Read Marcia's "Community note and Hillary." She called today while I was in the middle of a session. When I got done, I called and explained I had only a few minutes before my next appointment. She said it wasn't a big deal and could wait. I, sadly and badly, forgot all about it until late this evening.
I called her and she was worried about her post. Specifically, she was worried that it would upset C.I. I asked, "Have you heard from C.I. about this?" I knew the answer which was "no." I told her C.I. doesn't care and it's her site so write what she wants.
C.I. got ripped-off. I believe it was a rip-off and not an accident. Marcia called it out. C.I.'s not going to be mad. C.I.'s not going to mention it. That's just C.I.
I will note that I think it was a sign of lack of manners. Some people are born with manners, some develop them and some never do. It's rather sad when a grown man reveals he has never learned any manners.
Face pressed against the glass
You showed your ass
And now we all know.
That pretty much sums up the rip-off artist, if you ask me.
But that's why I've never been a huge fan of most in the media. They're worse than the stereotype of starlets when it comes to attempting their climb to 'fame.' There's a media "hero" who, in fact, is not a hero and who, in fact, when caught by his network falsely blamed another reporter. But the story told today is that he was fired for standing up for truth. The reality is when he was confronted, he didn't stand up, he pointed at Leslie Stahl and said, "She did it." When he later confessed (and everyone already knew), he was fired. That's not a hero but damned if the story's not rewritten today to make him one of the bravest journalists of all time.
He's not a bad person. He's just not a brave person. His 'stand,' such as it was, was about his own fame. When it was time to pay for his 'stand,' he falsely fingered someone else. He tried to smear Stahl with who she was dating (Aaron Latham). That was years ago, but I remember it well. (The 1970s.) Every now and then, C.I. will allude to that at The Common Ills and there will always be visitors e-mailing to say, "How dare you to speak of a legend like that!" It's the truth. It's why the man was fired, not for being a 'hero' taking a stand.
So if that's how it goes in the big pond, imagaine how it is in the run-off?
I'm rarely surprised these days. By anything the 'media' does or, as is more often the case, doesn't do.
One of the benefits of age and having seen it all before.
J-J-J-jaded, as Aerosmith sings.
So I told Marcia not to worry about it, it's not a problem with C.I. It's not something C.I.'s going to write about and it won't even be talked about at lenghth. For now. It's the sort of thing that may get mentioned years from now if the rip-off artist does something similar.
Changing topics, as C.I. notes in the snapshot (reposted in full at the end), there will probably be a roundtable at The Third Estate Sunday Review. There is a lot to talk about regarding Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney and the Green Party. Dona was on the phone earlier and pointed out, "You realize if we do that, C.I. will be forced to defend Nader because no one else will want to?" She's probably correct. She's correct that no one's going to be volunteering for that and she's correct that C.I. will do "in fairness." If it really does come to that, I may make a few statements in Nader's defense. I don't hate the man. I'm glad he's running and my only problem is how this played out in terms of Cynthia's campaign.
Who would I vote for? At this point, to be honest, if Hillary got the nomination, I would vote for her. I am disgusted by the trashing that has gone on. I'm outraged by the lying. She's withstood all of that and I do respect it. I also remember the biggest criticism of the Bill Clinton White House in real time: They just listen to polls!
After seven years of a White House that doesn't listen to the people, I think it would be nice to have someone who might listen. I think she can be forced to end the illegal war. Bambi Obama can't be forced. He's not being criticized, he's not had his feet held to the fire, and everytime he's disowned the left, the left's shown up to make excuses for him.
I think Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney would end the illegal war without pressure. If Bambi gets the Dem nomination, I'll vote for one of those two. If Hillary gets it, I would vote for her. With Nader or McKinney, both major parties would demonize them and they, especially Nader, have other projects they're working on (people's projects, I'm not insulting them). Neither would control a house in Congress (their party) so there might be a need to do trade-offs. (There might not be.)
In terms of Bambi, if you missed it, Hillary's new commercial (which is a good commercial) has already led Bambi to scream about the unfair tactics. Did he trot out racism? I didn't follow closely enough to know. But he stomps his feet on everything. I've noted here how his foot stomping has led to Muslim being a bad thing. I've pointed out that it doesn't require being offended to correct that you're not a Muslim.
But toss them under the bus along with everyone else Bambi's tossed under the bus, right?
I think it took strength I didn't know she had for Hillary to stand up under this onslaught. Rebecca (Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude) has made this point before. I read Naomi Wolf's endorsement of Bambi and, while she's free to endorse anyone she wants, she needs to stop focusing on the sheen and look at the record. Bambi's not a friend to women. He's not a friend to the LGBT community either and, sorry to break it to anyone billing as a feminist, but feminism does not allow for the use of homophobia as a campaign strategy to go unchallenged.
Equally true, and I wonder how Joan Baez decided to ignore that, is that Bambi's got a whole slew of War Hawks advising him, some of which support (and wrote) the counter-insurgency manual. Baez knows about counter-insurgency from Vietnam and I seriously doubt she'd be recommending anyone who had Henry Kissinger as an advisor. I expected her to grasp that Henry Kissinger wasn't unique and that we have him cloned today several times over. I expected her to examine who's serving as Bambi's advisors. I was really shocked that wasn't an issue to her.
But then I realized how few know reality about Bambi because The Nation, The Progressive and a host of others worked overtime to lie about Bambi.
Sunny said there were three e-mails (none from community members) asking if I was going to follow C.I. and Rebecca in un-endorsing Cindy Sheehan. That should go without saying. They explained why and there reasons are legitimate ones. We've discussed this for weeks now. C.I.'s concern was that it be clear that it wasn't "I'm not saying don't vote for her." I think it was clear. C.I.'s just not able to endorse her. She's not telling the truth about Obama (yes, I saw the thing she posted today which had a sentence on Bambi). For those who have forgotten, she endorsed Cynthia McKinney. I was surprised C.I. didn't include that last night as one of the reasons because it's been a topic in our phone calls.
She's endorsed Cynthia so why is it that she can't call out Bambi?
As Rebecca's pointed out, it seems like only women are getting called out by Cynthia. I read her comments at the post at Common Dreams and thought they were a little much. They would have been fine if she'd noted reality about Obama. She didn't.
People were leaving comments demonizing Hillary and propping up Bambi. If she's still supporting Cynthia, it was pretty much necessary for her to note that and since Bambi's a War Hawk, she should have been calling him out. Neither thing happened and I understood why C.I. and Rebecca felt, "Okay, we need to withdraw our endorsement."
I would assume it will happen, the de-endorsement, for all. Due to the reasons C.I. and Rebecca list.
When a politican is not calling for the end of the war (Bambi), it is incumbent upon Peace Mom to call him out. Loudly. That hasn't happened. She's found time to repeatedly call out Hillary and some of the same people saying the same stuff about Hillary (some of it true, some of it false) were smearing Cindy last spring. Due to that and due to the fact that the truth is not getting out and some people really believe Bambi is "Out of Iraq Now!," it really is necessary for Peace Mom to call him out. Instead, she's devoted columns to ripping apart Hillary and, of course, her online groupie Swanson TV Dinners has endorsed Bambi and smeared Hillary. He hates Hillary so much, and this should have clued Peace Mom in that there was a problem if nothing else, that he posted a video of Hillary supporters who were musicians and just mocked them as untalented -- not able to make music, not able to dance. Did Peace Mom miss the fact that a small child was part of the act onstage? Did Cindy not see that and wonder, "Is this Hillary Hatred going too far when we're even grabbing the knives for small children who haven't done a thing wrong?"
There's also the fact that Swanson TV Dinners wrote my friend Rebecca praising her blog and oh, by the way, one question!
She answered the question and thought it was a sincere e-mail. Then she finds out he's forwarding her e-mail. When she confronts him on that, he acts like she's crazy. He won't get honest. Even though at least one of his fowards bounced back to her due to the fact that the man was out of the country and had his e-mail set up on automated response. So she saw what he wrote about her in his foward. But he wanted to play like she was crazy. He didn't realize when she confronted him and told him "I know you did this" that she had a copy of it.
Between that and Jess' e-mail being forwarded, two things have happened. 1) At all sites other than The Common Ills, we are operating under the assumption that fowards are part of online etiquette now. We don't want to be rude. 2) We're not replying to personal e-mails from outside the community or outside of our usual readers.
Look at Red Ederly. Another Communist for Bambi. She bores the hell out of Rebecca but Rebecca tries to be nice and respond to her e-mail. Red Geriatric can't even say "thank you." Rebecca wrote a very sweet e-mail and answered the woman's questions. The woman never wrote back. Turned out, she'd done the same thing to Ava.
So we don't write back anymore. If there's something that needs to be noted or answered, we'll do so at our sites.
By the way, I'm not endorsing any presidential candidate. I voted for Mike Gravel (and am proud of that vote). But I am sharing what I'm thinking. I will not vote for Bambi. I know from his own mouth that he's not for ending the illegal war. He made that clear when running for the US Senate. It's a shame so many have lied for him.
So that leaves me with Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney if Bambi gets the nomination. If the election were held today (general election) and Hillary was the nominee, she'd get my vote. That's due to her stand on reproductive rights (Nader doesn't have a strong stand there, sorry to break it to anyone). That's due to her work with children. The Eldmans like to play outraged now but when welfare 'reform' was going down, they weren't oppossing it loudly and proudly. They were focused on gang violence. (Or the myth of gang violence and drive-bys.) That's due to the fact that she does care about veterans. Bambi doesn't. When you're subcommittee should be hearing about Afghanistan and you can't even hold a meeting for 14 months, don't pretend you care about them. (14 months and counting.)
If you're a woman and you've never experienced to some degree what's been done to Hillary or had a friend who suffered that sort of demonization, then you've lived a sheltered life. As Rebecca's pointed out, Hillary's handled it and handled it well. That does count for a lot.
Bambi's had a free ride from the media. So much so that a campaign commercial suggesting Hillary is the one you want in the White House is "offensive." Hillary running a commercial arguing she's the better candidate is "off sides" to hear the Bambi camp. I'd be surprised if they are their front people weren't already claiming racism since that has been the Bambi catch all. Send out Jesse Jackson Jr. to falsely rip apart Hillary (she wasn't crying period -- she teared up not about her appearance, a really sexist charge, but when discussing the erosion of women's rights in this country). Call her a racist, call Bill Clinton a racist.
I don't think a lot of people get that. I'm not a fan of Bill Clinton. I would have been all for impeaching him for any number of things. Sex wasn't a reason for impeachment. But I do know that a lot of people loved him. I do know the country was better when he was president. I do know that it was SHAMEFUL for a political campaign, any campaign, to suggest that he was a racist.
But that's what Bambi always does in a campaign, he rips apart his oppenent with any lie and any whisper and any innuendo. America didn't need to live through a Democratic campaign falsely smearing Bill Clinton as a racist.
But Bambi needed it. He needed to turn people against Bill Clinton because Bill's a better speaker and more popular than Bambi. So it was trot out false charges. It was listening to the kook Michael Eric Dyson LIE that "fairy tale" was a racist remark. I don't know what stories Michael Eric Dyson read as a child but all the fairy tales when we were growing up -- the picture books -- featured White people. It was only during the advances of the 60s -- that period Bambi loathes and wants us to move from -- that strides were made in making children's stories inclusive. Not enough strides, but they were made.
The Roberts -- Parry and Scheer -- repeated similar lies and disgraced themselves as well.
Hate Bill Clinton all you want. Call him out for what he actually did and I won't bat an eye. But to falsely label someone as racist just to try to knock down his support because he's a powerful speaker is disgaraceful.
Or the trumped up charge that Hillary Clinton was being disrespectful to MLK by noting the Civil Rights Act came about because of LBJ. Sorry but that is reality. People were in the streets marching. But people were in the streets marching before the outbreak of the Iraq War and the White House occupant ignored them. LBJ knew how to work Congress, how to strong arm them. She wasn't insulting MLK. But it was another chance to play the 'racism' card and the Bambi campaign has played it repeatedly.
I really don't want to have to endure four years of every media report, every criticism being "racism" just because they happen to disagree with Bambi or hold him accountable. There is very real racism in our society and false charges of it (for political gain) don't help us address it.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Friday, February 29, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, a priest is kidnapped in Mosul, the Turkish invasion of nothern Iraq apparently ends, and more.
