I can't take anymore of that STUPID and UNINFORMED Aimee Allison. It's bad enough that she's so STUPID but she giggles while being so STUPID. She's is a joke, she is the worst air hostess you could find a basic cable. She is an air head. She disgraces all women and it's past time her stupid ass was fired.
Before we get to that.
I am no fan of Aileen Alfandary. I do need to know that her news segments this week were actual news. As opposed to 'trendy' topics. That included an increase in Iraq and an increase in actual California news. I will thank her for that.
Brian Edwards-Tiekert is the 'newby' -- not even a month in the job. (He has guest-hosted many times before.) So why is he more professional than Aimee Allison who has been a co-host of The Morning Show for four years (it will be four years before 2010 ends)?
Do you read Playboy magazine?
I don't.
I find it appalling that The Morning Show REFUSES to book women but can do a segment about Playboy magazine. Grasp that. Grasp that they spent a half hour promoting that magazine but women make up only a third of their guests.
There was Aimee and, you knew this was coming, right, her male guest. At least he was Black and not Tim Wise.
Why?
Aimee was on her 'racism' kick.
I don't read Playboy, sorry, Aimee. I'm sure you just get it for the interviews.
Aimee had bathed in HaterAid and thought she was so amusing.
Of a Playboy interview, she said, "It was . . . shocking." That ". . ." indicates her pause. Why?
John Mayer used the n-word in the interview.
Okay, unlike Aimee, I am around people who use the n-word. I don't use it and the people I'm talking about are, like me, Black. I wish they wouldn't use it because their use of it makes it appear "cool" to some people.
I find the word hurtful and the use of it to be an embrace of all that we had to overcome.
Those are my feelings on the n-word.
But when my own race is using it and when White people want to . . .
I don't want to say "trendy" although I'm sure that's part of it. They want to demonstrate, through language, that they are part of the same world and same experience. I want to choose my words very carefully here. I do not think a lot of people using it -- White people -- are racist or trying to be racist. They are attempting to show that they identify with the Black experience.
Whether they do or do not actually identify with it, I'll leave it for someone else to judge.
But there are non-Blacks who use the term for the above reasons. And then there are non-Blacks who use the term intending to be racist.
To know which way Mayer used it, I'd need to know what he said. I don't buy Playboy, I don't read it. As far as I know, my husband doesn't either. So I need you to tell me what was said. And if you can't tell me what was said, then it's not a topic you need to cover for even two seconds.
I don't need to hear that someone is a racist based on . . . your say so. I don't trust Aimee Allison. I find her to be a liar -- a repeat liar -- and I find her to be grossly uninformed. I find her to giggle and be self-amused at everything. She is the high yellow Chrissy Snow.
She giggled about how she didn't know who Johny Mayer was ("I have to admit I don't listen to John Mayer, I had to Google it" -- Google "it"? Mayer's an "it"). Despite having never listened to his work -- other than what floated by her -- Aimee then wants to play an expert on his music and she and her guest go on to trash it.
John Mayer is a fine musician. He's gifted guitarist -- and, yes, he is a blues guitarist -- and he has a nice singing voice. He's more of an artist as a guitarist than as a vocalist, in my opinion. He has three songs that I would put on the top 100 of the last decade.
We are told by Aimee that Mayer "tries to do R&B" and that only again reveals her stupidity. She knows nothing and needs to shut her damn mouth. She should be ashamed and embarrassed to comment on the music of an artist when she doesn't even know it. But she has no shame and if The Morning Show were a sitcom, she'd be a perfect addition to the show. But we're not supposed to be laughing (though Aimee giggles non-stop), we're supposed to be informed.
She brought on some Black comic. Male, of course. Always male with Aimee and with KPFA. And he wanted to toss around a lot of "White boy" remarks.
I have used that phrase and will again but I will watch myself in it because I hope I never called an over thirty man a "boy." I would object if a Black man was called a "boy" and I think we need to work towards being more racially aware.
