Prashant Rao
FELLOWSHIP - @Reuters offering a course on covering corruption to journalists from developing countries: http://bit.ly/1fz4SRw (HT @IJNet)
HBO orders a third season of 'The Newsroom': http://bit.ly/1fz4r9Y *bangs head on table repeatedly*
the awful show features jane fonda in a bit part.
last week i wrote about jane fonda and i told you ava and c.i. would be calling her out for her cowardice. they did in sunday's 'Media: The silence, the fawning, the unanswered' at third:
Remember when Bully Boy Bush occupied the White House and we were all outraged by his War Crimes and illegal spying on the American people? Susan Sarandon, Ani DiFranco, Janeane Garofalo, Jane Fonda, Bright Eyes, Joan Baez, George Clooney, and a host of others denounced him with Eddie Vedder going so far as to attack a Bush mask onstage in the midst of a Pearl Jam concert. Madonna, of course, tried to have it both ways, tossing a grenade at a Bush look-alike in a video and then announcing she would ban the video in the US (and getting a ton of publicity for what would go on to be her worst selling album of all time).
Yet today, the cat has their tongue. They're not silent, you understand. They still have the time to hawk their wares.
- Don't miss the premiere of
#MadeInAmerica Oct. 11 on Showtime by@RealRonHoward &@S_C_, featuring Pearl Jam.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6zQ1MmdfGw&feature=player_embedded …
Pearl Jam Joan's tour of AUSTRALIA and NEW ZEALAND has begun! See the tour dates page for all twelve dates, cities, and ticket buying information. And be sure to check in on Grace Stumberg's tour blog for regular updates from the road!
- Just announced: Conor will return to
@hsbfest this October! Info over here -> http://www.hardlystrictlybluegrass.com/2013/
Bright Eyes - Thx
@NATASHAMORGANNY “@mspennypuppy: My sunglasses for Burning Man. Tres chic, non?pic.twitter.com/WNMRQsEQK1”
Susan Sarandon - Check out my latest blog post!: TED TURNER & PRAIRIE DOGS - http://janefonda.com/ted-turner-prairie-dogs …
- Had lunch Monday with my pal Richard Simmons. He ate dessert--so there!
@TheWeightSaint http://say.ly/Ark6yaD
Jane Seymour Fonda One good thing we can say for Jane, she's no longer using her activist mug shot for her Twitter photo. If she were, she'd look like an even bigger fraud.
Or maybe like a bigger whore? Not a classy one like Bree Daniels when she still had her place on Park Avenue. But maybe Bree when she lets her pimp Frankie shoot her up.
Jane's quickly become the joke of the entertainment industry.
She's in a piece of trash TV show run by a man who doesn't know how to write anything but speeches and whose other common thread in all his writing -- including The Newsroom -- is sexism. We watched as people suddenly discovered sexism in the Aaron Sorkin's writing and suddenly noticed he could speechify and moralize in writing, he just couldn't handle action or anything resembling real life. We watched and shrugged as people discovered in 2012 what we documented in 2006 -- covering his then-new TV show, West Wing, Sports Night, An American President, A Few Good Men and his acting classes.
The Newsroom is a TV turd, that's the only way to describe it. The ratings in season two are even worse than they were in the first season. It's Lou Grant if plots and stories were pulled to leave only dialogue. And Jane? She's stuck in the pathetic -- albeit more macho -- Mrs. Pynchon role only Nancy Marchand was only 56 when she played that role.
Of course, Marchand looked older. Jane? She doesn't look younger. She looks . . .
She looks strange. Worse than strange in this year's outdoor photos from Cannes.
Let's be honest. The latest face lift, that she's repeatedly apologized for, is just her latest mistake. If she hadn't f**ked around with so much plastic surgery, she might be able to be on a quality TV show like Downton Abbey. But Shirley MacLaine and Maggie Smith (who are four and three years older than Jane) look like attractive older women.
Jane's pursuit of eternal youth grows sadder by the day. At her age, you'd hope for some comfort-in-her-own-skin to have been arrived at. Instead, you're more likely to catch Jane embarrassing herself on some talk show -- calling an Academy Award winning actress a bitch, for example. Or, worse, you might have caught her a few weeks ago on Jimmy Fallon's show. We tried to focus on her quips but it was so hard since we were stuck with her nips.
At 75, that's what a two-time Academy Award winning actress, activist and author does? Go on national TV in a sheer blouse without a bra to show her nipples? While trying to flirt with the host? Maybe those weren't Jane's nipples? Maybe she's at that Marlene Dietrich stage and positioned pearls as points on her breasts to give the illusion of 'nipple'?
She was totally clueless as she tried to act and look sexual. She has no idea of the negative response her embarrassing performance prompted from Jimmy's viewers who weren't willing to play she-looks-good-for-her-age and were more interested in expressing their dismay and disgust that an elderly woman was aping Dina Lohan. She was called a "snow leopard" in some of the complaints.
Apparently, it was too much for her to go on TV in a normal manner and to talk about anything that actually matters. Instead, she wanted the world to see her as the elderly drunk at last call who can't stand to be alone and so madly tosses themselves at everyone.
In 1986, she co-wrote Women Coming Of Age and insisted she wasn't going to become a slave to plastic surgery but was instead going to embrace the aging process. She even fought with the publisher when the proposed cover photo was so airbrushed her character lines had disappeared. Since then, she's had one procedure after another. WhatCher didn't do but gets slammed for, Jane actually did.
And she's 76 this December.
When does she stop kidding herself that any of this looks good or even attractive?
Probably never. Because she also kids herself that she's a political activist and that the left in the entertainment industry cares about her. Unthinking Democrats in the industry like her -- the Tom Hanks and George Clooneys, the politically ignorant, honestly. But the left?
She's more and more on her own now. And with this piece, we stop defending her.
We once thought, it would take a year for her to come to her senses. It's been over five. We're tired of defending her. We have our politics straight, we're tired of waiting for her to get her act together.
The Iraq War has not ended but she can't acknowledge that or even re-Tweet Tim Arango's New York Times article from almost a year ago where he reported, "Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to [US] General [Robert L.] Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence."
