C.I. filling in for Rebecca. This is a talking entry and Rebecca only agreed on the promise that I would keep it light. She (and everyone) have plans for tonight. I'm watching her baby and Betty's kids so if I drop a topic and don't come back to it, that's why. The baby's asleep and the kids are playing (in this room). There shouldn't be any problems. (For those concerned, the baby's in a playpen a few feet from me and I'm on the laptop.)
In "England's Other Queen," Kat's addressing the attack by the Guardian of Lodon on Cindy Sheehan so be sure to check that out. Guardian of London? Just another example of a supposed independent periodical that exists to cheer a party. They're "New Labour" because Labour wasn't good enough for them. In 2003, I laughed in the face of a Guardian correspondent who felt the need to tell a group of us that Joe Lieberman not only would win the Democratic presidential primary (2004), but that Lieberman deserved to.
Now Lieberman didn't move to the right this year or last year. That's been Lieberman's position forever -- long before Al Gore selected him as the 2000 running mate. And in the crowd the scribe was trying to dazzle and impress, he had a harder audience than some possibly but for any so-called journalist to praise Lieberman as the best hope of the left demonstrates how questionable the Guardian's judgement is. (He was a reporter, not a columnist.)
We don't note the Guardian that often. There's a reason for that. It's not brave, it's not independent and it has a very 'open' relationship with the truth. Tony Blair is just as much a Bully Boy as the US' own White House occupant but the Guardian of London didn't do much with that. They propped him up. They gave him cover. They did not break the news of the Downing Street Memoes and they didn't even find it worth covering.
They have some columnists who are strong (and a few reporters as well) but overall, they have been about triangulation for over 15 years. So that the Joe Lieberman loving (2003) paper wants to now make space to slam Cindy Sheehan is only surprising to those who believe that the Guardian is a real paper or left of independent. Patrick Cockburn and Robert Fisk cover Iraq for the Independent of London. Who covers it for the Guardian?
It's a daily equivalent of The Nation which is why they share so many columnists. For those who've forgotten, the Guardian specializes in slams on the left. It was slamming Noam Chomsky (and distorting him) not all that long ago.
Sunday, in "Things to do, Things to follow closely" (The Third Estate Sunday Review), we noted that if Cindy Sheehan ran against Pelosi, we would endorse her. Cindy Sheehan will be ripped apart if she runs and she has been a strong voice who has spoken when others hid. That the attacks will come is no surprise, that the nonsense that is the Guardian of London thinks they can lead the way on the journalistic hit of Sheehan is surprising only if you haven't grasped that they appear to see the US still as a British colony. Translation, butt the hell out of US politics. It takes a lot of gall for a British daily to allow their Irish columnist to go to town on Cindy Sheehan for 'daring' to think she has a 'right' to run for the House of Representatives.
Anyone who wants to run in a race has a right to. That is what democracy is all about. Granted, they have a monarchy in England and Ireland's still a colony so it must be confusing to them, but in the United States, if you want to run, you can. That's how it works.
If Cindy Sheehan wants to run, she should. And this community will support that run. People can whine, "Pelosi is Speaker of the House!" Big deal. She's an elected representative in the House and she needs to represent the people in her district. That is who will make the decision, not some trashy British paper that has enough money to be independent but chooses instead to be a party megaphone.
She was not elected Speaker of the House by her district. Democrats in Congress elected her Speaker of the House. If they control Congress and Pelosi loses her seat, they will elect someone else in her place. She's shown very little to demonstrate that she's a Speaker who represents the people. She's certainly not representing her district which overwhelmingly favors impeachment.
The Guardian attacks Cindy Sheehan in one of the most ruthless columns you can imagine and they do that because they're voting in this election? No, they do it because they are hacks. That was obvious when very real issues with Joe Lieberman's record were shot down. One person offered that, during the recounts, because of the Sabbath, Lieberman put himself and the Secret Service at risk by refusing to travel in a car. What if, asked the person, an event like 9-11 happened and it was the Sabbath? The Guardian reporter accused the person (a Jew, by the way) of anti-semiticism. No, it was a valid question about a candidate who was a practicing, Orthodox Jew. Only an idiot from the Guardian would dismiss a valid question and then express disbelief when the person he called an anti-semite explained he was Jewish.
