Kevin Zeese and his Tiny Penis

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Mary Pops Back"



My credit for the above? I laughed while Isaiah and C.I. were riffing on sequels to Disney films. Then at the end, Isaiah asked, "Would you really like a movie comic?" I said, "When haven't I loved those?" So he ended up drawing one of the ideas he and C.I. had been joking about.

Now to Kevin Zeese and his Tiny Penis. I've had with the crap. I've had it with Kevin Zeese and all the other fat f**ks who can't do a damn thing.

Cleaning the cheese off his tiny head, Kevin was left with bits of smegma he dubbed a column "Bradley Manning Is Punished for Seeking a More Perfect Union" -- really, Kev?

I think he's been eating his own smegma again.

"Bradley Manning Is Punished for Seeking a More Perfect Union" is no help to Bradley. See, Kev wants you to know that he's read government snitch and convicted felon Adrian Llamo's interviews and alleged transcripts of chats with Bradley and, by Llamo's telling, Bradley leaked to WikiLeaks because . . .

Stop right there. Bradley's not said he leaked and no court has found that he leaked. So why the hell is Kevin Zeese screaming in his title -- in that shrill voice -- a statement that backs up the case the prosecution will present?

Because Kevin Zeese is a f**king moron.

If you doubt that, read on. Oh, look, there he is, taking on . . .

Hillary Clinton.

Remember when fat ass Kev spent 2008 trashing Hillary? Even after the primaries?

Smegma Boi doesn't like women, does he?

But he loves to be a spineless coward.

Let me make it real clear for the cowards like Kev:

IF YOU WANT TO CRITICIZE CONYERS AND OTHERS IN CONGRESS FOR NOT STANDING UP, THEN YOU NEED TO BE WILLING TO STAND UP.

Meaning, Kev, should have stood up to Barack a long damn time ago. Now he's happy to go on the radio and tell you what Ralph Nader said in private. But he's not happy to talk about what he really thinks of Barack. (Yes, Kev, I have read your e-mails to Kat.)

He's a pathetic, little, tiny-dicked wimp.

Hillary Clinton?

She didn't put Bradley behind bars.

She's Secretary of State.

But smegma boi is too busy drooling over Barack to call out the Asshole who is responsible for Bradley being behind bars.

See that, Smegma Kev? I just called Barack an "asshole." Did you notice that the sky didn't fall in? Did you notice that the world didn't end?

Maybe someday you can find some bravery. But before you can find that, you'll have to locate your penis. Keep reaching around down there, I'm sure you'll find it in a few hours.



