Last night's post ["Technical problems (thanks Blogger/Blogspot)"] was nothing do to technical problems -- Blogger/Blogspot ones. I did guest post at Kat's ["Barack had 'better' things to do"]both to give her the night off and to have something resembling a post up online. As you can see, I can now do links. C.I. fooled around with it for about 25 minutes and fixed it. (Through "trial and error." I was watching over C.I.'s should to try to learn what to do if it happens again and I couldn't follow what C.I. was doing. C.I. couldn't as well. It was one of those instinctive moves -- like C.I. and algebra or any higher math where C.I. can look at the equation and tell you the answer but can't tell you how to arrive at it.)
We just finished a long breakfast at C.I.'s and discussed some ideas for Third. (You should substract 3 hours from the time stamp on this post, I'm not home in EST time, I'm in California, PST time). In Friday's gina & krista round-robin, C.I. stated that those with work-safe issues when being online, should avoid visiting Third because the language may be a problem this weekend.
I understand now why. One of the pieces Dona, Jim, Ava and C.I. are pitching might need to state things clearly. The idea for it actually came from conversations the four were having Ava's aunt and other prominent women from the second wave of feminism. It's a wonderful idea.
Ava grew up with feminism and surrounded by many second-wavers so I wasn't surprised she knew all that background. (C.I. and I and remember those times, of course.) But I was surprised by Jim and Dona's grasp of the details. Ava's aunt had called them Tuesday night, explained she just spoke with Ava and C.I. and said "I'm going to do a historical walk-through." As they spoke with other second-wavers throughout the week, Jim and Dona would ask for a historical walk-through and they've really got it down.
So I am very excited about that piece (and aware that if it's not working out when we write it, it won't go up online -- it may go into the print version). I thought I could mention here C.I.'s warning re: language. That was going to be my entire post but Jim said at the public account, it was now clear that Bill Moyers Journal's weekly commentaries could be posted in full. So I will add that.
"The Company We Keep" (Michael Winship, Bill Moyers Journal):
At one point during the five and a half years John McCain spent as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, he was tortured and beaten so badly he tried to kill himself. After four days of this brutality, he gave in and agreed to make a false confession, telling lies to end the unbearable pain. Later, he would write, "I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine."
Similar techniques were utilized in the Asian war preceding Vietnam -- Korea. The Communist Chinese used them to interrogate US POW’s and force them to confess to things they didn’t do, such as germ warfare. A chart of the Chinese methods, compiled in 1957 by an American sociologist, lists the methods, among them, “Sleep Deprivation,” “Semi-Starvation,” “Filthy, Infested Surroundings,” “Prolonged Constraint,” and “Exposure.” The effects are listed, too: “Makes Victim Dependent on Interrogator,” “Weakens Mental and Physical Ability to Resist,” “Reduces Prisoner to ‘Animal Level’ Concerns,” and others.
On July 2, The New York Times reported that the chart had made a surprise return appearance, this time at Guantanamo Bay, where in 2002 it was used in a course to teach our military interrogators “Coercive Management Techniques,” to be used when interrogating detainees held there as prisoners in the war on terror.
In other words, we had adopted the inhumane tactics of enemies past, tactics we once were quick to call torture. Tactics created not to get at the truth but to manufacture lies that we then characterize as credible. How can we expect this to be an effective way to extract real information from terrorists?
Since 2005, Congress has banned the use of such methods by the military but we have no way of knowing whether the CIA continues to use them (For example, The Associated Press reported Thursday that, “CIA Director Michael Hayden banned waterboarding in 2006, but government officials have said it remains a possibility if approved by the attorney general, the CIA chief and the president).”
Such is the secrecy and deliberate obfuscation that have characterized our nation’s descent into lawlessness and duplicity, depicted brilliantly in New Yorker magazine investigative reporter Jane Mayer’s new book, The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals.
Post 9/11, she reports, “For the first time in its history, the United States sanctioned government officials to physically and psychologically torment US-held detainees, making torture the official law of the land in all but name.” The late American historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., she says, told her that “the Bush administration’s extralegal counterterrorism program presented the most dramatic, sustained and radical challenge to the rule of law in American history.” Over lunch in 2006, the year before Schlesinger died, he said, “No position taken had done more damage to the American reputation in the world -- ever.”
Read all of this in light of the series of hearings on Capitol Hill over the last weeks in which members of Congress have tried to find out how in the name of protecting us from further terrorist attacks, the Bush White House has twisted or abandoned the law to allow what most of the international community recognizes as torture.
The administration remains in denial. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft told the House Judiciary Committee, “I don’t know of any acts of torture that have been committed by individuals in developing information,” he said. “So I would not certainly make an assumption. I would attribute the absence of an attack [since 9/11] at least in part, because there have been specific attacks that have been disrupted, to the excellent work and the dedication and commitment of people whose lives are dedicated to defending the country. Interrogators have used enhanced interrogation techniques but they haven’t used torture.”
Grim hairsplitting. This week, as the result of a Freedom of Information Act suit, the ACLU received a heavily redacted copy of an infamous August 2, 2002 memo, signed by then-head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel Jay Bybee and written with his subordinate, the equally infamous John Yoo. “An individual must have the specific intent to inflict severe pain or suffering,” it reads. “… The absence of specific intent negates the charge of torture… We have further found that if a defendant acts with the good faith belief that his actions will not cause such suffering, he has not acted with specific intent.”
Jameel Jaffer, head of the ACLU’s national security project told Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent, “Imagine that in an ordinary criminal prosecution a bank robber tortures a bank manager to get the combination to a vault. He argues that the torture was not to inflict pain, but to get the combination. Every torturer has a reason other than to cause pain. If you're going to let people off the hook for an intention other than to cause pain, you're not going to be able to prosecute anyone for torture.”
Deborah Pearlstein, a constitutional scholar and human rights lawyer who has spent time at Guantanamo monitoring conditions there, testified to Congress that, “As of 2006, there had been more than 330 cases in which U.S. military and civilian personnel have, incredibly, alleged to have abused or killed detainees. This figure is based almost entirely on the U.S. government's own documentation. These cases involved more than 600 U.S. personnel and more than 460 detainees held at U.S. facilities throughout Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay. They included some l00-plus detainees who died in U.S. custody, including 34 whose deaths the Defense Department reports as homicides. At least eight of these detainees were, by any definition of the term, tortured to death.”
Pearlstein cited a recent British study that discovered that our detainee policies had led to Britain’s withdrawal from joint, covert counterterrorism operations with the CIA “because the U.S. failed to offer adequate assurances against inhumane treatment.” The House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has issued a report stating the United States can’t be trusted to tell the truth about how it interrogates detainees. “Given the clear differences in definition,” the report concludes, “the UK can no longer rely on US assurances that it does not use torture, and we recommend that the Government does not rely on such assurances in the future.”
On Monday, the first American war crimes trial in since World War II opened at Guantanamo, the United States presenting its case against Salim Ahmed Hamdan before a jury of US military officers. Hamdan, who at the time of 9/11 was Osama bin Laden’s driver, is charged with conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism. Two surface-to-air missiles were found in a car he was driving – he says it was a borrowed vehicle and that he had no idea what was in the trunk. The judge has thrown out confessions Hamdan made in Afghanistan after his capture. “The interests of justice are not served by admitting these statements,” the judge said, “because of the highly coercive environments and conditions under which they were made.” Hamdan was bound for long periods of time, with a bag over his head.
You will know us by the company we keep. The burners of witches and the medieval masters of thumbscrews and Iron Maidens, the interrogators of the Spanish inquisition, the North Vietnamese soldiers who beat John McCain and his fellow American prisoners of war into false confessions. We have joined their ranks. In the almost seven years since 9/11, we have countered terror not only with vigilance and war but fear, imprisonment without due process and yes, torture.
Torture is no more about learning the truth than rape is about sex. Both are about the violent abuse of power.
Ava and C.I. say they believe ("believe") Bill Moyers delivered that commentary in the first segment. So if you would like audio or video you can check Bill Moyers Journal. It was a wild party (in a good way) here last night by the time Ava, C.I. Kat, Betty and Wally arrived (they were the last to fly in -- and were in Georgia on Friday so that Betty and her kids could fly back with them). They were trying to take part and catch up and also do their note taking for their TV commentary. Looking at Ava and C.I.'s shorthand notes, it does look like the above was the opening monologue for the Journal last night. Adding one more thing as I continued looking at Ava and C.I.'s notes from the broadcast of the Moyers' program: Jane Mayer was the guest and they (Ava and C.I.) have some high praise for her comments in their notes so, if you visit Moyers online, you may want to check out that segment as well.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Friday, July 25, 2008
Technical problems (thanks Blogger/Blogspot)
I wish C.I. were here because something weird is going on with my blog. This will be boring but just to explain. To blog, I have to sign in with my Google I.D. I then get taken to what is called "Dashboard" and from there I click on "Create" to do a post.
The "create" screen gives me the option of "Compose" or "Edit." I generally use compose. Edit requires HTML code and I will do that if I'm doing a video or something else. But tonight, I don't have that option. I'm taken to a screen -- the one I am typing in. But it looks completely different. I don't have the "Compose" and "Edit" options. I have something entitled "Enclosures" and "URL" and "MIME Type" and I have no idea what any of that is.
I can't do links. I just realized that entire toolbar is missing.
Mike, Ruth and Marcia are blogging. I've asked them to look at what I've got on my screen and they've enver seen anything like it. Jim came over and said, "Only one I know who could figure it out would be C.I. But you could try calling UK Computer Gurus." I'll drop them an e-mail after I post this. I have no idea what's going on.
I've wasted forever tonight trying to figure out what to do. I have no idea.
C.I. (and Rebecca, Betty, Kat, Ava, Wally and Rebecca's husband and child) just landed and Jim handed me the phone. C.I. asked me to describe it and can't figure out what's going on. I said if I could put in the snapshot, I'd just make that the post and call it a day. This is really weird. I don't know HTML code. I don't know what I'm doing here. So this is just a lesson in how technical problems arise.
C.I. asked if I'd really just post ("and not freak out") if I had the snapshot. I said yes and was asked to hand the phone to Jim. Thank you to Jim (and C.I.) for getting the snapshot in here. I asked Jim what he did and he said, "I didn't try to understand it, I just tried to follow C.I.'s walk through word for word."
I've saved this dreadful post throughout while I played around and thought maybe if I tried to do a new post, it would go back to normal. It didn't. I thought if I pulled up a post from earlier this week, I could figure out what was wrong with new posts but when I pull up old posts they have the "Enclosures" and "URL" and "MIME Type" bar and no tool bar where I do links, etc.
I have no idea what's going on. C.I. said we can try to figure out what happened over the weeknd.
Sorry I don't have much of a post. I'm embarrassed that this is all I have. But Blogger/Blogspot's gone wacko -- and only on my account. No one else's.
Let me offer a few thoughts on Barack's Rainbow Tour. Can you be more high on yourself? What message does it send Americans when you're telling Germans the same sugar coated lines you toss out here. "We" over and over. "This is our time."
He is such a phony and he wouldn't even visit the wounded troops and his campaign attempted to lie about that. Go to Mike or Ruth's site. They are linking to those stories. I'm sorry that I can't even provide you with a link to Mike or Ruth. But I have no way to do links.
The "create" screen gives me the option of "Compose" or "Edit." I generally use compose. Edit requires HTML code and I will do that if I'm doing a video or something else. But tonight, I don't have that option. I'm taken to a screen -- the one I am typing in. But it looks completely different. I don't have the "Compose" and "Edit" options. I have something entitled "Enclosures" and "URL" and "MIME Type" and I have no idea what any of that is.
I can't do links. I just realized that entire toolbar is missing.
Mike, Ruth and Marcia are blogging. I've asked them to look at what I've got on my screen and they've enver seen anything like it. Jim came over and said, "Only one I know who could figure it out would be C.I. But you could try calling UK Computer Gurus." I'll drop them an e-mail after I post this. I have no idea what's going on.
I've wasted forever tonight trying to figure out what to do. I have no idea.
C.I. (and Rebecca, Betty, Kat, Ava, Wally and Rebecca's husband and child) just landed and Jim handed me the phone. C.I. asked me to describe it and can't figure out what's going on. I said if I could put in the snapshot, I'd just make that the post and call it a day. This is really weird. I don't know HTML code. I don't know what I'm doing here. So this is just a lesson in how technical problems arise.
C.I. asked if I'd really just post ("and not freak out") if I had the snapshot. I said yes and was asked to hand the phone to Jim. Thank you to Jim (and C.I.) for getting the snapshot in here. I asked Jim what he did and he said, "I didn't try to understand it, I just tried to follow C.I.'s walk through word for word."
I've saved this dreadful post throughout while I played around and thought maybe if I tried to do a new post, it would go back to normal. It didn't. I thought if I pulled up a post from earlier this week, I could figure out what was wrong with new posts but when I pull up old posts they have the "Enclosures" and "URL" and "MIME Type" bar and no tool bar where I do links, etc.
I have no idea what's going on. C.I. said we can try to figure out what happened over the weeknd.
Sorry I don't have much of a post. I'm embarrassed that this is all I have. But Blogger/Blogspot's gone wacko -- and only on my account. No one else's.
Let me offer a few thoughts on Barack's Rainbow Tour. Can you be more high on yourself? What message does it send Americans when you're telling Germans the same sugar coated lines you toss out here. "We" over and over. "This is our time."
He is such a phony and he wouldn't even visit the wounded troops and his campaign attempted to lie about that. Go to Mike or Ruth's site. They are linking to those stories. I'm sorry that I can't even provide you with a link to Mike or Ruth. But I have no way to do links.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Friday, July 25, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Congressional hearings, BonusGate and more.
Starting with war resistance. "When we arrived Al Assad, this was April or the beginning of May 2003," declared Camilo Mejia, "and this is the very beginning of the occupation and this is when we were being told that we had to keep people on sleep deprivation, to psychological torture; the orders came from way up top. Actually the people who were in charge of running these camps were ghost agents, you know, working for the US government. And when the Abu Ghraib scandal came out they tried to tell the American public that, you know, this was an isolated event that had only began in November or December of 2003. And that it was the result of a few people, you know, who one day woke up and, you know, they were evil, when -- in reality, you know from -- from my experience, I can tell you that this was actually something that was coming from the very top and that happened from the very beginning and that it was not isolated to Abu Ghraib but that was happening elsewhere in Iraq from the very beginning of the occupation." Mejia was speaking on PBS two weekends ago and he continued, "Well in the military, we have what is called spooks. And these are people who are highly trained in counterinsurgency. They're highly trained in linguistics and interrogation and weapons systems and things like that. And they don't wear name tags. They don't wear Unit ID badges or anything like that. They . . . [use] pseudonyms and you know they don't respond to anybody in uniform. They -- they basically take their orders from -- from the very top. And they're -- they're untraceable and -- and obviously, you know, they can conduct themselves with absolute impunity. These were people who were giving the commands when we were there -- not our commanders, not the people who belonged to any unit, you know, but basically people with top secret clearance and, you know, who would never be held accountable for any of the things that happened."
