'Ohio Bill Would Make Abortion Illegal Without Paternal Consent'
A group of Ohio state legislators have submitted a bill that would ban women from obtaining abortions without consent from the man who impregnated her. The proposal comes two weeks after Rep. Tom Brinkman proposed a law that would ban all abortions in Ohio.
In addition to mandating that abortion providers obtain paternal consent before proceeding with an abortion, the proposed bill would also require women to provide a list of previous sexual partners in cases where the fetus' paternity was unknown. Abortion providers would then have to perform paternity tests.
the above is from the feminist wire daily and i want to be sure we all see that. not only is the nonsense of parental consent included, women will have to get the okay from men. do you get what a step back that is?
women will not be in control of their bodies. parents and men will be. because women aren't smart enough about their own bodies. now if a man has any operation (or goes on viagra), there's no concern about permission. but women are expected to constantly grovel for the right to control their own bodies and their own destinies.
that's why i really don't care for and will never care for ruth conniff. she lost my respect in 2006 when she was endorsing parental notifications. when people like her get on board with that, it's time for the anti-rights group to push another measure. in this case, it's that women have to state who they had sex with or provide a list of sexual mates.
that's why i do not give an inch on reproductive freedom. it is the woman's decision. it is her body and she and she alone should make the decision. 'b-b-but, rebecca, what if the woman is only 15?' old enough to get pregnant, old enough to decide. and if her parents are opposed to abortions, maybe they should have spent more time raising their child? now the child might reject whatever nonsesne the parents' impose, but that's also her choice. her body, her choice.
i really wish technology would advance enough so that men could carry children. i'd love to see a man object to a woman having an abortion then.
if the fetus could be transplanted into the man's body for the duration of the pregnancy, i do wonder how many of the 'brave' anti-rights crowd on the male side would say, 'okay, sure, i'll carry to term'? i doubt very many.
that's, if you ask me, what science needs to be working on now along with cures for diseases. forget all the other stuff but diseases and let medical science figure out how to implat a fetus into a male so that a male can carry it for months and either have his body carved open or the 'joy' of squeezing it out of a tiny opening (for men, i would assume it would be the butt hole). and let's not stop there.
in the 60s there were all these scare pamphlets put out by the government on drugs and 1 i always remember is about pot. smoking pot, the pamphlet told you, if you were male could make your nipples lactate. they even included a black and white photo of a shirtless male (with long hair, such were the times) where milk appeared to drop, in driplits, from his nipple. as a woman who is currently breastfeeding, i especially find that amusing.
so don't stop at implating fetuses or fertalized eggs, let's work on lacating male nipples so they can also have that experience as well.
let's them have the full experience because if they think they have a right to rule on what women should do, they should be able to go through the experience as well. the full and total experience. not strapping on some idiotic device that's supposed to inform them of the back troubles during pregnancy that they wear for a few hours or maybe a day. nothing with an escape clause. let's let men experience the full pregancy experience and then let's see how many feel that women shouldn't have the right to decide about their own bodies?
i doubt that would amount to many at 1st because what we're dealing with is not just 1 pregnancy but a history of pregancies and a history of discriminations. we'd probably need several generations and probably a few men who had to leave the work force to nurse and raise their children even though they didn't want to leave the work force but as 'mothers' they quickly discovered that their pay was less and their chance for advancement was less. i'd love to see them trying to do even the basics on a day shortly after birth when it was nursing time and their blouses became soaked with their own milk.
hell, i'd love to see them 1 day after they gave birth. chances are they wouldn't be up and around. suddenly the birthing process would take on new meaning when it happened to men because isn't that always the way? when something happens to men it's universal, when it happens to women, it's 'personal.'
i'd planned to open with the news item and do a sentence or 2. i didn't realize i had so much to say about the subject.
probably good that i did because karl rove ignored the senate deadline for testimony and producing documents into the attorney-gate investigation.
from ap, here's all that really happened in the gonzales' crimes today:
The Senate Judiciary Committee interviewed White House political aide J. Scott Jennings about the firings of federal prosecutors. It was the committee's first public interview with a currently serving aide to Bush. But the session with yielded little more than an appeal for sympathy from Jennings, who made clear he was appearing only to signal good will and to avoid a contempt of Congress citation.
