Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Confused by a claim of 'entire political situation'

His answers were larded with weasel words. We knew it, and so did anybody who read our work then, or reads it now, several years later. But they were just enough so that given the entire political situation, we felt we had to endorse Obama's campaign for the US Senate. My colleague Glen Ford calls it an ethical dilemma, but I prefer to believe it was a political one, in which we conducted ourselves as honest journalists. We caught him with his pants down and called him. We posed the bright line questions. Candidate Obama was forced to answer them for the permanent record, a record which indicts President Obama today, and prefigures his conduct on health care, NAFTA, the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, government torture and kidnappings, the right to organize unions, his Wall Street bailouts, his endorsement of Bush educational policies and much more. The fact that Obamaland has turned out to be a delusion is no surprise to us, and to many others. It's a reality that dawns upon more and more of us as time goes on.

That's from Bruce Dixon's "Leaving Obamaland" (Black Agenda Report) and I find it confusing. First let me point out that Bruce Dixon and Glen Ford never drank the Kool-Aid in 2008. They were strong voices and I appreciate that.

But I'm confused by the above about 2003 when they elected to cover for Barack. They covered for him and that's been admitted at BAR already. They covered for him and wrote their article (for Black Commentator in 2003) saying he wasn't DLC even though they knew better.

If you're late to the party, their articles from 2003 are here.

After the original and after Barry O wrote them a letter, this got printed (and "Mother of All Trojan Horses" refers to the DLC):

Your record gives no indication that you are compatible with this “Mother of All Trojan Horses” inside the Democratic Party, as Bruce Dixon puts it. Early in your letter, you say that you did not “expend any effort to be included on the [DLC] list beyond filling out a three line questionnaire asking me to describe my current political office, my proudest accomplishment, and my cardinal rules of politics.” This is quite a different DLC affiliation process than the one described by Robert Dreyfuss in his American Prospect article:

"To ensure that liberals don't slip through the cracks, NDN requires each politician who seeks entree to its largesse and contacts to fill out a questionnaire that asks his or her views on trade, economics, education, welfare reform, and other issues. The questions are detailed, forcing candidates to state clearly whether or not they support views associated with the New Democrat Coalition, and it concludes by asking, "Will you join the NDC when you come to Congress?" Next, [the DLC] interviews each candidate, and then NDN determines which candidacies are viable before providing"

Trusting your word and knowing Dreyfuss to be a very good reporter, we must conclude that Al From and his crew value your presence in the DLC very highly, and therefore spared you the full corporate shakeout. Apparently, they were quite eager to recruit a Black progressive willing to step across some very “bright lines” to adorn the literature of an organization that opposes his own core political positions.

And then came this (also June 2003):

bc [Black Commenator] is relieved, pleased, and looking forward to Obama’s success in the Democratic senatorial primary and Illinois general election.
There is plenty of room to argue over such things as whether NAFTA is a “free trade” agreement or an “investor rights agreement” – that’s the stuff of the progressive conversation.

Now Bruce and Glen would reveal in 2007 or 2008 that they knew Barack was lying when he claimed he'd never been a member of the DLC, never sought membership, et al. They knew he was lying. And they didn't speak up then. They've explained that.

So explain this in today's column (part of what I quoted already at the top):

His answers were larded with weasel words. We knew it, and so did anybody who read our work then, or reads it now, several years later. But they were just enough so that given the entire political situation, we felt we had to endorse Obama's campaign for the US Senate.

What political situation? I read that and (right or wrong) immediately think, "Oh, he's not the perfect but you're saying a Dem against a Republican, you choose the Dem." But then I stop myself because the reporting took place in June of 2003.

Barack was not the Dem candidate then. He was one of many (I believe it was six). He did not have a lock on the nomination.

There was no "entire political situation" requiring that they endorse Barack, let alone lie for him. The 2003 dog won't hunt because that's not how it was. Have I misunderstood something here?

Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Tuesday, August 26, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Iraqi leadership suffers a loss, Cindy Sheehan begins protesting on Martha's Vineyard, John V. Walsh notes the silence from many left pundits, Iraq's refugee community remains at risk, a national government speaks out against the targeting of Iraqi LGBTs (no, it's not the US government), and more.
Abdul Aziz al-Hakim passed away from lung cancer today. He was fifty-nine-years-old. Liz Sly and Raheem Salman (Los Angeles Times) hail him as "a towering figure in the post-U.S.-invasion political landscape." His stature was such that even Iraq's prime minister paid homage to al-Hakim in recent months. As noted June 3rd on Nouri's trip to Iran:

Iran's Press TV reported he flew to "Hakim's bedside in Tehran" this weekend because Abdul Aziz al-Hakim is receiving treatments for cancer. al-Hakim, like Nouri, is an Iraqi chicken who ran to exile, stayed in exile for decades and then, after the US invasion, was a 'respected' Iraqi . . . in the eyes of the US. al-Hakim grew up in Najaf and left Iraq in 1980 for Iran. Robin Wright (Washington Post) reported May 19, 2007 that al-Hakim had gone to Houston due to lung cancer: "Vice President Cheney played a role in arranging for Hakim to see U.S. military doctors in Baghdad, who made the original diagnosis, and for the current medical treatment in Houston, the sources said."

The Tehran Times reports, "Mourners will hold a funeral procession in Tehran on Thursday which will start in front of the Iraqi Embassy. Later his body will be transferred to Najaf for burial." CNN notes, "Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim spent years in Iran as an exile, but returned to Iraq in 2003 following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. He had been an ally of both the United States and Iran." BBC observes of his political party Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC and ISCI), "The party has several senior cabinet members, and its militia - the Badr Brigade - wields considerable influence in Iraq's security establishment." Marc Santora (New York Times) notes that "Supreme Council Members hold positions atop important ministries and in Parliament. The group runs charitable organizations, libraries and schools and has a large network of support that stretches back to when Mr. Hakim's father, Grand Ayatollah Mohsen al-Hakim, was one of the top Shiite spiritual leaders in the world." Iran's Press TV calls SIIC "Iraq's most powerful party" and adds, "The death of Hakim will add to political uncertainty ahead of national polls in January and after a series of devastating bombings. " China's People's Daily Online (link has text and audio -- audio is in English) notes al-Hakim "became a member of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council and served as its rotating presidency in December 2003." Iran's Fars News Agency adds, "Mohsen Hakim announced that the body of his father will be transferred to the holy city of Najaf in southern Iraq for funeral processions, reminding that the time and location of the ceremony for the Iraqi leader will be announced later. " The Iranian Students News Agency explains, "Since his hospitalization in Tehran, his elder son Ammar Hakim has taken control of the SIIC." Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters)reports that Ammar al-Hakim is expected to be his "likely successor as party leader" and adds:

Although ISCI lost ground to Maliki's Dawa in provincial elections last January, the well-organized and well-funded party has major clout and will be a formidable competitor in January.
ISCI has several members in top ministerial posts, and has influence in Iraq's security forces, which include members of ISCI's armed affiliate, the Badr Organization.
ISCI derives much of its support from the Hakim family name, revered among Shi'ites for its lineage of scholars and sacrifice in the face of assaults by Saddam and later by Sunni insurgents during the bloodshed that raged after the U.S. invasion.
Hakim's son Ammar appears to have been groomed for succession, given his regular appearances on behalf of and next to his father, but there are other key figures in the party.

The death will leave ripples throughout the political community in Iraq and raises many issues. Yesterday's snapshot covered the new Shi'ite coalition and noted Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) report on the new political coalition: "The 10-party Iraqi National Alliance includes two groups whose leaders are both in Iran -- the country's largest Shiite party, cleric Abdul Azis al-Hakim's Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council, and the bloc of anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr." Robert Dreyfuss (The Nation) was also noted in yesterday's snapshot and we'll note the opening paragraph to his "'Iraq Will Be A Colony of Iran':"

Iraq's Shiite religious parties, most with ties to Iran, have reestablished a political bloc called the Iraqi National Alliance. Among its founders are Ahmad Chalabi, the revered darling of US neoconservatives such as Richard Perle and Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute; Muqtada al-Sadr, the brooding, mercurial mullah who has mysteriously retreated to Qom, Iran's religious capital, for quick-study lessons on how to become an ayatollah; and, of course, Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, one of the founders of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), which has changed its name but not its spots. SCIRI, the anchor of the new coalition, is now called the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), but it still acts as an arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which founded it in 1982, and its paramilitary Badr Brigade -- also a part of the new Iraqi alliance -- is a terrorist unit that operates pro-Iran death squads in Iraq.

