general hospital and abc suck

last thanksgiving, we didn't watch 'general hospital' because of some other thing that i don't remember.  but every other thanksgiving, we've always watched the long running soap after thanksgiving dinner.

and this year we were so excited because we weren't going to miss it like last year.

but uh-oh.


a repeat.

and this has to be from back in may - at that!

i don't want the soap axed but i wish abc's last soap on the air would buy a clue.

for example, nicholas' thick tongued lisping son?

not cute.

and no 1 believes the little boy is obsessed with girls let alone in love with 1.

but we don't need to see that crap to begin with unless general hospital's suddenly catering to pedophiles.

if you're not at least a teenager, got to your room and let the actors do the work.

even timmy - on 'passions' - wasn't a child.

2nd, find a strong woman.

they have to keep elizabeth but they can lose pretty much every other woman under 50 on the show.

they should actually bring back heather webber.

but they still need a young woman who is flat out evil.

not forced into evil but evil.

anna devane needs to stop being so damn pompous.

sonny needs to go.

he's a bad actor and there's really nothing left for him to do.

keep his 3 sons but lose him.

tony geary is not the star.

especially now as he's turned off so many former fans.

he is a spice to be used lightly.

putting him in dual roles is way too much.

half the characters on the show are forgettable and played by lousy actors.

i would recast most of the parts.

i would also make jane elliot more prominent because tracy quartermain's link to the past of the show and jane's amazing talents mean she should be front and center.

the woman playing luke and laura's adult daughter is a bad actress - hideous - and drags down every scene she's in.  recast the role with some 1 who actually seems alive.

meanwhile, where are the new soaps?

supposedly, we were going to get a 'valley of the dolls' from nbc.  where is it?

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Wednesday, November 26, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, the US gears up to provide more weapons to Iraq, this despite the fact that the Iraqi military continues to bomb civilians in Falluja, and more.

Victoria A. Brownworth (SheWired) offers:

We are still at war in Afghanistan. Last week  the Obama Administration quietly announced, to almost no media fanfare, that it was continuing that war, when it was supposed to be ending at the beginning of next year. President Obama is also sending  more troops back into Iraq. This too was met with a shrug by Americans.
Revving up America’s two longest wars has not spurred a single protest march in this country, but the failure of a grand jury to indict Darren Wilson on even the charge of involuntary manslaughter has brought thousands into the streets, from Ferguson itself to New York, LA, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Boston and beyond. Record numbers of tweets have gone out over Twitter, which many consider responsible for drawing attention to the case of Michael Brown and subsequent events in Ferguson after his killing.

The breadth of the protests versus the crickets over Afghanistan and Iraq makes cleat that the real war America is fighting, the one that many of us feel threatened by, is the fight between marginalized communities and law enforcement. 

Interesting but inaccurate.

Black Agenda Report has been calling for action the minute the grand jury released their findings.  The Center for Constitutional Rights has weighed in repeatedly.  Activists have been working overtime on this issue -- United For Peace and Justice, CodePink, on and on.

There's been an enemy named -- the White police officer Darren Wilson -- a focal point to fuel anger.

Whereas, with Iraq, these same people haven't done a damn thing.

In fairness to Black Agenda Report, they've at least called Barack out.

But they haven't led on Iraq.

As Iraqis have been killed in Falluja for 11 months straight now, I've not seen Black Agenda Report object once to the bombings of the residential neighborhoods in Falluja -- despite the fact these bombings are War Crimes.

Where has anyone in the US been when it comes to calling these out?

It didn't start yesterday.

It started in January.

For eleven months now, residential neighborhoods -- that's where people's homes are -- in Falluja have been bombed by the Iraqi military.

It is a legally defined War Crime to attack civilians for the actions of fighters in an area.  It's known as Collective Punishment -- the US, all of Europe, most of the world recognizes Collective Punishment as a War Crime.

Where is the outrage?

September 13th, Iraq's new Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi announced the bombings were over.  But let's drop back to September 14th:

Third's "Editorial: The bombing of civilians continues in Iraq" notes Iraq's new prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, ordered an end to the military bombing civilian targets on Saturday -- or that al-Abadi said he gave that order -- yet Falluja General Hospital was bombed today.
Iraqi Spring MC notes the bombings of residential neighborhoods in Falluja also continued today with 6 civilians left dead  and 22 more injured.
A very important question needs to be asked:  Did al-Abadi give the order he said he did?
If he didn't, he lied.
If he did, the military is not listening to the new prime minister.
The media needs to be asking was it a lie or is the military refusing to obey orders?
This is why the media exists in the first place.
Either is a story but the military refusing orders would be a huge story.  (While a politician lying would be seen as typical behavior.)

But there was no interest in that either.

Iraqi forces are attacking civilians.  US President Barack Obama wants a waiver so he can violate the Leahy Amendment (which bars providing weapons and aid to governments who carry out attacks on civilians).

He wants.

He hasn't gotten it yet.

But he wants it.

Despite not getting the waiver, the US government's announcing more arms to Iraq.  Aaron Mehta (Military Times) notes, "The State Department has approved an $800 million sustainment deal for Iraq's fleet of C-130E and C-130J cargo aircraft, the government announced Tuesday."

The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency issued the following notice:

Media/Public Contact: 
Transmittal No: 
WASHINGTON, Nov 26, 2014 – The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to Iraq for C-130E/J sustainment and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $800 million. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale today.
The Government of Iraq has requested a possible sale for a five-year sustainment package for the C-130E/J fleet that includes operational, intermediate, and depot level maintenance, spare and repair parts, support equipment, repair and return, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $800 million.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a strategic partner. This proposed sale directly supports the Government of Iraq and serves the interests of the people of Iraq and the United States.
The proposed sale of a C-130E/J sustainment package would allow the Iraq Air Force (IAF) to continue operating its C-130E/J aircraft beyond 2015. The IAFs limited maintenance capability necessitates the need for continued contractor logistics support. The continued support will assist the IAF in continuing to use the aircraft to provide humanitarian relief operations in various locations.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Lockheed Martin in Bethesda, Maryland. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Iraq.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded.
All questions regarding this proposed Foreign Military Sale should be directed to the State Department's Bureau of Political Military Affairs, Office of Congressional and Public Affairs, pm-cpa@state.gov.

Where's the outrage?

Even Senator Patrick Leahy doesn't speak out.

What happened to Michael Brown is very sad and, yes, an outrage.

It doesn't need to be 'spruced up' with lies and misinformation to make it an issue of concern.

When you lie to advance an argument, people stop supporting you.  Stop lying that he was shot in the back. There is more than enough reason to see the events as tragic and to debate whether or not the grand jury made the right determination.  When you tell lies or just repeat them to advance your side of an argument, people start to think you must have a weak case or you wouldn't result to lying.

Equally important, grasp the lesson everyone should have already known.

When someone has a loaded gun, you shouldn't try to grab it -- but if you do try to grab it you better pull it from the person holding it.

Forget the two people involved, replace them with generic Smurfs.  If someone tries to grab a loaded gun, it is highly doubtful that the situation ends peacefully.

For me, my  opinion only, feel free to disagree, the minute a gun was pulled (by the police officer), violence became a very real possibility.  Might have been one even if Michael Brown had, at that moment dropped to the ground and put his hands behind his back.

People want to talk racism.

One reason is because racism is real and it exists and it's a serious problem in the US and all around the world.

Another reason?  These days it's easy to 'contribute' when you know nothing about an issue by just insisting 'racism.'

Racism is an iffy thing to prove.

If Michael Brown's family wants justice, they need to focus on the gun.

Why was the gun pulled?

Because of racism?

Maybe but you most likely won't be able to prove it.

What you can prove is a climate where citizens are no longer citizens but potential threats.

I was shocked, doing research for a project, in 1990 and 1991, to observe police trainings in several different cities where officers were told that everyone was a threat and blah blah blah.

We think the police are there to help.

But that's not what they're always being trained for.

A gun was pulled.