Democrats aren't done with embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., is considering asking the Justice Department's inspector general to get involved. Leahy wants the IG to examine whether Gonzales' answers to questions from lawmakers amount to misconduct. A group of House Democrats have introduced a resolution directing the House Judiciary Committee to impeach Gonzales.
at the end of the day tomorrow, the congress will begin their month long vacation. on the gonzales front, they've really done nothing all summer long.
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Thursday, August 2, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, a talking point falls apart (to only the MSM's suprise), the US military announces more deaths, convcitions in a war crime case are announced, Baghdad goes without running water, Robert Gates attempts to (yet again) shift the blame for the puppet government off on the Iraqi people and more.
Starting with the talking point that imploded. By making July about the slow trickle in announcements, the US military repeatedly misled on the number of US service members dying. The press didn't want to call it out. They'd pretend multiple deaths on a Sunday being announced on a Thursday was perfectly normal (and in their print editions this morning, include a late announcement but refer to it as taking place "Tuesday" and not in "July" which is the height of dishonesty having all run with the "July" "count" the day prior). A week ago, what was already noticeable was underscored when Lt. Gen Raymond T. Odierno was selling to the press that after April, May and June all saw US troop fatalities climb past 100 each month, the figures were down for July (he ignored the reality that the air war had been beefed up -- a time tested manner for the US to reduce deaths somewhat) and even though the slow trickle of announcements was known, everyone played dumb in their reports and ran with the talking point despite the fact that hours after Odierno's Thursday spin the US military would announce 7 more deaths with none of them taking place that day -- all "backlogged" and on the slow trickle. The US miiltary was back to the old tricks used in 2003 and 2004 and for much of 2005: hold off on death announcements in light of the first day of the month when outlets would run with their "looking back on the month" pieces. They dropped that stunt in 2005 in part because they were caught doing it once too often but also because many outlets were already bored with the illegal war and no longer interested in filing the obligatory monthly piece. Odierno puts the US military's official stamp on the talking point and suddenly all the outlets are back to doing monthly pieces and all are stressing on August 1st that July deaths were down, that July deaths were the lowest of the year. Some went with 72, some went with 74. The count was incomplete (as would be demonstrated throughout that day) but qualifiers were in short supply. The lowest number of deaths for 2007! was the talking point and all ran with it. July 2007 was also the deadliest July of the illegal war for US service members (and for Iraqis the death rate tripled) but it was sell-sell-sell that this was some 'good news'. One of the few exceptions was Stephen Farrell (New York Times) who did note a qualifier in a piece that ran on the morning of August 1st:
"Estimates of the death toll varied, but Iraq Coalition Casualty Count put the July total so far at 74, down from 101 in June and the lowest number since November 2006. Some casualties in late July may be reported after the beginning of August, so the count is not yet definitive for the month." But even Farrell forgot to consider past Julys when touting the 'progress' that wasn't really there. Today, ICCC reports that the number for US service members' announced deaths in July has risen to 81.Those who are confused can check out ICCC's period details but, remember, you were supposed to be confused. That was the point of the slow trickle of announcements. (In the period details, you can also note that all but four announced deaths -- there may be more coming -- for July have already had their names announced by the Defense Department.) 81, for those who've forgotten or never paid attention, is the number of announced deaths in February and March. July, despite the burst of press enthusiasm and stupidty, was not the lowest of the month of the year for US fatalities nor was it the lowest since 2006 (November of 2006 saw 70 deaths announced). Who will run the corrections? Reporters aren't responsible for writing headlines; however, the headlines have all been seen by readers yesterday proclaiming that July was 'good news' or, as the New York Times worded it, "U.S. Death Toll In Iraq in July Expected to Be Lowest in '07." By whom was never said but only a fool "expected" that to happen and only the fools are attempting to cover themselves now in embarrassment because JULY IS NOT THE LOWEST IN '07.