"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Monday, March 7, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, Nouri continues to demonstrates how he yearns to be just like Saddam Hussein, political parties in Baghdad (that worked on the protests) are driven out of their headquarters on Nouri's orders, Ayad Allawi declares it "a joke" to call Iraq a democracy, and more. There has been the Day of Rage, the Day of Dignity and, today, the Day of Regret. Alsumaria TV reports that Iraqis demonstrated in Baghdad today on the one-year-anniversary of the March 7, 2010 elections which were supposed to bring about a new government but somehow allowed Nouri to remain as prime minister and Jalal Talabani to remain as president -- no changes and, one year after the election, Nouri still hasn't formed a full Cabinet and the Ministers of Interior, Defense and National Security remain filled 'temporarily' by Nouri himself. AFP reports that people had ink stained fingers -- the photo shows red ink -- and that there were approximately 500 shouting "Yes, yes to democracy!" and "Maliki, liar!" Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) explains that the the red fingers were "a parody of the purple-stained fingers they proudly displayed last year as proof that they had voted on election day." DPA counts 200 demonstrators in Baghdad and "hundreds" in Falluja where chants included "WE WILL NOT VOTE AGAIN, THEY STOLE OUR VOICES" and 'BROTHERS, SUNNIS AND SHIITES, WE WILL NOT SELL OUR COUNTRY." AGI notes Falluja protesters included "intellectuals, tribal leaders and unemployed people". Alsumaria TV also reports, "Iraqi security forces banned media from covering manifestations live on air." This continues the long pattern of attacking journalism that we saw most recently, yesterday, with the military and police forcing the Communist Party to leave their Baghad headquarters where they publish the Party's newspaper and, on Friday, the physical attack on five journalists (attacked by Iraqi security forces) who were attempting to cover a demonstration. Ayad Allawi told Al Jazeera that Iraq doesn't have a democracy and used as one example "what happened to the Communist Party yesterday." What did happen yesterday? Aswat al-Iraq notes the claims by Nouri that the government owns the building the Communist Party is in and that is why they were targeted. No, that's not believable. As noted before, among those organizing protests in Iraq has been the Communist Party. On Friday (The Day of Dignity), Iraq saw more protests. Many efforts were made to try to cut down on the protests. The Worker-Communist Party of Iraq issued a press release (it's in Arabic) Friday noting that you couldn't enter Baghdad from the north on Friday, the main gate had been shut. In addition, early Thursday, hotels on Batwaiyyin Street were ordered not to provide rooms to young people because they might be protesters. It noted that Iraqi forces in "heavy" combat gear stormed Tahrir Square Tuesday night at 9:20 Baghdad time and that on Friday, Hummers and other security vehicles surrounded Tahrir Square. These efforts to cut down on the protests were made by Nouri al-Maliki. (Note, you can click here for the English lanaguage version of the site; however, it is not up to date and you won't find any of the many press released issued in the last few weeks.) The Communist Party's efforts to organize protests have not gone unnoticed. And in "free" Iraq, that means you make Nouri's hit list. Dar Addustour reports that the Communist Party headquarters in Baghdad -- where the party produces their newspaper, among other things -- were forcibly evacuated early Sunday morning with Iraqi troops surrounded the bulding and insisting they required no judicial orders to do what they were doing. The Communist Party's Jassim Hilfi states that Iraqi police and Iraqi military took part in the operation. Hilfi notes that they have paperwork demonstrating they have the right to be there -- real estate documents. Al Mada reports on the forced evacuation and notes the Communist Party was provided with no reasons as to why they were being thrown out or why the Iraqi military was involved in the operation. Again, the Communist Party produces their newspaper there. On Friday, at least five journalists were attacked in Basra by security forces. There are ongoing attacks on the press. With what's known at present, it would appear likely that the Communist Party is being punished both for their role in organizing the (legitimate) protest and for attempting to exercise their free press rights via their newspaper. Alqanat notes Nouri issued the order in his role of Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces and that the Communist Party had a written agreement with the Ministry of Finance with regards to the building. It's also pointed out that Dawa (Nouri's political party) occupies many buildings illegally and that the Green Zone is nothing but an illegal occupation of buildings by Nouri and the ruling elite. The article also notes that the Communist Party saw much of their own property confiscated under Saddam Hussein's rule and that property -- even though Hussein's dead and gone -- has still not been returned. Shakir Noori (Gulf News) observes, "The Iraqi police surrounded the headquarters of the Communist party because some of its members were active participants in these protests and also coordinated with left wing parties. They demanded that the communist party should evacuate the area which they control during the American occupation." Michael S. Schmidt and Jack Healy (New York Times) add that the Iraqi Nation Party was also ordered to leave their headquarters on Sunday per Nouri and while "the Communists were told their builidngs were being requisitioned for government use, Mr. Alusi said he had received no explanation why he was being evicted." But he tells the reporters that members of the Dawa Party (again, Nouri's party) showed up last week attempting to get "him to align with them" and against the protesters. On the journalism aspect, Suha Sheikhly (Al Mada) adds that the Friday protests are leading people to ask if Iraq needs a national stop the violence campaign in order to protect journalists from Iraq's security forces? Ahmed al-Khafaji, Undersecretary for the Ministry of the Interior, issued a statement declaring that Iraq cannot succeed without a strong fourth estate (press) and that a free press is necessary and must be protected if Iraq is going to be a democracy and leave the era of dictatorships in the past. He called for the development of a "culture of human rights" among the people. Academic Dr. Kazem Mikdadi is quoted calling for a national campaign and stating that Article 38 of the country's Constitution must be respected (their free press clause) and he said that, too often, Iraqi police and Iraqi military do not see their job as protecting the protesters -- or their role as protectors of the people -- but instead they see themselves as protectors of those in power. And that is "free" Iraq via the illegal war, the US government and their installed puppets. Ayad Allawi has given a lengthy interview to Al Jazeera today where he repeatedly stated, "There is no power sharing" in the Iraqi government. Allawi's political slate was the winner of the March 7, 2010 elections; however, Nouri used his position as sitting prime minister to ensure he continued in that role. The United Nations should have installed a caretaker government. This was called for by many -- we called for it here -- because it was obvious Nouri was going to 'wait it out' until he got his way. The only thing that would have stopped his (abuse of) power to do that would be removing him from office. For over nine months, there was absolutely no progress. Then a power sharing agreement was brokered. Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) rightly observes today that this power sharing agreement "was brokered by US Vice President Joe Biden and backed up by Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani" and Arraf notes this interview Allawi gave Alsumaria TV yesterday where he states that Joe Biden personally asked him to step away from the "his claim to be prime minister" and to instead lead the National Security Council. Allawi told Al Jazeera today that there is no power sharing agreement any more "because our agreements have not been fulfilled including the National Council." He says it's "a big lie" and "a joke" to say Iraq has a democracy. While he says that, Michael S. Schmidt and Jack Healy (New York Times) note that "a year after the elections and three months after Iraq's leaders ended a long political standoff and formed a government, Mr. Maliki has not finalized his government and is still personally overseeing the powerful army and police forces." Okay, let's note the reality that throughout the nine months-plus, Nouri was deal making and horse trading. As we noted in real time, he was promising more positions in his Cabinet than he had. Which is why, when he became prime minister-designate in early November (officially on November 25th), it wasn't a surprise to discover he was creating new positions in an attempt to keep as many promises as he could. But the point in bringing that up today is no one had more