She can't acknowledge that but damned if she couldn't grandstand in DC in January of 2007.
Remember that? Remember her assertion that "silence is no longer an option."
It's really not. But damned if she isn't silent about the assault on Syria. Even worse, she's silent on the spying.
Even worse?
For Jane Fonda, yes. She's the one who sued the federal government for spying on her during Vietnam.
Yet she's been silent as one revelation of Barack's illegal spying after another has emerged. As an Academy Award wining actress asked us last week, "Was that spying wrong because it was during Vietnam or was it wrong because it happened to her? Obviously, the spying itself wasn't wrong since she can't say one damn word today." She was mocking Jane and added, "That ---- just lost any shot of a Best Supporting Actress win for that day player role in The Butler." (If you're curious about the word used, it's the one Jane dropped on Today back in 2008.)
And, you know what? We have to agree. Her silence about the illegal spying Barack Obama is overseeing today? Shameful and disgusting. From her autobiography:
In 1973 I had filed a lawsuit against the Nixon administration to compel the various government agencies to admit they had been carrying on a campaign of harassment and intimidation in an attempt to silence and impugn me. I wanted them to acknowledge that this was improper and cease and desist. One afternoon that spring of 1974, I went with my friend and attorney, Leonard Weinglass, to take the deposition of former White House special counsel Charles Colson. Before we met off the record with David Shapiro, Colson's law partner and chief legal adviser for Watergate matters. Tom was with us.
[. . .]
My lawsuit against the Nixon administration was settled in 1979. The FBI admitted that I had been under sueveillance from 1970 to 1973; that they had used counterintelligence techniques, in violation of my constitutional rights, to "neutralize" me and "impair my personal and professional standing"; that they had seized without subpoena my bank records during that time and had made pretext calls and visits to my home and office to determine where I was.
How dare she write about, in 2006's My Life So Far, how awful the spying was but have not one damn comment when Barack's the one caught spying today.
When Oliver Stone and Matt Damon can praise Ed Snowden, how dare Jane stay silent when she claims to be an activist and regularly solicits applause for her 'brave' activism.
As our friend pointed out regarding Jane, life's events matter only when they happen to her personally.
There are many performers who are privately political and that's fine. There are also many who are apolitical which is also fine. But if you run around proclaiming you're an activist, people have a right to expect activism from you.
To know Jane (and we both do) is to hear her (repeatedly) maintain she's figured 'it' out 'now' and has 'wasted' all of her life prior to this new insight.
She's wasting it now. Silence, as she stated only a few years ago, is not an option.
She marketed herself in the 00s as being in her third act and declared her actions in these final 30 years would define who she was and how she was remembered.
As the 21st century's Arlene Dahl?
That's about all she's offering now.
And she's already wasted a good deal of time -- as half the years in her third act have already passed.
Last month, law professor Jonathan Turley observed:
President Barack Obama on Friday seemed to acknowledge that the determined effort by the White House and Congress to demonize Edward Snowden has not exactly worked. The White House has put pressure on many people in this town to make clear that Snowden isnot to be praised in the media or by members of Congress. Various reporters and new organizations have held the line in mocking Snowden or refusing to call him a “whistleblower” rather than a “leaker.” After all, the fear seems to be that Snowden has to be a traitor or Obama would look like a tyrant. Even high-ranking members have been frog walked back before cameras for uttering a work of praise for Snowden. The problem is that it has convinced few people, even with alteration of Wikipedia and other sites to maintain the party line. Now Obama has come forward to assure people that Snowden is no patriot. No, I guess that title belongs to Obama and others who have engaged in warrantless surveillance and continue to mislead the public on the erosion of privacy and civil liberties. Those patriotic souls include John Clapper who lie under oath to mislead the public about the programs. He is not a perjurer but a patriot in America’s New Animal Farm. Notably, however, not a single reporter asked Obama about the perjury by Clapper. Instead, Obama laid out another set of meaningless measures designed to lull the public back into a comfortably and controllable sleep.
Yet Jane's silent?
Jane, for over five years we've defended you for your silence. Now we've defended you many times before that. You've done some great things, some okay things and some really stupid things. But we never faulted you for trying and always rushed to defend you.
These days the only thing you seem to try at is a manicure or wasting gas by having someone drive you down a hill so you can walk up it. People make fun of that too, your peers on the left who are actually green. And, thing is, we're not defending you anymore.
Your silence has gone on too long. And, honestly, that you would refuse to call out government spying? That's really the last straw. We have defended you and cited past actions but that's good for a year at best. For five years, you've been as big a political whore as William F. Buckley ever was.
You've put party over principles and looked the other way.
Fine. But, honestly, you're not all that.
The acting is thinner than it was during Stanley and Iris which you usually see as your acting debacle. (In fact, you were undermined by the directing in that film. You had exhaustion down pat and if the director had not kept trying to sweeten moments, your performance would have been hailed.)
Jane, of all the people who won't call out Barack, we're most disappointed by you.
You claim to be a political activist but stay silent when actions you called out during other presidencies take place today.
You were (yet again) supposed to be giving your life meaning, by your own statements. Maybe the reason you have to constantly reinvent and 'realize' is because you go through life so blindly so often?
We're two feminists who refuse to follow the lead of you and Gloria Steinem or Robin Morgan. We're not going to make nice with our oppressors. And our plan right now is to never again identify as Democratic. We're feminists. That's what we are -- and all we are -- when labels are tossed out. We will not whore for the Democratic Party. For us, the sexism of 2008 really was the final straw. It didn't bother you because you hated Hillary in 2008 and had your own special word for her.
You deny it but you did and maybe the reason you deny it is shame?
How many times are you going to rediscover feminism, Jane?
Supposedly, leaving Ted was yet another step to feminism for you and, as always, this time it was for real but in 2008 you were again echoing the patriarchy and listening to the men around you. (We are referring to Jane, one person, who knew better, and who let men dictate her actions. We are not saying feminism meant you had to support Hillary for president. Not only have we never floated or maintained that, we rejected that long ago,see the conclusion of our 2005 review of Commander in Chief.)