It's the same mind-set involved with attacking Cindy Sheehan. The Guardian of London is a little overly interested in US politics and, as Kat basically points out, needs to learn to pull it's big nose out of business that is not their own.
I'll take on world leaders and their administration at The Common Ills but before I ever do, I make a point to get the reaction of members from those countries. I wouldn't have slammed John Howard if that was an issue with Australian members. I wouldn't have slammed Tony Blair if it were a problem with out British members. I avoid Merkel because our German members are split on her. If she says something on Iraq, I will let loose but otherwise no one needs some American spouting off. And no one needs anyone from another country butting into their local elections which is what the House of Representatives is -- a local election. The winner goes on to the national House of Rep but it is a local election. One wonders if the fish rag intends to offer columns on all 435 House races?
No. But they're not really an anti-war paper so they had a grude match against Cindy Sheehan from day one and were only waiting for some one to grab the hatchet.
OpEd News has not been taken over by party hacks and you can click here to read an article encouraging Cindy Sheehan. Mike's "Dave Lindorff, Marjorie Cohn, Impeachment" addresses the free pass the so-called domestic independent press has given Barack Obama. (The Nation hasn't given him a free pass, they've handed him non-stop valentines and mash notes.) Elaine's "Tom Johnson, etc." addresses the issue of accountability. Cedric's "Senator Crazy is bored with Iraq, whine, whine" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! GET HIS TIRED ASS OUT OF THE SENATE!..." (joint-post) addresses the latest from Senator Crazy.
Now I'm going to do what I sold Rebecca on when she agreed to let me fill in for her.
So this will be just addressing some questions and issues raised in the public account to The Common Ills (firstname.lastname@example.org).
What's with the KPFK promotion, wondered one e-mail? Another angry one claimed KPFA had been dropped. Ava and I do a column for Hilda's Mix where, each week, we review a radio program. KPFK is up right now. (We just finished Houston's KPFT awhile back, that's where I got the Matthew Rothschild interview from last Friday. That's why I had that -- we had written about it for Hilda's Mix in real time.) We've already done KPFA and WBAI is in fundraising mode. That leaves KPFK which is a strong radio station. Hilda's Mix is geared towards special needs community members. Some people who read it cannot listen to a radio program and are curious about ones mentioned before as well as what else is out there. Some who get the newsletter live with people who read it to them because they cannot see. For those people, a strong radio program is important. Each week, we review a radio program. We're doing KPFK right now. I would assume we'd be doing it for another two weeks at least. We do one program a week and, again, we've already reviewed all the programs we wanted to that air on KPFA schedule.
The Fresno station that broadcasts KPFA programming (as well as other programming) no longer streams. Questions have come in from visitors and members about what if KPFA makes that move? If they do (I'm not expecting it) and you pledge by the month, immediately ask them to cancel your donation if you stream.
My own position at The Common Ills has always been, "Do not cancel your subscriptions. If you don't like something, just let the subscription lapse." The reason for that is independent media is run on a shoe string. However, if The Nation ticks you off, they're still sending it to you while you're subscribing. If you stream KPFA online and KPFA drops online streaming, you stop paying. They are no longer serving you and you call or e-mail and cancel your subscription. When you pledged, you pledged to something that you could listen to. Should they decide to no longer stream, they need to get all their funding from their broadcast listeners only because that's all they are serving.
If you pledged monthly payments to KFCF in Fresno and you listened via online stream you should contact them immediately and explain you want to cancel your pledge because they no longer serve you. (KFCF is the station that has stopped streaming online.) It's the equivalent of pledging to a business that shuts down. After it shuts down, you shouldn't keep giving your money and, online, they have shut down. They can say it's temporary or whatever they want, but if you were someone who had to stream to listen and you pledged, they need to stop taking your money because they have made a point to cease serving you.
That's going to be it. Here's today's "Iraq snapshot:"
Wednesday, July 18, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces more deaths, the Senate Slumber Party ends, the killing in Iraq continues, and more.