The PBS program was Foreign Exchange with Daljit Dhaliwal and Ava and I wrote about that appearance two weeks ago. (And have heard the complaints re: streaming, transcripts, DVDs, et al and we will be noting that in Sunday's TV commentary. But anyone using that link will quickly realize that they can't watch online.) When we noted it previously, we focused on Camilo's rejection of the illegal war. Camilo tell his story in Road to Ar Ramadi: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia and he is also the chair of Iraq Veterans Against the War. In terms of his place in the resistance of the Iraq War, he was the first Iraq War veteran to publicy oppose the illegal war. As noted earlier this week, "The Unitarian Universalist Service Committee (UUSC), an international human rights organization based in Cambridge, Mass., will be hosting a series of training sessions and workshops at the General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association to be held from Wednesday, June 24 to Sunday, June 29, at the Fort Lauderdale Convention Center, Fort Lauderdale, Florida." Mejia will be a speaker on June 25th as well as on June 28th. More information can be found here."
Though Meija never went Canada during his resisting while in the military, he has been a very vocal supporter and has joined many in calling on the Canadian government to grant safe harbor to US war resisters in Canada. To pressure the Stephen Harper government to honor the House of Commons vote, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca"). Courage to Resist collected more than 10,000 letters to send before the vote. Now they've started a new letter you can use online here. The War Resisters Support Campaign's petition can be found here. Long expulsion does not change the need for action and the War Resisters Support Campaign explains: "The War Resisters Support Campaign is calling on supporters across Canada to urgently continue to put pressure on the minority conservative government to immediately cease deportation proceedings against other US war resisters and to respect the will of Canadians and their elected representatives by implementing the motion adopted by Parliament on June 3rd. Please see the take action page for what you can do."
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Andrei Hurancyk, Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, 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, Jose Vasquez, 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, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, 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. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
On Wednesday, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing entitled "VA's Response to the Needs of Returning Guard and Reserve Members" and the most interesting exchange took place at the end of the second panel in the last thirty minutes. The second panel was made up of Dr. Joseph Scotti (West Virginia University), Col Bradley Livinsgton (Director of the Joint Staff, Joint Force Headquarters, Montana National Guard), Lt Col John Boyd (Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel Vermont Army National Guard), Sgt Roy Meredith (Team Leader Maryland Army National Guard) and Maj Cynthia Ramussen (RN, MSN, CANP Combat Stress Officer Sexual Assualt Response Coordinator 88th Regional Readiness Command).
Senator Jay Rockefeller: My first question would appear to be hostile but it's not. Why is it that everybody, but Dr. Scotti, had to say "I'm speaking personally not on behalf of the Reserve, the Guard or the Department of Defense? I really want to know that. Does that mean that they're afraid that you might tell the truth? Does that mean that they are embarrassed by what you might say because their culture is "everything always works and it always works right"? I'd like to know why you have to say that?
Col Bradley Livingston: Sir I might be able to address that because my testimony --
Sen Jay Rockefeller: You can't correct it because you said it --
Col Bradley Livingston: (Overlapping) Correct --
Sen Jay Rockefeller: you can explain it.
Col Bradley Livingston: Okay, I can explain it then. My testimony had not been vetted through DoD and so I --
Sen Jay Rockefeller: Well Isn't that a very good thing?
Col Bradley Livingston: Sir, . . . I was instructed that my testimony had to have that statement put on it, sir.
At "I was instucted," everyone burst into laughter including Livingston.
Sen Jay Rockefeller: You see, I can understand that I'm -- I've got so many questions, I don't even know where to begin. I can understand that if you're from the Department of Transportation. If you come back from the kind of experiences that you've all come back from your testimony, Major Rasmussen, probably was the best I've ever heard here and I've been on this committee for 24 years. I -- it just -- it just breeds a sense of suspicion. Not at you but in them. They got to be "right." You didn't vet it with them. Therefore, you're dangerous. You're telling the truth, you're telling the truth like few people ever do before this committee. One of the -- one of the problems in fact is that when -- when the VA and other people come before this committee we know that everything they've said has been vetted. So there's no real reason for us to listen particularly careful to them because we know that it's not necessarily what they think. You're telling us what you think. And therefore, you're real. You really help us. This is superb help to us just at the time that the whole care of veterans has become -- along with global warming -- one of the two top issues for the entire Congress because it's like we've suddenly rediscovered you. Our own guilt, our own mistake, regardless of political party or anything else going back over many years. And there are reasons for that but I won't go into them. It annoys me that you have to say that because it implies that if you didn't, you'd get in trouble. And that makes me angry.
We'll come back to the second panel but Les Blumenthal (McClatchy Newspapers) reported on the first panel when the committee learned that the VA "failed to send benefit packages to nearly 37,000 National Guard and Reserve members" who served in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars which had Senator Patty Murray pointing out, "While the VA has targeted outreach programs in place to help service members, we still miss far too many veterans who need help and aren't aware of the services and benefits they have earned." You may remember Iraq Veterans Against the War Winter Soldier Investigation in March. From the March 17th snapshot:
The panel on The Crisis in Veterans' Healthcare followed. Adrienne Kinee spoke on that panel and a correction to Friday's snapshot: Kinne did not state that, "The best preventative healthcare . . . for our soldiers in uniform is to not use them to fight illegal wars"; she stated, "The best prevantative healthcare . . . for our soldiers in uniform is to not use them to fight illegal occupations in the first place." Kinne testified about serving in the military, discharging in 1998 and then enlisting again and discharging during the Iraq War. The differences she saw were immense. The first time she left the US military, she found a great deal of help and resources, people helped her with her paperwork, they advised her of her benefits and assisted her in a smoother transition to civilian life. By contrast, when she discharged during the Iraq War, she was provided no help, no assistance and something as simple as having a physical would require that she live on a base for four to six more weeks before the military would discharge her. There was no attempt made to explain the benefits available to veterans.
For any who missed Iraq Veterans Against the War Winter Soldier Investigation -- which was broadcast live at IVAW's site, at War Comes Home, at KPFK, at the Pacifica Radio homepage and at KPFA -- you can find archives at IVAW, War Comes Home and -- via KPFA -- here for Friday, here for Saturday, here for Sunday. Aimee Allison (co-host of the station's The Morning Show and co-author with David Solnit of Army Of None) and Aaron Glantz anchored Pacifica's live coverage.
But the point is, Congress keeps getting the same song and dance and the first panel was indicative of that. It's a problem Senator Murray has noted. On Tuesday (link has text and video), she took to the Senate floor to address the issue of the suicide rates of troops and veterans:
Earlier this month, we lost a young man in my home state of Washington just hours after he sought care at the Spokane VA hospital. He was the sixth veteran in that community to take his own life this year. Now, the Spokane VA is investigating all six of those cases. I have also spoken to Secretary Peake. He has assured me that his team is also on the ground, taking a hard look to see what went wrong and what they can learn from the situation.
[. . .]
More than five years later, we should have the resources to treat the psychological wounds of war as well as we do the physical ones. But we don't. It is the duty of the VA and of a grateful nation to be prepared to care for their unique wounds. And in order to do that, we need strong leadership and attention to detail in Washington, D.C., Spokane, Washington, and everywhere in between. At the end of the day, this isn't about bureaucracy or protecting turf, it's about saving lives. We must make it a national priority to address this tragedy.
1-800-873-TALK is the VA's suicide prevention hotline, 24 hours. That was Tuesday. Back to Wednesday. "The military is a culture of its own," Maj Cynthia Rasmussen explained in her opening testimony. (Click here for prepared remarks but that's nothing like what she delivered in her stated opening remarks.) Sen Rockefeller would single her out for praise and we'll note a portion of her opening testimony (again, it will not match up with the prepared remarks submitted prior to the hearing).
Maj Cynthia Rasmussen: Multiple competing tasks when a service member gets home cause confusion. We don't know how to think that way. We know how to be mission oriented. We receive an op order it tells us who, what, when, where, why and how -- basically. We don't get op orders when we get home five days after when we take the uniform off. Owen Rice -- who is a Hennepin County sherrif deputy in Hennepin County Jail has been to Iraq, Traumatic Brain Injury in Iraq -- says, "Ma'am it's like this: One person talks in the military and everyone else listens; when you get home: everyone talks, everyone listens and nobody hears." What I hear from soldiers across the country -- service members across the country: "Ma'am, it's too chaotic here. Please send me back where I know how to survive, I know how to function, I know how to do that." [. . .] Emotions and anger. In war, we control our emotions. Obviously, you would not want your warrior having their emotions out in the open anywhere. Plus we cannot accomplish a mission if we have different emotions going on. We numb out. Anger is useful. Anger is not only useful, anger is an awesome emotion. We want anger, we like anger we encourage it. Because it's the fight/flight response. It makes your body, your mind and everything about you be the best that you can be and accomplish the mission you need to accomplish. We encourage it, we live that way, we like to live that way. But guess what? When you take the uniform off, that anger that you've learned in practice and felt good about does not go away. It looks like this: Not talking about your emotions and being angry in war is a strength. It only leads to you can't talk about your emtions at home which is considered a weakness. We look insensitive to others when we get home. It's not that we're insensitive, it's that we have not practiced those emotions for a long time. Emotions take practice. We have a decreased ability to read other's emotions -- not because we don't care, not because we're cold hearted warriors, but because we haven't practiced that for a long time. This can lead to increased irritability and defensiveness because if you're spouse, you're mom, dad or someone accuses you of not caring anymore and not showing emotions. We're not going to say, 'Oh, yes, you're right thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry I was unable to articulate that.' We're going to say, 'What are you talking about? That's not true.' We're going to get defensive -- as all of us would if someone siad that to us. It leads to increased alcohol and drug use to cover up our emotions. You know why? Not because we're warriors and we learned to do that. It is more socially acceptable in our society to go to the bar and have a few drinks or to sit home and slam down a case of beer with your friends or buddies then it is to raise your hand and say "I need help. I need medication. I need to talk to someone" -- not just in the military but across the board. In our program we work with all branches of the service and many VA and civilian organizations across the country. Despite this amazing comprehensive program, service members and families are still falling through the cracks. I had the honor and opportunity to speak to 150 Purple Heart National Service Officers at their training in Phoenix a few months ago. I received this note, handwritten, put it in my pocket and went back to my hotel room. And it read: "Ma'am, for the last three years I've been treated for PTSD by doctors, nurses and others that have no clue over what is being a soldier and have this feeling inside," this is a quote by the way, "I can't thank you enough for coming today. In the last two hours, you have done what nobody could have done: You make me feel normal again. That is a feeling that I thought I would never feel again since I was discharged from the army. Thank you and God bless." This was an Operation Iraqi vet from Puerto Rico, approximately 24-years-old. One final point I want to make. Not all issues with service members are about PTSD. We need to deal with the combat stress, the operational stress, those things I just talked to that are normal habits for all service members. When I spoke to the Purple Heart receipiants, a WWII vet raised his hand and started sobbing and said, "Where were you when I came home?" I had a Korean wife say to me last weekend, Battle Creek VA, if you had been around 40 years ago I would not be divorced from my husband who is a Korean vet because now I understand why we had all the problems we had. This isn't PTSD. This is a warrior taking his uniform off and trying to come home. We have operational stress, we have grief issues, we have lost a year or more in whatever life it was we thought we were going to have. We have depression, we have anger issues, we have PTSD, we have all king of issues. Please, please, please stop just calling it PTSD, I want to be called a combat vet coming home with some issues. Thank you.
Wednesday's snapshot covered Tuesday's House Armed Services Committee's Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing. Dana Milbank (Washington Post) covered it in depth (and was noted in that day's snapshot) Talk Radio News Service provided a summary of the main points and that was it from the press. Today the New York Times makes that hearing their lead editorial (A18), entitled "Wounded Warriors, Empty Promises" and describes it as "the latest low moment for Army brass". From the editorial:
Under skepitcal questioning during a hearing in February, Lt. Gen. Eric Schoomaker, the Army surgeon general, told the subcomittee that "for all intents and pruposes, we are entirely staffed at the point we need to be staffed." He also said: "The Army's unwavering commitment and a key element of our warrior ethos is that we never leave a soldier behind on the battlefield -- or lost in a bureaucracy."
That was thousands of wounded, neglected soldiers ago. There are now about 12,500 soldiers assigned to the warrior transition units -- more than twice as many as a year ago. The number is expected to reach 20,000 by this time next year.
The nation's responsibility to care for the wounded from Iraq and Afghanistan will extend for decades. After Tuesday's hearing, we are left pondering the simple questions asked at the outset by Representative Susan Davis, the California Democrat who is chairwoman of the military personnel subcommittee: Why did the Army fail to adequately staff its warrior transition units? Why did it fail to predict the surge in demand? And why did take visits from a Congressional subcommittee to prod the Army into recognizing and promising -- yet again -- to fix the problem?
Still on Congress and veterans, Edward Colimore (Philadelphia Inquirer) reported on a Congressional bill 'addressing' stop-loss. Stop-loss is the (illegal) policy by which Bully Boy has extended service members' length of service. The service contract has been completed but instead of moving towards discharge, Bully Boy is claiming a national emergency and extending service. If the Iraq War has caused a "national emergency" for the United States, you certainly can't tell it by the tiny trickle of reporting on the Iraq War. So Congress has decided to 'address' it. By writing a law making clear how unlawful the policy is? No, by tossing out a few dollars at the problem -- "an additional $1,500 a month of extnded duty . . . retroactive to October 2001". If this is step-one, it's needed. It's past due. But if this is the 'fix,' it's not repairing anything. IVAW's Kristopher Goldsmith favors ending the illegal stop-loss and tells Colimore, "Instead of being a civilian again and starting my life, I was doing the polar opposite: putting on a unifoorm and returning to Iraq. I had come back with pretty severe PTSD and depression and was having panic attacks."
