"Clinton Campaign Statement on New Developments Regarding Austin Goolsbee and CTV NAFTA Report"
For several days, simple questions have been posed to the the Barack Obama campaign:
Has anyone associated with their campaign met with Canadian officials? Has anyone associated with their campaign offered private assurances to Canadian officials downplaying Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric?
In response, the Obama campaign has offered several carefully parsed non-denials.
But this evening new information has come to light: Senator Obama's top economic advisor admitted to meeting with the Canadian consul general but has refused to deny that he discussed NAFTA in this meeting.
This raises a host of additional questions: Now that it is clear that this meeting occurred, what was discussed? Did Austin Goolsbee or any Obama official downplay Senator Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric to Canadian officials? Why have they have been trying to give the impression that no conversation ever occurred?
Voters deserve more than empty rhetoric and Senator Obama and his campaign should finally come clean and answer these questions.
ABC News Report, 2/29/08:
On Thursday, Goolsbee told ABC's Jennifer Parker that Canada's consul general in Chicago contacted him "at one point to say 'hello' because their office is around the corner."
Goolsbee refused, however, to deny whether he downplayed Obama’s anti-NAFTA rhetoric.
i believe pretty boy's pretty words are imploding.
look it, i warned you. i told you that as women we know exactly what type of a man he is. he'll say anything. that's what he did.
you need to carry this to your own life. he wanted to get in your panties. so he said some pretty words but what you didn't know was he was bragging to his posse 'i don't mean anything i'm about to tell her.'
that's bambi obama.
he lied to the american people tuesday night. he'd already told canada (which wants nafta to remain) that they should ignore what he says in the debate because he's just trying to get the panties off america and, after he has his way with us, he'll do whatever he damn well pleases.
are we going to be a notch in some pretty boy's belt?
i love hillary's new ad and if you click on 'Watch.' and can stream online, you can see it. it has bambi in an uproar so you know it's good.
this is from cbs news' 'For The Record: Barack Obama: A Closer Look At The Candidate's Background - From Local Church To State Senate To Capitol Hill:'
In more than 4,000 votes, Obama voted "present" - that's the yellow button on the right of a state Senate voting apparatus - some 129 times. That's a cop-out, say his critics. "That's not 'yes,' that's not 'no,'" said Sen. Hillary Clinton while debating Obama. "That's 'maybe.'" Obama even voted "present" on a bill involving sexual abuse that he had sponsored himself - saying he discovered legal questions after its introduction.
And yet voting "present" in Illinois can be used to avoid making a choice. "It's not that unusual for this to occur," said Chris Mooney, a political scientist at the University of Illinois. His rise in the current campaign is consistent with what has to be considered a charmed political life. "The hopes of a skinny kid with a funny name that America had a place for him too," Obama said in his speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004. That speech brought even Hillary Clinton out of her seat. And his Senate race took off just as his Republican opponent fell apart.
"The Obama phenomenon. A wave that just can't be stopped … it just continues to crest," said David Mendell of the Chicago Tribune and author of the book, "Obama: From Promise to Power." Once in Washington, Obama fought to cut dependence on foreign oil, provide relief for wounded soldiers and he led a successfull fight to limit the influence of lobbyists. "A lot of the detail in terms of the disclosure provisions for lobbying really came from Obama," said Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute.
But there are some questions. In a February debate, he said: "I said very early on I would not take PAC money. I would not take money from federal-registered lobbyists." Not now - but he did accept at least $1.2 million from special interest political action committees for his U.S. Senate campaign. And that helped elect him. He takes credit for battling the nuclear industry, but a plan to improve reporting of radiation leaks was watered down - by him - partly due to industry opposition. And it never passed. Employees and officials of Exelon - one of the companies involved - contributed almost $270,000 to his presidential and Senate campaigns. Obama is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - and but he's been absent a lot. He has yet to meet British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, for example, or the leaders of Germany, Russia or even Canada, according to his staff.
and this is from cbs news' 'For The Record: Hillary Clinton: A Closer Look At The Candidate's Background - From Law Firm To White House To Capitol Hill:'
(CBS) Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential potential has been a topic of discussion among her peers since the '60s, CBS News correspondent Nancy Cordes reports. "I have 35 years of experience," she says on the campaign trail.
That would take us back to 1973, the year she graduated from Yale Law School and went to work for the Children's Defense Fund, interviewing juvenile offenders and dropouts. Over the next few years she moved from one success to the next: Serving as a staff lawyer on the House Judiciary Committee as it considered impeaching President Nixon during Watergate; teaching criminal law at the University of Arkansas; heading the Legal Services Corporation, which represented the poor, after first being appointed to the board by President Carter.
In 1979, the year her husband became Governor of Arkansas, Hillary Rodham who raised eyebrows by declining to take his name, became the first female partner at the prestigious Rose Law Firm in Little Rock. "Because there were so few women and particularly so few young women involved in traditional male venues, clearly her mere presence probably turned some people off," said Jay Barth, an associate professor of political science at Hendrix College. Arkansas' first lady decided to take a shot at reforming the state's abysmal education system. "I really believe that our young students need as much personal attention as they can get," Clinton said at the time. It was a tough sell, involving the largest tax increase in the state's history and testing for teachers. "Hillary went out into the state. She held public hearings I think in all 75 counties and she very effectively disarmed her critics," said Political Science Professor Hal Bass of Ouachita Baptist University.
bambi gives you pretty words - often plagiarizing them - and nothing more. it should be obvious. he gave the american people pretty words on tuesday night but only after letting the canadian government know he didn't mean them before he said them.
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Friday, February 29, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, a priest is kidnapped in Mosul, the Turkish invasion of nothern Iraq apparently ends, and more.
Starting with war resistance. Courage to Resist interviews war resister Robin Long who is seeking safe harbor status in Canada. Long was stationed at Fort Knox and hearing stories from returning service members that didn't have a thing to do with democracy. "In the army you just want to fit in," Long explained noting how the US military uses collective punishment to discipline their own -- which is to create a shunning among the enlisted. Those returning from Iraq, "a lot of them were bragging about I guess you could say what was going on there," Long explained, and he was hearing and seeing things that weren't being covered in the media such as pictures of the first kill ("holding a head up" for the photo "and smiling with a peace sign," photos of an Iraqi run over by a jeep, etc.). After self-checking out of the military, he stayed in a friend's basement for two months and then went to Canada with two friends. At the border, Long was asked if he was AWOL ("which I found out later that they weren't allowed to do") and replied that he was on leave. About his decision, Long says he has no second thoughts. If he is deported would he be stopped at the US border and taken to jail? Long shared that war resister Brad McCall had a friend take his car back to the United States and when the car crossed the border into the US "they were holding him at gun point, the guy that was bringing his car back, thinking that he was the war resister. So that's a pretty good idea of what's going to happen to me if I try to cross the border. If I'm deported they're going to be waiting there."
War resisters who have moved to Canada were dealt a serious set-back when the Canadian Supreme Court refused to hear the appeals of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Today, Canada's Parliament remaining the best hope for safe harbor war resisters have, you can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. That is the sort of thing that should receive attention but instead it's ignored.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty 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 [(877) 447-4487], 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 addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC action:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation. Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'." As part of their fundraising efforts for the event, they are holding houseparties and a recent one in Boston featured both IVAW's Liam Madden and the incomprable Howard Zinn as speakers. IVAW's co-chair Adam Kokesh will, of course, be participating and he explains why at his site, "But out of a strong sense of duty, some of us are trying to put our experiences to use for a good cause. Some of us couldn't live with ourselves if weren't doing everything we could to bring our brothers and sisters home as soon as possible. The environment may be unking, but that is why I will be testifying to shooting at civilians as a result of changing Rules of Engagement, abuse of detainees, and desecration of Iraqi bodies. It won't be easy but it must be done. Some of the stories are things that are difficult to admit that I was a part of, but if one more veteran realizes that they are not alone because of my testimony it will be worth it."
Aaron Glantz (at IPS) writes about the March action:
Iraq Veterans Against the War is calling the gathering "Winter Soldier," after a quote from the U.S. revolutionary Thomas Paine, who wrote in 1776: "These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman." Organisers say video and photographic evidence will also be presented, and the testimony and panels will be broadcast live on Satellite TV and streaming video on ivaw.org. Winter Soldier is modeled on a similar event held by Vietnam Veterans 37 years ago. In 1971, over 100 members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with fellow citizens. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. "Initially even the My Lai massacre was denied," notes Gerald Nicosia, whose book "Home to War" provides the most exhaustive history of the Vietnam veterans' movement. "The U.S. military has traditionally denied these accusations based on the fact that 'this is a crazy soldier' or 'this is a malcontent' -- that you can't trust this person. And that is the reason that Vietnam Veterans Against the War did this unified presentation in Detriot in 1971." "They brought together their bona fides and wore their medals and showed it was more than one or two or three malcontents. It was medal-winning, honored soldiers -- veterans in a group verifying what each other said to try to convince people that these charges cannot be denied. That people are doing these things as a matter of policy." Early this morning, Gareth Jones and Paul de Bendern (Reuters) were reporting that Turkey's invasion has "wound down" at least in terms of "ground offensive". Tim Butcher (Telegraph of London) states, "Turkey has pulled out of northern Iraq after a week-long offensive against Kurdish rebels. The Turkish army claimed to have killed 240 Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) members with the loss of 27 of its own troops." Mark Bentley and Camilla Hall (Bloomberg News) note that this was Turkey's "biggest military incursion into the country in 11 years." Suna Erdem (Times of London) observes, "The announcement came a day after President Bush urged Turkey, its Nato ally, to end the incursion, but the military statement said the start and end dates had been set by general staff without any outside influence."
On the Turkish Embassy (in the US) website, bulletin points include, "This operation" -- the invasion of nothern Iraq -- "will be limited in size, scope and duration. Turkey has been among the staunchest advocates of the territorial integrity, sovereignty and national unity of Iraq. Turkish civilian and military authorities have been in contact with the relevant Iraqi and US authorities at highest levels prior to the operations." AFP reports that the Turkish military began returning to Turkey this morning while AGI states, "All the soldiers that had taken part in the attack on the Iraqi part of Kurdistan are back in Turkey." AFP also notes that the PKK states they killed 100 Turkish soldiers during the invasion, "downed a Turkish attack helicopter" and their death toll was 5. So was the "limited . . . duration" always supposed to translate as the invasion ending today? One caught by surprise is the Turkish Daily News which, in a Friday article, notes, "NATO allies Turkey and the United States failed to reach a consensus yesterday over a timetable for the withdrawal of Turkish troops" and quotes Yasar Buyukanit, Turkey's Chief of General Staff General, stating, "Short term is a relative notion. Sometimes it is a day, sometimes it is a year." Al Jazeera quotes their corespondent Mike Hanna, "The Turkish military insists that the decision was taken by the military alone but reports we're receiving from across the border in Turkey is that questions are being raised about the Turkish withdrawal coming so soon after what appeared to be mounting US pressure on the troops to pull out" and notes that a PKK spokesperson (Ahmed Davis) confirms that the Turkish military has withdrawn. [Sidebar, Naomi Klein's husband, journalist Avi Lewis, is hosting a weekly program on Al Jazeera entitled Frontline USA. Click here for a YouTube clip and here for another YouTube clip.] However, Mark Tran (Guardian of London) quotes unnamed US officials in Baghdad who caution that all Turkish troops may not be out of Iraq. Tran notes US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and others note the comments of the Bully Boy of the United States but is anyone noting yesterday's approximately $6.2 billion four-year loan to Turkey from the World Bank?
Azad Aslan writes the Kurdish Globe's editorial which opens with, "Similar to previous incursions, the recent Turkish invasion into south Kurdistan has only one major goal: to diminish and belittle the sovereignty of Kurdistan Region." Hiba Dawood (whom many know from Free Speech Radio News but Dawood is also a UPI correspondent) notes another editorial from a Kurdish paper (Al Ahali) that was written "by Faisal Abdul Hassan, an Iraqi exile in Morocco, said the Iraqi central government had no efficient response to the assault except sending a 'bashful' demand to the Turkish government to withdraw from Kurdistan." At the White House today, Gordon Johndroe worded carefully regarding the end of the invasion when he told reporters, "We've seen those reports that are just coming out. I think there's one thing that remains clear, and that is the United States, Turkey and Iraq all will continue to view the PKK as a terrorist organization that needs to be dealt with. So we will continue to have cooperation with them on dealing with that organization." NPR offers an audio report via Ivan Watson on today's Morning Edition.