Starting with war resister Phil McDowell. War Resisters Support Campaign notes: "Phil McDoweel is from Warwick, Rhode Island and a former SGT in the United States Army. He joined the Army in 2001 after the September 11th attacks during his senior year at Marist College, in Poughkeepsie New York, where he majored in Information Technology. As part of the First Cavalry division he served in Iraq from March 2004 to March 2005. A month and a half after being discharged in June 2006 he received notification that he fell under the Army's Stop-Loss policy and was to return to his unit at Fort Hood, Texas for a second deployment to Iraq. Shortly after returning to his unit he made the decision not to take part in the illegal war and moved to Canada in October of 2006. His partner Jamine Aponte, joined him a month later in November. They now live in Toronot where they have started their new life."
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Jared Hood and James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Augstin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Joshua Key, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Care, Kyle Huwer, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman.
In total, forty-one US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.Iraq Veterans Against the War are among those working not only to end the illegal war but to get across the very basic point: Funding the war is killing the troops. Joel Bleifuss (In These Times) interviews IVAW's Vincent J. Emanuele who hails from Chesterson, Indiana, went to Iraq in March 2003 and credits Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 with giving him "a new perspective" and one he was open about while serving. His opinion of the illegal war, "This war is tragic. It was not needed. To die in this war is a wasted death. Had I died, I would have indeed died for nothing -- or maybe not for nothing, but for oil and dollars and cents. To be brutally honest, the war was a money-making machine. And it hurts to think of it that way and that you have been used."
"The war's going to end. It's now really," Tom Hayden declared, about "scheming on the part of Machevilians" as to whether they can continue the illegal war as it is or be forced to scale back (and pretend they're ending it). "The other end is that all the military troops" come home and "the military bases are closed down" but no presidential candidate or member of Congress has the will to end the illegal war because "they've bought into the myth that if they end the war our superpower status will end". "What you do, what will all do will determine the behaviors of the politicans going into the election"
Hayden spoke in Pasadena and KPFK's Uprising broadcast the speech today. Members who listen (or already have) and want to share comments or want my comments can e-mail. What we're noting from the speech is factually correct or Hayden's opinions. (Comments about Democracy Now! starting up as a result of the Iraq war, for instance, are wrong. Democracy Now! began in 1996 and it started to follow the 1996 elections.) Hayden's newest book is Ending The War In Iraq.Hayden's opinion is that the most likely outcome on Iraq is a partial withdrawal to mitigate popular outrage due to impending elections and continue the illegal war.
He spoke of traveling around the country and being "surprised myself" to find that "the anti-war movement" was so large and notes one possible "reason the peace movement today is invisible" in some ways is due to the fact that "generally, it's led by women." (A comment on the marginalizing of women by the mainstream press.) Hayden also explored the topics of the pillars that support war and how "putting people power to the pillars" can end a war.The pillars propping up war include public opinion (which is now gone and has been gone domestically since 2005), bipartisanship (to make it acceptable, to argue "national security" and -- though not noted -- to silence dissent that could kill the war before it starts), troops and the capabilities to add more troops, the budget (where monies could have instead be spent), American 'prestige' around the world, public perception (including your own).
Hayden spoke at length on the pillar of troops noting that if you read reporting closely, as well as the James Baker Circle Jerk, you will find the cautionary notes that "the armed forces will not be able to continue past next spring". He noted the increased difficulty of recruiting and stated this "accounts for many of the military, including leadership, but not all, trying to divert" the Bully Boy away from his illegal war of choice.
On the topic of "your own perception and your country's perception," Hayden noted that the illegal war "is a dirty war" with secret prisons, "Americans secretly training Iraqis in the black arts of counterinsurgency," etc. On the issue of Abu Ghraib, Tom Hayden noted the press did not break that story, "Joseph Darby, a prison guard, saw them [photos] on a laptop and, for some moral reason, turned them over to his superiors . . . and then and only then did the military start to investigate and the media begin to pick it up. . .. And we still haven't seen all the photographs." Even in a supposed free society and democracy, Hayden noted, we haven't seen all the photographs.Nor have we heard all the details. In speeches, Sy Hersh enjoys mentioning the sodomizing of at least one child in Abu Ghraib but has yet to write about it. (On Iran, Hersh obsession of the last three years, Hayden noted that presidents confronted with a losing and unpopular war often attempt to widen it but his personal opinion was that the power structure in this country would not tolerate expanding the illegal war to also include Iran.) Last week, [Language warning -- F-word throughout the clip for those who may listen at work] Information Clearing House posted a video of an unidentified American male discussing his time working at Abu Ghraib which includes being taught various techniques by the CIA, expressing the belief that everyone imprisoned there was guilty because the Iraqis were guilty of not taking Saddam Hussein out of power themselves, and of an Iraqi women that several Americans had sex with (probably rape, but he doesn't use that term) who ended up killing herself (in prison) which was just as well, according to the male, because she probably would have been stoned when she left the prison anyway. We'll return to the topic of Iraqi women but first, the obsession: Democrats in the Senate.
