The Rag Blog

The Iraqi government is considering a new oil law that could give private oil companies greater control over its vast reserves. In light of rampant violence and shaky democratic institutions, many fear the law is being pushed through hastily by special interests behind closed doors.

Oil. The world economy’s thick elixir yields politics as murky and combustible as the crude itself. And no wonder. It brings together some awkward bedfellows: It’s where multinationals meet villagers, where executives meet environmentalists, where vast wealth meets deep poverty, where East meets West.

Oil, of course, can be politically explosive at the best of times, let alone the worst. So, when the country with the third largest oil reserves in the world debates the future of its endowment during a time of civil war, people sit up and take notice.

The Iraqi government is working on a new hydrocarbons law that will set the course for the country’s oil sector and determine where its vast revenues will flow. The consequences for such a law in such a state are huge. Not only could it determine the future shape of the Iraqi federation — as regional governments battle with Baghdad’s central authority over rights to the riches — but it could put much of Iraqi oil into the hands of foreign oil companies.

SULAIMANIYA, Iraq — The inmates began their strike with an angry call. “Allahu akbar!” they shouted, 120 voices joining in a cadence punctuated by whoops.

They thrust their arms between the metal bars and ripped away the curtains and plastic sheets covering the windows facing the prison courtyard. Their squinting faces were exposed to light.

Their Kurdish guards gathered, ready to control a prison break. There was no break. The inmates were able only to shove their bunks against the doors and barricade themselves in their cells. They settled into a day of issuing complaints.

They were not allowed the Koran, they said. Their rations were meager and often moldy. Sometimes the guards beat them, they said, and several inmates had disappeared. The entire inmate population had either been denied trials or had been held beyond the terms of their sentences, they said — lost in legal limbo in the Kurdish-controlled region of Iraq.

The prison strike here, on Dec. 4, ended when the local authorities agreed to transfer three unpopular guards and to allow copies of the Koran in the cells. But it exposed an intractable problem that has accompanied Kurdish cooperation with the United States in Iraq.

The Kurdish prison population has swelled to include at least several hundred suspected insurgents, and yet there is no legal system to sort out their fates. So the inmates wait, a population for which there is no plan.

The Kurdish government that holds the prisoners says they are dangerous, and points out that the population includes men who have attended terrorist or guerrilla training in Iraq or Afghanistan. But it also concedes to being stymied, with a small budget, limited prison space and little legal precedent to look back on.

‘Never said that … never did,’ defense secretary now asserts

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tried to rewrite history last week when he denied making prewar claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

Rumsfeld’s latest effort at backtracking on his prewar statements came Thursday at a contentious public forum in Atlanta when he faced a handful of hecklers and an anti-war questioner in the audience, who charged that he had lied about Saddam having weapons of mass destruction, which was President Bush’s chief rationale for invading the country and starting the war.

The Pentagon chief denied he had lied and said he had relied on official intelligence reports about Saddam’s weapons.

His questioner persisted: “You said you knew where they were.”

Rumsfeld: “I did not. I said I knew where ‘suspect’ sites were.”

The record shows that in the weeks preceding the war, Rumsfeld flatly claimed to know the whereabouts of Saddam’s WMD arsenal.

On March 30, 2003, 11 days into the war, Rumsfeld was asked in an ABC News interview if he was surprised that American forces had not yet found any weapons of mass destruction.

Two things to take from this post: 1) Bush, et al campaigned way too hard for this loser to lose, and 2) Oh no, you did-int say the voters can’t see how the votes are recorded!

I didn’t think I would still be this appalled, all these weeks later, about the race in which Republican multimillionaire car dealer Vern Buchanan stole the U.S. House Florida District 13 seat. But with the Jetsonesquely named iVotronics’ manufacturer claiming that we, the voting public, have no right to know how (or if) their machines work, I’m outraged all over again.

