Saddam Hussein Executed-

Rut-ro.

Saddam Hussein Executed

Former Iraqi Leader Hanged for Crimes Against Humanity

By Sudarsan Raghavan

Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, December 29, 2006; 11:02 PM

BAGHDAD, Dec. 30 -- Former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, who rose from humble beginnings to build the Arab world's most ruthless dictatorship but whose fall unleashed a turbulent era for his nation and the world, was executed early Saturday morning in Baghdad, according to Iraqi state television.

Hussein, 69, who demanded a cultlike devotion from his people and built monuments to proclaim his own greatness, was hanged around 6 a.m. local time (10 p.m. Friday EST) in the American-controlled Green Zone in central Baghdad. Hussein was executed before a small group of observers, including some who had been tortured by his regime.

Special Report Washington Post stories and multimedia reports about Iraq, Afghanistan, the War on Terror and more. • Faces of the Fallen • Veterans: In Their Own Words • Afghan Reconstruction » FULL COVERAGE Special Report Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death in November for his role in the 1982 execution of about 150 people in the Shiite town of Dujail. Get background, photos and video about Hussein's rise to power and ultimate fall. » Hussein: The Life of a Dictator

"Criminal Saddam was hanged to death," state-run Iraqiya television said in an announcement. The station played patriotic music and showed images of national monuments and other landmarks.

The execution took place three days after Iraq's highest court upheld Hussein's death sentence, a decision that meant the execution should take place within 30 days. Last month Hussein was found guilty of crimes against humanity for the killings of 148 Shiite men and boys from the northern town of Dujail after an attempt on his life in 1982.

Many human rights groups criticized the trial as unfair, delivering nothing more than victor's justice, a charge Iraqi officials denied.

Also hanged on Saturday morning were Hussein's half-brother Barzan Ibrahim and Awad Hamed al-Bandar, the former chief justice of the Revolutionary Court.

Sunni Arab loyalists have already vowed to take revenge for Hussein's execution, while many of Hussein's most ardent critics have said they would have loved to have carried out the execution themselves.

"It's like God asking you to choose between heaven and hell," said Thamer al-Musawi, 47, a barber in Baghdad's Karrada neighborhood, speaking before the execution. "If Saddam gets executed, you go to hell. If he doesn't, you go to heaven. I will choose hell just so Saddam is executed.

"He is not a human being," Musawi added. "He does not deserve to be alive."

On Wednesday, a farewell letter posted on several Web sites in the name of Hussein declared that he was ready to die and urged Iraqis not to hate the people of the countries that had invaded Iraq, just their leaders. His lawyers said the letter was authentic and had been written Nov. 5, the day his death sentence was pronounced. A portion of it reads:

"Here, I offer my soul to God as a sacrifice, and if God wants He will lift it up to where the first believers and martyrs are, and if His decision is postponed, then He is the most merciful." The letter's authenticity is impossible to verify independently.

On Thursday, Hussein had met in his prison cell with his two maternal half brothers and handed them personal messages, according to his lawyers.

CONTINUED 1 2 Next

Bush and Chancellor Merkel to meet Jan 4th.

Merkel, Bush to Hold Talks on January 4

I hope she can give him a reality check.

Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: United States President George W. Bush, right, points out a member of the audience to Angela Merkel, Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, left, following their speeches at the Gala Dinner of the 100th Anniversary meeting of the American Jewish Committee (AJC) at the National Building Museum in Washington, D.C. on May 4, 2006. Foto: Ron Sachs +++(c) dpa - Report+++

German Chancellor Angela Merkel will visit Washington on January 4 for talks with US President George W. Bush on issues like the stalled Middle East peace process, the two governments said.

They will also take up efforts to quell violence in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran's disputed nuclear ambitions, instability in Lebanon and efforts to decide the final status of Kosovo, according to spokesmen for the two leaders.

Because Germany assumes the presidencies of both the European Union and the Group of Eight most industrialized nations on January 1, "the German role on all of these issues will be especially important in 2007," said White House deputy press secretary Scott Stanzel.

The brief visit will also include a dinner at the White House, German government spokesman Thomas Steg said.

Steg said the discussions would focus on the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq, hopes for progress on peace in the Middle East and Iran's disputed nuclear program.

