Tuesday, October 02, 2012

The Libya attack needs real press coverage

This is from a site known as Power Lines:

Ever since the terrorist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, the Obama administration has been stalling, obfuscating and outright lying in order to avoid taking responsibility for the deaths of four Americans, including our ambassador. To a considerable degree, they have gotten away with that strategy. But Darrell Issa, Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has stepped into the breach. Issa’s committee has been approached by whistle-blowers within the State Department, and the stories they tell about the department’s malfeasance are shocking. 

Sunny printed an e-mail for me today asking if I would highlight it or, since I'm on the left, if I'd just ignore it. I have no problem highlighting it.  It's reality.  Reality includes the fact that when Republicans are in office, outlets like The Nation, The Progressive, etc. are more likely to cover the White House scandals whereas when it's the Democrats in the White House, you are more likely to get the truth from conservative sites.  I don't know this site but I don't read a lot of opinion sites these days.  I really am sticking to developments in PTSD due to my practice and I'm really knee deep in another journal article I'm writing.  My news comes from NPR when I'm working out and CNN for about 30 minutes a day and my two local papers.

On PTSD, quickly, I'm following C.I.'s lead and calling it "PTS."  I do think the name should have been changed to Post Traumatic Stress.  The 'disorder' term does make some nervous or questioning and the diagnosis is more important than being attached to the name.  I really think the vote should have been to change the name.

I will refer to it as such here from now on unless I'm quoting someone -- the way C.I. already does at The Common Ills.  It makes sense and is what we need to do because there is still so much resistance and so much baggage attached that we need to strip away.

Back to Libya.  I know Darrell Issa's a Republican and little else.  I do know he made some very intelligent remarks this summer because C.I. covered a hearing Issa spoke in.  He's not of my party but my party's so out of control . . .

I'm glad anyone's bothering to pursue the truth re: the attack and I agree with Power Lines that Issa's doing more (read full article) than the press.  I wonder why that is -- just joking!

I know why that is.  They identified themselves with Barack and they are all about protecting him and securing a second term for him.  I'm not talking about the left media, I'm talking about the media period.  Scott Horsley is nothing but a cheap whore.  Don't be surprised if Mr. NPR gets called out by Ava and C.I. this weekend at Third.  They've caught on to one of his little tricks.  As usual the NPR ombudsperson is of no help.  Are we even surprised at this late date?


"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Tuesday, October 2, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, Nouri blusters about Turkish war planes, the US Defense Dept 'finds' money to pay for US troops in Iraq, Jalal does a listening tour, and more.
 
 
Yesterday, Josh Rogin (Foreign Policy) broke the following news, "In its final act before leaving town earlier this month, Congress passed a continuing resolution (CR) that failed to reauthorize the main mission of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (OSC-I), despite Pentagon warnings that the move could force the military to withdraw hundreds of U.S. troops who are still in Baghdad helping to develop the Iraqi security forces and working with them on counterterrorism.  The authority for U.S. forces to train and assist the Iraqi security forces expired Sunday."  Never fear.  When it comes to destruction, it will always be paid for.  Lolita C. Baldor (AP) reports that the Defense Dept has announced it has the money to cover the costs "in its temporary budget."  Of course, it does.  Of course.  Kristina Wong (Washington Times) adds that George Little, Pentagon spokesperson, declared the move was "a temporary bridge while we seek a longer-term way ahead for [the Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq] in the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, which we expect to be taken up by Congress later this year."
 
Some day the broadcast media will cover what's going on.  It may be a 100 years from now, but some day they will.  In the meantime, we're supposed to pretend it's not taking place. 
 
Mike Prysner:  The whole strategy behind the US' so-called withdrawal of US forces from Iraq was the ability to leave in its place forces that would maintain and protect the interests of the US government, namely US control over Iraq's resources and the dividing up of Iraq's oil among various major British and US oil companies, and French and German as well.
The Iraqi government exists today, and the Iraqi forces exist today to maintain the status quo, to maintain the new government that the United States felt worthy of sending to leadership.
The security in Washington means that the interests are secured, that US bases are secured, that US contracts are secured. And if anything threatens that, they want the Iraqi government to crush it with violence, to torture people, to attack demonstrations and so forth.
We should remember that if the Iraqi security forces are not to the task that the US has assigned for them -- we have to keep in mind that President Obama himself said when he was giving the speech celebrating the end of the Iraq war, he said very plainly that our commitment to Iraq has not ended.
 
 
At Foreign Policy, Peter Feaver argues it's time to examine Iraq in terms of Barack.  Apparently, Feaver wasn't bowled over by the foreign policy 'analysis' The NewsHour provided last week (as Ava and I pointed out, PBS stacked the deck by inviting a reporter and an 'independent' analyst who Tweeted insults about Mitt Romney before his appearance on The NewsHour). I can agree with him on the issue of examining Barack's actions with regards to Iraq.  I don't agree with Feaver that Fred and Kimberly Kagan should be listened to on Iraq because they've "earned the right to a respectful hearing on" the topic.  But I will agree that they should be listened to since they are the immediate in-laws of State Dept's spokesperson Victoria Nuland.
 
It's always comical to watch the Cult of St. Barack huff and puff about the neocons and grasp how ignorant the Cult is and how unaware they are of just how many neocons populate Barack's administration.  Victoria Nuland, married to Robert Kagan) is one such neocon and she was Dick Cheney's right hand during the planning of the Iraq War.  Didn't stop the administration from giving her a job -- a high profile one in fact.  So if she speaks for the State Dept, and she does, Peter Feaver, there's the reason to listen to his sister-in-law Kimberly and brother-in-law Fred Kagan.  And for those who think she was working with the State Dept when she helped Cheney, no.  Just because the State Dept has vanished her Bully Boy Bush days doesn't mean we have done the same.  From November 24, 2004:
 
Kagan's wife works as Cheney's deputy national security adviser. That's Ms. Nuland' s title. So in effect, Ms. Nuland's employed by "team B" -- she's apparently not working on team B's campaign, but she works for team B. Potentially, Kagan has a vested interest in the outcome of the 2004 election.
 
As you may remember, back then it was NPR covering for Nuland, erasing her from the scene while letting Robert Kagan go on the air to explain what was wrong with then presidential contender John Kerry -- explain what was wrong from an 'independent' stand point because NPR didn't think the listeners had a right to know the man ripping apart Kerry and praising Bush wasn't so independent, that his wife was Dick Cheney's Deputy National Security Adviser.
 
Dick Cheney.  The name that still sends shudders down the spines of many Democrats.  But Barack let her and a lot of other neocons into the administration.
 
Iraq needs to be evaluated.  Don't express the press to rush to do that because evaluating requires facts and it's Iraq's Dar Addustour, and not NPR, that reported today on the New York Times article mentioning that the US just sent a unit of Speical-Ops back into Iraq and how there are negotiations between the White House and Iraq to returns US troops to Iraq in larger number.  Dar Addustour is referring to Tim Arango's report from last week, "Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence."
 
Meanwhile AFP reports that Nouri's Baghdad-based government is calling for an end to the treaty between Iraq and Turkey that currently allows Turkish war planes to bomb northern Iraq (Turkey bombs what they say are suspected PKK camps).  Ali al-Dabbagh, Nouri's spokesperson, is quoted stating, "The cabinet decided to reject the presence of any foreign bases or forces on Iraqi land and to reject the entry of any foreign military forces into Iraqi land."   Ahlul Bayt News Agency continues that al-Dabbagh declared that the government recommends Parliament cancel any existing contract and refuse to extend any agreements.   The Tehran Times adds, "According to the Turkish parliament, the military is authorized to conduct operations inside Iraq's airspace under the pretext of targeting hideouts of Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) militants. These operations have intensified after the withdrawal of the United States from Iraq, which is not yet capable of securing its airspace."  AFP notes, "A high-ranking Iraqi official said the decision was aimed at Turkish military bases in the north Iraq province of Dohuk, one of the three provinces that make up the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG)" and that, "Ties between Iraq and Turkey have been marred by a flurry of disputes, including Ankara's refusal to extradite Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi, who has been sentenced to death in absentia by an Iraqi court."  Reuters reminds that, "The Baghdad government's power over Iraq's autonomous Kurdistan region is limited."   The announcement came as Al Jazeera reported, "Turkish security forces have killed 12 Kurdish rebels in fighting, including two women who attempted to infiltrate from neighbouring Iraq, local security sources said."
 
 
Just yesterday, September was hailed as the most violent month in Iraq in two years, while today violence continues as does fear and silence.  On fear, Alsumaria reports that in Basara accusations are being tossed around following the assassination last Thursday of former Governor (2005 to 2009) Mohammed Misbah Waili with some accusing a clan within the province and the clan accusing unnamed foreign powers.   On the silence, Mohamad Ali Harissi (AFP) reports that Sunday's violence (at least 33 dead, at least 106 injured, according to AFP's count) was met with silence and that no sympathy was expressed or violence noted on the websites of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, President Jalal Talabani or Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi, that -- like the three politicians -- state TV channel Iraqiya focused on football and ignored the violence, that the bulk of the papers ignored the violence and the official government paper al-Sabah waited until page four to mention the violence and then under the headline "Bagdad Operations [Command] announces foiling an attempted terrorist plot with eight car bombs."  Al Rafidyan carries the AFP report here.  Today, Alsumaria reports the corpses of 3 men wearing fire fighter uniforms were found in Baghdad and that a Baquba roadside bombing left 2 people injured, an armed attack in Kirkuk that left 1 street cleaner and two other people injured, a Falluja roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 police officer and left another person injured, 2 corpses were discovered in Tirkt.   In addition, Alsumaria reports a Kirkuk armed attack which left 2 people dead.
 