If Aimee thought her segment would promote that, she was sadly mistaken.
"A hood pass"
"Someone asked me the other day what it's like to have a hood pass [. . .] you could call it a n-word pass" she quotes Mayer at one point. Then she and her Dumb guest pretend not to grasp what he was talking about and start laughing. They're so amused.
John Mayer was talking about -- as the statement was read by Aimee on air -- an assumption by the interviewer, who asked about a "hood pass," that because he plays blues and is John Mayer, he has one. Meaning he has cred and knows what it's like to be Black. John rejected that idea -- as read by Aimee -- and noted, for example, that he had never been refused service at an eatery. He was not trying to be insulting, he was not trying to be racist. The interviewer -- as read by Aimee -- floated that John gets a pass and uses it in the Black community to be part of it and understand it and John was making very clear that as a White man, he could not claim to understand the Black experience or to have lived it.
There was nothing racist in his statement.
Now let's get really clear, Aimee's guest didn't go to private school with John Mayer. He did with other White people but to use a negative image of other people and put it on Mayer? Flip the script on that.
Pretend it was a White comic and he was attacking Black people and saying that he went to school with them and this Black singer was entitled -- which was what the critic said of Mayer -- and how do you think that would play?
We don't stereotype.
And this man who has never met John Mayer has no reason to start telling us what John Mayer is personally like because he doesn't know.
Do you get that, Aimee Allison? You wasted our time with chatter -- empty chatter.
Eight minutes in, Aimee still couldn't figure out what a "hood pass" meant and started stating, "It's the new way of saying some of my best friends are Black."
No, you stupid, stupid idiot. She cannot be this stupid naturally. She must really be faking. She must work hard to play the airhead Chrissy Snow.
Years from now, we'll find out she was a performance artist pulling off some dramatic stunt, right?
As Aimee read the thing briefly, he was asked about having a "hood pass" but listen to Aimee and her guest ten minutes into the interview and they're maintaining that he brought it up. He didn't as Aimee read it.
They say he continued talking about it (hood pass). Did he? Then why can't I hear what he said? I'm not buying the damn issue that KPFA spent half-hour selling on air. If you're going to call someone a racist, you damn well better be able to say why. If it is for comments, I better be able to hear them.
Finally, Aimee gets back to the interview. John Mayer is asked whether he's dated Black women? Aimee leaves out dick and cock in her reading so I'll provide them, "I don't think I'm open to it my dick is sort of like a White supremicst I've got a Bennington heart and an f**king David Duke cock. I'm going to start dating seperately from my dick I always thought Holly Robinson Pete was gorgeous . . ." He goes on to list other women.
John Mayer doesn't sound racist in that, sorry. He sounds like he was drunk, yes. And I don't find the above racist.
"It would be game over" the idiot comedian said if Jay Z had said something anti-semitic.
Excuse me?
Chuck D. Do we not know him? Do we not know Public Enemy? Do we not know all the anti-Jewish crap they pulled?
Now let's get real. He was asked about dating Black women. He hadn't. He tried to offer something lyrical and didn't pull it off. The thrust of his answer is he didn't and that he found them attractive. That's his choice and it may not be a choice. I never found White men attractive until last year. I'm being honest here. They just didn't do anything for me. It wasn't racism, I just didn't find them attractive. I loved how Aimee and the Man then wanted to pretend to be concerned about sexism for about ten seconds. That's what KPFA does, you understand: Promote Playboy for a half hour and then give ten seconds to sexism.
Sharon calls in and tells them it's a stupid segment -- it was -- and talks about reality and how her daughter has to live in this world and she said what, "She blames people like Jay Z" and what do they do? Aimee and the comedian act as though Sharon (the caller) didn't mention Jay Z specifically and instead start tearing apart John Mayer again. Including later quoting Sharon saying "you let the genie out of the bottle" to attack Gen X and Gen Y Whites. But that's not Sharon said, STUPID AIMEE, she said Jay Z "let the genie out of the bottle."