The chancellor herself said in an interview this month that she wanted to use the meeting to press Bush on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Better relations

Merkel has worked hard to improve German-US relations since taking office a year ago and has won praise from Bush, who fell out with her predecessor Gerhard Schröder over the Iraq war.

Merkel will also present Germany's plans for its presidencies of the G-8 and the EU.

Stanzel said the two leaders would discuss "promoting stability and reconstruction in Afghanistan, advancing Israeli-Palestinian peace (and) supporting the democratically elected government of Lebanon."

They were also to take up "preventing Iran from developing the capability to make nuclear weapons, ending the violence in Darfur, determining the final status of Kosovo, promoting free trade and further transatlantic economic integration, and advancing energy security," he said in a statement.

DW staff / AFP (jam)

Saddam Death Verdict Gets Frown from European Governments

After Iraq's appeals court upheld the death sentence against Saddam Hussein Tuesday, European governments reiterated their opposition to the death penalty. But there was little sympathy for the former dictator.

European governments expressed their opposition to the death penalty, but respected Iraq's sovereignty in dealing with Saddam.

According to Iraqi law, Saddam should be hanged within 30 days. Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government has said it will not shy away from carrying out the sentence. Saddam was convicted in November of crimes against humanity for allegedly ordering the deaths of 148 Shiite men from the village of Dujail.

The German government said Wednesday it was satisfied that that the trial had been both necessary and fair. While stressing that Germany is "categorically opposed to the death penalty," Saddam deserved to be tried for crimes against humanity, said the government's deputy spokesman Thomas Steg.

"There is nothing to indicate the trial, including the appeals process, did not take place in accordance with the rule of law and legal principles in operation in Iraq," Steg said.

The trial helped Iraq "legally come to terms" with its past, the government said.

Britain agreed, saying that Saddam's execution should be left up to the independent Iraqi tribunal, a foreign office spokesman in London told the AFP news agency.

"Our position is unchanged. We are opposed to the death penalty as a matter of principle, but the decision is one for the Iraqi authorities," the spokesman said.

Reconciliation needed

Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Saddam reacts against his verdict

France reacted similarly, voicing its opposition to capital punishment, but saying that only Iraq could decide how to punish Saddam.

The French Foreign Ministry said that the decision to execute Saddam should be left up to the Iraqi people and the sovereign authorities in Iraq. France's priority remains to work for the reconciliation of the Iraqi people to restore "complete sovereignty," the statement said.

Italy expressed concern about the death sentence. Italian foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema said he feared the execution of Saddam would have negative consequences for reconciliation in Iraq.

My hope would be, when american government is brought to justice for their criminal acts, the same penalty will be imposed.

Children Pick Their Christmas Toys

*Inter Press Service*
Dahr Jamail and Ali Al-Fadhily

*FALLUJAH, Dec 25 (IPS) - Ahmed Ghazi has little reason to stock
Christmas toys at his shop in Fallujah. He knows what children want
these days.*

"It is best for us to import toys such as guns and tanks because they
are most saleable in Iraq to little boys," Ghazi told IPS. "Children try
to imitate what they see out of their windows."

And there are particular imports for girls, too, he said. "Girls prefer
crying dolls to others that dance or play music and songs."

As children in the United States and around the world celebrate
Christmas, and prepare to celebrate the New Year, children in Iraq
occupy a quite different world, with toys to match.

Social researcher Nuha Khalil from the Iraqi Institute for Childhood
Development in Baghdad told IPS that young girls are now expressing
their repressed sadness often by playing the role of a mother who takes
care of her small daughter.

"Looking around, they only see gatherings of mourning ladies who lost
their beloved ones," said Khalil. "Our job of comforting these little
girls and remedying the damage within them is next to impossible."

Hundreds of thousands of children have faced trauma of some sort. And
for others, the lack of a normal life is trauma enough.

Just a lack of entertainment is developing into a serious problem. There
are only 10 cinemas in Baghdad, and two dilapidated public parks. These
are no longer safe for children.

Children do not go out much to play, and they are not sure of home any
more. The United Nations estimates that more than 100,000 Iraqis are
fleeing the country every month. The number of Iraqis living in other
Arab countries is now more than 1.8 million. There are in addition more
than 1.6 million internally displaced people within Iraq.

The group Refugees International says that the increasing number of
people fleeing Iraq means that this refugee crisis might soon overtake
that in Darfur. And children suffer most from leaving, and they suffer
most where they go.