Starting with war resistance. Courage to Resist interviews war resister Robin Long who is seeking safe harbor status in Canada. Long was stationed at Fort Knox and hearing stories from returning service members that didn't have a thing to do with democracy. "In the army you just want to fit in," Long explained noting how the US military uses collective punishment to discipline their own -- which is to create a shunning among the enlisted. Those returning from Iraq, "a lot of them were bragging about I guess you could say what was going on there," Long explained, and he was hearing and seeing things that weren't being covered in the media such as pictures of the first kill ("holding a head up" for the photo "and smiling with a peace sign," photos of an Iraqi run over by a jeep, etc.). After self-checking out of the military, he stayed in a friend's basement for two months and then went to Canada with two friends. At the border, Long was asked if he was AWOL ("which I found out later that they weren't allowed to do") and replied that he was on leave. About his decision, Long says he has no second thoughts. If he is deported would he be stopped at the US border and taken to jail? Long shared that war resister Brad McCall had a friend take his car back to the United States and when the car crossed the border into the US "they were holding him at gun point, the guy that was bringing his car back, thinking that he was the war resister. So that's a pretty good idea of what's going to happen to me if I try to cross the border. If I'm deported they're going to be waiting there."
War resisters who have moved to Canada were dealt a serious set-back when the Canadian Supreme Court refused to hear the appeals of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Today, Canada's Parliament remaining the best hope for safe harbor war resisters have, you can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. That is the sort of thing that should receive attention but instead it's ignored.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC action:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation. Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'." As part of their fundraising efforts for the event, they are holding houseparties and a recent one in Boston featured both IVAW's Liam Madden and the incomprable Howard Zinn as speakers. IVAW's co-chair Adam Kokesh will, of course, be participating and he explains why at his site, "But out of a strong sense of duty, some of us are trying to put our experiences to use for a good cause. Some of us couldn't live with ourselves if weren't doing everything we could to bring our brothers and sisters home as soon as possible. The environment may be unking, but that is why I will be testifying to shooting at civilians as a result of changing Rules of Engagement, abuse of detainees, and desecration of Iraqi bodies. It won't be easy but it must be done. Some of the stories are things that are difficult to admit that I was a part of, but if one more veteran realizes that they are not alone because of my testimony it will be worth it."
Aaron Glantz (at IPS) writes about the March action:
Iraq Veterans Against the War is calling the gathering "Winter Soldier," after a quote from the U.S. revolutionary Thomas Paine, who wrote in 1776: "These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman." Organisers say video and photographic evidence will also be presented, and the testimony and panels will be broadcast live on Satellite TV and streaming video on ivaw.org. Winter Soldier is modeled on a similar event held by Vietnam Veterans 37 years ago. In 1971, over 100 members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with fellow citizens. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. "Initially even the My Lai massacre was denied," notes Gerald Nicosia, whose book "Home to War" provides the most exhaustive history of the Vietnam veterans' movement. "The U.S. military has traditionally denied these accusations based on the fact that 'this is a crazy soldier' or 'this is a malcontent' -- that you can't trust this person. And that is the reason that Vietnam Veterans Against the War did this unified presentation in Detriot in 1971." "They brought together their bona fides and wore their medals and showed it was more than one or two or three malcontents. It was medal-winning, honored soldiers -- veterans in a group verifying what each other said to try to convince people that these charges cannot be denied. That people are doing these things as a matter of policy." Early this morning, Gareth Jones and Paul de Bendern (Reuters) were reporting that Turkey's invasion has "wound down" at least in terms of "ground offensive". Tim Butcher (Telegraph of London) states, "Turkey has pulled out of northern Iraq after a week-long offensive against Kurdish rebels. The Turkish army claimed to have killed 240 Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) members with the loss of 27 of its own troops." Mark Bentley and Camilla Hall (Bloomberg News) note that this was Turkey's "biggest military incursion into the country in 11 years." Suna Erdem (Times of London) observes, "The announcement came a day after President Bush urged Turkey, its Nato ally, to end the incursion, but the military statement said the start and end dates had been set by general staff without any outside influence."
On the Turkish Embassy (in the US) website, bulletin points include, "This operation" -- the invasion of nothern Iraq -- "will be limited in size, scope and duration. Turkey has been among the staunchest advocates of the territorial integrity, sovereignty and national unity of Iraq. Turkish civilian and military authorities have been in contact with the relevant Iraqi and US authorities at highest levels prior to the operations." AFP reports that the Turkish military began returning to Turkey this morning while AGI states, "All the soldiers that had taken part in the attack on the Iraqi part of Kurdistan are back in Turkey." AFP also notes that the PKK states they killed 100 Turkish soldiers during the invasion, "downed a Turkish attack helicopter" and their death toll was 5. So was the "limited . . . duration" always supposed to translate as the invasion ending today? One caught by surprise is the Turkish Daily News which, in a Friday article, notes, "NATO allies Turkey and the United States failed to reach a consensus yesterday over a timetable for the withdrawal of Turkish troops" and quotes Yasar Buyukanit, Turkey's Chief of General Staff General, stating, "Short term is a relative notion. Sometimes it is a day, sometimes it is a year." Al Jazeera quotes their corespondent Mike Hanna, "The Turkish military insists that the decision was taken by the military alone but reports we're receiving from across the border in Turkey is that questions are being raised about the Turkish withdrawal coming so soon after what appeared to be mounting US pressure on the troops to pull out" and notes that a PKK spokesperson (Ahmed Davis) confirms that the Turkish military has withdrawn. [Sidebar, Naomi Klein's husband, journalist Avi Lewis, is hosting a weekly program on Al Jazeera entitled Frontline USA. Click here for a YouTube clip and here for another YouTube clip.] However, Mark Tran (Guardian of London) quotes unnamed US officials in Baghdad who caution that all Turkish troops may not be out of Iraq. Tran notes US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and others note the comments of the Bully Boy of the United States but is anyone noting yesterday's approximately $6.2 billion four-year loan to Turkey from the World Bank?
Azad Aslan writes the Kurdish Globe's editorial which opens with, "Similar to previous incursions, the recent Turkish invasion into south Kurdistan has only one major goal: to diminish and belittle the sovereignty of Kurdistan Region." Hiba Dawood (whom many know from Free Speech Radio News but Dawood is also a UPI correspondent) notes another editorial from a Kurdish paper (Al Ahali) that was written "by Faisal Abdul Hassan, an Iraqi exile in Morocco, said the Iraqi central government had no efficient response to the assault except sending a 'bashful' demand to the Turkish government to withdraw from Kurdistan." At the White House today, Gordon Johndroe worded carefully regarding the end of the invasion when he told reporters, "We've seen those reports that are just coming out. I think there's one thing that remains clear, and that is the United States, Turkey and Iraq all will continue to view the PKK as a terrorist organization that needs to be dealt with. So we will continue to have cooperation with them on dealing with that organization." NPR offers an audio report via Ivan Watson on today's Morning Edition.
Yesterday's snapshot noted Turksih entertainer Bulent Ersoy who spoke out against the invasion and she was then the subject of criticism. Pelin Turgut (Time magazine) explains, "So pervasive is the nationalist climate that Ersoy has been vilified for declaring -- on a national TV equivalent of American Ido, where she is a judge -- that if she had a son, she would not have sent him to fight this war. She is now under investigation for being 'anti-military.' Ersoy is widely popular but the response to her declaration has been bellicose." Nicholas Birch (The Scotsman) offers the quote and news. The quote differs from Reuters' version yesterday only slightly, "I am not a mother, nor ever will be, but I would not bury my child for somebody else's war." At which point, Turkey's version of Dennis Miller (Erbu Gundes) exploded, "May God give me a son so that I can send him off to our glorious army" followed by a phrase trotted out for military funerals leading Ersoy to add, "Always the same cliched phrases. Children go, bitter tears, funerals . . . And afterwards, these cliched phrases." Birch reports, "An Istanbul prosecutor promptly opened an investigation into her for alienating the people from military service, a crime punishable by up to three years in jail." The Turkish Daily News explains the criminal sentence (if found guilty) is two years but it "could be increased by one-third because the crime was committed via public medium." They also add this to her quote, "These wars are not like ones in the past. It is all decided by people sitting at tables and deciding that some boys should die. I am not a mother so I cannot relate to a mother's pain when she hears her son has died. But I am a human being." Today's Zaman reports that she has the support of European Parliament member Cem Ozdemir who states, "Bulent Ersoy is voicing the pain felt by mothers, and she is also questioning the ongoing Iraqi occupation. . . . We hope that a period of suppression is not started in Turkey that will deal a heavy blow to freedom of thought."
Meanwhile, Amit R. Paley and Joshua Partlow (Washington Post) report that puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki was talking big in Baghdad and they observe: Maliki's confidence seems untethered to political reality. Predicting when his government will fall has become a parlor game in certain circles in Baghdad. And some of his pronouncements -- like one on Thursday that "sectarianism has been eliminated" -- have struck Iraqi and American officials as bordering on the delusional. Sectarian killings are still common and political reconciliation remains elusive, a fact underscored by the veto this week of a law calling for nationwide elections, one of the few major pieces of legislation approved by parliament." They go on to quote "a senior U.S. official in Baghdad" who states basically, to replace the puppet at this time would mean even more "stagnation." The puppet as metaphor for the illegal war.
Noting al-Maliki's "unity" speech, Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) observes that violence continues in Iraq and that, "One of our Shiite Iraqi staffers asked if Maliki would go to Adil, a restive Sunni neighborhood in Baghdad where Sunni insurgents still operate and Shiites know they are not welcome. Maybe he can check out Hurriyah where Sunni residents have not returned. They were run out of the neighborhood in 2006 and some men were burned alive. Maybe he can ask the more than 88,000 mostly Sunni contractors that work with the U.S. to fight Al Qaida how they feel about the reconciliation effort. Many of them are former insurgents, very few have been absorbed into the government. People complain now that many act as warlords, in each neighborhood the law is in their hands."
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing that left two people wounded, a Diyala Province home bombing that went off during the midst of an Iraq military raid claiming the life of 1 corpse and a Mosul roadside bombing claimed 2 lives.
Shootings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Judge Abid Jassim and attorney Ahmed Al-Luizi were shot dead in Mosul.
Kidnappings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that the archbishop of the Cahtholic Church in Mosul was kidnapped and 3 "of his companisons" were killed. The BBC explains, "Archbisop Paulos Faraj Rahho was seized as he left a church in the eastern al-Nour district, it added. . . . Most of Iraq's estimated 700,000 Christians are Chaldeans -- Catholics who are autonomous from Rome but recognise the Pope's authority." Catholic World News states, "Bishop Paulos Faraj Raho was seized by terrorists who attacked his car as he left the Holy Spirit cathedral in Mosul after leading the Stations of the Cross on Friday, February 29. Three companions who had been in the car with him were killed." AP reports that Pope Benedict XVI has issued an appeal for "reason and humanity".
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad, Sameea Sofi's corpse was discovered outside of Kirkuk, General Mudhir Hadi Salih and General Amir Muhammad Al-Jibouri's corpses were discovered in Diyala province (blindfolded, shot to death) and the corpse of Ahmed Khalaf was discovered in Kirkuk (he was a local council member in Hawija).
Turning to US politics. "What I learned being in and out as you correctly point out is that there are a lot of people who have a lot of questions about the government and they don't exactly know where to turn to for answers because the corporate media don't tell the people the truth," so explains Cynthia McKinney to Kimberly Wilder (On The Wilder Side) in a video produced by Terry Morrone (a typo yesterday, it is "Terry Morrone"). Cynthia McKinney is running for the Green Party presidential nomination. In a wide ranging interview, former US Congress women McKinney explains why she became a member of the Green Party:
The Democrats are the ones who failed to repeal the Patriot Act, the Democrats are the ones who continue to fund the war. The Democrats are the ones who say that the Bush tax cuts are alright even though they railed against them when they were in the minority. Now that they are in the majority and they could do something about it they fail to do it. And so I decided on my birthday that I would declare my independence from the Democratic Party. And I would declare my independence from any national leadership that was complicit in war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture and all of the rest of it. I reject and I'm happy to have joined with other people in the Green Party who reject that as well.