This was all bull**it and it was a waste of time and if you're not getting how offensive it was, let me get to my title.
Do you remember the attacks on the Dixie Chicks from the right-wing?
For speaking out against a planned war on Iraq, the Dixie Chicks were attacked and Laura Ingraham wrote a book entitled Shut Up and Sing (also the title of a pro-Dixie Chicks documentary about the attacks on them).
So here's Aimee's money quote: "Can you just shut up and play guitar."
Explain to me how that right-wing crap ever belongs on Free Speech Radio?
Aimee Allison needs to be shown the door. Again, I'm no fan of Aileen Alfandary but promote her to co-host. Get rid of Aimee. She's not just an embarrassment, she's a rejection of everything KPFA is supposed to stand for.
During the course of this, we also had Aimee reading Michael Franti's statement (in support of John Mayer) with such sarcasm. And then she and the guest laughed at Franti. Franti raises money for KPFA. What a great way to say "thank you for all you do for us here at KPFA" to Michael Franti.
Here's the breakdown of today's show:
First half hour: 2 men
Second half hour: 2 women, 1 man
Third half hour: see crap above
Fourth half hour: 1 man, 1 woman
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Friday, February 12, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, so-called 'elections' appear to be on for March 7th, the BBC trusts Ahmed Chalabi, the appalling silence of peace 'leaders' in the US, and more.
Yesterday, the US military announced a death. The fallen has been identified as 20-year-old Adriana Alvarez. KRGV reports, "CHANNEL 5 NEWS spoke to her family. They tell us they didn't want her to enlist and they're having a tough time dealing with her loss." The Brownsville Herald quotes her sister Alma Alvarez saying, "We are devasted" and noes that Adriana Alvarez' survivors include Alma, mother Alicia "and two other younger sisters."
What did she die for? What was she there for? No one can answer that question and note how they run from it. You're 'lefty' gas bags will, from time to time, point out that there was no reason for the illegal war to start but they've all moved on and never grapple with the fact that there is no reason for it to continue. The Iraq War has not ended. Why are US troops still there? What happened to the cry of "Troops Out Now!"? As Chicago Mayor Richard Daley pointed out (see yesterday's snapshot), "Where are they? They've disappeared. What happened? I thought was was evil. Where are the people who believed in their heart against George W. Bush? 'We have to organize and walk down Michigan AVenue and Clark Street.' What happened? I thought they believed in their heart. Oh! It became a political isse. 'Barack won the election, now we go home.' What happened to America?"
And what happened to the peace movement? Betrayed by it's so-called leaders -- bad writers, bad actors, closeted Communists posing as 'independents,' -- a lot of a fakes and a lot of failures but somebody went along with the notion that they were leaders and all they 'led' was the death of the peace movement. They tried to co-opt into the Kerry campaign in 2004 and that didn't work out as well but in 2008 they turned it into the Barack electoral effort and they destroyed it. Tom Hayden, Leslie Cagan, all the failures (including closeted lesbian pretending to be heartbroken over her recent 'breakup' with a man -- that's a double play, by the way, closeted politically and sexually) who got put in charge and led the movement to nowhere.
Tom Hayden, the ultimate "Nowhere Man."
He's a real nowhere man
Sitting in his nowhere land
Making all his nowhere plans for nobody
-- "Nowhere Man," written by John Lennon and Paul McCartney
In a non-think piece for Huff & Post (which only demonstrated the lack of standards at Arianna's site), Tom-Tom opened with, "Barack Obama has faced peril before, particularly during the controversy over Rev. Jeremiah Wright last year, but the crisis he faces now is more systemic." It's 2010 and Tom-Tom. What Jeremiah Wright crisis did Barack faced in 2009? Hmm?