An examination of the trainings the police officer participated in should reveal if this was the case for the officer.  It would also explain to the country that something's gone seriously wrong and police officer or peace officers are being trained not to resolve issues but to approach citizens as potential threats.

This can be demonstrated in court.  You can subpoena the trainers, the training material and much more.

The press always prefers the 'a few bad apples' storyline to a truer narrative that would indict the system itself.  But when people are being killed, like 12-year-old Tamir Rice for the 'crime' of having a toy gun, the problem is the system itself.

But making that argument is too much for our so-called left leaders who'd rather abandon efforts at real change to instead try to get rage to boil over into violence.

In fact, any real work is too much for our so-called left leaders.

Instead of doing real work, they scan the horizon for any craze or event that they can latch onto and pretend to be a movement -- on they started and fostered.

That's why they latched onto Barack, it's why they latch to everything.

They're too lazy to do the work required

So they rush here and there, where ever they think a media spotlight is and latch on like a leech.

For six years now, Barack has carried one war after another and most of the so-called leaders can't even call him out.

He spends the second half of this year sending more troops into Iraq and there's no leadership from so-called peace leaders in the US.

They can't call him out.

They can't call out the War Crimes against the civilians in Falluja.

They can't do much of anything.

You'll find more criticism of Barack's 'plan' coming out of Iraq than out of the US.  For example, Press TV reports:

“The airstrikes cannot defeat ISIL and liberate the cities. We hear that in some places the warplanes drop weapons for ISIL... What we know is that the victories achieved on the ground are done by the Iraqi army and volunteers,” Iraqi State of Law Coalition MP Hanan Fatlawi told the Press TV correspondent in Baghdad.
On October 22, the US admitted that one of the weapon airdrops intended for Kurds fighting in the Syrian town of Kobani was almost certainly intercepted by ISIL terrorists.

I'm no fan of State of Law, as the archives establish, but they're right that the air bombings are not accomplishing much of anything -- except physically destroying Iraq and intimidating and terrorizing the people.

Since this summer, Barack has repeatedly said Iraq requires a political solution but little has been done to facilitate anything political.  Instead, the US government has overseen two major meet-ups of defense ministers and has spent forever recruiting other countries to take part in the air bombings of Iraq and, less successfully, to send troops into Iraq.

How's that creating a political solution?

It's not.

Today's Zaman reports:

Foreign ministers from up to 60 countries forming the US-led coalition against Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL) militants will hold their first meeting next week in Brussels, US officials said on Wednesday.
The Dec. 3 meeting, chaired by US Secretary of State John Kerry, is expected to review progress in the fight against ISIL and to discuss how coalition members will coordinate politically in future.

It's taken months for them to plan the above.  Hopefully, it's not too late for a meet-up like the above to make a difference.

We were noting State of Law earlier.  It is the political slate of thug Nouri al-Maliki who was prime minister of Iraq until a few months ago and who is now one of Iraq's three vice presidents.  Of Nouri, Ya Libnan reports:

In an unprecedented development the Iranian Foreign Ministry adviser, Mohammad Ali Sobhani, yesterday blamed the Iraqi regime of  Nouri al-Maliki, and the Syrian regime of Bashar al Assad for the creation of the islamic State of Iraq  and Syria  ( ISIS)
In an interview with a local Iranian website «telltale News» Sobhani said  the sectarian policies during the reign of former PM Maliki   led to the formation of an incubator for the«Daash» or ISIS  organization .

Sobhani said that the economic and social problems that plagued Iraq, in addition to sectarian policies practiced  by the al-Maliki  regime led to the formation of a popular base for the emergence of ISIS  in the region.


state of affairs brings the hot and sexy with chris mckenna

during the winter break, i'll probably cover nbc's 'state of affairs.'

only then.

there are 2 many twists and turns in 'scandal' and 'revenge' for me to take on blogging about another show.

but 'scandal's off until jan. 29th.  and 'revenge' wraps up sunday (it comes back in late january or early february).

so that does allow me to note 'state of affairs.'

ava and c.i. reviewed it in 'TV: Madonna versus Whore all over again' on sunday and included this:

Heigl's playing a character people can identify with even as The Water Cooler Set sneers.

Her show also has a secret weapon in the recurring role of Nick: Chris McKenna.

If you look up his bio, you'll find he was on One Life To Live and blah blah blah.

Forget that.

He hit people's radar in 2013 due to a commercial -- one that had Kat and  Rebecca raving about him and Rebecca even putting him at the top of her "10 most f**kable men of 2013."

Heigel's Charlie slept with Nick and it appears she did so while engaged to the president's dead son.  You need someone sexy in the role of Nick to make it believable and Chris McKenna is one of the few men who can handle that task.

There are no political statements to be found in State of Affairs, it's trying to be a thriller and, largely, succeeding. By contrast, the hideous Madam Secretary wants to be so genteel and slightly one degree left of center that it's about as tasty as government cheese. 

you can visit the nbc 'state of affairs' webpage to stream episodes.

the second episode aired monday night.

i really do enjoy the show.

i streamed the first episode monday afternoon and then watched the 2nd 1 on nbc that night.

chris is a sexy, sexy man.

he was on both episodes and will be on the next 1 as well.

i didn't realize he was on the show.

i would have made a point to give a heads up because a lot of you joined me in thinking he was sexy.

in the series, kathrine heigl is a c.i.a. analyst and she's trying to catch the killer of her fiancee.

catch him.

not kill him.

he was actually her asset.

and she wants to find out if he turned or what.

and her dead fiancee?

the president's son.  (alfre woodard plays the president.)

nick - that's chris' character - he's had an affair with heigl and there are still sparks there but she doesn't trust him.

and a guy advising her (i think it's her dad but they haven't told us that yet) tells her nick is not to be trusted.

so there's all this intrigue.

there are long running elements to each episode but each episode also has it's own self-contained storyline.

i really like it.

if you like chris, please make a point to check out the show.

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Tuesday, November 25, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, on the day to eliminate violence against women the Islamic State elects to execute two female politicians, the refugee crisis continues in Iraq, IAVA notes Chuck Hagel's impending departure, and much more.