chances than Nouri. Ayad Allawi was a prime minister in Iraq after the US invaded. So was Ibrahim al-Jaafari. But Nouri was the first prime minister of Iraq after the 2005 Constitution was law of the land (Nouri became prime minister-designate in April 2006; prime minister in May 2006). Meaning he knew all about the Cabinet, all about the deadlines, etc. He knew it not just in some read it and comprehend it way, he knew it from actually having to do it. And yet in November 2010, after months of deal making, he can't create a Cabinet? When he's the only one with experience in doing that? He can't create a Cabinet or he won't create a Cabinet? Because there is a difference. And as we've learned that he was lobbying the Supreme Court in December to turn over the independent bodies (Central Bank, Electoral Commission, committee that investigates corruption) to him and his control, as we've now learned that he's altered the rules so that now he claims only he has the right to introduce legislation to Parliament -- he's claiming that Parliament cannot write their own bill and pass it -- is it still looking like he just wasn't able to fill those posts? Or is it looking more and more like he may end up claiming those posts belong to the prime minister? While everyone was riding waves of Operation Happy Talk, we were calling out his inability to fill his Cabinet (and noting that his inability should have prevented him from moving from prime minister-designate to prime minister). But so many wanted to happy talk it and pretend that everything was wonderful. It's not looking so wonderful now. Omar (Iraq The Model) notes the apparent end of the power sharing agreement and observes, "Now Allawi is not naive. He knows very well that a) the Kurds will stick with Maliki with whom they have a strategic deal. He has so far given them what they wanted, including the right to resume oil exports, and b) the Sadrists and ISCI -- even if they ally with him -- will not allow him to become Prime Minister, as we saw druing 9 months of negotiations." Younis Omaima (Al-Alem) quotes an unnamed 'insider' who states that Allawi, seeing the spirit of protest spread across Iraq, has decided it is better at present to not be part of the government so many are condemning. Moh Hong'e (Xinhua) adds that 8 members of Iraqiya who serve in the Parliament have walked away from Iraqiya. Al Sabaah notes that Nouri al-Maliki met yesterday with a delegation of tribal leaders and officials from Nineveh and that Nouri insists issues with the ration cards program are being dealt with, that the government is listening to the demands of the people and that meeting these demands are everyone's job. Of course, he's also given lip service in recent days to the need for a free press -- while cracking down on the press. And he held his meeting and made his announcement about the ration card system at the same time that, Al Mada reports, MP Mona Amiri (National Alliance) held a press conference explaining that many of the trations in Diyala Province have been allowed to sit -- instead of being distributed -- and have now one bad. Amiri stated that 124 tons of fat were discovered, 400 tons of tea and an unspecified number of tons of beans. If they'd been distributed, the items would have helped the people. Now they've gone bad. Al Sabbah notes that Nouri a session of Parliament on Thursday about "achieving" reforms. Meanwhile the Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi is itemizing the demands according to the most pressing. Let's note a little more about Friday's protests. But, before we do, let's drop back to April 10, 2008, when the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing. The Chair made a number of points in his opening remarks. Chair Joe Biden: Last November, the President of the United States and Prime Minister Maliki of Iraq signed a Declaration of Principles what they referred to as a Declaration of Principles which set out what is referred to these days in Washington jargon and international jargon as a framework. It's interesting. I don't know. The good news to you all is that you have to explain it to other diplomats the bad news for us is that we have to explain it to ordinary, very smart Americans who don't understand the jargon and it's confusing so part of what I hope we can do is demystify some of what is being discussed here. So the Declaration of Principles set out a framework for our countries -- that is Iraq and the United States -- to negotiate -- by the end of July of this year -- agreements governing cooperation in political, economic and security spheres. And among other things, the Declaration contemplates "providing security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq to deter foreign aggression against Iraq" and supporting Iraq "in its efforts to combat all terrorist groups" -- including al Qaeda, Saddamists and "all other outlaw groups regardless of affiliation." Which means, all the folks fighting in Iraq and killing each other. So to average Americans and to slow senators like me that sends up a -- not one red flag but twenty-five red flags. I don't know any time we've had a Status Of Forces Agrement or an agreement not requiring Congressional approval that says 'Nor only are we going to talk and consult with you when it comes to whether or not you're going to be attacked from outside but we're going to consult with you the government on anything that may happen to you inside.' When, in fact, we don't know what the hell the government is -- 'heck' the government is 'inside.' . We've just witnessed "the government," Mr Maliki, a Shia of the Dawa Party engaging in a -- I'm not making a judgment -- engaging in using force against another Shia group that helped put him office -- the Sard operation -- along with -- So it gets pretty complicated for average Americans and average senators. [. . .] It also ignores the further startling pledge in the Declartion to support the Iraqi government in it's battle with "outlaw groups" so I assume that means any group that is at odds with the prime minister. Of Friday's protest, the Tehran Times reported: Thousands of people have converged on Baghdad's Tahrir, or Liberation, Square to protest against corruption and unemployment, despite a vehicle ban that forced many to walk for hours to the heart of the Iraqi capital. Al Jazeera's Jane Arraf reported from Baghdad that the situation was heading towards a stand-off, as security forces demanded the protesters leave, blocking their route across a bridge leading to the Green Zone, where the government has its base. Concrete blocks were set up by authorities on all of Baghdad's bridges ahead of the protests. "What we're seeing here is a bit of a test, of how the government will respond when these people clearly want their demands to be heard," Arraf said. Basra was where the journalists were attacked by Iraqi forces on Friday. The Committee to Protect Journalists noted: In Basra, anti-riots forces beat Haidar al-Mansouri, the head of the Journalists' Syndicate branch in Basra, according to Al-Sumaria News website; Nabil al-Jourani, an Associated Press photographer; Mohamed al-Rased, a cameraman for Al-Alam satellite TV channel; Muntazar al-Amer, reporter for Al-Mustaqbal online news agency; and Shehab Ahmed, correspondent for Baghdad News Agency while they were covering demonstrations. Al-Rased, al-Jourani, and al-Amer were taken to the hospital with various injuries. Al-Amer suffered a broken arm. Freelancer Majid al-Brekan told CPJ that officers appeared to specifically target the journalists. Aswat al-Iraq reports that al-Nasseriya saw "hundreds" of protesters -- male except for one lone female, Shaza al-Qaysi who states, "I protest with the others here to support their legitimate demands that are no longer confined to local boundaries but rather became national." She also notes the high rate of illiteracy among women in her region and literacy is among the calls she's making. While women outnumber men in al-Nasseriya, activist Hussein al-Ghozzi notes that the placards with demands contained no calls "for women's or children's rights". Michael Hoffman (Army Times) reported on another protest, one visible from the US Contingency Operating Base Delta: U.S. Army officers watched protesters in nearby Al Kut burn down the provincial governor's home during unrest that turned violent Feb. 17. The officers watched via drone feeds broadcast into the tactical operations center on base. Reports rolled in that three protesters died and more than 50 were injured. U.S. Army leaders here couldn't do much more than watch. That shouldn't be misconstrued as callousness, said Lt. Col. J. Bryan Mullins, commander of 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment's 2nd Squadron. U.S. soldiers deployed to Iraq live under a new set of rules since the start of Operation New Dawn and the end of the combat mission in August. In that April 10, 2008 hearing, Biden noted that the US military was being asked "to take sides in Iraq's civil war" and that "there is no Iraqi government that we know of that will be in place a year from now -- half the government has walked out. Just understand my frustration. We want to normalize a government that really doesn't exist." And without the US military, Nouri falls