And in terms of rejection, some Greens are less than pleased with Ralph Nader who announced his campaign for president on NBC's Meet The Press Sunday. The Green Party notes: "Green Party leaders expressed their disappointment in Ralph Nader's decision, announced on Thursday, not to seek the 2008 Green presidential nomination." They quote the party's co-chair Phil Huckelberry declaring, "A lot of Greens have supported Mr. Nader and wanted him to win the party's nomination. There has been an active effort by many Green leaders to 'draft' Mr. Nader as a Green candidate, and his success in recent Green primaries demonstrates that he remains a very popular figure within the Green Party. There is widespread disappointment among Greens that he chose to go a different route." Here's a tip, one that Jess (rightly) pointed out two Sundays ago -- no party holds primaries with a place-holders. That is ridiculous. If you can't declare you are running by a party's primary, you get no votes. You get no one holding your place. As Jess noted two Sundays ago, that needs to change immediately so that it never happens again. There's a chance of a roundtable at Third this Sunday to address this topic.
Ralph Nader's presidential website is up and running (and allowing comments). Among the topics written of thus far are impeachment and Palestinians. He has selected a running mate, Matt Gonzalez. Gonzalez is already doing what vice presidential candidates are supposed to do: hitting hard. Writing at CounterPunch, he takes on the myth of "anti-war" Barack Obama noting that, "I'm afraid to say I'm not just uninspired: I'm downright fearful. . . . First, he opposed the war in Iraq while in the Illinois state legislature. Once he was running for US Senate though, when public opinion and support for the war was at its highest, he was quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as saying, 'There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute.' The Tribune went on to say that Obama "now believes US forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration.' Obama's campaign says he was referring to the ongoing occupation and how best to stabilize the region. But why wouldn't he have taken the opportunity to urge withdrawal if he truly opposed the war? Was he trying to signal to conservative voters that he would subjugate his anti-war position if elected to the US Senate and perhaps support a lengthy occupation? Well, as it turns out, he's done just that." The myth of "anti-war" Barack Obama was addressed here last night so we'll instead focus on Hillary Clinton.
Hillary is running for the Democratic presidential nomination. The following statement is from Senator Clinton's office, not her campaign:
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton announced today that she has cosponsored legislation to ban the use of Blackwater and other private mercenary firms in Iraq.
"From this war's very beginning, this administration has permitted thousands of heavily-armed military contractors to march through Iraq without any law or court to rein them in or hold them accountable. These private security contractors have been reckless and have compromised our mission in Iraq. The time to show these contractors the door is long past due. We need to stop filling the coffers of contractors in Iraq, and make sure that armed personnel in Iraq are fully accountable to the U.S. government and follow the chain of command," said Senator Clinton.The legislation requires that all personnel at any U.S. diplomatic or consular mission in Iraq be provided security services only by Federal Government Personnel. It also includes a whistleblower clause to protect contract personnel who uncover contract violations, criminal actions, or human rights abuses.
As KeShawn pointed out in an e-mail today, Hillary Clinton's endorsements do not get noted on Democracy Now! -- though Goodman can repeat in headlines (two days in a row this week) the same endorsement of Barack -- among her recent endorsers is Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba. He joins a lengthy list of retired military and defense officials who have endorsed her (active military cannot make endorsements) and you can read about that at her campaign site. Hillary was in Waco, Texas today and among the issues she addressed was reducing the strain on US service members so that they will be deployed for 12 months and not the 15 month tours that have become the norm. Bully Boy could stop that now. He could have stopped it before it began. As noted yesterday, US House Rep Patrick Murphy asked General George Casey if Congress needed to pass legislation to get the tour of duty down to 12 months and keep it there but Casey felt it would 'tie up' the military's hands. Today in Waco, Hillary pledged that any US service member serving a 12 month tour of overseas "will have at least 12 months at home." She also addressed the issue of veterans' care and the need for a new GI Bill of Rights. Meanwhile, her opponet Barack Obama's homophobia is the subject of Susan UnPC's recent post (No Quarter) which notes Bambi's heebie-jeebies when he came to the Bay Area. Don't worry, Laura Flanders grants him absolution or at least provides silence from her perch as "out lesbian" for Bambi. Meanwhile Taylor Marsh (TaylorMarsh.com) notes that the Canadian government was warned by Bambi's campaign prior to Tuesday's debate not to pay attention to Bambi's NAFTA remarks, they were just words. She covers it here as well and offers a video.
From video to radio. WBAI's pledge drive is ending and Sunday The Nex Hour offers "Post-Warholian radio artists Andrew Andrew host." That's at 11:00 am to noon EST Sunday on NYC airwaves and streaming on WBAI while Monday they offer Cat Radio Cafe from 2:00 to 3:00 pm EST: "Poet Marie Howe reads from her new collection, "The Kingdom of Ordinary Time"; actor/playwright Brian Dykstra on his new one-man show on religion, "The Jesus Factor"; and actor Paul Hecht and musician Lisa Terry on "Parthenia, a Consort of Viols, Presents Hot Off the Press Concert of New Music and Poetry." Hosted by Janet Coleman and David Dozer."
iraq
dee knight
iraq veterans against the war
mcclatchy newspapers
kimberly wilder
aaron glantz
the washington postamit r. paleyjoshua partlowleila fadelradiowbai
cat radio cafe
Friday, February 29, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
How Dems lose in November
MR. WILLIAMS: We are back, and because our first segment went long and we are in a large arena -- (cheers, applause) --
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Off mike) -- for Hillary!
MR. WILLIAMS: -- we are just now welcoming back both of our candidates to the stage and asking our cooperation of the audience.
We're back live tonight in Cleveland, Ohio.
That's from the transcript of last night's debate and I thought I would open with it because I doubt you'll hear about it. As Ava and C.I. noted in "Radio: Panhandle Media," during the Austin, Texas debate, Hillary received boos and applause for one line but somehow the tired and semi-closeted Laura Flanders would only mention the "boos," would only mention the "boos" twice. So there you have it, "for Hillary!" Again, you probably won't hear about it. Maybe Socialists from England who try to pass themselves off as Democrats think, "I'm already lying about who I am, so what the hell, let me lie about what happened in a debate as well!"
Thomas F. Schaller has a column (from the cesspool that is the Baltimore Sun) and Common Dreams reposts it, so you know it's slamming Hillary. He concludes his garbage with, "A growing number of Democrats, even those who like Mrs. Clinton personally and respect her as a public servant, have seen enough. They want the Clinton machine to just go away -- to forfeit for real." No, Schaller, that's not what Democrats have decided. Democrats have voted for Hillary. Take away the so-called "independents" (apparently including Socialists like Flanders as well as other political parties) and Republicans have delivered Obama to where he is now. It is a Democratic primary for the Democratic candidate. Schaller can lie all he wants but Hillary has the support of the bulk of Democrats across the country.
But if he couldn't lie, he couldn't push his inexperienced and embarrassing candidate. When you grasp how hard they've had to lie just to come close to winning the Democratic primary nomination, you realize how weak a candidate Barack Obama is. Bambi is not ready to be president and the press is not ready to let him be. That is reality. They love John McCain.
Bambi's cult gets peeled off in the general, if he wins the nomination, as a result of attacks. Real ones. None of this John Edwards refusing to challenge Bambi until the week before Edwards drops out. None of this lying "That's racism!" Republicans won't give a damn about that. They will also mock it and rightly so because Bambi's campaign (specifically Jesse Jackson Jr.) have cried racism over and over and, in many cases, there was no racism involved. So the Republicans will have a field day using the false cries Bambi's made.
They may just mock him on the chat & chews. But they could assemble a commercial from it.
Something like this.
Announcer: Bill Clinton called Bambi's Iraq War record a "fairytale." The Obama campaign screamed "racism!" Hillary Clinton noted that it took LBJ as president to make the Civil Rights Act law. The Obama campaign screamed "racism!" Bill Clinton noted that Jesse Jackson won primaries. The Obama campaign screamed "racism!" A photo turns up of Bambi in Kenyan garb. The Obama campaign screamed "racism!" Is America really ready for four years of a president screaming "racism!" everytime he's not happy with the way things are going? This advertisement brought to you by the Vote Senator Crazy in November Campaign.
That is reality. Reality is also that the likes of Robert Scheer and Robert Parry couldn't see what was going on. (Or maybe they were part of the lie.) They kept insisting Bambi never played the race card. But everytime Bambi's unhappy with something, the response from the campaign is to scream "racism!" The photo that emerged at the start of the week seems to have been a turning point for a number of people. By yet again screaming racism, on something that was a photo Obama dressed and posed for, they really begged the country to take a look at how often they've gone to the well on that false charge.
It's equally true that they and their supporters have demonized Muslims. Questions about Obama or lies that he was Muslim have resulted in cries of racism and outrage. As if Muslims are something to be ashamed of? It's very easy for the campaign to make the argument that Obama isn't Muslim (he's not) without resorting to tactics that make it appear there is something wrong with being Muslim.
I've seen how his trash campaigns operate. He destroys his opponents if they let him. Hillary and Bill should have called his crap out. (John Edwards joined in the pile up for anyone who forgets. He was making those false charges as well.) He eliminated the Democratic front runner in the primary for his Senate campaign by spreading rumors that the man beat his wife. After that, he 'won' the nomination. He had to go up against Jack Ryan (GOP) and he eliminated Jack Ryan by whispering to the press non-stop about why Jack Ryan divorced his wife. He spread those rumors. It's no surprise that he couldn't go marital on the Clintons (though, as The Atlantic Monthly reported last year, his campaign did try to do that). So what was left? Racism.
If he gets the nomination, what's he planning to use on McCain?
Be sure that the Republicans are not going to take Obama's crap. The New York Times story basically means McCain can't be touched in terms of his marriage (that and the Bully Boy's 2000 smears). He's going to call McCain a racist?
I don't like McCain and I don't buy the media spin on him. But when you start calling John McCain a "racist," someone that so many Americans (wrongly) see as a "moderate" and someone willing to work with both sides (ibid), it's not going to play well. Republicans also aren't going to give a damn. So the ones you might influence are "independents." That group will be called a "racist" when "Independent" and "Maverick" McCain is called one.
If Obama gets the nomination, prepare to see President John McCain sworn in next January.
"Some Thoughts About the Possible GOP Blindside in the GE (Part 1)" (Lost in Space, Corrente):
Republican Playbook Department of No! They Would Never to Do That! Pete and Repeat Scary GOP SCLM
[Note: I’ve decided to break this into 2 parts to make things much easier for me to deal with. Enjoy, or not]
Watching the SCLM and FRWC start their opening salvos on Barack Obama this week - as well as the responses from his many supporters - made me remember a few things about some of the previous Presidential elections - and how there seemed to be a backdoor slider that made the Democrats (sans W. Clinton) freeze at Strike Three.
1988 - Bush vs. Dukakis.
When discussing this election, the one thing that most people talk about is Lee Atwater's "Willie Horton" ad, which was racist (and for the most part, untrue, but when has the truth stopped the GOP before?) no matter which way you look at it. There were several variations of the ad, including the "revolving door of criminals" to make Dukakis look soft on crime. While this ad received alot of attention, that wasn't the backdoor slider that doomed Dukakis.
That dubious distinction belonged to the "Michael Dukakis on a Tank" ad that Bush ran. If you ever get a chance to see this ad, it is the quintessential GOP spin ad - and it succeeded in making Governor Dukakis look like a total buffoon and helped to pin him as hopelessly lost on defense issues in the process.
The Tank ad was the one that Dukakis had no real answer for and was not really challenged in narrative in the MSM (because the Horton ad was the one getting the "Shock!RACISM" tag around the news). This was the one that Democrats in 1988 never saw coming.
Prepare for it. If Obama gets the nomination, it's coming.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Wednesday, February 27, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US Congress holds some hearings, a journalist dies in Iraq, the Turkish invasion continues in northern Iraq and more.
Starting with war resisters. Earlier this month, Paul Boers (The Goshen College Record) reported on war resister Rob Weiss. At age 17, Weiss signed up for the US military and, following high school graduation and basic training, the Army sent him to Germany where he was stationed. For 18 months all was fine until he was home at the end of 2006 when the fiance of his sister died en route to the hospital and, as Boers explains, "This event caused Weiss to start thinking about his own mortality, especially as a soldier." Weiss explains to Boers about how he would explain his death, "What would I say? 'Sorry, I didn't have time to go to church. I was hung over.' I thought, 'maybe it's time that I would do something productive with my life other than getting bar fights and getting hammered drunk'." Exploring these issues and turning to the Bible, Weiss explains, "I was shocked by this message of peacemaking. There is a constant, recurring message of not responding in violence, unlike in the Army where they teach you to kill everything." On June 6, 2007, Weiss filed his conscientious objector status and as he waited for a response, he was sent to Iraq. While in Iraq, the decision came down: his CO application was denied. While on leave, Weiss self-checked out and went underground in the US. Speaking to Boers, Weiss explained, "I think it's better to turn yourself in and get it over with. I don't want to live in people's basements until the day I die."