"Homeless children are inclined to be rough, and isolated from their new
neighbourhood and new school colleagues," Hayam al-Ukaili, a primary
school headmistress in Fallujah told IPS. "They do not mix in with their
new atmosphere as they should. It is as if they feel it is imposed upon
them, and they simply reject it."

Teachers and social workers say children have begun to nurse a strong
hatred of the United States. No more is the United States the image of a
good life.

"Children have lost hope in the United States and the Iraqi government
after the situation has only worsened every day," Abdul Wahid Nathum,
researcher for an Iraqi NGO which assists children told IPS in Baghdad
(he did not want the organisation to be named).

"Their understanding of the ongoing events is incredible," he said. "It
is probably because the elder members of the family keep talking
politics and watching news. Talking to a 12-year-old child, one would be
surprised by the huge amount of news inside his head, which is not right."

"Children are the most affected by the tragic events," Dr. Khalil
al-Kubaissi, a psychotherapist in Fallujah told IPS. "Their fragile
personalities cannot face the loss of a parent or the family house along
with all the horror that surrounds them. The result is catastrophic, and
Iraqi children are in serious danger of lapsing into loneliness or
violence."

The difficulties of children have become particularly noticeable this
year. "The only things they have on their minds are guns, bullets, death
and a fear of the U.S. occupation," Maruan Abdullah, spokesman for the
Association of Psychologists of Iraq told reporters at the launch of a
study in February this year.

The report warned that "children in Iraq are seriously suffering
psychologically with all the insecurity, especially with the fear of
kidnapping and explosions."

The API surveyed more than 1,000 children throughout Iraq over a
four-month period and found that "92 percent of the children examined
were found to have learning impediments, largely attributable to the
current climate of fear and insecurity."

With nearly half of Iraq's population under 18 years of age, the
devastating impact of the violent and chaotic occupation is that much
greater. Three wars since 1980, a refugee crisis of staggering
proportions, loss of family members, suicide attacks, car bombs and the
constant threat of home raids by occupation soldiers or death squads
have meant that young Iraqis are shattered physically and mentally.

As early as April 2003, the United Nations Children's Fund had estimated
that half a million Iraqi children had been traumatized by the U.S.-led
invasion. The situation has degenerated drastically since then.

A report issued by Iraq's Ministry of Education earlier this year found
that 64 children had been killed and 57 wounded in 417 attacks on
schools within just a four-month period. In all 47 children were
kidnapped on their way to or from school over the period.

Letter from UFPJ

Dear friend of United for Peace and Justice,

With the situation in Iraq spiraling out of control, Bush Administration officials have recently floated the idea of a "troop surge" -- sending as many as 30,000 more troops to Iraq. With U.S. soldiers being maimed and killed with growing frequency, and the number of U.S. deaths in Iraq rapidly approaching the grim milestone of 3,000, this startlingly stupid plan can only mean more deaths -- both U.S. and Iraqi -- and a deeper quagmire.

But far from rejecting it, leading Democrats, including Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid, have expressed support for the notion of sending more troops to Iraq.

Obviously, they haven't been listening to the will of the people, whose opposition to the war gave them control of the Congress. Only 12% support sending more troops to Iraq -- the overwhelming majority want the troops to come home now.

So we need to speak louder than ever:

1) Call or email the office of Senator Harry Reid and tell him you expect the Democrats to follow the clear wishes of the electorate and bring the troops home from Iraq.

Call Reid at 202-224-2158 or 202-224-7003 or email his chief of staff at Susan_McCue@reid.senate.gov

2) Plan to mark the 3,000th U.S. death with a vigil or other event in your community. Under the slogan, "Not One More Death, Not One More Dollar," the American Friends Service Committee, a member group of UFPJ, is coordinating events all around the country. Learn more at www.afsc.org/3000

3) Now more than ever, be sure to join us in Washington, D.C., on Saturday, January 27, for a massive peace march calling on Congress to use its power to bring the troops home now! Leaflets, web banners, ride and housing boards, and much more for this urgently needed protest are available at www.unitedforpeace.org