flat. Now the US military stands by while protesters die at the hand of the 'government.' How much longer are they forced to stay in Iraq? Do they next have to start killing the protesters? The situation's already reached Biden's worst case scenario. The only thing left at this point is for the US military to now be used to force down the protesters. Again, to the April 2008 hearing. Chair Joe Biden: Yet this security arrangement envisions at a minimum, we will consider protecting the government because that's what we're talking about right now the government against threats both internal and external. What would happen if tomorrow, the Maliki government decided that the Awakening was a threat? I predict to my colleagues, that may cross his mind, and decides that he is going to move with Iraqi forces -- primarily Shia -- against an element of the Awakening, the Sunnis, in a remote part of Anbar Province, gets tied down, just like he did in Basra What is the expectation do you think of the government of Iraq that we would use as we did in Basra, helicopters, we would use intelligence data, we would use communications, we would use -- you know -- we would coordinate with him? I would suspect that would be the expectation and then what happens when the United States doesn't? What happens to those forces of ours that are sitting on the ground? This is a bad idea. As Nouri's despotic colors begin to show, some take notice. The Washington Post's editorial board noted Sunday, "Some worry that is where Mr. Maliki is headed. As The Post's Stephanie McCrummen reported , some of the repression has been carried out by black-suited special forces under his command. Thanks to a favorable court decision, the prime minister has been moving to take control of electoral authorities and other previously independent bodies. Mr. Allawi announced that he was withdrawing from a national policy council because Mr. Maliki had not followed through on promises to give it real authority." Over the weekend, protests continued in the Kurdish region and Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports that overnight (Saturday night/Sunday morning) "masked" assailants set fire to the tents protesters were using in Sulaimaniya but that did not deter hundreds from protesting today and, in yet another attack on the press, Dank Radio was attacked and equipment stolen or destroyed. In other news, Wael Grace (Al Mada) reports that Baghdad vendors and shopkeepers joke about suing Facebook as a result of the lack of business resulting from the curfew imposed by Nouri over the protest. (Facebook was one of the tools used to get the word out on yesterday's rallies.) David Ali (Al Mada) adds that Osama al-Nujaifi, Speaker of Parliament, held a news conference today announcing that the Parliament had received reports back from the protests as a result of various MPs being present in their own provinces Friday. He's calling for investigations and committees. Meanwhile, Aswat al-Iraq informs, Moqtada al-Sadr says he'll protest . . . if nothing changes . . . in six months. Was Moqtada al-Sadr sent back to Iraq by his Iranian handlers solely to tamp down on the protests? It would appear so. Government can't clean up the streets but al-Sadr's turned his followers into sanitation workers. New Sabah reports that in Karbala, al-Sadr's followers took to the streets, on his orders, to clean up the streets. Next up, he'll have them out at Baghdad Airport selling flowers and serving up recruitment literature. In violence, Reuters notes that a Baghdad roadside bombing left two people injured while Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports 1 high school student and 1 college student were shot dead in Baghdad. What has the US government accomplished in Iraq? It's taught Iraqis how to be wasteful. Mahmood al-Bachary (New York Times' At War) reports on the ways in which some Iraqis ape the Americans they see: It seems as though many Iraqis have been influenced by the American style of eating. They hold their sandwiches and drinks as if they are Americans on duty. Americans put food in nylon or plastic disposable containers, which they throw away after using them once. This is a new and strange way for us, but we now see that the use of disposable containers has become widespread. Some of the shops that sell such containers and disposable spoons have become very popular, and even in our culture it is obvious that they are used more. You see that food is served in such containers at weddings and events. You see that food is being served to guests on plastic plates, with plastic spoons and paper napkins, and that guests welcome the change. This is welcomed particularly by women, because they don't need to wash the dishes. Even during the month of Muharram, when people give out food, they do so using disposable containers, something that was not a familiar sight before the American invasion. Even soldiers during Saddam's time used to use proper plates and wash them after use. But today, you see that food served to Iraqi soldiers is done in the same way as it is served to American soldiers. Turning to the US and reposting from Third's editorial on Sunday: Political prisoner Bradley Manning is now being forced to sleep in the nude. Ed Pilkington (Guardian) reports, "The lawyer for Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of having leaked a massive trove of US state secrets to WikiLeaks, has accused his military jailers at the marine base in Quantico, Virginia, of ritually humiliating his client by stripping him naked in his cell every night." Ellen Nakashima (Washington Post) quotes the Quantico spokesperson 1st Lt Brian Villiard insisting, "The intention is not to cause any sort of humiliation or embarrassment. The intention is to ensure the safety and security of the detainee and make sure he is able to stand trial." Nakashima adds, "Villiard said he could not explain how Manning might harm himself if he were allowed to keep his underwear, citing rules to protect detainees' privacy." He can't explain it because there's no way too. But taking the Stupidity Cup was US Senator John Kerry who tells NECN (link has text and video), "There are concerns about what is happening, but a strong argument is being made that they're trying to preserve his safety, they don't want him harming himself, and using his own clothing to hang himself, or do something like that." Oh, go brush that weird hair, Kerry. Let's toss out two words: Disposable scrubs. Now if you're really out of date and never do anything for yourself and are John Kerry's age, you may not be familiar with those terms or with this one: Disposable, paper scrubs. That's right. There's no reason for Bradley to be naked. Except to punish him. Except to make an example of him. If you're not getting it, think about your last doctor's visit. Did you maybe put on a paper gown for the examination? Yeah. And the military could go to any medical supply company and puchase those. But apparently they're either interested in humiliating Bradley or just need to get their jollies studying up on his wang. The Third editorial was written by many: The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz), Ruth of Ruth's Report, Wally of The Daily Jot, Trina of Trina's Kitchen, Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ, Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends, Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts, Ann of Ann's Mega Dub. Bradley's attorney David E. Coombs (at Bradley Manning Support Network) explains: There is no mental health justification for the decision. There is no basis in logic for this decision. PFC Manning is under 24 hour surveillance, with guards never being more than a few feet away from his cell. PFC Manning is permitted to have his underwear and clothing during the day, with no apparent concern that he will harm himself during this time period. Moreover, if Brig officials were genuinely concerned about PFC Manning using either his underwear or flip-flops to harm himself (despite the recommendation of the Brig's psychiatrist) they could undoubtedly provide him with clothing that would not, in their view, present a risk of self-harm. Indeed, Brig officials have provided him other items such as tear-resistant blankets and a mattress with a built-in pillow due to their purported concerns. The Brig's treatment of PFC Manning is shameful. It is made even more so by the Brig hiding behind concerns for "[PFC] Manning's privacy." There is no justification, and there can be no justification, for treating a detainee in this degrading and humiliating manner. Retired Col Ann Wright (War Is A Crime) compares the treatment of Bradley to that of Corey Moore who was found to have mutilated an Afghan civilian's corpse and attacked a member of his own unit -- both of which will be dealt with without time behind bars and "Moore did not face charges of killing the person whose corpse he defiled by stabbing. None of the soldiers so far convicted were accused of murdering Afghan civilians." iraq alsumaria tv dpa al sabaah the tehran times jane arraf aswat al iraq army times michael hoffman al mada suha sheikhly cnn mohammed tawfeeq the third estate sunday review the washington post stephanie mccrummen al mada wael grace david ali new sabah

