10/30/2011
By Glenn Greenwald.
From a CNN report on why the Iraqi Government rejected the Obama administration’s conditions for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the 2011 deadline:
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other top brass have repeatedly said any deal to keep U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the withdrawal deadline would require a guarantee of legal protection for American soldiers.
But the Iraqis refused to agree to that, opening up the prospect of Americans being tried in Iraqi courts and subjected to Iraqi punishment.
The negotiations were strained following WikiLeaks’ release of a diplomatic cable that alleged Iraqi civilians, including children, were killed in a 2006 raid by American troopsrather than in an airstrike as the U.S. military initially reported.
That description from CNN of the cable’s contents is, unsurprisingly, diluted to the point of obfuscation. That cable was released by WikiLeaks in May, 2011, and, as McClatchy put it at the time, “provides evidence that U.S. troops executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians, including a woman in her 70s and a 5-month-old infant, then called in an airstrike to destroy the evidence, during a controversial 2006 incident in the central Iraqi town of Ishaqi.” The U.S. then lied and claimed the civilians were killed by the airstrike. Although this incident had been previously documented by the U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the high-profile release of the cable by WikiLeaks generated substantial attention (and disgust) in Iraq, which made it politically unpalatable for the Iraqi government to grant the legal immunity the Obama adminstration was seeking. Indeed, it was widely reported at the time the cable was released that it made it much more difficult for Iraq to allow U.S. troops to remain beyond the deadline under any conditions.
In other words, whoever leaked that cable cast light on a heinous American war crime and, by doing so, likely played some significant role in thwarting an agreement between the Obama and Maliki governments to keep U.S. troops in Iraq and thus helped end this stage of the Iraq war (h/t Trevor Timm). Moreover, whoever leaked these cables — as even virulent WikiLeaks critic Bill Keller repeatedly acknowledged — likely played some significant in helping spark the Arab Spring protests by documenting just how deeply corrupt those U.S.-supported kleptocrats were. And in general, whoever leaked those cables has done more to publicize the corrupt, illegal and deceitful acts of the world’s most powerful factions — and to educate the world about how they behave — than all “watchdog” media outlets combined (indeed, the amount of news reports on a wide array of topics featuring WikiLeaks cables as the primary source is staggering). In sum, whoever leaked those cables is responsible for one of the most consequential, beneficial and noble acts of this generation.
And yet (or more accurately: therefore) the person accused of accomplishing all of this, Bradley Manning, has been imprisoned for more than a year without trial, and, if convicted, is almost certain to remain in prison for many more years (with the possibility, albeit unlikely, of death, and as the Obama administration continues to block an unmonitored visit by the U.N. official investigating what had been the inhumane conditions of his detention). If one believes the authenticity of the chat logs produced byWired, Manning’s goal in leaking those cables — “hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms . . . i want people to see the truth… regardless of who they are… because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public” – have been fulfilled beyond what must have been his wildest dreams. Assuming the truth of those chat logs, he was motivated precisely by seeing cables of the sort that detailed this civilian slaughter and subsequent cover-up in Iraq, and the extreme levels of theft and oppression by Arab dictators, and the desire to have the world know about it. Meanwhile, those responsible for the Iraq War, and who suppressed freedom and democracy in the Middle East by propping up those tyrants, and who committed a slew of other illegal and deeply corrupt acts, continue to prosper and wield substantial power.
History is filled with examples of those who most bravely challenged and subverted corrupted power and who sought reforms being rewarded with prison or worse, at the hands of those whose bad actions they exposed. If Bradley Manning did leak these cables, his imprisonment is a prime example of that inverted justice.
Posted by TONY on 30.10.11
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est US troops in Iraq. Afficher tous les articles
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est US troops in Iraq. Afficher tous les articles
lundi 31 octobre 2011
samedi 22 octobre 2011
‘US did far more damage than good in Iraq’
Followed by a comment from MALCOM LAGAUCHE
‘US did far more damage than good in Iraq’
The Iraqi government wanted more troops to stay and help provide security. This however does not represent the interests of the Iraqi people, says Bennis.
“The parliament of Iraq, which is far more representative, has made it clear they do not need any US troops left in Iraq. The government of PM Malaki, which is afraid they “may fall” without the backing of US troops, has warned the troops to stay, as did the Obama administration,” she maintained. “They both are stuck with anti-war populations that want the war to end. For Malaki the issue was he could not get away with providing immunity to the US troops in the case of war crimes. For Obama, he could not get the Iraqis to say ‘Yes. We will give you immunity in the case of war crimes.’ Without immunity they were not prepared to stay because the Pentagon knows that their troops commit too many war crimes in these situations,”
‘US did far more damage than good in Iraq’
The Iraqi government wanted more troops to stay and help provide security. This however does not represent the interests of the Iraqi people, says Bennis.