Democrats in the Senate invited Republicans to a sleep-over last night. Kay Bailey Hutchison got her bra frozen, Lindsey Graham put Orrin Hatch's fingers in water causing Hatchet-face to wet himself while sleeping, and short sheeted Tom Coburn's cot causing Coburn to hiss, "So what! You think I care? I'm for smaller government!" It was a public relations stunt on the part of the Democrats, an attempt to rebuild their plummeting ratings. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid started off spewing fire and brimstone but, as Shailagh Murray, Paul Kane and Debbi Wilgoren (Washington Post) observed, that changed quickly: "Although Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) initially warned that votes on legislation to withdraw combat troops could occur at any time during the night, he agreed shortly after midnight to delay even procedural votes until 5 a.m. and to put off until 11 a.m. a vote on legislation to bring home most troops by May." Most? Hold on for that. The usual Party Hacks and Dream The Acceptable Dream types were out in full force. WalkOn.org announced, "Republicans in the Senate are planning to block a vote early next week on ending the war. Let's be perfectly clear on this: Republicans are blocking this vote because they know they'd lose. It's time to leap into action. As Repbulican filibuster on Tuesday, we're holding citizens' counter-filibusters on Tuesday night. We'll gather outside Senators' offices and in public places to read first-hand accounts from Iraq vets and military families about the cost of the war. We'll send a clear message to Senators and the media that this isn't about partisan games -- it's about people's lives."
Let's be perfectly clear about the pathetic shell game that went on: No proposed legislation was about bringing troops home, no proposed legislation was about ending the illegal war. Let's be perfectly clear, WalkOn.org exists to always steer to the path of least resistance. It is not an organization made up of fighters or dreamers. What Tom Hayden was speaking of (and he lavished praise on the pathetic WalkOn) was that the leadership is at a place where they have to do something but ending the illegal war is not the course they will go for unless pushed hard. Fortunately for them, they have supposed independent actors perfectly willing to serve as body guards and publicity flacks giving them cover to continue the illegal war and willing to sell that as an effort to end it.
The pathetic Senator Carl Levin made noises, as reported today by Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!), about the people wanting "to end the war in Iraq. It is time to change the course. And the reason that we are in control of the Congress is because the American people want us to change course in Iraq." He gives lip service very easy, he just can't follow through (as anyone who's lobbied him over the Guantanamo Bay prison over the last few years can attest). As Amy Goodman noted, this is a debate that (if successful) would mean "most combat troops" (US troops) would leave Iraq "in 120 days". "Combat troops" is a classification. Bully Boy could ensure that none of the approximately 160,000 troops leave simply be reclassifying them. If that point seems familiar it's because we've been making it here for some time -- since the US Congress first played the shell game that was the Pelosi-Reid measure. Party Hacks came out to support that non-action as well. The people didn't buy into the fluff and the Democrats' ratings plummeted. It was thought that by doing the same thing with a p.r. stunt like an 'all nighter' would make the do-nothing party leadership look less pathetic. And certainly the usual pathetic centrists were out in force to prop up the lie that the Democratically controlled Senate was attempting to end the illegal war when, in fact, it was doing nothing of the sort. When independent media joins hands with the Democratically controlled Congress in lying to the people, it shouldn't get a dime of support. Thus far The Progressive has ignored the p.r. stunt which may be because it was a stunt or because the points to make have already been made. (Or a combination.) By contrast, the feel-good spirit of The Nation (which leads to censoring evidence of atrocities) means it's all pom-poms all the time. Robert Parry (Consortium News), a true independent, notes the truth and the reality, "If the Democrats really want to prevail over George W. Bush on the Iraq War and on his authoritarian vision of presidential powers, they would put back on the table two options that their leaders have removed: a cut-off of war funding and impeachment. Rather than all-night debates about resolutions that will go nowhere, the Democrats would make the cast to the American people that Bush has trampled on the Constitution; he has ensared the nation in a catastrophic