of Basra overnight, targeting Shiite militia members".  Robin Stringer and Camilla Hall (Bloomberg News) cite UK Maj Tom Holloway stating that the US bombed "positively identified militia targets".   Of course they did. And, no doubt, Basra being an inhabited city, they also cleared out all civilian populations as well, right?  (No.)   US planes aren't the only ones dropping bombs.  Damien McElroy (Telegraph of London) reported this morning, "British warplanes have carried out bomb attacks on Shi'ite militia positions in Basra, directly entering the fray for the first time since the Iraqi army began the crackdown in the southern city."  Meanwhile Sudarsan Raghavan and Sholnn Freeman (Washington Post) report, "U.S. forces in armored vehicles battled Mahdi Army fighters Thursday in the vast Shiite stronghold of Sadr City, and military officials said Friday that U.S. aircraft bombed militant positions in the southern city of Basra, as the American role in a campaign against party-backed militias appeared to expand."  Appeared to expand?
 
Tuesday, the word was that the British were sitting it out.  And from the start we've heard of 'Commander' Nouri, rushing to Basra, to oversee the battle.  A decisive battle, we were told.  CNN gushed, "Al-Maliki is said to be personally overseeing efforts to restore order in Basra". That was Tuesday.  By Wednesday (when it was obviously a failed effort) the Pentagon was hoping to grab some bragging rights but it was still "It's All Nouri!" -- and meant it in a positive manner.  By Thursday, displeasure wasn't being murmured, it was being stated clearly and on the record such as when  Sudarsan Raghavan and Sholnn Freeman (Washington Post) reported that "independent Kurdish legislator" Mahmoud Othman was quoted declaring, "Everybody is asking, 'Why now?' . . . . People have ill-advised Maliki.  The militias like the timing.  Iran likes the timing.  They want to show there's no progress in Iraq."  It was falling apart before the assault was ever launched. But as late as Thursday, that still wasn't grasped as evidenced by James Glanz (New York Times) reporting how "American officials have presented the Iraqi Army's attempts to secure the port city as an example of its ability to carry out a major operation against the insurgency on its own.  A failure there would be a serious embarrassment for the Iraqi government and for the army, as well as for American forces eager to demonstrate that the Iraqi units they have trained can fight effectively on their own." 
 
Today, Bully Boy declared at the White House that "any government that presumes to represent the majority of people must confront criminal elements or people who think they can live outside the law. And that's what's taking place in Basra and in other parts of Iraq. I would say this is a defining moment in the history of a free Iraq. There have been other defining moments up to now, but this is a defining moment, as well. The decision to move troops -- Iraqi troops into Basra talks about Prime Minister Maliki's leadership."  As usual, it would appear someone left Bully Boy out of the loop.  "Criminal elements" echoes Nouri's statements throughout the week but let's note that if you're going to tackle alleged criminal elements, you give the Parliament a heads up.  This is a turf war.   Wednesday on NPR's The Diane Rehm Show featured McClatchy Newspapers' Leila Fadel.
 
 
Leila Fadel: Well Basra has been spiraling out of control for months now, the British military pulled out late last year basically handing it over to Shia militias in a city that are battling for power.  Maliki, the prime minister here, finally declared a security operation on Monday night and the battle has been fierce mainly between Iraqi government forces and the Mehdi Army which is loyal to the Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.  Basra is a strong-hold for the Mehdi Army and the Sadrists are saying this is a battle against them to consolidate power  for their Shia rivals, the Supreme Council here in Iraq. 
 
The latter would be the party that provides Nouri with his largest support these days after his own Da'wa party.  Provincial elections are supposed to be held at year's end and this is seen as one of the primary reasons for the assault on Basra.  Another reason was that US Gen David Petraeus and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker are due to put on another show for Congress next month and Petraeus has actually grumbled publicly about al-Maliki.  As have many Democrats and Republicans serving in the US Congress.  If the puppet is fingered as one of the failures, how does that look for those pulling his strings?  So this was a rock 'em, sock 'em p.r. bonanza.  If you were an idiot.
 