It's Friday. And Gidget's finishing up the World Salvation Tour so the press can't be bothered too much with Iraq. In the limited reports from Iraq . . .
Bombings?
Reuters notes a Mosul roadside bombing that left three police officers injured.
Shootings?
Reuters notes that 1 Iraqi soldier was shot dead in Mosul.
Corpses?
Reuters notes that 1 corpse was discovered in Baghdad.
Turning to US presidential politics and starting with Gidget the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party. But don't tell his staff that. Apparently, selecting his shade of lip gloss tires them out. Which is why the Telegraph of London's Toby Harnden (at RealClearPolitics) explains that Jim Steinberg got huffy with the press and started talking about how when he worked for another president (Bill Clinton), he never had to go on record with the press -- only to have the press remind Steinberg that Barack was not president. He's not even the nominee. But don't confuse them. Susan Rice -- lunatic and War Hawk -- was defending Barack Does Berlin and insisting he wasn't be political, "When the President of the United States goes and gives a speech, it is not a political speech or a political rally." Causing a reporter to shoot back, "But he is not President of the United States." It's all so confusing for the Cult. He's not even the nominee yet. Cedric and Wally weighed in on Ms. Minelli's Cabaret last night.
Ralph Nader is a presidential candidate, not a 'presumptive' one, an actual candidate for president. Stealing from Marcia yesterday, "Ruth (Ruth's Report) has been covering it, Kat [Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills) ] has been covering it, Elaine (Like Maria Said Paz) has been covering it, Rebecca (Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude ) has been covering it. C.I. (The Common Ills) has covered it over and over and Third Estate Sunday Review has covered it." She had noted Mike in the previous paragraphs but he's covered BonusGate as well. BonusGate, where at least 50 Democrats conspired to keep Ralph Nader off the state's ballot in the 2004 eleciton. John L. Micek (The Morning Call) explains that Pennsylvania's AG Tom Corbett was "armed with a 74-page grand jury presentation two weeks ago, alleged that Democratic House employees worked to challenge the 51,273 signatures Nader and running mate Peter Camejo had gathered for access to the 2004 presidential ballot. A dozen former and current House Democratic lawmakers and employees face theft, conspiracy and conflict of interest charges, partly for their alleged role in derailing Nader's campaign." Nader held a news conference on the issue yesterday. Charles Thompson (The Patriot-News) reports "Nader wants relief from an $81,102 penalty for legal costs following court battles over his presidential nomination petition in 2004. He said he will file a challenge with the state Supreme Court. Nader said those damages should be dropped in light of criminal charges brought this month" and quotes Nader stating, "This was one of the most fraudulent and deceitful exercises ever perpetrated on Pennsylvania voters." Amy Worden (Philadelphia Inquirer) quotes him stating, "According to the grand jury, millions of dollars in taxpayer funds, resources and state employees were illegally used for political campaign purposes -- including to remove the Nader-Camejo ticket from the ballot." Alex Roarty (Politicker) reported yesterday, ""House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese (D-Greene County), law firms and the country's 'corrupt' two-party system -- each were warned Wednesday by Ralph Nader that the ongoing 'Bonusgate' investigations will reveal their rampant political corruption." Surprisingly, "Democracy" "Now" can't be bothered with this story. While addressing all of that, Nader's still running a presidential campaign and Nader and Matt Gonzalez are on the move all weekend. From Team Nader:
We need gas money.
Why?
Starting today, Ralph Nader is on the road again.
This time campaigning through the South and then out West.
Over the next two weeks, Ralph will be in South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, Utah and up and down California.
His VP, Matt Gonazalez, will be joining Ralph on the campaign trail starting in Texas.
Check out the schedule below.
If you are in the neighborhood, come on out to hear and meet Ralph and Matt.
With both Obama and McCain saber rattling over Iran, the Nader/Gonzalez message of peace through justice is now more important than ever.
If your friends or relatives in the neighborhood, give them a shout and let them know.
But right now, we need gas money to fuel Ralph's South and West Coast Tour.
We've rented a car.
Gas prices are high.
And Ralph is on the move.
So, please donate whatever you can now to fill up our tank.
You can give up to $4,600.
But $500, $100, $50 - whatever you can donate is what we need.
Help us fill 'er up.
So we can get 'er done.
Onward.
The Nader Team
Ralph Nader's Tour of the South and West
Friday July 25, 2008 5:30 p.m. Athens, GeorgiaNader for President 2008 RallyUniversity of Georgia, Georgia Center- "Masters Hall" 1127 South Lumpkin St. Athens, GA 30602Contribution- $10/ $5 student(404) 446-7093 or events@votenader.org
Friday July 25, 2008 8 p.m.Atlanta, GeorgiaEvening with RalphSuggested Contribution $100 minRSVP (202) 471-5833
Saturday July 26, 2008, 6 p.m.Jackson, MississippiBook Signing/ SpeechLemuria Bookstore202 Banner Hall- I-55 North Jackson, MS 39206(601) 842-6769 or events@votenader.org
Saturday July 26, 2008 8:00 p.m.Jackson, MississippiEvening with Ralph NaderRSVP (202) 471-5833Suggested Contribution $50
Sunday July 27, 2008 2:00 p.m.Houston, TexasRalph Nader w/ Matt GonzalezHilton University of Houston4800 Calhoun Suite 207, Houston, TX77204Contribution- $10/$5 student(202) 471-5833 or events@votenader.org
Sunday July 27, 2008 7:30 p.m.Austin, TexasRalph Nader w/ Matt GonzalezTrinity United Methodist Church600 East 50th St. Austin, TX 78751Contribution $10/$5 student(202) 471-5833 or events@votenader.org
Thursday July 31, 2008 7:30pmSalt Lake City, UtahNader for President 2008 Rally w/ Rocky AndersonLibby Gardner Concert Hall1375 E President Circle, Salt Lake UT Contribution-$10/ $5 students(801) 916-6307 or ashley@votenader.rog
Saturday, August 2, 2008, 8:00 p.m. Davis, CaliforniaNader for President 2008 Speech Ralph Nader w/ Matt GonzalezVarsity Theater616 Second StreetDavis, CA 95616Contribution: $10/ $5 students(202) 471-5833 or events@votenader.orgSunday August 3, 1:30 p.m.Sebastopol, CaliforniaNader for President SpeechRalph Nader w/ Matt GonzalezSebastopol Community Center390 Morris St., Sebastopol, California 95472Contribution: $10/ $5 students(202) 471-5833 or events@votenader.org
August 3, 2008, 4:30pmHealdsburg, CaliforniaNader for President SpeechRalph Nader w/ Matt GonzalezCopperfield's books104 Matheson St., Healdsburg, California 95448Contribution: $10/ $5 students(202) 471-5833 or events@votenader.orgAugust 3, 7:30 p.m.Kentfield, CaliforniaNader for President 2008 Speech in MarinRalph Nader w/ Matt GonzalezCollege of Marin- Olney Hall835 College Ave., Kentfield, CaliforniaContribution: $10/ $5 studentsMore Info: (415) 897-6989 or events@votenader.org
PS: We invite your comments to the blog.
NOW on PBS (begins airing tonight in most markets) sits down with John Edwards to discuss the troubles facing families across the country, some struggle to make it in single parent homes, for example. Bill Moyers Journal explores torture (among other topics) and Jane Mayer is a guest. BMJ's Michael Winship files an editorial on torture, "The Company We Keep:"
The administration remains in denial. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft told the House Judiciary Committee, "I don't know of any acts of torture that have been committed by individuals in developing information," he said. "So I would not certainly make an assumption. I would attribute the absence of an attack [since 9/11] at least in part, because there have been specific attacks that have been disrupted, to the excellent work and the dedication and commitment of people whose lives are dedicated to defending the country. Interrogators have used enhanced interrogation techniques but they haven't used torture." Grim hairsplitting. This week, as the result of a Freedom of Information Act suit, the ACLU received a heavily redacted copy of an infamous August 2, 2002 memo, signed by then-head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel Jay Bybee and written with his subordinate, the equally infamous John Yoo. "An individual must have the specific intent to inflict severe pain or suffering," it reads. "… The absence of specific intent negates the charge of torture… We have further found that if a defendant acts with the good faith belief that his actions will not cause such suffering, he has not acted with specific intent." Jameel Jaffer, head of the ACLU's national security project told Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent, "Imagine that in an ordinary criminal prosecution a bank robber tortures a bank manager to get the combination to a vault. He argues that the torture was not to inflict pain, but to get the combination. Every torturer has a reason other than to cause pain. If you're going to let people off the hook for an intention other than to cause pain, you're not going to be able to prosecute anyone for torture." Deborah Pearlstein, a constitutional scholar and human rights lawyer who has spent time at Guantanamo monitoring conditions there, testified to Congress that, "As of 2006, there had been more than 330 cases in which U.S. military and civilian personnel have, incredibly, alleged to have abused or killed detainees. This figure is based almost entirely on the U.S. government's own documentation. These cases involved more than 600 U.S. personnel and more than 460 detainees held at U.S. facilities throughout Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay. They included some l00-plus detainees who died in U.S. custody, including 34 whose deaths the Defense Department reports as homicides. At least eight of these detainees were, by any definition of the term, tortured to death."
More is online at Bill Moyers Journal where you can watch, listen or read (transcripts) and BMJ never forgets to serve all communities and remembers public television's key word is "public." On Washington Week, Gwen and the Gas Bags jaw over the non-news. Helene Cooper (New York Times) is the only one qualified to address the international scene so expect a lot of snorts, bromides and tidbits from the rest.
iraq
camilo mejia
iraq veterans against the war
aaron glantz
kpfa
aimee allison
david solnit
daniel barlowles blumenthalamy wordenwashington weekpbsbill moyer journal
jane mayernow on pbshelene cooper
dana milbank
the washington post
like maria said pazkats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudetrinas kitchenthe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes itruths reportsickofitradlz
Friday, July 25, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Congressional hearings, BonusGate and more.
Starting with war resistance. "When we arrived Al Assad, this was April or the beginning of May 2003," declared Camilo Mejia, "and this is the very beginning of the occupation and this is when we were being told that we had to keep people on sleep deprivation, to psychological torture; the orders came from way up top. Actually the people who were in charge of running these camps were ghost agents, you know, working for the US government. And when the Abu Ghraib scandal came out they tried to tell the American public that, you know, this was an isolated event that had only began in November or December of 2003. And that it was the result of a few people, you know, who one day woke up and, you know, they were evil, when -- in reality, you know from -- from my experience, I can tell you that this was actually something that was coming from the very top and that happened from the very beginning and that it was not isolated to Abu Ghraib but that was happening elsewhere in Iraq from the very beginning of the occupation." Mejia was speaking on PBS two weekends ago and he continued, "Well in the military, we have what is called spooks. And these are people who are highly trained in counterinsurgency. They're highly trained in linguistics and interrogation and weapons systems and things like that. And they don't wear name tags. They don't wear Unit ID badges or anything like that. They . . . [use] pseudonyms and you know they don't respond to anybody in uniform. They -- they basically take their orders from -- from the very top. And they're -- they're untraceable and -- and obviously, you know, they can conduct themselves with absolute impunity. These were people who were giving the commands when we were there -- not our commanders, not the people who belonged to any unit, you know, but basically people with top secret clearance and, you know, who would never be held accountable for any of the things that happened."
The PBS program was Foreign Exchange with Daljit Dhaliwal and Ava and I wrote about that appearance two weeks ago. (And have heard the complaints re: streaming, transcripts, DVDs, et al and we will be noting that in Sunday's TV commentary. But anyone using that link will quickly realize that they can't watch online.) When we noted it previously, we focused on Camilo's rejection of the illegal war. Camilo tell his story in Road to Ar Ramadi: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia and he is also the chair of Iraq Veterans Against the War. In terms of his place in the resistance of the Iraq War, he was the first Iraq War veteran to publicy oppose the illegal war. As noted earlier this week, "The Unitarian Universalist Service Committee (UUSC), an international human rights organization based in Cambridge, Mass., will be hosting a series of training sessions and workshops at the General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association to be held from Wednesday, June 24 to Sunday, June 29, at the Fort Lauderdale Convention Center, Fort Lauderdale, Florida." Mejia will be a speaker on June 25th as well as on June 28th. More information can be found here."
Though Meija never went Canada during his resisting while in the military, he has been a very vocal supporter and has joined many in calling on the Canadian government to grant safe harbor to US war resisters in Canada. To pressure the Stephen Harper government to honor the House of Commons vote, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca"). Courage to Resist collected more than 10,000 letters to send before the vote. Now they've started a new letter you can use online here. The War Resisters Support Campaign's petition can be found here. Long expulsion does not change the need for action and the War Resisters Support Campaign explains: "The War Resisters Support Campaign is calling on supporters across Canada to urgently continue to put pressure on the minority conservative government to immediately cease deportation proceedings against other US war resisters and to respect the will of Canadians and their elected representatives by implementing the motion adopted by Parliament on June 3rd. Please see the take action page for what you can do."
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Andrei Hurancyk, Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, 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, Jose Vasquez, 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, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, 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. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
On Wednesday, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing entitled "VA's Response to the Needs of Returning Guard and Reserve Members" and the most interesting exchange took place at the end of the second panel in the last thirty minutes. The second panel was made up of Dr. Joseph Scotti (West Virginia University), Col Bradley Livinsgton (Director of the Joint Staff, Joint Force Headquarters, Montana National Guard), Lt Col John Boyd (Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel Vermont Army National Guard), Sgt Roy Meredith (Team Leader Maryland Army National Guard) and Maj Cynthia Ramussen (RN, MSN, CANP Combat Stress Officer Sexual Assualt Response Coordinator 88th Regional Readiness Command).
Senator Jay Rockefeller: My first question would appear to be hostile but it's not. Why is it that everybody, but Dr. Scotti, had to say "I'm speaking personally not on behalf of the Reserve, the Guard or the Department of Defense? I really want to know that. Does that mean that they're afraid that you might tell the truth? Does that mean that they are embarrassed by what you might say because their culture is "everything always works and it always works right"? I'd like to know why you have to say that?
Col Bradley Livingston: Sir I might be able to address that because my testimony --
Sen Jay Rockefeller: You can't correct it because you said it --
Col Bradley Livingston: (Overlapping) Correct --
Sen Jay Rockefeller: you can explain it.