Let's start in the United States.  Senator Patty Murray serves on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and is the Chair of the Senate Finance Committee.  Her office issued the following today:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                            CONTACT: Murray Press Office
Tuesday, November 25th, 2014                                                                   (202) 224-2834
Murray Joins Group of 40 Senators in Backing DOD Plan to Better Protect Military Families from Abusive Financial Practices  
WASHINGTON, D.C.Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) joined a group of 40 Senate colleagues in supporting the Department of Defense’s (DOD) plan to update the Military Lending Act (MLA) and close existing loopholes in order to better protect soldiers and their families from abusive financial practices.  The letter, sent to U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, expresses strong support for the proposed new rule to help prevent lenders from charging excessive fees and taking advantage of military families.
Following a 2006 Pentagon report that found that “predatory lending undermines military readiness, harms the morale of troops and their families, and adds to the cost of fielding an all-volunteer fighting force,” Congress passed the MLA.  This law capped the annual interest rates for consumer credit to service members and their dependents at 36% while giving DOD the authority to define what loans should be covered.  The DOD’s 2007 implementing regulations narrowly included only three types of loans: (1) payday loans: closed-end loans with terms of 91 days or fewer, for $2,000 or less; (2) auto title loans: closed-end loans with terms of 181 days or fewer; and (3) refund anticipation loans: closed-end credit.
In the proposed changes to the rules implementing the MLA, first announced in September, DOD sought to close existing loopholes in the current MLA rule.  Today’s letter voices strong support for the proposed rule, arguing that the changes strike a better balance between protecting service members and their families while maintaining access to good credit. 
As our service members are asked to take on even more tasks in defense of our nation, we should take every opportunity to protect them and their families here at home, especially from unscrupulous lenders,” the Senators wrote.  “We strongly support the proposed MLA rule and urge that the final MLA rule be similarly robust in enhancing protections for service members and their families, producing significant cost savings for DOD, and improving military readiness.”
Murray was joined by Senators Reed and Durbin, Mark Udall (D-CO), Levin (D-MI), Brown (D-OH), Hirono (D-HI), Manchin (D-WV), Warner (D-VA), Franken (D-MN), Baldwin (D-WI), Nelson (D-FL), Murphy (D-CT), Blumenthal (D-CT), Merkley (D-OR), Heinrich (D-NM), Warren (D-MA), Gillibrand (D-NY), Whitehouse (D-RI), King (I-ME), Klobuchar (D-MN), Tom Udall (D-NM), Kaine (D-VA), McCaskill (D-MO), Shaheen (D-NH), Schatz (D-HI), Markey (D-MA), Bennet (D-CO), Coons (D-DE), Donnelly (D-IN), Feinstein (D-CA), Cardin (D-MD), Carper (D-DE), Wyden (D-OR), Heitkamp (D-ND), Tester (D-MT), Boxer (D-CA), Hagan (D-NC), Harkin (D-IA), and Schumer (D-NY) in signing onto the letter.  The signatories include every Democratic member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The comment period for the proposed rule, which was recently extended, ends on December 26, 2014.
The full text of the letter follows:
Dear Mr. Secretary:
We are writing in response to the Department of Defense (DOD) proposal to update the implementing rules for the Military Lending Act (MLA).
By enacting the MLA as part of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, Congress sent a clear bipartisan message that protecting service members and their families from predatory and high cost lending was of paramount importance to their financial security and military readiness.
This concern was reiterated in the Conference Report for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, which stated that “the conferees are concerned that the Department must remain vigilant to eliminate continuing, evolving predatory lending practices targeting service members and their families, and believe the Department should review its regulations implementing section 987, to address changes in the industry and the evolution of lending products offered since 2007, continuing use of predatory marketing practices, and other abuses identified by consumer protection advocates, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Office of Servicemember Affairs.”
As a result of this required review of the current MLA rule, DOD in its proposal now recommends closing existing MLA loopholes.  We believe this strikes a significantly better balance than the current MLA rule between protecting service members and their families on the one hand and maintaining access to non-predatory credit on the other.  As such, this proposal also does a much better job of reflecting Congressional intent. 
Specifically, we support the proposal to expand the MLA’s “definition of ‘consumer credit’ to cover a broader range of closed-end and open-end credit products.”  In so doing, the rule proposes that these products be treated in a manner generally consistent with the decades-old requirements of the Truth in Lending Act. 
This comprehensive approach is essential to preventing future evasions.  As DOD notes in its proposed rule, “the extremely narrow definition of ‘consumer credit’ permits creditors to structure credit products in order to reduce or avoid altogether the obligations of the MLA.”  For example, MLA protections currently can be avoided by simply adding a day to the term of a payday loan or by lending just one additional cent so that the payday loan no longer qualifies as “consumer credit” subject to the MLA protections.   
Contrary to Congressional intent, these evasions threaten military readiness.  According to DOD, “each separation of a service member is estimated to cost the Department $57,333, and the Department estimates that each year approximately 4,703 to 7,957 service members are involuntarily separated due to financial distress.”  In addition to the estimated cost savings DOD has identified, we give great weight and deference to DOD’s statement that the proposed MLA rule “would reduce non-quantifiable costs associated with financial strains on service members. High-cost debt can detract from mission focus, reduce productivity, and require the attention of supervisors and commanders.”  As a result, we strongly agree with DOD’s view that the proposed MLA rule not only has the potential to produce substantial cost savings, but also enhance military readiness.
In August of last year, a number of us wrote, “service members and their families deserve the strongest possible protections and swift action to ensure that all forms of credit offered to members of our armed forces are safe and sound.”  Indeed, as our service members are asked to take on even more tasks in defense of our nation, we should take every opportunity to protect them and their families here at home, especially from unscrupulous lenders. 
For all these reasons, we strongly support the proposed MLA rule and urge that the final MLA rule be similarly robust in enhancing protections for service members and their families, producing significant cost savings for DOD, and improving military readiness.
Kathryn Robertson
Deputy Press Secretary 
Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray
154 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510


A friend at a VSO wanted to point out that Senator Murray never loses sight of veterans issues while, in the House, Corrine "Brown can't even find them."  That's a very good point and one that I have missed.

At Third on Sunday, we wrote "Editorial: Corrine Brown must not be named Ranking Member" which noted how US House Rep Tim Walz was qualified to be the Ranking Member on the House Veterans Affairs Committee and Brown is not. We noted the nonsense Nancy Pelosi and her cronies pulled as they insisted that Walz couldn't run for Ranking Member because he wasn't a member of the Committee and only took part via a waiver.  The editorial included this:

If he had to obtain a waiver to serve on the Committee?

That meant he served on the Committee.

That's what the waiver did, it made him a Committee member.

And Tim Walz asked questions in hearings, voted on the Comittee, etc.

He was a member and he participated.

Gov.track isn't confused:

Committee Membership

Timothy Walz sits on the following committees:

And he didn't just serve on the Committee and show up for hearings, he sponsored bills dealing with veterans issues:

H.R. 5680: Veterans’ Toxic Wounds Research Act of 2014

Sponsor: Rep. Timothy Walz [D-MN1]
Introduced: Sep 19, 2014
Referred to Committee: Sep 19, 2014
H.R. 5059: Clay Hunt SAV Act

Sponsor: Rep. Timothy Walz [D-MN1]
Introduced: Jul 10, 2014
Referred to Committee: Jul 10, 2014
H.R. 4191: Quicker Veterans Benefits Delivery Act

Sponsor: Rep. Timothy Walz [D-MN1]
Introduced: Mar 11, 2014
Referred to Committee: Mar 11, 2014
H.R. 3569: Protecting the Freedoms and Benefits for All Veterans Act

Sponsor: Rep. Timothy Walz [D-MN1]
Introduced: Nov 20, 2013
Referred to Committee: Nov 20, 2013
H.R. 2785: Military Reserve Jobs Act

Sponsor: Rep. Timothy Walz [D-MN1]
Introduced: Jul 22, 2013
Referred to Committee: Jul 22, 2013

H.R. 1980: Quicker Veterans Benefits Delivery Act

Sponsor: Rep. Timothy Walz [D-MN1]
Introduced: May 14, 2013
Referred to Committee: May 14, 2013
H.R. 975: Servicemember Mental Health Review Act

Sponsor: Rep. Timothy Walz [D-MN1]
Introduced: Mar 5, 2013
Referred to Committee: Mar 5, 2013
H.R. 679: Honor America’s Guard-Reserve Retirees Act

Sponsor: Rep. Timothy Walz [D-MN1]
Introduced: Feb 13, 2013
H.R. 6574 (112th): Servicemember Mental Health Review Act

Sponsor: Rep. Timothy Walz [D-MN1]
Introduced: Oct 12, 2012
Referred to Committee: Oct 12, 2012
H.R. 1855 (112th): Veterans’ Traumatic Brain Injury Rehabilitative Services’ Improvements Act of 2011

Sponsor: Rep. Timothy Walz [D-MN1]
Introduced: May 11, 2011
Referred to Committee: May 11, 2011
H.R. 1566 (112th): Protecting Servicemembers from Mortgage Abuses Act of 2011

Sponsor: Rep. Timothy Walz [D-MN1]
Introduced: Apr 14, 2011
Referred to Committee: Apr 14, 2011
H.R. 865 (112th): Veteran Employment Transition Act of 2011

Sponsor: Rep. Timothy Walz [D-MN1]
Introduced: Mar 1, 2011
Referred to Committee: Mar 1, 2011
H.R. 6188 (111th): Veterans’ Homelessness Prevention and Early Warning Act of 2010

Sponsor: Rep. Timothy Walz [D-MN1]
Introduced: Sep 22, 2010
Referred to Committee: Sep 22, 2010
H.R. 6123 (111th): Veterans’ Traumatic Brain Injury Rehabilitative Services’ Improvements Act of 2010

Sponsor: Rep. Timothy Walz [D-MN1]
Introduced: Sep 14, 2010
Referred to Committee: Sep 14, 2010
H.R. 5928 (111th): Veterans’ Disability Claims Efficiency Act of 2010

Sponsor: Rep. Timothy Walz [D-MN1]
Introduced: Jul 29, 2010
Referred to Committee: Jul 29, 2010
H.R. 5400 (111th): Veteran Employment Transition Act of 2010

Sponsor: Rep. Timothy Walz [D-MN1]
Introduced: May 25, 2010
Referred to Committee: May 25, 2010

In fairness to Corrine Brown, we should note that during the same period above (2008 and to the present), she also sponsored some bills. 

