Iraq: the people's report

United for Peace and Justice, the country's largest anti-war coalition, has produced an assessment of the situation on the ground in Iraq that contrasts sharply with the projected conclusions of  the  so-called Petraeus Report – actually written within the White House.  Leslie Cagan, National Coordinator of the group, which claims 1400 members, states:  " We feel it is essential to provide a true picture of what the shattered lives of the 25 million Iraqis look like today. Prepared by Phyllis Bennis and Erik Leaver, researchers at the Institute for Policy Studies, Iraq: The People's Report  takes a look at what this war has cost Iraqis and the U.S."

Iraq: The People's Report notes that:

• two million Iraqis have fled the war to seek hard-to-find refuge in neighboring countries, and an additional two million Iraqis have been forced by war-fueled violence to flee their homes and  remain displaced and homeless inside Iraq.

• most Iraqis have electricity for only about five hours a day, clean water remains scarce for most and unobtainable for many, and Iraq's oil production remains a fraction of what it was before war.

The military draft: a moral abomination

An article in Newsweek, "Why We Need a Draft: A Marine's Lament," stirred up a bit of a hornet's nest online recently. It was written by a marine who fought in Fallujah, Iraq, and actually gave a pretty compelling overview of the practical need for selective service.

I'm sure the marine was right - forcing you or other people to kill or be killed next to him would have been good in the battles he fought in. In fact, I don't doubt that a few million more soldiers would be quite beneficial to the military - and to the foreign policy ambitions of the US government.

On the other hand, many Americans also persuasively argue against the draft, saying it's unnecessary or ineffective in defending America or engaging in foreign interventions. These arguments might very well be sound, and have their place.

Arguments about military "needs" or "benefits" aside, it seems that there's always plenty of politicians who absolutely love the concept of mandatory service to the state. To these types, the government IS America, and loving one's country is serving the state.

CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS

Six years of 9/11 as a license to kill

It evokes a tragedy that marks an epoch. From the outset, the warfare state has exploited "9/11," a label at once too facile and too laden with historic weight -- giving further power to the tacit political axiom that perception is reality.

     Often it seems that media coverage is all about perception, especially when the underlying agendas are wired into huge profits and geopolitical leverage. If you associate a Big Mac or a Whopper with a happy meal or some other kind of great time, you’re more likely to buy it. If you connect 9/11 with a need for taking military action and curtailing civil liberties, you’re more likely to buy what the purveyors of war and authoritarian government have been selling for the past half-dozen years.

Wild weather creates chances for political progress

It's hard to keep up with the crazed weather. As I write, a heat wave has killed over 50 people in the Midwest and South, with temperatures reaching 112 degrees in Evening Shade, Arkansas. Torrential storms have flooded Ohio, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Missouri, Indiana, Iowa, and South Dakota. California has its second largest wildfire ever. Texas and Kansas are battening down for new storms, while still recovering from last month's floods, along with Oklahoma, which is now getting flooded again. A few weeks before, a massive rainstorm closed down the New York City subways. That doesn't count over 2,000 dead and millions displaced in India and Bangladesh floods, runaway forest fires in Greece, the hottest-ever temperature in Japan, or unprecedented melting of Arctic icecaps. Tomorrow the weather will ricochet off the charts someplace else.

Questions for General Petraeus

Are you here to communicate your own view, that of the White House, or both?

Please name all the people with whom you have had communications in preparing for this testimony.

What does the White House expect from your testimony?

Are you submitting a written report to this Congress?  Did you ever plan to do so?  What changed your mind?

Are you submitting a written report to the White House?  Why not?

Are you aware that the President is required by law to submit a written report on progress in Iraq to this Congress by September 15th?  Have you been or do you expect to be involved in the preparation of that report? 

Are you aware that it is a felony to intentionally mislead or defraud the Congress, for example in the manner the White House did in making its case for this war in 2003?

Do you feel completely free to speak openly and honestly with us here today?

What do you believe is the ultimate goal of the current occupation of Iraq? 

Do you believe that goal can ever be achieved?

How long would you estimate it would take?

9/11 status report

http://mattbors.com

The Cat in the Hat, elusive happy endings, and the [election] mess that is so big, and so deep, and so tall

I haven't been sleeping well lately. Every new revelation about the state of our elections puts me in a tailspin. The rush to vote on Rep. Holt's Bill (now unaffectionately known as Microsoft 811), and the degree to which both the public and our members of Congress don't adequately understand the issues and what's at stake, are very disturbing.

I can't even escape through reading. I picked up some interesting books from the library, among them a mystery that revolves around home improvements, and the latest novel by Michael Chabon. Ordinarily, they would have piqued my interest, but now, I couldn't get into either of them. I'm going to read A Margin of Error, Ballots of Straw by Lani Massey Brown, a computer expert who has been closely watching elections from her perch in Florida. Like Man of the Year her book talks about what could happen at election time with computers running the show. At least it's fiction, even if I haven't strayed very far from the topic I've become obsessed with.

Will the United States really bomb Iran?

"They're about taking out the entire Iranian military." This particular spine-chiller comes from Alexis Debat, excitingly identified as "director of terrorism and national security" at the Nixon Center. According to Debat, the big takeout is what the U.S. Air Force has in store, as opposed to mere "pinprick strikes" against the infamous nuclear facilities.

            Predicting imminent war on Iran has been one of the top two items in Cassandra's repertoire for a couple of years now, rivaled only by global warming as a sure-fire way to sell newspapers and boost website hits.

            Debat was re-roasting that well-scorched chestnut, the "Shock and Awe" strategy, whereby -- back in March of 2003 -- the U.S. Air Force proposed to reduce Iraq's entire military to smoldering ruins. In the event, "Shock and Awe" was a resounding failure, like all such pledges by Air Force commanders to destroy the enemy's military since the birth of aerial bombardments nearly a century ago. Such failures have never stopped the U.S. Air Force from trying once again, and there are no doubt vivid attack plans now circulating the government.

Scene of the crime

WASHINGTON -- New Orleans was the destination for the high winds that two years ago struck a great American city. But the true path of destruction began in our nation's capital.

            The levees broke in the Big Easy after Hurricane Katrina. But here is where the trust was broken.

            Americans were not accustomed to watching their government do nothing but watch and whistle while fellow citizens worked to save themselves. Despite warnings about hurricane strength, earlier press reports about levees compromised by Army Corps decisions and academic predictions of a major disaster, the Bush administration did not respond with haste.

            Its claims of never having imagined any of this were among the great lies told at the time.

            It was fully complicit, starting with its decision to dispatch a bureaucrat who knew more about horses than responding to federal emergencies and disasters.

Join the Energy saving [r]evolution - first 7 steps

We need to kick start an energy [r]evolution! By burning fossil fuels for energy, we're altering our atmosphere - causing climate change. To reverse it, we'll need to stop burning so much coal and oil. Renewable energy like wind and solar power is part of the answer, but the fastest (and most cost effective) way to reduce our global warming pollution is simply use less energy.

What's so revolutionary about that?

Sure, energy efficiency is only common sense. But the idea that with smarter technology we can have growing economies while using less and less energy is new and bold. It's the sort of thing that might even happen without us if we had the time to wait. But we don't. The effects of climate change are already starting to pile up, construction begins on new power plants literally every week and billions of energy wasting lightbulbs are still sold every year.

Consider this: A simple switch to energy saving bulbs in the EU alone, would save 20 million tonnes of CO2, equal to shutting down 25 medium-size dirty power plants; and this is before we consider the efficiency of other household products, or even cars!

Pages

Subscribe to Freepress.org RSS