On the subject of Kirkuk, All Iraq News reports that Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi and UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy to Iraq's Martin Kobler's deputy Gyorgy Busztin  met to discuss the issue of elections in disputed Kirkuk.  Fearing that no law will be passed in time for provincial elections, al-Nujaifi stated that they will leave it to the three presidencies (President of Iraq Jalal Talabani, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and al-Nujaifi) to resolve the issue.Considering the record for political resolutions in Iraq, that seems more than a bit optimistic.

Optimism is what Jalal Talabani seems full of currently as he works Baghdad.  Al Mada reports Talabani continues meeting with the leaders of various poltical partices, blocs and forces -- yesterday with the head of the National Alliance Ibrahim al-Jaafari and the head of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq Ammar al-Hakim.  Jalal is on a listening tour.   Which is fitting since his ceremonial post comes with few actual powers.

All Iraq News notes that Ammar al-Hakim talked about the need for a national dialogue when he met with Talabani.   Reallly?  Then maybe al-Hakim should have supported the call for a National Conference.  Remember that?  December 21st, Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi and President Jalal Talabani were both calling for a National Conference.  Nouri stalled it and circumvented it.  He couldn't have done that on his own.  Little Buddy Ammar helped him a great deal.   All Iraq News reports MP Mohammad Iqbal is calling on Talabani to pressure the blocs to modifty their course.  Nice suggestiong but when has Talabani ever had the spine to pressure anyone? 
 

 
 
It didn't have to be that way.  As NPR's Deborah Amos observed in the spring of 2010, speaking at Harvard's Shorenstein Center, the ground had been changing in Iraq in 2009 and early 2010 with a move towards secular parties.  Amos is the author of one of the finest books on the Iraq War,  Eclipse of the Sunnis: Power, Exile, and Upheaval in the Middle East
 
 
 
Debora Amos:  It was quite possible as you looked at the new configuration that there would be a move away from the dominance of the Shi'ite parties. That there would be some reconciliation.  They [Iranian regime] were not happy about that and they have been very public about the fact that they want no Ba'athists -- [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad said this in a public speech, no Ba'athists will ever run Iraq again.  They clearly backed the Shi'ite religious parties and the politics of the country was shifting a bit.  In the middle of all of this arise one of the most remarkable politicians in Iraq and he's played all kinds of roles in that country including a spoiler.  And he dropped a political bombshell into the political process of that country and this was in January when Ahmed Chalabi's protege Ali Faisal al-Lami who is the executive director of the de-Ba'athification Commission, they blacklisted 500 candidates and they disqualified them by accusing them of either being Ba'athists or having links to the Ba'athist Party.  Not every name of the 500 was Sunnis but the attack was clearly against these new, secular, mixed parties.  That's where most of the names came from.  But there were enough Sunnis that this aggrieved minority felt what they were looking at was a witch hunt.  And that's the reaction that you're seeing now -- that they feel like they're being targeted.  What's interesting is both Chalabi and al-Lami are candidates themselves and they were running on the Shi'ite Islamist Party.  In talking to analysts about Iraq, what they say is it was a move worthy of Karl Rove because it was both brilliant and cynical at the same time. And what is showed was a complete understanding of the weaknesses of Iraq's political culture.  In addition, it took Washington completely by surprise.  They never saw it coming.  And so there reactions have been slow and ineffective.  And as the political theater has played out in Iraq, this election which should have been about corruption, about lack of services, about security, about the role of Iran, about the drawdown of American troops which -- all combat troops are to be withdrawn by August of 2010 -- what this election has become about what I said: Warning wind.  This could be the strategey -- this anti Ba'athist, 'Ba'athists are under the bed, Ba'athists are coming to get you' -- this could be the comeback strategy for the Shi'ite Islamist parties who have nothing to show in terms of services and governance but can certainly win on the votes of fear.  It is a complete reversal from where the country was  just a year ago.  And it shows how weak the political culture is that it could take an event like banning 500 political candidates to turn this whole election into a referendum on Ba'athists -- which was essentially rendered defunked in 2003.  It may propel these parties back into office but it is as likely to put off political reconciliation because we are as far away from that today as we were in 2007.
 
 
It could have been so different.  Political reconciliation still hasn't taken place.  It could have been so difficult.  Amos says the White House was taken by surprise.  Again, it's past time that this administration's actions with regards to Iraq were analyzed.
 
 
 
Why was Iraq ignored?  Why wasn't the White House able to provide Iraq with a stable ambassador?  Barack's been in the White House less than four years and he's had four nominees for Ambassador to Iraq -- three were confirmed (Chris Hill, James Jeffery and most recently Robert S. Beecroft) and one withdrew (Brett McGurk).  
 
 
Iraq needed stability.  Why was the White House unable to provide that?  The White House couldn't even provide an ambassador who could serve out a four year term.  Why did the White House refuse to back the Iraqi people who voted Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya first in the 2010 parliamentary elections, not Nouri's State of Law?  Why didn't the White House show respect for rule of law, for democracy and for free and fair elections?
 
 
Last week, John Barry's "'The Engame' Is A Well Researched, Highly Critical Look at U.S. Policy in Iraq" (The Daily Beast) posted:

Washington has little political and no military influence over these developments. As Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor charge in their ambitious new history of the Iraq war, The Endgame, Obama's administration sacrificed political influence by failing in 2010 to insist that the results of Iraq's first proper election be honored: "When the Obama administration acquiesced in the questionable judicial opinion that prevented Ayad Allawi's bloc, after it had won the most seats in 2010, from the first attempt at forming a new government, it undermined the prospects, however slim, for a compromise that might have led to a genuinely inclusive and cross-sectarian government."
 
 
It would be really great if the press could do their job and ask the questions that need to be asked but we really don't have a free and fair press in the United States.  We have a press that's encouraged to play favorites instead of encouraged to do their jobs which is how for two years they avoided asking the question of how, if the US government wanted to bring democracy to Iraq, the White House could ignore the Iraqis who went to the polls, risked violence to register their vote because they believed the lies of the US government.  They went to the polls, they voted and they found their votes overturned by the US government.
 
 
A real press, a functioning press, would've asked questions.  No one did.  Don't you find that strange?
 
 
Gail Collins can act like a trashy whore writing about the Romney family dog repeatedly in one wasted column after another, but she can't ask the needed questions?  She's a whore who works the street her pimp tossed her out on, don't mistake her for a journalist.
 
 
It's amazing that a unibrowed professional nutcase like Gail Collins is repeatedly allowed to waste the country's time telling and retelling the story of the dog while ignoring the Iraqi people and their will was overturned, how democracy was subverted and how that happened not in spite of but because of the White House.
 
 
 
Yeah, Barack's got a lot of questions to answer but, no, they won't ask the questions in the pretense that passes for a free and fair media in the United States.
 
 
Don't expect the questions at any of the faux debates this month either.  Nellie Bailey and Glen Ford are the hosts of the weekly  Black Agenda Radio (here for this week's broadcast) which airs on Progressive Radio Network each Monday from 11:00 am to noon EST.  This week, Black Agenda Report's Bruce Dixon addressed the so-called presidential debates.  Excerpt:
 
 
Bruce Dixon: The so-called Presidential Debate Commission is a private corporation founded by leaders of the two corporate parties, who choose the format, the location, the moderators and the questions, and who explicitly draw up the rules to exclude candidates and parties other than Republicans and Democrats.  Although the broadcast airwaves have existed longer than the sun and cable networks everywhere run beneath the public roads and streets, US law lets private corporations determine on their own what political messages reach the population by controlling news and demanding large sums of money for a few seconds of commercials. These large amounts of money can only be gotten from the same plutocratic shot calling individuals and corporations who make the careers of Republicans like Mitt Romney and Democrats like Barack Obama possible.  How irresponsible, how locked down, how deceitfully scripted and divorced from the real world in which most of us live are these presidential debates?  Besides everything the candidates agree upon, and who runs the so-called debate "commission," all you need to know is that one of the marquee sponsors of the 2012 presidential debates, and the 2008 ones as well, is an industry front group called the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.  Both Republican and Democratic presidential candidates are deep in the pockets of "clean coal," as they are in the pockets of Big Ag, Big Insurance, military contractors, Wall Street and other centers of real power.  One answer to the lack of real discussions presented us by the rigged "commission" on presidential debates will be Occupy The Debates, a project undertaken by Occupy activists in multiple cities, in which a live meeting will entertain live questions from a live audience.  Occupy the Debate's first scheduled public meeting will be in Denver CO, the same night as the first so-called "debate" between the two corporate candidates.  Occupy the Debates will be streamed live on the internet that evening, and will include the participation of Black Agenda Report co-founder Glen Ford.  Several occupy movements around the country are expected to follow suit and organize their own local events over the next few weeks. For more information on real debates on real issues, visit Occupy the Debates either on Facebook or at www.occupythedebates.org -- that's www.occupythedebates.org.
 