If you're a feminist, you shouldn't be needing men to tell you what to think and you shouldn't be too scared to call out any man -- especially not a sitting president. Especially not when you identify as an activist and are also a co-founder Women's Media Center.
If the world's going to go down in flames, we'd like to think people could be honest about it.
indeed!
ava and c.i.'s article is infamous. it's already had over 200,000 views and the feedback is tremendous. i was talking to jim who said he wishes now that ava and c.i. had written it sooner. i don't.
if you'll notice, a lot of people have written similar stories since. ava and c.i. touched off a wild fire that's still burning. i would argue this wildfire is part of what forced moveon to listen to their members on syria this week.
we have to hold people accountable, that's the reality.
a person e-mailed me to ask why patti smith wasn't included on that list?
patti famously broke with barack. or infamously depending on your view.
she feels he's betrayed the environment.
a year ago, she said she was more worried about what was happening to the bees than she was about terrorism. she called out his moves (or lack of them) on the environment.
so patti found her way out of the cult - good for her - which is why she wasn't mentioned in the article.
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Thursday, September 5, 2013. Chaos and violence continue, Iraqis fear
what happens if the US attacks Syria, the Pope calls for peace talks
with Syria and rejects military strikes, Barack Obama is shunned at the
G-20, John Kerry is called a liar by the President of Russia, Nancy
Pelosi wants to compete in a dick swinging contest, and much more.
US President Barack Obama wants war on Syria. It's wrong for many reasons. One that no one seems to be raising is cost. The authorization the White House wants from Congress -- passed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- does not prohibit "boots on the ground." Secretary of State John Kerry had a meltdown over 'no boots on the ground' being in the authorization during the Senate committee's hearing on Tuesday. He also spoke in terms of actions additional to a 'precision strike' which is why it is a 90 day authorization that Barack's enablers have passed. It has not passed the Senate, it has not passed the House. Judging from complaints to the public e-mail account, either local anchors across the country are really stupid or they're being intentionally stupid to imply it's a done deal. All that being voted out of Committee does is send it to the Senate floor for a vote. Being voted out of Committee does not change a bill into a law. Jason Ditz's Antiwar piece that just went up may make that clearer. Opening sentence: "After yesterday’s 10-7 committee vote set the stage for a tight vote in the Senate about the Syrian War, the issue may end up entirely academic, as ABC News is the first to call it, and based on the public comments the war is headed for a defeat in the House of Representatives."
Many are noting the lack of restrictions to the authorization Barack Obama wants. (See Jason Ditz' "Senate Committee Approves Loophole-Ridden Syria War Resolution" at Antiwar.com.) Who's going to point out the blank check aspect? Congress controls the purse. The measure the White House wants and that the Senate committee passed is a blank check and isn't the US supposed to be in the midst of a fiscal crisis?
You've not only got the failed economy, you've also got sequestration. Across the board cuts.
So why is the US Congress being asked to authorize any new action without such an action having a clear and public price tag?
The US economy remains in the toilet, services are being cut (further cut) across the country and more cuts are due to come shortly and on top of this outstanding (unpaid) bill, Barack wants to toss on military actions when there is no threat to Syria?
And the White House will not return to extend the 90 day authorization. It will just plow on through if it feels the need. Meaning ten years from now someone may write a letter to the Seattle Times' editors on the money spent on the Syrian War the way Kathy Swoyer writes them now:
Today in Iraq, 10 years later, countless lives -- military and civilian-- have been and continue to be lost, hundreds of millions of our tax dollars were spent, and Shiite/Sunni violence is rearing up again. Al-Qaida terrorism is now robust.
What, exactly, have we gained?
The biggest threat to the US economy has been and remains Barack Obama.
He now wants to turn that destructive force on Syria.
The years long effort for war on Syria has already run up a large tab -- in money and resources. In resources, you have John Kerry and the State Department spending 2012 and this year attempting to persuade foreign countries into supporting war and pressuring them to cut off ties to Syria.
That has a huge cost. Might life be better for the Iraqi people if high-profile US visits to Iraq in the last two years had been about the needs of the Iraqi people and not the US government's need for war with Syria? And what was Nouri given to make him announce (briefly) that they would stop flights from Iran to Syria?
If diplomacy had been used for humanitarian reasons, then high-profile US visits would have been about wrongful imprisonments, the need to stop torturing, the need to stop shooting at Iraqis taking part in a sit-in and, at the very least, the need to provide the people with basic public services (electricity, potable water, etc.).
A lot of liars in Congress and in the press want to insist attacking Syria would be a "humanitarian action." They ignore the reality of what they're demanding. As Steve Chapman (Chicago Tribune) observes, "It may look antiseptic from Washington, but only because the Syrians have no means to respond [to an attack] in kind. But to anyone in Syria, there will be no doubt that we are waging war." Activist, author and candidate for governor in California Cindy Sheehan weighs in on these 'humanitarian concerns' at Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox:
Now, Obama and Pelosi want to kill Syrian children so their government doesn’t kill them? I don't want the Syrian government or US supported rebels to kill anyone, but I am sure that dying by a US made and launched missile is much more compassionate than any other way? Obviously the “problem” that the US has, is not that it loves children so much, but that it’s Murder, Inc and wants a global monopoly on carnage.
To me, and many others who really pay attention to needs of children, what is urgent is for the US to stop all its wars that harm families all over the world, even here. Why do you think our economy is tanking and the social safety nets are being greatly reduced or eliminated? Our overwhelming monetary and psycho investment in the military industrial complex!
FYI, Cindy's campaign site is here. If the liars in Congress and the press have are so concerned about 'humanitarian' intervention in Syria, why have they expressed no humanitarian concerns about Iraq?
KUNA reports the European Union's High Representative Catherine Ashton issued a statement condemning Tuesday's attacks in Iraq. Her statement in full [PDF format warning] can be found here:
I condemn in the strongest terms the series of car bombings that killed many civilians on Tuesday in predominantly Shia districts of Baghdad. My thoughts go out to the many innocent victims and I express my condolences to their families.