Yesterday's snapshot noted Turksih entertainer Bulent Ersoy who spoke out against the invasion and she was then the subject of criticism. Pelin Turgut (Time magazine) explains, "So pervasive is the nationalist climate that Ersoy has been vilified for declaring -- on a national TV equivalent of American Ido, where she is a judge -- that if she had a son, she would not have sent him to fight this war. She is now under investigation for being 'anti-military.' Ersoy is widely popular but the response to her declaration has been bellicose." Nicholas Birch (The Scotsman) offers the quote and news. The quote differs from Reuters' version yesterday only slightly, "I am not a mother, nor ever will be, but I would not bury my child for somebody else's war." At which point, Turkey's version of Dennis Miller (Erbu Gundes) exploded, "May God give me a son so that I can send him off to our glorious army" followed by a phrase trotted out for military funerals leading Ersoy to add, "Always the same cliched phrases. Children go, bitter tears, funerals . . . And afterwards, these cliched phrases." Birch reports, "An Istanbul prosecutor promptly opened an investigation into her for alienating the people from military service, a crime punishable by up to three years in jail." The Turkish Daily News explains the criminal sentence (if found guilty) is two years but it "could be increased by one-third because the crime was committed via public medium." They also add this to her quote, "These wars are not like ones in the past. It is all decided by people sitting at tables and deciding that some boys should die. I am not a mother so I cannot relate to a mother's pain when she hears her son has died. But I am a human being." Today's Zaman reports that she has the support of European Parliament member Cem Ozdemir who states, "Bulent Ersoy is voicing the pain felt by mothers, and she is also questioning the ongoing Iraqi occupation. . . . We hope that a period of suppression is not started in Turkey that will deal a heavy blow to freedom of thought."
Meanwhile, Amit R. Paley and Joshua Partlow (Washington Post) report that puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki was talking big in Baghdad and they observe: Maliki's confidence seems untethered to political reality. Predicting when his government will fall has become a parlor game in certain circles in Baghdad. And some of his pronouncements -- like one on Thursday that "sectarianism has been eliminated" -- have struck Iraqi and American officials as bordering on the delusional. Sectarian killings are still common and political reconciliation remains elusive, a fact underscored by the veto this week of a law calling for nationwide elections, one of the few major pieces of legislation approved by parliament." They go on to quote "a senior U.S. official in Baghdad" who states basically, to replace the puppet at this time would mean even more "stagnation." The puppet as metaphor for the illegal war.
Noting al-Maliki's "unity" speech, Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) observes that violence continues in Iraq and that, "One of our Shiite Iraqi staffers asked if Maliki would go to Adil, a restive Sunni neighborhood in Baghdad where Sunni insurgents still operate and Shiites know they are not welcome. Maybe he can check out Hurriyah where Sunni residents have not returned. They were run out of the neighborhood in 2006 and some men were burned alive. Maybe he can ask the more than 88,000 mostly Sunni contractors that work with the U.S. to fight Al Qaida how they feel about the reconciliation effort. Many of them are former insurgents, very few have been absorbed into the government. People complain now that many act as warlords, in each neighborhood the law is in their hands."
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing that left two people wounded, a Diyala Province home bombing that went off during the midst of an Iraq military raid claiming the life of 1 corpse and a Mosul roadside bombing claimed 2 lives.
Shootings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Judge Abid Jassim and attorney Ahmed Al-Luizi were shot dead in Mosul.
Kidnappings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that the archbishop of the Cahtholic Church in Mosul was kidnapped and 3 "of his companisons" were killed. The BBC explains, "Archbisop Paulos Faraj Rahho was seized as he left a church in the eastern al-Nour district, it added. . . . Most of Iraq's estimated 700,000 Christians are Chaldeans -- Catholics who are autonomous from Rome but recognise the Pope's authority." Catholic World News states, "Bishop Paulos Faraj Raho was seized by terrorists who attacked his car as he left the Holy Spirit cathedral in Mosul after leading the Stations of the Cross on Friday, February 29. Three companions who had been in the car with him were killed." AP reports that Pope Benedict XVI has issued an appeal for "reason and humanity".
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad, Sameea Sofi's corpse was discovered outside of Kirkuk, General Mudhir Hadi Salih and General Amir Muhammad Al-Jibouri's corpses were discovered in Diyala province (blindfolded, shot to death) and the corpse of Ahmed Khalaf was discovered in Kirkuk (he was a local council member in Hawija).
Turning to US politics. "What I learned being in and out as you correctly point out is that there are a lot of people who have a lot of questions about the government and they don't exactly know where to turn to for answers because the corporate media don't tell the people the truth," so explains Cynthia McKinney to Kimberly Wilder (On The Wilder Side) in a video produced by Terry Morrone (a typo yesterday, it is "Terry Morrone"). Cynthia McKinney is running for the Green Party presidential nomination. In a wide ranging interview, former US Congress women McKinney explains why she became a member of the Green Party:
The Democrats are the ones who failed to repeal the Patriot Act, the Democrats are the ones who continue to fund the war. The Democrats are the ones who say that the Bush tax cuts are alright even though they railed against them when they were in the minority. Now that they are in the majority and they could do something about it they fail to do it. And so I decided on my birthday that I would declare my independence from the Democratic Party. And I would declare my independence from any national leadership that was complicit in war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture and all of the rest of it. I reject and I'm happy to have joined with other people in the Green Party who reject that as well.
And in terms of rejection, some Greens are less than pleased with Ralph Nader who announced his campaign for president on NBC's Meet The Press Sunday. The Green Party notes: "Green Party leaders expressed their disappointment in Ralph Nader's decision, announced on Thursday, not to seek the 2008 Green presidential nomination." They quote the party's co-chair Phil Huckelberry declaring, "A lot of Greens have supported Mr. Nader and wanted him to win the party's nomination. There has been an active effort by many Green leaders to 'draft' Mr. Nader as a Green candidate, and his success in recent Green primaries demonstrates that he remains a very popular figure within the Green Party. There is widespread disappointment among Greens that he chose to go a different route." Here's a tip, one that Jess (rightly) pointed out two Sundays ago -- no party holds primaries with a place-holders. That is ridiculous. If you can't declare you are running by a party's primary, you get no votes. You get no one holding your place. As Jess noted two Sundays ago, that needs to change immediately so that it never happens again. There's a chance of a roundtable at Third this Sunday to address this topic.
Ralph Nader's presidential website is up and running (and allowing comments). Among the topics written of thus far are impeachment and Palestinians. He has selected a running mate, Matt Gonzalez. Gonzalez is already doing what vice presidential candidates are supposed to do: hitting hard. Writing at CounterPunch, he takes on the myth of "anti-war" Barack Obama noting that, "I'm afraid to say I'm not just uninspired: I'm downright fearful. . . . First, he opposed the war in Iraq while in the Illinois state legislature. Once he was running for US Senate though, when public opinion and support for the war was at its highest, he was quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as saying, 'There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute.' The Tribune went on to say that Obama "now believes US forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration.' Obama's campaign says he was referring to the ongoing occupation and how best to stabilize the region. But why wouldn't he have taken the opportunity to urge withdrawal if he truly opposed the war? Was he trying to signal to conservative voters that he would subjugate his anti-war position if elected to the US Senate and perhaps support a lengthy occupation? Well, as it turns out, he's done just that." The myth of "anti-war" Barack Obama was addressed here last night so we'll instead focus on Hillary Clinton.
Hillary is running for the Democratic presidential nomination. The following statement is from Senator Clinton's office, not her campaign:
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton announced today that she has cosponsored legislation to ban the use of Blackwater and other private mercenary firms in Iraq.
"From this war's very beginning, this administration has permitted thousands of heavily-armed military contractors to march through Iraq without any law or court to rein them in or hold them accountable. These private security contractors have been reckless and have compromised our mission in Iraq. The time to show these contractors the door is long past due. We need to stop filling the coffers of contractors in Iraq, and make sure that armed personnel in Iraq are fully accountable to the U.S. government and follow the chain of command," said Senator Clinton.The legislation requires that all personnel at any U.S. diplomatic or consular mission in Iraq be provided security services only by Federal Government Personnel. It also includes a whistleblower clause to protect contract personnel who uncover contract violations, criminal actions, or human rights abuses.
As KeShawn pointed out in an e-mail today, Hillary Clinton's endorsements do not get noted on Democracy Now! -- though Goodman can repeat in headlines (two days in a row this week) the same endorsement of Barack -- among her recent endorsers is Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba. He joins a lengthy list of retired military and defense officials who have endorsed her (active military cannot make endorsements) and you can read about that at her campaign site. Hillary was in Waco, Texas today and among the issues she addressed was reducing the strain on US service members so that they will be deployed for 12 months and not the 15 month tours that have become the norm. Bully Boy could stop that now. He could have stopped it before it began. As noted yesterday, US House Rep Patrick Murphy asked General George Casey if Congress needed to pass legislation to get the tour of duty down to 12 months and keep it there but Casey felt it would 'tie up' the military's hands. Today in Waco, Hillary pledged that any US service member serving a 12 month tour of overseas "will have at least 12 months at home." She also addressed the issue of veterans' care and the need for a new GI Bill of Rights. Meanwhile, her opponet Barack Obama's homophobia is the subject of Susan UnPC's recent post (No Quarter) which notes Bambi's heebie-jeebies when he came to the Bay Area. Don't worry, Laura Flanders grants him absolution or at least provides silence from her perch as "out lesbian" for Bambi. Meanwhile Taylor Marsh (TaylorMarsh.com) notes that the Canadian government was warned by Bambi's campaign prior to Tuesday's debate not to pay attention to Bambi's NAFTA remarks, they were just words. She covers it here as well and offers a video.
From video to radio. WBAI's pledge drive is ending and Sunday The Nex Hour offers "Post-Warholian radio artists Andrew Andrew host." That's at 11:00 am to noon EST Sunday on NYC airwaves and streaming on WBAI while Monday they offer Cat Radio Cafe from 2:00 to 3:00 pm EST: "Poet Marie Howe reads from her new collection, "The Kingdom of Ordinary Time"; actor/playwright Brian Dykstra on his new one-man show on religion, "The Jesus Factor"; and actor Paul Hecht and musician Lisa Terry on "Parthenia, a Consort of Viols, Presents Hot Off the Press Concert of New Music and Poetry." Hosted by Janet Coleman and David Dozer."
iraq
dee knight
iraq veterans against the war
mcclatchy newspapers
kimberly wilder
aaron glantz
the washington postamit r. paleyjoshua partlowleila fadelradiowbai
cat radio cafe
3/01/2008
2/28/2008
this & that
"New Poll: Hillary Maintains Commanding Lead Among Hispanics in Texas"
Austin, TX - With less than a week before Latinos cast their votes in the Texas primaries, a new poll released today shows Senator Hillary Clinton with a commanding 41 point lead over Senator Barack Obama.
A new Latino Decisions Texas Poll found that Hillary leads her opponent among registered Latino voters in Texas 62% to 21%, with 15% undecided.
The poll also shows that in head to head general election match-ups, Clinton outperforms Obama against John McCain by a margin of two to one.
"While we are taking nothing for granted and working hard to earn every vote, Senator Clinton have a strong relationship with the Hispanic community in Texas dating back to 1972," said Congressman Solomon Ortiz (TX–27). "She's been working with the community for 36 years, and they understand that she's been tested, is fighting for them, and that she's the candidate who has the best chance of beating John McCain in November."