The skin's shot to hell with bumps and lesions now sprouting over the pock marks and the nose is even more bulbous making for a frightening appearance but the truly scary part may be just how far the mind's gone. The mindless whore quickly moves to his next series of 'sentences': "The wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan cost at least 541 American lives in the past year, and the overall total will pass 1,000 this month and likely double before 2012. The unfunded taxpayer cost of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan during Obama's first year was $119.1 billion, and Afghanistan alone will become another trillion-dollar war under his administration." I don't know many that take Scripps College all that seriously but shouldn't someone teaching there know a few basics about writing? For example, if you're going to mention the deaths in one area, you mention in the other. Tom Tom's too busy to be bothered with looking up basic facts and figures. Besides, a shout out to Iraq is more than enough, right? It's not as if he ever grandstanded on Iraq and . . . Oh, wait, he did. Remember his dopey book about the 'pillars' to ending the war in Iraq? Remember all that nonsense? Looking back it was nothing but roadblocks to keep Americans from making real demands on Democratic politicians.
Tom-Tom now wants to write bad columns where we're supposed to believe he's appealing to a politician's higher nature. This is the same Tom-Tom who, in 2006, revealed that he was a tool of the Zionist lobby -- see "I Was Israel's Dupe" at CounterPunch, July 20, 2006. I don't know how else to word that. When you claim, as he did, that you silenced yourself and did so to curry favor with the Israeli government, I'm not sure what else we're supposed to call you. (Other than "Liar!") So Tom was a state legislator -- he never made it higher despite presidential dreams he bored all of us with in the 70s and 80s -- and as a comparatively lowly state legislator, he insists he was controlled. But somehow he wants people to believe they can 'fight the power' and appeal to members of the US Congress and White House's better nature? According to Tom-Tom, as an elected Democrat, he did what he had to do for 'the lobby' and the Democratic Party. And he's still doing what he has to for the Democratic Party which, incidentally, never includes actual work that would end an ongoing war.
Maybe in 20 years he'll scribble "I Was Barack's Dupe"?
In the meantime, Iraqis continue dying, US service members continue dying and Tom continues pontificating in the mistaken belief that one day he'll find someone who mistakes him for a thinker. Tom Hayden was part of the "Out of Iraq now!" brigade . . . when a Republican occupied the Oval Office. Now he's in no rush for the Iraq War to end, it can go on and on and that's okay with him. Gone are the cries to end the war now. Gone is the insistance and the only thing that's changed is the political party of the War Hawk running the illegal war.
What he should be asking is: Why is the US still in Iraq? Barack Obama didn't keep his campaign promises, Barack Obama decided George W. Bush was the person to follow on Iraq. That's what Tom Hayden should be addressing if he had any integrity -- which of course he doesn't. He'll go to his grave providing distractions and excuses for the Democratic Party all the while insisting that he's going to change the party from within. Let's see, we've been hearing that from him since the 60s. Let's see there's been the Campaign for Economic Democracy, Campaign California and now Progressive Democrats for America -- and nothing changed. Not one of those organizations from within as he always insisted they would while hitting up people to fund his pet projects. Over 40 years of his 'changing the party from within' b.s. with nothing to show for it. Nothing.
Tom-Tom hopes everyone can tricked and fooled the way the self-admitted dupe alleges he once was. But people aren't as stupid as Tom-Tom likes to hope they are. Jonathan Katz' "Why ending the occupation of Iraq will take more than Obama's Promises" (The Mac Weekly) notes the realities Hayden hopes everyone is blinded to:
I don't believe Obama when he says we'll be done occupying Iraq and killing and being killed there by 2011 because that's not what we do. He'll withdraw some of the "combat troops" and "re-mission" the rest as "non-combat troops" (these operations include the physical protection "Americans and U.S. assets in Iraq" and "counterterrorism operations in which Iraqi forces would take the lead." That's all to say, they will still be killing and being killed.) We'll get a "lease" from the Iraqi government on some nice plots of land situated between some oil fields, kick up our feet, and have our "non-combat" frogs, our Blackwater toads, and our intelligence snakes go right on violently occupying foreign populations.