Meanwhile war resisters who have moved to Canada were dealt a serious set-back when the Canadian Supreme Court refused to hear the appeals of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Today, Canada's Parliament remaining the best hope for safe harbor war resisters have, you can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. That is the sort of thing that should receive attention but instead it's ignored.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC action:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation. Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'." As part of their fundraising efforts for the event, they are holding houseparties and a recent one in Boston featured both IVAW's Liam Madden and the incomprable Howard Zinn as speakers. IVAW's co-chair Adam Kokesh will, of course, be participating and he explains why at his site, "But out of a strong sense of duty, some of us are trying to put our experiences to use for a good cause. Some of us couldn't live with ourselves if weren't doing everything we could to bring our brothers and sisters home as soon as possible. The environment may be unking, but that is why I will be testifying to shooting at civilians as a result of changing Rules of Engagement, abuse of detainees, and desecration of Iraqi bodies. It won't be easy but it must be done. Some of the stories are things that are difficult to admit that I was a part of, but if one more veteran realizes that they are not alone because of my testimony it will be worth it."
Staying with veterans, the US House Committee on Veterans Affairs' subcommittee on Health held a hearing today. Subcommittee chair Michael Michaud explained in opening remarks, "Today's hearing is an opportunity for the VA, Veteran Service Organizations and members of this subcommittee to discuss draft legislation dealing with Fiscal Year 2009 VA construction. 38 United States Code requires statutory authorization for all VA major medical facility construction projects over $10 million and all major medical facility leases more than $600,000 per year. This hearing is a first step in this important process." Dennis Cullinan, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the US, testified on behalf of the VFW regarding the proposed "Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Authorization and Lease Act of 2008." Cullinan felt the budges were too low and placed the blame for that on "the administration" which "saw fit to halve the major and minor construction accounts from the Fiscal Year 2008 levels, failing to meet the future needs of our veterans." The White House has played it on the cheap with veterans care throughout this decade and they've generally gotten away with that. Cullinan stated the proposed legislation "demonstrates that this Congress is ready, able and willing to correct this situtiona and to advance VA's construction priorities so that future generations of veterans -- such as those currently serving in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Aghanistan -- will have a first-rate VA health care system ready to fully meet their needs." The proposal, as US Dept of Veterans Affairs' Donald Orndoff noted, mainly is about the "authorization for six major medical construction projects and twelve major medical facility leases".
Meanwhile, Dr. Dean Kilpatrick of the Medical University of South Carolina testified to the House Committee on Veterans Affairs yesterday on the subject of PTSD and this morning he testified to the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Kilpatrick is the direcyor of the National Crimes Victims Research and Treatment Center. And for context, the American Public Health Association's 135th Annual Meeting last November utilized these numbers for PTSD -- 12 percent to 20 percent of all veterans from the Iraq War will suffer from PTSD, over 52,000 veterans have already been diagnosed and treated with PTSD. In December 2006, Ann Scott Tyson (Washington Post) reported, "U.S. soldiers serving repeated Iraq deployments are 50 percent more likely than those with one tour to suffer from acute combat stress, raising their risk of post-traumatic stress disorder, according to the Army's first survey exploring hos today's multiple war-zone rotations affect soldiers' mental health." In his opening remarks today, Kilpatrick explained the basics.
Kilpatrick: I will begin with some background information of posttraumatic stress disorder. Briefly described, PTSD is a psychiatric disorder that can develop in a person after a traumatic experience. Someone is diagnosed with PTSD if, in response to that traumatic experience, he or she develops a cluster of symptoms that include
* reexperienceing the traumatic event as reflected by distressing recollections, memories, nightmares, or flashbacks
* avoidance of anything that reminds them of the traumatic event
* emotional numbing or feeling detached from other people
* hyperarousal as reflected by trouble sleeping, trouble concentrating, outbursts of anger, and having to always be vilgilant for potential threats in the enivornment
* impairment in social or occupational functioning, or clinically significant distress
The focus of the hearing was not PTSD, however. Kirkpatrick and others were members of the Institute of Medicine committee studying veterans health issues with a primary focus -- today -- on the ratings. Is the Scehdule for Rating Disabilities -- currently used to determine the financial benefits paid to wounded veterans -- adequate or even fair? Former American Medical Association president Dr. Lonnie R. Bristow gave an overview of areas the committee felt needed futher exploration and these included compensation for loss of quality of life, the differences in employment income for those suffering brain injuries as opposed to physical ones. Scott Zeger, of John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health noted veterans with "medical conditions that develope after military service" and the need to for "Congress or the Department of Veterans Affairs . . . to make a 'presumption' of service-connection so that a group of veterans can be appropriately compensated. Presumptions are made in order to reach decisions in the face of unavailable or incomplete information." The Center for Health Research and Policy's Joyce McMahon also addressed compensation and the need for a system that was inclusive, "Congressional language indicates that the intent of VA compensation is to provide a replacement for the average impairment in earning capacity. VA compensation is not an individual means-tested program, although there are minor exceptions to this." As with most studies, by the committee members own statements, the emphasis was on males and before Congress creates an 'inclusive system,' it would be better to actually be inclusive. At this late date, there's really no excuse to set up a system that will treat male as the norm and take decades of pressure to include women in the studies and then to begin addressing health and disability issues specific to women. Aaron Glantz (War Comes Home) reported last month on the continued crisis in veterans health care and noted, "The average wait time for a veteran's disability claim to be decided is now 183 days. More than 600,000 disabled vets are waiting. Tens of thousands more veterans are being totally denied medical care and disability benefits they were promised after serving abroad." The 600,000 waiting should especially stand out to those who remember the 2004 presidential debates. Senator John Kerry noted the crisis -- it was then and it is now a crisis -- in veterans health care and among the lies Bully Boy tossed out (and the likes of FactCheck.org quickly swallowed) was that the wait-time was going smoothly, right on track, boom-boom-boom. The reality, as Kerry pointed out repeatedly before the debate and after was that the wait-time was increasing. So when the figure of 600,000 emerges today, it has recent historical roots. Let's return to PTSD to note this from AP (November 2007): "About 42 percent of the Guard and reserves compared to 20 percent of active-duty troops, were identified as needing medical health treatment in two screenings. The first testing was immediately upon return from Iraq and the second six months later. Problems showed up more often on the second screening. . . . For those citizen soldiers, the military's Tricare health insurance benefits expire after six months: VA benefits expire two years after a soldier's return to civilian status." Ron Jacobs (Dissident Voice) reviews Michele Barrett's Casualty Figures and notes of PTSD, "We associate this disorder primarily with veterans of combat. What many people do not know is that this disorder was included into the bible of therapeutic mental health disorders only after a long struggle by the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and some other US veterans organizations in the 1970s."
Meanwhile the US House Committe on Oversight and Government Reform's subcommitte (Government Management, Organization and Procurement) held a hearing today where the issue was contractors and focused on three proposals (H.R. 3033, H.R. 3928 and H.R. 4881). Normally, this isn't a committee worth watching but US Rep Chris Murphy was in charge of the bulk of the hearing. Murphy had some serious exchanges with Paul Denett (Office of Federal Procurement Policy Office of Management and Budget) who appeared to be present mainly to throw a road block in front of the three proposed bills. "Your remark in your written testimony was" about stifling competition, Murphy noted, but "we already have this information . . . when it comes to public companies . . . Why are we concerned that simply requiring private companies to disclose a modicum of what we require public companies to disclose" would adversly effect competition?
Denett's reply was, amazingly, given with a straight face, "There are a lot of small busines who would be discouraged . . . [because] they don't want their employees to know what they're making." "Executive compensation" was the issue and Murphy wanted to know why these contracts -- to companies such as Blackwater -- result in executives making more -- in these private companies -- than the executives of public companies. Denett attempted to dismiss the issue by maintaining that "fixed price contracts" don't explore a company's compensation; however, Murphy noted that you can't determine fair price without knowing the profit margin and whether "10% to 20% is being taken off the top for executive compensation." Murphy noted that "any private investor" considering investing in a company would factor these facts into a decision of whether or not to invest in the company, so why doesn't the government factor them in when awarding contracts? US House Rep Peter Welch would also explore this noting that there has to be "some public disclosure" when these business are wanting tax payer dollars. Welch asked the US Government Accountability Office's John Hutton if the proposed legislation would cause Hutton professional problems and Hutton begged off with a lot of words that went no where leading Welch to observe, "I don't understand what you just said." Welch reminded that the money being handed ou twas "tax payers' dollars" and what was being asked for was "public information" -- "We're just simply asking for some information -- in this case salary information -- I don't see how it would in any way interfere with the procurement process." US House Rep Carolyn Maloney (apparently dressed to battle Dr. Doom -- what were those things, wings? -- I'm sorry, you wear that to a meeting, you're asking for your outfit to be discussed) noted that the legislation proposed is not out of the norm and already applies to construction companies. She futher wanted to know what was happening with regards to companies being awarded federal contracts when they didn't pay taxes? By then the hearing was already over because the committee's chair, Edolphus Towns, had finally arrived. The annual CBC report explains Towns but, for those who've never read it, let's just note the first question Towns elected to ask, "What needs to be done to bring you on board?" The question, naturally went, to Big Business and Pork Cheerleader Alan L. Chvotkin (Professional Services Council). As if that wasn't bad enough, after the hearing, Eldophus Towns would be walking around the hall clutching Chvotkin's beefy right arm. POGO's Scott Amey testifed as well and his opening remarks (PDF format warning) can be found here.
Yesterday Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) and an interpreter visited the Iranian ambassador in Iraq and the interpreter noted that he was "the second ruler of Iraq . . . After [US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan] Crocker." Fadel notes, "She never mentioned the Prime Minister of Iraq, Nouri al Maliki. She expressed what most Iraqis feel, Iraq is a tug of war for power between Iran and the United States." Which might be a good time to note that al-Maliki's back in London again -- he always seems to flee the country whenever there's a problem. The big problem for him these days is the invasion of nothern Iraq by Turkey. Kevin Whitelaw (US News and World Reports) explains that despite US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates calling for Turkey to 'quickly' complete it's invasion, "Turkish diplomats say the incursion will continue as long as the Turkish military deems necessary." Some have described the puppet government in Baghdad as 'anguished' and certainly al-Maliki's cabinet ministers (especially Kurdish ones) have called for Turkey to cease the military invasion. But al-Maliki, out of the country yet again, can't be feeling too much 'anguish.' Borzou Daragahi (Los Angeles Times) observes that today is day six of the invasion and that Turkey has rebuffed Iraq's insistance upon a speedy withdraw with Ahmet Davutoglu ("Turkish envoy") declaring, "Our objective is clear, our mission is clear and there is no timetable until . . . those terrorist bases are eliminated." Ben Knight (Australia's ABC) explains the time frame being addressed, "The US says Turkey should end its military campaign against Kurdish rebels in Iraq in a matter of weeks, rather than months."
In some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing that claimed the life of 1 person and left another injured, another bombing "targeting a Caprice carrying fuel cans" claimed 1 life and left two more injured, a Mosul bombing claimed 2 lives, two people were wounded in a Diyala Province bombing and, in the latest known attack on officials, Col. Anwar Qadir (chief of police) was targeted for assassination via a car bombing today but survived.
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports unknown assailants shot dead 1 border guard outside Tirkit and left two wounded, unknown assailants shot dead police Lt. Raid Khudair in Basra and (Tuesday night for this crime) unknown assailants shot dead a student at Mosul University. Reuters notes an armed clash in Mosul left two people dead and that unknown assailants "attacked a checkpoint manned by Iraqi police and members of U.S.-backed neighbourhood police unit, killing two and wounding three". Wisam Mohammed (Reuters) notes that Shihab al-Tamimi is dead from wounds received this weekend when he was attacked in Baghdad (gunfire) and notes the 74-year-old man "was an independent journalist working for many local newspapers. He was known for his outspoken views against the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the continued presence of U.S. troops on Iraqi soil."
