The embarrassment is Kate Clinton

Poor, pathetic Kate Clinton. Little ass is feeling a little down.

Mid-term elections have the let the snotty little scum feeling down.

Poor thing.

I guess she was so depressed that she wasn't able to do another column ridiculing people as "tea ba**ers." As a gay woman, she's the last one who should be encouraging homophobia and that's exactly what she did.

She also needs to grow the hell up. At her advanced age, it's really past time for her to grasp that a feature film is not going to be her life story. But didn't she reject The Kids Are All Right because it wasn't her story up there on the screen?

To me that stupidity is very much related to all of her other stupidity.

She thinks she's something wonderful but as far as the world's concerned, no verdict has yet been rendered.

At some point, she might want to consider all the hate and scorn she aimed not at politicians or Big Business but at average Americans with whom she disagreed.

At some point, she might want to grasp that it was her actions -- and she wasn't alone -- that helped determine the outcome of the 2010 mid-terms.

It takes a stupid and hateful woman like Kate Clinton to write "WTF?" where she paints her Barry on her side of the 'feminist' fence and calls her opponents "racists."

She's disgusting.

I look around at people like her and think, "Why are people my age surprised and blaming the youth? Kate Clinton is what passes for a 'thinker' these days so why the hell would you have expectations on anyone emerging in this society?"

So if you don't agree with her, you're a racist. Yet she wonders why she's unable to communicate with people who have different opinions.

Someone thinking Barack Obama is the anti-christ is, to her, racism.

As a therapist of many, many years, a doctor in fact, I can tell you that every president has people who consider him -- they've all been hims so far -- and that's in part due to the fact that in our society we put some much power into that office -- while voting empty suits into the White House. When you vest so much power in a person, fears are a natural outcome.

I have a very good friend who goes all the way back to elementary with me. She doesn't believe in God. But in November 2000, she believed. In November 2000, she was convinced George W. Bush was the anti-christ. That had nothing to do with racism.

It had something to do with her understanding of "mark fo the beast" and a boil on his face that, you may remember, he tried to cover with a bandage before going on camera.

When a position comes with power, people will fear what the person holding the position might do.

I don't find that irrational.

Kate Clinton does.

But this is the woman who spent the last two years insulting everyone who wouldn't drink Barack's piss and call it Kool-Aid and then, after the mid-terms, wants to express hurt and shock that people could vote differently than she wanted them to. She made no effort to communicate beyond her tiny circle. Yet she doesn't see -- still -- that she is as much to blame as any other element if she's unhappy with the mid-term results.