To view the complete poll click here.
i wanted to open with that because there's a lot of lying going on. you've got the media whores laura flanders and amy goodman spinning for every thing they have. (granted, they don't have much. certainly, they don't have real jobs.) also, as mike's 'Hillary, homeland security, etc.,' notes, ava and c.i. were correct in 'Panhandle Media' - hillary does have huge latino support in texas. but then the gas bags kpfa brought on were in nyc and dc and they really can't tell you what's happening in texas, can they?
breaking news - the just foreign policy counter that hasn't update in over 3 weeks? they're too busy slamming hillary to do the job they're supposed to.
supposedly, allegedly, they want to help people see how many iraqis are dying.
but they put that on hold to slime hillary repeatedly. robert naiman offers up a slam at hillary at - where else? - common dreams today. i don't know if i'd be calling any 1 names if i couldn't update my damn counter in over 3 weeks.
i just read the crap posted there and called c.i. we are both no longer endorsing cindy sheehan. others can do what they want. i know c.i. was waiting for the realization to hit cindy and it apparently never will. so we're not endorsing her. she's having ha-has in the comments. she's really stupid if she doesn't grasp - even after she claims to grasp how she was used - that she was kept away from obama for a reason. she's still being a puppet and we're not in the mood for it. it's not about her calling out hillary, it's about her refusal to call out obama.
if her 'friends' (who betrayed her, as she herself noted in her goodbye to the peace movement and the democratic party) really wanted to end the illegal war, wouldn't they have set the peace mom up to meet 'anti-war' bambi? they didn't.
this isn't about iraq. and cindy still can't grasp that. i know what this means for c.i., pelosi's getting a donation. i was reading over the phone cindy's little jabs.
we're sick of it. obama's not 'anti-war' (and that's the topic c.i. will be working on tonight when they get back to the hotel). cindy's refused to call out obama. guess she can't do that, guess she still wants to be used. i'm not for her now.
if she'd called out both - as some 1 who supposedly left the democratic party - was supposed to, it would be 1 thing. i wouldn't care at all. but this nonsense of only calling out hillary is bulls**t.
it's like her simpering little fool friend david swanson who passed on my e-mail without permission. that's why david swanson's been removed from all community sites.
he thought it was cute to pose as my friend and write me. i wrote him back and then find out he's forwarded my e-mail. he didn't ask me if he could.
when i confronted him on it, he acted like i was crazy and didn't know what i was talking about.
he's the idiot because the guy he forwarded it to was out of the country and had his e-mail account set on auto reply. in the auto reply, david swanson's foward of my e-mail (with david's comments) automatically bounced back to me.
so that's the idiot swanson.
in terms of cindy, if she still can't see that she was used - after she claims she knows she was used - and she still can't call out obama - while claiming to have left the democratic party - i have no use for her. from what i understand, she's blowing the lead she did have by going all over the country instead of focusing on her race.
i'm also getting really ticked off by the fact that she calls out hillary and nancy only.
have you noticed that? she doesn't call out any 1 else. when david obey went off on tina richards, even that didn't get a response from cindy.
it's always some woman she's slamming.
i don't think she's yet to learn how she was used. she was used. since she can't grasp that and continues to play like her strings are still pulled, my endorsement is pulled. c.i. and i based our endorsement on the fact that we thought she had woken up to reality. obviously, that's not the case. i'm guessing about pelosi getting a donation (but i'd bet money on it) from c.i.
i also think the impeachment movement is now officially dead. i think you're a fool to still make that your issue. it's over. bully boy's not being impeached now unless he starts a war with iran.
he'll coast out of office and no 1 gives a damn about impeachment as a driving movement these days. they're all off on the bambi train. but cindy didn't pick up on that either. or maybe she did and that's why she's still not called out the war hawk obama.
i didn't out david swanson until now. i didn't do that because i didn't want to hurt cindy's campaign. i've withdrawn mine endorsement and i no longer give a damn.
by the way, it was forwarded rev. lennox. that's why hip-hop caucus isn't noted at any community site.
it seems like a cheap little stunt, a laugh at my expense. i stayed silent for months (we're going back to august or september here). sometime (i think january), c.i. found out i was still upset about it and wrote lennox yearwood to explain why hip-hop caucus wasn't being noted (they e-mail all community sites all the time). he refused to clear up the situation and that was it for hip-hop caucus at our sites forever.
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Thursday, Feburary 28, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the Turkish invasion of northern Iraq continues, the House Armed Services committee holds a hearing, and more.
Starting with war resisters. Stephen Lendman (Global Research) reviews a new book by Francis A. Boyle ("distinguished University of Illinois law professor, activist, and internationally recognized expert on international law and human rights") entitled Protesting Power -- War, Resistance and Law (available in hardcover for $75.00 and in softcover for $24.95). Lendman notes Boyle was not allowed to testify at Camilo Mejia's court-martial but did get to give testimony during the sentencing and was allowed to testify at Ehren Watada's Article 32 hearing (August 2006) but not at the court-martial. Lendman summarizes Watada's February 2007 court-martial: "It began in February under very constricted rules -- denying a First Amendment defense and disallowing one questioning the legality of the war. However, legality issues were impossible to exclude, they directly related to charges brought, and the prosecution introduced them at trial. In addition, Watada firmly stated before testifying that he refused to deploy because of the war's illegality. Unable to pressure him not to so testify, the presiding judge" -- that would be Judge Toilet (aka John Head) -- declared a mistrial. He'd lost control of the proceeding, knew Watada was on solid ground, and had to prevent his evidence from being introduced to avoid the embarrassing possibility of an acquittal on one or all charges. If it happened, the war's illegality would have been exposed and its continuation jeopardized. Under the Fifth Amendment 'double jeopardy' clause, Watada cannot be retried on the same charges." In June 2006, Ehren Watada became the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to the Iraq War.
Meanwhile war resisters who have moved to Canada were dealt a serious set-back when the Canadian Supreme Court refused to hear the appeals of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Today, Canada's Parliament remaining the best hope for safe harbor war resisters have, you can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. That is the sort of thing that should receive attention but instead it's ignored.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty 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 [(877) 447-4487], 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 addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC action:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation. Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'." As part of their fundraising efforts for the event, they are holding houseparties and a recent one in Boston featured both IVAW's Liam Madden and the incomprable Howard Zinn as speakers. IVAW's co-chair Adam Kokesh will, of course, be participating and he explains why at his site, "But out of a strong sense of duty, some of us are trying to put our experiences to use for a good cause. Some of us couldn't live with ourselves if weren't doing everything we could to bring our brothers and sisters home as soon as possible. The environment may be unking, but that is why I will be testifying to shooting at civilians as a result of changing Rules of Engagement, abuse of detainees, and desecration of Iraqi bodies. It won't be easy but it must be done. Some of the stories are things that are difficult to admit that I was a part of, but if one more veteran realizes that they are not alone because of my testimony it will be worth it."
That action takes place next month. Today Kevin G. Hall (McClatchy Newspapers) reports on Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz whose new book with Linda Bilmes (The Three Trillion Dollar War) explains how the costs of the Iraq War and Afghanistan War are now over three trillion dollars. Hall reports, "In an interview, Stiglitz said that too much of the public debate has been over the wars' operational costs while the real budget strains would show up only years from now. 'The peak expenditures are way out,' he said, noting that the peak expenditures for World War II vets came in 1993." On the issue of costs of the illegal war, US House Rep Walter Jones declared today, "Uncle China is lending Uncle Sam money to fund the wars!"
Jones made his remark in this morning's House Armed Services Committee hearing on the Fiscal Year 2009 National Defense Authorization Budget Request from the Deptartment of the Army. Committee chair Ike Skelton noted in his opening statement, "Today's hearing is arguably the most important we will hold this year. We are a nation at war. The Army is faced with an avalanche of demands for ground forces, demands from multiple armed conflicts, from security commitments made to defend our allies and overseas interests, from a requirment to deter potential enemies around the world, and from a mandate to defend the homeland. . . . Today, the Army, along with the rest of the Department of Defense, is at risk of not being able to answer the demands of that strategy without suffering losses that this nation has previously deemed unacceptable." Those offering testimony to the committee were General George Casey -- former top commander in Iraq and now Chief of Staff US army -- and Pete Geren, the Secretary of the Army. The topic was the proposed financing requests for 2009.
Casey maintained that the US military was "not broken, it's not hollow, I lived through hollow in the early seventies." Casey was spinning and his pat answer when he doesn't have a response is to fall back on "General Pace will be here in April" or "That's more of a question for General Petraeus." While US House Rep Gene Taylor was concerned with IED jammers and the lack of training the military has with those (before deploying to Iraq), Rep Silvestre Reyes was concerned with his own political career. Reyes' questions revolved around the November elections and how he could get "beat up" if the Democrats are seen as "the party of earmarks." Therefore Reyes wanted Casey to respond whether or not Casey would back Congress if Congress gave the Army what he was asking for. Casey rambled but got no where leading Skelton to assert, "Excuse me, general, you're not answering the question." Skeleton urged Reyes to "restate" the question. Reyes explained he was asking if Casey would defend the Congress for asking for these items when the attacks of "Congress of earmarks" come in. In fairness to Casey, what Reyes meant by "defend" was never clear. Casey's requesting the items in an opening hearing. It's doubtful (and illegal) for Casey to appear in an attack ad on Congress in the upcoming elections. So was Reyes asking for a press release? For a press conference? It was never clear. However, it was very clear Reyes' first concern is how he will fair in the November elections.
US House Rep Solomon Ortiz was concerned with the "long range budget" and whether it fixes problems or not? Ortiz chairs the committee's subcommittee on Readiness and is co-sponsor, with Neil Abercrombie, of HR 834 which proposes: "That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that because serious readiness shortfalls exist within the Army, Marine Corps, National Guard, and Reserves, severely limiting the ability of the ground forces to respond effectively to any contingency or threat, at home or abroad and thus creating a potentially dangerous level of risk to the national security of the United States, Congress should restore and maintain the ground forces at the highest levels of readiness in the interest of national security and to ensure the integrity of the entire military force."
US House Rep Patrick Murphy was also concerned about readiness. He wanted to know specifically that, regardless of any upcoming announcements, would the length of tours be reduced. On Tuesday of this week, Casey and Geren appeared before the Senate's Armed Service Committee also offering testimony on the 2009 Fiscal Year. From that hearing, the only thing that the media picked up on was that tours in Iraq and Afghanistan would (maybe) drop from fifteen months to twelve months. (Some outlets picked up on the stop-loss issue, stop-loss will continue but they 'hope' to drop the numbers from 8,000 to 7,000 -- ignored was Senator Jim Webb's questioning of Casey which produced Casey's claim that the UCMJ had been applied to Defense Department contractors serving in Iraq.) Murphy wanted to know specifically with the Afghanistan War still going on, an incomplete serach for Osama bin laden, with "the majority of our military in Iraq," what happens "if we're still bogged down refereeing a civil war in Iraq?" And when Petraeus appears before Congress, Murphy wanted to know, "What happens" in terms of the reduction of tours of duty "if he comes back to us and says we need a 'pause' not a 'drawdown.' Casey maintained that regardless of a "a brief pause, as you say, that will not impact our ability to come off of 15 months . . . the most important thing for us to do is to come off 15 months."
Murphy noted that "we're begging for about 7,000 troops for Afghanistan from our allies" and wondered if Congress needed to "mandate that if you deploy for 15 months, you're home for 15 months, if you deploy for 12 months, you're home for 12 months"? Casey wasn't keen on that idea and claimed it would interfere with the military's ability to do their job. Which makes the 'promise' Casey and Geren made earlier this week seem even more hollow (even more hollow than Casey claimed, in today's hearings, his experiences in the seventies were).
Casey wasn't making promises. He was seriously confused and repeatedly referred to Representatives as "Senator" and was repeatedly corrected. He made a fool of himself injecting a joke into the proceedings "about the heart surgeon and the motor mechanic" with the heart surgeon explaining, "I do my work with the motor running." No one was laughing. (He was attempting to put foward the claim that it was difficult to train Iraqis in the midst of an illegal war.) But the comment that should be noted, because it may come back to haunt him, was when Rep Gene Taylor wanted to know about how prepared the military command was for what could happen in Iraq (porous borders) and weapons could come from in from anywhere -- any kind of weapons. Taylor dropped back to the Afghanstian War of the 80s and noted that the Russians were aware of Stingers but hadn't expected them to show up in that war. Casey responded, "Congressman, I am confident that we are doing everything to anticipate what the enemy might do and how he might do it."