I don't believe Obama when he says we'll be done occupying Iraq and killing and being killed there by 2011 because that's not what we do. He'll withdraw some of the "combat troops" and "re-mission" the rest as "non-combat troops" (these operations include the physical protection "Americans and U.S. assets in Iraq" and "counterterrorism operations in which Iraqi forces would take the lead." That's all to say, they will still be killing and being killed.) We'll get a "lease" from the Iraqi government on some nice plots of land situated between some oil fields, kick up our feet, and have our "non-combat" frogs, our Blackwater toads, and our intelligence snakes go right on violently occupying foreign populations.
Xiong Tong (Xinhua) reports campaigning is underway in Iraq . . . for those not banned in the witch hunt, of course. Of the bannings, Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) quotes Falluja college worker Saria Jassam stating, "It is all politically motivated. Why they didn't revoke their parliamentary immunity one year or two years ago? It is obvious, they know that [Saleh] Al Mutlak is a patriot." Jiang Yuxia adds, "The upcoming parliamentary election is crucial to Iraq's national reconciliation process after a peak of sectarian violence in 2006 and 2007 which left tens of thousands dead in the war-torn country." Yes and, as noted in Wednesday's snapshot, that slaughter followed the last parliamentary election in which . . . candidates campaigned via hatred -- a match lit and tossed on the oil fields. Marc Lynch (Foreign Policy) offers some insight into this week's developments:
The legitimacy of the electoral process and the independence of Iraqi institutions have been thrown into serious question among both Iraqis and the international community. Sunni-Shia resentments have been rekindled, with such polarization evidently being seen as a winning electoral strategy in certain quarters. Sunni participation may well be depressed, though a full-out boycott is unlikely. The damage is likely to me measured in increments, not in a single apocalyptic collapse.
Layla Anwar (An Arab Woman Blues) offers this view:
The legitimacy of the electoral process and the independence of Iraqi institutions have been thrown into serious question among both Iraqis and the international community. Sunni-Shia resentments have been rekindled, with such polarization evidently being seen as a winning electoral strategy in certain quarters. Sunni participation may well be depressed, though a full-out boycott is unlikely. The damage is likely to me measured in increments, not in a single apocalyptic collapse.
Layla Anwar (An Arab Woman Blues) offers this view:
As expected and as mentioned in the lines below, the latest news state that Salih Al-Mutlag of the Iraqiiya Alliance has been banned from participating in the elections. I really hope he gets out of Iraq before being murdered.
He and Dhafir Al-Aini both Sunnis have been barred from the elections on charges of Baathism.
That is most strange really because Al Mutlaq left the Baath party back in the 70's. And Iyad Alllawi, a secular Shiite who served as PM during Bremer's time and who is also running on the Iraqiiya list was also a Baathist in the 70's and left the party. How come he was allowed to stay ?
Furthermore, Salih Al-Mutlag ran for the first round of elections in 2005, and ran in the provincial elections. I even remember in 2005, someone approached me and asked me to vote for his list. Of course, I refused to vote for anyone since I do not believe in the electoral process under US/Iranian occupation.
I really believe that the Arab Sunnis and secular forces of Iraq are really in a tight spot now, in particular the Sunnis. If they don't participate in the elections, the sectarian Shiite parties of Iran will have it all for themselves along with the Kurds and this is exactly what is asked for and wanted.
Some say that this may trigger another round of serious sectarian violence and I say this is exactly what is also aimed at because only then can the Americans stay on a little longer and the full partition plan of Iraq into 3 statelets can be turned into an official reality.