"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Friday, November 19, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, Iraqiya targeted with a bombing, Congress explores differing medical evaluations from DoD than from VA, PTSD, and more. Today on the second hour of The Diane Rehm Show (NPR), USA Today's Susan Page filled in for Diane and her panelists were David Ignatius (Washington Post), Courtney Kobe (NBC) and Jonathan S. Landay (McClatchy Newspapers). Iraq was alluded to but not a topic itself. We'll note one of the times it was alluded to. Susan Page: Getting several e-mails from people expressing a lot of concern about what's happening in Afghanistan. Here's one from John, who writes us from Missouri, he writes, "2011, 2014, 2020 or beyond, Afghanistan will not turn out well. Like Iraq, there will be thousand of our troops remaining into the foreseeable future. There's been no victory in Iraq. There will be none in Afghanistan. We sacrifice our young men and women plus trillions we do not have. To my government, I say, 'How dare you?'" Courtney Kobe: Well that's a tough argument -- tough statement to argue against. There was much in the second hour but not much on Iraq. Ava and I may pull from it for a piece on White House communication -- this 'new' problem -- which was discussed at length. But without the needed foundation. And last Friday, Susan also filled in for Diane and spoke about international issues with Rajiv Chandrasekaran (Washington Post), David E. Sanger (New York Times) and Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers). Iraq was a major topic then and I noted in last Friday's snapshot that we tried to pick up another point Nancy A. Youssef was making. Susan Page: Well it's certainly true that no foreign policy issue played a role -- a significant role -- in the midterm elections except the degree to which the economy is a global concern. But you go back four years and the war in Iraq played a big role in the political debate that year. So how can you be certain that this remains not on the front burner for Americans? Nancy A. Youssef: I agree. I mean, I think rising troop deaths could effect that. Also, as we talk about where cuts need to be made and the Pentagon keeps coming back and saying we need however many billion dollars to keep fighting this war, how much room they'll have to do that. We saw the commission that the president put together -- the fourteen member commission recommend budget cuts. I think Rajiv and David are absolutely right but I also think the war is a fickle issue and can crop again in domestic politics. Nick Turse (Asia Times) notes, "Notably unnerving for the Obama administration was a deal reportedly brokered by Iran in which Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr -- whose forces had repeatedly clashed with US troops only a few short years ago -- threw his support behind Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, currently vying for a second term in office. This was allegedly part of a regional agreement involving Syria and Lebanon's Hezbollah that could leave the US military out in the cold. A source informed the Guardian that 'Maliki told [his new regional partners that] he will never extend, or renew [andy bases] or give any facilities to the Americans or British after the end of next year'." Nouri gave his word, did he? He also gave his word to the US. If there was one characteristic of Nouri's occupation of the post of prime minister from 2006 through 2010, it was his non-stop ability to break his word. Now we could provide many, many examples of this -- of Nouri wooing Iraqis with one version of what-if and wooing his American string-holders with another, but Turse is writing about Nouri promising Iraqis that the US military will not be staying in Iraq so let's use the best example for that. This is most like in late 2006 when Nouri renewed the United Nations mandate authorizing the occupation of Iraq, bypassing the Parliament in order to do so and creating massive ill will in the process. In response to the outcry, Nouri promised that this was a one-time thing and he would, of course, not bypass the Parliament again. But 2007 rolled around and, golly-gosh, there was Nouri doing the exact same thing he'd done as 2006 concluded, the exact same thing that had outraged so many, the exact thing he'd promised not to do. Could this be the time that Nouri double-crosses the US? Possibly. The US influence is waning. But it's equally true that the US government has so compromised themselves that Nouri would be crazy to double-cross them. Events of this year demonstrated for all to see that the US government doesn't give a damn about the fate of the average Iraqi and will break any and every rule in order to back up Nouri. They've looked the other way with regards to torture. Does it really look like if Joe Biden's worst case scenario comes true (Nouri begins attacking his own people -- a scenario Joe publicly floated in April of 2008) that the US military will be used to take Nouri down? No. The US government this year's actions indicate that the US government will order the US military to ensure that Nouri is protected and remains in place. It's a reading Nouri has as well, an opinion he shares. And he would not have remained prime minister from 2006 through 2010 were it not for the presence on the ground in Iraqof the US military. He would have been overthrown and one of the many conspiracies to put his head on top of a pike in Nasser Square would have been more than the starting point to one of his public and paranoid remblings, it would have been reality. So Nouri could go back on his promise to the US. That's the thing about free will, you never know what will happen. But he could stick to it. His past record -- as well as what would personally benefit him -- indicates he is likely to stick with the promise he made to the US government. As Lily Tomlin says to Jane Fonda in 9 to 5, "Well I'll be damned. Just look who got paid off for services rendered." And he's currently prime minister-delegate and may or may not be Iraq's next prime minister. March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board noted in August, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." 163 seats are needed to form the executive government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher -- 163 is the number today but the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance -- this coalition still does not give them 163 seats. November 10th a power sharing deal resulted in the Parliament meeting for the second time and voting in a Speaker. And then Iraqiya felt double crossed on the deal and the bulk of their members stormed out of the Parliament. David Ignatius (Washington Post) explains, "The fragility of the coalition was dramatically obvious Thursday as members of the Iraqiya party, which represents Sunnis, walked out of Parliament, claiming that they were already being double-crossed by Maliki. Iraqi politics is always an exercise in brinkmanship, and the compromises unfortunately remain of the save-your-neck variety, rather than reflecting a deeper accord. " After that, Jalal Talabani was voted President of Iraq. Talabani then named Nouri as the prime minister-delegate. If Nouri can meet the conditions outlined in Article 76 of the Constitution (basically nominate ministers for each council and have Parliament vote to approve each one with a minimum of 163 votes each time and to vote for his council program) within thirty days, he becomes the prime minister. If not, Talabani must name another prime minister-delegate. . In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister-delegate. It took eight months and two days to name Nouri as prime minister-delegate. His first go-round, on April 22, 2006, his thirty day limit kicked in. May 20, 2006, he announced his cabinet -- sort of. Sort of because he didn't nominate a Minister of Defense, a Minister of Interior and a Minister of a Natioanl Security. This was accomplished, John F. Burns wrote in "For Some, a Last, Best Hope for U.S. Efforts in Iraq" (New York Times), only with "muscular" assistance from the Bush White House. Nouri declared he would be the Interior Ministry temporarily. Temporarily lasted until June 8, 2006. This was when the US was able to strong-arm, when they'd knocked out the other choice for prime minister (Ibrahim al-Jaafari) to install puppet Nouri and when they had over 100,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. Nouri had no competition. That's very different from today. The Constitution is very clear and it is doubtful his opponents -- including within his own alliance -- will look the other way if he can't fill all the posts in 30 days. As Leila Fadel (Washington Post) observes, "With the three top slots resolved, Maliki will now begin to distribute ministries and other top jobs, a process that has the potential to be as divisive as the initial phase of government formation." Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) points out, "Maliki now has 30 days to decide on cabinet posts - some of which will likely go to Iraqiya - and put together a full government. His governing coalition owes part of its existence to followers of hard-line cleric Muqtada al Sadr, leading Sunnis and others to believe that his government will be indebted to Iran." The stalemate ends when the country has a prime minister. It is now eight months, twelve days and counting. A great deal of time has focused on the power-sharing arrangement between the big blocks but Nick Turse (Asia Times) explores the power-sharing arrangement Nouri first worked out with Shi'ite slates: Notably unnerving for the Obama administration was a deal reportedly brokered by Iran in which Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr - whose forces had repeatedly clashed with US troops only a few short years ago - threw his support behind Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, currently vying for a second term in office. This was allegedly part of a regional agreement involving Syria and Lebanon's Hezbollah that could leave the US military out in the cold. A source informed the Guardian that "Maliki told [his new regional partners that] he will never extend, or renew [any bases] or give any facilities to the Americans or British after the end of next year." Nouri gave his word, did he? He also gave his word to the US. If there was one characteristic of Nouri's occupation of the post of prime minister from 2006 through 2010, it was his non-stop ability to break his word. Now we could provide many, many examples of this -- of Nouri wooing Iraqis with one version of what-if and wooing his American string-holders with another, but Turse is writing about Nouri promising Iraqis that the US military will not be staying in Iraq so let's use the best example for that. This is most like in late 2006 when Nouri renewed the United Nations mandate authorizing the occupation of Iraq, bypassing the Parliament in order to do so and creating massive ill will in the process. In response to the outcry, Nouri promised that this was a one-time thing and he would, of course, not bypass the Parliament again. But 2007 rolled around and golly-gosh, there was Nouri doing the exact same thing he'd done as 2006 concluded, the exact same thing that had outraged so many, the exact thing he'd promised not to do. To get US support and backing for another term as prime minister, Nouri promised that he would allow the US military to remain on Iraqi soil past 2011. That is why the US government allowed Nouri to remain prime minister instead of heeding calls for the UN to appoint a caretaker government. This week, Gareth Porter (Dissident Voice) broke new ground with his monumental scoop detailing how the White House has actively been working to decieve the US voters into believing the Iraq War would end when, in fact, it would not. NSC-er Puneet Talwar was dispatched to offer Iraq 15,000 US troops after the end of 2011 'withdrawal' and to explain that the would simply shove these 15,000 under the US Embassy to hide the remainders. Excerpt from his article: The Iraqis also asked whether the 15,000 regular combat troops could be augmented with Special Operations Forces, according to the Iraqi official's account. Talwar said the additional deployment of SOF troops after the withdrawal deadline would be possible, because the United States had never publicly acknowledged the presence of SOF units in Iraq. The Pentagon signaled last summer that it was assuming the post-2011 U.S. military presence in Iraq would be less than 20,000 troops. In a press briefing last August, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle East, Colin Kahl, said Iraq "is not going to need tens of thousands of [American] forces". Talwar also told the Iraqis that any deployment of combat troops in Iraq beyond the termination date of the U.S.