Rep Walter Jones stated, "I think we've already had victory in Iraq." Though a fan of the escalation, Jones was referring to the immediate invasion. He wanted Casey to define "victory" in the Iraq War so that everyone would know "when this happens, the game is over, we have won." Casey fell back on his favorite cop-out, "That's more of a question for General Petraeus." Pressed further, Casey declared, "I believe we are working toward and need to get our presence down to a level that is acceptable to us and the Iraqis." He stated that as soon as the Iraqi security forces are where they need to be to maintain 'order,' that's 'success': "That's what I believe it looks like." Jones wasn't cheerleading that (and he cheerleads a lot). He insisted, "It's the same thing year afte ryear, year after year and the country [United States] cannot continue to wait 10 years, 100 years, for Iraqis" to take control of their country. Skelton also wasn't quick to accept this wave of Operation Happy Talk -- that it's just a matter of training and it's being done and things are going fine. He asked Casey, "Is it not true that the American army began seriously training the Iraqi forces in late 2004?" Casey answered it was true and it began in April or May. What followed was Skelton attempting to ask questions and Casey cutting in repeatedly. Consider the following paraphrasing. Skelton pointed out, "2005, 2006, 2007 and now we're well into 2008. Could you give us a target date as to when the Iraqi forces can be fully trained to take on their own security -- take it over and the United States Army can come home?" Casey replied, "They're going to need our help for some period of time." Skelton pointed out of his constitutents, "Folks at home say, 'How long have we been there? How much longer do we have to be there to train up these folks?" and stated that "somewhere along the line we ought to say, 'It's your baby'." [This is where Casey inserted his bad joke about the heart surgeon and the motor mechanic.]
One of the training 'successes' is the "Awakening" Councils or "Sons of Iraq." Now you've got a group that walked out this month and another that's on strike. On top of that, Sudarsan Raghavan and Amit R. Paley (Washington Post) report that the turncoats on a dime "are increasingly frustrated with the American military and the Iraqi government over what they see as a lack of recognition of their growing political clout and insufficient U.S. support." The reporters note that those who walked out in Diyala Province wanting the police chief fired said yesterday "they would disband completely if their demands were not met." This on the heels of the news that the highly touted legislative 'success' wasn't all of that. As noted yesterday, on February 25th White House flack Dana Perino was stating, "The President has been working towards reconciliation between the Sunnis and the Shia, and it's actually working on a political level in some ways. Especially we saw that last month, when they passed three laws in one day, which was quite a significant achievement for the Iraqis." However, provincial elections were one of the three and that legislation hit a roadblock. Steve Lannen (McClatchy Newspapers) explains the importance of what just got trashed, "The rejected bill, which sets out the political structure for Iraq's provincial governments and establishes a basis for elections in October, was only the second of 18 U.S.-set political benchmarks that the war-tore nation needs to reach." The now trashed law, Richard A. Oppel Jr. (New York Times) notes, "called for provincial elections by October, and it was hoped that it would eliminate severe electoral distortions that have left Kurds and Shiites with vastly disproportionate power over Sunni Arabs in some areas, a factor in fueling the Sunni insurgency. It would also have given Iraqis who have long complained of corrupt and feckless local leaders a chance to clean house and elect officials they believe are more accountable." Borzou Daragahi (Los Angeles Times) explains who threw out the roadblock, "The presidential council consists of President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, Shiite Muslim Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi and Sunni Arab Vice President Tariq Hashimi. They gave lawmakers vague reasons for rejecting the law, which includes dozens of articles, assuring them that they would provide notes later."
Meanwhile Turkey's invasion into northern Iraq continues. At the White House today, Bully Boy was asked about the invasion and he responded, "One, the Turks, the Americans, and the Iraqis, including the Iraqi Kurds, share a common enemy in the PKK. And secondly, it's in nobody's interests that there be a safe haven for people who are -- have the willingness to kill innocent people." Bully Boy went on to echo US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' earlier remarks, "I strongly agree with the sentiments of Secretary Gates, who said that the incursion must be limited, and must be temporary in nature. In other words, it shouldn't be long-lasting. But the Turks need to move quickly, achieve their objective, and get out." Reuters reports that Turkish singer Bulent Ersoy appeared on Turkish TV Thursday declaring that, "A war is waged with conspiracies designed in office rooms. Some people write it and everyone is forced to play along. If I were fertile and had a child, I could not accept burying him for others' plans." (Ersoy was a popular singer long before her sex change operation in 1981. Following that, she left the country due to some regulations. In 1988 she returned to Turkey and remains a very popular entertainer.) Great Britain's Socialist Worker concludes, "The spread of the war to the north is a mark of the growing instability created by the US invasion of Iraq. The Kurdish regions had been the most stable, with northern Iraq becoming economically dependent on Turkey. The US promised Turkey that it would crush the PKK, but it feared this would alienate Kurdish parties who are key allies of the occupation forces."
Kim Gamel (AP) reports that yesterday US forces killed a man in Muqdadiyah for wearing a "bulky jacket" and having "his hands in his pockets" and that "Iraqi police in Diyala province, where Muqdadiyah is located, said the slain man was elderly and suffered from mental disabilities and hearing problems. The police, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to release the information, said the killing occurred in a market."
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing wounded two people, a Habbaniyah bombing claimed 1 life and left two more people wounded and (last night on this one), Mudhaffar Turki ("chariman of the observation and complaints department in the integrity committee") was targeted with an unsuccessful assassination attempt in Baghdad that left him and another person wounded. KUNA reports six people were wounded in a Mosul bombing.
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an "Awakening" council member was shot dead in Diyala Province. KUNA reports 2 police officers were shot dead in Mosul today.
Kidnappings and torchings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports "the director of the southern branch of the electricy company" was kidnapped in Basra today while five homes were set fire and burned down in Diyala Province.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad and 3 in Al Anbar Province.
Turning to the media landscape. Carol Jenkins (Womens Media Center) notes last weekend's Saturday Night Live sketches [here for Ava and my piece on that], "The show recognized what many observers had come to feel: the media has conducted itself poorly and are worthy of parody. And watching Tim Russert, parodying himself last night, scowling eyebrows, raised voice, blustery manner and slightly weird questions -- encapsulated what's wrong with the media. Time seemed to have the mistaken believe that he was the third debater, an impression only heightened after the debate when Chris Matthews repeatedly lauded Russert on 'reeling in' Hillary Clinton with a question on her war vote." The Iraq War. Jenkins goes on to list Howard Kurtz and Howard Fineman as among those recognizine a media bias -- a pro-Obama media bias. But it's not just Real Media, it's also Panhandle Media. Take the trash that passes for 'journalism' on Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! these days. To her credit, Goodman didn't lead the headlines today with Chris Dodd's endorsement of Bambi; however, as Marcia pointed out yesterday, Goodman led it with it on Wednesday after having already included it as a "news" "headline" on Tuesday. Jeremy Scahill was a guest on the program today to discuss his talk with a foreign policy advisor on the Obama campaign (everyone assumes it's Samantha Power and the statements/justifications do read as if they're from her -- here for his article at Common Dreams on this topic). Goody played a clip from the debate. She didn't play the exchange everyone's working hard to ignore. We noted the exchange Tuesday night and Rebecca noted it Tuesday night. From the New York Times transcript of the debate:SEN. CLINTON: Well, I have put forth my extensive experience in foreign policy, you know, helping to support the peace process in Northern Ireland, negotiating to open borders so that refugees fleeing ethnic cleansing would be safe, going to Beijing and standing up for women's rights as human rights and so much else. And every time the question about qualifications and credentials for commander in chief are raised, Senator Obama rightly points to the speech he gave in 2002. He's to be commended for having given the speech. Many people gave speeches against the war then, and the fair comparison is he didn't have responsibility, he didn't have to vote; by 2004 he was saying that he basically agreed with the way George Bush was conducting the war. And when he came to the Senate, he and I have voted exactly the same. We have voted for the money to fund the war until relatively recently. So the fair comparison was when we both had responsibility, when it wasn't just a speech but it was actually action, where is the difference? Where is the comparison that would in some way give a real credibility to the speech that he gave against the war? [. . .]SEN. OBAMA: Let me just follow up. My objections to the war in Iraq were simply -- not simply a speech. I was in the midst of a U.S. Senate campaign. It was a high-stakes campaign. I was one of the most vocal opponents of the war, and I was very specific as to why. And so when I bring this up, it is not simply to say "I told you so," but it is to give you an insight in terms of how I would make decisions.
Did you catch the lie? Common Dreams can't stop pushing Bambi off on their readers including today. Click here for the bad 2002 speech (it calls out the illegal war, yes, it is a bad speech and one that takes for granted that Iraq had WMD which they didn't). What's the date on that speech? October 2, 2002. Obama was not "in the midst of a U.S. Senate campaign." He did not run for the US Senate in 2002. He was running for the Illinois state senate. It was not "a high-stakes campaign." He was running for re-election. He won the seat in 1996. He ran for re-election in 1998 and won. He ran for re-election in 2000 and won. He won for re-election in 2002 and won. It was not a statewide campaign. His race was one of 59 state senate races taking place in Illinois in 2002. [For Bambi as a state legislator, MyDD recommends Todd Spivak's article in the latest edition of the Houston Press.]
Since we noted Bambi's lies, Rebecca and I have had all sorts of whiners complaining that Bambi was referring to something else. As with Bully Boy, there's a lot of "Obama really means" going on (Jeremy Scahill takes part in peering into Obama's soul on Democracy Now! today). So let's go slow for the really stupid who think a politician's statements can be 'fixed.'
When was Bambi in a high-stakes race? The Democratic 2004 primary race? No. His only real opponent, Blair Hull, was done in by a whisper campaign launched by Barack Obama's campaign. They used their usual press contacts (including the same writer at The Chicago Tribune who's always been Bambi's bag man) to push rumors about Hull's former marriage repeatedly. But let's pretend that Bambi, commenting on 2002, actually was referring to that 2004 primary race. Did it take a lot to be against the illegal war? No. Blair Hull, a veteran, was also against the Iraq War. Dick Durbin's opposition to the illegal war wasn't held against him by the voters of Illinois. So it wasn't the primary. What about the campaign for the general election, was that "high-stakes" for Bambi to stake out a position against the illegal war? [He was not against the illegal war during this time, but let's all buy the lie.]
March 16, 2004 was the primary election. Obama won the Democratic primary, Jack Ryan won the Republican primary. The Obama campaign launched a whisper campaign against Jack Ryan almost immediately. And, not surprisingly, Obama's usual crowd of supporters today were penning columns on his Senate run. The whisper campaign gets real traction beginning in late April (whisper campaign against Jack Ryan and his ex-wife Jeri Ryan). You have The Chicago Tribune (and a local station) suing to unseal the records. Jack Ryan is out of the race June 25th. Three months after Obama became the Democratic nominee in the Senate race. "High-stakes"? No. July? No oppenent at all. A few consider it but none decide on running. August 8, 2004 is when Alan Keyes agrees to become the GOP nominee. Keyes did not (and never had) lived in Illinois. In 1988, he ran for the US Senate from Maryland and only got 38% of the vote, in 1992 he ran again and only got 29% of the vote. He was a joke and there was no "high-stakes" involved in his campaign. 27% would be the percentage of the vote Keyes received. That needs to be noted. Barack Obama has never won a tough state-wide race. In the state legislature, he was representing one of 59 districts. In 2004, whisper campaigns killed off his only real competition and he was left to run against professional joke Alan Keyes.
Barack Obama lied. There was never a "high-stakes" campaign he was in where it hurt him to be against the war. But while doing his US Senate race, he was against US troops leaving Iraq. That is reality and it will be addressed more tonight. Liars like Amy Goodman would prefer you not know that reality. But Obama was not calling for "TROOPS HOME NOW!" when he ran for the US Senate. That's a lie or, if you prefer, a fairy tale.