I am seriously concerned by the escalation of violence in Iraq over the past months which is fueling sectarianism and undermining the stability of the country. I call on all political, religious and community leaders to increase their efforts to end this dangerous cycle of vilence. I am confident that the Iraqi people will remain steadfast in their rejection of sectarian violence and work towards a successful transition to democracy and long term stability for the benefit of all of Iraq's citizens.
The US government has nothing to say about Tuesday's attacks which killed 87 people (Iraq Body Count tally). It rarely has anything to say about anything to do with Iraq. Yes, Sunday, they did issue the following:
Press Statement
But before you applaud them, that's idiotic.
All the ones arguing humanitarian grounds for Syria -- including the ridiculous US House Rep Debbie Wasserman-Schultz with her "as a Jew" statement -- need to ask where is the humanitarian concern for the Ashraf community?
The United States could actually put more boots on the ground in Iraq as a result of that attack. International law would allow that (some legal scholars would argue that international law compels it).
I must have missed Debs Wasserman weighing in on the attack, "as a Jew," right?
Adam Schreck (AP) reported Tuesday that the United Nations just confirmed the deaths of 52 Ashraf residents. Al Mada noted Monday that Nouri's declared he should be over the Iraqi investigation since he's commander-in-chief. And that's exactly why he shouldn't be over it. Tuesday, the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq issued a statement which included:
Reiterating his previous statement, the UN Envoy expressed his outrage at the brutal killing of the camp’s residents. Mr. Busztin took note of the statement issued by the Government of Iraq announcing it has initiated its own investigation into the tragic events and acknowledging its responsibility for the safety of the camp’s residents. “I call on the Iraqi government to ensure that a thorough, impartial and transparent investigation into this atrocious crime is conducted without delay and that the results of the investigation are made public”, he said.
Deb Wasserman may not grasp the basics so let's review slowly.
Camp Ashraf housed a group of Iranian dissidents who were welcomed to Iraq by Saddam Hussein in 1986 and he gave them Camp Ashraf and six other parcels that they could utilize. In 2003, the US invaded Iraq.The US government had the US military lead negotiations with the residents of Camp Ashraf. The US government wanted the residents to disarm and the US promised protections to the point that US actions turned the residents of Camp Ashraf into protected person under the Geneva Conventions. This is key and demands the US defend the Ashraf community in Iraq from attacks. The Bully Boy Bush administration grasped that -- they were ignorant of every other law on the books but they grasped that one. As 2008 drew to a close, the Bush administration was given assurances from the Iraqi government that they would protect the residents. Yet Nouri al-Maliki ordered the camp repeatedly attacked after Barack Obama was sworn in as US President. July 28, 2009 Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer entitled "Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents," Amnesty International described this assault, "Barely a month later, on 28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at least nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten. They were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor health after going on hunger strike." April 8, 2011, Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault took place). Amnesty International described the assault this way, "Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who tried to resist them. Troops used live ammunition and by the end of the operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and more than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and other protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on other occasions when the government has announced investigations into allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out." Those weren't the last attacks. They were the last attacks while the residents were labeled as terrorists by the US State Dept. (September 28, 2012, the designation was changed.) In spite of this labeling, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed that "since 2004, the United States has considered the residents of Camp Ashraf 'noncombatants' and 'protected persons' under the Geneva Conventions." So the US has an obligation to protect the residents. 3,300 are no longer at Camp Ashraf. They have moved to Camp Hurriyah for the most part. A tiny number has received asylum in other countries. Approximately 100 were still at Camp Ashraf when it was attacked Sunday. That was the second attack this year alone. February 9th of this year, the Ashraf residents were again attacked, this time the ones who had been relocated to Camp Hurriyah. Trend News Agency counted 10 dead and over one hundred injured. Prensa Latina reported, " A rain of self-propelled Katyusha missiles hit a provisional camp of Iraqi opposition Mujahedin-e Khalk, an organization Tehran calls terrorists, causing seven fatalities plus 50 wounded, according to an Iraqi official release."
"As a Jew," Debbie Wasserman, shouldn't attacks on encampments of persons alarm you? Attacks carried out by government forces? Shouldn't that bother you? Or do use Nazi Germany allusions as rarely as you use soap and water? There is no oil crisis, we need only figure out how to tap into all the oil on Debbie's face and in her hair and the term "energy crisis" will be a relic of the past.
Liars supporting an attack on Syria say that a red line has been crossed?
How many times is Nouri al-Maliki going to be allowed to attack the Ashraf community before your so-called 'humanitarian' concerns kick in? Unlike Barack's claim that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has gassed (and killed) a community, there are no doubts as to what Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has done. Despite giving his word to the US government at the end of 2008 that he would not attack the Ashraf community, he has repeatedly done so. He has killed them repeatedly -- so much so that it could be argued the world's 'exit plan' for the Ashraf community is passage by bullet.
Independent Catholic News reports today:
A spokesman for Archbishop Vincent Nichols said: “The Iraqi government has a moral and legal duty to protect the residents of Camp Ashraf. The Baghdad authorities must ensure the safety of the residents to prevent any more violence being inflicted on them and to facilitate their swift resettlement in a third country, under international supervision.”
The Anglican Bishop of Oxford, the Rt Rev John Pritchard, said he was "troubled by reports of the latest attacks" - "and by news that Iraq has been denying the Ashraf residents the right to family visits and full access to proper medical treatment".
Bishop Pritchard said that he would like to see United States' forces "take back responsibility for protecting Camp Ashraf".
Yet Debbie Wasserman-Schultz hasn't said one word -- "as a Jew" or as a member of the US government, she's not said one word. John Kerry hasn't said one word. The US government has a legal obligation to the Ashraf community. By international law, they are bound to secure the safety of these residents. Barack cites no international law aspect to his desire to attack Syria because there is no such law. And, get honest, there's no real humanitarian concern about Syria or the residents of Syria.
The liars can't fight with facts so they make emotional appeals. You see that on every level. Marcia noted last night that Russian President Vladimir Putin rightly called out the lies John Kerry has been spouting off lately. Today, Matthew Lee (AP) reports the official State Dept response to that: spokesperson Jen Psaki declared Kerry to be "a decorated combat veteran who has had more than words aimed at him." Oh, alright then.