 
 
 
Lastly,  Senator Patty Murray chairs the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee (which holds a joint-hearing this week with the House Veterans Affairs Comittee).  Her office notes:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Matt McAlvanah
Monday, October 01, 2012 (202) 224-2834
Chairman Murray's Statement on IG Report Detailing Waste at VA Conferences
(Washington, D.C.) – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, released the following statement after the Office of Inspector General at the Department of Veterans Affairs released a report on their investigation into two conferences in Orlando run by VA's Office of Human Resources and Administration.
"I am deeply dismayed by what the Office of Inspector General has found regarding these conferences. The blatant waste of taxpayer dollars and government employees improperly accepting gifts cannot, and will not, be tolerated.
"The IG report highlights failures in areas that have continually been problems for VA, including contracting and human resources. I expect the Department to act quickly to address these longstanding shortcomings."
###


 
Matt McAlvanah
Communications Director
U.S. Senator Patty Murray
202-224-2834 - press office
202--224-0228 - direct


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Half The Sky?

Isaiah's latest The World Today Just Nuts "The 2,000 Mark" notes the fact that 2,000 US military personnel have now died in the Afghanistan War, 1500 while Barack's been president.

2000 mark

Yesterday also saw Kat's "Kat's Korner: Heart Walkin' Good" go up.  I'll be downloading the new Heart album tomorrow. 

But tonight I want to address an e-mail.

Why, an e-mail that came in this afternoon wondered, had we ignored the Half The Sky PBS project?

How about: We were trying to be kind.

The first part aired tonight on most PBS stations, with the second to air tomorrow.

This is about helping women 'globally.' That really just means ignoring your own back yard.

To be clear, I give to many charities and those do include charities for young girls and women around the world.

But I also give at home.

I don't blame any of the women involved in the project and am sure they're all as sincere about it as Meg Ryan is. 

If the project had resulted in a movie instead of a PBS special, I'd be applauding it.

But I won't applaud this.

We have women and girls living in poverty in this country.  PBS will not cover American poverty.  They're just like Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, they'd rather talk about anything in the world other than poverty.

So two nights of PBS airtime, prime time, are going to tell you how bad things are for women in other countries when the reality is that things aren't good for women in this country.

Sheryl Crow has a charity where she gives to fund music education in America.  She's not the only woman who does that.  There may be men as well.  But my point is, Sheryl Crow doesn't do that because she wants to burn her money.  She does it because there's a need for it.

There's a need for it because we keep gutting public schools.

Point being, PBS needs to be covering America.  Last time I checked, it was Americans that paid their salaries.


Everyone wanted to go wild and crazy over Mitt Romney's 47% remarks.  I could care less.  I didn't find them surprising.  I felt he was speaking what Barack wished he had the guts to say.  Barack certainly governs like he believes what Mitt was saying.

The only presidential candidate talking about poverty is Jill Stein with the Green Party.  No one else wants to cover it.

PBS damn well doesn't want to cover it.  But they do want to pretend like it doesn't exist.  Yet get points for 'caring' about women in other lands.

That's b.s.  PBS exists to cover poverty.  It's refusal to do so goes a long way towards explaining why so many on the left (including me) wouldn't give a damn if PBS and NPR disappeared tomorrow.

"TV: Media continued fail" (Ava and C.I., The Third Estate Sunday Review):

Equally curious is who you don't see.  Gwen Ifill doesn't know a damn thing about foreign policy so asking her to moderate the segment was laughable.  Equally laughable was not going with a NewsHour

In fact, we're thinking of one in particular: Michael R. Gordon of The New York Times.

Gordon's appeared multiple times on The NewsHour.  Strangely, he wasn't booked for the segment on foreign policy last week.

Why would that be?

If you're wondering, he's not suddenly press shy.  To the contrary, he has a new book to sell, one he co-wrote with Bernard E. Trainor, The Endgame: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Iraq, from George W. Bush to Barack Obama. The book came out Tuesday.

Generally, that means you can expect to see and hear Gordon all over PBS and NPR. Strangely, that has not been the case.  No NPR coverage last week of the book.  No come on The NewsHour for a discussion.  Frontline loved to have him on in the past but now now.  Charlie Rose?  He has appeared 12 times in the last ten years on Rose's PBS and Coca Cola program.  But he was no where to be found last week.

Did Gordon show up at the PBS office party loaded on booze with little Gordon hanging out of his fly?

No, he did something far worse than that.

He dared to criticize Barack -- the ultimate media faux pas.  From  John Barry's "'The Engame' Is A Well Researched, Highly Critical Look at U.S. Policy in Iraq" (Daily Beast):
foreign policy guest for the segment.

Washington has little political and no military influence over these developments. As Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor charge in their ambitious new history of the Iraq war, The Endgame, Obama's administration sacrificed political influence by failing in 2010 to insist that the results of Iraq’s first proper election be honored: "When the Obama administration acquiesced in the questionable judicial opinion that prevented Ayad Allawi's bloc, after it had won the most seats in 2010, from the first attempt at forming a new government, it undermined the prospects, however slim, for a compromise that might have led to a genuinely inclusive and cross-sectarian government."



And that, boys and girls, is how you get vanished by PBS and NPR.



These days when PBS wants to 'explore' Barack's foreign policy record, they really mean that they want people to praise Barack.  And they want your money too, this is PBS, they want your money in direct donations to PBS and via whatever extra tax dollars Congress can funnel their way.


 Again, many of us on the left wouldn't give a damn if NPR or PBS disappeared tomorrow.


"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Monday, October 1, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, there are US troops in Iraq (who knew! -- not the bulk of the US press which keeps lying), the Sadr bloc wants the National Alliance to explore replacing Nouri as prime minister, the amnesty law was scheduled for a vote today but no vote took place, John Kerry is proven right again, and more.
 
 
 
 
In its final act before leaving town earlier this month, Congress passed a continuing resolution (CR) that failed to reauthorize the main mission of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (OSC-I), despite Pentagon warnings that the move could force the military to withdraw hundreds of U.S. troops who are still in Baghdad helping to develop the Iraqi security forces and working with them on counterterrorism. The authority for U.S. forces to train and assist the Iraqi security forces expired Sunday.
 
 
 
B-b-but, everyone says all US troops left Iraq!  September 2nd, Scott Horsley declared on Weekend Edition (NPR), "There are no more US troops in Iraq."  And Horsley's NPR's correspondent for Barack Obama's re-election campaign so he should know, right?
 
He damn well should know but he's just one more whore passing themselves off as a reporter (which is why we awarded him "Biggest Damn Liar of the Week" at Third).  Why is so damn difficult for the US media to report the truth?  Are they that vested in whoring for Barack Obama?  We've noted the truth here and lived to tell.  We've received thank you e-mails from the families of US troops still in Iraq, glad that someone, anyone, doesn't repeat the lie, doesn't pretend that their loved ones aren't in Iraq.  Why the hell does the media lie? 
 
 
Most Americans have been led to believe that all US forces besides those guarding the massive American Embassy in Iraq have been withdrawn since the end of last year. But small units of up to 300 troops have remained in Baghdad to train Iraqi security forces and provide aid and support, allegedly for counter-terrorism operations.
In reality, US troops have been providing this support to elite Iraqi forces that report directly to the increasingly authoritarian Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. They have essentially been used as a secret police force for Maliki to attack, detain, and torture his political opponents and crack down harshly on public dissent.
 
 
Some are just stupid.  Case in point, Roger Cohen, columnist for the New York Times and the bare remnants of the International Herald Tribune, who writes today:  "He has extracted the United States from a costly war (Iraq); [. . .]."  Just how stupid are you, Roger Cohen?  And shouldn't you be required to read your own damn paper?
 
Last week, Tim Arango (New York Times) reported, "Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence."
 
Repeating: How stupid are you, Roger Cohen?  And do you even read the paper that pays you a salary?  You look like an ass in front of the whole world and that's on you because you can't even read the coverage from your own paper.
 
Of course, Roger may not be stupid, he may just enjoy whoring like so many of his peers.
 
 
Regardless, the American people are not being informed by the alleged news media.  Despite Tim Arango's report, there were no headlines about the negotiations for a return, there were no headlines about more Special-Ops going into Iraq (Tom Hayden did cover the Special-Ops aspect in a blog post at The Nation -- no, that doesn't seem like a lot but it's more than The Progressive, Democracy Now!, In These Times, et al did.).
 
So much gets ignored including yesterday's attacks which mainly served to remind the country of how few US outlets have reporters in Iraq.  Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) notes Iraq witnesses its second deadliest day of the month on Sunday. (September 9th was the deadliest day).   BBC (link is text and video) offered, "Civilians were among those killed and injured in the attacks around the capital, but the aim of the attackers seems to have been to kill as many security personnel as possible, wherever they could reach them, says the BBC's Rami Ruhayem in Baghdad."  Jamal Hashim (Xinhua) counted 34 dead and 85 injured while explaining, "In and near the Iraqi capital, eight car bomb explosions and gunfire attacks killed up to 25 people and wounded 59 others, according to the police reports." Kareem Raheem, Suadad al-Salhy and Sophie Hares (Reuters) added, "Two more policemen were killed when a car bomb went off in the town of Balad Ruz, 90 km (55 miles) northeast of Baghdad, and bomb planted in a parked car in al Qaeda stronghold Mosul killed a civilian."

Most reports floated al Qaeda in Iraq as the culprit.  The Irish Examiner quotes MP Hakim al-Zamili who sits on the Security and Defense Committee stating, "Al-Qaida leaders have no intention of leaving this country or letting Iraqis live in peace.  Thus, we should expect more attacks in the near future. The situation in Iraq is still unstable ... and repetition of such attacks shows that our security forces are still unqualified to deal with the terrorists."
 
