Not All Victims Are Innocent

The two people in the graphic are both victims of the war in Iraq started by America and her allies. Both are human tragedies. The child in al-Kindi hospital was wounded by mortar fire. The man to the left is Paul Reuben who worked for a "private security firm." There is however a very important difference. Reuben apparently was a nice guy who was in Iraq to make a bit of money and buy a house. His death is tragic. There have been very sad photographs published of his grieving family. It's impossible to be unmoved by the pain and grief they're now experiencing. But there's problem. And the problem is this. One of these people is an innocent victim of America and her allies war against the Iraqi people. That's the child. The other, Mr. Reuben was anything but innocent. "Security contractor" is a nice way of saying "mercenary." He decided to go to Iraq to make money and he was perfectly prepared to kill to do so. On an individual level his death is tragic. But he had no right to be there. He decided to be a hired killer. His action meant that he was directly supporting the corrupt illegal and racist war and occupation that has caused the death of countless innocent civilians. In his small "entry level" way he decided to profit from the misery and bloodshed in Iraq. His decision was as evil and immoral as the decisions of the war profiteers sitting in comfort in the USA and raking in their almost completely tax free millions. The only differences are those of scale and that he lost his gamble. He should have stayed at home. markfromireland

Of Course He Was A Muslim So That Makes It All Right

Academic freedom and freedom of expression as practised by UCLA police: I wonder how they knew he was a Muslim. Brown skin and uppity perhaps. Hat tip to Steve Gilliard's News Blog. I suggest you read the comments as well. America's Finest. Raping 14 year old children in Iraq and tasing Muslim students in America. You! You there in the back. What's the common denominator? Yup, brown Muslim, therefore fair prey. Got it in one. Well done. Go to the top of the class. markfromireland

Al Jazeera English Launches

Before I turn in for the night Al Jazeera launched their English news channel today. Their subscription page is here. No US cable or satellite providers are carrying it but Market watch have information here on how to subscribe to their on-line broadcasts. A bit of googling and hunting around on you tube turned up this: G'night folks :-) markfromireland PS: The now largely defunct al Jazeera staff blog is here

Sometimes The Man Just Excels Himself

Click the graphic to see full size. I'm not sure if I'll be able to post anything further today. I'm too busy wiping the tears of laughter from my eyes. markfromireland