Col Bradley Livingston: Okay, I can explain it then. My testimony had not been vetted through DoD and so I --
Sen Jay Rockefeller: Well Isn't that a very good thing?
Col Bradley Livingston: Sir, . . . I was instructed that my testimony had to have that statement put on it, sir.
At "I was instucted," everyone burst into laughter including Livingston.
Sen Jay Rockefeller: You see, I can understand that I'm -- I've got so many questions, I don't even know where to begin. I can understand that if you're from the Department of Transportation. If you come back from the kind of experiences that you've all come back from your testimony, Major Rasmussen, probably was the best I've ever heard here and I've been on this committee for 24 years. I -- it just -- it just breeds a sense of suspicion. Not at you but in them. They got to be "right." You didn't vet it with them. Therefore, you're dangerous. You're telling the truth, you're telling the truth like few people ever do before this committee. One of the -- one of the problems in fact is that when -- when the VA and other people come before this committee we know that everything they've said has been vetted. So there's no real reason for us to listen particularly careful to them because we know that it's not necessarily what they think. You're telling us what you think. And therefore, you're real. You really help us. This is superb help to us just at the time that the whole care of veterans has become -- along with global warming -- one of the two top issues for the entire Congress because it's like we've suddenly rediscovered you. Our own guilt, our own mistake, regardless of political party or anything else going back over many years. And there are reasons for that but I won't go into them. It annoys me that you have to say that because it implies that if you didn't, you'd get in trouble. And that makes me angry.
We'll come back to the second panel but Les Blumenthal (McClatchy Newspapers) reported on the first panel when the committee learned that the VA "failed to send benefit packages to nearly 37,000 National Guard and Reserve members" who served in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars which had Senator Patty Murray pointing out, "While the VA has targeted outreach programs in place to help service members, we still miss far too many veterans who need help and aren't aware of the services and benefits they have earned." You may remember Iraq Veterans Against the War Winter Soldier Investigation in March. From the March 17th snapshot:
The panel on The Crisis in Veterans' Healthcare followed. Adrienne Kinee spoke on that panel and a correction to Friday's snapshot: Kinne did not state that, "The best preventative healthcare . . . for our soldiers in uniform is to not use them to fight illegal wars"; she stated, "The best prevantative healthcare . . . for our soldiers in uniform is to not use them to fight illegal occupations in the first place." Kinne testified about serving in the military, discharging in 1998 and then enlisting again and discharging during the Iraq War. The differences she saw were immense. The first time she left the US military, she found a great deal of help and resources, people helped her with her paperwork, they advised her of her benefits and assisted her in a smoother transition to civilian life. By contrast, when she discharged during the Iraq War, she was provided no help, no assistance and something as simple as having a physical would require that she live on a base for four to six more weeks before the military would discharge her. There was no attempt made to explain the benefits available to veterans.
For any who missed Iraq Veterans Against the War Winter Soldier Investigation -- which was broadcast live at IVAW's site, at War Comes Home, at KPFK, at the Pacifica Radio homepage and at KPFA -- you can find archives at IVAW, War Comes Home and -- via KPFA -- here for Friday, here for Saturday, here for Sunday. Aimee Allison (co-host of the station's The Morning Show and co-author with David Solnit of Army Of None) and Aaron Glantz anchored Pacifica's live coverage.
But the point is, Congress keeps getting the same song and dance and the first panel was indicative of that. It's a problem Senator Murray has noted. On Tuesday (link has text and video), she took to the Senate floor to address the issue of the suicide rates of troops and veterans:
Earlier this month, we lost a young man in my home state of Washington just hours after he sought care at the Spokane VA hospital. He was the sixth veteran in that community to take his own life this year. Now, the Spokane VA is investigating all six of those cases. I have also spoken to Secretary Peake. He has assured me that his team is also on the ground, taking a hard look to see what went wrong and what they can learn from the situation.
[. . .]
More than five years later, we should have the resources to treat the psychological wounds of war as well as we do the physical ones. But we don't. It is the duty of the VA and of a grateful nation to be prepared to care for their unique wounds. And in order to do that, we need strong leadership and attention to detail in Washington, D.C., Spokane, Washington, and everywhere in between. At the end of the day, this isn't about bureaucracy or protecting turf, it's about saving lives. We must make it a national priority to address this tragedy.
1-800-873-TALK is the VA's suicide prevention hotline, 24 hours. That was Tuesday. Back to Wednesday. "The military is a culture of its own," Maj Cynthia Rasmussen explained in her opening testimony. (Click here for prepared remarks but that's nothing like what she delivered in her stated opening remarks.) Sen Rockefeller would single her out for praise and we'll note a portion of her opening testimony (again, it will not match up with the prepared remarks submitted prior to the hearing).
Maj Cynthia Rasmussen: Multiple competing tasks when a service member gets home cause confusion. We don't know how to think that way. We know how to be mission oriented. We receive an op order it tells us who, what, when, where, why and how -- basically. We don't get op orders when we get home five days after when we take the uniform off. Owen Rice -- who is a Hennepin County sherrif deputy in Hennepin County Jail has been to Iraq, Traumatic Brain Injury in Iraq -- says, "Ma'am it's like this: One person talks in the military and everyone else listens; when you get home: everyone talks, everyone listens and nobody hears." What I hear from soldiers across the country -- service members across the country: "Ma'am, it's too chaotic here. Please send me back where I know how to survive, I know how to function, I know how to do that." [. . .] Emotions and anger. In war, we control our emotions. Obviously, you would not want your warrior having their emotions out in the open anywhere. Plus we cannot accomplish a mission if we have different emotions going on. We numb out. Anger is useful. Anger is not only useful, anger is an awesome emotion. We want anger, we like anger we encourage it. Because it's the fight/flight response. It makes your body, your mind and everything about you be the best that you can be and accomplish the mission you need to accomplish. We encourage it, we live that way, we like to live that way. But guess what? When you take the uniform off, that anger that you've learned in practice and felt good about does not go away. It looks like this: Not talking about your emotions and being angry in war is a strength. It only leads to you can't talk about your emtions at home which is considered a weakness. We look insensitive to others when we get home. It's not that we're insensitive, it's that we have not practiced those emotions for a long time. Emotions take practice. We have a decreased ability to read other's emotions -- not because we don't care, not because we're cold hearted warriors, but because we haven't practiced that for a long time. This can lead to increased irritability and defensiveness because if you're spouse, you're mom, dad or someone accuses you of not caring anymore and not showing emotions. We're not going to say, 'Oh, yes, you're right thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry I was unable to articulate that.' We're going to say, 'What are you talking about? That's not true.' We're going to get defensive -- as all of us would if someone siad that to us. It leads to increased alcohol and drug use to cover up our emotions. You know why? Not because we're warriors and we learned to do that. It is more socially acceptable in our society to go to the bar and have a few drinks or to sit home and slam down a case of beer with your friends or buddies then it is to raise your hand and say "I need help. I need medication. I need to talk to someone" -- not just in the military but across the board. In our program we work with all branches of the service and many VA and civilian organizations across the country. Despite this amazing comprehensive program, service members and families are still falling through the cracks. I had the honor and opportunity to speak to 150 Purple Heart National Service Officers at their training in Phoenix a few months ago. I received this note, handwritten, put it in my pocket and went back to my hotel room. And it read: "Ma'am, for the last three years I've been treated for PTSD by doctors, nurses and others that have no clue over what is being a soldier and have this feeling inside," this is a quote by the way, "I can't thank you enough for coming today. In the last two hours, you have done what nobody could have done: You make me feel normal again. That is a feeling that I thought I would never feel again since I was discharged from the army. Thank you and God bless." This was an Operation Iraqi vet from Puerto Rico, approximately 24-years-old. One final point I want to make. Not all issues with service members are about PTSD. We need to deal with the combat stress, the operational stress, those things I just talked to that are normal habits for all service members. When I spoke to the Purple Heart receipiants, a WWII vet raised his hand and started sobbing and said, "Where were you when I came home?" I had a Korean wife say to me last weekend, Battle Creek VA, if you had been around 40 years ago I would not be divorced from my husband who is a Korean vet because now I understand why we had all the problems we had. This isn't PTSD. This is a warrior taking his uniform off and trying to come home. We have operational stress, we have grief issues, we have lost a year or more in whatever life it was we thought we were going to have. We have depression, we have anger issues, we have PTSD, we have all king of issues. Please, please, please stop just calling it PTSD, I want to be called a combat vet coming home with some issues. Thank you.
Wednesday's snapshot covered Tuesday's House Armed Services Committee's Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing. Dana Milbank (Washington Post) covered it in depth (and was noted in that day's snapshot) Talk Radio News Service provided a summary of the main points and that was it from the press. Today the New York Times makes that hearing their lead editorial (A18), entitled "Wounded Warriors, Empty Promises" and describes it as "the latest low moment for Army brass". From the editorial:
Under skepitcal questioning during a hearing in February, Lt. Gen. Eric Schoomaker, the Army surgeon general, told the subcomittee that "for all intents and pruposes, we are entirely staffed at the point we need to be staffed." He also said: "The Army's unwavering commitment and a key element of our warrior ethos is that we never leave a soldier behind on the battlefield -- or lost in a bureaucracy."
That was thousands of wounded, neglected soldiers ago. There are now about 12,500 soldiers assigned to the warrior transition units -- more than twice as many as a year ago. The number is expected to reach 20,000 by this time next year.
The nation's responsibility to care for the wounded from Iraq and Afghanistan will extend for decades. After Tuesday's hearing, we are left pondering the simple questions asked at the outset by Representative Susan Davis, the California Democrat who is chairwoman of the military personnel subcommittee: Why did the Army fail to adequately staff its warrior transition units? Why did it fail to predict the surge in demand? And why did take visits from a Congressional subcommittee to prod the Army into recognizing and promising -- yet again -- to fix the problem?
Still on Congress and veterans, Edward Colimore (Philadelphia Inquirer) reported on a Congressional bill 'addressing' stop-loss. Stop-loss is the (illegal) policy by which Bully Boy has extended service members' length of service. The service contract has been completed but instead of moving towards discharge, Bully Boy is claiming a national emergency and extending service. If the Iraq War has caused a "national emergency" for the United States, you certainly can't tell it by the tiny trickle of reporting on the Iraq War. So Congress has decided to 'address' it. By writing a law making clear how unlawful the policy is? No, by tossing out a few dollars at the problem -- "an additional $1,500 a month of extnded duty . . . retroactive to October 2001". If this is step-one, it's needed. It's past due. But if this is the 'fix,' it's not repairing anything. IVAW's Kristopher Goldsmith favors ending the illegal stop-loss and tells Colimore, "Instead of being a civilian again and starting my life, I was doing the polar opposite: putting on a unifoorm and returning to Iraq. I had come back with pretty severe PTSD and depression and was having panic attacks."
It's Friday. And Gidget's finishing up the World Salvation Tour so the press can't be bothered too much with Iraq. In the limited reports from Iraq . . .
Bombings?
Reuters notes a Mosul roadside bombing that left three police officers injured.
Shootings?
Reuters notes that 1 Iraqi soldier was shot dead in Mosul.
Corpses?
Reuters notes that 1 corpse was discovered in Baghdad.
Turning to US presidential politics and starting with Gidget the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party. But don't tell his staff that. Apparently, selecting his shade of lip gloss tires them out. Which is why the Telegraph of London's Toby Harnden (at RealClearPolitics) explains that Jim Steinberg got huffy with the press and started talking about how when he worked for another president (Bill Clinton), he never had to go on record with the press -- only to have the press remind Steinberg that Barack was not president. He's not even the nominee. But don't confuse them. Susan Rice -- lunatic and War Hawk -- was defending Barack Does Berlin and insisting he wasn't be political, "When the President of the United States goes and gives a speech, it is not a political speech or a political rally." Causing a reporter to shoot back, "But he is not President of the United States." It's all so confusing for the Cult. He's not even the nominee yet. Cedric and Wally weighed in on Ms. Minelli's Cabaret last night.
Ralph Nader is a presidential candidate, not a 'presumptive' one, an actual candidate for president. Stealing from Marcia yesterday, "Ruth (Ruth's Report) has been covering it, Kat [Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills) ] has been covering it, Elaine (Like Maria Said Paz) has been covering it, Rebecca (Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude ) has been covering it. C.I. (The Common Ills) has covered it over and over and Third Estate Sunday Review has covered it." She had noted Mike in the previous paragraphs but he's covered BonusGate as well. BonusGate, where at least 50 Democrats conspired to keep Ralph Nader off the state's ballot in the 2004 eleciton. John L. Micek (The Morning Call) explains that Pennsylvania's AG Tom Corbett was "armed with a 74-page grand jury presentation two weeks ago, alleged that Democratic House employees worked to challenge the 51,273 signatures Nader and running mate Peter Camejo had gathered for access to the 2004 presidential ballot. A dozen former and current House Democratic lawmakers and employees face theft, conspiracy and conflict of interest charges, partly for their alleged role in derailing Nader's campaign." Nader held a news conference on the issue yesterday. Charles Thompson (The Patriot-News) reports "Nader wants relief from an $81,102 penalty for legal costs following court battles over his presidential nomination petition in 2004. He said he will file a challenge with the state Supreme Court. Nader said those damages should be dropped in light of criminal charges brought this month" and quotes Nader stating, "This was one of the most fraudulent and deceitful exercises ever perpetrated on Pennsylvania voters." Amy Worden (Philadelphia Inquirer) quotes him stating, "According to the grand jury, millions of dollars in taxpayer funds, resources and state employees were illegally used for political campaign purposes -- including to remove the Nader-Camejo ticket from the ballot." Alex Roarty (Politicker) reported yesterday, ""House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese (D-Greene County), law firms and the country's 'corrupt' two-party system -- each were warned Wednesday by Ralph Nader that the ongoing 'Bonusgate' investigations will reveal their rampant political corruption." Surprisingly, "Democracy" "Now" can't be bothered with this story. While addressing all of that, Nader's still running a presidential campaign and Nader and Matt Gonzalez are on the move all weekend. From Team Nader:
We need gas money.
Why?
Starting today, Ralph Nader is on the road again.
This time campaigning through the South and then out West.
Over the next two weeks, Ralph will be in South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, Utah and up and down California.
His VP, Matt Gonazalez, will be joining Ralph on the campaign trail starting in Texas.
Check out the schedule below.
If you are in the neighborhood, come on out to hear and meet Ralph and Matt.