On Damon and Betty

"Matt Damon Proves He Is Too Stupid To Be Allowed To Criticize Sarah Palin" (Hillary Is 44):

Matt Damon is the sort of boob who said in 2008 of Obama, “I think a lot of the problems in the world would be mitigated if he were the face of our country.” Really Matt? Take a look around you boy, it’s bound to scare you boy.

Matt Damon is the sort of boob who endorsed flim-flam man Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton! By contrast, Rob Reiner (”meathead” of Archie Bunker fame) endorsed Hillary Clinton over the Chicago boob and flim-flam man and politely said this about Obama: “he just doesn’t have the experience yet. …We can’t afford on-the-job training at this point. We have got to have somebody, when they get into the White House, (who can) hit the ground running.”

Who’s the meathead?

Matt Damon's an idiot who has seen his career tank. 30 Rock, really? True Grit? Where he has a supporting part and most of the jokes (yes, C.I. was the first to start them but you hear them all over now) are about how he plays Kim Darby's role. (If you've seen the original, that is hilarious.)

He's like George Clooney, they're both dead. They're limp. They're lifeless. No one cares about them as their box office failures demonstrate over and over.

Now Matt's starting to grasp that, to grasp that being seen as Clooney's boi isn't a good thing and thinks he can micromanage his way out of failure. It's too late.

He never should have ran with Clooney. Damon could have had some political integrity, instead he was just a Whore for the Democratic Party which is all Clooney is. That's why Damon was one of the War Hawks on Sudan -- though he himself never grasped that. He's just not an intelligent person. In fact, he's honestly kind of stupid. Ben Affleck's the smarter of the two and able to think on his feet and then some.

I am noting the above because Betty didn't realize Hillary Is 44 had a new post when she posted last night. So she e-mailed me and asked if I could work it in? Of course.

In fact, I want to write about Betty for this journal entry.

This was a tough week for Betty.

In 2005, Betty started her website. She did a lot planning and studying ahead of time. She spent weeks, in fact. When she started it, it was a comic novel where each entry was a chapter. It was the story of one woman, Betinna.

She was able to comment on globilzation and war and many other topics using that frame.

In 2007, Betty began supporting Hillary in the Democratic Party primary. As the attacks on Hillary intesified, in 2008, Betty turned her site into a blog, dropped Betinna. She did that to argue for Hillary's campaign and to defend Hillary from the attacks.

A lot of her readers -- from the old days -- miss Betinna. Some of her newer ones do as well (they've gone through her archives). So she was asked to bring back Betinna.

She put it off but it kept happening, the requests, so she plotted out a way to pick up where it left off. Then she started it back up last week.

She has added many readers since becoming a blog in 2008. These readers did not want Betinna.

They wanted Betty.

Betty announced this week ("El Spirito Sunday") that she was retiring Betinna from the blog due to complaints (she didn't use the term complaints). She'll now take Betinna's story to a community newsletter.

If you're one of the ones who complained, you cheated yourself. Betty's writing is very funny in the novel. I do know how Betinna was brought back. She was brought back due to a mystical incident and she was now going to have martial arts training. This was going to allow her to take on bigger targets than Thomas Friedman. She will still do that, but in El Spirito and, if you're not a community member, you won't be able to read it. Your loss.

I just really was offended to read Betty's post because let's say you really didn't like Betinna? You really didn't know the character. You didn't give it time. Betinna was just coming out of something (she'd been pushed off a roof and then there was a period of time that could have been hours or days -- it was months, we will find out Sunday -- and that was when the rebirth took place). If you'd been patient, you would have seen how great it was about to get.