The debate was an embarrassment for Obama. As Ruth points out, he repeatedly cribbed from Hillary Clinton's answers as if he didn't have time to do his own homework. As Mike points out, Obama's 'excuse' for not holding meetings of the Senate subcommittee he chairs (one whose terrain includes NATO and Afghanistan) is laughable, "I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign." Then you decline the offer to be chair you do not let 14 months go by without holding a hearing. The Afghanistan War is not our scope, but it hasn't ended. Obama demonstrates no leadership but does suggest that he puts his own ego ahead of elected duties. As Kat and Rebecca pointed out last night, Bambi belittles Hillary's very real experience. Of course, when you don't have something, you campaign has to belittle it. We saw that take place in 2004 when the GOP belittled John Kerry's record of serving in Vietnam. As Elaine pointed out, his manner of destroying candidates in the past focused on whispers about their marriages. His campaign attempted to do that with the Clintons last year. When that failed (as always, the New York Times took the bait), it was time to find a new strategy: any criticism of Bambi is "racism." His campaign has played that strategy for months -- long before South Carolina but they really took it to a new level following New Hampshire. How long is that going to work? How long can every criticism be dismissed as "racism" before he turns off voters of all races?
In terms of Iraq, Dennis Ross argues in The New Republic that it's time for Hillary and Barack "to compromise on withdrawal from Iraq." He wants to argue (wrongly) that the escalation has worked (at least somewhat -- it's not worked at all). Ross futher wants to maintain that "if withdrawal is truly to be used as a lever to help broker such understandings" political understandings, "the approach to withdrawal needs to be more flexible and not driven by a rigid timetable." Yes, we've heard that "logic" every year of the illegal war (we've even heard it from Bambi himself). what makes this news is that Ross is an Obama advisor. It's not included in the column or in the slugline at the end. Ron Kampeas and Ami Eden (JTA) reported last August, "Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told a group of Jewish communal lay leaders that he is receiving advice on Middle East issues from Dennis Ross. . . . The association with Ross could help Obama solve a key dilemma: how to win the confidence of hawkish pro-Israel donors without alienating his anti-war base. . . Eric Lynn, Obama's liaison to the Jewish community, told JTA that his boss and Ross have had a realtionship for several years." The reporters then quote Lynn quoting Obama, "He says, 'Tony Lake and Susan Rice are my top foreign advisers,' but when it comes to the Middle East, Dennis Ross informally advises the senator."
There's no time but Cynthia McKinney is running for the Green Party's nomination for president. Terrny Morrone produced this video interview with McKinney which we will note in greater depth in tomorrow's snapshot. Correction to Tuesday's snapshot, Ralph Nader's 74th birthday was Wednesday not Tuesday. My apologies.
Austin, TX - With less than a week before Latinos cast their votes in the Texas primaries, a new poll released today shows Senator Hillary Clinton with a commanding 41 point lead over Senator Barack Obama.
A new Latino Decisions Texas Poll found that Hillary leads her opponent among registered Latino voters in Texas 62% to 21%, with 15% undecided.
The poll also shows that in head to head general election match-ups, Clinton outperforms Obama against John McCain by a margin of two to one.
"While we are taking nothing for granted and working hard to earn every vote, Senator Clinton have a strong relationship with the Hispanic community in Texas dating back to 1972," said Congressman Solomon Ortiz (TX–27). "She's been working with the community for 36 years, and they understand that she's been tested, is fighting for them, and that she's the candidate who has the best chance of beating John McCain in November."
To view the complete poll click here.
i wanted to open with that because there's a lot of lying going on. you've got the media whores laura flanders and amy goodman spinning for every thing they have. (granted, they don't have much. certainly, they don't have real jobs.) also, as mike's 'Hillary, homeland security, etc.,' notes, ava and c.i. were correct in 'Panhandle Media' - hillary does have huge latino support in texas. but then the gas bags kpfa brought on were in nyc and dc and they really can't tell you what's happening in texas, can they?
breaking news - the just foreign policy counter that hasn't update in over 3 weeks? they're too busy slamming hillary to do the job they're supposed to.
supposedly, allegedly, they want to help people see how many iraqis are dying.
but they put that on hold to slime hillary repeatedly. robert naiman offers up a slam at hillary at - where else? - common dreams today. i don't know if i'd be calling any 1 names if i couldn't update my damn counter in over 3 weeks.
i just read the crap posted there and called c.i. we are both no longer endorsing cindy sheehan. others can do what they want. i know c.i. was waiting for the realization to hit cindy and it apparently never will. so we're not endorsing her. she's having ha-has in the comments. she's really stupid if she doesn't grasp - even after she claims to grasp how she was used - that she was kept away from obama for a reason. she's still being a puppet and we're not in the mood for it. it's not about her calling out hillary, it's about her refusal to call out obama.
if her 'friends' (who betrayed her, as she herself noted in her goodbye to the peace movement and the democratic party) really wanted to end the illegal war, wouldn't they have set the peace mom up to meet 'anti-war' bambi? they didn't.
this isn't about iraq. and cindy still can't grasp that. i know what this means for c.i., pelosi's getting a donation. i was reading over the phone cindy's little jabs.
we're sick of it. obama's not 'anti-war' (and that's the topic c.i. will be working on tonight when they get back to the hotel). cindy's refused to call out obama. guess she can't do that, guess she still wants to be used. i'm not for her now.
if she'd called out both - as some 1 who supposedly left the democratic party - was supposed to, it would be 1 thing. i wouldn't care at all. but this nonsense of only calling out hillary is bulls**t.
it's like her simpering little fool friend david swanson who passed on my e-mail without permission. that's why david swanson's been removed from all community sites.
he thought it was cute to pose as my friend and write me. i wrote him back and then find out he's forwarded my e-mail. he didn't ask me if he could.
when i confronted him on it, he acted like i was crazy and didn't know what i was talking about.
he's the idiot because the guy he forwarded it to was out of the country and had his e-mail account set on auto reply. in the auto reply, david swanson's foward of my e-mail (with david's comments) automatically bounced back to me.
so that's the idiot swanson.
in terms of cindy, if she still can't see that she was used - after she claims she knows she was used - and she still can't call out obama - while claiming to have left the democratic party - i have no use for her. from what i understand, she's blowing the lead she did have by going all over the country instead of focusing on her race.
i'm also getting really ticked off by the fact that she calls out hillary and nancy only.
have you noticed that? she doesn't call out any 1 else. when david obey went off on tina richards, even that didn't get a response from cindy.
it's always some woman she's slamming.
i don't think she's yet to learn how she was used. she was used. since she can't grasp that and continues to play like her strings are still pulled, my endorsement is pulled. c.i. and i based our endorsement on the fact that we thought she had woken up to reality. obviously, that's not the case. i'm guessing about pelosi getting a donation (but i'd bet money on it) from c.i.
i also think the impeachment movement is now officially dead. i think you're a fool to still make that your issue. it's over. bully boy's not being impeached now unless he starts a war with iran.
he'll coast out of office and no 1 gives a damn about impeachment as a driving movement these days. they're all off on the bambi train. but cindy didn't pick up on that either. or maybe she did and that's why she's still not called out the war hawk obama.
i didn't out david swanson until now. i didn't do that because i didn't want to hurt cindy's campaign. i've withdrawn mine endorsement and i no longer give a damn.
by the way, it was forwarded rev. lennox. that's why hip-hop caucus isn't noted at any community site.
it seems like a cheap little stunt, a laugh at my expense. i stayed silent for months (we're going back to august or september here). sometime (i think january), c.i. found out i was still upset about it and wrote lennox yearwood to explain why hip-hop caucus wasn't being noted (they e-mail all community sites all the time). he refused to clear up the situation and that was it for hip-hop caucus at our sites forever.
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Thursday, Feburary 28, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the Turkish invasion of northern Iraq continues, the House Armed Services committee holds a hearing, and more.
Starting with war resisters. Stephen Lendman (Global Research) reviews a new book by Francis A. Boyle ("distinguished University of Illinois law professor, activist, and internationally recognized expert on international law and human rights") entitled Protesting Power -- War, Resistance and Law (available in hardcover for $75.00 and in softcover for $24.95). Lendman notes Boyle was not allowed to testify at Camilo Mejia's court-martial but did get to give testimony during the sentencing and was allowed to testify at Ehren Watada's Article 32 hearing (August 2006) but not at the court-martial. Lendman summarizes Watada's February 2007 court-martial: "It began in February under very constricted rules -- denying a First Amendment defense and disallowing one questioning the legality of the war. However, legality issues were impossible to exclude, they directly related to charges brought, and the prosecution introduced them at trial. In addition, Watada firmly stated before testifying that he refused to deploy because of the war's illegality. Unable to pressure him not to so testify, the presiding judge" -- that would be Judge Toilet (aka John Head) -- declared a mistrial. He'd lost control of the proceeding, knew Watada was on solid ground, and had to prevent his evidence from being introduced to avoid the embarrassing possibility of an acquittal on one or all charges. If it happened, the war's illegality would have been exposed and its continuation jeopardized. Under the Fifth Amendment 'double jeopardy' clause, Watada cannot be retried on the same charges." In June 2006, Ehren Watada became the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to the Iraq War.
Meanwhile war resisters who have moved to Canada were dealt a serious set-back when the Canadian Supreme Court refused to hear the appeals of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Today, Canada's Parliament remaining the best hope for safe harbor war resisters have, you can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. That is the sort of thing that should receive attention but instead it's ignored.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty 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 [(877) 447-4487], 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 addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC action:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation. Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'." As part of their fundraising efforts for the event, they are holding houseparties and a recent one in Boston featured both IVAW's Liam Madden and the incomprable Howard Zinn as speakers. IVAW's co-chair Adam Kokesh will, of course, be participating and he explains why at his site, "But out of a strong sense of duty, some of us are trying to put our experiences to use for a good cause. Some of us couldn't live with ourselves if weren't doing everything we could to bring our brothers and sisters home as soon as possible. The environment may be unking, but that is why I will be testifying to shooting at civilians as a result of changing Rules of Engagement, abuse of detainees, and desecration of Iraqi bodies. It won't be easy but it must be done. Some of the stories are things that are difficult to admit that I was a part of, but if one more veteran realizes that they are not alone because of my testimony it will be worth it."
That action takes place next month. Today Kevin G. Hall (McClatchy Newspapers) reports on Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz whose new book with Linda Bilmes (The Three Trillion Dollar War) explains how the costs of the Iraq War and Afghanistan War are now over three trillion dollars. Hall reports, "In an interview, Stiglitz said that too much of the public debate has been over the wars' operational costs while the real budget strains would show up only years from now. 'The peak expenditures are way out,' he said, noting that the peak expenditures for World War II vets came in 1993." On the issue of costs of the illegal war, US House Rep Walter Jones declared today, "Uncle China is lending Uncle Sam money to fund the wars!"
Jones made his remark in this morning's House Armed Services Committee hearing on the Fiscal Year 2009 National Defense Authorization Budget Request from the Deptartment of the Army. Committee chair Ike Skelton noted in his opening statement, "Today's hearing is arguably the most important we will hold this year. We are a nation at war. The Army is faced with an avalanche of demands for ground forces, demands from multiple armed conflicts, from security commitments made to defend our allies and overseas interests, from a requirment to deter potential enemies around the world, and from a mandate to defend the homeland. . . . Today, the Army, along with the rest of the Department of Defense, is at risk of not being able to answer the demands of that strategy without suffering losses that this nation has previously deemed unacceptable." Those offering testimony to the committee were General George Casey -- former top commander in Iraq and now Chief of Staff US army -- and Pete Geren, the Secretary of the Army. The topic was the proposed financing requests for 2009.
Casey maintained that the US military was "not broken, it's not hollow, I lived through hollow in the early seventies." Casey was spinning and his pat answer when he doesn't have a response is to fall back on "General Pace will be here in April" or "That's more of a question for General Petraeus." While US House Rep Gene Taylor was concerned with IED jammers and the lack of training the military has with those (before deploying to Iraq), Rep Silvestre Reyes was concerned with his own political career. Reyes' questions revolved around the November elections and how he could get "beat up" if the Democrats are seen as "the party of earmarks." Therefore Reyes wanted Casey to respond whether or not Casey would back Congress if Congress gave the Army what he was asking for. Casey rambled but got no where leading Skelton to assert, "Excuse me, general, you're not answering the question." Skeleton urged Reyes to "restate" the question. Reyes explained he was asking if Casey would defend the Congress for asking for these items when the attacks of "Congress of earmarks" come in. In fairness to Casey, what Reyes meant by "defend" was never clear. Casey's requesting the items in an opening hearing. It's doubtful (and illegal) for Casey to appear in an attack ad on Congress in the upcoming elections. So was Reyes asking for a press release? For a press conference? It was never clear. However, it was very clear Reyes' first concern is how he will fair in the November elections.