Of all the races where there could have been problems with electronic voting machines, isn’t it funny that the one where the Bush Administration lobbied most heavily is the one that looks the most tampered with?

By now, everyone knows the story: Buchanan, according to his own internal polling, was behind Democrat Christine Jennings by three to six points going into the election. Jennings voters, upon exiting the booths, immediately reported difficulties with the touch-screen interface in that one race.

Not in dispute is how many voters were affected — about 18,000. The reason why 18,000 voters drove all the way down to the polling place, signed up for a ballot, cast a vote in every other race on that ballot, and then just stopped, is less clear.

WASHINGTON — The armed forces, already struggling to meet recruiting goals, are considering expanding the number of noncitizens in the ranks — including disputed proposals to open recruiting stations overseas and putting more immigrants on a faster track to US citizenship if they volunteer — according to Pentagon officials.

Foreign citizens serving in the US military is a highly charged issue, which could expose the Pentagon to criticism that it is essentially using mercenaries to defend the country. Other analysts voice concern that a large contingent of noncitizens under arms could jeopardize national security or reflect badly on Americans’ willingness to serve in uniform.

Here is what my brother, a member of the Army National Guard, told me as he prepared to serve in Iraq this year:

The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is who controls the armed forces. Civilian command of the Army is a cornerstone of our democratic system.

My brother told me that he takes his oath to defend the Constitution seriously and that he will fight and die if necessary to honor his commitment. When I asked him if he would be offended if I participated in activities opposing the war, he replied that it was not only my right but my obligation, and the obligation of all civilians opposing this war, to try to change bad policy. “Give us good wars to fight,” he said.

It’s not too late for us to honor the almost 3,000 U.S. service members who have died defending the principles of our democracy. It is morally imperative for us to honor our living service members and to do what is demanded of us by our democracy and by common decency. We have taken a small step by changing some of our leadership in Washington, but now it is upon us to follow through at home and demand accountability from our leaders.

What are you, fellow citizens, willing to do to defend our Constitution? Will you dignify the sacrifices of our soldiers? Will you honor my brother’s faith in our system? Will you let my brother or others die to eke out a slightly smaller disaster in Iraq? These are the questions we face in the wake of the Baker-Hamilton report.

My brother is betting his life that you are not going to ask this of him. He has placed his trust in the idea that we will not ask him to die for anything less than the necessary defense of our democracy. Reasonable people may at one time have disagreed about the necessity of the Iraq war, but now that it has become abundantly clear from every quarter that we cannot win, will you be responsible for asking my brother to stay?

1931 – Dr. Cornelius Rhoads, under the auspices of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Investigations, infects human subjects with cancer cells. He later goes on to establish the U.S. Army Biological Warfare facilities in Maryland, Utah, and Panama, and is named to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. While there, he begins a series of radiation exposure experiments on American soldiers and civilian hospital patients.

1932 – The Tuskegee Syphilis Study begins. 200 black men diagnosed with syphilis are never told of their illness, are denied treatment, and instead are used as human guinea pigs in order to follow the progression and symptoms of the disease. They all subsequently die from syphilis, their families never told that they could have been treated.

1935 – The Pellagra Incident. After millions of individuals die from Pellagra over a span of two decades, the U.S. Public Health Service finally acts to stem the disease. The director of the agency admits it had known for at least 20 years that Pellagra is caused by a niacin deficiency but failed to act since most of the deaths occured within poverty-striken black populations.

1940 – Four hundred prisoners in Chicago are infected with Malaria in order to study the effects of new and experimental drugs to combat the disease. Nazi doctors later on trial at Nuremberg cite this American study to defend their own actions during the Holocaust.

1942 – Chemical Warfare Services begins mustard gas experiments on approximately 4,000 servicemen. The experiments continue until 1945 and made use of Seventh Day Adventists who chose to become human guinea pigs rather than serve on active duty.

1943 – In response to Japan’s full-scale germ warfare program, the U.S. begins research on biological weapons at Fort Detrick, MD.