With hopes for peace and justice in this holiday season,

UFPJ National Staff

ACTION ALERT * UNITED FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE

www.unitedforpeace.org | 212-868-5545

To subscribe, visit www.unitedforpeace.org/email

Make Believe Psyop

There is No Such Thing as a War on Terrorism

by Javier Marías

Our perception of time is all too variable, and there are many factors that can strangely and dramatically affect it, breaking the thread of continuity. When a love affair ends, for example, everything that belonged to the time of that love suddenly becomes the "past," and things that happened only a year ago when you were with the person who left you, or whom you left, now seem distant and incongruously remote. The same happens after the death of someone we love, especially after the mourning is over. Then, even things that didn't directly concern that person seems part of some bygone era. These temporal abysses also open up in the aftermath of great catastrophes. All that happened before Sept. 11, 2001, has become remote. It's been three years, according to the calendar, but psychologically it feels like no fewer than 10 - and that's true for the entire world. Don't we all feel that the war in Afghanistan, which came only a little later, began decades ago? That might be because the Afghan war was the only truly direct consequence of the attacks on the twin towers and the Pentagon and was therefore in some way "contemporary" with those killings, unlike the outlandish, unjustified and illegal war in Iraq and its interminable and incomprehensible aftermath. Ordinary citizens, even those who were once most fully convinced of the justice and necessity of the invasion of Iraq, know instinctively and naturally that the Iraq war and the terrorist attacks are two separate events. Political leaders too often forget about this "perceptive factor" among the citizenry, which is not necessarily based on reason. They forget, too, that very little can be done against it. After the March 11 train bombings in Spain, Spaniards immediately perceived two things: First, that Prime Minister José María Aznar's administration was indirectly responsible for the horror, which would not have occurred if Aznar had not been so eager to promote his alliance with Tony Blair and George W. Bush. Second, that his administration lied about the probable authorship of the attacks - or delayed the truth, which under the circumstances amounted to the same thing - for political advantage. Whether accurate or erroneous, true or false, there's no way to uproot such perceptions. And while they are of little use in the eyes of the law, they are useful when it comes to deciding whom to vote for in an election. That, and nothing else, was what happened in Spain. Aznar's administration had been in power for eight years when it was voted out three days after the attacks. All those malicious commentators on our election results deliberately forgot two things: that in times of crisis, people tend to support the existing government, and that Spain has endured Basque terrorism for 30 years without faltering. Perhaps it's simply that our hides have toughened; our hearts and minds have grown more accustomed to futile, gratuitous murder. It is a terrible thing, but little by little you get used to the possibility of indiscriminate attack just as we've all grown used to the certainty that there will be deaths on the highways every weekend. "It's always going to happen - let's hope it doesn't happen to us," becomes the unformed, unconscious thought. Maybe that's why Spain, six months later, seems already to have overcome the trauma of the railway bombings. There is no more fear than there was before, nor fewer liberties. Today's Spanish government shows no interest in constantly sounding alarms. Our habits seem as unchanging as the streets, the bars, the restaurants, the airports and the train stations, all just as crowded as ever and as lively and buoyant. It's also certainly true that for most of us, not a day goes by without remembering the almost 200 victims of March 11, with pain and a keen awareness that chance, fate and bad luck continue to be as important today as they were in humanity's less foreseeing epochs. Here in Spain, we don't feel as if we are at war because we aren't. And neither are the inhabitants of the United States, however vociferously many Americans may insist that they are. War is something else entirely. No semi-normal life can be led while a war is going on. The residents of Madrid who lived through the siege of their city between 1936 and 1939 know that very well. The survivors of the daily bombardments of London during World War II know it, too. And those Americans who participated in that war know it, also. There is no war against terrorism. There can be no such thing against an enemy that remains dormant most of the time and is almost never visible. It's simply another of life's inevitable troubles, and all we can do as we continue to combat it is repeat Cervantes's famous phrase "Paciencia y barajar": "Have patience, and keep shuffling the cards."

Merkel Makes Human Rights a Top Priority

A leader I could be proud to call my own

Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Angela Merkel is respected for her pragmatic manner in addressing sensitive issues

In keeping with her consistently outspoken stance on sensitive issues, Germany's chancellor did not mince words on human rights during her visit to China this week. Experts say her style will increase Germany's clout.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel is setting a clear course when it comes to human rights.

"This is an issue that is being supported from the top and it is significant that this is the case," said Günter Nooke, the German government's human rights representative.