The Angola Press observes, "Correspondents say the death of the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council (SIIC) leader adds further uncertainty ahead of national elections next January." Chip Cummins (Wall St. Journal) offers that his death threatens "more tumult among Shiite politicians attempting to unite ahead of January elections" and quotes the Norwegian Institute for International Affairs' Reider Vissar who states, "It's potentially a destabilizing factor (for ISCI) because the succession issue is very much open at the moment." Adam Ashton (McClatchy Newspapers) quotes Nouri stating, "Sayed al Hakim was a bigger brother and a strong support during the period of fighting the former regime and a fundamental corner in the process of building the new Iraq. His departure at this sensitive phase that we are going through is considered a great loss for Iraq." Marc Santora adds, "The American ambassador, Christopher R. Hill, and the Gen. Ray Odierno, the commander of American forces in Iraq, issued a joint statement praising his 'courage and fortitude' in 'building a new Iraq'." Ali Sheikholeslami and Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) call him "a power broker who insisted on Iraq's sovereignty and said it must end the country's conflict independently. Al-Hakim had close ties to neighboring Iran, while working to enhance relations between his native Iraq and the U.S. He met with then-president George W. Bush in Washington in October." Liz Sly and Raheem Salman notes his close ties to the Bush administration and point out, "A theologian who always wore the black turban and flowing robes of a senior Shiite cleric, he was seen as a divisive figure by many Sunnis. Many associated him with the killings of Sunnis by the Supreme Council's military wing, the Badr Organization, in the aftermath of the fall of Hussein and with the ascendant influence of Iran in Iraqi politics." On the news of the new alliance, Oliver August (Times of London) noted that with Nouri (currently) out of the running for prime minister if the alliance secures a majority, his "potential successors are Adel Abdul Mehdi, the Vice-president and a senior leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, and Ibrahim al-Jaafari, Iraq's first elected prime minister. Also on the slate is Ahmed Chalabi, the enigmatic former ally of the American neocons. Mr Chalabi helped to build the case for the American invasion but is now a Shia nationalist. Further in the shadows, but no less plausible as prime minister, stand Jawad al-Bolani, the Interior Minister, and Qassim Daoud, the former national security adviser."
The death will have implactions for the future of Iraq including the prolonged and no-time-soon ending US coccupation. In the US Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan is demonstrating on Martha's Vineyard through August 29th since War Hawk in Chief Barack Obama has decided it's the perfect spot for a vacation. (See Trina last night and she's correct to wonder. My place was booked up for this summer before 2008 ended and that's with friends and family and I don't charge rent. To squeeze in at the last minute does mean the White House pulled strings and that does raise the issue of favors owed. And last minute to get a place -- if you don't own one -- on the Vineyard for summer 2009 was anytime after Labor Day in 2008.) John V. Walsh has a must read at CounterPunch and here's a lenghty excerpt that still doesn't do justice to the passion and honesty of his column:
A funny thing has happened on Cindy Sheehan's long road from Crawford, Texas, to Martha's Vineyard. Many of those who claim to lead the peace movement and who so volubly praised her actions in Crawford, TX, are not to be seen. Nor heard. The silence in fact is deafening, or as Cindy put it in an email to this writer, "crashingly deafening." Where are the email appeals to join Cindy from The Nation or from AFSC or Peace Action or "Progressive" Democrats of America (PDA) or even Code Pink? Or United for Peace and Justice. (No wonder UFPJ is essentially closing shop, bereft of most of their contributions and shriveling up following the thinly veiled protest behind the "retirement" of Leslie Cagan.) And what about MoveOn although it was long ago thoroughly discredited as principled opponents of war or principled in any way shape or form except slavish loyalty to the "other" War Party. And of course sundry "socialist" organizations are also missing in action since their particular dogma will not be front and center. These worthies and many others have vanished into the fog of Obama's wars.
Just to be sure, this writer contacted several of the "leaders" of the "official" peace movement in the Boston area -- AFSC, Peace Action, Green Party of MA (aka Green Rainbow Party) and some others. Not so much as the courtesy of a reply resulted from this effort - although the GRP at least posted a notice of the action. (It is entirely possible that some of these organizations might mention Cindy's action late enough and quickly enough so as to cover their derrieres while ensuring that Obama will not be embarrassed by protesting crowds.) We here in the vicinity of Beantown are but a hop, skip and cheap ferry ride from Martha's Vineyard. Same for NYC. So we have a special obligation to respond to Cindy's call.
However, not everyone has failed to publicize the event. The Libertarians at Antiwar.com are on the job, and its editor in chief Justin Raimondo wrote a superb column Monday on the hypocritical treatment of Sheehan by the "liberal" establishment. (1) As Raimondo pointed out, Rush Limbaugh captured the hypocrisy of the liberal left in his commentary, thus:
"Now that she's headed to Martha's Vineyard, the State-Controlled Media, Charlie Gibson, State-Controlled Anchor, ABC: 'Enough already.' Cindy, leave it alone, get out, we're not interested, we're not going to cover you going to Martha's Vineyard because our guy is president now and you're just a hassle. You're just a problem. To these people, they never had any true, genuine emotional interest in her. She was just a pawn. She was just a woman to be used and then thrown overboard once they're through with her and they're through with her. They don't want any part of Cindy Sheehan protesting against any war when Obama happens to be president."
The Green Party isn't promoting her demonstration? The same Green Party that needed her to turn out a crowd for their 2008 presidential debate? And now they can't promote a demonstration against the ongoing wars? (In fairness to them, they just needed her to bring out a crowd. The Nation profitted off of Cindy back in the day.) Mattt Viser (Boston Globe) reports, "High-profile protester Cindy Sheehan arrived last night and was whisked to a 34-foot wooden sloop on Lake Tashmoo, kicking off a four-day visit that will include a series of peace activities. She will be staying in homes of her supporters, some not far from Obama's 28-acre retreat in Chilmark." Julia Rappaport (Boston Herald) quotes Cindy stating, "No matter who's president, we still have to keep our end of our democracy going. Even though Bush is no longer in office, these policies are still continuing. In many areas, they're escalating -- the occupations in Iraq, Afghanistan and now the horrible fightings in tribal regions. The killing of innocent people in the name of corporate welfare, or whatever this war is for, is certainly not about freedom or democracy or keeping us safe here at home."
The killing of innocent people in the name of corporate welfare? Monday August Cole (Wall St. Journal) was enthusing over miltiary drones noting it was "altering the defense-industry landscape" as well as having "transformed the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan" resulting in a FY2010 White House budget request of "approximately $3.5 billion for unmanned aerial vehicles." And the US government continues sending service members to Iraq. WJLA-TV (link has text and video) notes members of "The Old Guard" at Fort Meyer, VA are preparing to deploy to Iraq. And Wilson Ring (Brattleboro Reformer) reports that Joseph Fortin, who was killed in Iraq Sunday, "was the 27th serviceman with ties to Vermont to die in Iraq" and that he's survived by Niqcuelle Fortin, his wife, and Martin and Betsy Fortin, his parents. Charlotte Albright (Vermont Public Radio) speaks with friends of Joey Fortin. His former coach, Peter Wright, states, "He would do the right thing, he behaved himself, he followed rules, he was very respectful, he liked people, he was willing to help people and I think that was very important and what separates him from some of his classmates that way."
In Iraq, more games played today. Yesterday's snapshot included, ""In other news, who can pull out their ambassador first? That's the game Syria and Iraq are engaged in. Xinhua reports that upon learing Iraq was withdrawing their ambassador, Syria decided to withdraw its ambassador to Iraq and notes that Iraq is demanding Syria hand over Ba'athists living in Syria (it's neither a crime to be a Ba'ahist or to live in Syria) whom they insist are responsible for the last Wednesday's bombings. This as Khalid al-Ansary, Suadad al-Salhy and Missy Ryan (Reuters) report the al Qaeda in Iraq-linked Islamic State of Iraq has issued a statement claiming credit for the bombings: 'As we announce our reponsibility for this blessed foray, we want to clarify, as we have said repeatedly, that we target the foundations of this evil state and those who supported it and helped establish it'." Today Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) reports that Syrian's diplomat Bassam Haj Hassan was summoned to the Iraq's Foreign Ministry today by the deputy minister Labid Abbawi who repeated Nouri's demand that Syria turn over two people to Iraq and Hassan repeated the Syrian government's request that any evidence of criminal activity on the part of the two Iraqis in Syria be presented in Damascus.
Syria could easily make their own set of demands. For example, where's that money Nouri was promising when the world was paying attention to Iraqi refugees? Nouri was supposed to be supplying money to the host countries neighboring Iraq. Syria, Jordan and Lebanon house the largest number of Iraqi refugees. Thomas James (Foreign Policy In Focus) reports on the 1-million-plus Iraqi refugees in Syria, "At the UN compound in Douma, a neighborhood in northern Damascus, men, women and children sit in crowed warehouse-like buildings. These refugees from Iraq wait for the UNHCR food rations that will keep them from starving. . . . Next door in Iraq, the talk has been of recovery and resurgence. But there is a feeling that the Iraqi government, awash in oil receipts, is not doing enough to help its displaced nationals. The figures for returning Iraqis are low, and huge swarths of Iraq's middle class, vital for the rebuilding of the country, remain in Syria and Jordan, many intent on resettlement to Europe or America."
Few will make it to the US -- due both to the low numbers the US is willing to accept as well as these regulations which have not, HAVE NOT, significantly improved since Bush left office and which, as one friend at the UN puts it, "Assumes every Arab is a terrorist and must prove otherwise before being admitted." Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) reports on Iraqi refugees in Jordan such as a 51-year-old Iraqi woman, Shifa, who is an attorney and had just been informed by the International Organization for Migration that "no US company would recognize her law degree or nearly two decades of experience." Shifa leaves Iraq after losing two brothers (shot dead on the streets) and her husband: "In May 2005, gunmen in a speeding car seized her husband as he left for work at an electronics import company. Shifa watched from a window. It was the last time she saw him. To pay a $150,000 ransom, she sold the new home they had been building. But she did not get her husband back. She spent months scouring police stations, hospitals and morgues, studying hundreds of pictures of corpses, battered, burned and riddled with drill holes."
Iraqis like Shifa do not go back to Iraq. That's what so many non-Iraqis still refuse to grasp. The Myth of the Great Return remains a myth all these years later. Few Iraqis who became external refugees have returned. The small number that does has to face the very high chance that they will become internal refugees as so many have learned. Other external refugees returning have been attacked upon leaving the caravan back into Iraq. Shifa has lost two brothers and a husband. She's not going back. No woman would. That pain has soured her on Iraq. It is no longer just fear about her own life and that's what the "Come on back, it's safer!" crap never grasps. No, it's not safer in Iraq. It's not safe enough for returns. But those who have seen their loved ones slaughtered? They're not going back. They can't. They can't return to make a life in a country where their five year old was kidnapped and beheaded. It is not their home anymore. The US invasion and the US installation of a 'government' ensured that Iraq was no longer their country. Iraqi Jews have all but vanished. (Reportedly three to five remain in Baghdad.) They're not going back. The Iraqi Christian community members who made it out of the country? They're not going back. Those who made it to the Kurdistan Regional Government will most likely make that area their new home. But those who got out are gone. The violence hasn't gone away but even if did tomorrow, it would not change the way you sour on a place when you see your child's corpse or you watch as your family members is shot by 'security forces'. Shifa's not going back. And she's far from the only Iraqi refugee who will do anything to make a home anywhere else -- not out of fear but because their home is gone. There is no where for Shifa to return.
Zavis explains the process for those who do make it into the US, "For refugees arriving in the U.S., the first few weeks are a whirlwind. They apply for Social Security numbers, food stamps and cash assistance; register for English classes; get health screenings; and start looking for a job. The government contracts with nonprofits including the New York-based International Rescue Committee, or IRC, to guide them through the process and toward independence." But the cash assitance is very brief and not all that to begin with. They're also not citizens. If they'd like to become US citizens, they have to wait until they've been here (with all the paperwork in order) for at least five years.
In July, the UNHCR issued a report entitled "Surviving in the city" focusing on cities in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria and dealing with the needs of "large populations of urban refugees." Among the problems faced, "the majority of Iraqis do not have any immediate prospect of finding a solution to their plight. Most of them consider that current conditions in Iraq prevent them from repatriating, while a significant number state that they have no intention of returning there under any circumstances." From page 49 (report is not PDF format, for any thinking that detail was forgotten):
A Jordanian scholar who was interviewed in the course of this review commented that "the decision to flee from your own country is always easier to make than the decision to return." This observation is certainly supported by the case of the Iraqi refugees, many of whom left their homes at short notice, threatened by escalating violence in their homeland and the very real threat that they would be targeted for attack because of their religious identity, their profession or their relative prosperity.
At the time of their sudden departure, the refugees hoped that the crisis would not persist very long, and that withing a reasonable amount of time they would be able to return to Iraq, reclaim their property and resume their previous life. But as time has passed, those expectations have faded and the refugees are left with few choices with regard to their future.
The majority do not want to repatriate now or in the near future. Only some of the refugees can expect to be admitted to a third country by means of resettlement. And those who remain in their countries of asylum have no opportunity to benefit from the solution of local integration have very limited prospect for self-reliance and are confronted with the prospect of a steady decline in their standard of living. In the words of an elderly refugee man living in the Syrian city of Aleppo "when we left Iraq, we simply didn't know that we would end up like this."
Huge numbers aren't coming back. They are never coming back. Next Tuesday, Refugees International's Kristele Younes will speak about on the topic of Iraqi refugees at Albany Law School starting at 6:00 pm. Meanwhile The Local reports Germany will add 144 more Iraqi refugees this week (to the 1,003 they have already granted asylum to). A growing Iraq refugee community is Iraq's LGBTs and those suspected of being LGBT due to the fact that they are being targeted by government-backed militias and elements of the government. Last week, Human Rights Watch released a report entitled "'They Want Us Exterminated': Murder, Torture, Sexual Orientation and Gender in Iraq." For the 67-page report [PDF format warning] click here. US House Rep Alcee Hastings is one of the few US politicians who noted the report. In Australia, their administration can speak out against it. The Sydney Star Observer reports:
The Rudd Government says it's concerned about ongoing reports of serious human rights abuses against gay Iraqi men and will continue to raise the issue with the country's leaders.
The response comes as Human Rights Watch released a 67-page report last week detailing a mounting campaign of murder and torture of gay men across Iraq.
The deeply disturbing report points to a rise in reported killings of gay men since the beginning of 2009, as part of a concerted eradication plan, likely stemming from extremist militia networks.
"The Australian Government remains concerned by violence and reports of human rights violations in Iraq. This includes reports of violence against women and minority groups," a DFAT spokeswoman told Southern Star.
The spokeswoman said senior Australian officials had brought up specific concerns about the persecution of gay men in Canberra on July 22 with visiting senior Iraqi officials including high-ranking officers from the Ministry of Human Rights and the Iraqi National Police.
Many have occurred in the Shiite neighbourhoods of Baghdad, but Sunnis are involved too and the campaign has spread as far south as Basra, and as far north as Kirkuk in Kurdistan.
The killers' methods are horrific, with victims often raped and tortured to force them to beg their families for ransoms or give up the names of other homosexuals before they are finally murdered. Usually families find the bodies of their loved ones in trash piles, but sometimes they are strung up as a warning to others.
And although the Iraqi poets of antiquity once wrote love odes to beautiful youths, the killers say homosexuality is an imported vice. Earlier this year, one such 'executioner' told journalists from the UAE that his kind were eradicating "a serious illness… that has been spreading rapidly among the youth after it was brought in from the outside by American soldiers. These are not the habits of Iraq or our community and we must eliminate them."
Homosexuality is not illegal in Iraq, and its Interior Ministry claims it is taking the issue seriously despite allegations that some of the killers are its own employees.
Rex Wockner (Windy City Times) covers the report today, "One man told HRW that militiamen kidnapped and killed his partner in April: 'Four armed men barged into ( my partner's parents' ) house, masked and wearing black. They asked for him by name; they insulted him and took him in front of his parents. ... He was found in the neighborhood the day after. They had thrown his corpse in the garbage. His genitals were cut off and a piece of his throat was ripped out. Since then, I've been unable to speak properly. I feel as if my life is pointless now. ... ( F ) or years it has just been my boyfriend and myself in that little bubble, by ourselves. I have no family now -- I cannot go back to them. I have a death warrant on me. I feel the best thing to do is just to kill myself'."
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad car bombing wounded five people (two were police officers), a Baghdad roadside bombing wounded four people, a Bawuba roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 farmer and, dropping back to last night, a Mosul roadside bombing which claimed the lives of 2 civilians and left one police officer wounded.
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Mosul bus invasion in which assailants shot "randomly" resulting in the death of 1 young girl and, dropping back to last night, a gun fired in Baghdad that may have been attempting to assassinate the Minister of Planning whose motorcade was passing by.
Corpses?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baquba.
Back in June we noted Father Tim Vakoc who passed away from wounds received in a May 29, 2004 Iraq bombing. AP notes that Father Tim is "believed to be the first military chaplain wounded in Iraq". Maura Lerner (Minneapolis Star-Tribune) reports, "A state investigation has found that two nursing assistants were responsible for the June accident that led to the death of the Rev. Tim Vakoc, a Roman Catholic priest and Army chaplain, at St. Therese nursing home in New Hope." Heather Brown (WCCO) adds, "In its report, the Health Department found 'evidence indicates neglect did occur' in this case. It put the blame on the two nursing assistants who were in the room at the time of Vakoc's fall. The investigator also found St. Therese was in compliance with state and federal regulations and will not be cited for this incident."
Independent journalist David Bacon is noted for his photography and his latest exhibit is "People of the Harvest, Indigenous Mexican Migrants in California." The reception for it takes place tomorrow evening at 6:00 pm at the Asian Resource Gallery (310 Eight Street at Harrison, Oakland, CA). The exhibit runs through next month and the gallery's hour are nine in the morning until six in the evening, Monday through Friday. Immigrant Rights News carries the following:

People of the Harvest is part of a larger project, Living Under the Trees, that documents the lives of communities of indigenous Mexican farm workers in California, through documentary photographs. The photographs in People of the Harvest were taken in 2009.
It's no accident the state of Oaxaca is one of the main starting points for the current stream of Mexican migrants coming to the United States. Extreme poverty encompasses 75 percent of its 3.4 million residents.
Thousands of indigenous people leave Oaxaca's hillside villages for the United States every year, not only for economic reasons but also because a repressive political system thwarts the kind of economic development that could lift incomes in the poorest rural areas. Lack of development pushes people off the land.
The majority of Oaxacans are indigenous people-that is, they belong to communities and ethnic groups that existed long before Columbus landed in the Caribbean. They speak 23 different languages.
"Migration is a necessity, not a choice," explains Romualdo Juan Gutierrez Cortez, a teacher in Santiago Juxtlahuaca, in Oaxaca's rural Mixteca region.
In California, indigenous migrants have become the majority of people working in the fields in many areas, whose settlements are dispersed in an indigenous diaspora. This movement of people has created transnational communities, bound together by shared culture and language, and the social organizations people bring with them from place to place.
People of the Harvest documents the experiences and conditions of indigenous farm worker communities. It focuses on social movements in indigenous communities and how indigenous culture helps communities survive and enjoy life. The project's purpose is to win public support for policies helping those communities to achieve social and political rights and better economic conditions.
The communities documented in this show are locacted in Arvin, Taft, Oxnard and Santa Paula, Santa Maria, Fresno, Greenfield, Watsonville and Marysville. They include Mixtecos, Triquis, Zapotecos, Chatinos and Purepechas.
The photographs are digital color images, which focus on the relationship between community residents and their surroundings, and their relations with each other. They present situations of extreme poverty, but they also show people as actors, capable of changing conditions, organizing themselves, and making critical decisions.
The project is a partnership between David Bacon, documentary photographer and journalist (The Children of NAFTA, UC Press, 2004, Communities Without Border, Cornell/ILR Press, 2006, and Illegal People - How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants, Beacon Press, 2008), California Rural Legal Assistance, especially its Indigenous Farm Worker Project, and the Binational Front of Indigenous Organizations (FIOB). Special thanks to Rick Mines and the Indigenous Farmworker Study, funded by the California Endowment, who made the documentation in People of the Harvest possible.

David Bacon's latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press) which just won the CLR James Award. Bacon is also on KFPA's The Morning Show each Wednesday discussing labor and immigration issues.

In the US, women won the right to vote with the 19th Amendment which reads: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." Noting this sent to the public e-mail account:

To commemorate the anniversary of the Nineteenth Amendment, August 26th, the HerStory Scrapbook website (www.herstoryscrapbook.com) is a compilation of over 900 links to articles, editorials, and letters in The New York Times Archive regarding the final four years of the fight for women's suffrage.
Today is Women's Equality Day. And thank the pionnering Bella Abzug for that because she led the 1971 Cognressional battle to have the day declared a holiday. Feminist Wire Daily has more news on that here. And Ms. magazine encourages you to celebrate today:
Celebrate Women's Equality Day by joining Ms. in saluting Gloria Steinem in honor of her 75th birthday.
As Gloria turns 75, Ms. is providing supporters an opportunity to wish her a happy birthday in the magazine. That's right. Ms. will print the names of supporters who want to celebrate with Gloria this extraordinary landmark -- not only of years, but of her amazing achievements for women.
To participate, we are asking you to make a special gift of $75 - or $15 - or $150 - or whatever multiple of $75 you can afford, to not only celebrate Gloria's birthday but to keep her legacy of Ms. strong for future generations. Whatever the size of your contribution, we will make sure your name is printed in Ms. wishing Gloria happy birthday.
Half her lifetime ago, Gloria launched Ms. magazine - a brazen and rebellious act of independence in the 1970s when the feminist movement was either denigrated or dismissed in the mainstream media - if it was mentioned at all. Today, Ms. is recognized as one of the top 51 U.S. magazines of all time.
Please take a moment now to reflect on what Gloria and Ms. have meant to you. Then sign up to wish Gloria a happy birthday.
Your name will be part of the issue hitting the newsstands in the fall - if you give now. And, your extraordinary birthday gift to Gloria will ensure her legacy of Ms. stays strong and vibrant for future generations.
I urge you to act today to make a tax-deductible contribution of $75 - or $15 - or $150 -or $750 … or even a lifetime membership of $1,000 in honor of Gloria's birthday.
Help keep Ms. and the women's movement going strong. Join us in celebrating Gloria - and keep spreading everyday rebellion!

start: 0000-00-00 end: 0000-00-00

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Glenn Beck II

But it only took a few days for Beck’s own PR machine to kick into gear. Goaded on by Beck, supporters have created websites such as DefendGlenn.com and SupportGlennBeck.com and taken to message board and blogs to argue their case.
“This website was created to counter a current campaign against Glenn Beck’s sponsors,” reads a declaration on
SupportGlennBeck.com. “It is time to show these companies that the hard-working Americans who support Glenn are willing to boycott their products and stand on principle.”
As for Beck, he emerged from a week-long vacation – which some
speculated had been foisted upon him by a wary Fox News leadership – spoiling for a fight. Among his first features was a piece on Van Jones, an adviser to the White House on environmental issues, and a co-founder of ColorOfChange.org.
Jones, Beck said, is a “committed revolutionary.” And the war grinds on.


The above is from Matthew Shaer's "Why the boycott against Glenn Beck will almost certainly backfire" (Christian Science Monitor) and, as I noted yesterday, I hope it does. It needs to. I am an African-American woman. Glenn Beck (I think I spelled his first name wrong yesterday, yep only had one "n") can call me a "racist." He can express that opinion and so can anyone else. He can even say I must have a deep-hatred for White people.

I wouldn't think either was true but I wouldn't think either remark was racist. I'm among the first to cry racism when I think it's valid. I see it a lot as an African-American. And if Glenn truly feels he is seeing racism, he has every right to say so and to do so without some screaming, "You said __ was racist! That's racism!" Glenn Beck calling Barack a racist is not racism.

He has every right to say what he thinks. You'd think he'd called Barack a racist word and not called Barack a "racist" by the reaction.

It's insane.

It reminds me of all the other uproars. Such as, "The New Yorker is racist!" Remember the cover? Do you know that the idiots at ColorforChange (yes, that's what I call them) were screaming that was racism?

Do you know that those assholes tried to turn it into a "Black" issue and refused to acknowledge the Muslim aspect?