“The parliament of Iraq, which is far more representative, has made it clear they do not need any US troops left in Iraq. The government of PM Malaki, which is afraid they “may fall” without the backing of US troops, has warned the troops to stay, as did the Obama administration,” she maintained. “They both are stuck with anti-war populations that want the war to end. For Malaki the issue was he could not get away with providing immunity to the US troops in the case of war crimes. For Obama, he could not get the Iraqis to say ‘Yes. We will give you immunity in the case of war crimes.’ Without immunity they were not prepared to stay because the Pentagon knows that their troops commit too many war crimes in these situations,”
http://rt.com/news/usa-iraq-libya-troops-461/
Malcom Lagauche :
Malcom Lagauche :
Bennis is a phony who takes credit for other peoples' work. Shortly after Maliki was appointed "president" of Iraq, her group, United for Peace and Justice, sent him a letter of congratulation. Then, it paid $1,500 for an ad in a Baghdad ne...wspaper calling for collaboration between UPJ and Maliki's stooges. When the Iraqi resistance was in full-swing, Bennis publicly stated that she did not support the resistance. UPJ and Bennis stated that their goal was to bring US soldiers home from Iraq. The only group that actively was purswuing this goal was rhe resistance. She is guru of the US milquetoast left that has absolutely no integrity. At times, they've made statements that are more pro-war and occupation than the administration. With enemies like her, the administration doesn't need friends. It can sit back and watch the "anti-war" people make fools of themselves. This woman has a long history of betrayal to the causes she supposedly represents and she is thrilled at her media presence.
Thursday-Saturday, August 2-4, 2007
by Malcom Lagauche:
THE GREAT PRETENDERS
This is a republishing of an article I wrote over four years ago depicting the insincerity of much of the US anti-war movement and one of its gurus, Phyllis Bennis.
The "peace movement" in the U.S. has no lack of leaders. Unfortunately, these self-appointed chiefs seem to be more interested in self-promotion and image than in actually getting to the bottom of issues and placing their energies into meaningful actions.
Recently, journalist Alexander Cockburn penned an article called "Support Their Troops?" in which he gave an sound argument that the peace community will not consider supporting the Iraqi resistance. He then said the peace movement is all but dead. In addition, he showed the close alliance between the Democratic Party and various peace groups.
Phyllis Bennis, a well-known peace activist, took offence at Cockburn’s analysis and wrote an article titled, "Why the Anti-War Movement Doesn’t Embrace the Iraqi Resistance." The piece is a mixture of unrelated subjects and that make it difficult to understand. At times, she contradicts herself.
In her recent article, she stated:
_ But I never supported Saddam Hussein, who was "resisting" the U.S. during the sanctions years, and I didn’t — and don’t — support what is called the "Iraqi resistance" today …
… There is no unified leadership that can speak for "the resistance," …
… There is no unified program, either of what the fight is against or for what it is for. We know virtually nothing of what most of the factions stand for beyond opposition to the U.S. occupation — and from my own personal vantage point, of the little beyond that that we do know, I don’t like so much.
If Bennis does not know the program of the resistance, she is either blind or is lazy for not trying to discover the agenda. Various resistance groups publish updated reports of their activities as well as their programs. In addition, YouTube has dozens, if not hundreds, of videos from resistance groups.
A curious aspect of her article is her use of quotation marks around the word "resistance." These symbols infer illegitimacy for the Iraqi resistance. And, she says she does not know what the factions stand for "beyond opposition to the U.S. occupation." Any resistance stands for the eviction of foreign occupiers. Her illogic is stifling.
Bennis then gives credit to the anti-war movements for turning the U.S. public opinion against the war. This again is illogical and outright untrue. Many people have changed their opinions by reading articles on astute websites that show the lies the Bush administration, along with its Democratic lackies, put forth to justify the illegal March 2003 invasion. Millions of people who never saw or heard of anti-war groups now oppose the occupation. Bennis takes false credit for the growing anti-occupation mood in the U.S.
To top it all off, about an Iraq after a U.S. withdrawal, Bennis states, "It’s not up to me to choose who governs Iraq. I’m not Iraqi. I don’t get to choose."