-Iraqi agreement would require a letter from Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. The Iraqi officials said the letter would be sent. Could this be the time that Nouri double-crosses the US? Possibly. The US influence is waning. But it's equally true that the US government has so compromised themselves that Nouri would be crazy to double-cross them. Events of this year demonstrated for all to see that the US government doesn't give a damn about the fate of the average Iraqi and will break any and every rule in order to back up Nouri. They've looked the other way with regards to torture. Does it really look like if Joe Biden's worst case scenario comes true (Nouri begins attacking his own people -- a scenario Joe publicly floated in April of 2008) that the US military will be used to take Nouri down? No. The US government this year's actions indicate that the US government will order the US military to ensure that Nouri is protected and remains in place. It's a reading Nouri has as well, an opinion he shares. And he would not have remained prime minister from 2006 through 2010 were it not for the presence on the ground in Iraqof the US military. He would have been overthrown and one of the many conspiracies to put his head on top of a pike in Nasser Square would have been more than the starting point to one of his public and paranoid remblings, it would have been reality. So Nouri could go back on his promise to the US. That's the thing about free will, you never know what will happen. But he could stick to it. His past record -- as well as what would personally benefit him -- indicates he is likely to stick with the promise he made to the US government. As Lily Tomlin says to Jane Fonda in 9 to 5, "Well I'll be damned. Just look who got paid off for services rendered." On the large power-sharing agreement, Marina Ottaway and Danial Anas Kaysi (at LAT's Babylon & Beyond) explain: Implementing the agreement hinges on two main conditions: first, creating a National Council for Higher Strategic Policies with real executive power and second, lifting the ban on political participation by three important Sunni leaders -- Rasem Awadi, Saleh Mutlaq, and Dhafer Aani. The agreement also calls for launching a national reconciliation process. But the agreement does not appear to be legally enforceable. Take the National Council, for instance. While it was originally created to curb Maliki's power, it cannot do so without a constitutional amendment, and the constitution precludes amendments until the end of the this election cycle four years hence. Therefore, the council's influence will depend largely on Maliki's willingness to comply with its decisions. That likelihood is not great. In today's reported violence, Saad Abdul-Kadir (AP) reports a Mosul roadside bombing attack on Iraqiya's Mohammed al-Khalidi and, while Khalidi survived, 1 bodyguard was killed and another injured. Reuters also notes that 1 "oil facility guard" was shot dead outside his home in Mosul. Religious minorities remain targeted in Iraq and we'll drop back to Tuesday's snapshot for an overview of one group being persecuted: Now turning to the Mandaeans. This group goes back centuries -- and may date back to Antiquity -- and now is estimated to number less than 100,000. Until the Iraq War began, the majority of Mandaens could be found in Iraq. Like other religious minorities, they've become external refugees (many have fled to Iran, others to Syira and Jordan and a small number have left the Middle East). It's estimated that as much as 90% of the community has left Iraq since the start of the Iraq War. In 2007, US professor Nathaniel Deutsch wrote a column for the New York Times calling for the US to grant this community refugee status (which did take place) and noting, "Unlike Christian and Muslim refugees, the Mandeans do not belong to a larger religious community that can provide them with protection and aid. Fundamentally alone in the world, the Mandeans are even more vulnerable and fewer than the Yazidis, another Iraqi minority that has suffered tremendously, since the latter have their own villages in the generally safer nother, while the Mandeans are scattered in pockets around the south. They are the only minority group in Iraq without a safe enclave." Nadia Keilani is an Iraqi-American, an attorney and a Mandean. In 2008, she explained for CNN: "I belong to a religious minority called Mandaean, also known as Sabeans or Sabean-Mandaean. We are a Gnostic sect that claims Adam as the first in a line of "teachers" and John the Baptist as the last. Even today, our baptisms are conducted in the same manner that John the Baptist baptized Jesus and others of his time. Mandaeanism is a pacifist religion that forbids violence even in defense of life. In the anarchy that is today's Iraq, this has proved fatal to the existence of this small but important part of human religious history." The water issue is important to the faith when resettling. Lakes and rivers being ideal due to the baptisms. Settling is not a small issue and it goes beyond the issue of needing to be near a body of water. Keilani noted, "To be a Mandaean, you must be born to two Mandaean parents. To survive, Mandaean communities must exist in large enough numbers for young people to meet, marry and have children. Since 2003, the number of Mandaeans inside Iraq has dwindled to fewer than 5,000. Tens of thousands are scattered throughout Europe, Australia and the United States. The results of this diaspora are clear: Our religion probably will cease to exist in my children's lifetime." Rudi Stettner (The Rant) notes some objections and concerns regarding asylum for Mandaeans: That may well be the case, but Mandaeans seem to be very good low risk candidates to accept as refugees. They are pacifists, they do not proselytise and have an attitude of extending charity to Mandaean and non Mandaean alike. The largest community of Mandaeans in the US is the greater Boston area with about 450 of them.It would be good for the various countries that have taken in Mandaeans to work with the Mandaean leadership to at least settle groups of Mandaeans in close enough proximity that they can easily maintain regular contact. The Mandaeans have endured terrible trauma as a community since the start of the war in Iraq. It is not hard to understand their desire to survive as a community. We should try to work with them on this issue. Jason Dzubow (ILW) argues, "In this instance, the UN and the receiving countries should make a greater effort to resettle the Mandaeans in larger number in order to create sustainable communities. If not, this ancient religion could vanish forever." All religious minorities are targeted in Iraq (as are women, the LGBT community, you name it). Iraqi Christians have been targeted throughout the illegal war. The latest wave of attacks began October 31st when Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad was attacked and over 70 people died and over seventy were wounded. Noori Barka (San Diego Union Tribune) observes, "Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, along with the rise of terrorism within Iraq, more than 60 Christian churches and monasteries have been bombed and destroyed. Thousands of Christians have been killed, kidnapped and injured. This wave of displacement reached a peak during the years 2006 - 2008, in which the number of displaced Christians in Mosul, in the north, was more than 10,000 people.[. . .] Since the American invasion in 2003, the Christians of Iraq have faced a real ethnic cleansing campaign. Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity under the statutes of the International Criminal Court. The U.S. has both a legal and moral obligation to protect the Iraqi Christians along with all the other vulnerable religious and ethnic minorities, to offer them equal constituational rights, to preserve their identity, religion and culture, and even to have a small share of Iraq's oil revenues, as the Iraqi Arabs and Kurds do." Turning to the US and service members and veterans issues, yesterday the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee held a hearing. Committee Chair Daniel Akaka's office released the following: WASHINGTON, D.C. –U.S. Senator Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii), Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, held an oversight hearing today on the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES). This evaluation system, recently tested as a pilot program, is a collaborative effort between VA and DoD to streamline the process by which servicemembers are evaluated for disabilities by both departments. "Both departments must ensure that each new location has what it needs to effectively operate the Integrated Disability Evaluation System before it is expanded," said Chairman Akaka. "The rush to move forward quickly should not come before our goal to provide a quality process to servicemembers. "If broadened before it is ready, the new process could negatively impact servicemembers and veterans. I am optimistic that an effectively implemented program will improve the transition from active duty to civilian life for warriors disabled during their service to the nation." Currently, wounded servicemembers who are discharged after receiving their disability rating from the military must go through the process again to receive a new rating from VA. The program, if implemented effectively, would eliminate this duplication. At the core of IDES is a joint disability medical examination that can be used for the existing DoD Medical Evaluation Board/ Physical Evaluation Board process and VA disability compensation process. The hearing examined the problems that have surfaced over the course of the pilot program and VA and DoD's plans to expand the program worldwide. John R. Campbell from the Department of Defense, Daniel Bertoni from the Government Accountability Office, and John Medve from the Department of Veterans Affairs provided testimony for this hearing. Chairman Akaka and the other members of the committee posed a number of questions regarding issues encountered during oversight visits in the pilot phase of the program, including shortages of staff to perform disability medical evaluations, program funding, and program participants' satisfaction. More information about the hearing including statements, testimony and the webcast is available here: LINK. Who determines disability for veterans and active duty service members? The Defense Dept or the VA? The question matters because they grade differently, on different criteria. Currently, there is a test program, begun in November 2007, where the two evaluation systems are integrated. US Senator Richard Burr explained Thursday morning, "For any servicemembers whose medical conditions keep them from continuing to serve in the military, there must be an effective, hassle-free process to get them the benefits and services they need and help them to smoothly transition to civilian life. But, several years ago, it became very clear that the disability system at the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs was not living up that standard. In 2007, news reports, as well as several panels of experts, detailed how injured servicemembers had to go through a long, bureaucratic process at DoD, followed by a similar process at the VA, to find out what disability benefits they would receive. Wounded servicemembers and their families were becoming frustrated, confused and disappointed with both systems." Three witnesses appeared before the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee: the Defense Dept's John Campbell, the VA's John Medve and the Government Accountability Office's Daniel Bertoni. In his opening remarks, Chair Daniel Akaka declared, "While streamlining the two systems is important, the implementation of this joint program has not been without problems. At a few pilot sites, VA staffing shortages, due to a lack of personnel to conduct disability medical examinations, caused significant delay in the processing of servicemembers. There were also personnel shortages at DoD among those responsible for guiding servicemembers through the new process. Issues of servicemember satisfaction and quality of life are also of concern. Other issues have been identified through Committee staff oversight and by the GAO in its draft report on the new process. These include problems with integrating VA staff at military installations, difficulty in having various I.T. systems work together, and ensuring that an adequate number of DoD physicians serve on Medical Evaluation Boards. The Committee needs to hear from VA and DoD on how these challenges are being addressed." Chair Daniel Akaka: Mr. Bertoni, in your opinion, are the Departments adequately addressing all