Well . . . 


Because there was only one.

From 2008 to the present -- six years -- she only sponsored one bill having to do with veterans.  

But she thinks she's earned the right to serve as Ranking Member on the House Veterans Affairs Committee?

In fairness to Corrine, we should note she had other things to focus on.  In the same period, she introduced two bills on Haiti.  Maybe that makes her an expert on veterans?  And she sponsored four bills on National Train Day.

Of course, she also had to put in a lot of time going through those mail order catalogs to buy all her hideous wigs.
Is Corrine Ranking Member?
She's issued two statements already announcing she is but until January, when the new Congress starts, she's not.
And if the Democrats in the House are stupid enough to go along with Nancy, to oppose veterans groups on this issue, they better be prepared for the voter fallout in 2016, they better be prepared for the ignorant statements out of Corrine's mouth that the Democratic presidential candidate will have to respond to.  This is insanity.  The woman is a moron and who cannot speak.  Every time she opens her mouth she either embarrasses herself or attacks veterans -- or both!  
The whole party's going to suffer as a result of Nancy Pelosi's decision and that needs to be brought home to Nancy, loudly and clearly -- not the three person meet-up that took place this weekend where an attempt was made to reason with Nancy.
This issue isn't over yet, the decision can be overturned.
But if it's not, it needs to be remembered than Nancy Pelosi is responsible for Democratic losses in 2016 as Corrine Brown becomes the face of the party when it comes to veterans issues.

I don't dislike Andrew J. Bacevich but his latest piece -- which In These Times idiotically reprinted -- goes a long way towards explaining why Bacevich stumbles anytime he tries to move forward instead of just reflecting on the past.

See if you can see the problem right at the start of his piece:

“Iraq no longer exists.” My young friend M, sipping a cappuccino, is deadly serious. We are sitting in a scruffy restaurant across the street from the Cathedral of St. John the Divine on Manhattan’s Upper West Side. It’s been years since we’ve last seen each another. It may be years before our paths cross again. As if to drive his point home, M repeats himself: “Iraq just doesn’t exist.”

His is an opinion grounded in experience. As an enlisted soldier, he completed two Iraq tours, serving as a member of a rifle company, before and during the famous Petraeus “surge.” After separating from the Army, he went on to graduate school where he is now writing a dissertation on insurgencies. Choosing the American war in Iraq as one of his cases, M has returned there to continue his research. Indeed, he was heading back again that very evening. As a researcher, his perch provides him with an excellent vantage point for taking stock of the ongoing crisis, now that the Islamic State, or I.S., has made it impossible for Americans to sustain the pretense that the Iraq War ever ended.

Iraq is no more?

And that revelation will come from an American who visited the country as a member of the Us military.

That's who's going to decide?

The ruling on Iraq will come from the Iraqi people but from a foreigner who enter the country armed?

I don't think so.

That is the height of xenophobia.

The column reeks of it.

It does nothing but offer, "This is how Iraq is and you can trust the opinion because it comes from an American."

I don't understand why In These Times printed it.

(Well actually I do.  The article's actually not about Iraq -- it's railing against the government of Israel and a checklist of other hatreds.)

Rudaw reports two women, who had run in the parliamentary elections last April, were assassinated today in Mosul  by the Islamic State and quoted Mosul's highest ranking Kurdish Democratic Party official Saad Mamuzin stating, "ISIS gunmen executed two former female candidates in Mosul after the Sharia Court issued death sentence on them. One of the candidates was Ibtisam Ali Jarjis on the Watanya list, and the second one was Miran Ghazi a candidate for Arab List."

The murder of the two women took place on the United Nation's International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.  Alsumaria reports that women took to the streets in Kirkuk today to protest against the ongoing violence against women where, protesters state, there are 84 recorded cases of violence against women with little to no follow up from the government.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's office released the following statement:

25 November 2014 - Sexual and gender-based violence is the most extreme form of the global and systemic inequality experienced by women and girls.
It knows no geographic, socio-economic or cultural boundaries. Worldwide, one in three women will suffer physical or sexual violence at some point in her life, from rape and domestic violence to harassment at work and bullying on the internet.
This year alone, more than 200 girls have been kidnapped in Nigeria; we have seen graphic testimony from Iraqi women of rape and sexual slavery during conflict; two Indian schoolgirls were raped, killed and hung from a tree; and in the United States, there have been high-profile cases of sexual violence on sports teams and university campuses.
Women and girls experience violence in all countries and neighbourhoods but these crimes often remain unreported and hidden. We must end the silence. That is why this year’s International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women is centred on a grassroots effort to raise awareness called Orange Your Neighbourhood. Around the United Nations in New York, the Secretariat building and the Empire State Building will be lit orange, and many other events are planned across the world and on social media.
Everyone has a responsibility to prevent and end violence against women and girls, starting by challenging the culture of discrimination that allows it to continue. We must shatter negative gender stereotypes and attitudes, introduce and implement laws to prevent and end discrimination and exploitation, and stand up to abusive behavior whenever we see it. We have to condemn all acts of violence, establish equality in our work and home lives, and change the everyday experience of women and girls.
Women’s rights were once thought of as women’s business only, but more and more men and boys are becoming true partners in the battle for women’s empowerment. Two months ago, I launched the HeForShe campaign; a global solidarity movement for gender equality that brings together one half of humanity in support of the other, for the benefit of all.
We all have a role to play, and I urge you to play yours. If we stand together in homes, communities, countries and internationally, we can challenge discrimination and impunity and put a stop to the mindsets and customs that encourage, ignore or tolerate the global disgrace of violence against women and girls.

Also issuing a statement was US Secretary of State John Kerry:

Today, we mark the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, and the start of 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence. Over the next two weeks, U.S. embassies and missions around the world will all be working to raise awareness of the irreparable harm caused by gender-based violence.
This issue is seared into me. As a young prosecutor, I saw women and young girls whose lives and families were ripped apart by violence. I will never forget seeing women in dark glasses and long-sleeved shirts worn to cover up the black eyes and bruises of abuse. I couldn’t help but think about them as my two daughters went out into the world. As a Senator, working with Joe Biden and Cathy Russell, long before any of us were in the Administration, I helped pass the Violence Against Women Act.
In recent years, I’ve seen firsthand how much work remains to be done all across the globe, not just here at home. I saw it as a Senator, and I’ve seen it even more as Secretary. On my latest visit to Africa, while in Kinshasa, I toured a fistula clinic at St. Joseph’s Hospital. I spoke with doctors and activists alike who have devoted their life’s work to healing the scars left by sexual violence. And I listened to young women tell heartbreaking stories of their pain and ongoing recovery from the physical and emotional wounds left by their brutal assaults. These women were brave; they were extraordinarily strong. I came away inspired by their determination to make sure that no woman goes through the same ordeal as they did ever again.
Simply put, we must all do more to end violence against women in all its forms, wherever and whenever it occurs, and it starts by acknowledging it. There can be no conspiracy of silence.
The sad truth is that one in three women will experience gender-based violence in her lifetime. This violence knows no class, religious, or racial boundaries. And it comes at a terrible cost – not only for the woman or girl, but for families, communities, and entire countries. Preventing it is the only way to achieve a future of peace, stability, and prosperity.
Over the past year, the United States has worked to up our game battling gender-based violence across the globe. Through our Gender-based Violence Emergency Response and Protection Initiative, we help meet the immediate security needs of survivors. The Safe from the Start initiative is sending experts into the field to prevent gender-based violence in conflict zones and regions devastated by natural disasters. We are also working to address the scourge of early and forced marriage, most recently launching a program in Benin. And this past summer, I was proud to launch our partnership with Together for Girls to collect data on the consequences of sexual violence against children and provide a foundation to mobilize responses to new outbreaks of violence.
We will not turn away in the face of evil and brutality. We stand up, and we reaffirm that sexual violence will be not be tolerated. Not now, not ever.