The cover was parody. But if you're going to get bent out of shape over it, you damn well better grasp what was being sent up. And there was ColorforChange screaming on KPFA about how offensive the cover supposedly was and there was the idiot Aimee Allison saying -- and she was supposed to be the objective host? -- that she found it bothering.

What idiots.

And that's how it is every damn time with Barack. It's getting real damn old. Ava and C.I. have had so many funnys on that. Sayings. Like, "If ____ it's going to be a long summer." I wish I could think of one and I'd highlight it.

But, anyway, to repeat, Glenn Beck's not anyone I watch, not anyone I agree with, not even anyone I like (though I don't hate him) and he expressed his opinion. I don't happen to agree with it but it wasn't outrageous or something to throw a fit over.

Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Tuesday, August 25, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Cindy Sheehan steps up to the plate again (where's everyone else?), Syria and Iraq move to pull ambassadors, al Qaeda in Iraq claims credit for last Wednesday's bombings, a new study finds a likelihood of increased risk of suicide for those suffering from PTSD, and more.

Starting in the United States. President Barack Obama is vacationing on Martha's Vineyard. Despite promising to end the Iraq War, he hasn't. He promised troops out in 16 months in his rah-rah speeches on the campaign trail and then, in Februrary 2008 speaking in Texas, suddenly said 10 months after being sworn in, he'd have the troops out of Iraq. Of course, he was lying. He is a politician. But that is what he promised. There are 130,000 US troops in Iraq currently, more than were present before Bully Boy Bush started his 'surge' in 2007. Barack was sworn in during the first month of the year, January. It's now August, the eighth month. It's possible to get 130,000 troops out before the tenth month but he's not planning on it. He wasn't planning even when lying through his War Hawk teeth. March 7, 2008, Sammy Power was suddenly out of Barack's campaign. The
BBC was airing an interview. Though Tom Hayden would play dumb about the interview until July 4, 2008, we called it out in real time. Here's what she told the BBC:


Stephen Sackur: You said that he'll revisit it [the decision to pull troops] when he goes to the White House. So what the American public thinks is a commitment to get combat forces out within sixteen months, isn't a commitment is it?

Samantha Power: You can't make a commitment in whatever month we're in now, in March of 2008 about what circumstances are going to be like in January 2009. We can'te ven tell what Bush is up to in terms of troops pauses and so forth. He will of course not rely upon some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or as a US Senator.

From the
March 7, 2008 snapshot:

Power was not a campaigner, she was a high level, longterm foreign policy advisor being groomed to be the next Secretary of State. As
Krissah Williams (Washington Post) notes, Senator Clinton's response to Power's BBC interview was to note Power's agreement that Obama's pledge to have "combat" troops out in 16 months was never more than a "best-case scenario". Hillary Clinton: "Senator Obama has made his speech opposing Iraq in 2002 and the war in Iraq the core of his campaign, which makes these comments especially troubling. While Senator Obama campaigns on his [pledge] to end the war, his top advisers tell people abroad that he will not rely on his own plan should he become president. This is the latest example of promising the American people one thing on the campaign trail and telling people in other countries another. You saw this with NAFTA as well."

And the response from
Panhandle Media -- the US' alleged "alternative" media? Silence. March 9, 2008, we editorialized on this at Third Estate Sunday Review in "Editorial: The Whores of Indymedia." And we returned to the topic in July, after Tom Hayden 'suddenly' noticed Samantha Power's March BBC interview, "Letters to An Old Sell Out: Iraq." The old sellout Tom-Tom was insisting that this interview which he'd suddenly -- like Columbus -- discovered was ignored by "the media" and by "rival campaigns". Like his hero Barry O, Tom-Tom Hayden can lie through his teeth. And you can check Third's editorial ("Letters to An Old Sell Out: Iraq") to find examples of the Real Media outlets that covered it while Tom Hayden and all the beggars of Panhandle Media played dumb -- it's playing right? No one can really be that dumb, can they? What is known is that the watch doggies didn't bark in March 2009. Not Tom-Tom, not Jeremy Scahill, not the forever climbing on the soap box Naomi Klein, not Laura Flanders, not The Nation, not Amy Goodman, not Matthew Rothschild, not one damn radio show on KPFA, WBAI, KPFK, go down the list. (David Corn did cover it in real time for Mother Jones -- in order to insist it wasn't important. That everyone knew -- everyone, he insisted -- that Barack didn't mean any promise he made on the campaign trail.)

They played dumb then and they play dumb now. They refuse to use their power to speak out against the Iraq War. They've all written their books, apparently, and can no longer squeeze a dime out of the illegal war. They've all got 'better' things to do. And besides, as Naomi insisted to her imaginary anarchist friends (as made up as was her huge laughable lie about what she saw on election night -- and that says a great deal that The Progressive printed that obvious lie), she just wanted to enjoy Barack. Don't wake the Mall Rat, she thinks we're alone now, there doesn't seem to be anyone around.

Always several decades behind the times, Canada gives us their own Tiffany, Little Miss Naomi Klein. Daughter of a war resister who can't even talk about that to most outlets and had to be cornered into the topic to begin with. Her father went to Canada to avoid being shipped to Vietnam. Back then, you didn't need refugee status, you could just go through the process and become a Canadian citizen. Coward and liar, Naomi refuses to do a thing to help today's war resisters other than sign a petition. Get that. Grasp it. Because a hell of a lot of us back in the day helped her father and others. But Mall Rat Naomi doesn't believe in pay it forward, she just believes in gimmie, gimmie, gimmie. And in her Selfish Paradise, she has no time to help end the Iraq War, let alone help US war resisters in Canada. But if you ask her to dish on which New Kid On The Block she found dreamy, she can go for an hour. (Joey! Yes, Joey was her NKOTB. No, I don't know which one that is. But I'm a functioning adult.)

So while they've all Walked On, WalkOn.org, hurried away from Iraq -- because, goodness, who knew it would be work to end a war? -- Cindy Sheehan's still standing.

Peace Mom's still fighting to end the Iraq War. And, take note those who thumbed a ride over to Afghanistan, Cindy's fighting to end that one as well. Today Cindy Sheehan lands on Martha's Vineyard and prepares to demonstrate against the continued wars.

Dave Cook (Christian Science Monitor) reports she will hold a news conference tomorrow "morning at the Oak Bluff's Elementary School on the island resort." Cape Cod Today adds that among the actions will be members of the peace movement sailing around Martha's Vineyard August 27 through the 29th and quotes her stating, "I am calling in the Peace Movement to encircle our country with our united demand for an immediate return of all U.S. forces around the globe. Bring every one of our troops home NOW! We need them in our families and towns. This world needs a permanent vacation from war." Jake Berry (Cape Cod Times) also reports on Cindy's impending arrival and quotes her stating, "The body bags aren't taking a vacation." Part of the demonstrations will include encircling the island on SS Camp Casey, named after Cindy's son Casey Sheehan who died April 4, 2004 in Iraq. IPA notes Cindy will hold a news conference tomorrow starts at 11:00 a.m. and quotes her stating, "I think that people are waking up to the fact that even if they voted for Barack Obama, he doesn't represent real change. July was the worst month for U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. Innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan are continuing to be killed in these wars. These policies were wrong when Bush was president and they're wrong now that Obama is president." Speaking to Jennifer Harper (Washington Times), Cindy stated, "Our demand from the peace movement has always been 'troops home now,' and I am going to reassert the moral demands that we insisted upon from the Bush administration to an Obama administration." At her website, they note the following:

Her schedule of public events is as follows: Wednesday, Aug. 26, 11am, Press Conference at Oak Bluffs Elementary School. Wednesday, Aug. 26, 8pm, Peace Vigil, Ocean Park Bandstand, Oak Bluffs. Thursday, Aug. 27, Friday, Aug. 28 and Saturday, Aug. 29: Boat trips with Cindy for peace movement leaders, press and public. These 'shipboard peace summit' meetings will leave Vineyard Haven twice daily on the 105 foot sloop 'SS Camp Casey' in the afternoons. Call for details. No charge, so reserve ahead. 207-604-8988 or email:
lauriegdobson@yahoo.com. Saturday Aug. 29, 9 to 5 Peace Vigil Ocean Park, Oak Bluffs and Walkabout around the Island Saturday, Aug. 29, 8pm Cindy Sheehan speaking event "Peace Now, Again", Katharine Cornell Theater, 54 Spring St., Vineyard Haven. Cindy is scheduling press and media interviews throughout the week. Call Laurie Dobson at 207-604-8988 or email: lauriegdobson@yahoo.com or Bruce Marshall at 802-767-6079. In addition to these planned events, there will be impromptu gatherings during the week. A memorial site will be present on the island with an outdoor area designated as 'Camp Casey', a living tribute to her son Casey Sheehan, who died in the Iraq War, as well as honoring others who were war casualties. The SS Camp Casey will welcome all those who wish to come to meet Cindy. She will be also available on the Vineyard for gatherings of visitors, which will be open to the public, the press, and anyone desiring to connect with those for whom the costs of war are a daily reality in their lives. For information on the events, please contact Chris Fried at (508)-693-7741 and for information about Cindy, please contact Laurie Dobson at (207)-604-8988 or email: lauriegdobson@yahoo.com.

What's the media reaction going to be? Have you heard Amy Goodman mention it? Even in her headlines? Nope. Well that's the Queen of Panhandle Media. And Real Media? Last week, Charlie Gibson issued the royal edict of "Enough already." Apparently grouchy due to the fact that no longer co-hosting Good Morning America means he's unable to nap on live TV, Queen Charlie Approximately showed just how nasty a TV reader who elected to leave the news department to go into entertainment (Good Morning America is produced by ABC entertainment) could be when forced to form an opinion that goes beyond, "Mmm. Smells good. In our next segment, we're joined by entertainer Joey Heatherton. And later,
Shari Lewis joins us to talk about Lamb Chops brave battle with lint balls. Stay tuned!" Cindy responded to Charlie Gibson's nonsense and pointed out, "I certainly am not the anchor of a major network news show, but last time I checked, people are still dying at a heartrending clip in Iraq-Af-Pak. If my goal was '15 minutes of fame,' I could have gone quietly away a long time ago. I started because I wanted the wars to end, and I will figure I can go away when the wars end…but when is that going to be? In my lifetime, probably not." When will the war ends? The issue is raised in a letter today to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel Times:


When I returned from Vietnam in the late 1960s, it seemed the deaths of soldiers and civilians were treated as though they were but the melodramatic nuance to somebody else's Aquarian Age. Today, the deaths seem cast as acceptable losses in the transition from the Bush to
Obama policies. Protests are minimal, staunched by administrative promises proven insubstantial. One by one by hundreds, people are losing their lives, and still the wars go on. What was not accepted from Bush is tolerated from Obama. The United States needs to leave Iraq and withdraw from Afghanistan, now. Accusations of isolationism don't wash while American soldiers and Iraqi and Afghani civilians die to prove the falsehood that intervention is peacemaking.Jerry Maxham, Davie

We'll stay with the US for a big longer to address some of the damages from the illegal war.