US House Rep Solomon Ortiz was concerned with the "long range budget" and whether it fixes problems or not? Ortiz chairs the committee's subcommittee on Readiness and is co-sponsor, with Neil Abercrombie, of HR 834 which proposes: "That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that because serious readiness shortfalls exist within the Army, Marine Corps, National Guard, and Reserves, severely limiting the ability of the ground forces to respond effectively to any contingency or threat, at home or abroad and thus creating a potentially dangerous level of risk to the national security of the United States, Congress should restore and maintain the ground forces at the highest levels of readiness in the interest of national security and to ensure the integrity of the entire military force."
US House Rep Patrick Murphy was also concerned about readiness. He wanted to know specifically that, regardless of any upcoming announcements, would the length of tours be reduced. On Tuesday of this week, Casey and Geren appeared before the Senate's Armed Service Committee also offering testimony on the 2009 Fiscal Year. From that hearing, the only thing that the media picked up on was that tours in Iraq and Afghanistan would (maybe) drop from fifteen months to twelve months. (Some outlets picked up on the stop-loss issue, stop-loss will continue but they 'hope' to drop the numbers from 8,000 to 7,000 -- ignored was Senator Jim Webb's questioning of Casey which produced Casey's claim that the UCMJ had been applied to Defense Department contractors serving in Iraq.) Murphy wanted to know specifically with the Afghanistan War still going on, an incomplete serach for Osama bin laden, with "the majority of our military in Iraq," what happens "if we're still bogged down refereeing a civil war in Iraq?" And when Petraeus appears before Congress, Murphy wanted to know, "What happens" in terms of the reduction of tours of duty "if he comes back to us and says we need a 'pause' not a 'drawdown.' Casey maintained that regardless of a "a brief pause, as you say, that will not impact our ability to come off of 15 months . . . the most important thing for us to do is to come off 15 months."
Murphy noted that "we're begging for about 7,000 troops for Afghanistan from our allies" and wondered if Congress needed to "mandate that if you deploy for 15 months, you're home for 15 months, if you deploy for 12 months, you're home for 12 months"? Casey wasn't keen on that idea and claimed it would interfere with the military's ability to do their job. Which makes the 'promise' Casey and Geren made earlier this week seem even more hollow (even more hollow than Casey claimed, in today's hearings, his experiences in the seventies were).
Casey wasn't making promises. He was seriously confused and repeatedly referred to Representatives as "Senator" and was repeatedly corrected. He made a fool of himself injecting a joke into the proceedings "about the heart surgeon and the motor mechanic" with the heart surgeon explaining, "I do my work with the motor running." No one was laughing. (He was attempting to put foward the claim that it was difficult to train Iraqis in the midst of an illegal war.) But the comment that should be noted, because it may come back to haunt him, was when Rep Gene Taylor wanted to know about how prepared the military command was for what could happen in Iraq (porous borders) and weapons could come from in from anywhere -- any kind of weapons. Taylor dropped back to the Afghanstian War of the 80s and noted that the Russians were aware of Stingers but hadn't expected them to show up in that war. Casey responded, "Congressman, I am confident that we are doing everything to anticipate what the enemy might do and how he might do it."
Rep Walter Jones stated, "I think we've already had victory in Iraq." Though a fan of the escalation, Jones was referring to the immediate invasion. He wanted Casey to define "victory" in the Iraq War so that everyone would know "when this happens, the game is over, we have won." Casey fell back on his favorite cop-out, "That's more of a question for General Petraeus." Pressed further, Casey declared, "I believe we are working toward and need to get our presence down to a level that is acceptable to us and the Iraqis." He stated that as soon as the Iraqi security forces are where they need to be to maintain 'order,' that's 'success': "That's what I believe it looks like." Jones wasn't cheerleading that (and he cheerleads a lot). He insisted, "It's the same thing year afte ryear, year after year and the country [United States] cannot continue to wait 10 years, 100 years, for Iraqis" to take control of their country. Skelton also wasn't quick to accept this wave of Operation Happy Talk -- that it's just a matter of training and it's being done and things are going fine. He asked Casey, "Is it not true that the American army began seriously training the Iraqi forces in late 2004?" Casey answered it was true and it began in April or May. What followed was Skelton attempting to ask questions and Casey cutting in repeatedly. Consider the following paraphrasing. Skelton pointed out, "2005, 2006, 2007 and now we're well into 2008. Could you give us a target date as to when the Iraqi forces can be fully trained to take on their own security -- take it over and the United States Army can come home?" Casey replied, "They're going to need our help for some period of time." Skelton pointed out of his constitutents, "Folks at home say, 'How long have we been there? How much longer do we have to be there to train up these folks?" and stated that "somewhere along the line we ought to say, 'It's your baby'." [This is where Casey inserted his bad joke about the heart surgeon and the motor mechanic.]
One of the training 'successes' is the "Awakening" Councils or "Sons of Iraq." Now you've got a group that walked out this month and another that's on strike. On top of that, Sudarsan Raghavan and Amit R. Paley (Washington Post) report that the turncoats on a dime "are increasingly frustrated with the American military and the Iraqi government over what they see as a lack of recognition of their growing political clout and insufficient U.S. support." The reporters note that those who walked out in Diyala Province wanting the police chief fired said yesterday "they would disband completely if their demands were not met." This on the heels of the news that the highly touted legislative 'success' wasn't all of that. As noted yesterday, on February 25th White House flack Dana Perino was stating, "The President has been working towards reconciliation between the Sunnis and the Shia, and it's actually working on a political level in some ways. Especially we saw that last month, when they passed three laws in one day, which was quite a significant achievement for the Iraqis." However, provincial elections were one of the three and that legislation hit a roadblock. Steve Lannen (McClatchy Newspapers) explains the importance of what just got trashed, "The rejected bill, which sets out the political structure for Iraq's provincial governments and establishes a basis for elections in October, was only the second of 18 U.S.-set political benchmarks that the war-tore nation needs to reach." The now trashed law, Richard A. Oppel Jr. (New York Times) notes, "called for provincial elections by October, and it was hoped that it would eliminate severe electoral distortions that have left Kurds and Shiites with vastly disproportionate power over Sunni Arabs in some areas, a factor in fueling the Sunni insurgency. It would also have given Iraqis who have long complained of corrupt and feckless local leaders a chance to clean house and elect officials they believe are more accountable." Borzou Daragahi (Los Angeles Times) explains who threw out the roadblock, "The presidential council consists of President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, Shiite Muslim Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi and Sunni Arab Vice President Tariq Hashimi. They gave lawmakers vague reasons for rejecting the law, which includes dozens of articles, assuring them that they would provide notes later."
Meanwhile Turkey's invasion into northern Iraq continues. At the White House today, Bully Boy was asked about the invasion and he responded, "One, the Turks, the Americans, and the Iraqis, including the Iraqi Kurds, share a common enemy in the PKK. And secondly, it's in nobody's interests that there be a safe haven for people who are -- have the willingness to kill innocent people." Bully Boy went on to echo US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' earlier remarks, "I strongly agree with the sentiments of Secretary Gates, who said that the incursion must be limited, and must be temporary in nature. In other words, it shouldn't be long-lasting. But the Turks need to move quickly, achieve their objective, and get out." Reuters reports that Turkish singer Bulent Ersoy appeared on Turkish TV Thursday declaring that, "A war is waged with conspiracies designed in office rooms. Some people write it and everyone is forced to play along. If I were fertile and had a child, I could not accept burying him for others' plans." (Ersoy was a popular singer long before her sex change operation in 1981. Following that, she left the country due to some regulations. In 1988 she returned to Turkey and remains a very popular entertainer.) Great Britain's Socialist Worker concludes, "The spread of the war to the north is a mark of the growing instability created by the US invasion of Iraq. The Kurdish regions had been the most stable, with northern Iraq becoming economically dependent on Turkey. The US promised Turkey that it would crush the PKK, but it feared this would alienate Kurdish parties who are key allies of the occupation forces."
Kim Gamel (AP) reports that yesterday US forces killed a man in Muqdadiyah for wearing a "bulky jacket" and having "his hands in his pockets" and that "Iraqi police in Diyala province, where Muqdadiyah is located, said the slain man was elderly and suffered from mental disabilities and hearing problems. The police, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to release the information, said the killing occurred in a market."
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing wounded two people, a Habbaniyah bombing claimed 1 life and left two more people wounded and (last night on this one), Mudhaffar Turki ("chariman of the observation and complaints department in the integrity committee") was targeted with an unsuccessful assassination attempt in Baghdad that left him and another person wounded. KUNA reports six people were wounded in a Mosul bombing.
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an "Awakening" council member was shot dead in Diyala Province. KUNA reports 2 police officers were shot dead in Mosul today.
Kidnappings and torchings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports "the director of the southern branch of the electricy company" was kidnapped in Basra today while five homes were set fire and burned down in Diyala Province.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad and 3 in Al Anbar Province.
Turning to the media landscape. Carol Jenkins (Womens Media Center) notes last weekend's Saturday Night Live sketches [here for Ava and my piece on that], "The show recognized what many observers had come to feel: the media has conducted itself poorly and are worthy of parody. And watching Tim Russert, parodying himself last night, scowling eyebrows, raised voice, blustery manner and slightly weird questions -- encapsulated what's wrong with the media. Time seemed to have the mistaken believe that he was the third debater, an impression only heightened after the debate when Chris Matthews repeatedly lauded Russert on 'reeling in' Hillary Clinton with a question on her war vote." The Iraq War. Jenkins goes on to list Howard Kurtz and Howard Fineman as among those recognizine a media bias -- a pro-Obama media bias. But it's not just Real Media, it's also Panhandle Media. Take the trash that passes for 'journalism' on Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! these days. To her credit, Goodman didn't lead the headlines today with Chris Dodd's endorsement of Bambi; however, as Marcia pointed out yesterday, Goodman led it with it on Wednesday after having already included it as a "news" "headline" on Tuesday. Jeremy Scahill was a guest on the program today to discuss his talk with a foreign policy advisor on the Obama campaign (everyone assumes it's Samantha Power and the statements/justifications do read as if they're from her -- here for his article at Common Dreams on this topic). Goody played a clip from the debate. She didn't play the exchange everyone's working hard to ignore. We noted the exchange Tuesday night and Rebecca noted it Tuesday night. From the New York Times transcript of the debate:SEN. CLINTON: Well, I have put forth my extensive experience in foreign policy, you know, helping to support the peace process in Northern Ireland, negotiating to open borders so that refugees fleeing ethnic cleansing would be safe, going to Beijing and standing up for women's rights as human rights and so much else. And every time the question about qualifications and credentials for commander in chief are raised, Senator Obama rightly points to the speech he gave in 2002. He's to be commended for having given the speech. Many people gave speeches against the war then, and the fair comparison is he didn't have responsibility, he didn't have to vote; by 2004 he was saying that he basically agreed with the way George Bush was conducting the war. And when he came to the Senate, he and I have voted exactly the same. We have voted for the money to fund the war until relatively recently. So the fair comparison was when we both had responsibility, when it wasn't just a speech but it was actually action, where is the difference? Where is the comparison that would in some way give a real credibility to the speech that he gave against the war? [. . .]SEN. OBAMA: Let me just follow up. My objections to the war in Iraq were simply -- not simply a speech. I was in the midst of a U.S. Senate campaign. It was a high-stakes campaign. I was one of the most vocal opponents of the war, and I was very specific as to why. And so when I bring this up, it is not simply to say "I told you so," but it is to give you an insight in terms of how I would make decisions.