So what is the State Dept doing to help women's lives in Iraq?

I know what they were planning to do under Hillary Clinton.  The start of 2012 was supposed to bring a focus on women -- it was supposed to include special training for security forces.  Iraq refused it, I know that.  I remember it very well.  And remember that Nouri was responsible for that refusal.

Former prime minister of Iraq and forever thug Nouri al-Maliki was (illegally) over the Ministry of the Interior.  And he didn't care for the program.

But Nouri's no longer prime minister.

So what's the State Dept doing today?

Outrage when a US citizen or British citizens is beheaded by the Islamic State; however, on  a day calling out violence against women, calling for an end to it, two female politicians are executed in Mosul and the State Dept has nothing to say?

It sort of makes John Kerry's statement look like little more than bulls**t.

The never-ending Iraq War has destroyed many lives but among the communities and people targeted most frequently are religious minorities and all women in Iraq -- regardless of religion or sect.
Iraqi Christians have been repeatedly targeted throughout the Iraq War.  Dropping back to the November 18th snapshot:
Some people have a hard time giving up control -- even those who consider themselves servants of a God or god.  John Bingham (Telegraph of London) presents the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby explaining that, "I think there is an answer that says we need to do more where there is really no choice but we also need to be deeply committed to enabling solutions to be found enabling communities that have been there for 2,000 years to remain there."
If Welby's so worried that Christians may vanish, he can always pack a suitcase and go live there.
The notion that Christian refugees should not be granted asylum outside the region?
I'm sorry, would you also go back in time and argue that Jews in Germany and surrounding areas not be granted asylum to safety because Jews might vanish from the region?
Because it sounds sort of like you would.
Too much time by 'caring' people has already been wasted with faux concerns about how refugees are vanishing from the region when the reality is that refugees want to leave and find safety.  I don't know how this is confusing and I don't believe that this or that religious leader is honestly puzzled.
I think people are actively looking to look the other way just as they did during the Holocaust.
The Yazidis swooped in on the wave of outrage the targeting of Christians had created.  I am not accusing the Yazidis of anything.  I am saying that outrage was building and certain members of Congress were calling out the treatment of the Chaldeans which the US press was ignoring and then the religious minority (Yazidis) were trapped on Mount Sinjar and the press glommed on it.
It was an important story.  (The fact that Yazidis remain trapped on Mount Sinjar is an important story -- even if the US press can't find it.)  But somewhere along the way, the press -- the US press -- completely missed what was happening to Iraq's Christian community in the last months.
This week, some common sense enters the room.  Patrick Cockburn (CounterPunch) reports:
Father Yako laboured among the Syriac Catholics, one of the oldest Christian communities in the world, who had seen the number of Christians in Iraq decline from over one million at the time of the American invasion in 2003 to about 250,000 today. He sought to convince people in Qaraqosh, an overwhelmingly Syriac Catholic town, that they had a future in Iraq and should not emigrate to the US, Australia or anywhere else that would accept them. His task was not easy, because Iraqi Christians have been frequent victims of murder, kidnapping and robbery.
But in the past six months Father Yako has changed his mind, and he now believes that, after 2,000 years of history, Christians must leave Iraq. Speaking at the entrance of a half-built mall in the Kurdish capital Irbil where 1,650 people from Qaraqosh have taken refuge, he said that “everything has changed since the coming of Daesh (the Arabic acronym for Islamic State). We should flee. There is nothing for us here.” When Islamic State (Isis) fighters captured Qaraqosh on 7 August, all the town’s 50,000 or so Syriac Catholics had to run for their lives and lost all their possessions.
Many now huddle in dark little prefabricated rooms provided by the UN High Commission for Refugees amid the raw concrete of the mall, crammed together without heat or electricity. They sound as if what happened to them is a nightmare from which they might awaken at any moment and speak about how, only three-and-a-half months ago, they owned houses, farms and shops, had well-paying jobs, and drove their own cars and tractors. They hope against hope to go back, but they have heard reports that everything in Qaraqosh has been destroyed or stolen by Isis.

Rudaw reports, "The Islamic State (IS) militants blew up the St. George's Church and a nunnery in the city of Mosul on Monday, local sources said."

No one in Iraq dreams of being a refugee.  The decision to flee for safety is not made easily.  When it is made, it needs to be supported.

UNICEF speaks with Bashir, a child of Iraq who, with his immediate family, has sought asylum in Australia and he states, "I worry because my family is in Iraq -- my uncle, my grandpa and my aunties. Iraq it's not safe for them, it's so dangerous. And I am worried for my future, what will happen for me in the future. I have many things to do and I feel scared."

Bashir and his immediate family are labeled external refugees because they left Iraq.  Those who have been displaced within Iraq are called internal refugees.  Earlier this month, the United Nations noted:

As the humanitarian situation in Iraq deteriorates, the health needs of the 1.8 million internally displaced persons in the country are rising, particularly in the Kurdistan Region and Anbar. Mass population movement within the country and from the neighboring Syria poses a risk of potential disease outbreaks such as polio and measles among the displaced people.

“Although, we achieved high coverage in the mass vaccination campaigns conducted in September 2014, there is a need for sustained efforts in vaccinating all children 0-5 years and 6 months – 5 years against polio and measles respectively to halt transmission of these disease in the country,” said Dr Jaffar Hussain, WHO Representative in Iraq.  With the large numbers of people entering Iraq from the neighboring countries, coupled with overcrowding in the camps, this will create conditions ripe for disease outbreaks,” he added. 
To prevent further outbreaks of polio and measles, WHO and UNICEF have supported the Federal Government of Iraq to convene a review meeting for the Expanded Programme of Immunization (EPI) attended by national and province managers, national immunization advisory committee members, representatives from the central vaccine supply store, and health promotion officers. The meeting was convened to discuss ways of improving knowledge and technical skills of EPI managers to swiftly stop the current measles and polio outbreaks and effectively improve Acute Flaccid Paralysis (AFP) surveillance as well as improve the quality and reach of Routine Immunization.

The International Committee of the Red Cross released the following video.

Patrick Youssef: Since the start of 2014, the situation has been going worse and worse.  In today's Iraq, over two million displaced were first to leave their homes to leave all their possessions and seek refuge in other governorates.  During my last field trip to Duhok, to the Domiz Refugee Camp  where there was more than 30,000 families there.  I managed to discuss with some family members who told me, for example, how it was so difficult them to reach the camp.  Some of them went up to Mount Sinjar, then had to travel for at least 72 hours to reach a camp in such a difficult situation and in need of everything basically.  That's what pushes the teams of the Red Cross and other humanitarian organizations to respond to those needs.  So as the winter season started in Iraq and the rainy season as well, the displaced will be living in harsher conditions.  The ICRC in the field have already began measuring their distributions for families effected by this winter season by distributing stoves, blankets, winter clothing, other humanitarian activities that are equally important, that touch lives and dignities of many effected by previous wars or ongoing violence.  We continued our visits to places of detention.  We also considered our support and training for physical rehabilitation centers across Iraq but also other important projects such as the support to the medical legal directorate, its training and capacity building as well as our continuous engagement and serious commitment to continue our working on the missing file -- on the missing from the Iraq-Iran War but also from the Gulf War.  But also looked, for example, at the needs of farmers effected by this violence, by the armed conflict, by distributing simple things, seeds, for example, to sustain their livelihood and benefit their own families but also people who have been hosted by these farmers.  One of the main challenges that we face is basically being able to access all the places that are scenes of ongoing violence or conflict -- is that access has not been ideal for the teams of the Red Cross managed to get quite close to those effected by the violence and conflict.  International Red Cross has also sought to remind all parties -- all those carrying weapons and have a say or control over communities or civilian population -- to respect basic principles of humanitarian law, to protect civilians and to protect basically all those providing basic humanitarian assistance or providing health services -- ambulances but also health structures from the effects of this violence.