Moqtada al-Sadr's power was at the weakest.  He'd declared the cease-fire/truce with US and occupation forces in August of 2007.  The truce was very unpopular in the Sadr City section of Bahgdad where al-Sadr's supporters were.  al-Sadr wasn't there.  al-Sadr was assumed to be in Najaf.  So when Sadrists felt they were being openly targeted.  Then came February when al-Sadr (still not home) declded to renwer the cease-fire/truce.  Objections were strong before the truce was renewed and just the act of renewing it led "loyalists" to criticize al-Sar openly and to the press.  al-Sadr's influence was diminishing.  When a people feel attacked and their designated leader isn't with them, questions will naturally emerge and they were starting to.  And possibly those in the US government who've long plotted the 'departure' of al-Sadr felt, "This is the perfect moment!"  No, it wasn't.  And whomever okayed the operation immediatly up to Bully Boy miscalculated (Bully Boy always miscalculates) because when someone you see as an enemy is naturally weakening themselves through their own actions, you do not 'assist' them by lifting them to a higher stature.  That's what the assault on Basra did. 
 
Maybe the hope was al-Sadr would stay silent.  He didn't.  He called it out.  Who's winning hearts & minds in Iraq?  Moqtada al-Sadr because, across Iraq, Iraqis saw only one person stand up to the occupation.  Iraqis has seen Falluja slaughtered (twice), has seen their neighborhoods physically carved up with "Bremer" walls, they've seen that, five years after their country was invaded, not only are occupation forces still present (in direct opposition to the wishes of the Iraqi people) but Baghdad is pretty much off limits to most Iraqis.  Who stood up?  Moqtada al-Sadr. 
 
Nouri al-Maliki painted himself into the corner as did the US.  Wednesday on  The Diane Rehm Show al-Maliki's ultimatums were noted.
 
Leila Fadel: Well Prime Minister Maliki is saying that he wants every weapon in the hands of the government.  He wants all weapon smugglers, this is a very important city, 90% of Iraq's oil comes from there, it's a border town.  It has the main port of Iraq there.  And a lot of the weapon smuggling, oil smuggling happens there.  And so the main families that deal with oil smuggling, weapon smuggling have been targeted in Basra.  He has given what he calls outlaws 72 hours to surrender while the battle continues it seems that the main targets and the people fighting back are the Medhi army and the Sadrists are saying that they are the targets, the sole targets, of this operation.
 
al-Maliki was in no position to give ultimatums.  But it was 'strong,' it was 'bravery' -- or that's how it was supposed to play.  Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) cited al-Maliki calling al-Sadr loyalists "criminal gangs".  Leila Fadel (McClatchy) quoted Nouri insisting, "The government does not negotiate with a gang; the government does not sign understanding memorandums with outlaws."  Big tough Nouri?  Italy's AGI reports that Nouri al-Maliki, puppet of the occupation, has now extended his 'deadline' (April 8th now and not Saturday) and Al Jazeera notes that he declared, "All those who have heavy and intermediate weapons are to deliver them to security sites and they will be rewarded financially."  al-Maliki's reputation was on the line, as James Glanz noted, and the US government knew for sure that their puppet was going to be able to pull this off but only because they've deluded themselves into believing that Iraqis see Nouri as a legitimate ruler.  They dodn't.  Protests started the minute the assault on Basra began.  When Moqtada al-Sadr spoke out, the protests only got heavier -- across Iraq.  Moqtada al-Sadr called for a political solution and Nouri al-Maliki insisted he doesn't deal with 'outlaws' (which would mean he ignores his own ministries).  Today in Iraq, al-Sadr's not only the one who stood up to the occupying powers (a big thing in and of itself), he's the one who did so and got concessions. 
 
China's Xinhua noted the "extraordinary session" in the Iraq Parliament that Speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani called today and the press conference announcing it where he was joined by Ibrahim al-Jaafari (Iraq's previous prime minister) and others.  AP reports that 78 members of Parliament were present and that the committee met for "about two hours" on the issue of Basra.  Missing the point, as usual, at the White House Bully Boy was still issuing talking points, calling the assault "a test and a moment for the Iraqi government". If it was a test for Bully Boy he failed as he fell back on all his tired answers ("democracy" and mothers wanting their children to go to school are especially overused).  Standing next to him was Australia's Prime Minister Kevin Rudd who avoided all questions on Iraq and only addressed that nation in his opening remarks where he mentioned "an assistance package of some $165 million" of which "a large slice" is planned to "train their people better in agriculture and in the wider economy."  Train "their people better" in farming?  Is Rudd unaware that Iraq was considered one of the breadbaskets of the MidEast?
 