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses were discovered in Baghdad and 1 corpse was found in Babil Province
In the US, how sad it must be to be Dana Perino today (let's be kind and leave it at today). The White House Flack declared earlier this week (Feb. 25th), "The President has been working towards reconciliation between the Sunnis and the Shia, and it's actually working on a political level in some ways. Especially we saw that last month, when they passed three laws in one day, which was quite a significant achievement for the Iraqis." It's no longer "three," it's now "two." CBS and AP report, "Iraq's presidential council rejected a measure Wednesday setting up provincial elections, sending it back to parliament in the latest setback to U.S.-backed national reconciliation efforts. The three-member panel, however, approved the 2008 budget and another law that provides limited amnesty to detainees in Iraqi custody. Those laws will take effect once they are published in the Justice Ministry gazette." Borzou Daragahi (Los Angeles Times) explains, "The Bush adminstration downplayed the setback. 'This is democracy at work,' said White House press secretary Dana Perino." Perino also declared today "I don't know if he has." That was in reply to the question (at today's press briefing), "The US military conducted 19 focus groups throughout Iraq last November, and its report on those focus groups stated that Iraqis from every ethnic and sectarian group are united in the belief that the US invasion is the root cause of the sectarian violence in Iraq and that the departure of the US military is the key to national reconciliation. And I wondered, has the President seen the military's report on those focus groups?"
In US political news, Margaret Kimberley (Black Agenda Report) shakes her head (rightly) at The Nation magazine:
It is incomprehensible that The Nation magazine endorsed Obama after making the following statement. "This magazine has been critical of the senator from Illinois for his closeness to Wall Street; his unwillingness to lay out an ambitious progressive agenda on healthcare, housing and other domestic policy issues; and for post-partisan rhetoric that seems to ignore the manifest failure of conservatism over these past seven years."
If The Nation has so many qualms about Obama, why endorse him at all? The editors could have simplay made a statement of non-support for Obama or Clinton. The sad plight of progressives is all too bovious. "While his rehtoric about 'unity' can be troubling, it also embodies a savvy strategy to redefine the center of American politics and build a coalition by reaching out to independent and Republican voters disgruntled and disgusted with what the Bush era has wrought." The Nation should explain to readers why Democrats ought to "redefine the center" with independents and Republicans instead of having their own agenda and fighting to make it a reality.
For another Nation critique, see Kat regarding Nader, and last night Bambi lied in the debate. Rebecca notes it here and it was also noted here. We may have time for that in tomorrow's snapshot.
iraq
dee knight
iraq veterans against the war
the new york times
mcclatchy newspapers
the washington post
ann scott tyson
ron jacobs
aaron glantz
borzou daragahi
the los angeles times
margaret kimberley
kats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitude
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Off mike) -- for Hillary!
MR. WILLIAMS: -- we are just now welcoming back both of our candidates to the stage and asking our cooperation of the audience.
We're back live tonight in Cleveland, Ohio.
That's from the transcript of last night's debate and I thought I would open with it because I doubt you'll hear about it. As Ava and C.I. noted in "Radio: Panhandle Media," during the Austin, Texas debate, Hillary received boos and applause for one line but somehow the tired and semi-closeted Laura Flanders would only mention the "boos," would only mention the "boos" twice. So there you have it, "for Hillary!" Again, you probably won't hear about it. Maybe Socialists from England who try to pass themselves off as Democrats think, "I'm already lying about who I am, so what the hell, let me lie about what happened in a debate as well!"
Thomas F. Schaller has a column (from the cesspool that is the Baltimore Sun) and Common Dreams reposts it, so you know it's slamming Hillary. He concludes his garbage with, "A growing number of Democrats, even those who like Mrs. Clinton personally and respect her as a public servant, have seen enough. They want the Clinton machine to just go away -- to forfeit for real." No, Schaller, that's not what Democrats have decided. Democrats have voted for Hillary. Take away the so-called "independents" (apparently including Socialists like Flanders as well as other political parties) and Republicans have delivered Obama to where he is now. It is a Democratic primary for the Democratic candidate. Schaller can lie all he wants but Hillary has the support of the bulk of Democrats across the country.
But if he couldn't lie, he couldn't push his inexperienced and embarrassing candidate. When you grasp how hard they've had to lie just to come close to winning the Democratic primary nomination, you realize how weak a candidate Barack Obama is. Bambi is not ready to be president and the press is not ready to let him be. That is reality. They love John McCain.
Bambi's cult gets peeled off in the general, if he wins the nomination, as a result of attacks. Real ones. None of this John Edwards refusing to challenge Bambi until the week before Edwards drops out. None of this lying "That's racism!" Republicans won't give a damn about that. They will also mock it and rightly so because Bambi's campaign (specifically Jesse Jackson Jr.) have cried racism over and over and, in many cases, there was no racism involved. So the Republicans will have a field day using the false cries Bambi's made.
They may just mock him on the chat & chews. But they could assemble a commercial from it.
Something like this.
Announcer: Bill Clinton called Bambi's Iraq War record a "fairytale." The Obama campaign screamed "racism!" Hillary Clinton noted that it took LBJ as president to make the Civil Rights Act law. The Obama campaign screamed "racism!" Bill Clinton noted that Jesse Jackson won primaries. The Obama campaign screamed "racism!" A photo turns up of Bambi in Kenyan garb. The Obama campaign screamed "racism!" Is America really ready for four years of a president screaming "racism!" everytime he's not happy with the way things are going? This advertisement brought to you by the Vote Senator Crazy in November Campaign.
That is reality. Reality is also that the likes of Robert Scheer and Robert Parry couldn't see what was going on. (Or maybe they were part of the lie.) They kept insisting Bambi never played the race card. But everytime Bambi's unhappy with something, the response from the campaign is to scream "racism!" The photo that emerged at the start of the week seems to have been a turning point for a number of people. By yet again screaming racism, on something that was a photo Obama dressed and posed for, they really begged the country to take a look at how often they've gone to the well on that false charge.
It's equally true that they and their supporters have demonized Muslims. Questions about Obama or lies that he was Muslim have resulted in cries of racism and outrage. As if Muslims are something to be ashamed of? It's very easy for the campaign to make the argument that Obama isn't Muslim (he's not) without resorting to tactics that make it appear there is something wrong with being Muslim.
I've seen how his trash campaigns operate. He destroys his opponents if they let him. Hillary and Bill should have called his crap out. (John Edwards joined in the pile up for anyone who forgets. He was making those false charges as well.) He eliminated the Democratic front runner in the primary for his Senate campaign by spreading rumors that the man beat his wife. After that, he 'won' the nomination. He had to go up against Jack Ryan (GOP) and he eliminated Jack Ryan by whispering to the press non-stop about why Jack Ryan divorced his wife. He spread those rumors. It's no surprise that he couldn't go marital on the Clintons (though, as The Atlantic Monthly reported last year, his campaign did try to do that). So what was left? Racism.
If he gets the nomination, what's he planning to use on McCain?
Be sure that the Republicans are not going to take Obama's crap. The New York Times story basically means McCain can't be touched in terms of his marriage (that and the Bully Boy's 2000 smears). He's going to call McCain a racist?
I don't like McCain and I don't buy the media spin on him. But when you start calling John McCain a "racist," someone that so many Americans (wrongly) see as a "moderate" and someone willing to work with both sides (ibid), it's not going to play well. Republicans also aren't going to give a damn. So the ones you might influence are "independents." That group will be called a "racist" when "Independent" and "Maverick" McCain is called one.
If Obama gets the nomination, prepare to see President John McCain sworn in next January.
"Some Thoughts About the Possible GOP Blindside in the GE (Part 1)" (Lost in Space, Corrente):
Republican Playbook Department of No! They Would Never to Do That! Pete and Repeat Scary GOP SCLM
[Note: I’ve decided to break this into 2 parts to make things much easier for me to deal with. Enjoy, or not]
Watching the SCLM and FRWC start their opening salvos on Barack Obama this week - as well as the responses from his many supporters - made me remember a few things about some of the previous Presidential elections - and how there seemed to be a backdoor slider that made the Democrats (sans W. Clinton) freeze at Strike Three.
1988 - Bush vs. Dukakis.
When discussing this election, the one thing that most people talk about is Lee Atwater's "Willie Horton" ad, which was racist (and for the most part, untrue, but when has the truth stopped the GOP before?) no matter which way you look at it. There were several variations of the ad, including the "revolving door of criminals" to make Dukakis look soft on crime. While this ad received alot of attention, that wasn't the backdoor slider that doomed Dukakis.
That dubious distinction belonged to the "Michael Dukakis on a Tank" ad that Bush ran. If you ever get a chance to see this ad, it is the quintessential GOP spin ad - and it succeeded in making Governor Dukakis look like a total buffoon and helped to pin him as hopelessly lost on defense issues in the process.
The Tank ad was the one that Dukakis had no real answer for and was not really challenged in narrative in the MSM (because the Horton ad was the one getting the "Shock!RACISM" tag around the news). This was the one that Democrats in 1988 never saw coming.
Prepare for it. If Obama gets the nomination, it's coming.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Wednesday, February 27, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US Congress holds some hearings, a journalist dies in Iraq, the Turkish invasion continues in northern Iraq and more.
Starting with war resisters. Earlier this month, Paul Boers (The Goshen College Record) reported on war resister Rob Weiss. At age 17, Weiss signed up for the US military and, following high school graduation and basic training, the Army sent him to Germany where he was stationed. For 18 months all was fine until he was home at the end of 2006 when the fiance of his sister died en route to the hospital and, as Boers explains, "This event caused Weiss to start thinking about his own mortality, especially as a soldier." Weiss explains to Boers about how he would explain his death, "What would I say? 'Sorry, I didn't have time to go to church. I was hung over.' I thought, 'maybe it's time that I would do something productive with my life other than getting bar fights and getting hammered drunk'." Exploring these issues and turning to the Bible, Weiss explains, "I was shocked by this message of peacemaking. There is a constant, recurring message of not responding in violence, unlike in the Army where they teach you to kill everything." On June 6, 2007, Weiss filed his conscientious objector status and as he waited for a response, he was sent to Iraq. While in Iraq, the decision came down: his CO application was denied. While on leave, Weiss self-checked out and went underground in the US. Speaking to Boers, Weiss explained, "I think it's better to turn yourself in and get it over with. I don't want to live in people's basements until the day I die."
Meanwhile war resisters who have moved to Canada were dealt a serious set-back when the Canadian Supreme Court refused to hear the appeals of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Today, Canada's Parliament remaining the best hope for safe harbor war resisters have, you can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. That is the sort of thing that should receive attention but instead it's ignored.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC action:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation. Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'." As part of their fundraising efforts for the event, they are holding houseparties and a recent one in Boston featured both IVAW's Liam Madden and the incomprable Howard Zinn as speakers. IVAW's co-chair Adam Kokesh will, of course, be participating and he explains why at his site, "But out of a strong sense of duty, some of us are trying to put our experiences to use for a good cause. Some of us couldn't live with ourselves if weren't doing everything we could to bring our brothers and sisters home as soon as possible. The environment may be unking, but that is why I will be testifying to shooting at civilians as a result of changing Rules of Engagement, abuse of detainees, and desecration of Iraqi bodies. It won't be easy but it must be done. Some of the stories are things that are difficult to admit that I was a part of, but if one more veteran realizes that they are not alone because of my testimony it will be worth it."
Staying with veterans, the US House Committee on Veterans Affairs' subcommittee on Health held a hearing today. Subcommittee chair Michael Michaud explained in opening remarks, "Today's hearing is an opportunity for the VA, Veteran Service Organizations and members of this subcommittee to discuss draft legislation dealing with Fiscal Year 2009 VA construction. 38 United States Code requires statutory authorization for all VA major medical facility construction projects over $10 million and all major medical facility leases more than $600,000 per year. This hearing is a first step in this important process." Dennis Cullinan, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the US, testified on behalf of the VFW regarding the proposed "Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Authorization and Lease Act of 2008." Cullinan felt the budges were too low and placed the blame for that on "the administration" which "saw fit to halve the major and minor construction accounts from the Fiscal Year 2008 levels, failing to meet the future needs of our veterans." The White House has played it on the cheap with veterans care throughout this decade and they've generally gotten away with that. Cullinan stated the proposed legislation "demonstrates that this Congress is ready, able and willing to correct this situtiona and to advance VA's construction priorities so that future generations of veterans -- such as those currently serving in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Aghanistan -- will have a first-rate VA health care system ready to fully meet their needs." The proposal, as US Dept of Veterans Affairs' Donald Orndoff noted, mainly is about the "authorization for six major medical construction projects and twelve major medical facility leases".