The talking point has imploded but we'll all supposed to pretend otherwise.It was nothing but another wave of Operation Happy Talk in the same way that a nothing soccer match was repeatedly treated as some sort of sign of 'progress' in an illegal war with many alleged reporters writing allegedly of Iraqi response but focusing only on the men (who ripped their shirts off, fired their guns in the air and generally must have given the boys in the press a heady dose of homo-eroticism to sniff). A better indicator was Oxfam's "Rising to the Humanitarian Challenge in Iraq," released this week, but it addressed reality and didn't jibe with the latest waves of Operation Happy Talk so it was largely ignored.
While the boys of the press beat themselves excitedly in frenzy over some Iraqi males shirtless, Oxfam provided less of a sexual high as they noted, "Forty-three per cent of Iraqis suffer from 'absolute poverty'. According to some estimates, over half the population are now without work. Children are hit the hardest by the decline in living standards. Child malnutrition rates have risen from 19 per cent before the US-led invasion in 2003 to 28 per cent now." Hard to get your jollies on that so the press elected to under report or ignore the realities of what the illegal war had really brought.
Throught the reporters of Jock Boy High's jock boy high, bombs were exploding and mass fatalities were taking place, but that fact was more or less ignored in the push for: "It's soccer!" Today CBS and AP note that "at least" 142 Iraqis died yesterday but look through this morning's paper to find that headline. You won't because when it's time to sell-sell-sell the illegal war again, realities have to drop out of the picture. In this case, 142 Iraqis dying is judged unimportant. For the New York Times, the big news, the front page piece, is Mark Mazzetti pondering fantasy at length in the latest push to sell the illegal war. Elisabeth Bumiller's "White House Letters" had nothing on Mazzetti (and her "letters" didn't run on the front page). Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) points out the ugly reality: "The death toll from the car bombings was the highest for Baghdad since February, when the United States began increasing the number of troops in the capital in an effort to cut violence." No change in US military deaths, no change in Iraqi deaths. The realities of the Bully Boy's escalation which he initiated over the strong objections of the US public and over the 'symbolic' rejection of the Democratically controlled US Congress. Despite these realities, CBS and AP report that the administration is claiming "security is improving".
Repeating, the announced deaths for July thus far have now reached 81 making it not the lowest of the year nor the lowest since 2006. Do not expect to see any outlets run corrections to their earlier (false) coverage. As Aimee Allison and David Solnit point out in their book Army Of None, "Corporate media's steady stream of lies, distortions, and repetition of the United States government 'war on terror' rhetoric was essential in propagating the pretense for the invasion of Iraq and is key to maintaining some level of public support for the war and occupation" (p. 155).
Turning to war resistance, David Zieger (director of the amazing Sir! No Sir!) observes of an earlier illegal war, "Like the Vietnam War itself, the GI Antiwar Movement started small and within a few years had exploded into a force that altered history. And like the times from which it grew, the movement involved organized actions and spontaneous resistance, political groups and cultural upheaval. Between 1966 and 1975, groups of soldiers -- some small and some numbering in the thousands -- emerged to challenge the war and racism in the military. Group action and individual defiance, from the 500,000 GIs who deserted over the course of the war to the untold numbers who wore peace signes, defied military discipline and avoided combat, created a 'F**k the Army" counter culture that threatened the entire military culture of the time and changed the course of the war." That also can be found in Allison and Solnit's Army Of None (p. 146), the new book published by Seven Stories Press and available for purchase ($14.95) at Courage to Resist. Though little attention has been given to the matter, Eli Israel recently became the first service member to publicly refuse to serve in the illegal war while stationed in Iraq. Little attention has also been given to the military's investigative team that locates self-checkouts (or tries) and then tips off the police after their hours of surfing the net and, in one instance, crawling through MySpace pages. Despite the fact that the US military crossed the Canadian border and posed as Canadian police while attempting to shake down Canadian citizen Winnie Ng at her home in their attempts to locate war resister Joshua Key, little attention has been given to that either or the US military ordering the arrest of Kyle Snyder, by Canadian police, on his wedding day. It was a way to screw with Snyder (charges had to be dropped and Snyder released because it's not a crime in Canada to resist the US military) and a way to postpone the wedding, even for a few days, because Snyder would be marrying a Canadian citizen (and he did) putting him out of the reach of any efforts to deport him or refuse him citizenship in Canada.