Among today's violence?  All Iraq News reports 4 corpses were dumped in the "Tigris River of northeastern Tikrit."  Alsumaria notes a Gaza City home invasion left 3 women and 1 man dead, and a mortar attack on two Tikrit schools left many students injured. Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 229 people killed today in violence with fifty more left injured. 

Yesterday, Chuck Hagel was forced out as Secretary of Defense (he's stated he'll remain in the post until the Senate can confirm his successor).  Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America issued a statement on Hagel's impending departure:

Washington D.C. (November 24, 2014) – Today, President Obama announced Department of Defense (DoD) Secretary Chuck Hagel has resigned. Hagel was sworn in as Secretary in early 2013. IAVA released the following statement:
“IAVA members appreciate Secretary Hagel’s exceptional dedication to the veteran community,” said IAVA CEO and Founder Paul Rieckhoff. “As the first Vietnam veteran and former enlisted soldier to lead the Department of Defense, Secretary Hagel was a tremendous advocate for us inside the Pentagon and the Administration. Secretary Hagel was a leader on issues of military mental health, suicide prevention and military sexual trauma, he was always open and receptive to our ideas for reform. He was someone we could always count on to have the backs of our veterans. IAVA members worldwide thank him for his leadership and wish him all the best in whatever he chooses to do next.”
Rieckhoff continued: “The veterans community has had no stronger advocate in Washington than Secretary Hagel. On fighting suicide especially, he’s always had our back. But as Secretary Hagel exits, we look to the President to finally solve a problem that has eluded all previous secretaries: the establishment of a truly seamless health record system between the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs. This is a critical need for servicemembers and veterans transitioning out of the military and seeking access to mental health care. We look forward to working with the White House and Congress to find a replacement to lead at the Pentagon and strongly support our community in the critical years to come.”

Note to media: Email press@iava.org or call 212-982-9699 to speak with IAVA CEO and Founder Paul Rieckhoff or IAVA leadership.

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (www.IAVA.org) is the nation's first and largest nonpartisan, nonprofit organization representing veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan and has nearly 300,000 Member Veterans and civilian supporters nationwide. Celebrating its 10th year anniversary, IAVA recently received the highest rating - four-stars - from Charity Navigator, America's largest charity evaluator.


wonder woman

sunday,  Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Let's Be Whats!" went up.

and on the topic of comics, the wonder woman film is supposed to be a go for 2017.

and michelle maclaren is supposed to direct.

so that's good news.

women have had to fight so hard to be directors.

and how great that the studio actually felt pressure to name a woman as director.

think about it.

jane fonda had her own production company and could do anything but repeatedly hired men to direct.

and when women did direct - like anjelica huston - jane fonda actively worked to suppress their films (like huston's 'bastard of carolina').

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Monday, November 24, 2104.  Chaos and violence continue,  Chuck Hagel is out as Secretary of Defense, Nouri al-Maliki continues to attempt to sew unrest in Iraq by attacking a deal between Baghdad and Erbil and by going to Shi'ite strongholds and saying Sunnis in Mosul's government plotted to take down the city, a former Sunni MP  faces execution,  Senators Patty Murray and Johnny Isakson call out efforts by the government to steal retirement benefits from veterans, and much more.

Chuck Hagel is now the departing Secretary of Defense. His rumored resignation is now official and AP notes that the resignation "comes as the president's national security team has been battered by crises including the rise of Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria and Russia's provocations in Ukraine."

This afternoon at the White House, US President Barack Obama and Hagel announced the Secretary of Defense's resignation.  We'll skip Barack's repeated use of "Chuck" and instead note Hagel's words:

Mr. President, thank you -– thank you for your generous words, for your friendship, for your support which I have always valued and will continue to value. And to my not old, but my longtime, dear friend Vice President Biden, who I have always admired and respected, and both the President and I have learned an awful lot from the Vice President over the years -– thank you. And I want to thank the Deputy Secretary of Defense who is here, Bob Work, and the Chairman and Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Marty Dempsey, who also is here. I want to thank them for being here this morning.
I also want to thank you both for your tremendous leadership of the Defense Department and what you mean to our men and women and their families all over the world; and for the honor I’ve had to serve with each of you and the privilege it’s been in every way.
And I want to thank the entire leadership team at the Pentagon. Without their support and wise counsel over the last couple of years our many accomplishments, and the President noted some, I have been part of that -– but it’s a team. It’s all these tremendous men and women, as you know Mr. President, that make this happen and I couldn’t be prouder of them and what we have accomplished over the almost two years that I’ve had the honor of serving in this position.
And as the President noted I have today submitted my resignation as Secretary of Defense. It’s been the greatest privilege of my life; the greatest privilege of my life to lead and most important, to serve -- to serve with the men and women of the Defense Department and support their families. I am immensely proud of what we’ve accomplished during this time. We have prepared ourselves, as the President has noted, our allies and Afghan National Security Forces for a successful transition in Afghanistan. We bolstered enduring alliances and strengthened emerging partnerships while successfully responding to crises around the world.
And we’ve launched important reforms that the President noted -- reforms that will prepare this institution for the challenges facing us in decades to come. I believe we have set not only this department –- the Department of Defense -– but the nation on the stronger course toward security, stability and prosperity. If I didn’t believe that, I would not have done this job.
As our country prepares to celebrate Thanksgiving I want to –- you, Mr. President, and you, Vice President Biden, -– acknowledge what you have done and how grateful I am to both of you for your leadership and your friendship and for giving me this opportunity to serve our country once again.
I will continue to support you, Mr. President, and the men and women who defend this country every day so unselfishly; and their families, what they do for our country, so unselfishly. And as I have said –- and as the President noted –- I will stay on this job and work just as hard as I have over the last couple of years, every day, every moment, until my successor is confirmed by the United States Senate.
I’d also like to express my gratitude to our colleagues on Capitol Hill -- my gratitude to them for their support of me, but more importantly their support of our troops and their families and their continued commitment to our National Security.
I also want to thank my international counterparts for their friendship and their partnership and their advice during my time as Secretary of Defense. Their involvement with me and their partnership with me -- in so many of these important areas as we build these coalitions of common interests as you have noted, Mr. President –- are so critically important and to them, I am grateful I will be forever grateful.
And finally I’d like to thank my family. My wife Lilibet, who you have mentioned, Mr. President, who was with me this morning as she has been with me throughout so many years, and during so many tremendous experiences. And this experience and opportunity and privilege to serve as Secretary of Defense has been one of those; and to my daughter Allyn and my son Ziller.

Mr. President, again, thank you. To you and to all of our team everywhere, as we know Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, it is a team effort. And that’s part of the fun of it, to help build teams and to work together to make things happen for the good of the country and make a better world. For all of that I am immensely grateful. And to all of you, your families, happy Thanksgiving. Thank you very much.

The repeated use of "Chuck" in Barack's remarks were most likely an effort to make shoving Hagel out of a moving car seem far kinder than it was.

Selena Hill (Latin Post) notes:

[. . .] inside sources say that the former Nebraska senator was forced out by the president, CNN reports. According to officials, the White House lost confidence in Hagel's ability to effectively lead in the Pentagon. Plus, the former Republican senator faced pressure as criticism of the president's national security team on a series of global issues mounted, including the threat of the Islamic State.

NBC News correspondent and MSNBC talk show host Andrea Mitchell Tweeted the following:
  • Truth is brought in to manage troop draw down from 2 wars now U.S. is extending combat role in Afghanistan and "advising" in Iraq

  • MONTAGNE: Well, get down to why Hagel is resigning right at this moment?