So, as a reader, I'm offended.

As a person, I'm offended that anyone would be so rude. If you really like Betty's writing and she's just brought Betinna back (I believe there were four chapters Betty posted), I think your admiration for her past writing, should have resulted in your being patient and giving what Betty was doing a chance. That really strikes me as rude because Betty had shared how happy and excited she was to be bringing back Betinna.

Were it me, I would have either stuck with Betinna or used it as my exit -- as in, "Since you're unhappy with what I'm writing, I think this is a good time for me to bow out."



"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Friday, March 4, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, protests take place across Iraq, Iraqi forces attack journalists in Basra, Mosul demonstrators are threatened with a number forced back into their homes, the US government remains largely silent on the protests, the political situation in Iraq continues to resemble a square dance and more. KUNA reports, "Thousands of Iraqi demonstrators are flowing to Baghdad and other Iraqi cities in what is called 'Friday of Dignity' in protest against poor services and boringly sluggish efforts against alleged corruption and fraud in Iraq." Prashant Rao (AFP) reports that, today, "a crowd of about 2,000 people had descended Baghdad's Tahrir Square by early afternoon, another 1,000 gathered i the southern city of Nasiriyah and about 300 were in the central city of Hilla." AGI notes, "The protesters mostly arrived on foot because of a ban on the movement of vehicles in the square." Bushra Juhi and Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) note Bahjat Talib had to stop at eight checkpoints to get from the Sadr City section of Baghdad to Tahrir Square and they quote him stating, "Our country is lost and for the last eight years the government has failed to offer services for people. Thousands of youths are without jobs." In Nineveh Province, the Dar Addustour live screen crawl noted, protesters have again demanded that the release of detainees and the expulsions of US forces from the country. Al Rafidayn adds security forces in Nineveh used water cannons and batons to disperse the crowd. American University Cairo's Firas al-Atraqchi Tweeted this observation about the Iraqi protests: Thing about today's #Iraq protests is that they happened despite general curfew #Baghdad #karbala #Basra #Mosul #Najaf #Nasiriyah #diwaniya about 2 hours ago via web The Day of Dignity follows last week's Day of Rage which saw protests across Iraq with demonstrators often attacked by police leaving less than 30 dead and hundreds injured. The attacks were not just on the demonstrators, Iraqi forces also attacked the press. Physically attacked the press. The groundwork for that physical attack was laid by Nouri who ordered forces to bust into news outlets and journalistic organizations in the days prior to last Friday's Day of Rage. In addition, Nouri also outlawed live broadcasts from Baghdad on that Friday. Through his actions, he sent the message that his government did not respect or support a free press and his thugs then acted accordingly -- in one instance, barging into a Baghdad restaurant and physically attacking four journalists who were eating lunch, beating them in the heads with the butts of their rifles and then arresting them. Stephanie McCrummen (Washington Post) reminds, "Witnesses in Baghdad and as far north as Kirkuk described watching last week as security forces in black uniforms, tracksuits and T-shirts roared up in trucks and Humvees, attacked protesters, rounded up others from cafes and homes and hauled them off, blindfolded, to army detention centers. Entire neighborhoods -- primarily Sunni Muslim areas where residnets are generally opposed to Maliki, a Shiite -- were blockaded to prevent residents from joining the demonstrations. Journalists were beaten." In an essay on last Friday's protest, Danial Anas Kaysi (Foreign Policy) observes: After the March 2010 elections, the Iraqi people waited close to ten months for their political representatives to agree on a framework and form a government (which is yet to be truly completed due to disputes concerning the naming of security ministers). Those were months in which the population continued to live in the shadow of an occupation, in face of high unemployment levels and in deteriorating conditions -- from low levels of electricity and water to mismanaged sewage systems and ration card provisions. When Maliki was chosen, the Iraqi people continued to patiently await the creation of a national unity government capable of addressing their needs. All along, Maliki led a protracted campaign to retain the premiership, arguing that was Iraq's best choice in guiding it away from its woes at a time of uncertainty. While services were not central to his coalition's campaign, Maliki concentrated on his capability to impose the rule of law and bring back stability and security so that the country might begin to truly rebuild. Security could be quite the convincing argument had terrorist attacks decreased rather than increased, and had the prime minister not been creating police forces outside the regular chain of command, such as the infamous Baghdad Brigades, which is feared by the residents of the city. The prime minister's image can no longer be built on a mirage of security and stability. Worsening conditions, coupled with clear corruption and an increase in terrorist attacks, have led people to lose trust in their local, provincial, and federal representatives. Two months after government formation, it has become clear to the people that it is one of a starkly political nature, formed through backroom deals and the placating of various factions. Al Mada notes that yesterday a vehicle ban was placed on Basra in anticipation of the protest (in anticipation of curbing the protest) and those violating the ban will not have their vehicles returned until some time after Friday. Basra is where 23-year-old Salem Garuq al-Dosari died last Friday, killed for the 'crime' of protesting. In reply to a question about violence from McClatchy's Hannah Allam, AFP's Prashant Rao Tweeted: @HannahAllam We have reports of a cameraman injured in Basra, but its not clear how. No violence reported to us against journos in Baghdad about 1 hour ago via TweetDeck Aref Mohammed (Reuters) informs of today's Basra protest, "A Reuters reporter at the scene said some journalists were also beaten by security forces. A vehicle ban was in effect." J. David Goodman (New York Times) also notes the attacks on journalists ("beaten by authorities there"). The Dar Addustour live screen crawl noted Diyala, Kirkuk, Tikrit and Samarra were also placed under curfew. Ammar Karim (AFP) adds, "Nasiriyah, in the south, barred anyone from entering. Complete vehicle bans were also placed on every non-Kurdish province north of the capital, with protesters not even allowed near provincial governorate offices in the city of Mosul, after five demonstrators were killed and one building set ablaze in rallies there a week ago." While bans were put in place, Al Mada reveaks that the Iraqi Jurists Association announced they would be participating in today's protests and called on the "legitimate" reforms protesters have demanded to be implemented. They also saluted the protesters noting that they have shown strength, that all Iraqis are one people and one destiny. Al Rafidayn reports that the protesters in Baghdad today found Tahrir Square cordoned off by security forces and that blockades were utilized to close down roads and prevent access to areas including the Green Zone and the Sinak Republic Bridge. Osama Mahdi (Kitabat) reports that protesters in Baghdad chanted "Liar Liar Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Liar Liar" and "Peaceful, Peaceful" while carrying flags and banners -- one banner read "Where did the people's money go?" Stephanie McCrummen (Washington Post) notes that "security was tight as police in riot gear faced the demonstrators, and it was unclear whether crowds would become larger following Friday prayers. Many protesters in the square said they were nervous about staying there considering violence that followed last week's nationwide demonstrations." The crowds did increase despite many obstacles, going from hundreds before ten this morning to, Aref Mohammed (Reuters) estimates, "around 3,000," Tahrir Square is now being called "Iraqi Liberation Square". But not all who wanted to take part in Baghdad were able to. Alice Fordham and Raheem Salman (Los Angeles Times) quote Hansa Hassan who says, "There were many people who wanted to participate but who were prevented; my husband insisted, and he managed to go in, but there were many barriers." NPR's Jonathan Blakley reported from Baghdad: Most of the participants today were young people, waving Iraqi flags and plastic flowers. Many were college-age students, dressed in red and black caps and gowns, upset because, they say, they couldn't find work after graduation. Some demonstrators had walked for hours to get to Tahrir Square. One Iraqi [home maker] said the protestors would "expose the thieves" -- referring to government corruption. She said people would march every Friday until their demands are met. I've changed the term to "home maker." It's 2011 and I'd love to Alicia explain why NPR is using the term I'm not allowing at this site. Was today "Remember Glen Campbell Day"? I don't know. Reporting for Al Jazeera (link goes to Al Jazeera's YouTube page which provides a live feed) from Baghdad, Jane Arraf stood in front of a large crowd gathered in Tahrir Square explaining the thousands "have walked for hours to come to this square," that the government had put up conrecte blocks at the end of Sinak Republic Bridge and walled off the Green Zone and "despite this, thousands of people came to chant that they believe the government they elected are liars and they can do better." Iraqi Streets 4 Change has a photo essay of the Baghdad protest at the top of their web page. The Dar Addustour live screen crawl noted so reports that Baghdad Operations have been ordered to evacuate the square of journalists and protesters. Al Rafidayn reports that Iraqi state television reported the protest in Baghdad was over and there were no incidents and that, after this was announced by state TV, Baghdad security forces in Tahrir Square dispersed the protesters --- still present, the protest hadn't ended despite the TV claims -- and did so with force and utilizing batons after one p.m. (Baghdad time). On this violence, Iraq Oil Report Tweeted a reply to AFP's Prashant Rao and McClatchy's Hannah Allam: @prashantrao @HannahAllam we've got reports that those in baghdad who defied the 1pm "official" end to the protest were pushed away by ISF about 2 hours ago via web in reply to prashantrao Alsumaria TV adds, "In Diwaniya, hundreds of citizens rallied against weak services in their province and called to dismiss the governor and dissolve the provincial council. Demonstrators criticized the government's delay in meeting their demands. Protestors called to dismiss governor Salem Alwan along with head of the provincial council and its members on account of their failure to provide their province with basic services, Alsumaria News reporter said." Dar Addustour live screen crawl noted protesters in Muthanna wants the provincial council and the governor removed. DPA reports Mosul protesters were repeatedly intimidated and quotes Mohamed Saadon stating, "Security forced me to return home though I was planning to join protests. They threatened to shoot me in the leg if [I] did not go back to myhome. They also prevented my three children from leaving home." Al