"They gave me a gun" he said
"They gave me a mission
For the power and the glory --
Propaganda -- piss on 'em
There's a war zone inside me --
I can feel things exploding --
I can't even hear the f**king music playing
For the beat of -- the beat of black wings."
[. . .]
"They want you -- they need you --
They train you to kill --
To be a pin on some map --
Some vicarious thrill --
The old hate the young
That's the whole heartless thing
The old pick the wars
We die in 'em
To the beat of -- the beat of black wings"
-- "The Beat of Black Wings," words and music by
Joni Mitchell, first appears on her Chalk Mark In A Rainstorm.

Friday's snapshot noted:Today the US military announced that Staff Sgt Enoch Chatman, Staff Sgt Bob Clements, Sgt Jarrett Taylor and Spc Daniel Weber are all "charged with cruelty and maltreatment of subordinates . . . The four Soliders are alleged to have treated Soldiers within their platoon inappropriately." CNN states they are accused of "cruelty and maltreatment of four subordinates in Iraq after a suicide investigation brought to light alleged wrongdoing, the military said Friday." Michelle Tan (Army Times via USA Today) reports, "The alleged mistreatment consisted of verbal abuse, physical punishment and ridicule of the subordinate soldiers, Lt. Col. Kevin Olson, spokesman for Multi-National Division-South wrote in an e-mail to Army Times."The soldier has been identifed as Keiffer Wilhelm. August 4th the US military announced: "A Soldier assigned to Multi-National Division - South died of a non-combat related injury August 4. The Soldier's name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin." The Department of Defense announced August 5th: " Pvt. Keiffer P. Wilhelm, 19, of Plymouth, Ohio, died August 4 in Maysan province, Iraq, of injuries sustained from a non-combat related incident. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 13th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division, Fort Bliss, Texas. The circumstances surrounding the incident are under investigation." Andrew Kreighbaum (El Paso Times) reported August 6th, "Wilhelm, an infantryman from Plymouth, Ohio, enlisted in the army in December after graduating from Willard High School last year. His father, Adrian Wilhelm, said his son joined the Army to be like his older brother, who is in the U.S. Air Force. Adrian Wilhelm said Keiffer Wilhelm was the best man at his brother's wedding in Arizona on May 7 and was sent to Kuwait soon afterward. The wedding was the last time he saw his son." Chris Roberts (El Paso Times) reported Monday that Keiffer Wilhelm "was abused by his 'first-line supervisors,' Sgt. Brandon LeFlor wrote in an e-mail. He is a spokesman for Multi-National Division-South in Basra, Iraq." Roberts quotes Keiffer Wilhelm's parents stating, "We only want justice and to prevent this from happening to another family."

Thursday DoD identified Matthew Hastings as one of the fallen.
Kevin Canfield (Tulsa World) reported on the death and quotes Hasting's mother Lawanda Lowry stating, "He was just an all-American kid. He was so proud to be in the Army and he was so proud to serve our country. [. . .] He called me when he was graduating from basic training and said, 'Mom, I have accomplished far more and greater things than I ever thought possible'." Saturday Manny Gamallo (Tulsa World) reported the family believes his death may have been a suicide and cited sister Michelle Brazil explaining that e-mails her brother sent to Kristy Moore (friend), Clark W. Hastings (grandfather) and herself "were basically the same. He said he couldn't take it anymore, and he was going to hang out with Clark tonight. [. . .] They were almost like twins. They wore the same clothes, had the same friends, did everything together." Clark was Matthew Hasting's brother who passed away. Earlier this month, Iraq War veteran Wesley David Gilson was shot dead by US authorities. His obit notes his survivors included his wife Carol Gilson, his children Christian, Danny, Emily, Mary, Ethan and Anna, his mother Joan Pass, a sister Karen Knoblich, an ex-wife Lisa Clark. Livingston Today reported he was "in a multihour standoff with police" and they later found they he had left a suicide note. Earlier this month, Jim Spellman and Wayne Drash (CNN -- link has text and video) reported on Iraq War veteran Thomas Delgado who is charged with attempted murder of his wife who states Delgado "needs medical help, not prison":

Shayla Delgado says her husband grabbed a gun and rattled off suicidal thoughts. "I've been thinking about how I'm going to do it," she recalled him saying. "I just can't live like this any more. I can't do it, I can't do it."
"He was telling me, 'Take our son and leave because you don't want to be here for this,'" she said, breaking down in tears. "I was really, really scared."

Iraq War veteran Jacob Gregory Swanson will be buried tomorrow.
Glenda Anderson (Santa Rosa Press Democrat) reports, "Swanson turned a handgun on himself after shooting and killing his sometime girlfriend, Amy Salo, 36, Mendocino County law authorities said. Swanson's family said he had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder before his discharge from the Army in 2005." Earlier this month, Kathy Mellott (Tribune-Democrat) reported Iraq War veteran Nicholas Adam Horner's defense in a murder trial will include his three tours of duty.

From American soldiers to British ones, Danny Fitzsimons is facing a trial in Iraq and could be sentenced to death. He served in the British military for eight years and was stationed in Afghanistan and Kosovo. He is
accused of being the shooter in a Green Zone incident this month in which 1 British contractor, Paul McGuigan, and 1 Australian contractor, Darren Hoare, died and one Iraqi, Arkhan Madhi, was injured. Eric and Liz Fitzsimons spoke to the BBC (link has video) and noted that they are not asking for Danny to 'walk.' They stated that he has to take responsibility. But they want a fair trial and do not believe that is possible in Iraq. His legal defense team doesn't believe he can get a fair trial either stating today that the British military's presence in Iraq during the war means that Fitzsimons will be used as scapegoat. The Sunday Mail quoted Danny Fitzsimons yesterday stating, I see Paul and Darren's faces every night before I sleep and every morning when I wake up." Jonathan Owen (Independent of London) quotes him describing his cell, "There's 12 of us sleeping on the floor; some are sharing – two to a mattress. The guys that are in here with me are a really good bunch, but the water gets turned off at odd hours and the electricity goes off. It could be a lot worse – I'm not complaining. [. . .] The only thing that gets me stressed out is the amount of people in here. It's quite loud. I like to be able to escape somewhere on my own but I can't. In the scheme of things I know that's trivial. I've got nothing to moan about -- this is as good as it gets here." The Manchester Evening News adds, "His British lawyer, John Tipple, is stepping up efforts to have him extradited to Britain under an unused provision in the Iraqi legal code that dates back to the 1930s." Tipple is quoted stating, "We are not going to let the British government hang him out to dry. He is a British national and the right place for him to be tried, if at all, is at home." Today Matthew Cookson (Great Britain's Socialist Worker) reports on the issue:

John Tipple told Socialist Worker, "There is no way that a fair trial can take place in Iraq.
"We fear that Daniel will be scapegoated for the decision made by Tony Blair to make Britain a key part of the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
"Daniel spent eight years in the Parachute Regiment. He was diagnosed with adjustment disorder after seeing horrors in Bosnia and Kosovo.
"After he left the army he had a few brushes with the law, and his situation began to deteriorate when he became a private security contractor.
"The British government has abandoned its duty of care towards soldiers. When they return from war zones, often brutalised by their experiences, they are left to their own devices.
"That is why there are a disproportionate number of soldiers in the prison system, with mental health problems or homeless. They are victims of war as well as the people of Afghanistan and Iraq."

Some or all of above may have resulted from experiences in the war zones. And there are many more reports of violence aimed within and outside. The point in noting this is not to say, "Iraq War vets are crazy and dangerous!" That's not the point. The point is that experiences impact different people differently and that some conditions, such as PTSD, are easier to manage for some veterans than for all. PTSD is the topic of "Posttraumatic Stress Disorder as a Rsik Factor for Suicidal Ideation in Iraq and Afghanistan War Veterans" (Journal of Traumatic Stress, Vol. 23, No. 4, August 2009, pp 303 - 306). For the study, 435 Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans were used for the sample. Half of the sample was diagnosed with PTSD (49.6%). The study notes:

Prior research with Vietnam veterans with chronic PTSD has established an association between PTSD and suicide (Bullman & Kang, 1994). This study extends these findings by demonstrating an association between suicidal ideation and PTSD in treatment-seeking OIF/OEF veterans with more acute forms of PTSD. PTSD was significantly associated with suicidal ideation after accounting for age, depression and substance abuse, with PTSD veterans over four times more likely to report suicidal ideation than veterans who did not screen psotive for PTSD. Among veterans who screen positive for PTSD, there was no significant increase in risk for suicidal ideation associated with a single comorbid disorder. However, the likelihood for suicidal ideation was 5.7 times greater in veterans with PTSD who screened positive for two or more comorbid disorders relative to veterans with PTSD alone. Results suggest that veterans with PTSD who have multiple psychiatric comorbidities may be at greater risk for suicidal ideation. This increased likelihood of suicidal ideation associated with comorbidity is notable because, of those OIF/OEF veterans diagnosed with a mental disorder, 27% have three or more different mental health diagnoses.

Repeating, a veteran with or without PTSD is not 'crazy' or 'dangerous' either to his or herself or others either because of being a veteran or because of having PTSD. But some suffering from the war -- with or without PTSD -- are really struggling and, a percentage of that struggling group, is obviously not getting the help they need.

Turning to Iraq, where the big story is apparently still yesterday's news that Nouri wasn't wanted in the new Shi'ite coalition.
Ernesto Londono and K.I. Ibrahim (Washington Post) observe, "Maliki's exclusion from the alliance was not entirely surprising. Despite his considerable popularity, the prime minister has become a divisive figure, and a recent surge in violence has triggered criticism from Iraqis who view his administration as cocky and incompetent." Even the headline points to this, "Major Shiite Political Parties Exclude Maliki in Forming Coalition" but when we switch the channel to state-run media, we find Steven Myers of the New York Times spinning a yarn about how Nouri is the one who didn't want to join. Pick the knee-jerk reaction in defense of Nouri and there the paper will go. Nouri wants to continue as prime minister and the new coalition doesn't need him and made it known they wouldn't make any promises. But Myers frantically works as Nouri's p.r. man and scribbles, "Mr. Maliki's refusal to join the alliance, after weeks of negotiations behind the scenes, intensified a bitter political struggle over the leadership of the country's largest sect ahead of parliamentary elections in January." Liz Sly and Caesar Ahmed (Los Angeles Times) add that Nouri "has so far been unable to sway any significant Sunni or Kurdish factions to join his prospective coalition." Adam Ashton (McClatchy Newspapers) observes of Nouri, "His stature, nonetheless, took a dent last week when suicide bombers detonated explosives in front of two government ministries, killing at least 95 and wounding more than 1,200, and undercutting the image of stability that Maliki has tried to convey while American forces reduce their presence in Iraq." Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) reports on the new political coalition noting, "The 10-party Iraqi National Alliance includes two groups whose leaders are both in Iran -- the country's largest Shiite party, cleric Abdul Azis al-Hakim's Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council, and the bloc of anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr." Robert Dreyfuss (The Nation) explains that one-time CIA asset Ahmad Chalabi is among the founders of the new coalition and he addresses the potential meanings of what is taking place:

First of all, although Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has so far opted not to join the pan-Shiite religious alliance, American Pollyannas who see Maliki as a nationalist, pro-American ally are wrong. Like the new INA alliance, Maliki is in thrall to the Iranians, too, only slightly less so. His secretive, cult-like Dawa Party -- which has split and split again -- provides nearly all of his inner-circle allies and advisers, and according to Iraqi sources Maliki is heavily vested in ties to Iran and its intelligence services. He shrewdly, though unconvincingly, positioned himself and his new party, State of Law, as a pro-unity, nationalist party during the January provincial elections, but although Maliki tried to find allies among secular Iraqis, religious Sunnis, and Kurds, nearly all of his votes came from Arab Shiites. He got votes from Iraqis who were unhappy with their country's religious-right drift and who rejected ISCI and its allies, in part by lavishing patronage to newly created tribal councils in the Shiite-majority provinces. As a result, Maliki has been riding high of late, and a well-placed former Iraqi official told me that Maliki felt strong enough to tell the founders of the Iraqi National Alliance that he'd refuse to join unless they let him run the show, with a guarantee that he'd be reelected as prime minister if the Alliance wins a majority in the January, 2010, election. Maliki may or may not have overestimated his strength, but in any case he may decide to join the Alliance at a later date -- or, alternately, he might join them after the election in a coalition government. In either case, Iran will be the big winner, especially as US forces move out.