What the hell does that have to do with whether or not he's a liar? And, excuse me, but in the United States, roughly 40% of the population feels that "decorated combat veteran" Kerry lied about his Vietnam experiences, he is widely and publicly denounced by other veterans of that war, and didn't he toss ribbons of honor in a protest? Yeah, he did. So maybe next time Jen has no logical response to "Kerry lied," she can describe him as "a half-decorated combat veteran"?
And please grasp how sad and disgusting Psaki's words are. She is trying to shut down a discussion by gasping "combat veteran!" Sorry, Jen, it's not a protective shield.
More importantly, how dare the supposed diplomatic branch of the United States try to hide behind the Pentagon? That's the best they can offer? Well that's Barack's administration for you: The Worst and The Dullest.
And sadly, they can't even lie well. Bully Boy Bush has them beat clearly. Grasp the current administration is not just liars, they are bad liars. John Glaser (Antiwar.com) compares Kerry's lying to Congress to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper's lies -- and no one in this administration ever gets punished for lying but damned if Barack doesn't go after truth tellers like whistle blowers Chelsea Manning and Ed Snowden and reporters like the New York Times' James Risen. Former US House Rep Dennis Kucinich offers a piece on ten claims they are making that have not been backed up. Here's the first one:
The questions the Obama administration needs to answer before Congress can even consider voting on Syria:
Claim #1. The administration claims a chemical weapon was used.
The UN inspectors are still completing their independent evaluation.
Who provided the physiological samples of sarin gas on which your evaluation is based? Were any other non-weaponized chemical agents discovered or sampled?
Who from the United States was responsible for the chain of custody?
Where was the laboratory analysis conducted?
Were U.S. officials present during the analysis of the samples? Does your sample show military grade or lower grade sarin gas?
Can you verify that your sample matches the exact composition of the alleged Syrian government composition?
Dennis is out of Congress. Sadly, 73-year-old Nancy Pelosi remains there. Vast amounts of plastic surgery have obscured her age (though not made her look young or even younger). They apparently have obscured her judgment as well. David Jackson (USA Today) notes she gushed that Barack is one "tough hombre."
We get it, Nance, no one sports a bigger strap-on dildo than you, you are the exception that proves Freud's laughable penis envy theory, we get it. But as you praise Barack's Hombre Diplomacia grasp it's no different than the Cowboy Diplomacy of Bully Boy Bush which you used to call out.
Like John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi is Catholic. Vatican Radio reports, "Pope Francis renewed his appeal for peace in Syria and throughout the world on Wednesday, once again inviting Christians of every denomination, believers of every religious tradition and all people of good will to take part in the worldwide fast and vigil of prayer and penance for peace, which he has called for September 7th, the vigil of the Feast of the Nativity of Our Lady, whom we venerate as Queen of Peace." Independent Catholic News adds, "There will be prayers for peace in St Peter's Square and in the great Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, this Saturday. The Grand Mufti of Syria, Ahmad Badreddin Hassou, spiritual leader of Sunni Islam, has welcomed the Pope's appeal and will be there praying and fasting for peace in his country. In an official letter sent,through the Apostolic Nunciature in Damascus, the Mufti said he is preparing to participate in the special pro-Syria day on September 7, and proposes organizing an interfaith meeting with the Hoiy See." And AFP quotes the head of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Monsignor Mario Toso, declaring, "The Syria conflict has all the ingredients to explode into a war of global dimensions. The solution to Syria's problems is not in armed intervention. Violence will not decrease and there is a risk of a conflagration that extends to other countries."
From this standpoint, it is clear that, for the world’s peoples, armed conflicts are always a deliberate negation of international harmony, and create profound divisions and deep wounds which require many years to heal. Wars are a concrete refusal to pursue the great economic and social goals that the international community has set itself, as seen, for example, in the Millennium Development Goals. Unfortunately, the many armed conflicts which continue to afflict the world today present us daily with dramatic images of misery, hunger, illness and death. Without peace, there can be no form of economic development. Violence never begets peace, the necessary condition for development.
The meeting of the Heads of State and Government of the twenty most powerful economies, with two-thirds of the world’s population and ninety per cent of global GDP, does not have international security as its principal purpose. Nevertheless, the meeting will surely not forget the situation in the Middle East and particularly in Syria. It is regrettable that, from the very beginning of the conflict in Syria, one-sided interests have prevailed and in fact hindered the search for a solution that would have avoided the senseless massacre now unfolding. The leaders of the G20 cannot remain indifferent to the dramatic situation of the beloved Syrian people which has lasted far too long, and even risks bringing greater suffering to a region bitterly tested by strife and needful of peace. To the leaders present, to each and every one, I make a heartfelt appeal for them to help find ways to overcome the conflicting positions and to lay aside the futile pursuit of a military solution. Rather, let there be a renewed commitment to seek, with courage and determination, a peaceful solution through dialogue and negotiation of the parties, unanimously supported by the international community. Moreover, all governments have the moral duty to do everything possible to ensure humanitarian assistance to those suffering because of the conflict, both within and beyond the country’s borders.
Last night, Ruth weighed in on how Texas and Mississippi National Guard are at present not honoring marriage equality. Senator Patty Murray serves on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee (and chaired it until becoming, this year, the Chair of the Senate Budget Committee). Her office issued the following on the new order regarding the military and marriage equality:
RSS Feed for Senator Murray's office
US President Barack Obama wants war on Syria. It's wrong for many reasons. One that no one seems to be raising is cost. The authorization the White House wants from Congress -- passed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- does not prohibit "boots on the ground." Secretary of State John Kerry had a meltdown over 'no boots on the ground' being in the authorization during the Senate committee's hearing on Tuesday. He also spoke in terms of actions additional to a 'precision strike' which is why it is a 90 day authorization that Barack's enablers have passed. It has not passed the Senate, it has not passed the House. Judging from complaints to the public e-mail account, either local anchors across the country are really stupid or they're being intentionally stupid to imply it's a done deal. All that being voted out of Committee does is send it to the Senate floor for a vote. Being voted out of Committee does not change a bill into a law. Jason Ditz's Antiwar piece that just went up may make that clearer. Opening sentence: "After yesterday’s 10-7 committee vote set the stage for a tight vote in the Senate about the Syrian War, the issue may end up entirely academic, as ABC News is the first to call it, and based on the public comments the war is headed for a defeat in the House of Representatives."