the major problems that were identified during the pilot? I ask this because I'm concerned that some issues might not be fully addressed before it's rolled out to the rest of the military. Daniel Bertoni: As noted in -- in our statement, I think that they made progress in several areas -- especially in regard to getting out in front of the staffing issues. That's a big one. Uh, I-I can't stress that one enough. There are a lot of moving parts, a lot of specialized services and skills and services they need and there's at least an acknowledgement that the staffing portion of this or the component of this is critical to success and we would agree with that. It's how we're going to get there that is a question to us. You can relocate, you can hire, you can bring in additional contractors but we would really like to see or need to see a service delivery plan or an operations plan going forward to discern how that's going to happen. And I-I appreciate the comment that you all may be looking back at the original 27 sites do sort of look at those issues because I think there are still lingering issues out there in regards to staffing that are very important. Beyond that, certainly the issue of monitoring. I think having good MI data at the local level as to what's happening with these particular sites. If things start to go awry, staffing shifts, attrition, problems with diagnoses, problems with exam summaries -- you can know this sooner, rather than later, and get out in front of that problem and come into play with remedial training, guidance, etc to sort of prevent some of these issues from getting worse. So there's an acknowledgement. There appears to be a plan. We haven't seen that operational plan but at least there's an acknowledgement that there's some issues to work on. Chair Daniel Akaka: Thank you. Mr. Campbell and Mr. Medve, are you both able to track individual sites to determine if there are problems with staffing and insufficient medical exams. Mr. Campbell? John Campbell: I would like to make the point that no site will go into IOC unless it passes a series of-of strict tests. We have checklists. We're looking at the sites weekly, those that are in - in prepartion for the expansion, we're looking at them weekly to make sure that they pass these tests. And once the sites go live, we will be monitoring them as well. So I believe that it's probably fair to say that no service member is going to be endangered. We're not racing to get the sites complete so we can adhere to some timeline. This is really a criterian driven basis and we - we feel comfortable that we have sufficient safeguards built in that the sites will not go live until they're ready. Chair Daniel Akaka: Mr. Medve? John Medve: Senator, thank you for the question. And I'd like to echo what Mr. Campbell said. I mean we have instituted as a base of lessons learned from the pilot sites a certification process that now has a much more robust understanding of the requirement that will inform staffing decisions. During the pilot site, I think we used about a year's worth of data and it turned out not to include things like how many deployment cycles sites had gone through which had an impact on the number of cases and the type of cases that sites went in, which impacted the type of examinations that needed to be done . So we now use a multi-year view of that. Obviously, our understanding as we've gone through has increased and we are developing robust staffing plans for the oncoming sites. And, again, just to reiterate what - what Mr. Campbell said, and we made it clear to all sites that unless there is the capability and the capacity to move forward, they are not to move forward with this. Chair Daniel Akaka: Thank you, Mr. Campbell. I'm concerned that VA may bear a disproportionate burden in administering this program. Can you respond with your thoughts on that? John Campbell: Yes, sir. I'd be happy to. We have signed -- the DoD and VA have signed a memorandum of understanding -- an agreement -- to share these costs equitably and the process is one where the costs will be allocated as - as they - as they become live costs and then, at the end of this period, we will look at whether we owe the VA money or they - they owe us money? Chair Daniel Akaka: Senator Burr, your questions. Ranking Member Richard Burr: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bertoni, VA and DoD have estimated that the IPDES system is faster than the old legacy disability process. Now their estimate is the old legacy process was 540 days. But you noted, and I quote, "The extent to which the IPDES is an improvement over the legacy system cannot be known because of the limitations in the legacy data." And that the 540 day estimate, again I quote, "is based on a small non-representative sample of cases." And, first of all, can you explain for the record how many cases were used to come up with the 540 day estimate? Daniel Bertoni: Yeah. I - I believe that originated with the original table-top exercise way back in 2007 where I think there were 70 cases where -- across all services where they went in and looked at the average processing time for those kind of cases and came up with a number for DoD's side of the shop and that was about 300 days. And then they extrapolated to the VA side with an average of can take up to 200 days and to process a VA claim and tack that on to the overall total so they came up with the 540 day average. We had some concern with that. It's not as rigorous as we would like. We tried to reconstruct it on our own and we found very quickly that it was an apples to oranges comparison by trying to bring in the various services in the Army. It really wasn't possible in terms of the quality and the integrity of the data. We did do our own analysis of the Army data which we felt was sufficient to do this type of analysis. And Army being -- representing 60% of the IPDES cases? Pretty substantial if we could verify that and we did our analysis and were able to determine that it came out to about 369 days to complete that IPDES portion of the process. Recongnize that it would be reasonable to assume that it could possibly take up to 200 days to complete the VA rating side. So, uh, fairly reasonable estimate -- not entirely rigorous. Senator Mike Johanns stated he was concerned about nuts and bolts issues and asked, "How pervasive is the issue of the different diagnosis between VA and DoD?" Daniel Bertoni claimed/seized the question . . . saying having just done an audit . . . that there was no answer to that at present. Okay, Johanns tried again, if DoD says one thing and VA says another, is the service member just "stuck in limbo" until it's resolved? Bertoni noted that it had "to be resolved. That can take time. [. . .] Right now, there's no specific DoD guidance of how that's to be resolved." Johanns wondered, "If there's no guidance, how do you even solve the problem?" Senator Scott Brown: It seems like several years now that the DoD and the Dept of Veterans Affairs are kind of doing the blame game when it comes to the DS pilot program and meanwhile military members are trying to move on with their lives. Frankly, from what I've heard, the hurdles seem very high for them. They're waiting, hoping the doctor's appointment don't get cancelled, months and sometimes years go by, and as a result of that, I'm a little uneasy with the declaration made by the DoD that plans to conduct a global rollout of this program by the end of next Fiscal Year is something that you're focused on actually doing . It seems like a decision of this magnitude -- in my view -- requires a better understanding of the measurable verified factual basis on which the DoD has made the decision to launch a worldwide program. Beacuse, unless I'm wrong, there seems to be a lack of personnel and resources to do that. So I guess, with that being said, my question is: Will this program require more medical exam doctors throughout the country and across the globe? Mr. Campbell? Campbell stated, "Nothing will roll out unless we're convinced -- both VA and DoD -- that these sites are ready." Medve stated that VA was addressing staffing issues. Brown also wanted to know if there were efforts -- "any new program," any "thinking outside the box" -- being made to help service members find employment as they transitioned out and while they were waiting for medical evaluations? The most disturbing moments of the hearing were in its final minutes. Ranking Member Burr was basically giving Bertoni -- GAO staff -- a walk through on what needs to be done and how you measure tasks, etc. Great that Burr knew it but sad that the GAO -- for all Bertoni's comments after of, basically, 'I know' -- didn't know enough to be properly prepared. This was followed by Bertonia declaring, "I don't think that any of the averages are being met right now in terms of the goals for the program." That should have been in his opening statements so that it could have been explored as opposed to in his second to last response of the hearing. June 22nd, the Senate Armed Services Committee took testimony from various officials -- one of which was Gen Peter Chiarelli who referred to PTSD as a behavioral issue. As we noted then: "PTSD and TBI are not behavioral issues (I am aware some treat them as if they were, I'm also aware those treatments do not have longterm success rates) and that, after all this time and all this supposed education, a United States general doesn't know that, doesn't grasp that, it's rather telling. And it goes a long way towards explaining the manner in which the second response was delivered which was in a between-you-and-me kind of way and seemed to mock the illnesses. Not behavior issues, illnesses. And the Army would do well to get away from that term as well as to get away from calling medical providers 'behavioral specialists'." Today Chaplain Kathie (Veterans Today) notes a Fort Drum doctor is also calling PTSD a "behavioral health condition." Chaplain Kathie points out, "The idea that PTSD is a 'behavioral health condition' is more like a slap in the face to all veterans with PTSD because of what comes with it. Some of the symptoms of PTSD do in fact cause problems with what they do and what they say but if the doctors view PTSD the same as a child needing to be punished and sent to their room because of their behavior then maybe we're finally getting to the bottom of where all these bad attitudes come from." July 24, 2007, the Justice Dept [PDF format warning] announced their indictment of Houston's Samir Mahmoud Itani, owner of American Grocers, Inc, who was "charged in a 46-count indictment with conspiracy to defraud the government with respect to claims and with making fale claims." Specifcally, he was supplying the US military in Iraq with food -- with bad food, out of date food -- and changing the dates on the boxes. P.J. Huffstutter and Andrew Blankstein (Los Angeles Times) report that Itani will be paying $15 million and that the company was allegedly using not only nail polish to remove original expire dates on packaging but they also "used acetone, spray pain or a small drill." At Amped Status, David DeGraw takes on the issue of the federal reserve. TV notes. On PBS' Washington Week, John Harwood (New York Times), Janet Hook (Wall St. Journal, David Sanger (New York Times) and Pete Williams (NBC) join Gwen around the table. Gwen now has a weekly column at Washington Week and the current one is "GREAT EXPECTATIONS: The New Congress Comes to Town." This week, Bonnie Erbe will sit down with Melinda Henneberger, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Mercedes Viana Schlapp and Tara Setmayer to discuss the week's news on the latest broadcast of PBS' To The Contrary. And this week's To The Contrary online extra is a discussion about a potential White House in 2012 by Sarah Palin. Turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers: Merchant of Death The Drug Enforcement Administration agents who caught the alleged arms dealer Viktor Bout explain how they lured and then captured the suspect one of them calls "one of the most dangerous men on the face of the Earth." Armen Keteyian reports. | Watch Video Designing Life Steve Kroft profiles famous microbiologist J. Craig Venter, whose scientists have already mapped the human genome and created what he calls "the first synthetic species." | Watch Video Mark Wahlberg From street thug, to rapper to actor and now producer, Mark Wahlberg has reinvented himself to the top of the Hollywood heap. Lara Logan profiles Wahlberg as he prepares for his most challenging role: a boxer. | Watch Video 60 Minutes, Sunday, Nov. 21, at 7 p.m. ET/PT. iraq npr the diane rehm show the washington post david ignatius leila fadel the asia times nick turse gareth porter the rant rudi stettner jason dzubow govexec.com robert brodsky politico laura rozen