Let's stay with Bully Boy and mistakes. Not last Monday, but the Monday before (March 17th), Michael R. Gordon presented the usual unsourced junk his infamous for.  But because it was pleasing, many picked up on it.  Amy Goodman pimped it but, apparently grasping even her declining audience wouldn't accept a report from Gordo, just credited it to the New York Times.  We didn't link to it the morning of the 17th, we're not going to link to it now.  We noted the morning of the 17th, "At the New York Times Gordo's raving about his insider interviews and access. No link to trash. The thrust is that L. Paul Bremer issued a decree that disbanded the Iraqi military (true) and that this was something Bremer came up with on his own. Collie Powell declares that he was out of the country and called Condi Rice about it to object and Rice explained that it had already been done. The big villian of the piece is Bremer and Bully Boy is painted as someone who was apparently in a daze. (Maybe he was thinking of My Pet Goat?) How true is it? Who knows? It's Gordo and the ship is sinking so the rats are bailing.  If Powell knew it was a mistake (as he insists to Gordo), then Colin Powell should have something in real time -- even as an anomyous source. That's the least he should have done. Anyone with real courage would have stepped down and gone public. Again, the ship is sinking and since Bully Boy won't be working anywhere, they'll finger him as out of it (which is believable) and make Bremer the fall guy. While Bremer wins nothing but boos and hisses here, it is equally true that anyone -- not just Bully Boy -- could have objected. (That includes but is not limited to Rice.)"  It wasn't news.  The tip-off should have been the byline if not the whisper nature of the story.  But the paper then had to offer an editorial 'loosely based' on Gordo's 'reporting' entitled "Mission Still Not Accomplished" and Paul Bremer responded to the apportioning of blame Monday March 24th in a letter to the editor (A24).  Bremer's claiming that there was no military to disband and we're not in the mood for that nonsense but we will note some of his comments just because the disaster that is the illegal war has many parents and none should be left off the hook:
 
I take strong exception to your assertion that I "overrode" President Bush's national security team on disbanding the Iraqi Army.  Whatever one's view on the issue, there should be no confusion about the process leading to this decision.  President Bush's instructions to me were to report to him through Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.  I did. 
[. . .]
On May 9, two weeks before the decision was made, I sent a draft order based on these discussions to Mr. Rumsfeld, copied to Gen. Tommy Franks, head of the Central Command, and other senior defense officials.  A copy went to Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and to the commander of the coalition forces in Iraq.  
All had ample opportunity to comment on this and subsequent drafts of the order before it was issued on May 23.  Defense Department civilian leaders and military staffs provided only minor suggested revisions.  
On May 22, I briefed the president at a National Security Council meeting attended by Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser; Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage; Secretary Rumsfeld; and General Myers.  No one raised concerns or objections. 
Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state, says he was unaware of the plan; that is regrettable.  But this suggests a problem with the interagency process in Washington.  
General Myers told The New York Times (front page, March 17) that there had been no "robust debate" about the draft decree.  If any top officials felt strongly at the time that the decision was misguided, as some of them now claim, they had every opportunity, and the responsibility, to make those concerns known to the Pentagon's leadership, or directly to the commander in chief.
 
Paul Bremer is correct that anyone wanting to claim they were out of the loop needs a better excuse.  If Colin Powell wants to claim he was out of the loop, that's an issue with his then Deputy Secretary.  Bremer is also correct that those opposed (none were) "had every opportunity, and the responsibility" to speak out.  They chose not to.  Now, as resume shock sets in and they realize what they own, it was very cowardly to try to add their blame to Bremer.  Bremer's not innocent and bears responsiblity for his actions.  But when you want to whisper and shove your blame off on someone else -- and you're in power -- you rush straight to Michael Gordon.  And it's a sure sign of how pathetic Panhandle Media is that they merely stripped Gordo's name from it as they rushed to repeat it.  Over and over.  I'm unaware of anyone noting Bremer's reply which ran Monday and I waited until Friday to see if any would bother with "in an update to . . ." but none did.
 
 
""

Like movies? Here's a limited-time offer: Blockbuster Total Access for one month at no cost.
Posted by at