He said the differences between Merkel and her predecessor Gerhard Schröder were "self-evident." Schröder, who had a very close relationship to Russian president Vladimir Putin, had called the leader a "flawless democrat." Merkel, on the other hand, addressed sensitive issues such as Chechnya when she went to Moscow in January.

She also broached the delicate subject of the US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay before and during her inaugural visit to Washington in January.

No need to schmooze in China

Eberhard Sandschneider, director of the German Council on Foreign Relations' Research Institute, said he wasn't surprised that Merkel had talked about human rights concerns while in Beijing.

Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Experts estimate that at least 8,000 people get the death penalty in China each year

"It isn't astonishing, as human rights are always an issue when one of our politicians goes to China," Sandschneider said. "This sends a signal at home."

But Merkel's course was more positive than Schröder's, Sandschneider said.

"We finally have someone who recognizes that China doesn't need to be schmoozed," he said. "Rather, a common base needs to be found and we can go from there. They can handle the criticism."

Merkel is a tough but honest partner

Merkel said at the end of her China visit that the country "still had deficits in human rights.

"The Chinese are tough negotiators," Merkel told German television ZDF. "So we have to counter just as toughly and make clear that we don't have anything to give away."

This style of dialogue was by no means detrimental to international ties, Nooke said.

Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: US President Bush praised Merkel as a "clear thinker"

"An interesting partner is someone who has their own opinion," Nooke said. "The fact that there are differences of opinion doesn't make us any less interesting."

Merkel's criticism of human rights issues in Beijing, Moscow and Washington have been positively received on the international stage. Sandschneider said this was because she came across authentically.

"She has an honest and straightforward manner and people value this," Sandschneider said.

The first step in a long process

Human rights organizations have welcomed Merkel's course. Beate Wagner from the Human Rights Forum's (HRF) coordination group said there had been a consistent upgrading of human rights under Merkel. The HRF is a network of more than 40 German non-governmental organizations, which critically monitor the human rights policies of the German government.

"Human rights issues have been explicitly well positioned on her inaugural visits," said Wagner, who is also secretary general of the German Society for the United Nations. She said this marked an "improvement" to the Schröder government and was a first step.

"Now, more work needs to be done," Wagner said. "We'll have to see how much gets implemented in bilateral relations. But we are positively looking forward to see what happens next."

Of course, experts agree that Merkel's criticism will not solve problems overnight.

"You can't have the illusion that one government is going to make a difference," Wagner said. "But it is part of an international climate, which can exert pressure."

Germany should use its international role in 2007

In January, Germany will take over the six-month rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union. It will also hold the G8 presidency in 2007.

Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Germany will chair the Council of the European Union for the first half of 2007

Wagner said Germany could use these positions to increase international pressure regarding human rights.

"It can set impulses in UN meetings, for example, when it has the voice as head of the European Council," she said.

Nooke said he was interested in keeping human rights on the agenda in the European Council next year.

"It is important that Europe pull together and carry weight in international bodies," Nooke said. "We have to have the courage to address critical issues. It can be that someone may not be happy with this, but in the medium and long term, it's worth it."

The Time is Now

IVAW on Iraq Study Group Report: “It’s the Occupation, Stupid!”

IVAW on Iraq Study Group Report: “It’s the Occupation, Stupid!”

After nine months of extensive study and research, the Iraq Study Group has produced a comprehensive report that makes a realistic and horrifying assessment of the situation in Iraq as it stands today and proposes an incredibly ambitious and admittedly imperfect plan for the future of our involvement there. The report alludes to gross mismanagement by outgoing Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, but offers no critique of the U.S.’s preemptive invasion based on lies. While the report calls for some important steps toward undoing the quagmire in Iraq -- notably the need to send a message to the Iraqi people that the U.S. has no plans to stay indefinitely and should dismantle its permanent military bases there -- it ignores the fundamental circumstance that underlies the crisis we face in Iraq.

The real problem in Iraq is the U.S. military occupation.

The Iraq Study Group’s report has three basic recommendations:
1. It proposes a comprehensive diplomatic effort regionally and internationally to support stabilization of Iraq.
2. It lays out ambitious benchmarks for the Iraqi government to get them to “stand up” so that we can “stand down.”
3. It recommends maintaining significant troop levels in Iraq to provide logistical support, rapid response capabilities, and training to the Iraqi Army and Police well into 2008.
Each of these recommendations is problematic and will not end the war.