This statement comes after her attempt to dissuade people in the U.S. from supporting the Iraqi resistance. On the one hand, she tries to influence millions of people not to support the resistance, while, on the other hand, she pleads neutrality on Iraqi affairs.
Bennis is guilty of actions that many leaders in the peace movement employ: almost ordering her followers to adhere to a particular stance. I have had many experiences with various peace-oriented groups in southern California and can state that bullying tactics by some of the leaders are commonplace.
Journalist Gabriele Zamparini recently critiqued Bennis’ article and added:
You, the resistance movements around the world that are resisting this rapacious Empire whose fat belly we live so comfortably in, you must be approved to have our respect, sympathy and intellectual support.
Zamparini hit the nail right on the middle of its head. The peace movement suffers from an age-old U.S. adage: "Too many chiefs and not enough Indians."
Bennis is also involved with the group United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ), an umbrella organization that supposedly represents more than 1400 groups. If you think her recent remarks about the Iraqi resistance do not represent those of people who oppose the Iraqi occupation, UFPJ makes her look like a front-line resistance fighter. In February of this year, I wrote an article exposing the horrendous agenda of UFPJ. Please read it again because it is even more relevant today than when I penned it. The U.S. government (Republicans and Democrats alike) do not need to counter anti-war groups if they have descended to such a low level. Why pay propaganda writers to produce material when your "enemies" can do as good a job? And, you don’t even have to pay them a salary. With enemies like this, who needs friends?
Tuesday/Wednesday, February 6-7, 2007
BEWARE OF AGENDAS
In the 1990s, I and several comrades organized demonstrations against the Iraqi embargo. We demonstrated at radio/TV stations, the U.S. Federal Building, offices of Congressmen, etc.
During this time, there was a glaring absence of peace or anti-war groups. I called all the local organizations and was outright told that they were not interested to "touch the Iraq thing." One activist in a pro-Cuba group told me she was not interested because of the way they treated women in Iraq. When I told her that Iraq was secular, she said, "The still all wear veils."
The ignorance of the "peace" community about the embargo and world politics was stifling.
In my writings, I have lambasted the peace movement in general for not opposing the Iraqi embargo and only coming out of their closets a few days before bombs were to drop.
This past weekend, we saw a massive anti-war demonstration in Washington D.C. that included hundreds of thousands of marchers. The group "United for Peace and Justice" was listed as the sponsor and it gained much publicity. The group claims to have more than 1,400 affiliated members.
What appears to be an umbrella group for the cause may not exactly have altruistic designs. After the march on Washington, various writers accounted how United for Peace and Justice really messed up. Chris Jenks of Traprock Peace Center said:
Unfortunately, United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) - the primary sponsor - didn’t live up to the standards set by the marchers. Its continuing refusal to work with some other national coalitions, and its focus on celebrities and politicians, was reflected in its botching the start of the march and focusing of media coverage.
Other writers corroborated Jenks’ account. They maintain that United for Peace and Justice was more interested in camera position and the Hollywood celebrities than about the march itself. At one point, the marchers took matters into their own hands and began to act. If they had not, the entire day could have turned into a fiasco that would have embarrassed the participants in the event.
Normally, I don’t specify any single group in the peace movement. And, not all groups are as remiss in their commitment as those I have mentioned. But, United for Peace and Justice poses some quandaries.
If you go to their website, there is much talk about the devastating effect of the deaths of U.S. troops in Iraq. Slogans abound about bringing our troops home so more don’t get killed. However, there is little about the plight of the Iraqis. There was not one word about the illegal government put in power by the U.S. and the plight of the members of the pre-April 2003 government. United for Peace and Justice actually recognizes the Iraqi stooges meeting in the Green Zone as the legitimate government of Iraq.
In addition, there is a large portion devoted to "faith-based" groups and how they should join United for Peace and Justice, who has an entire section about "faith-based" activism. Many anti-war activists have no religious affiliation. In the U.S., atheists, by percentage, well outnumber the general public in their opposition to the war against Iraq. United for Peace and Justice appears to be tossing these people aside.
I am curious to know how many affiliate members of the organization have really looked into United for Peace and Justice actions and ideas. Many would be surprised.
To top everything off, in July 2006, the group wanted to meet Malaki to discuss peace in Iraq. They praised him and said what an honor it was for him to visit Washington D.C. And, they wanted to take out an ad in a Baghdad newspaper. Along with the announcement came the obligatory request for money.