In a really bad but overly praised recent article in The Nation, the magazine continued their long standing practice of ignoring war resisters (and added censorship to their list of tools by annoucing, in the article, that the magazine was in possession of "dozens" of photos of abuses but the magazine refused to print any). They could speak to members of a centrist organization, they could speak to members of a White House front committee and readers were supposed to be thrilled that at least a few members of Iraq Veterans Against the War got included. Or that Camilo Mejia was included. The term "war resister" wasn't applied to Mejia, despite the fact that he freely uses it; however, the magazine could label him a deserter. Someone save us from the faux left and those who fancy themselves 'celebrities' as opposed to journalistic editors and publishers. As Mejia himself explained on WBAI's Law and Disorder this week, "Let me start by saying that when I allegedly went AWOL, I didn't really go AWOL because when we received orders to go to Iraq I had pretty much come to the end of my eight year service. So what happened was that I was extended from the year 2003 to the year 2031 by this thing that they called 'stop loss'." It's an important point -- and was to US Senator Bill Nelson when Mejia was in Iraq and his contract was ending -- but one lost on The Nation.
Also lost to The Nation was the War Resisters Support Campaign which the magazine's overly praised article pointedly ignored. The War Resisters Support Campaign is a Canadian organization helping and raising awareness of war resisters who go to Canada. Meet Christian Kjar (who was wrongly billed as "Christian Care" by many -- including myself, my apologies). War Resisters Support Campaign informs, "Christian Kjar, 21, is originally from California. Christian joined the US Marine Corps in 2004. It was not long before he found that, despite the motto of 'Honour, courage, commitment' posted on the recruiting office wall 'this was not the place to go if you value human dignity.' While posted in North Carolina Christian decided he could not participate in the Iraq war. He arrived in Canada in October 2005, and currently lives in Toronto." Canadian Mennonite reported that the Santa Barbara raised Kjar
began questioning his decision to enlist in boot camp quoting Kjar stating, "I knew it was stupid and foolish and wrong. This was not the place to go if you value human dignity. Instead, it was an extremely violent atmosphere where they train you to change a human being into an object by using phrases like 'communist bastards' and singing about stamping on Iraqi children. It's very difficult to go against the grain in that setting because it's a group thing. So I kept trying to reassure myself that I could be a warrior. But I couldn't let go of the fact that the intent was taking the life of a living breathing human being. When I was posted to Cherry Point [a Marine Corps base in North Carolina, in preparation for deployment to Iraq], it was eating me inside that I couldn't express how I felt to others. Prayer and meditation were very important to me at that time. During a four-day grace period [before deployment], I had time to really reflect and come to grips with what my conscience was telling me. One day I opened the Bible at Deuteronomy 5 and read, 'Thou shalt not kill.'
'After that I was honest with myself. I now knew what I didn't want to be. Also, the just war thing didn't work for me
. I knew there is no justice to be complicit in the suffering of people of differing faiths and origins, and was convinced that the U.S. government has failed utterly and miserably in preserving the dignity of human life in Iraq, where thousands of people have died." Irene Kuan (The Eyeopener) reported that after learning of the War Resisters Support Campaign and speaking with attorney Jeffrey House, Kjar began the trip to Canada via Buffalo after saying goodbye to his girlfriend who remained in the military. Audio and video of Kjar speaking can be found here.
War resister Agustin Aguayo, like Mejia and many others, attempted to get CO status but was repeatedly (and wrongly) denied (even in civilian courts) and he's now speaking out about his experiences in Iraq, his court-martial and more. Joan Trossman Bien (Ventura County Reporter) covers a speaking engagement from last week where Aguayo discussed his introduction to military life in Iraq via a speech delivered upon arrival, "They said to us, if you guys think as medics that you have to follow the Geneva Conventions, you're very wrong, This is Iraq. This is the real thing." And people wonder how Abu Ghraib or the gang-rape and muder of Abeer happens? Aguayo reflected, "It was so sad. We would harass civilians for no reason, cursing at teenagers for no reason, taking stuff from Iraqi homes for no reason. We have found the most immoral thing that could possibly be done to these people who have done nothing to us. So the message then is, these people are not like us. It's OK to hurt them."