In other news, who can pull out their ambassador first? That's the game Syria and Iraq are engaged in.
Xinhua reports that upon learing Iraq was withdrawing their ambassador, Syria decided to withdraw its ambassador to Iraq and notes that Iraq is demanding Syria hand over Ba'athists living in Syria (it's neither a crime to be a Ba'ahist or to live in Syria) whom they insist are responsible for the last Wednesday's bombings. This as Khalid al-Ansary, Suadad al-Salhy and Missy Ryan (Reuters) report the al Qaeda in Iraq-linked Islamic State of Iraq has issued a statement claiming credit for the bombings: "As we announce our reponsibility for this blessed foray, we want to clarify, as we have said repeatedly, that we target the foundations of this evil state and those who supported it and helped establish it." Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) quotes this from the group's statement, "The ground shook under their feet, their hearts were torn with fear, and the weakness of their states and their disputes were exposed to everyone." CNN, citing SANA (Syrian media outlet), notes the Syrian government response, "Syria had informed the Iraqi side of its willingness to host an Iraqi delegation to review the evidence it has on those who carried out that attacks [but] considers the evidence that is being broadcast in Iraqi media as fabricated for internal political agendas." The Syrian government is referring to the 'confession' televised. The sole confession and not even for the worst attack -- the 'confessor' 'confessed' to an attack on the Finanical Ministry when the attack on the Foreign Ministry did the most damage. (Iraq has a history of torturing prisoners to produce confessions. It also has a history of trumpeting 'captures' that turn out not to be what they were promoted as.)

In reported violence today, at least 5 dead and eighteen wounded,

Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing which left four people wounded, a Baghdad sticky bombing which left five people wounded, a Baghdad roadside bombing which left four police officers wounded and a Baghdad sticky bombing which left one person wounded. Reuters notes a Samarra roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 police officer and left another injured.

Shootings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 person shot dead and a police officer injured in Mosul today while last night a mosque invasion resulted in a Sheikh being wounded in a shooting. Reuters notes 1 Mosul hospital patient was shot dead in an attack today that also injured a hospital guard and an assailant and, dropping back to last night, they note 1 police officer shot dead in Baghdad and 1 university professor shot dead.

The US military has farmed out . . . a responsibility that probably wasn't their responsibility to begin with. US media outlets look at their staffing issues and determine whom to assign where. But a new hurdle's emerged for those they might want to embed with US troops.
Charlie Reed (Stars and Stripes) reports the Rendon Group is now in charge of that decision, "Rendon examines individual reports' recent work and determines whether the coverage was 'positive,' 'negative' or 'neutral' compared to mission objectives, according to Rendon officials. It conducts similar analysis of general reporting trends about the war for the military and has been contracted for such work since 2005." And the US government is paying for that. Anyone remember Kenneth Tomlinson and his efforts to have Bill Moyers and Diane Rehm's work 'graded'? With tax payer money? And how outraged everyone rightly was? What's the difference? What's the difference between the outrageous actions of Kenneth Tomlinson and the US government farming the same tasks (plus access) to the Rendon Group?

June 23rd, news broke that Heath Druzin, of Stars and Stripes, was being barred from an embedding assignment in Iraq. At that time, New West Boise's Jill Kuraitis declared, "In my opinion, it's a serious matter when the delivery of accurate and timely news is denied to the American people who always deserve the truth in accordance with our founding principles. We are funding the war with our tax dollars, which makes us even more deserving of the information. Druzin is a professional trained to do exactly what he is doing, and his efforts to be accurate should not be impeded, nor his priorities manipulated." She is correct and why is it that a firm is 'vetting' journalists? Stars and Stripes, to focus on them, isn't smart enough to know their own reporters? They assign someone to Iraq or wherever because they feel that is their best correspondent available. But the government needs to approve it? This is no different than the stomping of the feet by brutal governments that the US regularly decries but this is coming from the US. SourceWatch provides an overview of the Rendon Group and we'll excerpt their section on James Rendon and Iraq:Rendon was also a major player in the CIA's effort to encourage the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. In May 1991, then-President George Bush, Sr. signed a presidential finding directing the CIA to create the conditions for Hussein's removal. The hope was that members of the Iraqi military would turn on Hussein and stage a military coup. The CIA did not have the mechanisms in place to make that happen, so they hired the Rendon Group to run a covert anti-Saddam propaganda campaign. Rendon's postwar work involved producing videos and radio skits ridiculing Saddam Hussein, a traveling photo exhibit of Iraqi atrocities, and radio scripts calling on Iraqi army officers to defect.A February 1998 report by Peter Jennings cited records obtained by ABC News which showed that the Rendon Group spent more than $23 million dollars in the first year of its contract with the CIA. It worked closely with the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an opposition coalition of 19 Iraqi and Kurdish organizations whose main tasks were to "gather information, distribute propaganda and recruit dissidents." According to ABC, Rendon came up with the name for the Iraqi National Congress and channeled $12 million of covert CIA funding to it between 1992 and 1996. Writing in The New Yorker, Seymour Hersh says the Rendon Group was "paid close to a hundred million dollars by the CIA" for its work with the INC.[12]ClandestineRadio.com, a website which monitors underground and anti-government radio stations in countries throughout the world, credits the Rendon Group with "designing and supervising" the Iraqi Broadcasting Corporation (IBC) and Radio Hurriah, which began broadcasting Iraqi opposition propaganda in January 1992 from a US government transmitter in Kuwait. According to a September 1996 article in Time magazine, six CIA case officers supervised the IBC's 11 hours of daily programming and Iraqi National Congress activities in the Iraqi Kurdistan city of Arbil. According to a Harvard graduate student from Iraq who helped translate some of the radio broadcasts into Arabic, the program was poorly run. "No one in-house spoke a word of Arabic," he says. "They thought I was mocking Saddam, but for all they knew I could have been lambasting the US government." The scripts, he adds, were often ill conceived. "Who in Iraq is going to think it's funny to poke fun at Saddam's mustache," the student notes, "when the vast majority of Iraqi men themselves have mustaches?"[13] In any case, the propaganda campaign came to an abrupt end on August 31, 1996, when the Iraqi army invaded Arbil and executed all but 12 out of 100 IBC staff workers along with about 100 members of the Iraqi National Congress.

iraqcindy sheehanthe christian science monitordave cookcape cod todayinstitute of public accuracyjake berrycape cod times
south florida sun sentinel-times
joni mitchell
michelle tanel paso timesandrew kreighbaumchris robertstulsa worldkevin canfieldmanny gamallo
caroline alexanderbloomberg news
the sunday mailjonathan owenthe independent of londonthe manchester evening news
stars and stripescharlie reedjill kuraitisthe washington posternesto londonothe new york timessteven lee myersthe los angeles timescaesar ahmedliz slymcclatchy newspapersadam ashton

Monday, August 24, 2009

On Glen Beck and Corrente

Barack speaks to the VFW

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Barack Speaks to the VFW" is above. I miss his comics when he takes a weekend off. I said that to my mother and she said, "When has he taken a week off." Score one for Mom. Even when C.I. grounds him at TCI, Isaiah's still already done at least one comic for every community newspaper. But since he started at TCI, I always go by that. If he's off there, I consider him off for the week. (C.I. grounded him last week, insisting he take some time for himself. Isaiah works way too hard as the community cartoonist.)

So his comic went up Sunday and so did Kat's "Kat's Korner: John Fogerty rushes to country-lite" which you really do not want to miss. From the opening until the last sentence, it holds you.


What doesn't hold you is Corrente. Is that not the worst blog alive? Especially if you consider how it was . . . I was going to say "a year ago" but it had already tanked by then. Until June, it had some life in it.

Now they're the boring 'health care' blog. (Even the networks are learning people are tired of that rah-rah s**t.) They still haven't stolen (guess Lambert's too busy) from C.I.'s snapshot to note that Perry Bacon Jr. revealed today that some in the Progressive Congress in the House who are saying they will never vote for any plan that doesn't include the public option actually will vote for a plan without a public option and have told him that. I'm sure Lambert will 'suddenly' discover that piece at WP and rush to blog on it.

If you're late to the party, Lambert stole repeatedly from C.I.'s work. C.I. blew it off and didn't say a word in real time. Lambert was confronted by community members and he tried to play it off. He even went so far as to say that The Common Ills was "a blog I've never even heard of." It was one of the very few sites that Corrente linked to. Woops! So Lambert promptly pulled all the links and I find it hilarious that for over a year now Corrente had had NO blogroll and idiots have kept Corrente on their own blog rolls.

Poor Lambykinds. It takes five seconds to give credit.

Anyway, DC Blogger is, after Sarah, the dumbest blogger they have. (Lambert's not dumb, just apparently petty thief.) And DC blogs this:

So when do we start filing complaints with the FCC in a systematic effort to get Murdoch's FCC license pulled? And when do we start to contact his institutional investors and bond holders and suggest that investing in lies might not be consistent with their fiduciary responsibility? When do we start to exact a serious price for this sort of editorial subversion?

I read that and clicked to read the full thing because I thought, "Maybe I've misjudged her." (I assume DC Blogger is a her. I could be wrong.) I was thinking she had written a parody thing on the idiots with their Whole Foods protest. Wrong. She was dead serious.

And to prove that stupidity attracts the same, the first comment posted is Sarah who is all on board.

So let me weigh in on some of this Brown Shirt nonsense.

1) I do not watch Glen Beck.

2) I did not watch him on CNN and I certainly won't watch him on Fox.

3) I do not listen to his radio program.

4) I do not agree with him.

5) He is a conservative, I am a liberal.

6) I do not support ColorforChange and their idiotic boycott.