With both Obama and McCain saber rattling over Iran, the Nader/Gonzalez message of peace through justice is now more important than ever.
If your friends or relatives in the neighborhood, give them a shout and let them know.
But right now, we need gas money to fuel Ralph's South and West Coast Tour.
We've rented a car.
Gas prices are high.
And Ralph is on the move.
So, please donate whatever you can now to fill up our tank.
You can give up to $4,600.
But $500, $100, $50 - whatever you can donate is what we need.
Help us fill 'er up.
So we can get 'er done.
Onward.
The Nader Team
Ralph Nader's Tour of the South and West
Friday July 25, 2008 5:30 p.m. Athens, GeorgiaNader for President 2008 RallyUniversity of Georgia, Georgia Center- "Masters Hall" 1127 South Lumpkin St. Athens, GA 30602Contribution- $10/ $5 student(404) 446-7093 or events@votenader.org
Friday July 25, 2008 8 p.m.Atlanta, GeorgiaEvening with RalphSuggested Contribution $100 minRSVP (202) 471-5833
Saturday July 26, 2008, 6 p.m.Jackson, MississippiBook Signing/ SpeechLemuria Bookstore202 Banner Hall- I-55 North Jackson, MS 39206(601) 842-6769 or events@votenader.org
Saturday July 26, 2008 8:00 p.m.Jackson, MississippiEvening with Ralph NaderRSVP (202) 471-5833Suggested Contribution $50
Sunday July 27, 2008 2:00 p.m.Houston, TexasRalph Nader w/ Matt GonzalezHilton University of Houston4800 Calhoun Suite 207, Houston, TX77204Contribution- $10/$5 student(202) 471-5833 or events@votenader.org
Sunday July 27, 2008 7:30 p.m.Austin, TexasRalph Nader w/ Matt GonzalezTrinity United Methodist Church600 East 50th St. Austin, TX 78751Contribution $10/$5 student(202) 471-5833 or events@votenader.org
Thursday July 31, 2008 7:30pmSalt Lake City, UtahNader for President 2008 Rally w/ Rocky AndersonLibby Gardner Concert Hall1375 E President Circle, Salt Lake UT Contribution-$10/ $5 students(801) 916-6307 or ashley@votenader.rog
Saturday, August 2, 2008, 8:00 p.m. Davis, CaliforniaNader for President 2008 Speech Ralph Nader w/ Matt GonzalezVarsity Theater616 Second StreetDavis, CA 95616Contribution: $10/ $5 students(202) 471-5833 or events@votenader.orgSunday August 3, 1:30 p.m.Sebastopol, CaliforniaNader for President SpeechRalph Nader w/ Matt GonzalezSebastopol Community Center390 Morris St., Sebastopol, California 95472Contribution: $10/ $5 students(202) 471-5833 or events@votenader.org
August 3, 2008, 4:30pmHealdsburg, CaliforniaNader for President SpeechRalph Nader w/ Matt GonzalezCopperfield's books104 Matheson St., Healdsburg, California 95448Contribution: $10/ $5 students(202) 471-5833 or events@votenader.orgAugust 3, 7:30 p.m.Kentfield, CaliforniaNader for President 2008 Speech in MarinRalph Nader w/ Matt GonzalezCollege of Marin- Olney Hall835 College Ave., Kentfield, CaliforniaContribution: $10/ $5 studentsMore Info: (415) 897-6989 or events@votenader.org
PS: We invite your comments to the blog.
NOW on PBS (begins airing tonight in most markets) sits down with John Edwards to discuss the troubles facing families across the country, some struggle to make it in single parent homes, for example. Bill Moyers Journal explores torture (among other topics) and Jane Mayer is a guest. BMJ's Michael Winship files an editorial on torture, "The Company We Keep:"
The administration remains in denial. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft told the House Judiciary Committee, "I don't know of any acts of torture that have been committed by individuals in developing information," he said. "So I would not certainly make an assumption. I would attribute the absence of an attack [since 9/11] at least in part, because there have been specific attacks that have been disrupted, to the excellent work and the dedication and commitment of people whose lives are dedicated to defending the country. Interrogators have used enhanced interrogation techniques but they haven't used torture." Grim hairsplitting. This week, as the result of a Freedom of Information Act suit, the ACLU received a heavily redacted copy of an infamous August 2, 2002 memo, signed by then-head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel Jay Bybee and written with his subordinate, the equally infamous John Yoo. "An individual must have the specific intent to inflict severe pain or suffering," it reads. "… The absence of specific intent negates the charge of torture… We have further found that if a defendant acts with the good faith belief that his actions will not cause such suffering, he has not acted with specific intent." Jameel Jaffer, head of the ACLU's national security project told Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent, "Imagine that in an ordinary criminal prosecution a bank robber tortures a bank manager to get the combination to a vault. He argues that the torture was not to inflict pain, but to get the combination. Every torturer has a reason other than to cause pain. If you're going to let people off the hook for an intention other than to cause pain, you're not going to be able to prosecute anyone for torture." Deborah Pearlstein, a constitutional scholar and human rights lawyer who has spent time at Guantanamo monitoring conditions there, testified to Congress that, "As of 2006, there had been more than 330 cases in which U.S. military and civilian personnel have, incredibly, alleged to have abused or killed detainees. This figure is based almost entirely on the U.S. government's own documentation. These cases involved more than 600 U.S. personnel and more than 460 detainees held at U.S. facilities throughout Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay. They included some l00-plus detainees who died in U.S. custody, including 34 whose deaths the Defense Department reports as homicides. At least eight of these detainees were, by any definition of the term, tortured to death."
More is online at Bill Moyers Journal where you can watch, listen or read (transcripts) and BMJ never forgets to serve all communities and remembers public television's key word is "public." On Washington Week, Gwen and the Gas Bags jaw over the non-news. Helene Cooper (New York Times) is the only one qualified to address the international scene so expect a lot of snorts, bromides and tidbits from the rest.
iraq
camilo mejia
iraq veterans against the war
aaron glantz
kpfa
aimee allison
david solnit
daniel barlowles blumenthalamy wordenwashington weekpbsbill moyer journal
jane mayernow on pbshelene cooper
dana milbank
the washington post
like maria said pazkats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudetrinas kitchenthe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes itruths reportsickofitradlz
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Ralph Nader at work, no travelogue
NADER PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN TO OPEN LAS VEGAS OFFICE.
For Immediate Release Contact: Tony Booker
July 19, 2008 Phone:702-646-5595
E-mail: tbooker@votenader.org
The Nader/Gonzalez grass-roots campaign will open its Nevada Campaign Office on July 26, 2008. The Office is located within a complex at 2385 N. Decatur Blvd., Las Vegas, NV 89108.
The opening will take place between 5:30 to 6:30 pm and Ralph Nader is scheduled to attend via conference call.
This is a historic milestone for Ralph Nader's Nevada volunteers, whose numbers are growing in this battleground state and whose commitment to re-establishing government (at all levels) which is responsive to citizens' needs, not corporate convenience at the cost and peril of us, the people.
We believe that the office will be a beacon and meeting place for the encouragement of citizen activists of like minds and those tired of choosing between evils when casting their vote.
All those interested in furthering genuine U.S. style democracy through us reverting to government of the people, by the people-instead of government dominated by corporations are welcome to come on by for a chat with our volunteers, view a video made by Ralph for this occasion and perhaps participate in the conference call with Ralph.
You will see that at a number of community sites posting tonight. That is really amazing news. Ralph Nader is getting support and doing so with so many obstacles from the media. Score one for the people.
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The approved cover"
That is the 'approved' cover. All cartoonists take note, Barack must be portrayed as Superman and Michelle as the Statue of Liberty. Anything else will bring out the angry mob. No one must ever question St. Barack.
"Nader Mad He's Not Invited to Anti-Bush Hearing" (Jesse A. Hamilton, Hartford Courant):
But somebody wasn't invited to the Bush gripe session: Ralph Nader, independent presidential candidate and Connecticut son. Because he's been demanding Bush be impeached for years, he apparently feels left out.
Nader -- once a star of congressional committee testimony -- wrote a letter to Rep. John Conyers, the committee chairman, to complain, pointing out: "The Libertarian candidate for President, Bob Barr is also on the witness list, but I am not."
Well Ralph Nader should have been invited and smarmy little commentary by columnists won't change that. Nader not being invited is nonsense. The only reason for his being uninvited is that the Democratic Party has decided Congress is now part of their election machinery and they will not allow anyone they see as a threat to benefit. It's an abuse of power and it should frighten and bother every American. Bob Barr is being invited not because they support third party candidates but because the Democrats want to build him up in the hopes that he will be a threat to John McCain.
This is appalling. The US Congress is not the Democrats' Congress or the Republican's. It is the people's Congress and the people are supposed to be the boss. Instead, it is being used in a partisan manner to churn out votes in the election. They're attempting to abuse their power with the hopes that they can toss the election to St. Barack.
A real columnist might have grasped that and saved his or her barbs for the abuse of power and not target Ralph will them.
"Obama's Foreign Policy Speech: Defend, Extend, Expand Empire" (Kenneth J. Theisen, World Can't Wait):
Barack Obama delivered a major speech on "national security" on July 15th at the Ronald Reagan International Trade Center in Washington, D.C. In his speech he attempted to demonstrate that he is fit to be the next commander-in-chief of the largest war machine in history. He made clear that he intends to expand the “war on terrorism”, especially in Pakistan and Afghanistan. He pledged to use both military might and aggressive diplomacy to achieve the goals of U.S. imperialism. His speech was timed to occur before his expected "fact-finding" trip to Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Jordan, Germany, France and Britain, where he undoubtedly will continue to advocate for U.S. imperialism.
Obama has been quite vocal in his ambition as a future military leader. He supports increasing the overall size of the U.S. military by 92,000 troops and increasing the number of U.S. and allied troops sent to Afghanistan. He wrote that he would send two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan. He has also called for the use of U.S. military force in Pakistan even against the will of Pakistani leaders. This would be both similar to and an escalation of U.S. missile strikes on Pakistani sites regularly carried out by the Bush regime.
Barack was not 'fact-finding'. He was posing for photo-ops. It was less than a visit by a First Lady, much, much less. He and his Cult had the nerve to criticize Hillary for counting her trips as First Lady as experience. Those were real trips Hillary took and they meant something. Barack's just trying to get press.
I am not a fan of Laura Bush. But you better believe without her trips the US image would be even worse abroad. C.I. noted in a snapshot (in June or May) how Ms. Bush was speaking and a White House handler cut off the press conference. They can do that, they can cut her off to the press. But the handlers can't do that in the face to face. Again, no fan of Ms. Bush, but I do give her credit for going abroad. That was not a pleasure cruise. It is not as if every hour was not planned and jam packed. She worked. That was real work.
When Hillary was First Lady, she was much more active. She gave the US a face that the world could embrace. She worked very hard and that was work and that is experience.
Instead, Barack's meeting with the military and shooting hoops.
As C.I. has pointed out, Barack's offering a travelogue and people are treating it as news.
Considering that the US has a housing crisis, has problems with the food supply being safe, has infrastructure that is crumbling, you'd think someone wanting to become president would attempt to respect the American people enough to address and interact with them. You would also think someone that the defense keeps being "No one knows him!" would use this time to let the American people know him; however, people don't like him. Outside the Cult, they don't like him. So better for him that they only see him on the TV screen and in photos online and in the paper.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Wednesday, July 23, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Talabani says "NO!" to elections this year, the US Congress stages a feel-good session for the US army, and more.
Starting with war resistance. In June 2006, Lt Ehren Watada became the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to the illegal war. Since Judge Benjamin Settle ruled last November that the US military could not attempt a second (kanagroo) court-martial of Watada while the double-jeopardy issue remains, he has been in limbo. In a grab-bag column about a number of topics, Christina Clark (Nebraksa's Gateway) mentions Watada while discussing how the Iraq War is illegal: "Bush did not receive permission from the United Nations to invade Iraq. In September 2004, then-U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan stated that the war was 'not in conformity with the U.N. Charter, from our point of view and from the Charter point of view, it was illegal.' A number of military personnel, most notably 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, have refused to serve in the war because they consider it 'illegal' and have been court marshaled as a result." As Rebecca noted of Watada last Friday, "the contract expired in 2006. it's time for the military to release him. instead they keep him in the military and he has to report for duty on the base every day."
Meanwhile Chris Vanderveen (9 News Denver) reports that the War Resisters Support Campaign's Lee Zaslofsky has gone to Colorado to show his support for US war resister Robin Long who was extradited from Canada last Tuesday and states of Robin being expelled, "(Canadians) are very distressed by this. This is going against the tradition we have in our country." Meanwhile Angela Giles (The Chronicle Herald) argues for war resisters' right to remain in Canada and notes, "They have a higher obligation to international law than their 'duty' to just follow orders. . . . We now know soldiers are systematically ordered to violate international humanitarian law in Iraq -- from torture to intentionally targeting civilians -- and there are more revelations of war crimes emerging every day. . . . The U.S. soldiers seeking refuge in Canada signed up to defend their country, not to commit war crimes."
To pressure the Stephen Harper government to honor the House of Commons vote, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/mc/compose?to=finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/mc/compose?to=pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca"). Courage to Resist collected more than 10,000 letters to send before the vote. Now they've started a new letter you can use online here. The War Resisters Support Campaign's petition can be found here. Long expulsion does not change the need for action and the War Resisters Support Campaign explains: "The War Resisters Support Campaign is calling on supporters across Canada to urgently continue to put pressure on the minority conservative government to immediately cease deportation proceedings against other US war resisters and to respect the will of Canadians and their elected representatives by implementing the motion adopted by Parliament on June 3rd. Please see the take action page for what you can do."