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Zamesha Dominique, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin 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 Kjar, 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. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters.
In Iraq, the US installed puppet government is falling apart. US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates tries to go philosophical and spread the blame beyond the US by declaring, as AP reported, "In some ways we probably all underestimated the depth of the mistrust and how difficult it would be for these guys to come together on legislation. The kinds of legislation they're talking about will establish the framework of Iraq for the future so it's almost like our constitutional convention ... And the difficulty in coming to grips with those, we may all have underestimated six or eight months ago." As for the puppet of the occupation, Nouri al-Maliki, Stephen Farrell (New York Times) notes he has "reacted cautiously to the Sunni walkout". The walkout, noted yesterday, refers to the Sunni Accordance Front's decision to leave the posts of Deputy Prime Minister and the heads of five ministry. Megan Greenwell (Washington Post) observed it was "the latest indication of growing Sunni frustration with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) reported, on the withdrawal,"The pullout reduces Iraq's Shiite-dominated government to little more than caretaker status. Barring a major political realignment, it also makes it less likely that Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's regime will be able to reach significant compromises on legislative benchmarks sought by the Bush administration to help quell sectarian strife. Tawafiq member Tariq Hashimi retains his post as one of Iraq's vice presidents.The bloc's pullout cast the gravest challenge yet to Maliki's tenure as prime minister. His government has been burdened for months by talk of conspiracies, most prominently featuring former interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi." Some of the conspiracy talk has come repeatedly from al-Maliki who, while under siege by his puppet masters, probably shouldn't have regularly held press conferences where he declared every plot (real and imagined) he has detected to oust him. Parker notes that along with former CIA asset Allawi, Ibrahim Jafari and Adel Abdul Mehdi are also being mentioned as potential replacements (both are Shi'ite) and that "At least one plan for an alternative government to Maliki's has been submitted to the U.S. Embassy by Iraqi political leaders." Nancy A. Youssef (McClathy Newspapers) reports six may be about to become seven as Tariq al Hashemi, Iraq's Sunni vice president, has informed "he also is on the verge of resigning" and that he's already informed Ryan Crocker, US Ambassador to Iraq, of that possibility. Speaking of a possible resignation, al Hashemi explained, "We need these major political moves to tell everybody that what is happening is in no way tolerable. Nobody on earth or in Iraq is happy with the performance of the government." Nor is it in any way a legitimate government. CBS and AP do a head count and not that "only two Sunnis in the 40-member Cabinet" are left.
Meanwhile the chaos and violence caused by the illegal war continues.
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and left another person wounded, a Hashiimiyat car bombing that claimed the lives of 4 police officers and four civilians ("including the head of Hibhib communications department with some members of his family"), three people wounded in a Kirkuk explosion "inside a shop for making military uniforms," a Mosul mortar attack that claimed 1 life and left four more wounded, a roadside bombing outside Kirkuk that claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier, and a Basra mortar attack that wounded a police officer. Reuters notes the death toll of the bombing attack in HIbhib on the police station has risen to 13 dead, that a Balad moratar attack claimed the life of "one girl and wounded five other children," that a Balji mortar attack claimed 3 lives and that a Baghdad mortar attack claimed 3 lives.
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports the Baghdad shooting death of the general managr "of the ministry of industry" and three police officers injured in a shooting in Kirkuk. Rueters notes: "Three people were killed and two wounded in clashes between a tribe and insurgents in the town of Jbela 65 km (40 miles) south of Baghdad. An Iraqi army patrol responding to the incident was hit by a roadside bomb that wounded two soldiers, police said."
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 24 corpses were discovered in Baghdad and 14 corpses discovered in Hibhib. Reuters notes that the corpses of five brothers were discovered to the south of Kirkuk.