Many are noting the lack of restrictions to the authorization Barack Obama wants. (See Jason Ditz' "Senate Committee Approves Loophole-Ridden Syria War Resolution" at Antiwar.com.) Who's going to point out the blank check aspect? Congress controls the purse. The measure the White House wants and that the Senate committee passed is a blank check and isn't the US supposed to be in the midst of a fiscal crisis?
You've not only got the failed economy, you've also got sequestration. Across the board cuts.
So why is the US Congress being asked to authorize any new action without such an action having a clear and public price tag?
The US economy remains in the toilet, services are being cut (further cut) across the country and more cuts are due to come shortly and on top of this outstanding (unpaid) bill, Barack wants to toss on military actions when there is no threat to Syria?
And the White House will not return to extend the 90 day authorization. It will just plow on through if it feels the need. Meaning ten years from now someone may write a letter to the Seattle Times' editors on the money spent on the Syrian War the way Kathy Swoyer writes them now:
Today in Iraq, 10 years later, countless lives -- military and civilian-- have been and continue to be lost, hundreds of millions of our tax dollars were spent, and Shiite/Sunni violence is rearing up again. Al-Qaida terrorism is now robust.
What, exactly, have we gained?
He now wants to turn that destructive force on Syria.
The years long effort for war on Syria has already run up a large tab -- in money and resources. In resources, you have John Kerry and the State Department spending 2012 and this year attempting to persuade foreign countries into supporting war and pressuring them to cut off ties to Syria.
That has a huge cost. Might life be better for the Iraqi people if high-profile US visits to Iraq in the last two years had been about the needs of the Iraqi people and not the US government's need for war with Syria? And what was Nouri given to make him announce (briefly) that they would stop flights from Iran to Syria?
If diplomacy had been used for humanitarian reasons, then high-profile US visits would have been about wrongful imprisonments, the need to stop torturing, the need to stop shooting at Iraqis taking part in a sit-in and, at the very least, the need to provide the people with basic public services (electricity, potable water, etc.).
A lot of liars in Congress and in the press want to insist attacking Syria would be a "humanitarian action." They ignore the reality of what they're demanding. As Steve Chapman (Chicago Tribune) observes, "It may look antiseptic from Washington, but only because the Syrians have no means to respond [to an attack] in kind. But to anyone in Syria, there will be no doubt that we are waging war." Activist, author and candidate for governor in California Cindy Sheehan weighs in on these 'humanitarian concerns' at Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox:
Now, Obama and Pelosi want to kill Syrian children so their government doesn’t kill them? I don't want the Syrian government or US supported rebels to kill anyone, but I am sure that dying by a US made and launched missile is much more compassionate than any other way? Obviously the “problem” that the US has, is not that it loves children so much, but that it’s Murder, Inc and wants a global monopoly on carnage.
To me, and many others who really pay attention to needs of children, what is urgent is for the US to stop all its wars that harm families all over the world, even here. Why do you think our economy is tanking and the social safety nets are being greatly reduced or eliminated? Our overwhelming monetary and psycho investment in the military industrial complex!
FYI, Cindy's campaign site is here. If the liars in Congress and the press have are so concerned about 'humanitarian' intervention in Syria, why have they expressed no humanitarian concerns about Iraq?
KUNA reports the European Union's High Representative Catherine Ashton issued a statement condemning Tuesday's attacks in Iraq. Her statement in full [PDF format warning] can be found here:
I condemn in the strongest terms the series of car bombings that killed many civilians on Tuesday in predominantly Shia districts of Baghdad. My thoughts go out to the many innocent victims and I express my condolences to their families.
I am seriously concerned by the escalation of violence in Iraq over the past months which is fueling sectarianism and undermining the stability of the country. I call on all political, religious and community leaders to increase their efforts to end this dangerous cycle of vilence. I am confident that the Iraqi people will remain steadfast in their rejection of sectarian violence and work towards a successful transition to democracy and long term stability for the benefit of all of Iraq's citizens.
The US government has nothing to say about Tuesday's attacks which killed 87 people (Iraq Body Count tally). It rarely has anything to say about anything to do with Iraq. Yes, Sunday, they did issue the following:
Press Statement
Marie Harf
Deputy Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson
Deputy Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
September 1, 2013
The
United States strongly condemns the terrible events that took place at
Camp Ashraf today, which according to various reports resulted in the
deaths of and injuries to numerous camp residents. Our condolences go
out to the families of the victims and those who were injured in today’s
violence.
We are deeply concerned about these reports and are in regular contact with the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI), as well as Government of Iraq officials. We support UNAMI's efforts to conduct its own assessment of the situation and call on the Government of Iraq to fully support those efforts.
We further call on Iraqi authorities to act with urgency to immediately ensure medical assistance to the wounded and to secure the camp against any further violence or harm to the residents. We underscore the responsibility of the Government of Iraq and all relevant stakeholders to ensure the safety and security of residents at both Camp Ashraf and Camp Hurriyah, and we affirm the call by UNAMI for a full and independent investigation into this terrible and tragic event. Those found to be responsible must be held fully accountable.
We are deeply concerned about these reports and are in regular contact with the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI), as well as Government of Iraq officials. We support UNAMI's efforts to conduct its own assessment of the situation and call on the Government of Iraq to fully support those efforts.
We further call on Iraqi authorities to act with urgency to immediately ensure medical assistance to the wounded and to secure the camp against any further violence or harm to the residents. We underscore the responsibility of the Government of Iraq and all relevant stakeholders to ensure the safety and security of residents at both Camp Ashraf and Camp Hurriyah, and we affirm the call by UNAMI for a full and independent investigation into this terrible and tragic event. Those found to be responsible must be held fully accountable.
But before you applaud them, that's idiotic.
All the ones arguing humanitarian grounds for Syria -- including the ridiculous US House Rep Debbie Wasserman-Schultz with her "as a Jew" statement -- need to ask where is the humanitarian concern for the Ashraf community?