Today Alsumaria reports that Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc has stated that Nouri's prime responsibility as prime minister is to ensure security and that he's failed at that.  So in today's press conference they announced the need for an emergency metting by the National Alliance to explore Nouri's fate.  All Iraq News reports the Sadr bloc is questioning whether it isn't time to replace Nouri due to the continued violence. 
 
 
If the series of assaults were part of the Islamic State of Iraq's Breaking The Walls campaign, they will no doubt claim credit in the next few days.    July 22nd, the Islamic State of Iraq released an audio recording announcing a new campaign of violence entitled Breaking The Walls which would include prison breaks and killing "judges and investigators and their guards."  (They also threatened to attack America on US soil.)  They are only one group in Iraq resorting to violence.  On the continued violence, Mohammed Tawfeeq offered this framework, "The violence comes just days after dozens of prisoners broke out of a jail in the northern Iraqi city of Tikrit. Among those who got out Thursday were several al Qaeda members on death row, according to authorities. The jailbreak occurred when armed men detonated two car bombs at the gates of Tasfirat jail. The explosions triggered clashes with security forces."
September in Iraq ended with a wave of violence.  Mohammed Tawfeeeq (CNN) reports last month was the deadliest month in Iraq "since August 2010" according to figures supplied by the Ministry of the Interior which states there were 365 deaths.  AFP adds, "It was the highest monthly toll given by the government since August 2010, when figures showed 426 people were killed and 838 wounded in attacks." All Iraq News notes the ministry's figures for number injured is 683.
Which outlet tabulating came the closest to the number provided by Iraq's ministries?  The Associated Press counted "nearly 200 people" and  AFP's tally for the month is 253 killed.  365?  Looks like everyone got it wrong and -- Oh, wait.  Iraq Body Count's total was 356.  By Price Is Right logic (closest without going over), Iraq Body Count wins.  And if those number succeed in demonstrate anything, hopefully, they indicate that it's past time for the press to return to citing IBC in their monthly look-back pieces.
 
 
A question to ask is why, after a non-stop pattern of undercounting deaths each month, the Ministry of the Interior suddenly didn't low ball?

Is the Ministry under control of Nouri at war with him?  Or, more likely, did Nouri okay an accurate number being released?  After months and months when the official number from the Iraqi government was 100 or more short with each release, what's going on?

If I were someone who had stated that getting most US troops out of Iraq was a good thing and I was in negotiations with the White House to bring some troops back in, I think I'd need to make an argument that they were needed.  One way I'd do that would be by noting the high fatalities.

Maybe that's what's going on, maybe not.

But the violence continues today. Alsumaria notes a Falluja bombing today has claimed the life of 1 soldier and left two more injured, a Diyala Province bombing that claimed the lives of 2 women and 1 man, and a Baghdad armed attack killed 1 personAll Iraq News identifies the person killed in Baghdad as the Administrative and Financial Director of the Parks Dept.  and they note a Mosul home invasion in which 1 woman and her daughter were killed1 Iraqi soldier was injured in a clash near the Syrian border with unknown assailantsKUNA notes a Baghdad car bombing claimed 1 life and left four people injured and a Tikrit bombing claimed 2 lives and left three people injured.  Alsumaria also reports that a Kirkuk roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 farmer (Mohammed Sawadi) and a Salahuddin Province roadside bombing left two police officers injured.


Today's attacks come as Iraq's still recoiling from yesterday's attacks which  claimed 34 lives and left at least eighty-five injured.   Al Mada notes that a member of Parliament's Committee on Security and Defense declared that the bombings will continue for as long as the political crisis does.  Iraq has been a political stalemate for over a year. 
 
 
Let's revisit those elections.  Deborah Amos is a journalist for NPR.  She wrote a [PDF format warning] paper in June of 2010 about the March 2010 elections and Iraqi media.  In the March elections, Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya had bested Nouri's political slate State of Law.  Amos:
 
In the 2010, campaign, Maliki's party was primarily a sectarian political list of Shiite candidates with a few Sunni political figureheads.  In contrast, Allawi's political coalition was a cross-sectarian list.  While Allawi is a Shiite, he headed a party consisting of Sunni political leaders from western and northern Iraq and some Shiite politicians who believed it was time to move beyond sectarian politics if Iraq is to achieve national unity.
In Iraq's short history of free elections, Shiite candidates have a demographic advantage.  Shiites are approximately 60% of the population, and Iraqis voted almost exclusively along sectarian lines in the 2005 national elections and the 2009 provincial vote.  Maliki also had a media advantage.  The state-run national news network did not accept paid campaign advertisements, but freely broadcast extensive reports of Maliki's election appearances and campaign speeches in evening news bulletins.  On the eve of the vote, state TV broadcast a documentary highlighting the Prime Minister's visit to security checkpoints around the capital.  Maliki is widely credited with an improvement in the day-to-day security in the capital and in the south, but his pre-election inspection of the security checkpoints was seen as a long campaign ad.  According to domestic media monitorying reports of state-runtelevision, Al-Iraqiya, Maliki's political coalition received by far the "highest positive coverage" when compared with all other political parties in the campaign.
When it came to the vote, Allawi demonstrated that sectarian voting patterns could be broken.  A small percentage of Shiites voted for a party that included Sunnis on the ticket which helped deliver the two-seat lead.  Prime Minister Maliki charged widespread fraud and demanded a recount to prevent "a return to violence."  He pointedly noted that he remained the commander in chief of the armed forces.
Was Maliki threatening violence?  Was he using the platform of state-run media to suggest that his Shiite-dominated government would not relinquish power to a Sunni coaltion despite the election results? 
 
Yes, that is what he was doing.  And he had the White House's backing.   But let's pause for a moment to note that Amos is the author of one of the finest books on the Iraq War,  Eclipse of the Sunnis: Power, Exile, and Upheaval in the Middle East.  Too many books supposedly about the Iraq War disappear the Iraqis -- not so with Deborah Amos' book.
 
 
 
 
Following the March 2010 elections, there was an 8-month political stalemate when Nouri al-Maliki refused to let the winning slate Iraqiya have first crack at forming a government (the Constitution gave Iraqiya that right).  With the White House's backing, Nouri brought things to a standstill.  In November 2010, the US brokered a contract known as the Erbil Agreement.  It was a list of concessions by Nouri in exchange for getting a second term as prime minister despite his State of Law coming in second in the elections.  Leaders of all the political blocs -- including Nouri -- signed off on the contract.  Nouri used it to grab a second term and then trashed it, insisting that elements would be implemented shortly.  By the summer of 2011, Iraqiya, the Kurds and Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc were calling for the Erbil Agreement to be implemented.  This is the current political stalemate.  It is upgraded to a political crisis in December 2011 when Nouri's previous crackdowns on Sunnis and Iraqiya members moves to Baghdad with him targeting Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi and Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq.  Worth noting again from last week,

Washington has little political and no military influence over these developments. As Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor charge in their ambitious new history of the Iraq war, The Endgame, Obama's administration sacrificed political influence by failing in 2010 to insist that the results of Iraq's first proper election be honored: "When the Obama administration acquiesced in the questionable judicial opinion that prevented Ayad Allawi's bloc, after it had won the most seats in 2010, from the first attempt at forming a new government, it undermined the prospects, however slim, for a compromise that might have led to a genuinely inclusive and cross-sectarian government."
 

The White House could have stood by democracy and will of the people but elected not to.

 
Dar Addustour notes that Parliament met today with four bills on their schedule -- the infrastructure bill and the amnesty bill among them. The two were on Thursday's schedule as well, along with the line of credit (not on the schedule today). There was a walk out by Iraqiya and the Kurdistan Alliance over the infrastructure bill and that ended the session on Thursday. Before the session started, Al Mada reported that the infrastructure bill was seen as the most important and that the Kurdistan Alliance was stating they had not been persuaded to support it. Alsumaria notes that, first, votes were postponed due to the failuer to meet a quorum and now the vote on the infrastructure bill has been kicked back to October 9th. All Iraq News adds that State of Law is accusing Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi of burying the bill, arguing that he could have had a quorum at several points in today's session but refused to call for a count when that was possible.
 
 
AKnews becomes the latest press outlet to go out of business.  This means even more in Iraq where an independent press should be thriving.  The outlet serving the Kurdistan region was started in October 2008 and it was a daily outlet.  Sunday the General Director of AKnews Bedran Ahmed Habeeb reported, "AKnews will stop boradcasting and at the time of writing these words it has already been shut down.  I'm deeply sorry that due to heavy financial burden, we had to close down AKnews.  During my carrier I have worked in many cultural foundations and established many by myself.  Among all the foundations I established, I was happy with AKnews.  I believe it would, most than all foundations, serve a message which I carried since a very young age: rescuing my country from the oppression and establishing a prosperous and free community. At the beginning I thought expending money for this high goal should not be measured.  However, the cost for running this news agency was beyond the capacity of Aras Publishers which founded AKnews.  AKnews was a completely independent news agency.  In the almost four years of operating, we never bent, even slightly, for a political party, unless there was something which passed through by mistake."
 
At the end of June 2010, Deborah Amos authored [PDF format warning] "Confusion, Contradiction and Irony: The Iraqi Media in 2010," a paper for Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy.  Amos noted that "nearly 16 million" -- in a country of approximately 30 million -- have exposure to the TV news media. 
 