To me, their actions are similar to those of the TV preachers who ask for money to promote their lamebrain ideas. The following is a plea from United for Peace and Justice to support the ridiculous idea of meeting with Malaki, the same Malaki who is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis because of his support for Shi’ite death squads. Following their plea is the letter I sent to them about this quandary. They never answered me when they had the chance to explain their actions, so I consider it fair game now to expose the group and its egotistical and outright stupid actions.
________________________________________________________
Dear Friends,
This week, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki will make his first visit to the United States, visiting Washington DC and New York City. He will be meeting with George Bush and members of Congress, but don't you think he should also meet with representatives of the peace movement? Don't you think he -- and the Iraqi people -- should know that there is a strong movement in the United States to end the occupation of their country?
We have delivered letters to the Iraqi Embassy in Washington DC and to the Iraqi Mission to the United Nations in New York requesting that Prime Minister Al-Maliki meet with representatives of the peace movement. Now we need you to play a critical role in making this historic opportunity a reality.
Help us place an advertisement based on the following Open Letter to Prime Minister Al-Maliki in one of the largest newspapers in Iraq, Assabah Al-Jadid. This is not only a great way to pressure the Prime Minister for a meeting, but it is also a way to reach out to the Iraqi people to let them know that we stand with them in their call to end the occupation of their country. A poll earlier this year showed that 87% of Iraqis support a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops; another poll showed that only 1% of Iraqis trusted U.S. troops to protect their security.
For only $1,500, we can place a half-page ad that will reach tens of thousands of Iraqis. If, through your generosity, more than that comes in, we will use the money to continue spreading our call for immediate withdrawal from Iraq and to help with the ongoing antiwar work of UFPJ. Click here to make a donation toward this effort today.
LETTERS TO THE EDITORS
Prime Minister Al-Maliki's visit this week is also a great time to write letters to the editors of your local newspapers, mentioning the peace movement's request for a meeting with the prime minister and bringing attention to the growing calls for an end to the occupation and the reconciliation proposal put forth by numerous Iraqi leaders. You can use text from the open letter as talking points, but please use your own words to make your letter more effective and more likely to be printed. Click here to send a letter to your local media outlets.
Thank you for helping us to make this critical, direct link with the Iraqi people, and to make the call for peace heard loud and clear throughout the United States. Let's make sure that Prime Minister Al-Maliki, the people of Iraq, and people here in the U.S. don't just hear the voice of George Bush. Let's make sure they hear the voices of the majority in this country, who want to see an end to the bloodshed and the beginning of a true effort to rebuild Iraq and our neglected communities at home.
OPEN LETTER TO PRIME MINISTER AL-MALIKI
Dear Prime Minister Al-Maliki,
On behalf of United for Peace and Justice, the largest coalition of peace and justice organizations in the U.S., which includes more than 1,400 national and local groups united in opposition to the U.S. war in Iraq, it is our pleasure to welcome you in the United States.
We are writing to request a meeting with you during your visit in New York City on Thursday, July 27, 2006, in order to brief you about the U.S. peace movement's efforts to end the military occupation of Iraq and to discuss how to work together to bring about a troop withdrawal, promote reconciliation, and begin the process of reconstruction and development.
We have been heartened by the Iraqi reconciliation plan put forth by numerous Iraqi leaders to end both the occupation and sectarian tension within Iraq. We are dismayed, however, that due in part to U.S. pressure, the plan does not include a demand for a timetable for withdrawing the troops -- a point that is essential for any true reconciliation plan.
A poll earlier this year showed that 87% of Iraqis support a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. A solid majority of people in the United States agree: a June poll by CNN showed that 53% supported a timetable for withdrawal, and other major polls have found similar results.
We oppose the interference of the Bush administration in your country's domestic policies. We support your recent independent and courageous stand criticizing the aggressive Israeli attacks on Lebanon, and we hope you will continue to take independent stands that prioritize the desires of the Iraqi people over foreign interests.
There is a strong movement in the United States to end the continuing military occupation of your country, and we hope that you will have time to meet us during your visit to the United States. We would, of course, be prepared to meet at whatever time or location is best for you.
Sincerely,
Leslie Cagan
National Coordinator
United for Peace and Justice
____________________________________
Here was my response:
Dear People,
It is with great incredulity that I write to you. I thought my eyes were deceiving me when I saw your appeal for solicitations to place an ad in an Iraqi newspaper addressed to Al-Maliki.
And, your coddling up to him ("It is our pleasure to welcome you in the United States") is ludicrous and disgusting. Al-Maliki is not Iraq's prime minister. He is the appointed head of an illegal government in Iraq and currently the U.S.' "Stooge of the Month." To lend him any credibility is outrageous.