Meanwhile, Dr. Dean Kilpatrick of the Medical University of South Carolina testified to the House Committee on Veterans Affairs yesterday on the subject of PTSD and this morning he testified to the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Kilpatrick is the direcyor of the National Crimes Victims Research and Treatment Center. And for context, the American Public Health Association's 135th Annual Meeting last November utilized these numbers for PTSD -- 12 percent to 20 percent of all veterans from the Iraq War will suffer from PTSD, over 52,000 veterans have already been diagnosed and treated with PTSD. In December 2006, Ann Scott Tyson (Washington Post) reported, "U.S. soldiers serving repeated Iraq deployments are 50 percent more likely than those with one tour to suffer from acute combat stress, raising their risk of post-traumatic stress disorder, according to the Army's first survey exploring hos today's multiple war-zone rotations affect soldiers' mental health." In his opening remarks today, Kilpatrick explained the basics.
Kilpatrick: I will begin with some background information of posttraumatic stress disorder. Briefly described, PTSD is a psychiatric disorder that can develop in a person after a traumatic experience. Someone is diagnosed with PTSD if, in response to that traumatic experience, he or she develops a cluster of symptoms that include
* reexperienceing the traumatic event as reflected by distressing recollections, memories, nightmares, or flashbacks
* avoidance of anything that reminds them of the traumatic event
* emotional numbing or feeling detached from other people
* hyperarousal as reflected by trouble sleeping, trouble concentrating, outbursts of anger, and having to always be vilgilant for potential threats in the enivornment
* impairment in social or occupational functioning, or clinically significant distress
The focus of the hearing was not PTSD, however. Kirkpatrick and others were members of the Institute of Medicine committee studying veterans health issues with a primary focus -- today -- on the ratings. Is the Scehdule for Rating Disabilities -- currently used to determine the financial benefits paid to wounded veterans -- adequate or even fair? Former American Medical Association president Dr. Lonnie R. Bristow gave an overview of areas the committee felt needed futher exploration and these included compensation for loss of quality of life, the differences in employment income for those suffering brain injuries as opposed to physical ones. Scott Zeger, of John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health noted veterans with "medical conditions that develope after military service" and the need to for "Congress or the Department of Veterans Affairs . . . to make a 'presumption' of service-connection so that a group of veterans can be appropriately compensated. Presumptions are made in order to reach decisions in the face of unavailable or incomplete information." The Center for Health Research and Policy's Joyce McMahon also addressed compensation and the need for a system that was inclusive, "Congressional language indicates that the intent of VA compensation is to provide a replacement for the average impairment in earning capacity. VA compensation is not an individual means-tested program, although there are minor exceptions to this." As with most studies, by the committee members own statements, the emphasis was on males and before Congress creates an 'inclusive system,' it would be better to actually be inclusive. At this late date, there's really no excuse to set up a system that will treat male as the norm and take decades of pressure to include women in the studies and then to begin addressing health and disability issues specific to women. Aaron Glantz (War Comes Home) reported last month on the continued crisis in veterans health care and noted, "The average wait time for a veteran's disability claim to be decided is now 183 days. More than 600,000 disabled vets are waiting. Tens of thousands more veterans are being totally denied medical care and disability benefits they were promised after serving abroad." The 600,000 waiting should especially stand out to those who remember the 2004 presidential debates. Senator John Kerry noted the crisis -- it was then and it is now a crisis -- in veterans health care and among the lies Bully Boy tossed out (and the likes of FactCheck.org quickly swallowed) was that the wait-time was going smoothly, right on track, boom-boom-boom. The reality, as Kerry pointed out repeatedly before the debate and after was that the wait-time was increasing. So when the figure of 600,000 emerges today, it has recent historical roots. Let's return to PTSD to note this from AP (November 2007): "About 42 percent of the Guard and reserves compared to 20 percent of active-duty troops, were identified as needing medical health treatment in two screenings. The first testing was immediately upon return from Iraq and the second six months later. Problems showed up more often on the second screening. . . . For those citizen soldiers, the military's Tricare health insurance benefits expire after six months: VA benefits expire two years after a soldier's return to civilian status." Ron Jacobs (Dissident Voice) reviews Michele Barrett's Casualty Figures and notes of PTSD, "We associate this disorder primarily with veterans of combat. What many people do not know is that this disorder was included into the bible of therapeutic mental health disorders only after a long struggle by the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and some other US veterans organizations in the 1970s."
Meanwhile the US House Committe on Oversight and Government Reform's subcommitte (Government Management, Organization and Procurement) held a hearing today where the issue was contractors and focused on three proposals (H.R. 3033, H.R. 3928 and H.R. 4881). Normally, this isn't a committee worth watching but US Rep Chris Murphy was in charge of the bulk of the hearing. Murphy had some serious exchanges with Paul Denett (Office of Federal Procurement Policy Office of Management and Budget) who appeared to be present mainly to throw a road block in front of the three proposed bills. "Your remark in your written testimony was" about stifling competition, Murphy noted, but "we already have this information . . . when it comes to public companies . . . Why are we concerned that simply requiring private companies to disclose a modicum of what we require public companies to disclose" would adversly effect competition?
Denett's reply was, amazingly, given with a straight face, "There are a lot of small busines who would be discouraged . . . [because] they don't want their employees to know what they're making." "Executive compensation" was the issue and Murphy wanted to know why these contracts -- to companies such as Blackwater -- result in executives making more -- in these private companies -- than the executives of public companies. Denett attempted to dismiss the issue by maintaining that "fixed price contracts" don't explore a company's compensation; however, Murphy noted that you can't determine fair price without knowing the profit margin and whether "10% to 20% is being taken off the top for executive compensation." Murphy noted that "any private investor" considering investing in a company would factor these facts into a decision of whether or not to invest in the company, so why doesn't the government factor them in when awarding contracts? US House Rep Peter Welch would also explore this noting that there has to be "some public disclosure" when these business are wanting tax payer dollars. Welch asked the US Government Accountability Office's John Hutton if the proposed legislation would cause Hutton professional problems and Hutton begged off with a lot of words that went no where leading Welch to observe, "I don't understand what you just said." Welch reminded that the money being handed ou twas "tax payers' dollars" and what was being asked for was "public information" -- "We're just simply asking for some information -- in this case salary information -- I don't see how it would in any way interfere with the procurement process." US House Rep Carolyn Maloney (apparently dressed to battle Dr. Doom -- what were those things, wings? -- I'm sorry, you wear that to a meeting, you're asking for your outfit to be discussed) noted that the legislation proposed is not out of the norm and already applies to construction companies. She futher wanted to know what was happening with regards to companies being awarded federal contracts when they didn't pay taxes? By then the hearing was already over because the committee's chair, Edolphus Towns, had finally arrived. The annual CBC report explains Towns but, for those who've never read it, let's just note the first question Towns elected to ask, "What needs to be done to bring you on board?" The question, naturally went, to Big Business and Pork Cheerleader Alan L. Chvotkin (Professional Services Council). As if that wasn't bad enough, after the hearing, Eldophus Towns would be walking around the hall clutching Chvotkin's beefy right arm. POGO's Scott Amey testifed as well and his opening remarks (PDF format warning) can be found here.
Yesterday Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) and an interpreter visited the Iranian ambassador in Iraq and the interpreter noted that he was "the second ruler of Iraq . . . After [US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan] Crocker." Fadel notes, "She never mentioned the Prime Minister of Iraq, Nouri al Maliki. She expressed what most Iraqis feel, Iraq is a tug of war for power between Iran and the United States." Which might be a good time to note that al-Maliki's back in London again -- he always seems to flee the country whenever there's a problem. The big problem for him these days is the invasion of nothern Iraq by Turkey. Kevin Whitelaw (US News and World Reports) explains that despite US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates calling for Turkey to 'quickly' complete it's invasion, "Turkish diplomats say the incursion will continue as long as the Turkish military deems necessary." Some have described the puppet government in Baghdad as 'anguished' and certainly al-Maliki's cabinet ministers (especially Kurdish ones) have called for Turkey to cease the military invasion. But al-Maliki, out of the country yet again, can't be feeling too much 'anguish.' Borzou Daragahi (Los Angeles Times) observes that today is day six of the invasion and that Turkey has rebuffed Iraq's insistance upon a speedy withdraw with Ahmet Davutoglu ("Turkish envoy") declaring, "Our objective is clear, our mission is clear and there is no timetable until . . . those terrorist bases are eliminated." Ben Knight (Australia's ABC) explains the time frame being addressed, "The US says Turkey should end its military campaign against Kurdish rebels in Iraq in a matter of weeks, rather than months."
In some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing that claimed the life of 1 person and left another injured, another bombing "targeting a Caprice carrying fuel cans" claimed 1 life and left two more injured, a Mosul bombing claimed 2 lives, two people were wounded in a Diyala Province bombing and, in the latest known attack on officials, Col. Anwar Qadir (chief of police) was targeted for assassination via a car bombing today but survived.
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports unknown assailants shot dead 1 border guard outside Tirkit and left two wounded, unknown assailants shot dead police Lt. Raid Khudair in Basra and (Tuesday night for this crime) unknown assailants shot dead a student at Mosul University. Reuters notes an armed clash in Mosul left two people dead and that unknown assailants "attacked a checkpoint manned by Iraqi police and members of U.S.-backed neighbourhood police unit, killing two and wounding three". Wisam Mohammed (Reuters) notes that Shihab al-Tamimi is dead from wounds received this weekend when he was attacked in Baghdad (gunfire) and notes the 74-year-old man "was an independent journalist working for many local newspapers. He was known for his outspoken views against the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the continued presence of U.S. troops on Iraqi soil."
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses were discovered in Baghdad and 1 corpse was found in Babil Province
In the US, how sad it must be to be Dana Perino today (let's be kind and leave it at today). The White House Flack declared earlier this week (Feb. 25th), "The President has been working towards reconciliation between the Sunnis and the Shia, and it's actually working on a political level in some ways. Especially we saw that last month, when they passed three laws in one day, which was quite a significant achievement for the Iraqis." It's no longer "three," it's now "two." CBS and AP report, "Iraq's presidential council rejected a measure Wednesday setting up provincial elections, sending it back to parliament in the latest setback to U.S.-backed national reconciliation efforts. The three-member panel, however, approved the 2008 budget and another law that provides limited amnesty to detainees in Iraqi custody. Those laws will take effect once they are published in the Justice Ministry gazette." Borzou Daragahi (Los Angeles Times) explains, "The Bush adminstration downplayed the setback. 'This is democracy at work,' said White House press secretary Dana Perino." Perino also declared today "I don't know if he has." That was in reply to the question (at today's press briefing), "The US military conducted 19 focus groups throughout Iraq last November, and its report on those focus groups stated that Iraqis from every ethnic and sectarian group are united in the belief that the US invasion is the root cause of the sectarian violence in Iraq and that the departure of the US military is the key to national reconciliation. And I wondered, has the President seen the military's report on those focus groups?"
In US political news, Margaret Kimberley (Black Agenda Report) shakes her head (rightly) at The Nation magazine:
It is incomprehensible that The Nation magazine endorsed Obama after making the following statement. "This magazine has been critical of the senator from Illinois for his closeness to Wall Street; his unwillingness to lay out an ambitious progressive agenda on healthcare, housing and other domestic policy issues; and for post-partisan rhetoric that seems to ignore the manifest failure of conservatism over these past seven years."
If The Nation has so many qualms about Obama, why endorse him at all? The editors could have simplay made a statement of non-support for Obama or Clinton. The sad plight of progressives is all too bovious. "While his rehtoric about 'unity' can be troubling, it also embodies a savvy strategy to redefine the center of American politics and build a coalition by reaching out to independent and Republican voters disgruntled and disgusted with what the Bush era has wrought." The Nation should explain to readers why Democrats ought to "redefine the center" with independents and Republicans instead of having their own agenda and fighting to make it a reality.
For another Nation critique, see Kat regarding Nader, and last night Bambi lied in the debate. Rebecca notes it here and it was also noted here. We may have time for that in tomorrow's snapshot.
iraq
dee knight
iraq veterans against the war
the new york times
mcclatchy newspapers
the washington post
ann scott tyson
ron jacobs
aaron glantz
borzou daragahi
the los angeles times
margaret kimberley
kats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitude
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Isaiah, Gene Lyons, bringiton
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Merkel-ed" went up Sunday and I'm noting it tonight. We'll consider this the Obama post -- that would be the Obama whose supporters are marketing a "Bros before hos" t-shirt. Maybe he can buy some for his daughters? Obama is such trash. If America's foolish enough to get behind him, they'll quicly discover what happens when you're no longer focused on climbing the ladder to success. They'll grasp that his little huffy spells are very much a part of his character as is his sense of entitlement. They may wonder about the ads about growing up poor when his grandmother (who raised him) was a banking wonder and one of the women to crash a glass ceiling. They may grasp what it's like to have been completely lied to and, sadly, to have fallen for it. I do understand the attraction, by the way. When Bambi was running for the Senate, I was on cloud nine. I forced C.I. to go to a fundraiser with me and we were prepared to max out in one donation each. But, funny thing, on the way to writing those checks, we spoke with Bambi and discovered he wasn't all that "anti-war." In fact, he was promoting the notion that since US forces were on the ground in Iraq, the "dumb" war was no longer an issue. If you saw the speech in Boston from that perspective, you would pick up on different meanings.