    LIASSON: Well, the president had conversations with Hagel in October about the final quarter of his presidency, and he essentially asked Hagel to step down. I think the biggest reason was that the mission has changed. When Chuck Hagel came in, his focus was on drawing down troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, shrinking the Pentagon, dealing with the sequester budget cuts. But now the world has changed. We're recommitting troops to Iraq to fight ISIS. In Afghanistan, we're going to be leaving some more troops behind. And the White House decided they needed a strategic thinker. And they've really struggled to stay one step ahead of all of these crises - Ebola, Ukraine, even conflicts in Asia. And I think the thinking was that they needed somebody else to run the Defense Department, more of a strategic thinker, in the remaining months of the president's term.

    MONTAGNE: And beyond that, were there problems with Hagel?

    LIASSON: Well, Chuck Hagel did occasionally seem not be on the same page as the White House. He famously said that ISIS was beyond anything we'd seen before. He was kind of out in front on that. He clashed with the national security advisor, Susan Rice, on Syria. And he never really made it into that very small insular inner circle at the White House.
    For all the lies and pretense, this was not a happy exit.  Early this morning, Helene Cooper of the New York Times attempted to spin pretty because she's honestly that useless.  She always has been and she always will be.   In 2006, Ava and I dubbed her the Bobble Head Pundit and nothing in all the years since has demonstrated that she has the skill or ability to actually report. 
    Helene had the story but she couldn't do a thing with it because she's never had the skill for context.
    After her embarrassing 'report' broke this morning, other outlets -- including the Associated Press -- brought the skill and context Helene was incapable of.  And the editorial board of the Contra Costa Times probably had the least stomach for spin of anyone working the story:

    The White House announced that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel had submitted his resignation after he and President Obama "both determined that it was time for new leadership at the Pentagon."
    Time for new leadership? Really? Hagel's tenure is still being measured in months rather than years (18, to be exact), he has barely had time to locate all the elevators in the Pentagon. Yet it is somehow time for new leadership? This announcement is Washingtonspeak for "the guy we picked isn't working out." 
    TVNZ One News specifically notes,"Mr Hagel has had his own frustrations with the White House. In recent weeks, he sent a letter to national security adviser Susan Rice in which he said Mr Obama needed to articulate a clearer view of the administration's approach to dealing with Syrian President Bashar Assad. The letter is said to have angered White House officials."
    Aliyah Frumin (MSNBC) notes some Congressional reaction:

    “This announcement shows when you don’t have a strategy, it’s hard to come up w/a team to help you implement a strategy,” said GOP Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri on Twitter. GOP Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland tweeted, “Pres Obama’s national security policy is failing & world is in turmoil. It will take more than changing the Sec of Defense to fix it.” Similarly, House Speaker John Boehner thanked Hagel for his service but added, “New #SecDef isn’t enough…” And in an expanded statement, Boehner said Hagel’s replacement must accompany a “larger re-thinking” of the America’s military strategy, suggesting GOP lawmakers will take a tough-as-nails approach during the next confirmation process.

    Hagel has agreed to hang on until his successor can be confirmed.  That person will be number four.  He or she will follow Robert Gates, Leon Panetta and Chuck Hagel.  Four.

    Since January 2009, Barack has required 4 US Ambassadors to Iraq as well: Chris Hill, James Jeffrey, Robert Steven Beecroft and Stuart Jones.   Four.

    When the US could have provided stability, it provided a non-stop state of flux.

    Mark Thompson (Time magazine) speaks with a wide range of observers and insiders.

    Retired Army general Jack Keane, who advocated for the surge in Iraq, says the White House has meddled with Pentagon prerogatives as the ISIS threat has grown over the past year, including videotaped beheadings of five Westerners, three of them American. “The policy is wrong and Hagel was pushing back on it,” Keane says, confirming what some Pentagon officials say privately.
    Defense officials say White House meetings on dealing with ISIS often ended without a decision, which would be made later by Obama, aided by National Security Advisor Susan Rice and her deputy, Ben Rhodes. “That’s very frustrating for a secretary of defense,” Keane adds, “who feels on the outside when it comes to issues that are in their domain.”

    Rice has long been a target inside the administration, even as she garnered sympathy as a Congressional scapegoat in the post-Benghazi hullaballoo. “The problems reach much higher than the secretary of defense,” a second Obama national-security aide said.

    Medea Benjamin (at Antiwar.com) offers:

    The talk about resetting President Obama’s security team is misplaced; we should be focusing instead on resetting his bellicose policies. Secretary Chuck Hagel’s resignation should be a time for the nation to step back and reexamine its violent approach to extremism, which has led to an expansion of terrorist groups, and inflated military spending. Let’s put more emphasis on the State Department and political solutions instead of continuing failed wars and starting new ones. We owe it to the youth of our nation who have never lived without war.

    Saturday, we did a mini-scorecard on new Prime Minister of Iraq Haider al-Abadi which included this:

    In fairness, Haider al-Abadi can point to one bit of success.  AFP reports, "The Iraqi government transferred $500 million to the autonomous Kurdish region on Wednesday as part of a deal aimed at ending long-running oil and budget disputes, the finance minister said."  Press TV explains:

    Hoshyar Zebari said in Baghdad on Wednesday that his ministry transferred the sum to the account of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) earlier in the day under the deal which requires Iraq to resume funding Kurdish civil servant salaries in return for a share of Kurdish oil exports.
    He said the KRG began supplying 150,000 barrels of crude oil per day to State Oil Marketing Organization (SOMO) storage tanks in the Turkish port city of Ceyhan on Tuesday.

    "This mutual implementation means that the two sides are ready to resolve all the other issues and all the issues are up for discussion," Zebari stated.

    That isn't minor.  For over a year now, the Kurds have been denied their part of the federal budget.  Nouri al-Maliki, the former prime minister and forever thug, attempted to use the federal budget to blackmail the Kurds.

    So resolving this isn't minor.

    What's that smell?

    Oh, thug and former prime minister Nouri al-Maliki emerged from the sewer he thrives in.  Rudaw reports Nouri belched up a critique of the deal:

     Iraq’s vice president and former prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, has criticized a recent oil and budget agreement between Baghdad and Erbil, saying the deal “is merely a show of compassion.”

    Rudaw notes Nouri is also using his TV channel, Afaq TV, to attack the deal.

    Thug Nouri spent last week publicly meeting with various Shi'ite militias.

    Why he's being allowed to sew dissent is beyond me.  He needs to be kicked out of the prime minister's house because he's no longer prime minister and some of the laws he insisted upon should probably be applied to him and his actions -- if they are, he'll be behind bars.

    He's very fortunate that Haider al-Abadi seems to have more respect for freedoms -- including freedom of speech -- than Nouri himself did or does.

  • Free press is the hallmark of a free society. We have a collective responsibiity to preserve freedom in Iraq

  • Maybe justice will come to Nouri in the form of a bullet?  Live by the sword and all of that.

    Nouri is a criminal, a War Criminal.  Let's drop back to the December 30, 2013 snapshot:

    Sunday, December 22nd, Nouri yet again called peaceful protesters 'terrorists' and announced he would stop the protests.

    He wanted to attack last Tuesday but a last minute flurry of meetings by various officials and political blocs caused Nouri to withdraw the forces he had encircling the Ramadi protest square.  Then came Friday.  From that day's snapshot:

    Wael Grace (Al Mada) reports Nouri al-Maliki again threatened the protesters today.  He declared this will be their last Friday protest and that he will burn the tents in the protest squares down.  He declared that the protesters were guilty of sedition.  Sedition?  Nouri as William Bligh?  I can see it.  Kitabat notes that he made these remarks in a televised interview.  Kitabat also notes Nouri's been insisting 30 terrorist leaders are hiding in protest tents.  

    We still can't get to today yet.

    That's Falluja on Saturday as tons poured into the street to protest Nouri's latest stunt.