Al-Maliki and his cohorts spent decades in Iran and/or Syria, plotting for the overthrow of the legitimate Iraqi government. If the same situation occurred in the U.S., one would call the person the correct name: traitor.
I notice that you call yourself the "largest coalition of peace and justice organizations in the U.S." Do all your affiliated members know of this letter to Al-Maliki? I don't think so. His actions in the past decades show that he wanted Iraq to be invaded. In other words, he cheered on the illegal March 2003 invasion. You pretend to have opposed intervention in Iraq and now you invite one of the invasion's biggest supporters to meet you. I am at a loss for words.
I have sent your appeal to a few colleagues in the past hour. Their responses are identical to mine. Al-Maliki is visiting the U.S. to get his trip to the woodshed with Bush. When he comes out, he will say "Yasuh." In Iraq, his movements are limited to a few square miles. He is meeting with the architect of the invasion that ruined 5,000 years of proud history of Iraq as well as about 700,000 Iraqis, and you want to meet with him. The mind boggles.
I am a known anti-war writer and have many readers because more than 100 websites pick up my articles. I would like to interview someone on your staff and try to discover what kind of logic you are using. Maybe something is going over my head. Please let me know if you are interested in a dialogue. I will take a no-response to mean you are not. Either way, I will write about this quandary.
Sincerely,
Malcom Lagauche
(P.S. I never received a reply)
Thursday-Saturday, August 2-4, 2007
by Malcom Lagauche:
THE GREAT PRETENDERS
This is a republishing of an article I wrote over four years ago depicting the insincerity of much of the US anti-war movement and one of its gurus, Phyllis Bennis.
The "peace movement" in the U.S. has no lack of leaders. Unfortunately, these self-appointed chiefs seem to be more interested in self-promotion and image than in actually getting to the bottom of issues and placing their energies into meaningful actions.
Recently, journalist Alexander Cockburn penned an article called "Support Their Troops?" in which he gave an sound argument that the peace community will not consider supporting the Iraqi resistance. He then said the peace movement is all but dead. In addition, he showed the close alliance between the Democratic Party and various peace groups.
Phyllis Bennis, a well-known peace activist, took offence at Cockburn’s analysis and wrote an article titled, "Why the Anti-War Movement Doesn’t Embrace the Iraqi Resistance." The piece is a mixture of unrelated subjects and that make it difficult to understand. At times, she contradicts herself.
In her recent article, she stated:
_ But I never supported Saddam Hussein, who was "resisting" the U.S. during the sanctions years, and I didn’t — and don’t — support what is called the "Iraqi resistance" today …
… There is no unified leadership that can speak for "the resistance," …
… There is no unified program, either of what the fight is against or for what it is for. We know virtually nothing of what most of the factions stand for beyond opposition to the U.S. occupation — and from my own personal vantage point, of the little beyond that that we do know, I don’t like so much.
If Bennis does not know the program of the resistance, she is either blind or is lazy for not trying to discover the agenda. Various resistance groups publish updated reports of their activities as well as their programs. In addition, YouTube has dozens, if not hundreds, of videos from resistance groups.
A curious aspect of her article is her use of quotation marks around the word "resistance." These symbols infer illegitimacy for the Iraqi resistance. And, she says she does not know what the factions stand for "beyond opposition to the U.S. occupation." Any resistance stands for the eviction of foreign occupiers. Her illogic is stifling.
Bennis then gives credit to the anti-war movements for turning the U.S. public opinion against the war. This again is illogical and outright untrue. Many people have changed their opinions by reading articles on astute websites that show the lies the Bush administration, along with its Democratic lackies, put forth to justify the illegal March 2003 invasion. Millions of people who never saw or heard of anti-war groups now oppose the occupation. Bennis takes false credit for the growing anti-occupation mood in the U.S.
To top it all off, about an Iraq after a U.S. withdrawal, Bennis states, "It’s not up to me to choose who governs Iraq. I’m not Iraqi. I don’t get to choose."
This statement comes after her attempt to dissuade people in the U.S. from supporting the Iraqi resistance. On the one hand, she tries to influence millions of people not to support the resistance, while, on the other hand, she pleads neutrality on Iraqi affairs.
Bennis is guilty of actions that many leaders in the peace movement employ: almost ordering her followers to adhere to a particular stance. I have had many experiences with various peace-oriented groups in southern California and can state that bullying tactics by some of the leaders are commonplace.