Turning to legal news. Starting with Abeer. CBS and AP report, "A soldier in prison for conspiring to rape an Iraqi girl and kill her and her family has left military prosecutors at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, struggling to recover after his testimony. Specialist James Barker admitted yesterday that he previously made false statements implicating a comrade. Barker testified he deliberately misled prosecutors depending on how they posed their questions, and had allowed investigators to draft sworn statements for him that implicated Private First Class Jesse Spielman of Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, in the crime." Steven D. Green, who maintains his innocence, has been fingered as the ringleader of the war crimes by Barker, Paul Cortez and others involved. No doubt his attorneys will have a field day with Barker's admission. (And for any slapping their heads and proclaiming "Spielman was innocent!" -- no, he is not. He has already confessed to his role in some of the crimes. Largely at stake now is what he knew and when he knew it.)
In other legal news, Tony Parry (Los Angeles Times) reports that a military jury made up "of five officers and four enlisted personnel" reached a conviction on Sgt. Lawrence Hutchins, Reuters notes that he was found guilty of "murder and larceny, made false official statements and participated in conspiracy in the crime." Neither report names the victim or notes that he was a grandfather. In fact, details of what took place take a second seat to courtroom details -- as though the whole issue had to do with presentation and not an actual murder. For that reality, news consumers had to turn to Democracy Now! today where Amy Goodman noted another conviction in the same case, "Corporal Marshall Magincalda has been found guilty of conspiracy to murder, larceny and housebreaking but acquitted of pre-meditated murder. The victim, Hashim Ibrahim Awad, was dragged from his home, shot, and then planted with a weapon to make it appear he was planning an attack. Six other service-members have been convicted in the case." No victim (named), no crime, is that the MSM way of handling these court cases? Can you picture domestic coverage of a US murder trial that didn't name the victim? The planted weapon was to make it appear that the grandfather and former police officer was an 'insurgent'. In addition to planting the rifle, they also planted a shovel by the body to make it appear that he was on a mission to dig a hole and plant a roadside bomb. These were war crimes but search the Los Angeles Times or Reuters for any indication that an innocent man was pulled from his home in the middle of night (actually early morning hours) and made to look like an 'insurgent' to justify the kill.
AP reports that Hutchins "was convicted Thursday of unpremeditated murder in the killing of an Iraqi man in the town of Hamdania during a frustrated search for an insurgent. Sgt. Lawrence G. Hutchins III, 23, had been charged with premeditated murder but premeditation was stricken from the verdict that was returned by a military jury. Hutchins was also convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, making a false official statement and larceny. He was acquitted of kidnapping, assault and housebreaking." They also note "no mandatory minmum sentence for unpremeditated murder" which could mean Huthins walks the same way Trent Thomas did after a jury convicted him in the same incident but a military judge decided Iraqi life was so unimportant, murder didn't require prison time. For more on that travesty, see Monica Benderman's "Facing the Truth" (CounterPunch).
In other criminal news, Steven R. Hurst (AP) reports, "Much of the Iraqi capital was without running water Thursday and had been for at least 24 hours, compounding the urban misery in a war zone and the blistering heat at the height of the Baghdad summer." With temperatures regularly topping well over 100 degrees (F) and with the US administration repeatedly citing water 'progress' this is criminal.
In other news, Carl Hulse (International Herald Tribune) reports that by a 229 to 194 vote, the US House of Representatives voted on a measure that would "limit how quickly American troops can be sent back to Iraq after serving a rotation there" allowing the troops the rest that
Bully Boy has denied them as he has altered and ignored policies and requirements throughout his illegal war of choice. The Dems are in back-patting mode but Hulse notes the measure may not pass the Senate and it should also be noted that guaranteeing US troops the vacation time they are promised is hardly 'brave' but probably necessary as the US Congress prepares to embark (Friday) on their own month long vacations. The measure was noted included or pursued by Democratic leadership in the Democratically controlled House during Nancy Pelosi's fabled first 100 days. In the same article, Hulse mentions a possible withdrawal measure that could come before the House prior to their vacation beginning and quotes War Hawk Steny Hoyer explaining it would be something to add "to the debate but it is not a major policy document." No need to rush, eh, Steny?