Did you catch the lie? Common Dreams can't stop pushing Bambi off on their readers including today. Click here for the bad 2002 speech (it calls out the illegal war, yes, it is a bad speech and one that takes for granted that Iraq had WMD which they didn't). What's the date on that speech? October 2, 2002. Obama was not "in the midst of a U.S. Senate campaign." He did not run for the US Senate in 2002. He was running for the Illinois state senate. It was not "a high-stakes campaign." He was running for re-election. He won the seat in 1996. He ran for re-election in 1998 and won. He ran for re-election in 2000 and won. He won for re-election in 2002 and won. It was not a statewide campaign. His race was one of 59 state senate races taking place in Illinois in 2002. [For Bambi as a state legislator, MyDD recommends Todd Spivak's article in the latest edition of the Houston Press.]
Since we noted Bambi's lies, Rebecca and I have had all sorts of whiners complaining that Bambi was referring to something else. As with Bully Boy, there's a lot of "Obama really means" going on (Jeremy Scahill takes part in peering into Obama's soul on Democracy Now! today). So let's go slow for the really stupid who think a politician's statements can be 'fixed.'
When was Bambi in a high-stakes race? The Democratic 2004 primary race? No. His only real opponent, Blair Hull, was done in by a whisper campaign launched by Barack Obama's campaign. They used their usual press contacts (including the same writer at The Chicago Tribune who's always been Bambi's bag man) to push rumors about Hull's former marriage repeatedly. But let's pretend that Bambi, commenting on 2002, actually was referring to that 2004 primary race. Did it take a lot to be against the illegal war? No. Blair Hull, a veteran, was also against the Iraq War. Dick Durbin's opposition to the illegal war wasn't held against him by the voters of Illinois. So it wasn't the primary. What about the campaign for the general election, was that "high-stakes" for Bambi to stake out a position against the illegal war? [He was not against the illegal war during this time, but let's all buy the lie.]
March 16, 2004 was the primary election. Obama won the Democratic primary, Jack Ryan won the Republican primary. The Obama campaign launched a whisper campaign against Jack Ryan almost immediately. And, not surprisingly, Obama's usual crowd of supporters today were penning columns on his Senate run. The whisper campaign gets real traction beginning in late April (whisper campaign against Jack Ryan and his ex-wife Jeri Ryan). You have The Chicago Tribune (and a local station) suing to unseal the records. Jack Ryan is out of the race June 25th. Three months after Obama became the Democratic nominee in the Senate race. "High-stakes"? No. July? No oppenent at all. A few consider it but none decide on running. August 8, 2004 is when Alan Keyes agrees to become the GOP nominee. Keyes did not (and never had) lived in Illinois. In 1988, he ran for the US Senate from Maryland and only got 38% of the vote, in 1992 he ran again and only got 29% of the vote. He was a joke and there was no "high-stakes" involved in his campaign. 27% would be the percentage of the vote Keyes received. That needs to be noted. Barack Obama has never won a tough state-wide race. In the state legislature, he was representing one of 59 districts. In 2004, whisper campaigns killed off his only real competition and he was left to run against professional joke Alan Keyes.
Barack Obama lied. There was never a "high-stakes" campaign he was in where it hurt him to be against the war. But while doing his US Senate race, he was against US troops leaving Iraq. That is reality and it will be addressed more tonight. Liars like Amy Goodman would prefer you not know that reality. But Obama was not calling for "TROOPS HOME NOW!" when he ran for the US Senate. That's a lie or, if you prefer, a fairy tale.
The debate was an embarrassment for Obama. As Ruth points out, he repeatedly cribbed from Hillary Clinton's answers as if he didn't have time to do his own homework. As Mike points out, Obama's 'excuse' for not holding meetings of the Senate subcommittee he chairs (one whose terrain includes NATO and Afghanistan) is laughable, "I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign." Then you decline the offer to be chair you do not let 14 months go by without holding a hearing. The Afghanistan War is not our scope, but it hasn't ended. Obama demonstrates no leadership but does suggest that he puts his own ego ahead of elected duties. As Kat and Rebecca pointed out last night, Bambi belittles Hillary's very real experience. Of course, when you don't have something, you campaign has to belittle it. We saw that take place in 2004 when the GOP belittled John Kerry's record of serving in Vietnam. As Elaine pointed out, his manner of destroying candidates in the past focused on whispers about their marriages. His campaign attempted to do that with the Clintons last year. When that failed (as always, the New York Times took the bait), it was time to find a new strategy: any criticism of Bambi is "racism." His campaign has played that strategy for months -- long before South Carolina but they really took it to a new level following New Hampshire. How long is that going to work? How long can every criticism be dismissed as "racism" before he turns off voters of all races?
In terms of Iraq, Dennis Ross argues in The New Republic that it's time for Hillary and Barack "to compromise on withdrawal from Iraq." He wants to argue (wrongly) that the escalation has worked (at least somewhat -- it's not worked at all). Ross futher wants to maintain that "if withdrawal is truly to be used as a lever to help broker such understandings" political understandings, "the approach to withdrawal needs to be more flexible and not driven by a rigid timetable." Yes, we've heard that "logic" every year of the illegal war (we've even heard it from Bambi himself). what makes this news is that Ross is an Obama advisor. It's not included in the column or in the slugline at the end. Ron Kampeas and Ami Eden (JTA) reported last August, "Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told a group of Jewish communal lay leaders that he is receiving advice on Middle East issues from Dennis Ross. . . . The association with Ross could help Obama solve a key dilemma: how to win the confidence of hawkish pro-Israel donors without alienating his anti-war base. . . Eric Lynn, Obama's liaison to the Jewish community, told JTA that his boss and Ross have had a realtionship for several years." The reporters then quote Lynn quoting Obama, "He says, 'Tony Lake and Susan Rice are my top foreign advisers,' but when it comes to the Middle East, Dennis Ross informally advises the senator."
There's no time but Cynthia McKinney is running for the Green Party's nomination for president. Terrny Morrone produced this video interview with McKinney which we will note in greater depth in tomorrow's snapshot. Correction to Tuesday's snapshot, Ralph Nader's 74th birthday was Wednesday not Tuesday. My apologies.
2/27/2008
women, we already know barack
MR. WILLIAMS: Now, Senator Obama, you can react to it and whatever you wanted to react to from earlier, but I've been wanting to ask you about this assertion that Senator Clinton has somehow cast herself as co-president.
SEN. OBAMA: Well, I think what is absolutely true is, is that when Senator Clinton continually talks about her experience, she is including the eight years that she served as first lady, and you know, often says, you know, "Here's what I did."
"Here's what we did." "Here's what we accomplished" -- which is fine.
does bambi push his wife around? does he give her orders? we know he goes on her job interviews with her. but what's going on when a tiny little man (a tiny little sexless man with the mojo of a ken doll) has to trash a woman's accomplishments. "here's what we did." i could hear the carters saying it. but apparently an obama presidency would mean michelle obama would be confined to a burqa.
now, granted, none of us ever want to again see michelle's side-boob, but none of us are calling for her in a burqa.
i think it's time we started worrying about michelle obama if her husband can't grasp why hillary clinton - 1 of the most activist first ladies, second only to e. roosevelt (or, as bambi might call her, 'mrs. f.d.r.') - would refer to it as 'we.'
hillary worked her ass off as 1st lady. unlike laura, she wasn't confined to the white house where she read trashy paper backs while going through a carton of lucky strike cigarettes. the difference between laura bush and hillary clinton is huge.
hillary actually worked. every time laura's tried to, in a 'soft' way, her screw-up husband has made it impossible. hold a poetry thing, great! woops, my idiot husband wants to start an illegal war and poets are speaking out, gotta cancel the event.
i don't see her as a step-ford wife. i don't think she's going around beaming all the time (certainly not when she's locked up with her smokes and paperbacks). i see her as a woman who is deeply saddened by her own life. i don't think i'm the only 1 who feels that way or the taboids wouldn't continue to pick up the narrative of 'they're going to divorce!'
she usually looks like she feels miserable in public. she generally puts on a forced smile and, as she tries to fake it, her voice rises higher and higher.
i feel sorry for laura bush. believe it or not.
i feel even sorrier when i picture her post-white house years because she and bully boy are very, very young for a 1st couple.
and now i feel sorry for michelle obama because she's married to a man who doesn't grasp what a partnership is. he doesn't respect marriage at all.
that's really not surprising when you look at his history. his father had 4 wives (i believe it was only 4 and this wasn't get-a-divorce, marry-again; this is multiple wives at the same time). his father's father had multiple wives. his books are embarrassing when it comes to his mother. she's practically a nympho the way he portrays her.
so he doesn't have any respect for women, that's clear. he makes it even more clear with his attacks on hillary. and with his refusal to show her respect. has any candidate ever touched their opponent as much as barack's touched hillary? this is a 1 time thing. this hasn't happened repeatedly. he reaches over and touches her.
it's offensive.
his ideas of women are offensive.
and women better remember that and remember that he has no record on abortion. he chose to vote 'present.'
he has shown outright hostility towards women and the only 'gals' invited into his circle are the 1s who are catty little bitches willing to attack other women for him. yeah, i mean miss clair and miss kathleen.
women should be very worried about barack obama. we all know him. he's the guy who ignores what we say at parties while staring down our dresses. he's the patronizing asshole who makes a show of 'humoring' us. he doesn't respect women and that's obvious.
he's been in search of a daddy since he got into the senate. joe lieberman, john mccain ... exactly what women does bambi get along with?
the man who says he grew up poor. the man who LIES because his grandmother was a banking wiz, a woman who broke through barriers. and we're supposed to believe his 'i grew up poor' b.s. because what does a woman matter?
he's a liar. he strips women of their accomplishments.
he's every guy who's ever followed you when you were getting your coat and tried to paw you. and you know not to feel bad for kneeing him in the nuts because, come tomorrow, he's going to be lying as he brags to every 1 that he got a little.
he has no stand on women's issues. is any 1 going to catch that?
are they going to grasp that this 'smooth talker' is the usual trash that we've all met. the 1 we try to ignore who just gets drunker and drunker and more aggressive?
he's practically pawed hillary in public. that's his mind-set. he works with 'men' and women are nothing but sexual release.
he is a smutty, smutty man with a tiny, tiny brain. women better pay attention to what he has to offer because it will not be good for us or good for the country.
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Wednesday, February 27, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US Congress holds some hearings, a journalist dies in Iraq, the Turkish invasion continues in northern Iraq and more.
Starting with war resisters. Earlier this month, Paul Boers (The Goshen College Record) reported on war resister Rob Weiss. At age 17, Weiss signed up for the US military and, following high school graduation and basic training, the Army sent him to Germany where he was stationed. For 18 months all was fine until he was home at the end of 2006 when the fiance of his sister died en route to the hospital and, as Boers explains, "This event caused Weiss to start thinking about his own mortality, especially as a soldier." Weiss explains to Boers about how he would explain his death, "What would I say? 'Sorry, I didn't have time to go to church. I was hung over.' I thought, 'maybe it's time that I would do something productive with my life other than getting bar fights and getting hammered drunk'." Exploring these issues and turning to the Bible, Weiss explains, "I was shocked by this message of peacemaking. There is a constant, recurring message of not responding in violence, unlike in the Army where they teach you to kill everything." On June 6, 2007, Weiss filed his conscientious objector status and as he waited for a response, he was sent to Iraq. While in Iraq, the decision came down: his CO application was denied. While on leave, Weiss self-checked out and went underground in the US. Speaking to Boers, Weiss explained, "I think it's better to turn yourself in and get it over with. I don't want to live in people's basements until the day I die."
Meanwhile war resisters who have moved to Canada were dealt a serious set-back when the Canadian Supreme Court refused to hear the appeals of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Today, Canada's Parliament remaining the best hope for safe harbor war resisters have, you can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. That is the sort of thing that should receive attention but instead it's ignored.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty 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 [(877) 447-4487], 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 addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC action:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation. Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'." As part of their fundraising efforts for the event, they are holding houseparties and a recent one in Boston featured both IVAW's Liam Madden and the incomprable Howard Zinn as speakers. IVAW's co-chair Adam Kokesh will, of course, be participating and he explains why at his site, "But out of a strong sense of duty, some of us are trying to put our experiences to use for a good cause. Some of us couldn't live with ourselves if weren't doing everything we could to bring our brothers and sisters home as soon as possible. The environment may be unking, but that is why I will be testifying to shooting at civilians as a result of changing Rules of Engagement, abuse of detainees, and desecration of Iraqi bodies. It won't be easy but it must be done. Some of the stories are things that are difficult to admit that I was a part of, but if one more veteran realizes that they are not alone because of my testimony it will be worth it."