Those Bush tax cuts

"Obama Wimps Out on Tax Cuts" (Eric Alterman, Daily Beast):

It’s happening again. Barack Obama is punching the Republicans in the fist with his face. Almost in spite of themselves, Democrats won the public-opinion battle over extending the Bush tax cuts for Americans making a quarter of a million a year or more with strong majorities supporting their position. They did not have the nerve to hold this vote before the election, and now the nervous nellies appear to be getting ready to throw in the towel (or at least most of it). President Obama, on the other hand, ran for office on a pledge to extend the existing tax rates for families making less than $250,000 a year, while letting the tax cuts for those making over that number expire. The number of Americans lucky enough to earn this kind of money constitutes barely more than 2 percent of the population, though one can imagine they provide a much more impressive proportion of the funds that go into financing election campaigns, whether directly or by stealth.

I'm not really following the above issue this week. It's been a rough week session wise and I've felt wiped out repeatedly. I catch NPR but haven't really had time for the paper other than a few international stories.

So I grabbed the Alterman article for that reason and also because he's arguing that Barack has wimped out and, when it comes to wimps, I'm sure Alterman knows of what he writes. It's the perfect synergy of columnist and theme.

This has been such a long week and it's left me wondering exactly how much I can follow?

Meaning, I'm following the Iraq War (thanks to C.I. and her snapshots) and I'm trying to follow the Cat Food Comission.

The tax cuts is one of those issues that I just had to take off my plate because limited time means limited abilities to follow a story.