The United States could actually put more boots on the ground in Iraq as a result of that attack. International law would allow that (some legal scholars would argue that international law compels it).
I must have missed Debs Wasserman weighing in on the attack, "as a Jew," right?
Adam Schreck (AP) reported Tuesday that the United Nations just confirmed the deaths of 52 Ashraf residents. Al Mada noted Monday that Nouri's declared he should be over the Iraqi investigation since he's commander-in-chief. And that's exactly why he shouldn't be over it. Tuesday, the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq issued a statement which included:
Reiterating his previous statement, the UN Envoy expressed his outrage at the brutal killing of the camp’s residents. Mr. Busztin took note of the statement issued by the Government of Iraq announcing it has initiated its own investigation into the tragic events and acknowledging its responsibility for the safety of the camp’s residents. “I call on the Iraqi government to ensure that a thorough, impartial and transparent investigation into this atrocious crime is conducted without delay and that the results of the investigation are made public”, he said.
Deb Wasserman may not grasp the basics so let's review slowly.
Camp Ashraf housed a group of Iranian dissidents who were welcomed to Iraq by Saddam Hussein in 1986 and he gave them Camp Ashraf and six other parcels that they could utilize. In 2003, the US invaded Iraq.The US government had the US military lead negotiations with the residents of Camp Ashraf. The US government wanted the residents to disarm and the US promised protections to the point that US actions turned the residents of Camp Ashraf into protected person under the Geneva Conventions. This is key and demands the US defend the Ashraf community in Iraq from attacks. The Bully Boy Bush administration grasped that -- they were ignorant of every other law on the books but they grasped that one. As 2008 drew to a close, the Bush administration was given assurances from the Iraqi government that they would protect the residents. Yet Nouri al-Maliki ordered the camp repeatedly attacked after Barack Obama was sworn in as US President. July 28, 2009 Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer entitled "Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents," Amnesty International described this assault, "Barely a month later, on 28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at least nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten. They were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor health after going on hunger strike." April 8, 2011, Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault took place). Amnesty International described the assault this way, "Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who tried to resist them. Troops used live ammunition and by the end of the operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and more than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and other protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on other occasions when the government has announced investigations into allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out." Those weren't the last attacks. They were the last attacks while the residents were labeled as terrorists by the US State Dept. (September 28, 2012, the designation was changed.) In spite of this labeling, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed that "since 2004, the United States has considered the residents of Camp Ashraf 'noncombatants' and 'protected persons' under the Geneva Conventions." So the US has an obligation to protect the residents. 3,300 are no longer at Camp Ashraf. They have moved to Camp Hurriyah for the most part. A tiny number has received asylum in other countries. Approximately 100 were still at Camp Ashraf when it was attacked Sunday. That was the second attack this year alone. February 9th of this year, the Ashraf residents were again attacked, this time the ones who had been relocated to Camp Hurriyah. Trend News Agency counted 10 dead and over one hundred injured. Prensa Latina reported, " A rain of self-propelled Katyusha missiles hit a provisional camp of Iraqi opposition Mujahedin-e Khalk, an organization Tehran calls terrorists, causing seven fatalities plus 50 wounded, according to an Iraqi official release."
"As a Jew," Debbie Wasserman, shouldn't attacks on encampments of persons alarm you? Attacks carried out by government forces? Shouldn't that bother you? Or do use Nazi Germany allusions as rarely as you use soap and water? There is no oil crisis, we need only figure out how to tap into all the oil on Debbie's face and in her hair and the term "energy crisis" will be a relic of the past.
Liars supporting an attack on Syria say that a red line has been crossed?
How many times is Nouri al-Maliki going to be allowed to attack the Ashraf community before your so-called 'humanitarian' concerns kick in? Unlike Barack's claim that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has gassed (and killed) a community, there are no doubts as to what Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has done. Despite giving his word to the US government at the end of 2008 that he would not attack the Ashraf community, he has repeatedly done so. He has killed them repeatedly -- so much so that it could be argued the world's 'exit plan' for the Ashraf community is passage by bullet.
Independent Catholic News reports today:
A spokesman for Archbishop Vincent Nichols said: “The Iraqi government has a moral and legal duty to protect the residents of Camp Ashraf. The Baghdad authorities must ensure the safety of the residents to prevent any more violence being inflicted on them and to facilitate their swift resettlement in a third country, under international supervision.”
The Anglican Bishop of Oxford, the Rt Rev John Pritchard, said he was "troubled by reports of the latest attacks" - "and by news that Iraq has been denying the Ashraf residents the right to family visits and full access to proper medical treatment".
Bishop Pritchard said that he would like to see United States' forces "take back responsibility for protecting Camp Ashraf".
Yet Debbie Wasserman-Schultz hasn't said one word -- "as a Jew" or as a member of the US government, she's not said one word. John Kerry hasn't said one word. The US government has a legal obligation to the Ashraf community. By international law, they are bound to secure the safety of these residents. Barack cites no international law aspect to his desire to attack Syria because there is no such law. And, get honest, there's no real humanitarian concern about Syria or the residents of Syria.
The liars can't fight with facts so they make emotional appeals. You see that on every level. Marcia noted last night that Russian President Vladimir Putin rightly called out the lies John Kerry has been spouting off lately. Today, Matthew Lee (AP) reports the official State Dept response to that: spokesperson Jen Psaki declared Kerry to be "a decorated combat veteran who has had more than words aimed at him." Oh, alright then.
What the hell does that have to do with whether or not he's a liar? And, excuse me, but in the United States, roughly 40% of the population feels that "decorated combat veteran" Kerry lied about his Vietnam experiences, he is widely and publicly denounced by other veterans of that war, and didn't he toss ribbons of honor in a protest? Yeah, he did. So maybe next time Jen has no logical response to "Kerry lied," she can describe him as "a half-decorated combat veteran"?
And please grasp how sad and disgusting Psaki's words are. She is trying to shut down a discussion by gasping "combat veteran!" Sorry, Jen, it's not a protective shield.