Rafidayn notes that MP Kamal Saadi has invited the protesters to meet with the Parliament on Saturday and discuss their demands according to Jalal Iipoidica who states that a call for this meet up with go out across Facebook. In one of the saddest developments, Gilbert Mercier (News Junkie Post) observes, "The US media and most world news outlets (including the BBC) have been strangely silent over the situation in Iraq. Of course it can be explained by the fact that our current news cycle is on steroid. Tracking the Arab revolution's progress is overwhelming even for big news outlets. Libya and the armed revolution to finish off Gaddafi is the big headline, but not for long as it seems that the days of the mad man are counted. Egypt and Tunisia are still in mid-revolution limbo. Both are under military control, but the people are still putting pressure on their respective military to make sure that the revolution doesn't get hijacked by a military junta." Iraqis will most likely be gain ingored by the bulk of US media but with the White House refusing to support the protests, media lackeys will fall in line and declare it 'non-news'. Which is so very true. The outlet that's owned the story domestically would be the Washington Post. (CNN has done some very strong reports -- most of which didn't air on CNN but aired on CNN International.) Kelly McEvers (NPR) did some strong reporting but she left Iraq Tuesday. AP has done strong and consistent work. Monday morning we were noting how the New York Times couldn't be bothered mentioning the assault on Iraqi journalists. Days later, they still had trouble despite the fact that by Monday evening, The Committee to Protect Journalists had called out the assaults, as had Simone Vecchiator (International Press Institute) and Reporters Without Borders released their open letter to KRG President Massoud Barzani while Nouri al-Maliki had apologized to one reporter, Wissam Ojji (Turkman Eli TV), publicly. Al Rafidayn reported Ojji accepted Nouri's apology. No report on that in the New York Times today. Alsumaria TV reported Tuesday that the White House National Security Council spokesperson Tommy Visor issued a statement which included: "We were also deeply troubled by reports that Iraqi Security Forces detained and beat Iraqi journalists and civil society leaders during Friday's demonstrations." Testifying to the US House Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton never mentioned it despite offering a media critique (for her appearance before the Committee, see Tuesday's snapshot, Kat covered it in "Is you're Congressional district in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem?," Wally covered it at Rebecca's site with "Pitching the State Dept. budget (Wally)" and Ava covered it at Trina's site with "Hillary's foreign policy aims (Ava).") US President Barack Obama hasn't said a word. March 1st, Marian Wang (ProPublica) reported: As the Mideast protests and government crackdowns continue, one country to watch closely is Iraq, with whom the U.S. has a long-term partnership [1] and where clashes between protesters and government forces recently turned violent. Even as Iraqi security forces detained and abused hundreds of intellectuals and journalists [2], the U.S. government -- in keeping with a pattern of silence on Iraq's abuses -- has withheld criticism of its strategic ally. (Salon noticed this too [3].) Asked generally about the violence against Iraqi demonstrators [4] on Friday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said only "the approach we've taken with regard to Iraq is the same that we've taken with regard to the region," which he said was to call on governments to respond to the protests peacefully. Neither the White House [5] nor the State Department seem to have mentioned the matter since. Yesterday's State Department briefing discussed Libya, Egypt, Iran, Oman, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, China, Pakistan, Argentina, South Africa and Haiti -- Iraq was never discussed [6]. Wednesday, Sami Ramadani (Guardian) reported on efforts to stop last Friday's protests (more protests are scheduled for this Friday) -- efforts by the US government to stop the protests: For its part, the world's biggest US embassy -- the power behind the throne -- took the unprecedented step of broadcasting in Arabic, on state TV, a thinly veiled threat to protesters not to go too far in their demands. The US, it stressed, fully backed the "democratically elected" regime, while supporting the right to peaceful protest. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama must be pretty confused as to which dictatorship they should now abandon and which to prop up. So it's not silence -- bad enough -- it's also actively attempt to scare Iraqis from protests. The US is supposed to be a democracy and shame on any White House that uses tax payer money in another country to encourage people not to utizlize the right to assembly and the right to free speech. Shame on the White House. From the shameful games of US politics, to the circle game that is Iraqi politics, American University Cairo's Firas al-Atraqchi Tweeted: An older looking Muqtada Sadr meets with Iyad Allawi - both say they support #iraq peaceful protests 31 minutes ago via web EuroNews notes, "Earlier, former Iraqi premier Iyad Allawi and Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr held talks to discuss the protests. Last week, al-Sadr asked his supporters to give the government six months to try to address their demands." UPI notes, "Allawi conducted a joint news conference in Najaf with his one-time enemy, Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr, calling on his followers to protest in support of the Libyan people and against U.S. intervention. Sadr did not directly call on his followers to join the demonstrations." Relationships may be shifting in Iraq. From yesterday's snapshot: In political news, the big news may be Ayad Allawi's announcement. Al Rafidayn reports the Iraqiya leader has given a TV interview in which he has declared he will have no part of the National Council on Supreme Policies. He termed his decision "final" and said Iraqiya could nominate or back someone else for that post if they want to. Iraiqy won the most votes in the March 7th elections which should have meant Ayad Allawi had first crack at forming a government but the Constitution wasn't followed. To end the stalemate, the US government increased the pressure on various parties resulting in an agreement largely brokered by the Kurds which gave Nouri the prime minister poster and would make Allawi head of the National Council on Supreme Polcies; however, that body has still not been created. For those who can remember, after the agreement there was much fan fair in Parliament the next day . . . except for Iraqiya walking out as it became obvious that their rewards in the agreement were not priority. Among those who walked away then was Allawi. It probably would have been smart for others in Iraqiya to have taken a stand back then when it might have made a difference. Dar Addustour reports the assertion that the National Council wil lbe formed. When? Iraq still doesn't have a full Cabinet. In related news, New Sabah reports that Iraqiya is stating Nouri is using his '100 days' (a time of review Nouri's given himself) not to reform, but to stall. Arab News reports: "The Chairman of the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council (SIIC), Ammar al-Hakin, and the Leader of al-Iraqiya Coalition, Iyad Allawi, have discussed on Wednesday the activiation of the agreements, reached among different Iraqi political parties, to activiate the national partnership to respond to the people's demands, an SIIC statement said on Thursday. In further related news, Alsumaria TV reports, "Al Sadr Front threatened to stop supporting the government of Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki if he keeps on his weak performance and failures. The front even hinted about allying with Iraqiya leader Iyad Allawi to form a parliamentary majority in case the government fails to provide its people the needed services within the six month deadline set by Sadr's referendum." UPI notes, "The party loyal to Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr could rally against the country's prime minister if he doesn't address national woes." Alice Fordham (Los Angeles Times) reports "In an interview on Iraqi TV, Allawi alleged that he was being watched by intelligence services and said that he would not head the proposed National Council for Strategic Policies. The council, backed by the United States, was conceived as a counterweight to the power of the prime minister to end the months-long deadlock on forming a government." Meanwhile Michael S. Schmidt and Jack Healy (New York Times) note the fact that (Nouri's) Supreme Court gave him the power over the Electoral Commission and other independent bodies at the start of the year, that -- following Ned Parker's secret prisons report for the Los Angeles Times -- Human Rights Watch and Amnesty both released reports on the secret prisons in Iraq under Nouri's command: "And in July, Iraq's high court ruled that members of Parliament no longer had the power to propose legislation. Instead, all new laws would have to be proposed by Mr. Maliki's cabinet or the president and then passed to the Parliament for a veto. Political experts said they knew of no other parliamentary democracy that had such restrictions." Iraqiya's Aliya Nasif tells the reporters, "This is the beginning of dictatorship. We are regressing by centuries." Regressing? Standing still on the issue of Kirkuk to be sure, the oil rich, disputed territory in Iraq. The central government or 'government' in Baghdad claims it has the right to it while the KRG claims it belongs to them. Both lay claims about this period of time where their own was most discriminated against and forced out. The issue was supposed to have been addressed sometime ago. Supposed? The Constitution mandated that it be addressed. The US White House's 2007 benchmarks -- signed off on by the US Congress and Nouri al-Maliki -- demanded that progress be made on the issue or US funds would be cut off. That didn't happen -- it didn't get addressed and US tax payer dollars continued to flow like honey to Nouri. The issue has been postponed repeatedly. More recently, the Constitutionally mandated census -- long pushed back -- was supposed to finally take place in December. That got 'postponed'. It's an issue that's been kicked down the road repeatedly. Wednesday's snapshot noted, "Al Rafidayn reports Kurdistan Regional Government President Massoud Barzani held a press conference yesterday where he said the KRG would weigh reforms while noting that he had ordered the pesh merga into Kirkuk. Dar Addustour reports that Kirkuk's curfew was removed yesterday in part due to the influx of additional pesh merga forces." Today, Al Rafidayn reports that a source close to Nouri al-Maliki is stating that Nouri is demanding the KRG remove the thousands of pesh merga they've deployed to Kirkuk without his permission. Nidhal al-Laithi (Azzaman) reports KRG President "Massoud Barzani, in comments on his decision to send in his militias, said he wanted to protect the Kurds in the city. However, he did not say from whom. The presence of the Kurdish militia has ignited harsh criticism from both Arab and Turkmen communities in Kirkuk who charge that the Kurds are intent to resort to force to annex the city." Wednesday, Wisam al-Bayati (Press TV -- link has text and video) filed a report noting, "Turkmen lawmakers and officials described the presence of these troops as unconstitutional. They say Iraqi security forces have the capability of dealing with the situation