BBC News notes, "As posters appeared across Iraq for Friday's start, the fate of more than 170 candidates is still undecided." Will anyone vote? Mohammed Abbas and Samia Nakhoul (Reuters) report that "[. . .] Iraqis living with only a few hours of power a day amid mounds of rubbish and pools of sewage are wondering whether to bother voting in a March election." Reuters also offers a look at some of the political parties vying for votes. BBC News' Gabriel Gatehouse decides today to report on the Sunday protest in Baghdad and he still can't get it right. It was an "angry crowd," he tells us and that's supposed to inform? From Monday's snapshot:
As one of the many chicken exiles who pulled the world into a war they were too cowardly to fight on their own, Nouri knows a thing or two about perception management even if Reuters doesn't. Helen Long (Reuters) plays fool or whore -- you decide in a video 'report' on 'thousands' of Shi'ite protesters 'offended' that suspected Ba'athists were running. Helen hopes you don't get your information from anywhere else. Especially not Germany's DPA which tells you what Helen refused to: "Thousands of supporters of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's Dawaa Party demonstrated outside the house of parliament in Baghdad on Sunday, to call for the exclusion of 'Baathist' candidates from the March polls." Who were these 'typical' protestors? The governor of Baghdad was among them. Helen whores it and prays the whole world is stupid and doesn't catch on. Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) reports, "Tensions over the dispute flared elswhere, as thousand of protesters attended anti-Baathist rallies in Baghdad and Basra organized by Mr. Maliki's political oranization, the Dawa Party. The Baghdad rally was broadcast at length on state television, showing Mr. Maliki's aides denoucning those sympathetic to the Baath Party".
You get the idea that, given the chance, Helen Long would insist to you that the April 2003 US PSY-OPS operation in Firdos Square where the US military brought down the statue of Hussein amidst a small group of exiles just brought back into the country (by the US) (as well as marines and 'reporters') was a 'legitimate' and 'real' protest by Iraqis. Helen really hopes you're as stupid as she believes you are and that you don't notice -- in the video she narrates!, for example, that these 'average Iraqi protestors' are carrying handmade flags . . . Iraqi flags? No, like any 'normal' and 'average' Iraq, they're carrying home made US flags. Yeah, that's believable. (Also note that the women are covered from head to toe but the men were track suits, dress suits, pullover shirts, etc. while few sport any kind of a bear let alone one would that would demonstrate devout religious beliefs -- translation, Nouri stands for more even more suppression of women's rights.) For those who have miss and long for the combined 'reporting' of Michael Gordon and Judith Miller, breathe easy, Helen Long is on the scene.
Nouri staged the protest and Gabriel can't tell you that but he does make time to interview Ahmed Chalabi -- as if anyone should trust that liar, as if that liar hasn't burned the press enough -- but there's Ahmed as a "trusted source." Layla Anwar (An Arab Woman Blues) calls out Gabriel:
And it seems that their Gabriel Gatehouse in the heart of Baghdad is unaware of people being gunned down in broad day light on bogus charges of Baathism nor is he aware that scores of Iraqis are already fleeing the capital and heading towards Syria and Jordan....
That shameless disgusting BBC so reminiscent of the colonial days of the British empire, still uses that same perfidious language and word twisting. BBC you hate Saddam Hussein because he would not bend over for your politicians. You only approve of those whom you can bugger. And some of us Iraqis will not be buggered.
And it seems to me despite all the information in your possession, you still hold that Ahmed Chalabi, the crook, the embezzler and the spy for Iran as a reference and a credible source of information. and that, despite the fact that your f**ked up nation is still inquiring into the " legality " of your going to "war" in Iraq.
You truly have ZERO shame and ZERO ethics.
That shameless disgusting BBC so reminiscent of the colonial days of the British empire, still uses that same perfidious language and word twisting. BBC you hate Saddam Hussein because he would not bend over for your politicians. You only approve of those whom you can bugger. And some of us Iraqis will not be buggered.
And it seems to me despite all the information in your possession, you still hold that Ahmed Chalabi, the crook, the embezzler and the spy for Iran as a reference and a credible source of information. and that, despite the fact that your f**ked up nation is still inquiring into the " legality " of your going to "war" in Iraq.
You truly have ZERO shame and ZERO ethics.