While I think it is an important issue and while I do not favor making Bush tax cuts permanent, I just have limited time. I think a lot of us do and we have to prioritize the news and follow based on that.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Wednesday, November 17, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, the State Dept nots violence against religious minorities, the stalemate continues in Iraq, a US general speaks of Iraq's (still not ready) Air Force and more. Today in DC, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted (link has text and video) a new department report on religion: Because we believe in religious freedom and because we are committed to the right of all people everywhere to live according to their beliefs without government interference and with government protection, we are troubled by what we see happening in many, many places. Religiou sfreedom is under threat from authoritarian regimes that abuse their own citizens. It is under threat from violent extremist groups that exploit and inflame sectarian tensions. It is under threat from the quiet but persistent harm caused by intolerance and mistrust which can leave minority religious groups vulnerable and marginalized. During the past year, al-Qaida issued calls for further violence against religious minorities in the Middle East. Sufi, Shia, and Ahmadiyya holy sites in Pakistan have been attacked. So was a Syriac Catholic Church in Baghdad just a few weeks ago. We received reports from China of government harassment of Tibetan Buddhists, house church Christians, and Uighur Muslims. And several European countries have placed harsh restrictions on religious expression. The new report is entitled "2010 Report on International Religious Freedom" and we'll note these basics on the Iraqi population from the report: The country has an area of 168,754 square miles and a population of approximately 28.9 million. According to statistics provided by the government, 97 percent of the population is Muslim. Shi'a Muslims--predominantly Arabs but also Turkmen, Faili (Shi'a) Kurds, and other groups--constitute a 60 to 65 percent majority. Arab and Kurdish Sunni Muslims make up 32 to 37 percent of the population; of these 18 to 20 percent are Sunni Kurds, 12 to 16 percent are Sunni Arabs, and the remaining 1 to 2 percent are Sunni Turkmen. Approximately 3 percent of the population is composed of Christians, Yezidis, Sabean-Mandaeans, Baha'is, Shabaks, Kaka'is (sometimes referred to as Ahl-e Haqq), and a very small number of Jews. Shi'a, although predominantly located in the south and east, are also a majority in Baghdad and have communities in most parts of the country. Sunnis form the majority in the west, center, and the north of the country. Reported estimates from leaders of the Christian population in 2003 ranged from 800,000 to 1.4 million. Current population estimates by Christian leaders range from 400,000 to 600,000. Approximately two-thirds of Christians are Chaldeans (an eastern rite of the Catholic Church), nearly one-fifth are Assyrians (Church of the East), and the remainder are Syriacs (Eastern Orthodox), Armenians (Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox), Anglicans, and other Protestants. Most Assyrian Christians are in the north, and most Syriac Christians are split among the Baghdad, Kirkuk, and Ninewa Provinces. Christian leaders estimated that as much as 50 percent of the country's Christian population lives in Baghdad, and 30 to 40 percent lives in the north, with the largest Christian communities located in and around Mosul, Erbil, Dohuk, and Kirkuk. The archbishop of the Armenian Orthodox Diocese reported that 15,000 to 16,000 Armenian Christians remained in the country, primarily in the cities of Baghdad, Basrah, Kirkuk, and Mosul. Evangelical Christians reportedly number between 5,000 and 6,000. They can be found in the northern part of the country, as well as in Baghdad, with a small number residing in Basrah. Yezidi leaders reported that most of the country's 500,000 to 600,000 Yezidis reside in the north, with 15 percent in Dohuk Province and the rest in Ninewa Province. Shabak leaders stated there are 400,000 to 500,000 Shabaks, who reside mainly in the north, near Mosul. Estimates of the size of the Sabean-Mandaean community vary widely; according to Sabean-Mandaean leaders, 3,500 to 7,000 remained in the country, reduced from an estimated 50,000 to 60,000 in 2003. The Baha'i leadership reported their members number fewer than 2,000 and are spread throughout the country in small groups. A sizable portion of the Jewish community, which once had a significant presence in the country, left in the years immediately following the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. Eight Jews remain in Baghdad, and none are known to live in other parts of the country. As of March 2010, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reported 223,000 active refugee cases for Iraqis living outside of the country and estimated that approximately 1.5 million Iraqis had fled and remain outside the country. In March 2010 the UNHCR reported that 58 percent of all registered Iraqi refugees (in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, and Egypt) were Sunni, 21 percent were Shi'a, 4 percent were nonspecified Muslim, 13 percent were Christian, 3 percent were Sabean-Mandaean, and fewer than 1 percent were Yezidi. As of April 2010, the Ministry of Migration and Displacement (MDD) had registered 1.55 million internally displaced persons since 2006. In March 2010 the UNHCR, using the UNHCR, MDD, and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) as sources, estimated there were 2.8 million internally displaced persons in the country. An estimated 59 percent of the internally displaced are Shi'a Muslims, 35 percent are Sunni Muslims, 5 percent are Christians, and fewer than 1 percent are Yezidis, according to the IOM. Alan Holdren (Catholic News Agency) observes, "The situation for Christians in Iraq is becoming bleaker. The violence directed against them is no longer limited to the captal city of Baghdad, but has been spreading throughout the country." Hadani Ditmars (Globe and Mail) reflects on the violence: When I met Maryam last spring, she was desperate. "Please help me get out of here," she pleaded. She was continually harassed, she told me, by her new neighbours, rural Shia Muslims who had come to Karradeh from the south after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. "They tell me I'm a bad woman, and that I will go to hell." But as Maryam tearfully blurted out her story of living alone as a virtual shut-in, terrorized by local militias and longing to join family members abroad, she already seemed to be in hell. Ditmars explains Maryam had left Iraq for Syria due to the violence but money issues ("her meagre United Nations stipend") forced her to return to Baghdad where she found the violence had neither vanished nor merely diminished. AP reports that Berlin's Interior Minister Ehrhart Koerting issued a call today for Germany to provide refuge to 2,500 Iraqi Christians. The current wave of violence targeting Iraqi Christians -- one in a long line of waves -- appears to have begun with the October 31st assault on Baghdad's Our Lady of Salvation Church. Father John Boyle (Caritas in Veritate) posts a letter from friends in Iraq who were in the church during the attack: The terrorists were in the Church from about 5 pm until 11 pm when their weapons ran out and they began to blow themselves up. They Iraqi Security forces were all the while standing outside paralysed with fear and confusion but by about 10 pm the security forces attacked the Church with huge fire power and no one knows how many innocent people they killed when they stormed the Church but by then most of the terrorist were already dead and they had run out of weapons to use. At about 1 am the army was sure that all of the terrorist were dead and that they had rescued any of the people who were still alive inside the Church. One army officer described the scene as follows; "I entered the Church and can hear loud screams of women and children but I could not see them because of the intense smoke, I then slipped and noticed that I slipped in a pool of blood just then I was hit by the most awful smell, it was a smell that I had become familiar with but it was nevertheless awful it was the terrible stench of death. I saw body parts, limbs and many bodies piled up at the entrance. The people there looked like they had been dead for sometime as their bodies had become quite stiff when we tried to move them". The link will also provide you with photos of the violence including the dead (and one of the two priests killed -- after he was killed; the one who was shot in the back of the head execution style). The Underground debunks two popular rumors about the motivation for the attacks. Alan Holdren (Catholic News Agency) quotes Father Firas Benoka stating, "There is a climate of terror that fills the Christian homes not only in Mosul and Baghdad, but also those on the plain of Nineveh." Holdren explains, "The plain of Nineveh, where Mosul is located, is one of the ancient cradles of Catholicism. The towns and villages that dot the plain are home to some of the world's original Christian communities, dating back nearly 2,000 years to the dawn of Christianity." Meanwhile Asia News interviews Monsignor George Basile Casmoussa, the Syrian Catholic Archbishop of Mosul, who notes that there is a "dangerous growth" in the attacks with people being assaulted "directly in their homes" and that Christians are first fleeing their own cities and some then take the step of fleeing Iraq. He states, "We are asking the United Nations to seriously discuss the issue of Iraqi Christians. To send a real commission for an inquiry. To put pressure on the Iraqi government to ensure attention and the highest security to churches and Christian villages. And to pursue the murderers, to the very end." On Monday, Today (BBC Radio) spoke with the Auxiliary Bishop of Birmingham William Kenny about the targeting of Iraqi Christians. Evan Davis: One of the priests who was killed in Iraq was a friend of yours and I gather you are in touch now regularly with other Christians who fear for their lives there. Bishop William Kenny: Yes, I am. I knew one of the priests quite well. I know his family. I've eaten dinner with them. I've been with them. They've been ringing me. It's a matter of sorrow. Evan Davis: And what are you able to tell them? What are you asking them of our government? Bishop William Kenny: What I'd ask of our government is a nuanced approach -- which is nearly always impossible. It's not as easy as saying, "Should the Christians leave or should they