1. The Iraq Study Group report calls for diplomatic efforts with other countries in the region and beyond to help the U.S. stabilize Iraq. While there is no doubt that the U.S. should engage in sincere diplomatic efforts, this is unlikely given the U.S.'s track record in the region. The U.S. showed complete disinterest in genuine diplomacy during the build up to the war, and acted unilaterally and preemptively in its invasion of Iraq. The Bush administration, with the blessings of Congress, made it clear that the U.S. was going to invade Iraq regardless of a U.N. decision and despite the objections of the international community, including nations in the Middle East. After millions of people worldwide, including Americans, protested the invasion, Bush called them a “focus group.” We have lost credibility in the region and have shown scorn for diplomacy and international law and opinion. As long as the U.S. is militarily occupying Iraq, diplomatic efforts will fail.

Unless diplomacy is accompanied by a swift withdrawal, U.S. troops and innocent Iraqis will continue to be killed and wounded. A study published this October in The Lancet medical journal estimated 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the U.S. led war and occupation. The death toll of U.S. service members is quickly approaching 3,000, with at least an additional 50,000 wounded. In the time the Iraq Study Group spent developing their report, roughly 700 Americans and 27,000 Iraqis were killed in the increasing violence and chaos. What we need is an end to the occupation, not more inaction and stalling tactics from Washington. Each day this war continues, our brothers and sisters in the military are being killed and wounded, along with untold numbers of Iraqi civilians.

2. The Iraq Study Group report suggests that we need to “help Iraqis help themselves,” reflecting the condescending attitude of an occupying nation toward one of the oldest civilizations on earth. The problem in Iraq is not the Iraqi government’s failure to “stand up.” The foremost problem in Iraq is the U.S. occupation. As long as the occupation continues, any Iraqi government working in tandem with the United States will lack legitimacy among the Iraqi people, the vast majority of whom want the U.S. military to leave their country. Specific recommendations of the report appropriately call for the U.S. to send a clear message to the Iraqi people that we have no intention to stay in Iraq long-term or control Iraqi oil. But at the same time, the report rejects the idea of any timetable for withdrawal, and makes it clear that the U.S. will maintain a significant military force there well into 2008.

The Iraqi government's inability to provide security and stability has little to do with any incompetence of the Iraqis, but is a direct result of the chaos and political disunity that comes with this U.S. occupation. As the report describes, without the necessary national unity, the Iraqi government has little control outside of the Green Zone. It has been ineffective in providing its people with basic services such as electricity, drinking water, health care, and education, as well as being unable to provide even minimal security. Many Iraqis see the government as a tool of the U.S. occupation and no amount of “carrot and stick” incentives from the U.S. will change this basic reality. Until the occupation leaves, no Iraqi government will have the popular support of the Iraqi people and therefore will be unable to gain control and effect positive changes.

3. The Iraq Study Group recommends significant numbers of U.S. troops staying in Iraq through 2008 to continue to train and equip the Iraqi Army and Police. The report advises the number of U.S. troops assigned to this mission to rise from the current 4,000 to approximately 20,000 U.S. soldiers embedded with Iraqi units. Again, the problem in Iraq is the U.S. occupation, and no level of U.S. training of Iraqi military forces will succeed in providing security in Iraq. A consideration that the Iraq Study Group leaves out is the issue of Iraqi military loyalty. Many members of both the Iraqi army and police forces are loyal not to the Iraqi government, but to various local and ethnic militias and leaders who, in many cases, are doing more to support their needs and interests than the national government.

Many of us who served in Iraq training the Iraqi Army and Police can attest to the difficulty inherent in this relationship. A core problem is that there is a huge cultural and language barrier between us. In addition, from the U.S. troops' standpoint, there is a lack of trust of Iraqis because of a history of many Iraqi Army and police being members of militias or the insurgency. Every day we hear reports of armed men in military or police uniforms kidnapping and killing Iraqi civilians. Often, U.S. forces discover that the Iraqis they were working to train were giving information and assistance to the insurgency in order to attack American personnel. And from the standpoint of the Iraqis, the U.S. troops are seen as occupiers who have caused immense harm and destruction in their communities. Iraqis have seen the U.S. military operate with reckless disregard of their human rights, torturing them at Abu Ghraib, leveling Fallujah killing hundreds of civilians, and massacring children in Haditha. Iraqis cannot forget these war crimes that have largely gone unpunished.