Iraq's media landscape had become a mirror of Iraq's political-sectarian divisions. This divide had driven the country to devastating violence from 2005 to 2007 and now has evolved into a political power struggle with satellite television ownership representing the power players.  There are no neutral outlets.  In a landmark 2007 study, researcher Ibrahim Al-Marashi described Iraq's media as powerful sectarian empires" coalesced around ethno-political groups in Iraq who have print, radio and TV communications at their disposal."
 
 
In the emerging Iraq, every press voice is needed and necessary.  The closure of AKnews is very sad news.
 
Very sad also describes Victoria Nuland.  The US State Dept spokesperson -- Dick Cheney's right-hand during the lead up to and early days of the Iraq War (helped with planning, messaging and so much more) -- Victoria Nuland tried to smack down US Senator John Kerry last month.  Maybe that's how she got Cheney's attention but all it did with John Kerry is prove him wrong and prove her hopelessly out of her league.
 
It starts with a September 20th Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the nomination of Robert S. Beecroft to be US Ambassador to Iraq. We covered that hearing in the Wednesday and Thursday snapshots. Kerry's questioning is in the Wednesday snapshot. Like others on the Committee, he was frustrated with the use of Iraqi air space to carry goods into Syria. (The Senate, like the White House, believes this is taking place. Nouri al-Maliki's government denies that it is.)
 
 
Chair John Kerry: Can you share with me an answer to the issue I raised about the Iranians using American airspace in order to support [Syrian President Bashar] Assad? What are we doing, what have you been doing -- if anything, to try to limit that use?
 
 
 
Charge d'Affaires Robert S. Beecroft: I have personally engaged on this repeatedly at the highest levels of Iraqi government. My colleagues in Baghdad have engaged on this. We're continuing to engage on it. And every single visitor representing the US government from the Senate, recently three visitors, to administration officials has raised it with the Iraqis and made very clear that we find this unnaceptable and we find it unhelpful and detrimental to the region and to Iraq and, of course -- first and foremost, to the Syrian people. It's something that needs to stop and we are pressing and will continue to press until it does stop.
 
 
 
Chair John Kerry: Well, I mean, it may stop when it's too late. If so many people have entreated the government to stop and that doesn't seem to be having an impact -- uh, that sort of alarms me a little bit and seems to send a signal to me: Maybe -- Maybe we should make some of our assistance or some of our support contingent on some kind of appropriate response? I mean it just seems completely inappropriate that we're trying to help build their democracy, support them, put American lives on the line, money into the country and they're working against our insterest so overtly -- agains their own interests too -- I might add.
 
 
 
Charge d'Affaires Robert S. Beecroft: Senator, Senator, I share your concerns 100%. I'll continue to engage. And, with your permission, I will make very clear to the Iraqis what you've said to me today -- and that is you find it alarming and that it may put our assistance and our cooperation on issues at stake.
 
 
 
Chair John Kerry: Well I think that it would be very hard. I mean, around here, I think right now there's a lot of anxiety about places that seem to be trying to have it both ways. So I wish you would relay that obviously and I think that members of the Committee would -- would want to do so.
 
 
 
Kerry and the Committee were in agreement on this.  Victoria Nuland would comment Thursday in the US State Dept press briefing.
 
 
 
QUESTION: But you've been protesting all along about this issue. Yesterday, Senator Kerry warned Iraq. Are you going to further pressure Iraq and warn about the aid to Maliki government?
 
 
MS. NULAND: Well, Senator Kerry has obviously made his own statements. We do not support linking U.S. assistance to Iraq to the issue of the Iranian over-flights precisely because our assistance is in part directed towards robust security assistance, including helping the Iraqis build their capability to defend their airspace. So there's a chicken/egg thing here.
 
What a sad and inexperienced State Dept.  This was the only pressure that the US had in the diplomatic tool kit.  Kerry was willing to use the tool kit, Victoria Nuland was more concerned with appeasing Nouri al-Maliki.  As we noted in the September 21st snapshot:
 
It's a shame she couldn't back up Kerry and it's a shame she couldn't have just said she'd get back to them on it. Instead, she had to waive the white flag. Always. Reuters reported today, "Iraq denied permission to a North Korean plane bound for Syria to pass through Iraqi airspace last Saturday because it suspected it could be carrying weapons, a senior official said on Friday." On Friday, they announce the denial six days prior of a North Korean plane? Why?
Because they feel and fear the pressure from the proposal John Kerry and others on the Committee floated. So now they're making some sort of effort to say, "Well, we're at least doing this." And making it because they want the US money. So, Alsumaria reports, Nouri told US Vice President Joe Biden on the phone today -- I would say whined -- that he was being doubted about his Syrian position by US officials and that this wasn't fair. Point being, John Kerry and the Committee knew what they were doing. Again, it's a shame that Nuland was so quick to raise the white flag at the State Dept yesterday. Already, Kerry and his Committee floating the idea has had impact. It's not yet where they want it, but it could get there. If Nuland and company would stop undercutting the Senate. There's more here but we'll pick it up next week, hopefully on Monday. Nuland doesn't have the sense to be embarrassed but if anyone has bragging rights today, it's John Kerry and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which, in less than 48 hours, have accomplished more than all the talk and talk and talk with Nouri that the State Dept's done for months now.
 
 
Yesterday, Reuters reported, "Iraq will ask Syria-bound Iranian planes passing through its airspace to land for random inspections after Washington said they could be ferrying arms to Damascus, the Iraqi foreign minister said in an interview."  Maybe next time, the State Dept should be a little less eager to try to slap down John Kerry?  He's three years shy of the thirty year mark for service in the Senate.  Might he know a thing or two about diplomacy?  You'd think a Democratic administration would grasp that it's not really smart to pick fights with a Democratic Senator -- but maybe Victoria Nuland thinks she's still working for Dick Cheney?  Who knows.  Yet again, Kerry has been proven correct.  Events have demonstrated that he was right to float the notion that US funds could be denied.  It would be really big of Nuland to note that Kerry was correct in a State Dept press briefing but I won't hold my breath.
 
 
 
On a personal note, we are delinking from Courage to Resist.  Fair or not, I've had it with the brother and sister team of Rebecca and David Solnit.  When they insulted and trashed two friends of mine and I got stuck commenting on their book, I high roaded it and stayed focused on that awful book.  In part because of Courage to Resist but in part because no one was going to read that damn book.  And no one did.  And there have been other things I've overlooked.  But I really have an allergy to the freaks who hide in political closets.  I especially have an allergy when these freaks -- non-Democrats -- decided they are the Democratic Party's enforcers.  No offense, Rebecca, but Democrats don't need non-Democrats telling them what to do.  And 360.org may be all the craze of American Communists and Socialists who hide in the closet but we have no interest in that crap-ass group.  Lambert of Corrente linked to this strong piece at L'Hote by Freddie which led to people using the links and discovering that Rebecca Solnit's trying to play enforcer for the Democratic Party.
 
Rebecca, if she really wanted to help Barack, should probably close her mouth and stop speaking.  Though Barack will take any voter's vote gladly, Team Obama doesn't really want to be associated with or linked to the Red vote -- that's caused them more p.r. problems than anything else, you can check with David Axelrod on that.
 
 
Is that really reason to ban her and her brother David?  Actually, it is.  Your vote is your vote.  We have stressed this repeatedly.  People like Rebecca who long for totalitarian regimes don't respect the people or the will of the people so that would be enough all by itself.  But David was already on my s**t list.  He got there last week, as did Courage to Resist, when they posted something that was not helpful to say the least. 
 
There are US war resisters in Canada.  They deserve support.  I'm not really sure how the so-called report on Skyler James that went up helps war resisters in Canada.  I'm confused  mainly because it doesn't help them.  Maybe I'm missing some subtext not having a Marxist ring to decode Bob Meola's text?   I asked a friend who's a centrist military attorney to look at it.  He doesn't believe any of Skyler James' charges and accusations.  I then shopped it around to three friends in DoD.  I wasn't looking to find out if the charges were true or not (I'll take Skyler James at her word), I was trying to see what the reaction was to those who don't already support war resisters.  And the reaction was no one believed Skyler's claims of mistreatment -- which means that the Canadian government most likely won't either. 
 
So when you leave her claims of no toilet paper and having trouble catching a ride to the mess hall and other things aside, what you're left with is Skyler James left Canada, returned to the US and wasn't tortured, wasn't even imprisoned.  She was free to roam the base.
 
If you're missing it, that's not how life was for Robin Long.  Nor for Clifford Cornell.  It's probably not how life's going to be for Kim Rivera.  But it certainly does help the Stephen Harper's government's argument that war resisters are not treated unfairly.  "After three and a half months of being back in the states," Skyler tells Courage to Resist, "and doing paper work to do a Chapter 10 in lieu of a court martial, Colerman finally put in the paper for the Chapter 10 discharge in lieu of court martial.  About a week later, Adrian Haddad, my civilian attorney let me know that it was approved."
 
How does that help the war resisters in Canada?  It doesn't.  It, in fact, makes Harper's case for him.

Skyler James wasn't your typical war resister.  She was resisting the Afghanistan War, for one thing, and not many did that who publicly went to Canada.  But most importantly, she is a lesbian.  Because of what she was claiming when she went public in Canada, it's very doubtful the US military would risk dragging the process through the press.  Skylar was victimized in the military because of who she was and that victimization is why she was hustled out of the military quickly.  It's a real shame Courage to Resist couldn't be bothered with that.
 