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Andrei Hurancyk, Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, 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, Jose Vasquez, 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, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, 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. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Turning to Iraq and starting with the latest in the provincial elections bill -- CNN reports it has been rejected today. Yesterday, the Kurdish bloc in the Iraqi Parliament staged a walk-out over a bill regarding the alleged provincial elections that allegedly would take place October 1st. The walk-out means the already much postponed provinicial elections may be postponed further. Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) covers the political process backdrop for yesterday's actions: "Some Iraqis think that the offensives that Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki launched in the southern cities of Basra and Amara and the Baghdad slum of Sadr City were to weaken his political rivals, the Sadrists, who controlled those areas. The possibility of a months' long delay in the elections could fundamentally alter the priorities of local and national politicians." Ned Parker and Saif Hameed (Los Angeles Times) zoom in on the backstory/history, "The contentious issue was among several points that have delayed a vote on the law that would pave the way for the first local elections since January 2005, when most Sunni Arabs and many Shiite followers of cleric Muqtada Sadr boycotted the vote. U.S. officials believe the participation of such groups could go a long way toward righting the balance of power in provincial politics, in which a small number of parties, mainly Kurdish and Shiite Muslim, have dominated." Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) focuses on the struggle for the oil-rich Kirkuk, "The disagreement centered on the multiethnic city of Kirkuk, one of several areas in Iraq where there are competing claims over which province a city or district belongs in. The question for Kirkuk is whether it should be absorbed into the Kurdistan region -- a particularly charged question because the city sits on some of the largest unexploited oil reserves in the country. Both Arabs and Kurds lay claim to the area. At bottom, the disagreement is also about the ethnic identity of Iraq and about Arab frustration with the Kurds. Although the Kurds are a minority, they have proved adept at turning the political process to their advantage, often to the chagrin of larger ethnic and religious groups." Last December, Stephen Farrell (New York Times) reported on the attempts of the Kurdish region to take control of Kirkuk (with something other than the security forces they currently utilize) -- forcing Kurds out of the Kurdish region and into Kirkuk to live in "the squalor of the Kirkuk soccer stadium." CNN quotes this statement from President Jalal Talabani's office today, "The president, who does not agree with such a law, which was voted on by 127 deputies who do not represent half of parliament, is confident that the presidency council will not pass it." Al Jazeera points out, "Wednesday's move, which comes after protests by Kurdish and some Shia MPs, is likely to delay the elections, which have been encouraged by US officials as a key step toward repairing Iraq's sectarian rifts." BBC states, "Correspondents say this would be a blow to the outgoing US administration of President George W Bush, which sees the elections as a key step to the national reconciliation between Iraq's dividied communities." Is anyone going to make the obvious point? If elections are called out, why does Moqtada al-Sadr need to hold the line on a truce? al-Sadr's cooperation was thought to be in part due to the 'October' elections that were coming. al-Maliki started throwing down rules (or trying to) about who could and who could not participate. This was after the assault on Basra began. al-Sadr calmed the situation. And most likely did so so that the Sadr bloc could turn out for elections in October. Meanwhile AFP reports that August 1st will be the launching date for the assault on Diyala Province according to unnamed Iraqi "army and police officers." If elections are on hold until 2009, the assault might play out elsewhere in Iraq the same way the Basra assault did. In some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Diyala Province roadside bombing that claimed the life of 1 woman. Reuters notes a Mosul roadside bombing that left three police officers wounded and a Mosul mortar attack that left two people wounded.
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 person shot down in Mosul this mornging with 2 Iraqi troops shot dead in Mosul this afternoon.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad.
"The purpose of today's hearing," US House Rep Susan Davis said yesterday as she brought to order the House Armed Services Committee's Military Personnel Subcommittee, "is to take a hard look at the current state of the Army Medical Action Plan This will be the third hearing this subcomitt has held on the Army Medical Action Plan -- the army's response to the revelations at Walter Reed Army Medical Center last year, since it was issued in June 2007. When the Army Medical Action Plan execution order was issued last summer, the military personnel subcomittee believed that the army had finally demonstrated a full understanding and acceptance of the organizational and systemic short comings that had led to the scandalous conditions at Walter Reed. We felt that the Army Medical Action Plan was a comprehensive and ambitious blue print to tackle these issues head on. After years of frustration many on the subcomittee believed that the army was finally ready to take the necessary steps to solve these problems. However, from our very first briefing on the Army Medical Action Plan, we had two significant concerns. The first was that the army would be unable to initially dedicate and then maintain over the long haul the level of resources required by the Army Medical Action Plan. Specifically, we were worried that the army would be unable to assign adequate numbers of personnel to the Warrior Transition Units. Why? Because the core of the Warrior Transition Units were to be the same soldiers that make up the backbone of our brigade combat teams: mid-grade, non-commissioned officers. And these soldiers were already in short supply. The second concern was that army commanders would overwhelm the Warrior Tranistion Units by sending them all of their soldiers with medical issues rather than just those with complex injuries or conditions that required comprehensive case management. In truth, we do not feel that this was necessarily a bad thing especially if it helped units deploy at full strength while injured or ill soldiers had the opportunity to fully recover Of course, this would only work if Warrior Transition Units were properly resourced to take care of these soldiers. From June 2007 through February 2008, the members and staff of this subcommittee made numerous visits to Warrior Transition Units throughout the army. The overall trend we observed was positive. The Army Medical Action Plan was clearly providing better support for recovering soldiers than the previous medical holdover system. One wounded warrior commented, 'Thank God for the Warrior Transition Unit. Things are so much better than they were before.' That was good to hear but despite the positive trends we were frustrated at the slow progress of implementing the AMAP. We felt that things should have and could have been moving faster. We also felt that there was a discconnect between how quickly the army leadership believed things were happening and what the facts on the ground seemed to indicate. Again, despite the challenges, we felt things were moving in an overall, positive direction. However our concerns about Warrior Transition Unit staffing levels and the potential of line units, quote, 'dumping ' soldier on the Warrior Transition Unit continued. We asked General [Eric] Schoomaker about this repeatedly during our hearing in February to get an update on the AMAP In response to a question asked by Mr. [John] McHugh, the army surgeon-general declared, 'For all intents and purposes we are entirely staffed at the point we need to be staffed.' As the facts at Fort Hood demonstrate that is clearly not the case now. Gentlemen, the Army Medical Action Plan was designed by the army. It is your plan. The army senior leadership has publicly trumpeted your commitment to wounded soldiers at every opportunity -- and we believe that that is true. But the Secretary of Defense agrees -- as Dr. [Robert] Gates has made clear -- apart from the war itself, this department and I have no higher priority." . Over the course of this hearing we will review the following topics. Resources. Why has the army failed to properly resource the Warriror Transition Units population growth. Why did the army fail to predict the growth in the WT population. We were assured by the army in Feb. that you had the processes and reviews in place to stay on top of the population and clearly that's not the case today. Priority. Is the Army Medical Action Plan truly the army's number two priority? Our visits do not leave us with that impression. And creativity. From the outset the Army Medical Action Plan has been sold as a bold roadmap to overhaul outdated, inefficient and deteremental policies and procedures. . . . And oversight. Finally and perhaps most importantly why did it take oversight visits from the subcommittee to identify and spure the army to fix these issues and what will take to ensure that the army follows its own plan and lives up to its own promises it Gentlemen, aside from telling us that you will will harder to implement it -- and we do believe that, we know that you are working very hard at this -- what concrete steps are being taken to ensure better follow through?"
Rep John McHugh (ranking Republican) noted "there continues to be serious shortfalls. Shortfalls that our staff did identify and I know the army continues to try to deal with. Serious questions. That of resources. A mechanism that anticipates the population growth that we have seen -- an explosion" that it is only reasonable to expect will continue. Davis and McHugh were speaking to the army's Lt Gen Michael D. Rochelle, Lt Gen Robert Wilson, Maj Gen David A. Rubenstein and Brig Gen Gary H. Cheek. PDF format warning, you can click here for the brass' prepared statement.
Dana Milbank (Washington Post) describes the scene: "The generals were nervous.Lt. Gen. Robert Wilson moved his index finger across the page as he read his statement with a halting delivery. Maj. Gen. David Rubenstein, holding a discolored washcloth under the witness table to dry his perspiration, accidentally dropped the cloth and felt for it with his shoe. The anxiety, even for men with two or three stars on each shoulder, was to be expected. They had come before a House Armed Services subcommittee to explain why, 16 months and at least eight fact-finding investigations after the Walter Reed scandal, the Army still hadn't fixed the health-care system for soldiers wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Milbank rightly notes that the witnesses played contrite. True. They also played suck up. Shortly after stating the obvious ("Make no mistake about it, our army is stretched"), Rochelle would declare, "It is clear to us that this committee foresaw that better than we did." Why was that? No need to explore that. No need to worry because Rochelle insists, "But our heart was in the right place and remains in the right place." Were these adults testifying before Congress? And did this tender-hearted brass miss all of Davis and McHugh's many statements that bordered on the way an adult would speak to a very young child -- stressing repeatedly that the action, not the people, were bad; that the action, not the people, was at fault. It was a bit puzzling to hear Davis and McHugh hit those points repeatedly at the start of the hearings but, a half-hour in, as McHugh had to again reassure the toddlers with stripes and bars on their shoulders, you were left with the impression that anything more age appropriate would have left the generals sucking their thumbs, curled up in a fetal position and sobbing on the House floor.
McHugh had to again do that tap-dance before getting to his point. Having again assured the brass that everyone at the table was a special and wanted general, McHugh slowly and carefully declared, "In many ways, this challenge isn't being met. And I find the current circumstances unacceptable." It seemed to linger in the air as the bragg fidgeted. "You gentlemen agree with that?" McHugh asked. Silent pause. "Anybody disagree with that?"
he then asked. Still no comment. Realizing the guilty children had agreed ahead of time to all stick together, McHugh began noting the numbers. 6,000 WTs were in the program in June of 2007 and increased to 12,000 by June of the following year with current predictions that it will "grow to another 20,000". McHugh wanted to know if the problem was the model, the problem with the personnel or the problem due to the 90-day review not being done? Apparently feeling he had to answer, Rubenstein stated "I'll go first" and quickly began talking about . . . people who weren't hired. McHugh (stating "I'm going to interrupt you") attempted to get the conversation back on track. If hearing Rubenstein discuss how he meets neighbors while he mows his yard is back on track . . . Around that time, McHugh would tell Rubenstein, "I'm not hear to argue with you" and, approximately ten minutes later, "General Rubenstein, I don't mean to engage in a debate per se" -- then why was the hearing held? US Rep Niki Tsongas appeared to waste the least amount of time doling out affirmations to the generals and instead focused on the realities involving the increased number of WTs. She rightly noted that the White House's escalation troops are returning and that "if we do eventually engage in a timetable for the redeployment of our soldiers so again you'll be bringing back larger soldiers at once and particularly where the issue is PTSD -- where you might not have to deal with it really until the soldiers do come home. Can you envision what you would do in a situation where you simply become overwhelmed by the demand?" Rubenstein agreed to go first and then began talking about the need to "keep our arms around" the wounded. If we can leave the happy place for a minute, Tsongas asked about preparation for the expected influx into the program. She didn't ask about group hugs. "Where we can't," he said finally getting near the question asked, "and where we may not be able to meet the needs if the numbers are overwhelming, we fall to our civilian network providers."
US House Rep Niki Tsongas: And this is a plan you have in place so that it kicks in automatically or is it really reacting to any given moment?
Maj Gen David Rubenstein: It's -- it's a plan that's in execution as we speak today. In October at Fort Hood we sent about 350 of our warriors downtown Killeen [. . .] to receive health care. Those same soldiers, six months later, in April of this year had 19,000 appointments downtown so we already use the system
Lt Gen Michael D. Rochelle: May I add, ma'am, Madam Tsongas, the two things that you hinted in your question is being pro-active in looking at both the deployment of individual elements of army unit brigades and support elements and being pro-active for those that are redeploying as well. That we have come to learn is - - is one -is one of our misconnects -- disconnects at the -- at the senior levels of the army and we're going to do better at that. We already have a very reliable -- very reliable -- metric.
The answer to Tsongas' question is "NO." Tsongas was speaking of the troops that will be returning as the escalation continues to wind down so dropping back to last year or last April really doesn't address that. She was also asking noting that there may be some limited withdrawal in 2009 and is the army preparing for that? When Rubenstein is offering that last April Fort Hood (which is supposed to be served primarily by the Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center) was already scheduling 19,000 appointments with civilian providers (via the TriCare contracts/outsourcing) the answer is "NO!" the army is not prepared for it and does not appear to be doing anything to prepare for it. (Whining, as Rubenstein did elsewhere, that emergency room nurses in civilian settings can work to 12 hour shifts and get paid for forty hours allowing them to make more than they would working for the military is not "dealing with" or "anticipating" an influx.) Various members of the committee spoke of visiting Fort Drum and their surprise or disappointment that so much was still wrong. Rep Nancy Boyda spoke of a mother of a wounded soldier who was unable to get the help he needed and was in limbo ("literally dying to get in" to some sort of treament) and subcommittee chair Davis spoke of being told about the healing groups ("focused healing environment") in place and instead seeing people sitting around in frustration and boredom "not feeling that things were happening for them." Davis asked "how you see that changing at all? That people are able to get the appointments they need?" Rubenstein offered nonsense about how, military or civilian, no one ever gets what they need or the time they think they deserve in a medical visit. In other words, it was a lot of garbage. Near the end, Davis offered that the army might need more money and that they could meet again in September but Rochelle insisted he felt "September would be too soon." Since the generals could point to nothing accomplished the idea that they're going to skip out on a September meeting is rather appalling. Dana Milbank (Washington Post) observes, "Finding no argument, the lawmakers brought the hearing to a prompt close, but not before another round of mutal flattery." Yes, it really was that pathetic. Two hours and ten minutes wasted with no answers given, no indications that the military actually is addressing the expected influx of wounded. A lot of airy statements and back-patting. In the 2004 presidential race, US Senator John Kerry (the Democratic presidential nominee) rightly noted these problems were coming. He stated that the White House was underfunding and diverting resources. His reward for that truth telling was to have FactCheck.org smack him down with one of their psuedo 'fact checks.' Nearly four years later, there is still no indication that anything is being done unless the Washington Post shines a large flashlight on the problem. The paper did that and brought public awareness and public outcry. The US Congress seems unwilling and/or unable to follow up on that. The hearing was an embarrassment. The fact that Milbank and Talk Radio News Service appear to be the only ones who bothered to cover it is even more embarrassing.
In England Gordon Brown, Prime Minister, is in the news for making another statement. Philip Webster, Deborah Haynes and Tim Reid (Times of London) reports that Brown is saying that 'most' British troops will be out of Iraq "in a year." There are approximately 4,1000 of them -- that's actually the number of British troops and the number of contradictory statements Brown has made in his brief time as prime minister as to whether England would leave or stay in Iraq. Take the wait and see approach with Brown's statements which, like the weather, seem to change hourly.