Earlier this week, Sam Dagher (New York Times) blogged on the KRG gearing up for elections. Also zooming in on that region is "Iraq's dangerous trigger line, Too late to keep the peace?" (The Economist):
FROM the market town of Khanaqin, on the Iranian border, all the way to Sinjar, near the border with Syria, a fortified line snakes across northern Iraq. To the east and north stand Kurdish forces, known as the Peshmerga, keen to reclaim land taken from them by Saddam Hussein more than two decades ago. On the other side of the line, to the west and south, are Iraqi regular-army troops sent by the central government in Baghdad to stop ancient cities along the Tigris river falling into what it fears may become a purely Kurdish sphere.
The two forces have come close to flat-out fighting several times, usually outside the cities where commanders act off their own bat. Last year an Iraqi army unit drove into the disputed, though mainly Kurdish, town of Altun Kupri and took up sniper positions on rooftops. When residents, supported by armed Peshmerga, started demonstrating against their presence, the Arab soldiers were told to shoot to kill. Bloodshed was avoided at the last minute by American troops stationed nearby.
FROM the market town of Khanaqin, on the Iranian border, all the way to Sinjar, near the border with Syria, a fortified line snakes across northern Iraq. To the east and north stand Kurdish forces, known as the Peshmerga, keen to reclaim land taken from them by Saddam Hussein more than two decades ago. On the other side of the line, to the west and south, are Iraqi regular-army troops sent by the central government in Baghdad to stop ancient cities along the Tigris river falling into what it fears may become a purely Kurdish sphere.
The two forces have come close to flat-out fighting several times, usually outside the cities where commanders act off their own bat. Last year an Iraqi army unit drove into the disputed, though mainly Kurdish, town of Altun Kupri and took up sniper positions on rooftops. When residents, supported by armed Peshmerga, started demonstrating against their presence, the Arab soldiers were told to shoot to kill. Bloodshed was avoided at the last minute by American troops stationed nearby.
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Shootings?
Aref Mohammed and Jack Kimball (Retuers) report that a village near Iraq's border with Iran was stormed by US and Iraqi forces with Maysan Province council member Maitham Laftah stating 10 people are dead and five injured while another count offers 8 dead and three injured: "A Reuters photographer who arrived after the firefight saw bloodstains on the ground and bullet holes in the walls."
Bombings?
Press TV reports Kufa roadside bombings resulted in the deaths of 6 people with thirty-five more injured. Reuters notes a Buhriz car bombing which claimed 2 lives (a father and son).
Meanwhile Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) reports on the US military beliefs concerning the kidnapping of American citizen Issa T. Salomi by the League of Righteous:
But a senior US military leader, speaking on condition of anonymity, says the kidnapping appears to be a one-off incident possibly sparked by the Iraqi government's recent arrest of two mid-level members of the AAH, which US officials say is backed by Iran.
He said the group, which broke away from the movement of militant Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr after Sadr agreed to a ceasefire in 2008, appears to have further splintered after its leader Sheikh Qais al-Khazali renounced attacks on Iraqi forces and was released from US and Iraqi custody. The release was an apparent exchange for a British hostage and the bodies of three of his bodyguards and seen as key to reconciliation between the Iraqi government and Shiite militant groups.
"What I think has happened…is that there are elements within AAH that are not following any orders from Qais…. We believe it is that element out of that group that is pursuing their kidnapping campaign," says the senior U.S. official.
It's always interesting to watch the US military and US officials -- named and unnamed -- offer takes on what this or that group is in doing in Iraq -- you know, as opposed to what Iraqis think the groups doing in Iraq. For example, many don't buy the idea of a 'splinter group' -- or that al-Sadr 'ridded' his organization of the militias.
To stick with the US position presented in the article, so the League of Righteous allegedly felt shut out of the 'political process' and, in their anger/depression/rage, decided that they could best have a 'voice' and get their way via violence? Well wherever could they have learned that? From a US administration that ordered the US military to release the ringleaders of the organization despite the League's claims of responsibility (bragging, actually) for the death of 5 US service members in a raid on a base?
3 dead British citizens and 1 alive also proved to be very beneficial for the League.
Maybe that's why you have to be very careful about entering into negotiations with those who resort to violence? Concerned because of the message you send and the message the current US administration sent by releasing the ringleaders and others starting in June of last year was: Violence means you get your way.