Instead they've written and posted online what can be evidence for the Canadian government when they try to to deport the next US war resister.  When Alyssa Manning argues to the courts that the war resister will suffer harsh treatement, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney can just introduce the Courage to Resist article into the record.  I'll tell you how it reads to people who don't support war resisters because I heard it from everyone I showed the article to.  Skyler James was taken to the base  Fort Campbell while the military determined what to do.  On the base, she was not locked up.  She was not restricted in movement.  She freely traveled around the base.  On Memorial Day weekend she partied (and they believe she was drugged or she did drugs).  None of that helps war resisters in Canada.  I have no idea why the useless article was run by an advocay group.  Or a so-called advocacy group.  And if you're wondering why Canadians -- not Courage to Resist -- floating applying pressure to Barack to save Kim Rivera, it's because Cowards Don't Resist won't stand up to Barack.  I'm tired of the Solnits and their faux actions.  They've compromised whatever integrity they did have.
 
 
 
 
cnn

Saturday, September 29, 2012

Thoughts on NBC's Smash

A reader wrote an e-mail that I could have.  I'm not going to identify her.  I didn't laugh at her when Sunny showed me the e-mail.  I could have done the same thing.

The e-mailer wanted to know if I was excited about Smash coming back next month.

Smash won't be back with new episodes until January. 

Again, I could have made the same mistake myself.  It's easy to.  Trying to juggle a million things and don't new episodes usually start in the fall? 

I think one of the reasons it's starting in January instead of the fall is because they're wanting to run the 22 episodes in order with no repeats or breaks.  I think another reason is because of the new show runner who is retooling the series.

(By the way, if NBC does very poorly with new shows, there's talk of Smash coming on before January, just FYI.  Their new comedy block isn't performing as expected -- especially The New Normal which is a bit of a ratings dud.  Rebecca reviews it here and Mike reviews it and The Mindy Project here.)

Earlier this month, Chris Barton (LA Times) reported:


Only a month removed from announcing that the drama starring Debra Messing would offer a mini "Will & Grace" reunion with the addition of Sean Hayes, NBC has announced two more cast members: "Hairspray" star Nikki Blonsky and Jesse L. Martin, who was part of the Tony Award-winning cast of "Rent."
Broadway.com notes Bernadette Peters will be back as Ivy's mother for several episodes and that Jennifer Hudson and Sheryl Lee Ralph will be mother-and-daughter on the second season.  I think that's a mistake.

Jennifer Hudson is a great singer and has demonstrated she is a great actress (see the film Dreamgirls).  Sheryl Lee Ralph was in the play Dreamgirls.  Playing the role Beyonce did in the film. 

Point being, if you're bringing on Jennifer, bring on Jennifer Holliday too.

Holliday played Hudson's role in the Broadway musical.   In 1982, she went to number one on the soul chart with "And I'm Telling You I'm Not Going."  To have the two Jennifers who both played Effie in Dreamgirls playing mother and daughter really would have been something.

Sheryl Lee is a good actress.  I'm not saying she's not.  But I'm saying if you're working a Dreamgirl angle, the obvious angle is the two Jennifers as mother and daughter.  One Jennifer won an Academy Award for the Dreamgirls role (Hudson), the other won a Tony for it. 

I'll enjoy Sean Hayes appearance provided he has some scenes with Debra Messing.   If they just walk past one another in a  crowd scene, however, I will feel ripped off.


"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Friday, September 28, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, Iraq War veteran Brian Kinsella begins motoring across America to raise awareness of soldier suicide, the Defense Dept releases their latest monthly suicide figures, the State Dept reclassifies a group, the Wall St. Journal does the best Western-English language report on the prison assault in Tikrit, Bradley Manning's attorney calls for charges against Bradley to be dropped, and more.
 
Iraq War veteran Brian Kinsella is among many who enjoy motorcycles (he rides a Harley Davidson Street Glide).  Today, at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, he begins a two-week, 5,000 Ride For Life as part of the mission of Stop Soldier Suicide:

During the journey, Kinsella will talk with soldiers, veterans, and senior military leaders at 12 military installations while spreading a word about military suicide prevention and existing civilian sources of aid for US troops.
 

Click here to see a map of the route at the Stop Solider Suicide website.  Online, you can follow the journey via the Ride For Life Twitter page, the Stop Soldier Suicide Twitter page and via the Stop Soldier Suicide Facebook page as well as the Stop Soldier Suicide blogAlyssa Newcomb (ABC News) reports Brian Kinsella was the platoon leader in 2006 when an 18-year-old soldier in his platoon attempted to take her own life.  He tells Newcomb, "She moved into a male dominated unit, trying to figure out what the hell she was doing to go to war.  We as a command could have done more to make sure this person had better acclimated to our unit."  Julie La Roche (Business Insider) explains:
 
During the two-week ride, Kinsella will make stops at 12 military installations where he plans to promote SSS's mission, raise awareness about soldier suicide and form partnerships. 
He's also encouraging people to join him on different lengths of the ride to show their support.
"Our desire is for people to join the ride as I pass through towns. It will really show how much people care and support our brave veterans," Kinsella said over coffee last week on September 11th in the Flatiron District. 
 
The Ride For Life comes as the suicide rate is such that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has rightly termed it a crisis. July 25th, he appeared before the House Veterans Affairs Committee. From that day's snapshot:
 

US House Rep Mike Michaud:  Quick question, and I want to read from a Veterans Service Organization letter that they actually sent to Senator [Jim] Webb just last week.  And just part of it says, "The only branch of the military to show a marked improvement decreasing the number of persons taking their own life is the United States Marines.  They should also be praised for their active leadership from the very top in addressing the problem and implementing the solutions.  The remaining services have yet to be motivated to  take any substanative action. "  Secretary Panetta, I've been to Iraq and Afghanistan several times and I've looked the generals in the eye and I've asked them what are they doing personally to help the stigmatized TBI, PTSD?  And the second question is: Do they need any help?  I get the same answer over there as I do over here in DC: 'Everything's okay.  We've got all the resources we need.  We don't need any help.'  But the interesting thing is someone much lesser ranked came up to me, after I asked the general that question, outside and said, "We need a lot more help."  And he suggested  that I talk to the clergy to find out what they are seeing happening.  And I did that trip and every trip since then.  And I'm finding that our service members are not getting the help that they need.  And my question, particularly after looking at this letter that was sent to Senator Webb, it appears the Marines are doing a good job so why is it so different between the Marines, the Army and other branches?  And can you address that?
 

 
Secretary Leon Panetta: You know -- Obviously, there's no silver bullet here.  I wish there were to try to deal with suicide prevention.  We-we have a new suicide prevention office that's trying to look at programs  to try to address this terrible epedemic. I  mean, we are looking.  If you look at just the numbers, recent total are you've got about 104  confirmed and 102 pending investigation in 2012.  The total of this is high, almost 206.  That's nearly one a day.  That is an epedemic.  Something is wrong.  Part of this is people are inhibited because they don't want to get the care that they probably need. So that's part of the problem, trying to get the help that's necessary.  Two, to give them access to the kind of care that they need.  But three -- and, again, I stress this because I see this in a number of other areas, dealing with good discipline and good order and, uh, trying to make sure that our troops are responding to the challenges -- it is the leadership in the field.  It's the platoon commander.  It's the platoon sergeant.  It's the company commander. It's the company sergeant.  The ability to look at their people, to see these problems.  To get ahead of it and to be able to ensure that when you spot the problems, you're moving that individual to the kind of-of assistance that they need in order to prevent it.  The Marines stay in close touch with their people.  That's probably one of the reasons that the Marines are doing a good job.  But what we're stressing in the other services is to try to develop that-that training of the command.  So that they two are able to respond to these kinds of challenges. 
 
 
 
Yesterday the Defense Dept released the latest suicide data: "During August, among active-duty soldiers, there were 16 potential suicides:  three have been confirmed as suicides and 13 remain under investigation.  For July, the Army reported 26 potential suicides among active-duty soldiers: 13 have been confirmed as suicides and 13 remain under investigation.  For 2012, there have been 131 potential active-duty suicides:  80 have been confirmed as suicides and 51 remain under investigation.  Active-duty suicide number for 2011: 165 confirmed as suicides and no cases under investigation.  During August, among reserve component soldiers who were not on active duty, there were nine potential suicides (five Army National Guard and four Army Reserve):  none have been confirmed as suicide and nine remain under investigation.  For July, among that same group, the Army reported 12 potential suicides (nine Army National Guard and three Army Reserve); four have been confirmed as suicides and eight remain under investigation.  For 2012, there have been 80 potential not on active-duty suicides (49 Army National Guard and 31 Army Reserve):  59 have been confirmed as suicides and 21 remain under investigation.  Not on active-duty suicide numbers for 2011:  118 (82 Army National Guard and 36 Army Reserve) confirmed as suicides and no cases under investigation."  The Suicide Prevention Lifeline is 1-800-273-TALK, 1-800-273-8255.  (FYI, Cell phones have different lettering than landlines. That's a fact that seems to escape people giving out letters for phone numbers currently.)
  