Turning to the US presidential race. MediaChannel -- for some unknown reason -- is pushing a stupid study by "Media Tenor." "Media Tenor" is not a media watchdog, it's part of Democracy In Action -- yet another front group funded with blood money. Go to MediaChannel if you're interested in reading it. (My comments are not about MediaChannel, they are about "Media Tenor"). It's an 'analysis' that is both factually 'free' and non-content based. It's a 'study' in the way your eight-year-old brother or sister might write a book 'report.' It's also insulting. Barack Obama and John McCain are not candidates for president. They are 'presumptive' candidates. Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader are actual candidates and they're shut out of the 'analysis.' It's superficial crap that wants credit for finger-pointing at . . . super-ficial crap. As Phoebe famously said on Friends, "Hello Monica, this is kettle, you're black." Media Tenor's garbage doesn't need to be circulated, it needs to be put in the trash. MediaChannel got a link, but no link to the trash of "Democracy" In Action or "Media Tenor" or all the other partisan outlets staffed with dimwits paid in blood money. Shame on you all. (If need be, Ava says we can revisit the garbage being offered by Media Tenor at Third in our TV commentary Sunday but, if we do, we'll be doing a 'greatest hits' and not offering anything on any program airing this week.)
Paul Street takes on the myth of Saint Barack here (Black Agenda Report). Kenneth J. Theisen (World Can't Wait) calls out the War Hawk Barack here. Sally Soriano of Team Nader notes:
Yes, indeed.
You read that right.
You can win the grand prize -- a dinner with our main man -- Ralph Nader (at a mutually agreed time and place.)
How?
We're looking to build our e-mail list, to expand our grassroots support, and to spread the bedrock Nader/Gonzalez campaign message -- shift the power from the corporate controlled political parties back into the hands of the people.
So, we're having a contest.
The person who brings in the most e-mail sign-ups by August 7 at midnight to votenader.org wins.
Open to legal U.S. residents, 18 years or older at time of entry.
You invite your friends, family, neighbors and anyone else to sign up for Nader/Gonzalez updates.
The person who brings us the most e-mails wins the grand prize -- dinner with Ralph Nader.
(Check out our privacy policy here.)
During the course of the contest, you can keep track of how you are doing on our "Win Dinner With Ralph E-mail Contest Leaderboard."
It's sort of like kicking back on a Sunday afternoon and watching the PGA leaderboard.
Except that this isn't golf.
It's democracy.
And even if you don't grab the grand prize, there are a whole bunch of other prizes too.
Second prize is dinner with Ralph's VP running mate Matt Gonzalez (also at a mutually agreed time and place.)
Third prize is an invitation to our election night party in Washington, D.C.
Then the next seventeen people get an autographed copy of Unsafe at Any Speed and an autographed copy of the DVD An Unreasonable Man
Everyone who brings in at least 25 email sign-ups will receive a copy of the Declaration of Independence.
Are you ready to play?
You are?
Okay.
Get out your address book.
Start your e-mail engine.
And let 'er rip.
Click here to get started.
Remember, you can keep track of who's winning on our leaderboard.
(For the complete set of rules, click here.)
May the person who brings in the most e-mails to votenader.org win.
iraqrobin longehren watadaangela giles
dana milbank
the washington post
nancy a. youssefmcclatchy newspapersthe los angeles timesned parkersaif hameedthe new york timesalissa j. rubin
For Immediate Release Contact: Tony Booker
July 19, 2008 Phone:702-646-5595
E-mail: tbooker@votenader.org
The Nader/Gonzalez grass-roots campaign will open its Nevada Campaign Office on July 26, 2008. The Office is located within a complex at 2385 N. Decatur Blvd., Las Vegas, NV 89108.
The opening will take place between 5:30 to 6:30 pm and Ralph Nader is scheduled to attend via conference call.
This is a historic milestone for Ralph Nader's Nevada volunteers, whose numbers are growing in this battleground state and whose commitment to re-establishing government (at all levels) which is responsive to citizens' needs, not corporate convenience at the cost and peril of us, the people.
We believe that the office will be a beacon and meeting place for the encouragement of citizen activists of like minds and those tired of choosing between evils when casting their vote.
All those interested in furthering genuine U.S. style democracy through us reverting to government of the people, by the people-instead of government dominated by corporations are welcome to come on by for a chat with our volunteers, view a video made by Ralph for this occasion and perhaps participate in the conference call with Ralph.
You will see that at a number of community sites posting tonight. That is really amazing news. Ralph Nader is getting support and doing so with so many obstacles from the media. Score one for the people.
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The approved cover"
That is the 'approved' cover. All cartoonists take note, Barack must be portrayed as Superman and Michelle as the Statue of Liberty. Anything else will bring out the angry mob. No one must ever question St. Barack.
"Nader Mad He's Not Invited to Anti-Bush Hearing" (Jesse A. Hamilton, Hartford Courant):
But somebody wasn't invited to the Bush gripe session: Ralph Nader, independent presidential candidate and Connecticut son. Because he's been demanding Bush be impeached for years, he apparently feels left out.
Nader -- once a star of congressional committee testimony -- wrote a letter to Rep. John Conyers, the committee chairman, to complain, pointing out: "The Libertarian candidate for President, Bob Barr is also on the witness list, but I am not."
Well Ralph Nader should have been invited and smarmy little commentary by columnists won't change that. Nader not being invited is nonsense. The only reason for his being uninvited is that the Democratic Party has decided Congress is now part of their election machinery and they will not allow anyone they see as a threat to benefit. It's an abuse of power and it should frighten and bother every American. Bob Barr is being invited not because they support third party candidates but because the Democrats want to build him up in the hopes that he will be a threat to John McCain.
This is appalling. The US Congress is not the Democrats' Congress or the Republican's. It is the people's Congress and the people are supposed to be the boss. Instead, it is being used in a partisan manner to churn out votes in the election. They're attempting to abuse their power with the hopes that they can toss the election to St. Barack.
A real columnist might have grasped that and saved his or her barbs for the abuse of power and not target Ralph will them.
"Obama's Foreign Policy Speech: Defend, Extend, Expand Empire" (Kenneth J. Theisen, World Can't Wait):
Barack Obama delivered a major speech on "national security" on July 15th at the Ronald Reagan International Trade Center in Washington, D.C. In his speech he attempted to demonstrate that he is fit to be the next commander-in-chief of the largest war machine in history. He made clear that he intends to expand the “war on terrorism”, especially in Pakistan and Afghanistan. He pledged to use both military might and aggressive diplomacy to achieve the goals of U.S. imperialism. His speech was timed to occur before his expected "fact-finding" trip to Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Jordan, Germany, France and Britain, where he undoubtedly will continue to advocate for U.S. imperialism.
Obama has been quite vocal in his ambition as a future military leader. He supports increasing the overall size of the U.S. military by 92,000 troops and increasing the number of U.S. and allied troops sent to Afghanistan. He wrote that he would send two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan. He has also called for the use of U.S. military force in Pakistan even against the will of Pakistani leaders. This would be both similar to and an escalation of U.S. missile strikes on Pakistani sites regularly carried out by the Bush regime.
Barack was not 'fact-finding'. He was posing for photo-ops. It was less than a visit by a First Lady, much, much less. He and his Cult had the nerve to criticize Hillary for counting her trips as First Lady as experience. Those were real trips Hillary took and they meant something. Barack's just trying to get press.
I am not a fan of Laura Bush. But you better believe without her trips the US image would be even worse abroad. C.I. noted in a snapshot (in June or May) how Ms. Bush was speaking and a White House handler cut off the press conference. They can do that, they can cut her off to the press. But the handlers can't do that in the face to face. Again, no fan of Ms. Bush, but I do give her credit for going abroad. That was not a pleasure cruise. It is not as if every hour was not planned and jam packed. She worked. That was real work.
When Hillary was First Lady, she was much more active. She gave the US a face that the world could embrace. She worked very hard and that was work and that is experience.
Instead, Barack's meeting with the military and shooting hoops.
As C.I. has pointed out, Barack's offering a travelogue and people are treating it as news.
Considering that the US has a housing crisis, has problems with the food supply being safe, has infrastructure that is crumbling, you'd think someone wanting to become president would attempt to respect the American people enough to address and interact with them. You would also think someone that the defense keeps being "No one knows him!" would use this time to let the American people know him; however, people don't like him. Outside the Cult, they don't like him. So better for him that they only see him on the TV screen and in photos online and in the paper.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Wednesday, July 23, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Talabani says "NO!" to elections this year, the US Congress stages a feel-good session for the US army, and more.
Starting with war resistance. In June 2006, Lt Ehren Watada became the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to the illegal war. Since Judge Benjamin Settle ruled last November that the US military could not attempt a second (kanagroo) court-martial of Watada while the double-jeopardy issue remains, he has been in limbo. In a grab-bag column about a number of topics, Christina Clark (Nebraksa's Gateway) mentions Watada while discussing how the Iraq War is illegal: "Bush did not receive permission from the United Nations to invade Iraq. In September 2004, then-U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan stated that the war was 'not in conformity with the U.N. Charter, from our point of view and from the Charter point of view, it was illegal.' A number of military personnel, most notably 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, have refused to serve in the war because they consider it 'illegal' and have been court marshaled as a result." As Rebecca noted of Watada last Friday, "the contract expired in 2006. it's time for the military to release him. instead they keep him in the military and he has to report for duty on the base every day."
Meanwhile Chris Vanderveen (9 News Denver) reports that the War Resisters Support Campaign's Lee Zaslofsky has gone to Colorado to show his support for US war resister Robin Long who was extradited from Canada last Tuesday and states of Robin being expelled, "(Canadians) are very distressed by this. This is going against the tradition we have in our country." Meanwhile Angela Giles (The Chronicle Herald) argues for war resisters' right to remain in Canada and notes, "They have a higher obligation to international law than their 'duty' to just follow orders. . . . We now know soldiers are systematically ordered to violate international humanitarian law in Iraq -- from torture to intentionally targeting civilians -- and there are more revelations of war crimes emerging every day. . . . The U.S. soldiers seeking refuge in Canada signed up to defend their country, not to commit war crimes."
To pressure the Stephen Harper government to honor the House of Commons vote, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/mc/compose?to=finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/mc/compose?to=pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca"). Courage to Resist collected more than 10,000 letters to send before the vote. Now they've started a new letter you can use online here. The War Resisters Support Campaign's petition can be found here. Long expulsion does not change the need for action and the War Resisters Support Campaign explains: "The War Resisters Support Campaign is calling on supporters across Canada to urgently continue to put pressure on the minority conservative government to immediately cease deportation proceedings against other US war resisters and to respect the will of Canadians and their elected representatives by implementing the motion adopted by Parliament on June 3rd. Please see the take action page for what you can do."
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Andrei Hurancyk, Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, 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, Jose Vasquez, 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, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, 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. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Turning to Iraq and starting with the latest in the provincial elections bill -- CNN reports it has been rejected today. Yesterday, the Kurdish bloc in the Iraqi Parliament staged a walk-out over a bill regarding the alleged provincial elections that allegedly would take place October 1st. The walk-out means the already much postponed provinicial elections may be postponed further. Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) covers the political process backdrop for yesterday's actions: "Some Iraqis think that the offensives that Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki launched in the southern cities of Basra and Amara and the Baghdad slum of Sadr City were to weaken his political rivals, the Sadrists, who controlled those areas. The possibility of a months' long delay in the elections could fundamentally alter the priorities of local and national politicians." Ned Parker and Saif Hameed (Los Angeles Times) zoom in on the backstory/history, "The contentious issue was among several points that have delayed a vote on the law that would pave the way for the first local elections since January 2005, when most Sunni Arabs and many Shiite followers of cleric Muqtada Sadr boycotted the vote. U.S. officials believe the participation of such groups could go a long way toward righting the balance of power in provincial politics, in which a small number of parties, mainly Kurdish and Shiite Muslim, have dominated." Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) focuses on the struggle for the oil-rich Kirkuk, "The disagreement centered on the multiethnic city of Kirkuk, one of several areas in Iraq where there are competing claims over which province a city or district belongs in. The question for Kirkuk is whether it should be absorbed into the Kurdistan region -- a particularly charged question because the city sits on some of the largest unexploited oil reserves in the country. Both Arabs and Kurds lay claim to the area. At bottom, the disagreement is also about the ethnic identity of Iraq and about Arab frustration with the Kurds. Although the Kurds are a minority, they have proved adept at turning the political process to their advantage, often to the chagrin of larger ethnic and religious groups." Last December, Stephen Farrell (New York Times) reported on the attempts of the Kurdish region to take control of Kirkuk (with something other than the security forces they currently utilize) -- forcing Kurds out of the Kurdish region and into Kirkuk to live in "the squalor of the Kirkuk soccer stadium." CNN quotes this statement from President Jalal Talabani's office today, "The president, who does not agree with such a law, which was voted on by 127 deputies who do not represent half of parliament, is confident that the presidency council will not pass it." Al Jazeera points out, "Wednesday's move, which comes after protests by Kurdish and some Shia MPs, is likely to delay the elections, which have been encouraged by US officials as a key step toward repairing Iraq's sectarian rifts." BBC states, "Correspondents say this would be a blow to the outgoing US administration of President George W Bush, which sees the elections as a key step to the national reconciliation between Iraq's dividied communities." Is anyone going to make the obvious point? If elections are called out, why does Moqtada al-Sadr need to hold the line on a truce? al-Sadr's cooperation was thought to be in part due to the 'October' elections that were coming. al-Maliki started throwing down rules (or trying to) about who could and who could not participate. This was after the assault on Basra began. al-Sadr calmed the situation. And most likely did so so that the Sadr bloc could turn out for elections in October. Meanwhile AFP reports that August 1st will be the launching date for the assault on Diyala Province according to unnamed Iraqi "army and police officers." If elections are on hold until 2009, the assault might play out elsewhere in Iraq the same way the Basra assault did. In some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Diyala Province roadside bombing that claimed the life of 1 woman. Reuters notes a Mosul roadside bombing that left three police officers wounded and a Mosul mortar attack that left two people wounded.
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 person shot down in Mosul this mornging with 2 Iraqi troops shot dead in Mosul this afternoon.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad.