stay?" The situation -- as everything else in Iraq -- is terribly complicated. The sort of things I'd be looking for is -- as one of your interviewees said in the report -- alleviation of poverty, things to make it worthwhile to stay, even on an economic level. I would be looking for help for the many Christians who fled to Jordan and Syria because they are still on the borders. They will return should things better. And it must be in everybody's interest to make sure that they are not living in utter poverty -- otherwise, they will move. Evan Davis: But it will get better presumably only if the government of Iraq -- such as it is -- I say "such as it is" because it hasn't effectively had a government for a very long time. It does have now but it isn't doing anything or it appears not to be doing anything to help these people. Bishop William Kenny: Unfortunately I agree with you. Security is the major issue. Once people have got security, they can set about leading their own lives. At the moment that security doens't exist and the temptation must be enormous to flee. Evan Davis: Isn't there an argument -- at least for this government -- offering some of them some sort of asylum? Bishop William Kenny: I think there is. And I mean they're under perseuction, they are in need of protection. As I say, I don't think it's something where there's one element that will solve all cases. I think there needs to be a quite complicated package of the efforts put in to solve this problem. Evan Davis: Indeed but given that there's a limited amount a government like this can do, you think asylum for some might be the answer? Will the Archbishop -- your own Archbishop [Bernard Longley] -- support you in that, do you think? Bishop William Kenny: I think he would. I haven't spoken to him about the matter but I'm quite sure that that is quite possible. But also as I say help to keep the Christians where they are and to keep them in dignity. Moving over to the issue of the government in Iraq, a power-sharing deal supposedly will result in a government being formed. Ahmed Habib (ZNet) shares some opinions on the politicians: From Al Maliki and Allawi, one can also get a sense of the entire Iraqi political spectrum that is killing its way to power. Different variations of religious fundamentalism, ultranationalism, hyperactive capitalism, and incompetency define democracy in the country. And despite their differences in delivery, the outcome is still the same: greater suffering for the people of Iraq. Al Sadr, Al Chalabi, Talibani, Al Dulaimi, Al Hakim, Al Alousi and Al Jaafari are just some of the crooks that have terrorized Iraq for the better part of the last decade. The solution to Iraq's woes goes beyond its borders, stretching from the impoverished streets of Cairo, over the Apartheid wall in Palestine, and all the way to the coalition killing fields near Kabul. Without an internationalist and radical awakening in the fields and factories of Iraq, the people will continue to be victims to the vote. Without a concerted central effort to rebuild the country's infrastructure, Iraqis will continue to live in near apocalyptic conditions, waiting hopelessly for their imminent death. Without control of the country's resources, Iraq will operate infinitely as a one stop shop for vultures vying for easy profits. One could argue that choosing a government is a necessary precursor for all these things to take place, but the mechanisms that govern Iraq are far away from the hands of the government. Elected officials are nothing more than glorified pimps that are holding down Iraq's head while it is being violated by dozens of dollar driven demons. In the absence of a progressive, radical, grassroots political program, the death of Iraq will continue to evolve from one election booth to the next. March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board noted in August, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." 163 seats are needed to form the executive government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher -- 163 is the number today but the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance -- this coalition still does not give them 163 seats. November 10th a power sharing deal resulted in the Parliament meeting for the second time and voting in a Speaker. And then Iraqiya felt double crossed on the deal and the bulk of their members stormed out of the Parliament. David Ignatius (Washington Post) explains, "The fragility of the coalition was dramatically obvious Thursday as members of the Iraqiya party, which represents Sunnis, walked out of Parliament, claiming that they were already being double-crossed by Maliki. Iraqi politics is always an exercise in brinkmanship, and the compromises unfortunately remain of the save-your-neck variety, rather than reflecting a deeper accord. " After that, Jalal Talabani was voted President of Iraq. Talabani then named Nouri as the prime minister-delegate. If Nouri can meet the conditions outlined in Article 76 of the Constitution (basically nominate ministers for each council and have Parliament vote to approve each one with a minimum of 163 votes each time and to vote for his council program) within thirty days, he becomes the prime minister. If not, Talabani must name another prime minister-delegate. . In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister-delegate. It took eight months and two days to name Nouri as prime minister-delegate. His first go-round, on April 22, 2006, his thirty day limit kicked in. May 20, 2006, he announced his cabinet -- sort of. Sort of because he didn't nominate a Minister of Defense, a Minister of Interior and a Minister of a Natioanl Security. This was accomplished, John F. Burns wrote in "For Some, a Last, Best Hope for U.S. Efforts in Iraq" (New York Times), only with via "muscular" assistance from the Bush White House. Nouri declared he would be the Interior Ministry temporarily. Temporarily lasted until June 8, 2006. This was when the US was able to strong-arm, when they'd knocked out the other choice for prime minister (Ibrahim al-Jaafari) to install puppet Nouri and when they had over 100,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. Nouri had no competition. That's very different from today. The Constitution is very clear and it is doubtful his opponents -- including within his own alliance -- will look the other way if he can't fill all the posts in 30 days. As Leila Fadel (Washington Post) observes, "With the three top slots resolved, Maliki will now begin to distribute ministries and other top jobs, a process that has the potential to be as divisive as the initial phase of government formation." Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) points out, "Maliki now has 30 days to decide on cabinet posts - some of which will likely go to Iraqiya - and put together a full government. His governing coalition owes part of its existence to followers of hard-line cleric Muqtada al Sadr, leading Sunnis and others to believe that his government will be indebted to Iran." The stalemate ends when the country has a prime minister. It is now eight months, ten days and counting. Ned Parker's "Iraqi prime minister celebrates Eid holiday in palatial setting" (Los Angeles Times) paints Little Nouri as the "new Saddam." Excerpt: Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki sat in a gilded chair Tuesday at the start of the three-day Muslim holiday Eid al-Adha, the festival of sacrifice. He rose to greet his guests in a newly furbished palace, built under the late dictator Saddam Hussein. Politicians came in their elegant dark suits; sheiks approached in their brown robes; generals marched in crisp uniforms, emblazoned with swords and epaulets. All kissed him twice on both cheeks. And Maliki smiled and whispered into their ears, or chuckled. Nouri and his crowd traffic in lies and, should you doubt that, Alusmaria TV reports, "National Alliance MP Hadi Al Amiri held the media responsible for creating tension over the government formation talks. The eight-month political debate in Iraq was normal and recurrent around the world, Al Amiri told Alsumaria News." It has set a new world record for longest time between an election and sitting a government -- but Amiri thinks he can lie and get away with it, he thinks can call it "normal" and it will be accepted as such -- probably accepted as such out of fear. Meanwhile Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reports that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani is stating, "I will not sign Tariq Aziz's death sentence. I will sign no death sentence at all, because as a social democrat, I'm against the death penalty." Talabani noted that Aziz is 70-years-old and an Iraqi Christian. Aziz was the Foreign Minister before the start of the US war. He grandstands very well; however, he didn't sign death warrants during his first term as president but that didn't stop the executions from taking place. Robert Dreyfuss (The Nation) pointed out at the end of last month, "The hanging judge in this particular kangaroo court is a former aide to Prime Minister Maliki, who ran for election on Maliki's misnamed State of Law coalition. It's clear that Maliki wants to use the execution of Tariq Aziz, a Roman Catholic, to build support for his party among the most extreme Shiite partisans. Like Maliki's support for the pre-election shenanigans in January, when Iran and Ahmed Chalabi maneuvered to exclude hundreds of legitimate candidates from running over charges of connections to the old Baath Party, Maliki wants to wave the bloody shirt of Tariq Aziz to rally his supporters. The fact that he's not a Muslim makes that even more popular among Shiite radicals." Vivian Salma (Bloomberg News) notes, "The Vatican asked the Iraqi government to spare Aziz, citing the Roman Catholic Church's objection to the death penalty." In the United States, US House Rep Patrick Murphy's office has issued the following press release: (Washington, DC) -- In response to an inquiry from Pennsylvania Congressman Patrick Murphy (D-8th District), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is clarifying their official policy to ensure that veterans who serve in Iraq as part of Operation New Dawn receive the full range of benefits to which they should be entitled. In September, Murphy sent a letter to the VA Secretary Eric Shinseki expressing his concern regarding the impact that the name change from Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) to Operation New Dawn could have on our servicemembers and veterans' benefits. Murphy's concern stemmed from the fact that some benefits are tied directly to service in OIF but that the danger inherent in deploying to Iraq -- despite the official end of combat