Moving from government department to another, today the US State Dept released the following:
 
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
September 28, 2012
The Secretary of State has decided, consistent with the law, to revoke the designation of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) and its aliases as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) under the Immigration and Nationality Act and to delist the MEK as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist under Executive Order 13224. These actions are effective today. Property and interests in property in the United States or within the possession or control of U.S. persons will no longer be blocked, and U.S. entities may engage in transactions with the MEK without obtaining a license. These actions will be published in the Federal Register.
With today's actions, the Department does not overlook or forget the MEK's past acts of terrorism, including its involvement in the killing of U.S. citizens in Iran in the 1970s and an attack on U.S. soil in 1992. The Department also has serious concerns about the MEK as an organization, particularly with regard to allegations of abuse committed against its own members.
The Secretary's decision today took into account the MEK's public renunciation of violence, the absence of confirmed acts of terrorism by the MEK for more than a decade, and their cooperation in the peaceful closure of Camp Ashraf, their historic paramilitary base.
The United States has consistently maintained a humanitarian interest in seeking the safe, secure, and humane resolution of the situation at Camp Ashraf, as well as in supporting the United Nations-led efforts to relocate eligible former Ashraf residents outside of Iraq.
 
 
Some would be seers have insisted all week that the move was a mistake and that the MEK deserved to be labeled terrorists (in 1997 by the Clinton administration) yet they never found an argument to make on behalf of the Camp Ashraf residents.  If Glen Glen and the other Three Faces of Eve are unhappy with the way things were headed, they should have factored in that there was a legal obligation to the Camp Ashraf residents on the part of the US government and then they should have come up with a suggestion of how to honor that obligation without taking the MEK off the list.  As Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed earlier this year that "since 2004, the United States has considered the residents of Camp Ashraf 'noncombatants' and 'protected persons' under the Geneva Conventions." 
 
Paul Richter (Los Angeles Times) observes, "The Iranian government condemned the decision and blamed the group for an incident in which a senior Iranian diplomat in New York for the U.N. General Assembly was assaulted on the street."  CNN notes today that "since 2004 the United States has considered the group, which has lived for more than 25 years at a refugee camp in Iraq, 'noncombatants' and 'protected persons' under the Geneva Conventions."  So if the Three Faces of Eve had objections to changing the status of the MEK, they should have made time to propose how to address the issues of the Camp Ashraf residents.  It's not as though, for example, Antiwar.com hasn't spent years savaging the MEK.  If they had a way to address the legal obligations to Camp Ashraf, they should have proposed it. 
 
 
Today was another deadly day in Iraq.  Alsumaria reports  Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Ahmed was shot dead south of Kirkuk.  All Iraq News reporting 1 police officer shot dead in Falluja and that a Tikrit car bombing left two people injured.
 
Yesterday's violence included the assault on the Tirkit prison which left prisoners and guards dead and wounded.  Mohammed Lazim (CNN) notes, "The attackers wore police uniforms and used cars similar to those driven by police, a police source told the National Iraqi News Agency."  BBC offers, "The raid appeared to be well co-ordinated between the gunmen and some of the inmates, the BBC's Rami Ruhayem in Baghdad reports."  Possibly well coordinated with others?  Ayad al-Tamimi (Al Mada) reports that accusations are flying insisting that the police chief of the province received warnings -- "warnings," three -- ahead of the attack but that the warnings were ignored. The Saudi Gazette adds, "And a traffic police lieutenant colonel who was near the scene of the attack said militants blew up part of the prison fence, and between 30 and 40 inmates were able to escape. A police colonel said a riot broke out in the prison, while witnesses said inmates seized the guards' weapons, and that more than 100 of them escaped and fought security forces in the surrounding area." Not only did a number of prisoners escape but Radio New Zealand and Alsumaria report that they were smart enough to grab their own files and, as a result, there are no records on them.   Apparently Iraq is an oil-rich country that's not worried about going green or paperless since all files are apparently paper.  
 
Those reporting this morning on the violence were hard pressed to nail down the numbres as various officials gave various figures.   Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) cited Raed Ibrahim ("health official") for a death toll of 10 prison guards and 2 prisoners with thirty-two injured and cites politician Qutaiba al-Jubouri as the source of 81 prisoners escaping with 36 of them being captured after escape. UPI stated that 14 died in the assault and, citing Salaheddin Province Governor Ahmed Abdallah al-Jabouri said 33 escaped prisoners had been captured.  Tang Danlu (Xinhua) offered 15 dead and forty-five injured and the source is the police who also state 200 prisoners escaped and that 81 remain at large.  Hassan Obeidi (AFP) noted, "A hospital official in Tikrit, the ancesestral home of now-executed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, said 13 police were killed and 34 wounded in the violence."  And Duraid Adnan and an unnamed stringer in Tikrit (New York Times) were the only ones this morning to note  the death penalty aspect by quoting Tikrit's head of security, Muhammad Hassan, stating, "They were sentenced to death, so they were ready to do anything to escape." Kuwait's KUNA notes, "The mass breakout started as the security services began transferring 40 convicts on the death roll fromt he jail to a Baghdad jail."

The death penalty aspect is not a minor issue.  It's what fuels support for the attacks on prisons in Iraq.  Ali A. Nabhan and Sam Dagher (Wall St. Journal) reported this afternoon:
 
Frustration among Iraqi Sunnis with what they regard as the government's sectarian bias has colored parliamentary deliberations over a controversial amnesty law, which if passed could see thousands of prisoners freed for the sake of furthering national reconciliation.
On Thursday, a Shiite parliamentary bloc that had adopted the bill withdrew it from voting after failing to agree on whether those convicted under a terrorism law known as Article Four should be considered for amnesty as advocated by Sunni lawmakers.
[. . .]
Many of those held at the Tikrit prison were on death row and were scheduled for transfer to Baghdad to carry out their sentences, said Mr. [Mishaan al-]Jubouri [, former MP],  and other officials in the province.
 
Good for the Wall St. Journal for being the only English language publication to address what's going on.  The Iraqi press can and does address it.  By English language outlets refusing to do the same they're encouraging the confusion many Americans encounter when they learn of the armed conflict between the PKK and the Turkish government today. 
 
As the numbers make clear, it's not a surprising issue.  The US Census Bureaus says the US population is 311.5 million.  Iraq's population is about one-tenth of that.  (28 to 31 million is the usual estimate -- they haven't had a census since the middle-stages of Saddam Hussein's rule; the CIA estimates its 31.1. million while the World Bank goes for 32.9 million).  So with Iraq being one-tenth of the population, let's now look at the execution rates because both countries ignorantly continue to use the death penalty.

Doug Craig (Redding.com) reported at the start of this month that there were 27 executions in the US so far this year.  That's 27 too many and you can be sure the number will be much greater by the end of the year.  Iraq, by contrast, has executed at least 96 people so far this year with another 200 scheduled for execution.

With one-tenth of the population the US has, they've already executed over three times as many people this year.  At the end of last month, Human Rights Watch noted of Iraq's executions:

Authorities said that all had been convicted on charges "related to terrorism," but provided little information about what crimes they had committed. Human Rights Watch has previously documented the prevalence of unfair trials and torture in detention, particularly in national security and terrorism-related cases. "There is no doubt that Iraq still has a serious terrorism problem, but it also has a huge problem with torture and unfair trials," said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "The lack of transparency around these convictions and executions, in a country where confessions that may have been coerced are often the only evidence against a person, makes it crucial for Iraq to declare an immediate moratorium on all executions."

This comes as mass arrests continue -- yesterday there were 78 mass arrests (that does not count recaptured prisoners).  In a country where mass arrests take place daily, where the arrested (some innocent, some guilty) disappear into a system that makes it impossible for most families to find their loved ones, where the judicial system is a joke, where even get a trial make take years, you've created an environment where people can feel sympathetic to the Islamic State of Iraq's actions.  They can imagine it's them and not the person down the street, especially since the mass arrests have not only taken place for years now in Iraq but they continue.   
 
Alsumaria reports the spokesperson for the Sadr bloc in Parliament, Mushriq Naji, is pointing out that yesterday's assault and escape is what happens when corruption reigns and the institutions of reform fail and he specifically notes the faliure of the Parliament to pass the amnesty law.  All Iraq News adds that there is a demand to reform state institutions immediately.  The National Alliance line comes from one of their MPs who insists that political parlies helped with the prison break and this is an attempt to provide pressure to pass the amnesty law.  Al Mada notes Ahmed Chalabi is calling for MPs to propose amendments to the amnesty law to address whatever concerns they have.  This is most likely aimed at State of Law since they've been the biggest obstacle to the passage of an amnesty law.

The prison assault was part of yesterday's violence, it was not the only violence.  A number of Iraqi outlets are focusing on the assassination of former Basra Governor (2005 - 2009)  Hussein al-Asadi.  Alsumaria reports that MP Hussein al-Asadi, from Basra, states that the assassination is proof of how weak the security remains in Iraq.   He notes an increase in recent bombings and called on Nouri al-Maliki and the Ministry of the Interior to make changes immediately.  Dar Addustour covers the assassination hereAlsumaria notes the Ministry of the Interior has announced the formation of three committees to examine the assassination.  Prior to that announcement, the Islamic Virtue Party (political party) was calling for an investigation to be startedAll Iraq News notes that MP Hussein al-Asadi is insisting that the fault for the assassination lies with the Barra police. Alsumaria adds that MP Shawn Mohammed Taha is calling for the security leaders in the Iraqi government to be changed.  What he should bbe noting is that Nouri al-Maliki has refused to nominate heads of the security ministries making him the de facto head of the Ministry of the Defense, the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of National Security. 