No amount of training of the Iraqi Army will change the fact that as long as we occupy Iraq the insurgency will continue, Al Qaeda terrorists will be drawn to Iraq, and militias spurred by sectarian tensions will flourish. Providing the Iraqi Army with more weapons and equipment will only increase the chances that such weapons will be used against U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians.

The findings of the Iraq Study Group will be used as cover for the administration and Congress to save face about the horrible blunders of this war, and in effect, will allow the occupation to continue indefinitely. It's easy to analyze the problems from afar, but to those of us who have experienced the ground truth in Iraq and have sacrificed the most, we know that eventual peace and stability in Iraq begins with immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces. The only way this will happen is if the American people force Congress to stop funding the war. There are presently enough funds from the fall 2006 budget appropriations to ensure troops will have all supplies and equipment they need to come home quickly and safely. But we must not allow further appropriations for our continued occupation in Iraq to prolong the suffering of our troops and the Iraqi people.

Hypocrite is as Hypocrite Does

December 5, 2006 at 15:44:36

BUSH ADMINSTRATION IMPLICATED IN NARCO DEATH SQUAD COVER UP

by Alex Gabor

http://www.opednews.com

In a developing story that has barely received any national or international media attention, one that has been brewing for close to three years now, is finally coming to the attention of a growing number of Congressional leaders and international investigative journalists.

Narco News investigative journalist, government muckraker and "Borderline Security" author Bill Conroy has published over 41 articles on the growing cover-up involving a dozen dead bodies found just south of the Mexican border.

He has been intimidated by ICE (Homeland Security) agents and other government officials for his vast coverage of this story of corruption that leads to the highest officials in America and may result in further resignations in the Bush administrations' tattered war torn Presidency.

Recently, the London based Observer published a story written by David Rose that failed to mention the groundwork laid by Conroy, yet Rose acknowledged Conroy in a private email, highlighted by facts that the United States Department of Justice, through the United State's Attorney's Office is involved in a massive cover-up of the operations that paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars to an informant directly involved in the murder of a Mexican attorney, one of the twelve bodies in the House of Death story.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has been attempting to suppress evidence from public view by invoking national security issues in an attempt to distance itself from the fallout amid growing curiosity of non-mainstream investigative journalists and public citizens.

Recent coverage in a Dallas Morning News story by Alfredo Corchado contradicts the stories put out by Rose and court records show that a paid government confidential informant was involved in more than one murder.

A group calling itself the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition has filed a Freedom of Information lawsuit against the Department of Justice which seeks to expose information implicating government officials behind the death squads involved on both sides of the border in more than 50 murders related to DEA, Homeland Security and Mexican police covert operations.

Conroy, who claims the Attorney General knew about payments of funds to death squad operators in Mexico that resulted in at least a dozen murders, has been asking for a congressional investigation into the matter.

His work has apparently caught the attention of Henry Waxman's office in Los Angeles, who is soon to take over as head of the Government Reform Committee, and is not too keen on secrecy within the Bush administration.

The committee is gearing up for public hearings after the new majority Democrats take office on a wide range of topics including the War in Iraq, the War on Drugs, government spending and government contracting. Prior efforts to bring this matter before Congressional leaders had failed.

It would appear that any information made public which exposes the federal government and reveals the truth about its secret covert operations that could be construed or in fact are illegal or actual war crimes comes under the heading of "national security", and tends to be discredited or confused by the governments' own bought and paid for press.

To date, over the past twenty years, the Federal government has spent over $500 billion on the war on drugs and the amount of money laundered from drug sales within the borders of the US and globally through an international network of bankers who take deposits from drug money launderers worldwide exceeds $1 trillion annually.

95% of the people listed on the DEA's most wanted fugitive list in Los Angeles are Latin American.

The questions that most international journalists should be asking is, did George Bush know that the US Department of Justice was paying confidential informants to be involved in racially motivated covert death squad operations and if so why were they allowed to continue, and if not, why not?

Isn't he after all, the Commander in Chief of the War on Drugs as well as the War on Terrorism and the War on Iraq?

Copyright © 2006 by Alex S. Gabor. All Rights Reserved.