"Is Obama guilty of the 'P' word?" (Gene Lyons, Laurel Leader-Call):
Obama dismisses it as a minor gaffe.
Any Democrat who didn't get a queasy feeling, however, has definitely succumbed to "Obamamania." Back in 1988, Sen. Joe Biden's presidential run ended after he borrowed lines from then-British Labour leader Neil Kinnock. To the Washington media, it proved that he was a big faker, who, in the usual formulation, "would say or do anything" to become president.
It's also not the first time Obama has been accused of lifting others' words. Announcing his own presidential candidacy in 1993, Sen. John Edwards said, "I haven't spent most of my life in politics, but I've spent enough time in Washington to know how much we need to change it."
For months, Obama has been saying, "I know I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I’ve been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change." An Edwards aide commented dryly, "Next thing you know, he’ll be rooting for the Tar Heels."
Of course, they all run against Washington, except Sen. Hillary Clinton, who's touting her experience. There are a limited number of ways to say it.
But did you catch Obama in South Carolina, warning African-American audiences, "Don't be hoodwinked. Don’t be bamboozled"? You can also Google those words, and watch actor Denzel Washington deliver them in Spike Lee’s brilliant film "Malcom X": "You've been hoodwinked, bamboozled, led astray, run amok."
The irony of Obama’s borrowing the fictive words of Malcolm X, a black Muslim, to rebut a scurrilous e-mail campaign calling him a secret Islamist would be almost disabling, except for the greater one: All this was going on while Obama’s media acolytes were accusing the Clinton campaign of "playing the race card." (A brilliant tactic to guarantee landslide defeat in South Carolina.) In context, Malcolm X was warning audiences to mistrust politicians sent by the "White Man."
Poor Gene Lyons. A seer, a genius, astute. Showered with praise non-stop. Then he made the mistake of not detaching his brain to cover the 2008 election. He didn't take the Cult and he's kicked the curb. When you grasp how many have been, you ought to grasp how dangerous Obama is. But I fear that's something that comes later.
"Who is actually choosing the Democratic Presidential Nominee?" (bringiton, Corrente):
Department of All The Damn Gall
Who put these people in charge?
While there is plenty being written about who the media or party bigwigs are trying to choose as the nominee, an election process with actual voters is playing out in curious ways. Turns out, Democrats have made a decision; they favor Hillary Clinton by 5:4, more than enough to make her the nominee if it weren't for The Others, the hangers-on that this year may well choose who represents the Democratic Party while themselves rejecting party membership.
Why would any organization allow outsiders to determine its future?
"Democratic primary." Seems pretty clear to me. Democrats vote their choice of the candidate who best represents THEIR party. They did that and they chose Hillary. But the cross-overs (Republicans, Communists, Socialists, independents, etc.) were allowed to screw with the process. It's why the Democratic Party is so in danger of having a candidate TO THE RIGHT OF Hillary Clinton. If the Democrats give the nomination to Obama they deserve everything that's coming. Everything that's not even hidden -- read Lyons -- comes to the surface and when that buyer's remorse kicks on a national level, it will not be pretty.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Tuesday, February 26, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Senator Jim Webb asks hard questions of a general in a Senate hearing, a mass kidnapping takes place in Iraq, Pelosi wishes someone in Congress would do something (but not her), and more.
Starting with war resistance. Joshua Key's The Deserter's Tale and Camilo Mejia's Road from Ar Ramaid: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia are two books where war resisters tell their stories. They are also two books reviewed by Dee Knight (Workers World) who notes:
Both MejÃa and Key had sufficient direct experience of being ordered to commit war crimes in Iraq that they had enough. As soon as they were allowed out of Iraq on leave, they decided not to come back. MejÃa chose to refuse publicly and apply for conscientious objector status. He was rejected, and was sentenced to a year in military prison and a bad conduct discharge.Key just left. He rejoined his wife and their then three small children, and went underground for over a year. Finally, after "googling" the Internet with "deserter needs help," he got in touch with the War Resisters Support Campaign in Toronto."Sucking up the courage to drive to the border of my own country was the hardest thing I had ever done," he said.
Knight notes those who have followed Key and Mejia (and the other early war resisters of the Iraq War) including Lt. Ehren Watada and Pablo Paredes and the effects, "The GIs who have refused made their choices. And they have begun to change history."
Joshua Key and other war resisters who have moved to Canada were dealt a serious set-back when the Canadian Supreme Court refused to hear the appeals of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Today, Canada's Parliament remaining the best hope for safe harbor war resisters have, you can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. That is the sort of thing that should receive attention but instead it's ignored.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC action:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation. Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'." As part of their fundraising efforts for the event, they are holding houseparties and a recent one in Boston featured both IVAW's Liam Madden and the incomprable Howard Zinn as speakers. IVAW's co-chair Adam Kokesh will, of course, be participating and he explains why at his site, "But out of a strong sense of duty, some of us are trying to put our experiences to use for a good cause. Some of us couldn't live with ourselves if weren't doing everything we could to bring our brothers and sisters home as soon as possible. The environment may be unking, but that is why I will be testifying to shooting at civilians as a result of changing Rules of Engagement, abuse of detainees, and desecration of Iraqi bodies. It won't be easy but it must be done. Some of the stories are things that are difficult to admit that I was a part of, but if one more veteran realizes that they are not alone because of my testimony it will be worth it."
This morning the US Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on the Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2009 and the Future Years Defense Program. Offering testimony were Pete Geren, Secretary of the Army, and Gen. George W. Casey, Chief of Staff Army. In a prepared joint-statement given to the committee in writing before the hearing began, Geren and Casey note:
The likelihood of instability will increase as populations of several less-developed countries will almost double in size by 2020 -- most notably in Africa, the Middle East, and South and Southeast Asia. The "youth bulge" created by this growth will be vulnerable to anti-government and radical ideologies and will threaten government stability. This situation will be especially true in urban areas in which populations have more than doubled over the last 50 years.
By 2025, urban areas with concentrations of poverty will contain almost 60 percent of the world's population.
Competition for water, energy, goods, services, and food to meet the needs of growing populations will increase the potential for conflict. Demand for water is projected to double every 20 years. By 2015, 40 percent of the world's population will live in "water-stressed" countries. By 2025, global energy demands are expected to increase by 40 percent, threatening supplies to poor and developing nations.
In the above statements you'll not only find where the US headed in the near future but the same sort of thinking that led to destabilization efforts in Greece, et al in the 1960s. "Young" populations have "worried" US planners for well over sixty years now. [PDF format warning, click here for the 24-page statement.] CNN reduces the hearing to troops stationed in Iraq or Afghanistan will drop from fifteen months to twelve month tours. That's rather skimpy for what was a very lively hearing. In regards to the issue of the months involved in a tour, the committee chair, Carl Levin, had to be rather specific repeatedly finally asking "shorthand, you have to drawdown to what level?" Levin also had to pin Casey and Geren down regarding stop-loss. Beaming, Geren declared that the Army will get the number of stop-lossed soldiers down to "a little less than 8,000 today" and insisted -- at length -- that the Army wanted to "move away from" using stop-loss. Stop-loss is the backdoor draft. It's when you're service contract is ending and you're told, "Forget what your contract says, you're staying." Pressed by Levin about the decrease in the number of soldiers stop-lossed that Geren was so optimistic about, the Secretary of the Army swallowed and stated, "It might get to 7,000." Wow. It might drop to 7,000. To hear him spin and spin before Levin pinned him down you would have thought the figure was going to be significantly below 5,000. Geren insisted, "We're growing this Army faster than we planned."
US Senator Bill Nelson wanted to know about the RAND Study. That's a study commissioned by the Army, conducted by RAND which reportedly found that the illegal war was not well planned for. "The chairman has already asked you to release" the report to the committee, Nelson pointed out and added, "I would like to additionally ask that the RAND study be sent to the intelligence committee." He addressed that topic quickly and moved to an issue he's been working on, "It has come to my attention from women in my state [Florida] about the rapes that have occurred in Afghanistan and Iraq. I have been after this to try to get information." But what he's getting is regarding the US military and what he's been asking for information on was the number of rapes among the contractors. He has asked for that information repeatedly and still has not received it. "What we're finding is incomplete information and also this never-never land of not knowing what to do and what the law is to apply and who's going to enforce it?"
Nelson went on to list what is needed. For Iraq, the information needs to start in March 2003 when the Iraq War started and needs to include:
*What are the service components and government agencies involved in each investigation?
*What is the status for the person involved in each investigation?
*Who has the jurisdiction or investigative authority?
*In writing a list of rules, regulations and policies governing these issues.
Nelson repeated that it's been a struggle to get any information at all and noted that one of the women assaulted is a Tampa constituent. The two witnesses assured it was possible for the information to be passed on. But these assurances have been coming since the end of the last year. And that is the point where the hearing (not dull before) really came to life.
"What law applied when you were commanding troops over there?" Senator Jim Webb wanted Gen. Casey to answer. UCMJ was Casey's reply, the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Webb asked if Casey was stating that "UCMJ applied to contractors?" Casey nodded and added it applied -- when he was commander of Iraq -- to those working for the Department of Defense. Webb wanted to know how many contractors this would have applied to and the number 20,000 was casually tossed around by Casey.
Webb: You had 20,000 contractors subject to the UCMJ?
Casey: I don't recall the number. . . . I want to say the number was around 7,000 to 8,000.
Webb wanted to know if any contractors "were discharged under UCMJ" and Casey replied, "I have vague recollections of a couple of cases, but I can't say for certain." The exchange between the two was an important moment and the press should pick up on it. Webb's face was pure disbelief in the comments Casey was making, the testimony Casey was offering. Webb declaed, "I'm not even sure how you could have a proper court under the UCMJ" for contractors since UCMJ applies to the military. Webb noted that when he started out on the Armed Services committee lat year, he was told that was a proposal -- UCMJ being used for contractors -- and now here was Casey before the Senate today "saying that it was being used?"
""I am not 100%" certain, Casey said attempting to beg off from his public statements. Webb responded, "I would think, quite frankly, if you were commanding you would know that. . . . It's not a difficult concept." Casey's command of Iraq (Commanding General of M-NF) began in June 2004 and lasted through the start of February 2007. For three years, Gen. George Casey was the top commander and a year after his command ended, he's stumbling around in public, making assertions and then attempting to withdraw them? While this exchange took place, Geren was attempting to intercede but would have to wait a bit longer.
Casey said that UCMJ was being applied to contractors of the Defense Department when he was commander in Iraq, Webb noted, "This came up in the personnell subcommittee last year as a proposal and I'm not aware of anyone, any civilian who was subject to the UCMJ." In addition, serious crimes have been committed by contractors and Webb would assume that if UCMJ applied -- as Casey was maintaining it did -- that there would have been something to pass on to the Senate sometime ago.
Again, it was the moment to follow in the hearing. Levin would later ask for all information regarding that and other issues of contractors breaking the law including "any understandings or agreements which have been reached between American or Iraqi authorities." Webb would ask Geren about modernizing the GI Bill to have something similar to what followed WII for those serving today and Geren would maintain everyone was all on board and for it which the Senate's heard before (repeatedly) leading Webb to ask, "Where's the hold up?" and "Does the administration oppose expanding GI benefits?" It was Geren's turn in the hot seat. He squirmed a little but fell back on US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and stated that Gates was reviewing recommendations currently.
Ted Kennedy would emphasize the Army's suicide rate which "was the highest it had ever been" in 2007 with 121 soldiers committing suicide "more than double the number reported in 2001 before we sent troops into Iraq." Kennedy would also note that that there has been a "24% increase in felony moral waivers" among recruits and that "only 79%" of recruits now have high school diplomas; furthermore he noted the shortage among officers which was 3,000 lower than the amount the Army stated they needed. All of this led Kennedy to ask about "a perfect storm": "It seems we're reaching a perfect storm here both in therms of young people going in" and those already serving in terms of retention, "is this the perfect storm that's happening in terms of the military? How serious should we be concerned about it?" Casey agreed ("You are right") and said this was an indication of "the signs of a force that is stretched and under stress."