In England, the Iraq Inquiry is in recess but Simon Vezey (Epoch Times) notes John Chilcot, Chair of the Committee, and others' statements to offer:
One exchange hinted that the panel had access to secret documents revealing that George Bush planned to attack Iraq even if Iraq complied with inspectors and was in compliance with the crucial UN resolution 1441.
Sir Lawrence Freedman had asked Mr Straw: "Was there any point where Powell said to you that, even if Iraq complied, President Bush had already made a decision that he intended to go to war?"
When Mr Straw said this was not the case, "to the best of my recollection", and talked more broadly around the question, Sir Lawrence pressed him a few times on the issue.
Sir Lawrence Freedman said: "I was going to suggest you might want to look through your conversations and check."
"I will go through the records, because I think you are trying to tell me something," said Mr Straw.
One exchange hinted that the panel had access to secret documents revealing that George Bush planned to attack Iraq even if Iraq complied with inspectors and was in compliance with the crucial UN resolution 1441.
Sir Lawrence Freedman had asked Mr Straw: "Was there any point where Powell said to you that, even if Iraq complied, President Bush had already made a decision that he intended to go to war?"
When Mr Straw said this was not the case, "to the best of my recollection", and talked more broadly around the question, Sir Lawrence pressed him a few times on the issue.
Sir Lawrence Freedman said: "I was going to suggest you might want to look through your conversations and check."
"I will go through the records, because I think you are trying to tell me something," said Mr Straw.
TV notes. NOW on PBS begins airing Friday on most PBS stations (check local listings):
Even with the recent outpouring of support for earthquake victims in
Haiti, Americans' attention span for global crises is usually very
short. But is there a way to keep American audiences from tuning out
important global issues of violence, poverty, and catastrophe far beyond
their backyards? On Friday, February 12 at 8:30 pm (check local
listings), NOW talks with filmmaker Eric Metzgar about "Reporter," his
documentary about the international reporting trips of New York Times
columnist Nicholas Kristof. In the film, Metzgar provides fascinating
insight into how Kristof breaks through and gets us to think deeply
about people and issues half a world away.
Haiti, Americans' attention span for global crises is usually very
short. But is there a way to keep American audiences from tuning out
important global issues of violence, poverty, and catastrophe far beyond
their backyards? On Friday, February 12 at 8:30 pm (check local
listings), NOW talks with filmmaker Eric Metzgar about "Reporter," his
documentary about the international reporting trips of New York Times
columnist Nicholas Kristof. In the film, Metzgar provides fascinating
insight into how Kristof breaks through and gets us to think deeply
about people and issues half a world away.
Staying with TV notes, Washington Week begins airing on many PBS stations tonight (and throughout the weekend, check local listings) and joining Gwen are Dan Balz (Washington Post), Naftali Bendavid (Wall St. Journal), Janet Hook (Los Angeles Times) and David Sanger (New York Times). Meanwhile Bonnie Erbe will sit down with Melinda Henneberger, Eleanor Holmes Norton and Genevieve Wood to discuss the week's events on PBS' To The Contrary. Check local listings, on many stations, it begins airing tonight. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes:
Davos
Nowhere in the world can such a concentration of power be found than at the World Economic Forum's meeting in Davos, Switzerland, where the world's most powerful and influential people gather yearly to try to solve the world's most pressing problems. Scott Pelley reports.
Made In The USA
Could crucial parts of the equipment Iran is using in its uranium enrichment facility have come from the U.S.? American law enforcement authorities say sensitive devices and electronics that could be used in weapons of mass destruction are being smuggled into Iran. Lesley Stahl reports. | Watch Video
Pigeon Fever
It's been just over a year since Bernard Madoff's multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme fell apart. But, as Morley Safer reports, despite all the news about the Madoff scandal, similar Ponzi scams are still thriving. | Watch Video
60 Minutes, Sunday, Feb. 14, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