When I watch pictures of your dead buddies on albasrah.net and I read some of your naive childlike poems, I feel sorry for you. I honestly do.
I feel sorry for you yet at the same time I feel anger.
It is a very confusing mix of ambivalent, contradictory emotions.
On the one hand,I would love to strike you and on the other hand I say to myself, it is not really your fault.
You chose it yet you did not choose it.
From your perspective you are only “executing orders” . Yet hard facts on the battle ground tell me that you also enjoy the humiliation you inflict on these “alien” “evil ” people-the Iraqis.

Despite your own neediness and your being in “it” because “it” will give you a grant, a green card and maybe the famous passport with an embossed striped eagle , you still believe you are superior, a better race, a more advanced one, a purer one.

I see the pictures of your dead buddies and I think of their mothers and fathers and the bitterness and grief they may feel. You all look so young and in many ways so innocent.

Yet when I see you kicking young Iraqis around and beating them to death, when I see you raping little girls and burning them, when I see you making Iraqi children run miles after a plastic bottle of water or when you teach those poor little souls to say “Fuck you Iraq”, just for the fun of it – I can’t but have hate for you .
(I will not even mention the torture, nor the pillaging – you know all of that already)

When I see you urinating in and on sacred places and when I see you writing your degenerate graffitis on 7’000 years old archeological sites, with absolutely no respect or regard for other people’s Faith, Culture and History- I can’t but have contempt for you.

When I hear innombrable stories like this one : When you stripped naked my friend- a woman with more qualifications than the whole of your army put together, 45 years old , old enough to be your own mother. You said you wanted to make sure she is not “hiding something down there” in her undies. Remember that one ? You did that in front of 30 of your male buddies in your “special” camp. Then you offered her a coke so she can relax and”chill out”.
She would not tell me the rest of the story, she said: “Let sleeping dogs lie”.
I want you to know that she left Iraq and everything she owned after that incident because of you. She said to me: “I do not want to take anything with me, not even another pair of underwear. Let them have it all.” This is how much you disgusted her with your acts.
Yes , when I hear yet another story like this one -I can’t but despise you.

I admit, at times, I have empathy for you and for the life you left behind- a life you may never return to.

And sometimes I sit and wonder if you realize the amount of pain and suffering you are inflicting on an innocent people who have done NOTHING to you.
Do you actually realize the enormity and severity of your actions? Do you realize how many deep wounds and scars that may never heal, you are leaving behind you ?

And sometimes, I sit and wonder what happens when you go to sleep at night. Can you sleep in peace? Can you close your eyes with a clean conscience ?

And sometimes, I sit and wonder when you finish your round of harassing and killing Iraqis and you deliberately leave them bloated by Death on the streets for days on end – can you still fool yourself and pretend to send “Love” letters to your family, wife or girlfriend?

I have a lot more to say to you but I feel I have said enough. After all , I am not supposed to be engaging you.

This last Sunday Harry Reid, the incoming Democratic majority leader in the US Senate, went on ABC’s Sunday morning show and declared that a hike in U.S. troops in Iraq is okay with him.

Here’s the evolution of the Democrats’ war platform since November 7, 2006, the day the voters presented a clear mandate: “End the war! Get out of Iraq!” and took the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives away from the Republicans.

So somewhat to their surprise the Democrats recaptured both the Senate and the House. Then they went to work–to obliterate the mandate. The first thing they did was reject Jack Murtha, the man who said “Quit Now” in 2005. They voted down Murtha as House majority leader and picked the pro-war Steny Hoyer.

Then Nancy Pelosi, chose Silvestre Reyes as House Intelligence Committee chairman. Reyes promptly told Newsweek, “We’re not going to have stability in Iraq until we eliminate those militias, those private armies. We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize IraqI would say 20,000 to 30,000-for the specific purpose of making sure those militias are dismantled, working in concert with the Iraqi military.”