Yesterday, Parliament was in session.  They were to vote on bills regarding a line of credit, infrastructure and amnesty.  Over infrastructure,  members of Iraqiya and the Kurdish Alliance walked out.  Deprived of a quorum, the session ended.  Al Mada notes that State of Law is now accusing Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi of blocking the infrastructure law.  While al-Nujaifi is a member of Iraqiya, he has not taken part in any of their walk-outs, including the first day of the current Parliament back in 2010.  Since he didn't walk out and since he's scheduled the infrastructure bill for a Monday vote, State of Law's latest attempt to uncork the crazy falls flat and then some.  In the meantime, Al Mada notes, Parliament is denying that they have a draft law for compulsory service in the Iraqi military.
 
Iraq has had two political stalemates since the March 2010 elections.  Immediately after the elections, when Nouri al-Maliki's political slate State of Law came in second to Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya, Nouri caused the first stalemate by refusing to allow the Constitution to be followed (the results meant that Allawi's group should get named prime minister-designate and be given 30 days to form a Cabinet or someone else would be named prime minister-designate).  Nouri refused to allow the process to take place.  This created an eight month political stalemate.  Nouri was able to create this because he had the backing of the US White House.  In November 2010, the stalemate was finally ended as a result of a contract the US government brokered.  This contract, the Erbil Agreement, found the political blocs agreeing that Nouri could have a second term as prime minister provided he meet certain agreements -- implement Article 140 of the Constitution, create an independent national security council, etc.  Nouri used the agreement to become prime minister and then trashed the agreement  Since the summer of 2011, the Kurds, Iraqiya and Moqtada al-Sadr have been publicly calling for the Erbil Agreement to be followed.  This is the beginning of political stalemate II which is ongoing. 
 
Right now, hopes are pinned on a national conference.  Supposedly, it will be able to resolve the political stalemate that has transitioned into a political crisis.  Al Mada reports that Iraqiya would be represented in the talks by Allawi; however, 'would be.'  The paper notes many are starting to doubt a national conference will actually take place.  Nouri has opposed it from the start, it was first proposed December 21st -- by Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.
 
On the topic of Nouri and politics, Joel Wing (AKnews) examines Iraq and Nouri's Dawa political party:
 
In 2011, the Women's Affairs Ministry attempted to institute a dress code for female public workers. The order came from the Higher National Committee for the Advancement of Iraqi Women who demanded that women working for the government wear "moderate dress" in September 2011. The committee was under the Women's Affairs Minister Ibtihal al-Zaidi of the Dawa Party. One committee member said that the ruling came as a result of public workers not dressing according to Islamic traditions. The Planning and the Higher Education Ministries, which were run by the Sadrists and State of Law respectively read the rules to all their female employees. Other ministries run by other parties did not comply. Again, this was an instance where Dawa members were acting against what they saw as violations of their interpretation of religion. Iraqi public workers wear all types of dress from traditional to Western. Some members of the Women's Affairs Ministry were getting offended by the latter, and attempted to put an end to it. The fact that Iraq has a divided government with different parties controlling different ministries also showed the limited power the Dawa actually had over the matter. Those ministers with Islamist leanings attempted to enforce the ruling, but others who were either non-religious or opposed to Maliki, ignored it. That highlighted the unwillingness of Maliki and Dawa to go beyond those jurisdictions that they had direct control over.
The latest example of Islamist inspired action was far more violent. In 2012, there were reports that anywhere from six to forty emos and gays were murdered in Baghdad. This came after the Interior Ministry posted a statement on its website calling emos Devil worshippers in February. The Ministry then called for a police crackdown, while at the same time claiming that any deaths were being made up by the media. Stories emerged that Shiite militants were handing out lists of people they were going to kill. In March, Human Rights Watch blamed the government for the attacks, which was later substantiated by a BBC investigation. The BBC found that the Interior Ministry statement about emos being Satanists led to a concerted and covert campaign to murder gays and emos in the capital by members of the security forces. While Adnan Asadi is the deputy Interior Minister, he was appointed by Prime Minister Maliki in 2011, who is still the acting Interior Minister. Like the alcohol banning, this appears to be an instance where the premier has used the security forces to go after those he feels are in violation of his image of what an Islamic society should be like. Unlike those earlier events however, this one has led to several deaths, which will go unpunished since they are at the behest of the central government. At the same time, this again shows that Maliki and Dawa have only felt comfortable imposing their views on a limited scale, only going after emos and homosexuals in certain districts of Baghdad, rather than the whole city, other provinces or the entire country.
 
 
Via videolink from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, WikiLeaks' Julian Assange spoke to the United Nations General Assembly.  The Voice of Russia has the video.
 
 
Julian Assange:  Today I want to tell you an American story. I want to tell you the story of a young American soldier in Iraq. The soldier was born in Crescent, Oklahoma, to a Welsh mother and to a U.S. Navy father. His parents fell in love. His father was stationed at the U.S. military base in Wales. The soldier showed early promise as a boy, winning top prizes at science fairs three years in a row. He believed in the truth, and like all of us, he hated hypocrisy. He believed in liberty and the right for all of us to pursue it and happiness. He believed in the values that founded an independent United States. He believed in Madison, he believed in Jefferson, and he believed in Paine. Like many teenagers, he was unsure what to do with his life, but he knew he wanted to defend his country, and he knew he wanted to learn about the world. He entered the U.S. military and, like his father, trained as an intelligence analyst. In late 2009, age 21, he was deployed to Iraq. There, it is alleged, he saw a U.S. military that did not often follow the rule of law and, in fact, engaged in murder and supported political corruption. It is alleged it was there, in Baghdad, in 2010 that he gave to WikiLeaks, he gave to me, and, it is alleged, he gave to the world, details that exposed the torture of Iraqis, the murder of journalists and the detailed records of over 120,000 civilian killings in Iraq and in Afghanistan. He is also alleged to have given WikiLeaks 251,000 U.S. diplomatic cables, which then went on to help trigger the Arab Spring. This young soldier's name is Bradley Manning.
 

Monday April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7, 2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported in August 2010 that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified information." In March, 2011, David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) reported that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty if convicted. The Article 32 hearing took place in December.  At the start of this year, there was an Article 32 hearing and, February 3rd, it was announced that the government would be moving forward with a court-martial.  Bradley has yet to enter a plea and has neither affirmed that he is the leaker nor denied it.  The court-martial was supposed to begin this month has been postponed until after the election . 
 
 
 
On 19 September 2012, the Defense filed its Motion to Dismiss All Charges and Specifications With Prejudice for Lack of a Speedy Trial. PFC Manning has been in pretrial confinement since 29 May 2010. As of the date of the filing of this motion, PFC Manning had been in pretrial confinement for 845 days. To put this amount of time into perspecive, it took only 410 days to construct the Empire State Building.   By the time the Government actually brings PFC Manning to trial in February of 2013 (983 days after he was placed into pretrial confinement), the Empire State Building could have been constructed almost three times over.
On 29 October 2012, the Defense will argue that the military judge should dismiss this case with prejudice due to the Government's abject failure to honor PFC Manning's fundamental speedy trial rights.
During August, among active-duty soldiers, there were 16 potential suicides: three have been confirmed as suicides and 13 remain under investigation.  For July, the Army reported 26 potential suicides among active-duty soldiers:
 
 
The Green Party presidential candidate is Jill Stein.  Her campaign notes:
Despite the Democrat and Republican candidates' near silence on the issue, climate change is happening, the impacts are getting more severe, and it's not something we can choose to ignore.

Join us online this Sunday, September 30th at 4pmPST/7pmEST to hear how Jill Stein's Green New Deal would curb climate change and transition the United States to a sustainable economy. 
Who: 
  • Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein
  • Colin Beavan, aka No Impact Man, Green Party Candidate for Congress, will moderate the event
  • Bill McKibben, author and climate change expert, will offer scientific, non-partisan background on the issue
RSVP Here
Here's how to participate in the event:
  • Click here on Sunday 9/30 at 4pmPST/7pmEST. (Yes, it's that easy!)
  • Host a house party! (Of course, this is optional, but we'd be grateful if you chose to!) Have a little BBQ with neighbors and friends and watch the event together. If you and your guests are impressed with what you learn about the vision of the campaign, collect donations to help that dream become reality!
  • Join the conversation online! Use the hashtag #ClimateTownHall to share your thoughts and questions with us on Twitter. Post comments on our Facebook wall, as well as your own (be sure to tag our page).
Have a question you'd like Jill to answer? You can submit questions both before and during the event in the following ways:
  • Tweet your question using the hashtag #ClimateTownHall
  • Post your question on our Facebook wall. (Please still tag it #ClimateTownHall, so we know it's related to this event.)
  • Share your question with us on Google+ (again, using the hashtag above).
  • Submit your question during the event on LiveStream.
And, here's how to help us demand action now!

This event is just one part of an entire day of action. The Green Party is urging local supporters to organize events (or issue a release) in your community to highlight our demand that the US take action now on climate change. The Green Party of NY has drafted a 
Green Climate Change Model Media Release and Green Climate Change Action Plan you can use for local releases, news conferences, and media events.

The Republicans are climate change deniers, the Democrats are climate change evaders. Contact 
dunleamark@aol.com or visit the Green Party of New York State website for more information.
 
 
 
 
 
 cnn