Mother of All Defeats

Commentary No. 197, Nov. 15, 2006 "Mother of All Defeats" George W. Bush is a high-stakes gambler. When high-stakes gamblers lose, they lose big. George W. Bush has lost big - in Iraq and in the United States. When the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, it seemed that, despite overwhelming military power, the United States might even lose the war. It didn't take too long to see that the United States actually was losing the war. By now, it is obvious that the United States has lost the war, irremediably. The U.S. objective in Iraq was to put in power a stable, friendly government, and one that would allow U.S. military bases. It is clear now that if it is stable, it won't be friendly. And if it is friendly, it won't be stable. On November 7, the Republican Party lost the midterm elections. As Bush himself said, in all the close races, the margin was very slight, but overall it was a "thumping." The degree of thumping is underlined by the fact that, after the elections, Bush's poll ratings went down still further. Reason number one was the fact that most Americans felt that the war was going badly in Iraq and they wanted to get the military home. Even in districts where the Democratic candidate did not make this an issue, it played in the background. There were other reasons to be sure. Many centrist voters voted against the Christian right, and having some Democratic candidates who took a more centrist position on the "social" issues didn't hurt. The question is what is going to happen now. Bush is not, and has never been, an ideologue. He is a pragmatic rightwing politician, who does what he thinks necessary to win elections. He has been pretty good at this, and he is aware of the mistakes he has made in recent years - not in geopolitics (where he basically understands nothing and cares about very little), but in U.S. politics, where he has gotten a "thumping." He is adjusting. He has fired Rumsfeld, will back seat Cheney, and (no doubt following Karl Rove's advice) has called for help from the old "realist" wing of the Republican party - his father, James Baker, and the incoming Defense Secretary, Robert Gates. He is hoping to co-opt the Democratic leadership into his revived bipartisan veneer. Can he do this? Specifically, what can he do about Iraq? And what can he do about the Democratic thrust forward? The short answer on Iraq is that it is hard to see any way he can extricate himself and the United States elegantly from the Iraq fiasco. The Baker-Hamilton commission will soon let us know what "new directions" they see, but I doubt that they can come up with anything that can work. Some people talk about dividing Iraq into three parts. This is a non-starter. Neither Turkey nor Iran can tolerate an independent Kurdistan, and the Kurds will be far better off in their present de facto autonomy than in fighting a war with neighbors. The majority of the Shia do not want a separate state. For one thing, why have Shia-stan when they can more or less dominate a united Iraq? And in any case, what would happen to Baghdad? And of course, the Sunni are dead opposed. So of course are all Iraq's neighbors, without exception. And as we have seen in Yugoslavia, separate states do not end ethnic conflict; they actually enhance it. Basically, there are only two ways the United States can withdraw from Iraq with minimal further loss of life and minimal political damage. They can ask Iran to be their intermediary to dampen internal conflict in Iraq, which might work. Or, alternatively, the al-Sadr faction of the Shia and the Sunni resistance can join forces on an anti-American platform and ask the United States politely to leave immediately (that is, kick the United States out), which also might work. Neither alternative is the least bit palatable to Bush or to the U.S. Congress. But these two alternatives represent probably the best deal the United States can get at this stage. Any other road almost surely leads to an ending in which helicopters ferry people out of the Green Zone to Kuwait. The one thing that is sure is that there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq as we approach the 2008 elections. The voters and the military made that clear in the 2006 election. Of course there will be a massive blame game - among Republicans as to who lost the 2006 elections, and between Democrats and Republicans as to who lost Iraq. But the word on everyone's mind is "lost." We can also be sure that bombing either North Korea or Iran is off the real agenda (including for Israel). The U.S. armed forces and the U.S. electorate will not tolerate it (not to speak of the rest of the world). Where will this leave the United States as a world power? It will probably result in a big push towards drawing inward. Already, in the 2006 elections, many candidates won by opposing "free trade" and Iraq was a dirty word. The political temptation will be to go local in emphasis. One of the major side effects will be a notable reduction in U.S. support for Israeli foreign policy, which will be wrenching for Israel. The Democrats are united on internal economic legislation - higher minimum wages, better and more affordable health care, financial aid to college students. They are also going to push ecology issues and medical advances (stem cell research, for example). If the Republicans hope to recuperate strength, they will have to move their economic program as well as their program on social issues somewhat in a centrist direction. The result, as is already obvious, is to create major turmoil in the Republican party, while reducing it in the Democratic party - the exact opposite of what has been the case in the last decade. And in early 2009, George W. Bush will fade into the wilderness, remembered (if we bother) for being the front man for the mother of all defeats - in Iraq, in the world-system, and at home for the Republican party. by Immanuel Wallerstein markfromireland

The American Militiary Had No Immediate Comment

His father's name was Salim Falih. He was killed yesterday in the American assault on al-Shula. That's in Baghdad it's not particularly prosperous 'though it's nowhere near as poverty stricken as Sadr city which it abuts. As usual the Americans "escalated" force the moment there was the slightest resistance. As usual the Americans called in air strikes. As usual it is a war crime do that. Not that that is ever a consideration for the American forces who have committed one war crime after another in Iraq. This particular war crime was relatively small scale by American standards in Iraq. The green zone "government" police put the dead from the American assault upon a civilian residential area at 5. Residents put the total at 9. I know who I believe and its not the "police." Forunately I don't have to worry about what some American occupation spokesperson has to say. Because, also as usual, they have "no immediate comment to make." It'll just be the usual pack of lies when they do get around to commenting. The excuse for last night's assault on civilians was that it was a "raid" against followers of the "radical" Muqtada al-Sadr. There's nothing particularly radical about al-Sadr's theology it's relatively mainstream towards the stricter end of the spectrum, true, but relatively mainstream. What's radical is that so far he's refused to be co-opted. That's what AP mean when they use terms such a "radical" about any Iraqi in particular about any Iraqi clergyman or politician. What they mean is "not an Uncle Tom." So what's in this now fatherless child's future? That's easy. Poverty and humiliation are his future. He's going to depend for his food, clothing, and education, upon the very people who the Americans tried to kill last night. He'll grow up with a searing hatred of the country that killed his father and made his life a misery. Maybe he will want revenge. I hope not. But it's likely. It is more than probable that you're looking at a future radical - made in the USA. Mission accomplished. markfromireland

Is Blair A Neo-Con About Political Money Too?