Reyes comes to his important post with an open mind, meaning an empty one. He knows nothing of the region. This became clear in his brief parley with a reporter from Congressional Quarterly who had the impudence to ply him with questions at the end of a tiring day when men of mature judgment head for the bar. CQ’s man asked Reyes if Al Qaeda was Sunni or Shiite.

Reyes tossed a mental coin. “Predominantly-probably Shiite.” Wrong, of course, since Al Qaeda is Sunni, of a notoriously intolerant strain. It’s as if Reyes had called the Pope a Presbyterian.

Then the pesky newshound probed him on the matter of Hezbollah. “Hizbollah. Uh, Hizbollah” Reyes answered irritably. “Why do you ask me these questions at 5 o’clock?”

Back in 2003 Reyes, a Vietnam vet, was opposed to the war. Give him clout as Intelligence Committee chair and he starts citing John McCain approvingly, even upping the mad Arizonan’s troop-boost call by 10,000.

Next, the Democrats in the Senate gave unanimous confirmation to Robert Gates as defense secretary. Gates has a career record as one who slants intelligence to suit his bosses’ political agenda. Recently, as president of Texas A&M, he deep-sixed affirmation action as college policy. The Democrats in the Senate could have stretched out the hearings, grilled Gates closely on his plans, taxed him with his grimy past as Bill Casey’s second-in-command in the Contra-gate Era. Special Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh said flatly in his memoirs that Gates was not truthful in his 1991 confirmation hearings about his role.

The only cloud might seem to be what the Democratic takeover of Congress could mean for their business. After all, this is an industry that has generally supported the Republican Partyby sending about 60 percent of its political contributions to Republican candidates.

But, even so, few in the military industry are worried. Next year’s Pentagon budget is expected to exceed $560 billion, including spending for Iraq. And, sometime this spring, President Bush has indicated he will seek an additional $100 billion in supplemental spending in 2007 for Iraq and Afghanistan.

And no one expects Democrats, in the last two years of the Bush administration, to make major changes, especially with the war continuing. Democrats are sensitive to the charge of being “soft” on defense, and are expected to use their control of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees to establish their military bona fides for the 2008 presidential election. This would include Senator Hillary Rodham Clintonof New York, who is an increasingly vocal member of the committee.

America stands shamed in the eyes of the world thanks to the Bush administration’s crime spree. And, as a partial result, the Democrats scored a resounding triumph in an election where only 40.4% of eligible Americans cast ballots. 40.4%! So much for urgency.

The Democrats, covering their aid-and-abetment in the American catastrophe called Iraq, chortled in their joy like latter-day “Jabberwocks“. Then promptly focused on the minimum wage and other measures to narrow the income gap in the United States. Income gap? Please be serious. The majority of the people in the world outside “Bubbleland“-USA have almost no income at all. Almost 3 billion people live on this planet earning less than $2 a day. That’s almost half the world! Minimum wage indeed! According to the U.S. Census Bureau, almost 50% of those Americans considered to be in “poverty” own their own homes. Hint to Democrats: Terrorists don’t “hate our freedoms,” they hate their violent impoverishment. That’s the gap to focus on.

The U.S. government must stop killing people. Indeed, our country, its leaders, and American democracy, have failed the world dismally. America has fought an illegal war in Iraq for almost three years. And at enormous cost to millions of innocents, killed, injured, and displaced. At enormous cost to our military, both physically and emotionally. And at enormous cost to our nation’s honour.

And now, because they won an election, the Democrats, complicit in the devastation wrought by the Bush administration, grin and gape in victory. Instead they should be mourning, mourning for the millions their decisions have so grievously harmed. Their high-fives and boogying are as unseemly as their role in the slaughter of innocents that is Iraq. As unseemly as not holding the Bush administration accountable for its lies and criminal behaviour. Or are the Democrats embarrassed to revisit the source of their gullibility and shame?