As noted in yesterday's snapshot, Army Lt. General Carter F. Ham, the director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced that if there was a drawdown of US troops in Iraq over the summer, it wouldn't take the numbers below approximately 140,000 which would mean that approximately 8,000 more US service members would be stationed in Iraq since before the escalation/'surge' began. US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi reacted to the news by issuing the following statement yesterday:
The statement from the Pentagon today on troop levels in Iraq is an admission that the President's troop surge was not a temporary measure. There will be more U.S. troops in Iraq this summer than there were at the end of 2006, when the American people demanded a New Direction in Iraq. Both the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, and the Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey have stated that repeated Iraq deployments are severely straining military readiness, making our nation less capable of dealing with other serious threats. As we approach the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war, Americans continue to demand a New Direction in Iraq and reject a continuation of the President's plan for a 10-year, trillion dollar war in Iraq.
Pelosi's really surprised by this (obvious) development? On January 8, 2007, she said of the White House plans for an escalation that it was "war without end, which the American people have rejected." By "rejected," she was referring to the November 2006 elections when the voters returned control of both houses of Congress to the Democrats. January 5, 2007, she and the new Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent the White House a joint-letter:
The American people demonstrated in the November elections that they don't believe your current Iraq policy will lead to success and that we need a change in direction for the sake of our troops and the Iraqi people. . . . .
Despite the fact that our troops have been pushed to the breaking point and, in many cases, have already served multiple tours in Iraq, news reports suggest that you believe the solution to the civil war in Iraq is to require additional sacrifices from our troops and are therefore prepared to proceed with a substantial U.S. troop increase.
In an interview with Bob Schieffer (CBS' Face The Nation) which aired January 7, 2007, Pelosi declared, "Well if the president chooses to escalate the war, which is contrary to the, of course, the will of the American people -- they have spoken on the subject -- but even the advice of his own governement, his own generals -- in December, General Abizaid testified before the Senate that in his converstations with General Dempsey and with General Casey, they believe that adding more troops will not improve the situation there. And so he's not listening to the generals, the president isn't. And he's not listening to the American people." Schieffer specifically asked her about stopping funding (and noted that before the cameras rolled Pelosi had brought it up) but Pelosi would only say "oversight" would be exercised. By January 19, 2007 (that would be 12 days later), Pelosi had thrown in the towel -- and done so in an exclusive interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer:
Diane Sawyer: As we sit here right now, 3,500 troops are moving in. That's the first of the surge. It has begun. Fifty-one percent of the American people say they want Congress to stop the surge. Money is the method at hand to do that. Are you going to move to cut off funding for troops going into Iraq as part of the surge?
Nancy Pelosi: Democrats will never cut off funding for our troops when they are in harm's way, but we will hold the president accountable. He has to answer for his war. He has dug a hole so deep he can't even see the light on this. It's a tragedy.
The tragedy is Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leadership's failure to act. (In the House, Steny Hoyer has repeatedly stabbed Pelosi in the back publicly and privately. Leadership sent a message to Pelosi early on when they refused her pick of John Murtha. That's not a defense of Pelosi -- I've endorsed Cindy Sheehan for the eighth Congressional district out of California -- but that is noting a reality.) On December 31, 2006, the 3,000 mark would be reached for the number of US service members killed while serving in Iraq. January 1, 2007, Nancy Pelosi would issue a statement (one of the few who bothered), "The deaths of 3,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq is a sad reminder of the consequences of the Administration's failed policy." Pelosi was elected Speaker of the House January 3, 2007 and the 110th Congress was sworn in on January 4th. January 4th the number of announced US military deaths in Iraq stood at 3006. Today it stands at 3972. That's 28 away from the 4,000 mark (and 966 announced deaths since the 110th Congress was sworn in). Next month is the fifth anniversary of the start of the illegal war (billed once upon a time as a "cake walk") and Stop-Loss Congress is an action in response to congress' planned March vaction: "This March, while tens of thousands of Americans in Washington, D.C., and all over the United States participate in acts of nonviolent civil disobedience to protest the ongoing occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and when soldiers and innocent civilian victims begin another year of occupation, torture, and murder, Congressmembers will be on a vaction (from the 15th to 30th, technically a 'district work period'), ignoring the killing and suffering they have enabled, supported and financed. To intensify the irony, Congress has condoned a widespred stop-loss policy in the military which requires soldiers to involuntarily extend their tours and prolong the killing. It is time to Stop-Loss Congress!" To learn more about the action click here and click here to sign your support.
By the way, that's a real peace action. Unlike the crap Amy Goodman pimped on Democracy Now! today. Why is that? Why is it that real peace actions can't get attention from that program but faux-action, pretend action that exists only to put Democrats in Congress (they already control both houses) are pimped by Panhandle Media as "anti-war" and "peace"? Goodman never noted the reality of this "progressive" action, this "anti-war campaign." Here's AFP's first sentence from their report, "Anti-war groups launched a nationwide drive Mondy to unseat Republican members of Congress by linking the multi-billion-dollar costs of the Iraq conflict to the flagging US economy." It's not about peace, it's about churning out votes for Democrats. It's a fraud and didn't they already disillusion one veteran with this nonsense? (Yes, they did. He went public with it at The Philadelphia Daily News.) He thought these groups were really about ending the illegal war and he gave everything he had to them. Then he grasped that the groups were about electing Democrats. Further in, AFP notes the so-called peace 'activism': "The coaltion has identified around 50 Republican members of the House of Representatives and several senators that it believes are vulnerable to defeat in the elections".
Bombings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two Iraqi soldiers were wounded in Baghdad by a grenade, a man on a bus exploded his bomb ("vest bomb") in Nineveh killing himself and 14 others with an additional fifteen wounded, a Mosul car bombing that claimed the life of 1 police officer and left another wounded and a roadside bombing outside of Baquba that claimed 2 lives. Michael Kamber (New York Times) reports that two "Awakening" Council members are dead from a roadside bombing in Kirkuk.
Robbery and Kidnapping?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports "6 million Iraqi Dinars" were robbed from a Ministry of Health vehicle at gun point while 21 males were kidnapped off buses in Diyala Province. Meanwhile Matthew Moore (Telegraph of London) notes that a kidnapping victim has shown up in a videotape being aired on Al-Arabiya where he explains, "I have been held here for nearly eight months . . . Release their people from prison so that we can go home. It is as simple as that." The unidentified man was kidnapped along with four other British citizens nine months ago.
Corpses?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad.
Turning to England, today BBC reports, "The government has been told to release the minutes of two cabinet meetings in the days before the 2003 Iraq war. The demand came from Information Commissioner Richard Thomas after a Freedom of Information request was rejected by the Cabinet Office." Adrian Croft (Reuters) explains, "Britian's information watchdog ordered the government on Tuesday to release the minutes of cabinet meetings held in March 2003 which discussed the legal justifications for going to war in Iraq. Release of the documents could embarrass Prime Minister Gordon Brown, whose predecssor Tony Blair was accused by critics of glossing over lawyers' initial reservations about launching the invasion of Saddam Hussein's Iraq." Michael Evans (Times of London) declares, "The Iraq War story is never going to go away. Now the Government is faced with an order to disclose the minutes of two Cabinet meetings where the reasoning bhind the decision to invade in Iraq in March 2003, was discussed by ministers. . . . The key interest would be to see which ministers cast doubt on the justification for war -- apart from the ones we know already (the late Robin Cook, then Leader of the Commons, and Clare Short, then International Development Secretary) -- and whether anyone referred, enthusiastically or otherwise, to the merits of regime-change in Baghdad. The Government has always denied that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was the main or even the secondary reason for invading Iraq." In contrast, Chris Ames (writing at the Guardian of London) offers, "My guess is that we will learn something new and potentially damaging to the government if the minutes are eventually released. But, with the smart money on a government appeal to the information tribunal, we're not there yet. There are two hugely controversial aspects of the way that Tony Blair took the country to war in Iraq. The first is the case that he made to parliament and the country in the form of the September 2002 Iraq dossier. . . . The other issue of great contention is how Blair persuaded the armed forces and the cabinet that the war would be lgeal, using advice procured from the then attorney general Lord Goldsmith."
Turning to US political news, as Rebecca noted last night, "senator crazy goes insane again. the wheels are off the show boat express." She's referring to Senator John McCain, of course, who has defined how he will end up elected president in the November 2008 election as convincing America that the there is not just a 'win' in Iraq but it is happening. On Sunday Ralph Nader appeared on NBC's Meet the Press (link has text and video) where he stated he was running for president:
You know, when you see the paralysis of the government, when you see Washington, D.C., be corporate-occupied territory, every department agency controlled by overwhelming presence of corporate lobbyists, corporate executives in high government positions, turning the government against its own people, you--one feels an obligation, Tim, to try to open the doorways, to try to get better ballot access, to respect dissent in America in the terms of third parties and, and independent candidates; to recognize historically that great issues have come in our history against slavery and women rights to vote and worker and farmer progressives, through little parties that never ran--won any national election. Dissent is the mother of ascent. And in that context, I have decided to run for president."
That's Ralph Nader, who turned 74-years-old today, explaining why he's running. John Nichols really wants Obama's class ring and felt the need to distort reality claiming Barack Obama responded "wisely" to the news of Nader's run (see Kat), Nader himself felt differently, "Former Constitutional law lecturer Senator Barack Obama is entitled to his un-nuanced opinions, but not his misstatements of facts. I invite him to join me in a cooperative effort to put back on the table the necessities of the American people that he, Clinton, and McCain have yanked off the table. Instead, he resorts to name calling -- labeling me a perennial candidate. Well, Senator Obama, perennial injustices deserve perennial candidates who fight them." For the record, Obama's public statements were rude to Nader. Not wanting to hop in bed with Obama, I can be honest -- unlike John Nichols. Vaughn Ververs (CBS News) reports that Michael Bloomberg (who may run himself) supports Nader's run noting (correctly), "Everybody's got a right to do it -- you're not spoiling anything. . . . If people want to vote fo ryou, let them vote for you, and why shouldn't they?"
Running for the Green Party nomination for president is Cynthia McKinney (Nader may or may not be, that's really not addressed in the Meet the Press interview). Last week, Wendy L. Wilson (Essence) discussed the run with McKinney:
Essence.com: You've been a Democrat all your life. Why switch to Green now? C.M.: You know, I never really got the chance to know the members of the Green Party across the country before. Now, I'm getting to know the most wonderful, idealistic, patriotic people who have made me feel at home. It's just wonderful to be with people who have thought through the process and how we can work to make it better. Essence.com: How many votes do you need to be considered? C.M.: The Green Party needs 5 percent of the votes in the 2008 election to be institutionalized as a third force in American politics. Essence.com: Why should we consider voting for you? C.M.: If people feel deep within their hearts that there is still something structurally wrong with the limited choices we have in our two-party system, then I want people to say let me be a part of the 5 percent that changes the structure of our country. Right now, public policy is made in a room where the door is locked. The people are outside; only two representatives [Democrats and Republicans] are in that room hammering out policy. Somebody gave the corporate lobbyists a key so they can come and go as they please. The Green Party will open the door for people who care about impeachment, the war, civil liberties, and economic justice. We will pull up a chair and be a part of the conversation. You'll get different results and people won't feel as if they were marginalized out of the process. Essence.com: You've done a lot for the people in New Orleans and the Gulf States after the Hurricanes. Why is their cause still so important to you? C.M.: I've been very active in the treatment against Hurricane Katrina survivors. After having participated in the International Tribunal on Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and visited New Orleans and the Gulf States several times, I have helped to put together a 10-point plan for the survivors, which is based on the Reconstruction Movement and the Reconstruction Party [in Canada]. This 10-point plan includes an electoral system that allows for integrity and voter choice, full employment including the right to organize, reparations, a budget for human needs, policies against police brutality, a way to end the drug war and prisons for profit, means to protect the environment, end militarism and continue to stand for peace. There's a lot more that our country can do in its own borders and in the global community.
Tonight Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama debate in Ohio as they continue to compete for the Democratic Party's nomination for president.
iraq
joshua key
camilo mejia
dee knight
iraq veterans against the war
the new york times
mcclatchy newspapers
kats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitude
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)