Journalist Gabriele Zamparini recently critiqued Bennis’ article and added:
You, the resistance movements around the world that are resisting this rapacious Empire whose fat belly we live so comfortably in, you must be approved to have our respect, sympathy and intellectual support.
Zamparini hit the nail right on the middle of its head. The peace movement suffers from an age-old U.S. adage: "Too many chiefs and not enough Indians."
Bennis is also involved with the group United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ), an umbrella organization that supposedly represents more than 1400 groups. If you think her recent remarks about the Iraqi resistance do not represent those of people who oppose the Iraqi occupation, UFPJ makes her look like a front-line resistance fighter. In February of this year, I wrote an article exposing the horrendous agenda of UFPJ. Please read it again because it is even more relevant today than when I penned it. The U.S. government (Republicans and Democrats alike) do not need to counter anti-war groups if they have descended to such a low level. Why pay propaganda writers to produce material when your "enemies" can do as good a job? And, you don’t even have to pay them a salary. With enemies like this, who needs friends?
Tuesday/Wednesday, February 6-7, 2007
BEWARE OF AGENDAS
In the 1990s, I and several comrades organized demonstrations against the Iraqi embargo. We demonstrated at radio/TV stations, the U.S. Federal Building, offices of Congressmen, etc.
During this time, there was a glaring absence of peace or anti-war groups. I called all the local organizations and was outright told that they were not interested to "touch the Iraq thing." One activist in a pro-Cuba group told me she was not interested because of the way they treated women in Iraq. When I told her that Iraq was secular, she said, "The still all wear veils."
The ignorance of the "peace" community about the embargo and world politics was stifling.
In my writings, I have lambasted the peace movement in general for not opposing the Iraqi embargo and only coming out of their closets a few days before bombs were to drop.
This past weekend, we saw a massive anti-war demonstration in Washington D.C. that included hundreds of thousands of marchers. The group "United for Peace and Justice" was listed as the sponsor and it gained much publicity. The group claims to have more than 1,400 affiliated members.
What appears to be an umbrella group for the cause may not exactly have altruistic designs. After the march on Washington, various writers accounted how United for Peace and Justice really messed up. Chris Jenks of Traprock Peace Center said:
Unfortunately, United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) - the primary sponsor - didn’t live up to the standards set by the marchers. Its continuing refusal to work with some other national coalitions, and its focus on celebrities and politicians, was reflected in its botching the start of the march and focusing of media coverage.
Other writers corroborated Jenks’ account. They maintain that United for Peace and Justice was more interested in camera position and the Hollywood celebrities than about the march itself. At one point, the marchers took matters into their own hands and began to act. If they had not, the entire day could have turned into a fiasco that would have embarrassed the participants in the event.
Normally, I don’t specify any single group in the peace movement. And, not all groups are as remiss in their commitment as those I have mentioned. But, United for Peace and Justice poses some quandaries.
If you go to their website, there is much talk about the devastating effect of the deaths of U.S. troops in Iraq. Slogans abound about bringing our troops home so more don’t get killed. However, there is little about the plight of the Iraqis. There was not one word about the illegal government put in power by the U.S. and the plight of the members of the pre-April 2003 government. United for Peace and Justice actually recognizes the Iraqi stooges meeting in the Green Zone as the legitimate government of Iraq.
In addition, there is a large portion devoted to "faith-based" groups and how they should join United for Peace and Justice, who has an entire section about "faith-based" activism. Many anti-war activists have no religious affiliation. In the U.S., atheists, by percentage, well outnumber the general public in their opposition to the war against Iraq. United for Peace and Justice appears to be tossing these people aside.
I am curious to know how many affiliate members of the organization have really looked into United for Peace and Justice actions and ideas. Many would be surprised.
To top everything off, in July 2006, the group wanted to meet Malaki to discuss peace in Iraq. They praised him and said what an honor it was for him to visit Washington D.C. And, they wanted to take out an ad in a Baghdad newspaper. Along with the announcement came the obligatory request for money.
To me, their actions are similar to those of the TV preachers who ask for money to promote their lamebrain ideas. The following is a plea from United for Peace and Justice to support the ridiculous idea of meeting with Malaki, the same Malaki who is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis because of his support for Shi’ite death squads. Following their plea is the letter I sent to them about this quandary. They never answered me when they had the chance to explain their actions, so I consider it fair game now to expose the group and its egotistical and outright stupid actions.
________________________________________________________
Help us place an open letter from the peace movement to Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki as an ad in one of Iraq's largest newspapers.