ColorforChange is that anti-Arab group that tries to play progressive. A lot of loons (I'm referring to leadership) who don't know what they're doing. And don't really care. (It's anti-Arab. Repeatedly they attempt to latch onto an Arab issue and utilize it in another way while also shutting out Arab voices from the conversation.)

Glen Beck is in 'trouble' for calling Barack Obama a racist and stating that, inside, Barack really hates White people.

If Glen Beck called George W. Bush a racist and stated that, inside, Bush really hates African-Americans, would he be in trouble?

No.

I disagree with Glen Beck.

I do not feel he made a "racist" comment.

I'm sure he believes what he said and he can say it. I find nothing controversial with it. I found nothing controversial when Harry Belafonte held Colin Powell and Condi Rice accountable.

I disagree with Glen Beck. But I'm not troubled by his remarks.

I think there's something very sad that he's called Barack "racist" and the response is, "Glen Beck must be racist!"

Do you get how childish that is?

It's just stupidity.

I don't want to censor anyone.

Not even dumb Sarah or DC Blogger.

By letting them keep talking, we allow them to embarrass themselves.

Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Monday, August 24, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Cindy Sheehan gears up to protest the War Hawk president, a new 'change' on prisoners held by the US in secret really isn't a change and it says a great deal about the press (Big and Small) that they don't bother to tell you that, a new Shi'ite bloc forms but without Nouri, in the US 'brave' House Dems on the 'public option' aren't so brave according to Perry Bacon Jr. (they're eager to jump ship according to him), and more.

Today in Iraq, the media's attention is drawn to Kut. Outside the city, two bus bombings took place.
Reuters says 11 are dead and, citing police sources, that the number may be 20. Al Jazeera gives the number wounded as twenty-five. BBC says the police are now insisting the death toll is 11. Marc Santora (New York Times) quotes bus passenger, Minem Salman stating, "I managed to get out from the window but all the others were burning. I couldn't help them." AFP states that the bombings took place "within half an hour of each other" and quotes police Lt Mohammed Fadhil stating they were sticky bombs. CBS and AP have the bombs exploding "minutes apart". Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) adds that a Baghdad roadside bombing left four police officers wounded.

Sunday the
US military announced: "A Multi-National Division-Baghdad Soldier died Aug. 23, from combat-related injuries while conducting a patrol in Baghdad. The Soldier's name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin. The names of service members killed in action are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense Official Website at http://www.defense.gov/. The announcements are made on the website no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. MND-B will not release any additional details prior to notification of next of kin and official release by the Department of Defense. The incident is currently under investigation." The announcement brought the total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4334.

This follows last week's violence which
Third pointed out resulted in 211 reported deaths and 950 wounded. ("Last Sunday saw 13 reported dead and 41 reported injured. Monday saw 24 dead 59 wounded. Tuesday the reported death toll was 5 and 24 were reported injured. Wednesday 102 were reported dead and 572 wounded. By Thursday evening, 22 were reported dead with 67 injured. Thursday night 33 more deaths were reported and 145 wounded. Friday saw 8 deaths reported and 31 people wounded. Saturday saw 4 dead 11." Note that the US military announced the deaths of two US service members last week and they aren't included in the daily counts for last week in this parenthetical.) Wednesday's deaths were mainly from the Baghdad bombings which were largely an attack on the Foreign Ministry and the Finance Ministry. Today Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) reports Hoshyar Zebari, Foreign Minister of Iraq, "held meetings [Saturday] in a makeshift reception room with plastic sheeting for walls. Iraqi officials with their heads bandaged walked the halls exchanging news of more servely wounded colleagues" and that "10 percent of the ministry staff [was] injured or killed." She also notes, "Iraqi officials, who almost instantly announced arrests after the attacks, have given conflicting reports about how it was carried out, but all have blamed Baath Party loyalists for planning the bombing and Al Qaeda operatives for carrying it out." Saturday, Nouri al-Maliki, thug of the occupation, appeared on Iraqi TV. Reuters quotes him stating, "I want to tell the Iraqi people we are still in an open war against them. I reassure the Iraqi people that the security forces can still keep up the battle and achieve victory despite breaches here and there." Reuters states "them" in the first sentence was supposed to refer to "terrorists." Zebari was also making public statements on Saturday. Khalid al-Ansary, Muhanad Mohammed, Michael Christie and Andrew Roche (Reuters) explained he denounced Nouri's previous decision (now on hold) to take down the Bremer walls throughout Baghdad and that he noted how it appeared to him that there was collaboration between whomever planned Wednesday's bombing attacks in Baghdad and Iraqi security forces. He is quoted stating, "According to our information, there has even been collaboration between security officers and the murderers and killers." While that was taking place, Liz Sly and Saif Hameed (Los Angeles Times) reported on the Baghdad govenment announcing arrests which allegedlly took place "hours after the attacks Wednesday". Chip Cummins and Ben Lando (Wall St. Journal) reported that leaders of Parliament met on Firday (the press was kept out and the meeting was not televised). Meanwhile an Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy (at Inside Iraq) pointed out the obvious, "Several people I talked to in Fallujah and Baghdad are full of doubt. They wonder how a truck loaded with more than one ton of explosives could escape more than 200 checkpoints throughout Baghdad?! If you are driving your car in Baghdad there will be one way to escape checkpoints without being searched properly, I mean after the explosive detectors point to your car, and that way is to show them a badge. A badge of an officer will be the perfect way. The fact that there were officers of the presidential guards involved in a bank theft and killing eight guards at the end of last month made people suspect anything." It's being called "Iraq's 9-11" by Iraqi officials and by US Ambassador to Iraq Christopher Hill while others are referring to it as "Black Wednesday." Click here for CNN video on Wednesday's attack. Adam Ashton (McClatchy Newspapers) spoke with Haider Chasibi whose home is near the Foreign Ministry and has experienced damages from three bombings on the Foreign Ministry in the last four years. He tells Ashton, "Next time it will fall on our heads and kill us. It cannot take another explosion."

Yesterday, the Baghdad-based government trotted out a suspect with the latest in their televised 'confessions'. This morning Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) serves up "
Iraq Military Broadcasts Confession on Bombing" because Myers and the Times love forced confessions and are working overtime to become state media in Iraq. Real news outlets are less quick to swallow. Reuters headlined their story "Iraq shows video it says is confession of bomber." BBC goes with "Iraqi 'bomber confession' aired." Myers pants: "In brief, edited excerpts of videotaped remarks, the man, identified as Wisam Ali Khazim Ibrahim, calmly explained how he had organized one of the two bombings, which killed almost 100 people on Wednesday and wounded hundreds more." In the best Judy Miller style, it waits until paragraph five to point out that the 'testimony' cannot "be confirmed independently". Big surprise, the likely forced confession fingers Ba'athists (in Syria!!!!) for the attack. But here's the thing, if the confession was genuine, wasn't it stupid to air it? Iraq's not announced any other ringleaders and presumably were the 'confessor' telling the truth and doing so of his own accord, he would have supplied the names of all involved. Or are we not supposed to notice that? So shouldn't the 'confession' have been kept under wraps until after the Iraqi government announced a series of arrests? Jomana Karadsheh (CNN) reports that "many Iraqis expressed skepticism about the claims to CNN, asking why the government had the intelligence to make the arrests so quickly but was unable to prevent the attacks. In some previous incidents, the Iraqi government has announced arrests and aired confessions that did not hold up. In April, it claimed it had captured Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, the head of al Qaeda in Iraq's umbrella group, the Islamic State of Iraq. The Islamic State of Iraq denied it, and the capture was never confirmed by the U.S. military." Of the 'confessor,' Jane Arraf notes he "appeared strangely composed" and she also notes reports that some Sunni MPs may be arrested shortly. Oliver August (Times of London) adds, "Opposition politicians voiced doubt last night that the real perpetrators had been caught and asked if the confession was made under torture."

Meanwhile
Alsumaria reports, "In a meeting with ministers, MPs, scholars and tribal Sheikhs, Prime Minister Al Maliki noted that some politicians cashing on Iraq attacks saps national interest of the country." Cashing in? On security? Nouri wants to play that card? Really? Who rushed to take credit for security previously? I believe that was Nouri. Now that the situation is different, suddenly he's concerned that some might make political hay out of 'security'. Now he's concerned. Poor Nouri. Ernesto Londono reports at the Washington Post that a Shi'ite coalition of politcal parties does not include Nouri. Apparently, they didn't want him to play in their reindeer games. This was made clear when they refused to promise that they'd re-appoint Nouri as Prime Minister should they secure the needed majority in the January 2010 elections. The New York Times repeately fails to grasp that last part: the prime minister is not elected by the people. Londono reports that the new coalition is thought to have closer ties with Iran.

Turning to the non-Change administration in the US. Yesterday
Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) reported the US government wants credit for allegedly supplying information on prisoners they are holding "in secret at detention camps in Afghanistan and Iraq" -- and it's more smoke and mirrors from Barack. Amy Goodman (Democracy Sometimes!) will play the fool all her life as she again demonstrated this by mangling what took place in her headlines, "The new disclosure took effect this month after years of denying the Red Cross access to the prisoners." Reading's hard for the likes of Amy Goodman or maybe it's just the latest in her strained relationship with the facts. Regardless, for any 'information' the government's supplying the Red Cross to be solid, it needs to be verifiable. It's not. DeYoung explained -- PAY ATTENTION, AMY GOODMAN -- that the US government "will continue to deny the" International Committee of the Red Cross "access to the prisoners". BBC explains, "Despite the change in policy, Red Cross officials are still not getting access to the highly secretive sites - something they do get at most other US military detention centres." Eric Schmitt (New York Times) makes the same point and adds, "The New York Times reported in 2006 that some soldiers at the temporary detention site in Iraq, then located at Baghdad International Airport and called Camp Nama, beat prisoners with rifle butts, yelled and spit in their faces, and used detainees for target practice in a game of jailer paintball." David Schaper (NPR) reports that Gen David Petraeus is responsible for the 'change'.

Recapping: The Barack administration says the Red Cross will be denied access to the secret prisons but they will supply the Red Cross with the names of the prisoners they are detaining. For those who don't recall, the previous administration tried this song and dance of offering similar 'bargains' with human rights groups. It was crap then and it's crap now. Nothing has changed in the White House. Though Amy Goodman is unable to comprehend what she reads, many more can't even recall five years ago.
June 17, 2004, PBS' NewsHour was exploring the issue of 'off the books' prisoners (link has text, audio and video options) and before Ray Suarez began the discussion, a clip of then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld holding a press conference was played.

Donald Rumsfeld: I was requested by the Director of Central Intelligence to take custody of an Iraqi national who was believed to be a high-ranking member of Ansar Al-Islam, and we did so. We were asked to not immediatelly register the individual, and we did that. It would . . . it was . . . he was brought to the attention of the department, the senior level of the department I think late last month, and we're in the process of registering him with the ICRC at the present time.