by themselves, and that the Kurds have the ambition to take over the city." The report (video) also notes Mohammed al-Juburi, of the Kirkuk Provincial Council, who asserts "that the US presence in Kirkuk is one of the main obstacles to stability. He claims that the US is creating instability by supporting the Kurds against the Arabs and the Turkemen." He is quoted stating, "An active role has been played by the US troops in the city and allowing US troops to commit violations against the Arabs means that they are supporting these violations." What to do about Kirkuk? This week, American intellectual Noam Chomskey observed, "Look how hard it is just to try to settle the issue of Kirkuk," when speaking with Namo Abdulla (Rudaw): NA: Talking about the issue of Kirkuk and other disputed regions, some people here believe that as soon as the American forces are withdrawn from Iraq, there could be an Arab-Kurd war over those issues. How possible is that? CHOMSKY: You know better than I do. I don't think anyone really knows. For another thing, I don't really think that it's very likely that the American forces will be completely withdrawn. It doesn't look like it, but it is a hard problem. I have not seen a sensible proposal about Kirkuk. I am not in a position to make any sensible prediction about it. Staying in the US, Wednesday's snapshot covered the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing on the VA's refusal to implement the caregivers law Congress passed. Kat covered it in "Burr promises VA 'one hell of a fight'" and Ava covered it at Trina's site with "The VA still can't get it together." Also Wally covered yesterday's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing at Rebecca's site with "No one gives a damn about your money (Wally)." Kimberly Hefling (AP) reported on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing and noted, "President Obama on May 5 signed a law instructing the VA to provide a monthly stipend, health insurance, mental health help and other aid directly to caregivers to help keep wounded veterans out of nursing homes. But the VA missed a Jan. 31 deadline for implementation. And the Associated Press reported last month that while the VA did announce plans soon after that to help caregivers, aid was available to fewer families than Congress intended." Which is why, see Wednesday's snapshot, Committee Chair Patty Murray wanted VA Secretary Eric Shinseki to explain how that happened. Chair Patty Murray: I've already discussed the caregiver issue with you, I've talked about it with Jack Woo, I've talked with senior staff at the White House and I have spoken directly with the president of the United States. VA's plan on the caregivers issue was overdue and once submitted it hardly resembled the bill that unanimously cleared this Congress. Three weeks ago, my Committee staff requested information on how that plan was developed and to date no information has been provided. Rather than following the law, the administration set forth some overly stringent rules bureaucratic hurdles that would essentially deny help to caregivers. Sarah and Ted Wade who were staunch advocates and worked hard with us to get this passed were invited by the president to attend the bill signing at the White House, they won't be eligible for the program under the plan that the department submitted. We're also hearing a lot from veterans and caregivers from across the country who fall outside of this new line in the sand the VA has drawn, who have been left in limbo and now don't know if this benefit that they advocated and worked so hard for will support them. Mr. Secretary, it appears your that department is not complying with the law as we have written. Can you please tell this Committee why? We included Shinseki's non-response in full in Wednesday's snapshot. The short answer is: He doesn't know but he sure used a lot of words to say that. Rob Hotakainen (McClatchy Newspapers) reported, " According to Murray, Congress wanted the law to serve at least 3,500 caregivers, at a cost of $1.7 billion over five years. The VA's plan, which calls for covering only 840 caregivers, "is simply not good enough," she said." Richard Burr is the Ranking Member on the Committee (most senior Republican) and Kat covered his comments to Shinseki which included promising "one hell of a fight" with the Committee if the law they passed was not properly implemented. Rick Maze (Army Times) explained, "The Obama administration's narrow interpretation of a new law granting benefits and support to the caregivers of severely injured Iraq and Afghanistan veterans has sparked bipartisan outrage in Congress, with a key senator warning of a 'hell of a fight' if the administration moves ahead with its pending regulations." There weren't a lot of strong reports on the national level (and I'm sure I missed some strong local reporting). There wasn't room to note the coverage of Wednesday's hearing in Thursday's snapshot so we're noting it today and we'll close (today) this topic out with this from the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs (also on yesterday's hearing): (Washington, D.C.) -- Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, heard testimony from Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric K. Shinseki and representatives from veterans groups and the American Federation of Government Employees on next year's budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs. "On balance, and given that other agencies are facing budget cuts, this VA budget is a very good starting place from which to work," said Senator Murray. "The President has requested an overall increase for VA funding during a very difficult budget year, but we must ensure that the cuts he also proposed do not hurt the veterans who have sacrificed so much for this nation. Going forward, I will work to add funding that is necessary for programs vital to veterans, such as for research and the operation of VA's Inspector General which helps root out fraud and other problems with existing programs." The President's budget request includes an overall increase of $1.8 billion in discretionary spending over Fiscal Year 2011 levels. It also includes various proposed funding cuts, however, including a reduction in spending for construction and non-recurring maintenance, and a proposed $72 million cut for VA research funding. Following today's hearing, Members of the Veterans' Affairs Committee will provide the Senate Budget Committee with their views and estimates for VA's budget. Views and estimates are a formal part of the federal budget process, in which Congressional Committees recommend funding levels for programs and activities under their legislative jurisdiction. (For the Veterans' Affairs Committee's jurisdiction, click here.) The House and Senate Budget Committees review these recommendations when formulating the proposed Budget Resolution for the coming fiscal year. The Chairman's opening statement is available in audio form here. For the full witness list and the witnesses' written testimony, please visit http://veterans.senate.gov. Meanwhile as protests rocked Iraq today, the question is whether a planned demonstration against the ongoing war will rock the US? A.N.S.W.E.R. and March Forward! and others will be taking part in this action: March 19 is the 8th anniversary of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Iraq today remains occupied by 50,000 U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands of foreign mercenaries. The war in Afghanistan is raging. The U.S. is invading and bombing Pakistan. The U.S. is financing endless atrocities against the people of Palestine, relentlessly threatening Iran and bringing Korea to the brink of a new war. While the United States will spend $1 trillion for war, occupation and weapons in 2011, 30 million people in the United States remain unemployed or severely underemployed, and cuts in education, housing and healthcare are imposing a huge toll on the people. Actions of civil resistance are spreading. On Dec. 16, 2010, a veterans-led civil resistance at the White House played an important role in bringing the anti-war movement from protest to resistance. Enduring hours of heavy snow, 131 veterans and other anti-war activists lined the White House fence and were arrested. Some of those arrested will be going to trial, which will be scheduled soon in Washington, D.C. Saturday, March 19, 2011, the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, will be an international day of action against the war machine. Protest and resistance actions will take place in cities and towns across the United States. Scores of organizations are coming together. Demonstrations are scheduled for San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and more. Click this link to endorse the March 19, 2011, Call to Action. TV note, on CBS' 60 Minutes Sunday: Hard Times Generation For some children, socializing and learning in school are being cruelly complicated by homelessness, as Scott Pelley reports from Florida, where school buses now stop at budget motels for children who've lost their homes. | Watch Video Hitchens Steve Kroft profiles Vanity Fair columnist, author and public intellectual Christopher Hitchens, for whom nothing is off-limits when making his wry and often outrageous observations, including the cancer he is suffering from. | Watch Video Spy on the Ice Bob Simon reports on the latest "spy-cam" techniques used by wildlife filmmakers to show animals - in this case, polar bears - up-close and in a way audiences have never seen them before. | Watch Video "60 Minutes," Sunday, March 6, at 7 p.m. ET/PT. And finally, David Bacon's latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press) which won the CLR James Award. Bacon has a new report for In These Times entitled "Divide and Deport: On Immigration, Thom Hartmann and Lou Dobbs Have Much in Common:" There has always been a conflict in U.S. labor about immigration. Conservatives historically sought to restrict unions and jobs to the native born, to whites and to men, and saw immigrants as job competitors-the enemy. This was part of an overall perspective that saw unions as businesses or insurance programs, in which workers paid dues and got benefits in return. Labor's radicals, however, from the IWW through the CIO to those in many unions today, see the labor movement as inclusive, with a responsibility to organize all workers, immigrant and native-born alike. They see unions as part of a broader movement for social change in general. In 1986, the AFL-CIO supported the Immigration Reform and Control Act, because it contained employer sanctions. This provision said employers could only hire people with legal immigration status. In effect, the law made it a federal crime for an undocumented person to hold a job. Since passage of the law, immigration raids have led to firings and deportations of thousands of people in workplaces across the country. In many cases employers have used the law as a way to intimidate immigrant workers, and rid themselves of those trying to organize unions and protest bad wages and conditions. Transnational corporations invest in developing countries like Mexico, moving production to wherever wages are lowest. Treaties like the North American Free Trade Agreement promote low wages, privatization, the dumping of agricultural products, and other conditions that increase corporate profits. But those measures also impoverish and displace people, forcing them to migrate to survive. iraq kuna afp prashant rao the washington post stephanie mccrummen the los angeles times alice fordham raheem salman jane arraf the new york times jack healy al mada al rafidayn kitabat osama mahdi azzaman nidhal al-laithi press tv wisam al-bayati