operations -- qualified New Dawn veterans for benefits equal to those who served in OIF. He called on Secretary Shinseki to ensure that veterans who serve in Operation New Dawn receive benefits that were previously tied directly to service in OIF. "As a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, I am acutely aware of the dangers all soldiers face when deployed in theater. Therefore, I respectfully request clarification as to whether these remaining troops and others who deploy to complete operations in Iraq and Afghanistan after conclusion of OIF and OEF will still be eligible for veterans benefits that are attached to OIF or OEF service," Murphy wrote. In response, Secretary Shinseki reviewed VA regulations and clarified that troops who serve in Operation New Dawn will be eligible for benefits that pertain to OIF, preventing any possible obstacles to veterans receiving the benefits that they have earned. Shinseki thanked Murphy for bringing their attention to this issue and for the Congressman's "distinguished service and continued work on behalf of our Nation's Veterans." Back to Iraq, US Brig Gen Jeffrey Buchanan spoke with AFP, "Iraq, which has no combat aircraft, will be vulnerable to an air attack for at least a year after Amercian troops leave at the end of 2011, the spokesman for US forces in the country said on Wednesday." And what's he want to do about it? Since 2007 -- check the archives -- we've noted the Iraqi Air Force wouldn't be ready by the end of 2011 -- in fact, back then, it wouldn't be ready until at least 2014. From the June 14, 2007 snapshot: The Pentagon report has many sections and one of interest considering one of the 2007 developments may be this: "There are currently more than 900 personnel in the Iraqi Air Force. . . . The fielding of rotary-wing aircraft continued with the delivery to Taji of five modified UH II (Iroquois) helicopters, bringing the total delivered to ten. The final six are scheduled to arrive in June. Aircrews are currently conducting initial qualifications and tactics training. The Iroquois fleet is expected to reach initial operation capability by the end of June 2007." By the end of June 2007? One of the developments of 2007 was the (admission of) helicopter crashes. US helicopters. British helicopters. Some may find comfort in the fact that evacuations and mobility will be handled by Iraqis . . . whenever they are fully staffed and trained. Four years plus to deliver the equipment, training should be done in ten or twenty years, right? Buchanan's idea of "ready" may simply mean combat planes purchased arrive. In July 2009, Elisabeth Bumiller wrote a major article on this subject "Iraq Can't Defend Its Skies by Pullout Date, U.S. Says" (New York Times): The Iraqis will be unable to handle their own air defenses after all American troops withdraw from the country by the end of 2011, the top commander of American forces in Iraq said Tuesday. Gareth Porter (go to Dissident Voice which won't try to hide the report) covered new ground with his scoop this week detailing how the White House has actively been working to decieve the US voters into believing the Iraq War would end when, in fact, it would not. NSC-er Puneet Talwar was dispatched to offer Iraq 15,000 US troops after the end of 2011 'withdrawal' and to explain that the would simply shove these 15,000 under the US Embassy to hide the remainders. From the article: Talwar's remarks suggest the Obama administration was planning to adopt a ruse to keep combat troops in Iraq after the expiration of the U.S.-Iraq troop withdrawal agreement on December 31, 2011, while assuring the U.S. public that all U.S. troops had been pulled out by the deadline. It's an important article about a War Hawk who attempted to put one over on the citizens. We'll note the article all week in the snapshots and that may include noting the one mistake Gareth Porter made in his report. (It's minor.) Here's another excerpt from the article: When the Iraqi participants in the September 23 meeting asked how many troops might be left in Iraq, Talwar said preferably one brigade but that it could be two brigades. When asked how many soldiers that would mean per brigade, however, the NSC official said the number could be open-ended. An Iraqi military official told Talwar the military understood the minimum number of troops needed for a self- contained U.S. combat force was 15,000 to 28,000. They asked Talwar whether the U.S. could keep at least 15,000 in the country, and Talwar answered that it was possible. Each U.S. combat brigade team has 3,500 to 4,000 troops. Thus the 15,000 regular combat troops discussed as a possible post-2011 troop presence would represent between three and four brigades. We'll close with a book plug: David Swanson, author of "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union," which rose to #1 among nonfiction books on Amazon.com the day it was published, will publish a new book called "War Is A Lie" on Monday, November 22nd and encourage readers to purchase it that day on Amazon. More information as well as a variety of audio and eBooks, and bulk purchasing are available at http://warisalie.org WAR IS A LIE is a thorough refutation of every major argument used to justify wars, drawing on evidence from numerous past wars, with a focus on those wars that have been most widely defended as just and good. This is a handbook of sorts, a manual to be used in debunking future lies before future wars have a chance to begin. "David Swanson despises war and lying, and unmasks them both with rare intelligence. I learn something new on every page." — Jeff Cohen, founder of FAIR and author of Cable News Confidential. "While Americans elect leaders whom they trust are honest, truthful and really care about the kids they send to kill for our country, War Is A Lie reveals decade after decade the sordid side of our history — that our elected officials lie us into war with stunning and embarrassing regularity and are little concerned about the harm to innocent civilians, much less to members of our own military." — Colonel (retired) Ann Wright, author of Dissent: Voices of Conscience. Table of Contents Introduction 7 1. Wars Are Not Fought Against Evil 15 2. Wars Are Not Launched in Defense 47 3. Wars Are Not Waged Out of Generosity 86 4. Wars Are Not Unavoidable 106 5. Warriors Are Not Heroes 131 6. War Makers Do Not Have Noble Motives 168 7. Wars Are Not Prolonged for the Good of Soldiers 196 8. Wars Are Not Fought on Battlefields 212 9. Wars Are Not Won, and Are Not Ended By Enlarging Them 235 10. War News Does Not Come From Disinterested Observers 250 11. War Does Not Bring Security and Is Not Sustainable 267 12. Wars Are Not Legal 291 13. Wars Cannot Be Both Planned and Avoided 312 14. War Is Over If You Want It 323 Notes 337 Index 352 Acknowledgments 369 About the Author 371 "This book is every American's best defense against the greatest danger we face as human beings: the threat of war. Swanson reveals how American leaders (from both major political parties) have confused the public to create the illusion of consent for endless destruction and slaughter. Behind the fear-mongering, flag-waving and lies of George W. Bush and the blandishments of Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama lies the ugly reality that our leaders have been seduced by political ambition, delusions of military superiority, and the promise of secrecy and impunity to commit otherwise unthinkable crimes." — Nicolas J. S. Davies, Author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq. "David Swanson is an antidote to the toxins of complacency and evasion. He insists on rousing the sleepwalkers, confronting the deadly prevaricators and shining a bright light on possibilities for a truly better world." — Norman Solomon, author of War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. "This book is revolutionary, and certainly truth-telling in a remarkable and brave way. The writing is so clear and easy-to-read, too. A pleasure to read, except that the content is so devastating, because it all means that not only are we utterly deceived but our entire reality is based on that deception. Swanson has gotten to the core of something. The only thing is I'm not sure he realizes how hopeless it is to expect a change -- and yet that is part of the appeal of his writing: his hopefulness in the face of lies and repression and denial." — Jennifer Van Bergen, author of The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America. "War Is A Lie is an important and compelling book that arrives at a time when America is engaged in its longest running war to date. Swanson offers an incisive examination of the rationalizations, justifications, and outright lies that have led the United States, and other nations, into battle. And he shows the personal cost to the current generation of combatants returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan." — Cynthia Wachtell, author of War No More: The Antiwar Impulse in American Literature 1861-1914. "David Swanson has taken the mantle of AJ Muste, who had the guts and the audacity to declare World War II to have been unnecessary and wrong. Swanson takes Muste's argument further to make the audacious claim that all wars are not just unnecessary, but a crime. He is correct, of course. Just as no good outcome (whether the ouster of a tyrant or the freeing of captive nations) can compensate for the death of millions of innocents, which of course is the argument made in defense of calling World War II a 'good' war, no good (whether the ousting of a tyrant or the claimed improvement in the rights of oppressed women) can compensate for the death of hundreds of thousands of innocents in Iraq or of tens of thousands of innocents in Afghanistan. This is a book that every American should read, especially those who think the United States is the good guy." — Dave Lindorff , journalist, author of The Case for Impeachment, and founder of the online newspaper ThisCantBeHappening! REVIEWS, INTERVIEWS, TOUR DATES Swanson is planning a very limited book tour, including an event in Los Angeles on December 9, 2010. For more information or to request a review copy or an interview, contact david@davidswanson.org http://warisalie.org -- David Swanson is the author of "War Is A Lie" and needs your help to make it #1 on Amazon on November 22: http://warisalie.org http://davidswanson.org http://warisacrime.org http://facebook.com/pages/David-Swanson/297768373319 http://twitter.com/davidcnswanson http://youtube.com/afterdowningstreet iraq the globe and mail hadani ditmars father john boyle the washington post leila fadel the nation robert dreyfuss bbc news the new york times elisabeth bumiller the los angeles times ned parker alsumaria tv