    They were protesting the Saturday dawn raid that Nouri's forces carried out on an MP.  MP Ahmed al-Alwani was illegally arrested.  But there's more.  Alsumaria reported that his home was stormed by Nouri's SWAT forces at dawn and that 5 people (bodyguards and family) were killed (this included his brother) while ten family members (including children) were left injured.

    By now, we all know the drill.

    What is al-Alwani?

    Yes, he's Sunni.

    And he's also, we all know this, a member of Iraqiya.

    If you're targeted by Nouri, then you are both things.

    Or, as conservative Max Boot (Commentary) put it today, "If it’s the end of December or the beginning of January, it must be time for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to arrest another prominent Sunni politician."

    The people of Anbar did not respond well to Nouri breaking the law and arresting an MP.

    Today,  All Iraq News reports it's been decided to put former MP Ahmed al-Alwani to death.  He was arrested December 29, 2013 the outlet notes.  His brother was killed in the arrest ordered by thug Nouri al-Maliki, an arrest that was actually a raid in the early, pre-dawn hours of the morning.

    This will have huge implications.

    For example, the tribe he belongs to is one of the key tribes in the fight against the Islamic State.  Equally true, his arrest (and the murder of his brother) outraged the Sunni community.

    This is the wrong time to be  executing a Sunni politician -- with the new prime minister Haider al-Abaidi having done nothing of significance to improve Sunni relations or to include them in the government.

    Salam Faraq and Ammar Karim (AFP) report:

    Sheikh Omar al-Alwani, a leader of the Albu Alwan, said that any decision about Alwani should be put on hold and that the verdict could harm the fight against IS.
    "All the Albu Alwan tribe is standing against (IS) on the side of the government," but "half of the Albu Alwan fighters will withdraw if they actually executed Alwani in these circumstances," the sheikh said, adding that even the former MP's guards were fighting against IS.

    He said the government should wait until the fighting is over and IS defeated, then "take any decision it considers appropriate."

    Back to Nouri.  NINA reports al-Abadia has dismissed Adman al-Asadi as Senior Under Secretary of the Ministry of the Interior.  al-Asadi is a Nouri cohort/crony. Nouri needs to be kicked out of the government himself that.  Throughout the weekend, he spoke in various parts of south Iraq and issued crackpot 'explanations' for the fall of Mosul that blamed the local government.  Nouri stated the local government allowed Mosul to fall in an attempt to destroy Iraq.  These baseless charges need to be called out and as Nouri continues to attempt to sew unrest in Iraq, his own post as vice president (he's one of three vice presidents) needs to be rethought.

    Senator Patty Murray serves on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and is the Chair of the Senate Finance Committee. Senator Johnny Isakson is a member of the Senate Finance Committee and also serves on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.  Senator Murray's office issued the following today:

    For Immediate Release                                                      CONTACT: Murray (202) 224-2834
    Monday, November 24, 2014                                                                                  Isakson (202) 224-7777
    Murray, Isakson Lead Bipartisan Letter Pressing Army Secretary on “Grave Concern” Over Retirement Benefits
    In letter to Army Secretary McHugh, Senators call for immediate reversal of policy forcing officers to retire at highest enlisted rank
    Current policy results in significant decrease in lifetime retirement benefits, for some as much as $1,000 per month or more
    WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Patty Murray (D-WA) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA) led a bipartisan group of colleagues in sending a letter to U.S. Army Secretary John McHugh over the Army’s treatment of a significant number of captains and majors who are former non-commissioned officers and are being forced to retire at their highest previous enlisted rank as a result of the Army’s use of Enhanced-Selective Early Retirement Boards (E-SERB). This will result in a significant decrease in lifetime retirement benefits for the impacted soldiers, for some as much as $1,000 per month or more, or just over $1 million over a 40 year retirement in the case of a captain forced to retire as a sergeant first class.   
    “These former non-commissioned officers answered the Army’s call for volunteers to attend Officer Candidate School as the Army expanded its officer corps to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Now, despite having served for years as commissioned officers and rising through the ranks to become captains and majors, these dedicated soldiers will soon be forced to retire at their highest previous enlisted rank,” the Senators wrote in their letter. “To demote these soldiers in retirement is an injustice that devalues their service and will materially disadvantage them and their families for the rest of their lives… We strongly urge you to take the necessary steps to rectify this situation in order to allow these soldiers to retire at the rank they have earned and appropriately honor their service to our nation.”
    Under current law a soldier must serve at least 8 years of active service as a commissioned officer in order to retire as a commissioned officer.  Soldiers who serve 20 years total, but less than 8 years as commissioned officers are retired at their highest enlisted rank.  During the “Grow the Army” effort the Army dramatically increased the number of officers commissioned via its Officer Candidate School (OCS).  The Army expanded to a post 9-11 peak of 570,000 soldiers in 2010 and is currently executing an aggressive end strength reduction designed to shrink the Army to 450,000 soldiers.  Many of those OCS graduates are now being forced to retire through the E-SERB process as the Army shrinks.  Officers with more than 18 years active service are screened by E-SERB and those selected will be forced to retire on the first day of the month following the month they reach 20 years of service. These former non-commissioned officers stepped up and volunteered for OCS at a time the Army badly needed officers and served honorably for between 6 and 7 years.  Now, many are being retired at enlisted ranks they have not held in years.  This is particularly disturbing because had they ignored the Army’s call for officers most would have been promoted at least once more and been eligible to retire at a higher enlisted rank.
    Senators Murray and Isakson were joined in sending the letter by: Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Susan Collins (R-ME), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Mike Johanns (R-NE), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Bernard Sanders (D-VT) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH).
    Read a one-page summary of the issue here.
    The full text of the letter is as follows:
    November 19, 2014
    The Honorable John McHugh
    Secretary of the Army
    101 Army Pentagon
    Washington, DC 20301-0101
    Dear Secretary McHugh:
    We write to express our grave concern over the Army’s treatment of a significant number of Army captains and majors who are former non-commissioned officers.   These former non-commissioned officers answered the Army’s call for volunteers to attend Officer Candidate School as the Army expanded its officer corps to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Now, despite having served for years as commissioned officers and rising through the ranks to become captains and majors, these dedicated soldiers will soon be forced to retire at their highest previous enlisted rank.  This will result in a significant decrease in lifetime retirement benefits for the impacted soldiers, approximately $1,000 per month or just over $1 million over a 40 year retirement in the case of a captain forced to retire as a sergeant first class.  This is simply unacceptable. 
    These former non-commissioned officers have been placed in this untenable position as a result of the Army’s use of Enhanced-Selective Early Retirement Boards (E-SERB).  Officers selected by the boards are forced to retire as soon as they reach 20 years of service. Unfortunately, under current law a soldier must serve at least 8 years of active service as a commissioned officer in order to retire as a commissioned officer.  Soldiers who serve 20 years total, but less than 8 years as commissioned officers are retired at their highest enlisted rank.  While this requirement makes sense in the case of soldiers who choose to retire, are passed over for multiple promotions, or are forced to retire due to misconduct, none of those cases applies to the soldiers in question.  On the contrary, Army Human Resources Command has explicitly acknowledged that E-SERB will separate fully qualified officers “who have rendered quality service to the nation.”  To demote these soldiers in retirement is an injustice that devalues their service and will materially disadvantage them and their families for the rest of their lives.
    Rather than forcing these officers to retire as soon as they reach 20 years of service, the Army could modify its E-SERB policy to delay the mandatory retirement date of affected soldiers until the first month after they become eligible to retire as commissioned officers.  For many of the affected soldiers this would extend their time in service by only a few months.  We strongly urge you to take the necessary steps to rectify this situation in order to allow these soldiers to retire at the rank they have earned and appropriately honor their service to our nation. 
    Patty Murray                                                              
    United States Senator                                                 
    Johnny Isakson
    United States Senator
    Meghan Roh
    Press Secretary
    Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray
    Mobile: (202) 365-1235
    Office: (202) 224-2834

    morning edition