More importantly, how dare the supposed diplomatic branch of the United States try to hide behind the Pentagon? That's the best they can offer? Well that's Barack's administration for you: The Worst and The Dullest.
And sadly, they can't even lie well. Bully Boy Bush has them beat clearly. Grasp the current administration is not just liars, they are bad liars. John Glaser (Antiwar.com) compares Kerry's lying to Congress to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper's lies -- and no one in this administration ever gets punished for lying but damned if Barack doesn't go after truth tellers like whistle blowers Chelsea Manning and Ed Snowden and reporters like the New York Times' James Risen. Former US House Rep Dennis Kucinich offers a piece on ten claims they are making that have not been backed up. Here's the first one:
The questions the Obama administration needs to answer before Congress can even consider voting on Syria:
Claim #1. The administration claims a chemical weapon was used.
The UN inspectors are still completing their independent evaluation.
Who provided the physiological samples of sarin gas on which your evaluation is based? Were any other non-weaponized chemical agents discovered or sampled?
Who from the United States was responsible for the chain of custody?
Where was the laboratory analysis conducted?
Were U.S. officials present during the analysis of the samples? Does your sample show military grade or lower grade sarin gas?
Can you verify that your sample matches the exact composition of the alleged Syrian government composition?
Dennis is out of Congress. Sadly, 73-year-old Nancy Pelosi remains there. Vast amounts of plastic surgery have obscured her age (though not made her look young or even younger). They apparently have obscured her judgment as well. David Jackson (USA Today) notes she gushed that Barack is one "tough hombre."
We get it, Nance, no one sports a bigger strap-on dildo than you, you are the exception that proves Freud's laughable penis envy theory, we get it. But as you praise Barack's Hombre Diplomacia grasp it's no different than the Cowboy Diplomacy of Bully Boy Bush which you used to call out.
Like John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi is Catholic. Vatican Radio reports, "Pope Francis renewed his appeal for peace in Syria and throughout the world on Wednesday, once again inviting Christians of every denomination, believers of every religious tradition and all people of good will to take part in the worldwide fast and vigil of prayer and penance for peace, which he has called for September 7th, the vigil of the Feast of the Nativity of Our Lady, whom we venerate as Queen of Peace." Independent Catholic News adds, "There will be prayers for peace in St Peter's Square and in the great Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, this Saturday. The Grand Mufti of Syria, Ahmad Badreddin Hassou, spiritual leader of Sunni Islam, has welcomed the Pope's appeal and will be there praying and fasting for peace in his country. In an official letter sent,through the Apostolic Nunciature in Damascus, the Mufti said he is preparing to participate in the special pro-Syria day on September 7, and proposes organizing an interfaith meeting with the Hoiy See." And AFP quotes the head of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Monsignor Mario Toso, declaring, "The Syria conflict has all the ingredients to explode into a war of global dimensions. The solution to Syria's problems is not in armed intervention. Violence will not decrease and there is a risk of a conflagration that extends to other countries."
Many world leaders are in St. Petersburg today for the G-20. Russian President Vladimir Putin is presiding. Reuters notes, "Pope Francis, in a letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin for the G20 conference, urged world leaders to "lay aside the futile pursuit of a military solution" in Syria." Vatican Radio has posted the letter in full and we'll include this section:
From this standpoint, it is clear that, for the world’s peoples, armed conflicts are always a deliberate negation of international harmony, and create profound divisions and deep wounds which require many years to heal. Wars are a concrete refusal to pursue the great economic and social goals that the international community has set itself, as seen, for example, in the Millennium Development Goals. Unfortunately, the many armed conflicts which continue to afflict the world today present us daily with dramatic images of misery, hunger, illness and death. Without peace, there can be no form of economic development. Violence never begets peace, the necessary condition for development.
The meeting of the Heads of State and Government of the twenty most powerful economies, with two-thirds of the world’s population and ninety per cent of global GDP, does not have international security as its principal purpose. Nevertheless, the meeting will surely not forget the situation in the Middle East and particularly in Syria. It is regrettable that, from the very beginning of the conflict in Syria, one-sided interests have prevailed and in fact hindered the search for a solution that would have avoided the senseless massacre now unfolding. The leaders of the G20 cannot remain indifferent to the dramatic situation of the beloved Syrian people which has lasted far too long, and even risks bringing greater suffering to a region bitterly tested by strife and needful of peace. To the leaders present, to each and every one, I make a heartfelt appeal for them to help find ways to overcome the conflicting positions and to lay aside the futile pursuit of a military solution. Rather, let there be a renewed commitment to seek, with courage and determination, a peaceful solution through dialogue and negotiation of the parties, unanimously supported by the international community. Moreover, all governments have the moral duty to do everything possible to ensure humanitarian assistance to those suffering because of the conflict, both within and beyond the country’s borders.
Adam Schreck
Last night, Ruth weighed in on how Texas and Mississippi National Guard are at present not honoring marriage equality. Senator Patty Murray serves on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee (and chaired it until becoming, this year, the Chair of the Senate Budget Committee). Her office issued the following on the new order regarding the military and marriage equality:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Murray Press Office
Thursday, September 05, 2013 (202) 224-2834
Senator Murray’s Statement on VA Benefits for Same-Sex Spouses
WASHINGTON,
D.C. – Today, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) released the following
statement after U.S. Attorney General Holder announced yesterday that
President Obama has directed the Justice Department to stop enforcing Department of Veterans Affairs provisions which deny full access to spousal benefits for same-sex married couples:
“This
long-awaited move by the Obama Administration is a major step towards
finally ensuring each of our heroes and their spouses receive the same
quality care and services once they leave the military – no matter who
they love. And after pressing Secretary Shinseki to expedite the process
for dignified, same-sex burials in our national cemeteries, I am
thrilled yesterday’s news will no longer force veterans to face
uncertainty when mourning the loss of their spouse. Our veterans and
their families, who selflessly served our nation and have given so much,
will finally be afforded the benefits they have so rightly earned. This
is not only a matter of fairness and equity, it is simply the right
thing to do.”
###
---
Meghan Roh
Press Secretary | New Media Director
Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray
Mobile: (202) 365-1235
Office: (202) 224-2834