For only $1,500, we can reach tens of thousands of Iraqis with our message. Click here to donate online toward this effort or call 212-868-5545 to make a contribution by phone.
You can also mail a check or money order to:
United for Peace and Justice
P.O. Box 607
Times Square Station
New York, NY 10108
For only $1,500, we can reach tens of thousands of Iraqis with our message. Click here to donate online toward this effort or call 212-868-5545 to make a contribution by phone.
You can also mail a check or money order to:
United for Peace and Justice
P.O. Box 607
Times Square Station
New York, NY 10108
Dear Friends,
This week, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki will make his first visit to the United States, visiting Washington DC and New York City. He will be meeting with George Bush and members of Congress, but don't you think he should also meet with representatives of the peace movement? Don't you think he -- and the Iraqi people -- should know that there is a strong movement in the United States to end the occupation of their country?
We have delivered letters to the Iraqi Embassy in Washington DC and to the Iraqi Mission to the United Nations in New York requesting that Prime Minister Al-Maliki meet with representatives of the peace movement. Now we need you to play a critical role in making this historic opportunity a reality.
Help us place an advertisement based on the following Open Letter to Prime Minister Al-Maliki in one of the largest newspapers in Iraq, Assabah Al-Jadid. This is not only a great way to pressure the Prime Minister for a meeting, but it is also a way to reach out to the Iraqi people to let them know that we stand with them in their call to end the occupation of their country. A poll earlier this year showed that 87% of Iraqis support a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops; another poll showed that only 1% of Iraqis trusted U.S. troops to protect their security.
For only $1,500, we can place a half-page ad that will reach tens of thousands of Iraqis. If, through your generosity, more than that comes in, we will use the money to continue spreading our call for immediate withdrawal from Iraq and to help with the ongoing antiwar work of UFPJ. Click here to make a donation toward this effort today.
LETTERS TO THE EDITORS
Prime Minister Al-Maliki's visit this week is also a great time to write letters to the editors of your local newspapers, mentioning the peace movement's request for a meeting with the prime minister and bringing attention to the growing calls for an end to the occupation and the reconciliation proposal put forth by numerous Iraqi leaders. You can use text from the open letter as talking points, but please use your own words to make your letter more effective and more likely to be printed. Click here to send a letter to your local media outlets.
Thank you for helping us to make this critical, direct link with the Iraqi people, and to make the call for peace heard loud and clear throughout the United States. Let's make sure that Prime Minister Al-Maliki, the people of Iraq, and people here in the U.S. don't just hear the voice of George Bush. Let's make sure they hear the voices of the majority in this country, who want to see an end to the bloodshed and the beginning of a true effort to rebuild Iraq and our neglected communities at home.
OPEN LETTER TO PRIME MINISTER AL-MALIKI
Dear Prime Minister Al-Maliki,
On behalf of United for Peace and Justice, the largest coalition of peace and justice organizations in the U.S., which includes more than 1,400 national and local groups united in opposition to the U.S. war in Iraq, it is our pleasure to welcome you in the United States.
We are writing to request a meeting with you during your visit in New York City on Thursday, July 27, 2006, in order to brief you about the U.S. peace movement's efforts to end the military occupation of Iraq and to discuss how to work together to bring about a troop withdrawal, promote reconciliation, and begin the process of reconstruction and development.
We have been heartened by the Iraqi reconciliation plan put forth by numerous Iraqi leaders to end both the occupation and sectarian tension within Iraq. We are dismayed, however, that due in part to U.S. pressure, the plan does not include a demand for a timetable for withdrawing the troops -- a point that is essential for any true reconciliation plan.
A poll earlier this year showed that 87% of Iraqis support a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. A solid majority of people in the United States agree: a June poll by CNN showed that 53% supported a timetable for withdrawal, and other major polls have found similar results.
We oppose the interference of the Bush administration in your country's domestic policies. We support your recent independent and courageous stand criticizing the aggressive Israeli attacks on Lebanon, and we hope you will continue to take independent stands that prioritize the desires of the Iraqi people over foreign interests.
There is a strong movement in the United States to end the continuing military occupation of your country, and we hope that you will have time to meet us during your visit to the United States. We would, of course, be prepared to meet at whatever time or location is best for you.
Sincerely,
Leslie Cagan
National Coordinator
United for Peace and Justice
Help us continue to do this critical work: Make a donation to UFPJ today.