"The purpose of today's hearing," US House Rep Susan Davis said yesterday as she brought to order the House Armed Services Committee's Military Personnel Subcommittee, "is to take a hard look at the current state of the Army Medical Action Plan This will be the third hearing this subcomitt has held on the Army Medical Action Plan -- the army's response to the revelations at Walter Reed Army Medical Center last year, since it was issued in June 2007. When the Army Medical Action Plan execution order was issued last summer, the military personnel subcomittee believed that the army had finally demonstrated a full understanding and acceptance of the organizational and systemic short comings that had led to the scandalous conditions at Walter Reed. We felt that the Army Medical Action Plan was a comprehensive and ambitious blue print to tackle these issues head on. After years of frustration many on the subcomittee believed that the army was finally ready to take the necessary steps to solve these problems. However, from our very first briefing on the Army Medical Action Plan, we had two significant concerns. The first was that the army would be unable to initially dedicate and then maintain over the long haul the level of resources required by the Army Medical Action Plan. Specifically, we were worried that the army would be unable to assign adequate numbers of personnel to the Warrior Transition Units. Why? Because the core of the Warrior Transition Units were to be the same soldiers that make up the backbone of our brigade combat teams: mid-grade, non-commissioned officers. And these soldiers were already in short supply. The second concern was that army commanders would overwhelm the Warrior Tranistion Units by sending them all of their soldiers with medical issues rather than just those with complex injuries or conditions that required comprehensive case management. In truth, we do not feel that this was necessarily a bad thing especially if it helped units deploy at full strength while injured or ill soldiers had the opportunity to fully recover Of course, this would only work if Warrior Transition Units were properly resourced to take care of these soldiers. From June 2007 through February 2008, the members and staff of this subcommittee made numerous visits to Warrior Transition Units throughout the army. The overall trend we observed was positive. The Army Medical Action Plan was clearly providing better support for recovering soldiers than the previous medical holdover system. One wounded warrior commented, 'Thank God for the Warrior Transition Unit. Things are so much better than they were before.' That was good to hear but despite the positive trends we were frustrated at the slow progress of implementing the AMAP. We felt that things should have and could have been moving faster. We also felt that there was a discconnect between how quickly the army leadership believed things were happening and what the facts on the ground seemed to indicate. Again, despite the challenges, we felt things were moving in an overall, positive direction. However our concerns about Warrior Transition Unit staffing levels and the potential of line units, quote, 'dumping ' soldier on the Warrior Transition Unit continued. We asked General [Eric] Schoomaker about this repeatedly during our hearing in February to get an update on the AMAP In response to a question asked by Mr. [John] McHugh, the army surgeon-general declared, 'For all intents and purposes we are entirely staffed at the point we need to be staffed.' As the facts at Fort Hood demonstrate that is clearly not the case now. Gentlemen, the Army Medical Action Plan was designed by the army. It is your plan. The army senior leadership has publicly trumpeted your commitment to wounded soldiers at every opportunity -- and we believe that that is true. But the Secretary of Defense agrees -- as Dr. [Robert] Gates has made clear -- apart from the war itself, this department and I have no higher priority." . Over the course of this hearing we will review the following topics. Resources. Why has the army failed to properly resource the Warriror Transition Units population growth. Why did the army fail to predict the growth in the WT population. We were assured by the army in Feb. that you had the processes and reviews in place to stay on top of the population and clearly that's not the case today. Priority. Is the Army Medical Action Plan truly the army's number two priority? Our visits do not leave us with that impression. And creativity. From the outset the Army Medical Action Plan has been sold as a bold roadmap to overhaul outdated, inefficient and deteremental policies and procedures. . . . And oversight. Finally and perhaps most importantly why did it take oversight visits from the subcommittee to identify and spure the army to fix these issues and what will take to ensure that the army follows its own plan and lives up to its own promises it Gentlemen, aside from telling us that you will will harder to implement it -- and we do believe that, we know that you are working very hard at this -- what concrete steps are being taken to ensure better follow through?"
Rep John McHugh (ranking Republican) noted "there continues to be serious shortfalls. Shortfalls that our staff did identify and I know the army continues to try to deal with. Serious questions. That of resources. A mechanism that anticipates the population growth that we have seen -- an explosion" that it is only reasonable to expect will continue. Davis and McHugh were speaking to the army's Lt Gen Michael D. Rochelle, Lt Gen Robert Wilson, Maj Gen David A. Rubenstein and Brig Gen Gary H. Cheek. PDF format warning, you can click here for the brass' prepared statement.
Dana Milbank (Washington Post) describes the scene: "The generals were nervous.Lt. Gen. Robert Wilson moved his index finger across the page as he read his statement with a halting delivery. Maj. Gen. David Rubenstein, holding a discolored washcloth under the witness table to dry his perspiration, accidentally dropped the cloth and felt for it with his shoe. The anxiety, even for men with two or three stars on each shoulder, was to be expected. They had come before a House Armed Services subcommittee to explain why, 16 months and at least eight fact-finding investigations after the Walter Reed scandal, the Army still hadn't fixed the health-care system for soldiers wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Milbank rightly notes that the witnesses played contrite. True. They also played suck up. Shortly after stating the obvious ("Make no mistake about it, our army is stretched"), Rochelle would declare, "It is clear to us that this committee foresaw that better than we did." Why was that? No need to explore that. No need to worry because Rochelle insists, "But our heart was in the right place and remains in the right place." Were these adults testifying before Congress? And did this tender-hearted brass miss all of Davis and McHugh's many statements that bordered on the way an adult would speak to a very young child -- stressing repeatedly that the action, not the people, were bad; that the action, not the people, was at fault. It was a bit puzzling to hear Davis and McHugh hit those points repeatedly at the start of the hearings but, a half-hour in, as McHugh had to again reassure the toddlers with stripes and bars on their shoulders, you were left with the impression that anything more age appropriate would have left the generals sucking their thumbs, curled up in a fetal position and sobbing on the House floor.
McHugh had to again do that tap-dance before getting to his point. Having again assured the brass that everyone at the table was a special and wanted general, McHugh slowly and carefully declared, "In many ways, this challenge isn't being met. And I find the current circumstances unacceptable." It seemed to linger in the air as the bragg fidgeted. "You gentlemen agree with that?" McHugh asked. Silent pause. "Anybody disagree with that?"
he then asked. Still no comment. Realizing the guilty children had agreed ahead of time to all stick together, McHugh began noting the numbers. 6,000 WTs were in the program in June of 2007 and increased to 12,000 by June of the following year with current predictions that it will "grow to another 20,000". McHugh wanted to know if the problem was the model, the problem with the personnel or the problem due to the 90-day review not being done? Apparently feeling he had to answer, Rubenstein stated "I'll go first" and quickly began talking about . . . people who weren't hired. McHugh (stating "I'm going to interrupt you") attempted to get the conversation back on track. If hearing Rubenstein discuss how he meets neighbors while he mows his yard is back on track . . . Around that time, McHugh would tell Rubenstein, "I'm not hear to argue with you" and, approximately ten minutes later, "General Rubenstein, I don't mean to engage in a debate per se" -- then why was the hearing held? US Rep Niki Tsongas appeared to waste the least amount of time doling out affirmations to the generals and instead focused on the realities involving the increased number of WTs. She rightly noted that the White House's escalation troops are returning and that "if we do eventually engage in a timetable for the redeployment of our soldiers so again you'll be bringing back larger soldiers at once and particularly where the issue is PTSD -- where you might not have to deal with it really until the soldiers do come home. Can you envision what you would do in a situation where you simply become overwhelmed by the demand?" Rubenstein agreed to go first and then began talking about the need to "keep our arms around" the wounded. If we can leave the happy place for a minute, Tsongas asked about preparation for the expected influx into the program. She didn't ask about group hugs. "Where we can't," he said finally getting near the question asked, "and where we may not be able to meet the needs if the numbers are overwhelming, we fall to our civilian network providers."
US House Rep Niki Tsongas: And this is a plan you have in place so that it kicks in automatically or is it really reacting to any given moment?
Maj Gen David Rubenstein: It's -- it's a plan that's in execution as we speak today. In October at Fort Hood we sent about 350 of our warriors downtown Killeen [. . .] to receive health care. Those same soldiers, six months later, in April of this year had 19,000 appointments downtown so we already use the system
Lt Gen Michael D. Rochelle: May I add, ma'am, Madam Tsongas, the two things that you hinted in your question is being pro-active in looking at both the deployment of individual elements of army unit brigades and support elements and being pro-active for those that are redeploying as well. That we have come to learn is - - is one -is one of our misconnects -- disconnects at the -- at the senior levels of the army and we're going to do better at that. We already have a very reliable -- very reliable -- metric.
The answer to Tsongas' question is "NO." Tsongas was speaking of the troops that will be returning as the escalation continues to wind down so dropping back to last year or last April really doesn't address that. She was also asking noting that there may be some limited withdrawal in 2009 and is the army preparing for that? When Rubenstein is offering that last April Fort Hood (which is supposed to be served primarily by the Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center) was already scheduling 19,000 appointments with civilian providers (via the TriCare contracts/outsourcing) the answer is "NO!" the army is not prepared for it and does not appear to be doing anything to prepare for it. (Whining, as Rubenstein did elsewhere, that emergency room nurses in civilian settings can work to 12 hour shifts and get paid for forty hours allowing them to make more than they would working for the military is not "dealing with" or "anticipating" an influx.) Various members of the committee spoke of visiting Fort Drum and their surprise or disappointment that so much was still wrong. Rep Nancy Boyda spoke of a mother of a wounded soldier who was unable to get the help he needed and was in limbo ("literally dying to get in" to some sort of treament) and subcommittee chair Davis spoke of being told about the healing groups ("focused healing environment") in place and instead seeing people sitting around in frustration and boredom "not feeling that things were happening for them." Davis asked "how you see that changing at all? That people are able to get the appointments they need?" Rubenstein offered nonsense about how, military or civilian, no one ever gets what they need or the time they think they deserve in a medical visit. In other words, it was a lot of garbage. Near the end, Davis offered that the army might need more money and that they could meet again in September but Rochelle insisted he felt "September would be too soon." Since the generals could point to nothing accomplished the idea that they're going to skip out on a September meeting is rather appalling. Dana Milbank (Washington Post) observes, "Finding no argument, the lawmakers brought the hearing to a prompt close, but not before another round of mutal flattery." Yes, it really was that pathetic. Two hours and ten minutes wasted with no answers given, no indications that the military actually is addressing the expected influx of wounded. A lot of airy statements and back-patting. In the 2004 presidential race, US Senator John Kerry (the Democratic presidential nominee) rightly noted these problems were coming. He stated that the White House was underfunding and diverting resources. His reward for that truth telling was to have FactCheck.org smack him down with one of their psuedo 'fact checks.' Nearly four years later, there is still no indication that anything is being done unless the Washington Post shines a large flashlight on the problem. The paper did that and brought public awareness and public outcry. The US Congress seems unwilling and/or unable to follow up on that. The hearing was an embarrassment. The fact that Milbank and Talk Radio News Service appear to be the only ones who bothered to cover it is even more embarrassing.
In England Gordon Brown, Prime Minister, is in the news for making another statement. Philip Webster, Deborah Haynes and Tim Reid (Times of London) reports that Brown is saying that 'most' British troops will be out of Iraq "in a year." There are approximately 4,1000 of them -- that's actually the number of British troops and the number of contradictory statements Brown has made in his brief time as prime minister as to whether England would leave or stay in Iraq. Take the wait and see approach with Brown's statements which, like the weather, seem to change hourly.
Turning to the US presidential race. MediaChannel -- for some unknown reason -- is pushing a stupid study by "Media Tenor." "Media Tenor" is not a media watchdog, it's part of Democracy In Action -- yet another front group funded with blood money. Go to MediaChannel if you're interested in reading it. (My comments are not about MediaChannel, they are about "Media Tenor"). It's an 'analysis' that is both factually 'free' and non-content based. It's a 'study' in the way your eight-year-old brother or sister might write a book 'report.' It's also insulting. Barack Obama and John McCain are not candidates for president. They are 'presumptive' candidates. Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader are actual candidates and they're shut out of the 'analysis.' It's superficial crap that wants credit for finger-pointing at . . . super-ficial crap. As Phoebe famously said on Friends, "Hello Monica, this is kettle, you're black." Media Tenor's garbage doesn't need to be circulated, it needs to be put in the trash. MediaChannel got a link, but no link to the trash of "Democracy" In Action or "Media Tenor" or all the other partisan outlets staffed with dimwits paid in blood money. Shame on you all. (If need be, Ava says we can revisit the garbage being offered by Media Tenor at Third in our TV commentary Sunday but, if we do, we'll be doing a 'greatest hits' and not offering anything on any program airing this week.)
Paul Street takes on the myth of Saint Barack here (Black Agenda Report). Kenneth J. Theisen (World Can't Wait) calls out the War Hawk Barack here. Sally Soriano of Team Nader notes:
Yes, indeed.
You read that right.
You can win the grand prize -- a dinner with our main man -- Ralph Nader (at a mutually agreed time and place.)
How?
We're looking to build our e-mail list, to expand our grassroots support, and to spread the bedrock Nader/Gonzalez campaign message -- shift the power from the corporate controlled political parties back into the hands of the people.
So, we're having a contest.
The person who brings in the most e-mail sign-ups by August 7 at midnight to votenader.org wins.
Open to legal U.S. residents, 18 years or older at time of entry.
You invite your friends, family, neighbors and anyone else to sign up for Nader/Gonzalez updates.
The person who brings us the most e-mails wins the grand prize -- dinner with Ralph Nader.
(Check out our privacy policy here.)
During the course of the contest, you can keep track of how you are doing on our "Win Dinner With Ralph E-mail Contest Leaderboard."
It's sort of like kicking back on a Sunday afternoon and watching the PGA leaderboard.
Except that this isn't golf.
It's democracy.
And even if you don't grab the grand prize, there are a whole bunch of other prizes too.
Second prize is dinner with Ralph's VP running mate Matt Gonzalez (also at a mutually agreed time and place.)
Third prize is an invitation to our election night party in Washington, D.C.
Then the next seventeen people get an autographed copy of Unsafe at Any Speed and an autographed copy of the DVD An Unreasonable Man
Everyone who brings in at least 25 email sign-ups will receive a copy of the Declaration of Independence.
Are you ready to play?
You are?
Okay.
Get out your address book.
Start your e-mail engine.
And let 'er rip.
Click here to get started.
Remember, you can keep track of who's winning on our leaderboard.
(For the complete set of rules, click here.)
May the person who brings in the most e-mails to votenader.org win.
iraqrobin longehren watadaangela giles
dana milbank
the washington post
nancy a. youssefmcclatchy newspapersthe los angeles timesned parkersaif hameedthe new york timesalissa j. rubin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)