Has "New Labour" under Yankee Poodle Tony emulated his master's best buddy's the toxic texan's Republican Party less than ethical approach to slush funds political cash? There's this from the UK Independent today all empahases added by me: Cash for honours: Labour hid millions from auditors Exclusive: Scotland Yard investigates failure to disclose £12m of loans as pressure mounts on Tony Blair By Marie Woolf and Francis Elliott Published: 12 November 2006 The Labour Party concealed from its own auditors the receipt of millions of pounds in loans from businessmen nominated by Tony Blair for Labour peerages, The Independent on Sunday can reveal. Scotland Yard has now broadened its inquiry to consider allegations that the party produced a false balance sheet and broke the law by failing to disclose £12m-worth of loans in audited annual figures published last year. The widening of the investigation to look at accounting irregularities will significantly increase the pressure on Mr Blair, who is now considered by the police as the pivotal figure in the inquiry. The police are looking into allegations that Labour was guilty of the "systematic concealment of liabilities" in its financial accounts, according to sources involved in the investigation. Senior Labour Party figures have told The Independent on Sunday that the party did not inform its own auditors that it had received the loans until the spring of 2006 - a year after the money arrived in the party's coffers. The auditors signed off the party's 2004 accounts in June 2005, not knowing that Labour had accumulated £12m in loans the month before. The police are also closely examining Mr Blair's role in the honours process and what he told his chief fundraiser, Lord Levy, and its National Executive Committee about the loans. Mr Blair, who nominated the donors for peerages, could also face accusations of misleading the National Executive Committee, the party's governing body which is responsible for checking that Labour's financial system is secure and accurate. The Scotland Yard team, led by Assistant Commissioner John Yates, is expected to interview Mr Blair in the next few weeks, with questions about the accounts. The police have received information that the party produced a false balance sheet by failing to mention the loans in its 2004 accounts. They are considering whether there was a breach of the terms of the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which includes an offence of concealment or disguise. [snip]. According to usual accountancy practice, loans worth millions of pounds should have been disclosed in Labour's 2004 accounts as a "material post-balance sheet event" because they had such a large bearing on the party's finances - even though they were received later than the end of the year. In the 2005 accounts, Labour did include a "post- balance sheet event". The party said it had received a £2m loan from Richard Caring, who runs the Ivy restaurant, one of London's favourite celebrity haunts. He gave Labour a loan in March 2006 and the loan was included in the party's 2005 accounts - even though it was received in 2006. The police will be considering whether the party deliberately concealed the £12m loans from the accounting firm Horwath Clark Whitehill in order to keep them out of the books. The firm gave the party a clean bill of health when it audited the accounts. [snip] Meanwhile, cabinet ministers have turned up the heat on Mr Blair by telling detectives they cannot explain why he nominated secret donors for peerages. They believe "the net is closing in" on Mr Blair after Mr Yates wrote to every member of the Cabinet last week. His letter, seen by The Independent on Sunday, listed 13 wealthy businessmen who made secret loans to Labour. Each senior minister was asked whether they had nominated any of the individuals for an honour or knew of any reason why they should receive one. The letter then asked whether they were aware that the individuals had provided financial help to Labour. But in their replies, most of Mr Blair's most senior ministers have made clear they cannot explain why any had been put forward for an honour. One minister described Mr Yates's letter as a "fishing expedition", but also said that it was clear evidence that the net was now closing in on the PM. Tony Blair Charge The Prime Minister personally nominated to the House of Lords millionaires who had secretly lent Labour money. Mr Blair is one of the few figures in the party who knew about the loans. He is being accused of awarding "peerages for cash". Outcome Police are expected to ask to question him under caution in the coming weeks. Patricia Hewitt Charge Sir Gulam Noon donated £2,500 to her constituency party. Her office is believed to have helped secure a knighthood for the Labour lender when she was Trade and Industry Secretary. Ms Hewitt registered his donation,calling him "a personal friend". Outcome The police have asked to interview her. Ian McCartney Charge The former Labour Party chairman knew the party was receiving loans, but he insists he never knew the identity of the lenders. The minister signed forms certifying the nominations of several major donors in his hospital bed, but was unaware they had also lent the party cash. Outcome He has already spoken to the police. Alan Milburn Charge A close ally of the Prime Minister, he played a key role in planning Labour's general election campaign. He revealed he had been told during the campaign that the party had plenty of cash in loans to fight the Tories. Outcome He is one of a few former ministers questioned by detectives, but was not interviewed under caution. Jonathan Powell Charge As Tony Blair's chief of staff, he would have been closely informed of the honours process. The Prime Minister's long-standing senior aide and confidant is likely to have known that several Labour donors were to be honoured. Outcome Powell has already talked to the police and is expected to be recalled for a more formal interview. markfromireland