war by lying; and he has his eyes set on more dangerous chicanery in the months ahead." Edward Epstein (San Francisco Chronicle) notes that the categories that would remain in Iraq had the Levin-Reed measure passed the Senate (it didn't) and then the House would have been "those conducting special operations against al Qaeda, training Iraqi forces or guarding U.S. facilities." Retired army Col. Daniel Smith (Foreign Policy in Focus) addressing the Skelton measure (similar to the Levin-Reed measure) in the House last week and the deployment issue in the Senate notes that "proposed legislation contains all sorts of caveats, exceptions, and restrictions, all of which the president can waive if he determines them detrimental to national security." Nicholas Johnston and William Roberts (Bloomberg News) report the Levin-Reed measure did not pass. 52 for and 47 against was the count. Gail Russell Chaddock (Christian Science Monitor) explains, "Washington's political theater is part of a deliberate political strategy aimed at living rooms across America." Ron Elving (NPR) notes that the theater was meant to get "the country to notice that the White House has enablers in the Senate." Yes, and some are on the Democratic side.
Interviewed by the Socialist Worker, Anthony Arnove noted that the Republicans in Congress are backing away from the illegal war in terms of unconditional support but not calling for an end to it and "elements of this approach are actually similar to what many Democratic critics have in mind: troop reduction, not withdrawal; a greater reliance on air power and 'over the horizon' forces rather than boots on the ground; a retreat to bases and the Green Zone in Baghdad; and a shifting of the blame from the United States and its allies to the Iraqis. In effect, it's a 'blame and hold' strategy. Blame the Iraqis for all the problems we created. Hold onto whatever the U.S. military can salvage in terms of military bases in Iraq -- to have some influence over the future of Iraq's massive oil reserves and some ability to continue military operations in Iraq, and to project power against other countries in the region, particularly Iran."Let's be clear, WalkOn pushing the nonsense of Dream In Monochrome and With Fine (Limited) Tuning is nonsense. The illegal war needs to end it will not do so with measures sold to the people as "End the war" that, in reality, continue the illegal war. Possibly it is an accomplishment that US Senators actually had to make statements about how badly the illegal war was going (I didn't see any press accounts that quoted senators speaking of how badly things were for Iraqis during the illegal war -- possibly that didn't make the Talking Points List?), but applauding nonsense is encouraging nonsense. "Funding the war is killing the troops" is a rallying cry of Tina Richards and Iraq Veterans Against the War.
On Januray 4, 2007, the Democrats took control of both house of Congress. The US military announced one death in the illegal war that day, "A Multi-National Division - Baghdad patrol was attacked by small arms fire, killing one Soldier in the western part of the Iraqi capital today." He was later identified as Staff Sgt. Charles D. Allen of Wasilla, Alaska, a 28-year-old. The announcement of his death brought the total number of US service members killed to 3006 on January 4th -- the same Dems took control, swept in by citizens wanting an end to the illegal war. Six months later, 616 announced deaths later and the war drags on. Only difference appears to be that these days, the Dems are helping Bully Boy by grabbing an end to help him drag it. Funding the war is killing the troops. Funding the war is killing Iraqis.
Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 6 people dead from a Baghdad bombing (four wounded), Baghdad mortar attacks left one woman injured and a Kirkuk bombing killed a police officer escorting a pregnant woman to the hospital (another police officer was wounded, "The woman wasn't harmed in the explosion and reached the hospital and gave birth"). Reuters notes a mortar attack in Kut that left three women (sisters) injured, a roadside bombing in Jurf Al-Sakhar that claimed 2 lives (four more injured)
Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a police officer was shot dead in Baghdad, 7 bus passengers were shot dead riding near Jizani Al Joul, 1 person shot dead in Baquba, 2 men shot dead "near the Dwiliyah village," one woman shot dead "near Al Shima village," a home invasion that left Dr. Firas Abdul Zahraa Hameed dead (his wife was wounded) in Basra, and one person was shot dead in Kirkuk. Reuters notes one person shot dead in Kirkuk, in front of his home and that a village in the Diyala province (not far from the massacre that killed 29 overnight on Monday) another attack occurred that claimed 1 life and left fifteen injured.
Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 15 corpses were discovered in Baghad today and two corpses were turned over to the Baquba hospital. Reuters notes two corpses were discovered in Mahaweel and one in Daquq. Meanwhile the BBC reports that Suweira is an Iraqi town on the Tigris River that has been the site where "five hundred mutilated bodies dumped into the River Tigris have been washed up in two years". Mona Mahmoud and Sebastian Usher note that many corpses are never identified and that they must be buried quickly (due to the heat and lack of storage)
Today, the US military announced: "Two MNC-I Soldiers were killed when an improvised explosive device detonated next to their vehicle during combat operations in western Baghdad Tuesday." And they announced: "One Multi-National Division - Baghdad Soldier was killed and four others wounded when an improvised explosive device detonated near their patrol during combat operations in an eastern section of the Iraqi capital July 17." ICCC's total currently is 3622 US service members who have died in the illegal war since it began and 43 have died so far this month.And in Iskandariya, Reuters notes, the chief of police -- and five bodyguards -- were kidnapped.
Want more holding of hostages? "The Iraq oil was essentially drafter by the US government and forced on the Iraqi government," Antonia Juhasz explained on KPFK's Mid Day News today. The Iraqi oil workers are trying to demonstrate that 'now is not the right time and the oil law is not the right oil law.' The oil law is a 'benchmark' (by the US government) and comes with conditions -- reconstruction funds have been pinned upon it. Unions are protesting the oil law and saying it will rob Iraq of the country's soveriegnty. They are calling for the withdrawal of all foreign forces. This as it's decided to ration electricity in Iraq. Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) reports that news and notes:
The plan, launched nearly three months ago, represents the latest break with one of the biggest promises made after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion: that services such as electricity and water would quickly surpass prewar levels. If anything is seen as symbolic of the United States' failure to deliver on its promise that life would be better without Saddam Hussein, it is the lack of reliable electricity. And as Iraqis endure their fifth blazing summer without sufficient power, it is no surprise that resentment toward American forces remains fierce.
Returning to the topic of Iraqi women, Ellen Cantarow (CounterPunch) recommends the book Iraqi Women: Untold Stories from 1948 to the Present by Nadie Sadig Al-Ali and notes, "A final chapter on the US invasion and occupation makes clear that Iraqi daily life has shut down. Women fear going into labor at night: they are terrified they and their husbands will be killed on the way to the hospitals. Everyone fears going outside on the commonest of errands -- so much that when people leave the house they say a final farewell: each time may well be the last. Women in particular fear venturing away from home because of frequent assaults by criminal and reactionary Islamic gangs, and by 'militias.' Professionals -- doctors, university professors -- have been killed. Kidnapping for ransom is pandemic."
Turning to the US, Aaron Glantz (Truthdig) examines the case of Manny Babbitt who was executed by the state of California and had been awarded the Purple Heart for his tour of duty in Vietnam only to receive the death sentence in 1982 for crimes in 1980: "broke into the Sacramento home of Leah Schendel, a 78-year-old woman he did not know. He stripped the clothes off the lower half of her body, took a hot iron to her vagina, beat her to death and robbed her house. Then, less than 24 hours later, Babbitt struck again. He grabbed a 60-year-old woman out of her car when she was on her way home. Babbitt dragged her into close-by bushes, knocked her unconscious, cracked her chest, stole her watch and wedding ring and fled. The woman, Mavis Wilson, survived." Did Babbitt suffer from PTSD caused by his time in Vietnam? If so, what does that mean beyond Babbitt's own story? Glantz notes: "On May 21, 2006, an Army court-martial at Fort Lewis, Wash., sentenced 20-year-old Spc. Brandon Bare to life in prison for killing his 18-year-old wife, Nabila, with a meat cleaver after he returned from Iraq."
democracy nowamy goodmanmcclatchy newspapersaaron glantz
iraq veterans against the war
tom haydenjoel bleifussantonia juhasztina susmanlos angeles timesthe washington postdebi wilgorenpaul kane