Thanks, Donnie, that fixed everything. Of course it didn't. It never did and this happened over and over. You can pick multiple instances under the previous administration when this issue resulted in the nonsense Barack just issued. But back then, people were a little smarter. Barack's still continuing the policy of refusing to allow the Red Cross access. He didn't change anything. Now, supposedly, the hide-away prisoners will be registered but, supposedly, that was already supposed to be happening under the previous administration and, when caught, they'd assure that from this moment foward, starting and starting now, they were going to let the Red Cross know about prisoners.
On that 2004 segment of The NewsHour, Ray Suarez spoke with US News and World Reports' Edward pound who outlined the way it's supposed to be.

Edward Pound: Well, what is normally done with these detainees in Iraq and in any other facility where we have these detention facilities around the world and what other countries are supposed to do is when a prisoner comes in, he is registered and put into an electronic database and given a serial number. That information is provided to the Red Cross. The Red Cross then is allowed to come to this facility and interview this prisoner and check on the conditions.

Is that complicated? Is that hard to follow or difficult to comprehend? No? Then let's face the obvious fact that the Barack Obama administration is doing the same smoke and mirrors dance of the previous administration and it is not in compliance. The Red Cross is supposed to be able to visit the facility and to interview the prisoner. DeYoung reported that the US government "will continue to deny the ICRC access to the prisoners" which means they are in noncompliance. This is not something to praise or to read with a stupid grin on your face the way Amy Goodman did. It's something to be appalled by.

And we were appalled by it under the previous administration.
On The NewsHour's May 12, 2006 broadcast, Ray Suarez included in this news summary, "The International Committee of the Red Cross sharply criticized the U.S. today over terror suspects held in secret. The agency's president said in a statement: 'No matter how legitimate the grounds for detention, there exists no right to conceal a person's whereabouts'." As the BBC noted that day, "The Geneva Conventions says the ICRC should be allowed to visit prisoners-of-war." As usual, Amy Goodman was a little slow. But May 15, 2006, she did stumble across the story and, her face telegraphing serious outrage, read the following, "The International Committee of the Red Cross is accusing the Bush administration of ignoring requests from the organization to have access to detainees being held in secret U.S. jails around the world." Hey, Goody-Goody, no one has to accuse the Barack administration of refusing access, they're admitting to it. How about a little outrage from the People's Republic of Brooklyn, hmmm?

Barack Obama has landed on Martha's Vineyard and is vacationing.
Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan lands tomorrow and begins taking part in a demonstration:


From her home in California, Ms. Sheehan released this statement:"There are several things that we wish to accomplish with this protest on Martha's Vineyard. First of all, no good social or economic change will come about with the continuation or escalation of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. We simply can't afford to continue this tragically expensive foreign policy.Secondly, we as a movement need to continue calling for an immediate end to the occupations even when there is a Democrat in the Oval Office. There is still no Noble Cause no matter how we examine the policies. Thirdly, the body bags aren't taking a vacation and as the US led violence surges in Afghanistan and Pakistan, so are the needless deaths on every side.And, finally, if the right-wing can force the government to drop any kind of public option or government supported health care, then we need to exert the same kind of pressure to force a speedy end to the occupations." Cindy Sheehan will arrive on the Vineyard on Tuesday, August 25th.For more information, or to request an interview with Cindy Sheehan please contact: Laurie Dobson lauriegdobson@yahoo.com(207) 604-8988 or Bruce Marshall brmas@yahoo.com(802) 767-6079

Good for Cindy. Sad for those thinking Congress Dems 'libs' -- who swore they'd end the illegal war -- are going to save the (weak) public option in ObamaInsuranceCare. No, we're not talking about "Blue Dogs," we're talking about those 'progressives.' We'll get to it, hold on. First,
John J. Monahan (Worcester Telegram & Gazette) reports on US House Rep Jim McGovern and notes that the timeline the Barack Obama administration is using is not one he endorses: "They are talking about leaving a pretty significant force behind and I'm worried about that. [. . . .] We still have 30,000 troops in Korea. We are going to leave 50,000 troops in Iraq. How do we sustain that? I think we need to get out of Iraq and let them run their own country." Barack's 'plan' is, of course, Bush's plan. And we weren't thrilled about when it was Bush's plan so why do so many support it today? Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway (at the Financial Times of London) write about the proposed vote (in Iraq) on the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement and they walk you through some of the now forgotten US history on that:

In contrast, George W. Bush defied the US constitution by insisting that he -- and he alone -- could commit the US to the Iraqi agreement. He refused to ask Congress to approve it even though the American constitution -- like the Iraqi one -- requires legislative consent. He even refused to give Congress any information about the agreement's terms until the deal was done. Leading congressmen were forced to follow the negotiations by reading English translations of Arabic texts published in Iraqi newspapers.
Joseph Biden, who was then chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, responded by introducing legislation declaring that the bilateral agreement with Iraq "should involve a joint decision by the executive and legislative branches". Hillary Clinton, then a senator, went further, asserting that it was "outrageous that the Bush administration would seek to circumvent the US Congress on a matter of such vital interest to national security". Her bill would have denied all funding to any military agreement that Mr Bush negotiated unilaterally.
Mrs Clinton's bill gained the support of nine co-sponsors, including Barack Obama, also then a senator. Mr Obama continued his opposition during the autumn presidential campaign, insisting that Mr Bush's agreement "should be subject to Congressional review to ensure it has bipartisan support here at home". Indeed, Mr Obama and Mr Biden campaigned for a more rapid withdrawal than Mr Bush was contemplating. They set the summer of 2010, not the winter of 2011, as their deadline.

And this is the White House 'plan' for Iraq? The person sitting in the Oval Office may have changed but the 'plan' remained the same.
Oona Hathaway and Bruce Ackerman wrote about this earlier this year for the San Francisco Chronicle. (That was not the first time they addressed the issue, but the Chronicle column was directed to the then-incoming administration.)

Now to health care and we'll bring it back around to veterans health care, bear with me. The
Washington Post's Perry Bacon Jr. appeared online today in a chat and we'll note two things from it (as a personal favor to a friend). Discussing ObamaInsuranceCare, Bacon blogged the following about the 65 members of the US House who have publicly stated "no public option, we won't support it:"

I have real doubts 65 house members are going to vote against a bill that would expand health insurance to millions of Americans if it doesn't have a public option. I consider this a threat and a negotiating tactic. I've talked to a few of these members who have signed this letter, and they don't seem as committed to a public option as you would think. Reconciliation is one route; I think the more obvious route remains a bill with no public option that gets the votes of Snowe, Collins, and a few other Republicans.
[. . .]
The House liberals want a public option in their bill in part because that becomes a bargaining chip; it means that if they drop that as part of the bill, they may not have to drop other issues they care about. If any Republicans back the Senate version, those changes are likely to be protected in the conference. And if neither chamber can pass a bill in the first place, an increasingly likely possibility, that of course is a big story.

Chris Hedges (at Information Clearing House) reports:

The current health care debate in Congress has nothing to do with death panels or public options or socialized medicine. The real debate, the only one that counts, is how much money our blood-sucking insurance, pharmaceutical and for-profit health services are going to be able to siphon off from new health care legislation. The proposed plans rattling around Congress all ensure that the profits for these corporations will increase and the misery for ordinary Americans will be compounded. The corporate state, enabled by both Democrats and Republicans, is yet again cannibalizing the Treasury. It is yet again pushing Americans, especially the poor and the working class, into levels of despair and rage that will continue to fuel the violent, proto-fascist movements leaping up around the edges of American society. And the traditional watchdogs -- those in public office, the press and citizens groups -- are as useless as the perfumed fops of another era who busied their days with court intrigue at Versailles. Canada never looked so good.
The Democrats are collaborating with lobbyists for the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry and for-profit health care providers to craft the current health care reform legislation. "Corporate and industry players are inside the tent this time," says David Merritt, project director at Newt Gingrich's
Center for Health Transformation, "so there is a vacuum on the outside." And these lobbyists have already killed a viable public option and made sure nothing in the bills will impede their growing profits and capacity for abuse.
"It will basically be a government law that says you have to buy their defective product," says Dr. David Himmelstein, a professor at Harvard Medical School and a founder of
Physicians for a National Health Plan. "Next the government will tell us a Pinto in every garage, a lead-coated toy to every child and melamine-laced puppy chow for every dog."
"Health insurance is not a race to the top; it is a race to the bottom," he told me from Cambridge, Mass. "The way you make money is by abusing people. And if a public-option plan is not ready and willing to abuse patients it is stuck with the expensive patients. The premiums will go up until it is noncompetitive. The conditions that have now been set for the plans include a hobbled public option. Under the best-case scenario there will be tens of millions [who] will remain uninsured at the outset, and the number will climb as more and more people are priced out of the insurance market."

Related, In today's Boston Globe,
Bryan Bender reports on veterans of the Iraq War and Afghanistan War who are reluctant to participate in studies. Experts insist it's the stigma but it might just be the screw-you nature has gotten to them. For example, using a 'technique' tried out on grade school children as the 'answer' to PTSD? Insulting. Insulting and not applicable. That's when you stretch a field to the point that it breaks. When you're taking studies on unsuspecting children (raising a whole other set of issues) and attempt to apply it to the battlefield. In terms of logic, this would fall under the always ridiculed by the MSM inductive reasoning. But you didn't see anyone question it last week, did you? Of course not. When the goverment pimps it, the press waves cash. Today the Dept of Veterans Affairs announced that compensation claims for PTSD would be simplified: "The VA is publishing a proposed regulation today in the Federal Register to make it easier for a Veteran to claim service connection for PTSD by reducing the evidence needed if the stressor claimed by a Veteran is related to fear of hostile military or terrorist activity. Comments on the proposed rule will be accepted over the next 60 days. A final regulation will be published after consideration of all comments received. Under the new rule, VA would not require corroboration of a stressor related to fear of hostile military or terrorist activity if a VA psychiatrist or psychologist confirms that the stressful experience recalled by a Veteran adequately supports a diagnosis of PTSD and the Veteran's symptoms are related to the claimed stressor."

We're not the Afghanistan snapshot, but as a favor to another friend, we'll note the opening of
this item from Feminist Majority Foundation's Feminist Wire Daily:

The Taliban allegedly cut off the fingers of at least two Afghan women that voted in last week's presidential election. Election officials confirmed that the two women voted in the southern province of Kandahar and that they are investigating reports of a third incident in the eastern part of the country, reported
Los Angeles Times. Voters' right index fingers were dipped in ink in an intended fraud prevention measure. According to the National Democratic Institute, extremist election-day violence erupted primarily in the south and southeast regions of Afghanistan, particularly repressing voter turnout among women. Across the country, at least 650 women's polling stations never opened, in part because there was a dearth of women to staff the locations. Nader Nadery, president of the Free and Fair Elections Foundation of Afghanistan told the Associated Press.

iraq
jomana karadshehcnn
the christian science monitorjane arraf
the washington posternesto londono
mcclatchy newspapersadam ashton
the washington postkaren deyoung
pbsthe newshourray suarez
khalid al-ansarymuhanad mohammedmichael christieandrew roche
the los angeles timesliz slysaif hameedthe wall street journalben landochip cummins
mcclatchy newspapers
the times of londonoliver august
cindy sheehan
the new york timeseric schmitt
perry bacon jr.
chris hedges
john j. monahanthe wrocester telegram and gazette