ACTION ALERT * UNITED FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE
http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=157880636&url_num=9&url=http://www.unitedforpeace.org/www.unitedforpeace.org | 212-868-5545
ACTION ALERT * UNITED FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE
http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=157880636&url_num=9&url=http://www.unitedforpeace.org/www.unitedforpeace.org | 212-868-5545
____________________________________
Here was my response:
Dear People,
It is with great incredulity that I write to you. I thought my eyes were deceiving me when I saw your appeal for solicitations to place an ad in an Iraqi newspaper addressed to Al-Maliki.
And, your coddling up to him ("It is our pleasure to welcome you in the United States") is ludicrous and disgusting. Al-Maliki is not Iraq's prime minister. He is the appointed head of an illegal government in Iraq and currently the U.S.' "Stooge of the Month." To lend him any credibility is outrageous.
Al-Maliki and his cohorts spent decades in Iran and/or Syria, plotting for the overthrow of the legitimate Iraqi government. If the same situation occurred in the U.S., one would call the person the correct name: traitor.
I notice that you call yourself the "largest coalition of peace and justice organizations in the U.S." Do all your affiliated members know of this letter to Al-Maliki? I don't think so. His actions in the past decades show that he wanted Iraq to be invaded. In other words, he cheered on the illegal March 2003 invasion. You pretend to have opposed intervention in Iraq and now you invite one of the invasion's biggest supporters to meet you. I am at a loss for words.
I have sent your appeal to a few colleagues in the past hour. Their responses are identical to mine. Al-Maliki is visiting the U.S. to get his trip to the woodshed with Bush. When he comes out, he will say "Yasuh." In Iraq, his movements are limited to a few square miles. He is meeting with the architect of the invasion that ruined 5,000 years of proud history of Iraq as well as about 700,000 Iraqis, and you want to meet with him. The mind boggles.
I am a known anti-war writer and have many readers because more than 100 websites pick up my articles. I would like to interview someone on your staff and try to discover what kind of logic you are using. Maybe something is going over my head. Please let me know if you are interested in a dialogue. I will take a no-response to mean you are not. Either way, I will write about this quandary.
Sincerely,
Malcom Lagauche
(P.S. I never received a reply)
vendredi 26 février 2010
Gen. Odierno Seeks Combat Brigade in Iraq Beyond August ‘Deadline’
Posted By Jason Ditz On February 25, 2010
President Obama’s ’soft pullout’ deadline of August, which would see 50,000 troops remaining in the nation but the formal end of “combat operations” is in growing peril, as top commander General Ray Odierno reportedly wants to keep a combat brigade in Kirkuk past the deadline.
It was only three days ago that General Odierno was openly talking about “plan B” in Iraq, which would involve significantly slowing down the pullout, though at the time he said “if you ask me today, I’m fully committed” to the pullout. Apparently today came and went, however.
Though Obama ran on a campaign pledge of withdrawing all American troops from Iraq by May of 2010, he quickly backpedaled from this pledge once elected, and it seems now that even his existing pledge is not safe.
Officials have made it clear they envision violence in Iraq getting worse up to the March 7 election and then getting even worse after the vote. The “stabilizing event” that the parliamentary election was supposed to be is gone, and officials don’t seem to be offering any suggestions of what will finally slow Iraq’s violence. Officials are still scrambling to claim credit for the military “victory” however, even as it looks like troops will remain in the nation for a long time to come.
URL to article: http://news.antiwar.com/2010/02/25/gen-odierno-seeks-combat-brigade-in-iraq-beyond-august-deadline/
President Obama’s ’soft pullout’ deadline of August, which would see 50,000 troops remaining in the nation but the formal end of “combat operations” is in growing peril, as top commander General Ray Odierno reportedly wants to keep a combat brigade in Kirkuk past the deadline.
It was only three days ago that General Odierno was openly talking about “plan B” in Iraq, which would involve significantly slowing down the pullout, though at the time he said “if you ask me today, I’m fully committed” to the pullout. Apparently today came and went, however.
Though Obama ran on a campaign pledge of withdrawing all American troops from Iraq by May of 2010, he quickly backpedaled from this pledge once elected, and it seems now that even his existing pledge is not safe.
Officials have made it clear they envision violence in Iraq getting worse up to the March 7 election and then getting even worse after the vote. The “stabilizing event” that the parliamentary election was supposed to be is gone, and officials don’t seem to be offering any suggestions of what will finally slow Iraq’s violence. Officials are still scrambling to claim credit for the military “victory” however, even as it looks like troops will remain in the nation for a long time to come.
URL to article: http://news.antiwar.com/2010/02/25/gen-odierno-seeks-combat-brigade-in-iraq-beyond-august-deadline/
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)