Staying with veterans, the US House Committee on Veterans Affairs' subcommittee on Health held a hearing today. Subcommittee chair Michael Michaud explained in opening remarks, "Today's hearing is an opportunity for the VA, Veteran Service Organizations and members of this subcommittee to discuss draft legislation dealing with Fiscal Year 2009 VA construction. 38 United States Code requires statutory authorization for all VA major medical facility construction projects over $10 million and all major medical facility leases more than $600,000 per year. This hearing is a first step in this important process." Dennis Cullinan, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the US, testified on behalf of the VFW regarding the proposed "Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Authorization and Lease Act of 2008." Cullinan felt the budges were too low and placed the blame for that on "the administration" which "saw fit to halve the major and minor construction accounts from the Fiscal Year 2008 levels, failing to meet the future needs of our veterans." The White House has played it on the cheap with veterans care throughout this decade and they've generally gotten away with that. Cullinan stated the proposed legislation "demonstrates that this Congress is ready, able and willing to correct this situtiona and to advance VA's construction priorities so that future generations of veterans -- such as those currently serving in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Aghanistan -- will have a first-rate VA health care system ready to fully meet their needs." The proposal, as US Dept of Veterans Affairs' Donald Orndoff noted, mainly is about the "authorization for six major medical construction projects and twelve major medical facility leases".
Meanwhile, Dr. Dean Kilpatrick of the Medical University of South Carolina testified to the House Committee on Veterans Affairs yesterday on the subject of PTSD and this morning he testified to the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Kilpatrick is the direcyor of the National Crimes Victims Research and Treatment Center. And for context, the American Public Health Association's 135th Annual Meeting last November utilized these numbers for PTSD -- 12 percent to 20 percent of all veterans from the Iraq War will suffer from PTSD, over 52,000 veterans have already been diagnosed and treated with PTSD. In December 2006, Ann Scott Tyson (Washington Post) reported, "U.S. soldiers serving repeated Iraq deployments are 50 percent more likely than those with one tour to suffer from acute combat stress, raising their risk of post-traumatic stress disorder, according to the Army's first survey exploring hos today's multiple war-zone rotations affect soldiers' mental health." In his opening remarks today, Kilpatrick explained the basics.
Kilpatrick: I will begin with some background information of posttraumatic stress disorder. Briefly described, PTSD is a psychiatric disorder that can develop in a person after a traumatic experience. Someone is diagnosed with PTSD if, in response to that traumatic experience, he or she develops a cluster of symptoms that include
* reexperienceing the traumatic event as reflected by distressing recollections, memories, nightmares, or flashbacks
* avoidance of anything that reminds them of the traumatic event
* emotional numbing or feeling detached from other people
* hyperarousal as reflected by trouble sleeping, trouble concentrating, outbursts of anger, and having to always be vilgilant for potential threats in the enivornment
* impairment in social or occupational functioning, or clinically significant distress
The focus of the hearing was not PTSD, however. Kirkpatrick and others were members of the Institute of Medicine committee studying veterans health issues with a primary focus -- today -- on the ratings. Is the Scehdule for Rating Disabilities -- currently used to determine the financial benefits paid to wounded veterans -- adequate or even fair? Former American Medical Association president Dr. Lonnie R. Bristow gave an overview of areas the committee felt needed futher exploration and these included compensation for loss of quality of life, the differences in employment income for those suffering brain injuries as opposed to physical ones. Scott Zeger, of John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health noted veterans with "medical conditions that develope after military service" and the need to for "Congress or the Department of Veterans Affairs . . . to make a 'presumption' of service-connection so that a group of veterans can be appropriately compensated. Presumptions are made in order to reach decisions in the face of unavailable or incomplete information." The Center for Health Research and Policy's Joyce McMahon also addressed compensation and the need for a system that was inclusive, "Congressional language indicates that the intent of VA compensation is to provide a replacement for the average impairment in earning capacity. VA compensation is not an individual means-tested program, although there are minor exceptions to this." As with most studies, by the committee members own statements, the emphasis was on males and before Congress creates an 'inclusive system,' it would be better to actually be inclusive. At this late date, there's really no excuse to set up a system that will treat male as the norm and take decades of pressure to include women in the studies and then to begin addressing health and disability issues specific to women. Aaron Glantz (War Comes Home) reported last month on the continued crisis in veterans health care and noted, "The average wait time for a veteran's disability claim to be decided is now 183 days. More than 600,000 disabled vets are waiting. Tens of thousands more veterans are being totally denied medical care and disability benefits they were promised after serving abroad." The 600,000 waiting should especially stand out to those who remember the 2004 presidential debates. Senator John Kerry noted the crisis -- it was then and it is now a crisis -- in veterans health care and among the lies Bully Boy tossed out (and the likes of FactCheck.org quickly swallowed) was that the wait-time was going smoothly, right on track, boom-boom-boom. The reality, as Kerry pointed out repeatedly before the debate and after was that the wait-time was increasing. So when the figure of 600,000 emerges today, it has recent historical roots. Let's return to PTSD to note this from AP (November 2007): "About 42 percent of the Guard and reserves compared to 20 percent of active-duty troops, were identified as needing medical health treatment in two screenings. The first testing was immediately upon return from Iraq and the second six months later. Problems showed up more often on the second screening. . . . For those citizen soldiers, the military's Tricare health insurance benefits expire after six months: VA benefits expire two years after a soldier's return to civilian status." Ron Jacobs (Dissident Voice) reviews Michele Barrett's Casualty Figures and notes of PTSD, "We associate this disorder primarily with veterans of combat. What many people do not know is that this disorder was included into the bible of therapeutic mental health disorders only after a long struggle by the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and some other US veterans organizations in the 1970s."
Meanwhile the US House Committe on Oversight and Government Reform's subcommitte (Government Management, Organization and Procurement) held a hearing today where the issue was contractors and focused on three proposals (H.R. 3033, H.R. 3928 and H.R. 4881). Normally, this isn't a committee worth watching but US Rep Chris Murphy was in charge of the bulk of the hearing. Murphy had some serious exchanges with Paul Denett (Office of Federal Procurement Policy Office of Management and Budget) who appeared to be present mainly to throw a road block in front of the three proposed bills. "Your remark in your written testimony was" about stifling competition, Murphy noted, but "we already have this information . . . when it comes to public companies . . . Why are we concerned that simply requiring private companies to disclose a modicum of what we require public companies to disclose" would adversly effect competition?
Denett's reply was, amazingly, given with a straight face, "There are a lot of small busines who would be discouraged . . . [because] they don't want their employees to know what they're making." "Executive compensation" was the issue and Murphy wanted to know why these contracts -- to companies such as Blackwater -- result in executives making more -- in these private companies -- than the executives of public companies. Denett attempted to dismiss the issue by maintaining that "fixed price contracts" don't explore a company's compensation; however, Murphy noted that you can't determine fair price without knowing the profit margin and whether "10% to 20% is being taken off the top for executive compensation." Murphy noted that "any private investor" considering investing in a company would factor these facts into a decision of whether or not to invest in the company, so why doesn't the government factor them in when awarding contracts? US House Rep Peter Welch would also explore this noting that there has to be "some public disclosure" when these business are wanting tax payer dollars. Welch asked the US Government Accountability Office's John Hutton if the proposed legislation would cause Hutton professional problems and Hutton begged off with a lot of words that went no where leading Welch to observe, "I don't understand what you just said." Welch reminded that the money being handed ou twas "tax payers' dollars" and what was being asked for was "public information" -- "We're just simply asking for some information -- in this case salary information -- I don't see how it would in any way interfere with the procurement process." US House Rep Carolyn Maloney (apparently dressed to battle Dr. Doom -- what were those things, wings? -- I'm sorry, you wear that to a meeting, you're asking for your outfit to be discussed) noted that the legislation proposed is not out of the norm and already applies to construction companies. She futher wanted to know what was happening with regards to companies being awarded federal contracts when they didn't pay taxes? By then the hearing was already over because the committee's chair, Edolphus Towns, had finally arrived. The annual CBC report explains Towns but, for those who've never read it, let's just note the first question Towns elected to ask, "What needs to be done to bring you on board?" The question, naturally went, to Big Business and Pork Cheerleader Alan L. Chvotkin (Professional Services Council). As if that wasn't bad enough, after the hearing, Eldophus Towns would be walking around the hall clutching Chvotkin's beefy right arm. POGO's Scott Amey testifed as well and his opening remarks (PDF format warning) can be found here.
Yesterday Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) and an interpreter visited the Iranian ambassador in Iraq and the interpreter noted that he was "the second ruler of Iraq . . . After [US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan] Crocker." Fadel notes, "She never mentioned the Prime Minister of Iraq, Nouri al Maliki. She expressed what most Iraqis feel, Iraq is a tug of war for power between Iran and the United States." Which might be a good time to note that al-Maliki's back in London again -- he always seems to flee the country whenever there's a problem. The big problem for him these days is the invasion of nothern Iraq by Turkey. Kevin Whitelaw (US News and World Reports) explains that despite US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates calling for Turkey to 'quickly' complete it's invasion, "Turkish diplomats say the incursion will continue as long as the Turkish military deems necessary." Some have described the puppet government in Baghdad as 'anguished' and certainly al-Maliki's cabinet ministers (especially Kurdish ones) have called for Turkey to cease the military invasion. But al-Maliki, out of the country yet again, can't be feeling too much 'anguish.' Borzou Daragahi (Los Angeles Times) observes that today is day six of the invasion and that Turkey has rebuffed Iraq's insistance upon a speedy withdraw with Ahmet Davutoglu ("Turkish envoy") declaring, "Our objective is clear, our mission is clear and there is no timetable until . . . those terrorist bases are eliminated." Ben Knight (Australia's ABC) explains the time frame being addressed, "The US says Turkey should end its military campaign against Kurdish rebels in Iraq in a matter of weeks, rather than months."
In some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing that claimed the life of 1 person and left another injured, another bombing "targeting a Caprice carrying fuel cans" claimed 1 life and left two more injured, a Mosul bombing claimed 2 lives, two people were wounded in a Diyala Province bombing and, in the latest known attack on officials, Col. Anwar Qadir (chief of police) was targeted for assassination via a car bombing today but survived.
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports unknown assailants shot dead 1 border guard outside Tirkit and left two wounded, unknown assailants shot dead police Lt. Raid Khudair in Basra and (Tuesday night for this crime) unknown assailants shot dead a student at Mosul University. Reuters notes an armed clash in Mosul left two people dead and that unknown assailants "attacked a checkpoint manned by Iraqi police and members of U.S.-backed neighbourhood police unit, killing two and wounding three". Wisam Mohammed (Reuters) notes that Shihab al-Tamimi is dead from wounds received this weekend when he was attacked in Baghdad (gunfire) and notes the 74-year-old man "was an independent journalist working for many local newspapers. He was known for his outspoken views against the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the continued presence of U.S. troops on Iraqi soil."
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses were discovered in Baghdad and 1 corpse was found in Babil Province
In the US, how sad it must be to be Dana Perino today (let's be kind and leave it at today). The White House Flack declared earlier this week (Feb. 25th), "The President has been working towards reconciliation between the Sunnis and the Shia, and it's actually working on a political level in some ways. Especially we saw that last month, when they passed three laws in one day, which was quite a significant achievement for the Iraqis." It's no longer "three," it's now "two." CBS and AP report, "Iraq's presidential council rejected a measure Wednesday setting up provincial elections, sending it back to parliament in the latest setback to U.S.-backed national reconciliation efforts. The three-member panel, however, approved the 2008 budget and another law that provides limited amnesty to detainees in Iraqi custody. Those laws will take effect once they are published in the Justice Ministry gazette." Borzou Daragahi (Los Angeles Times) explains, "The Bush adminstration downplayed the setback. 'This is democracy at work,' said White House press secretary Dana Perino." Perino also declared today "I don't know if he has." That was in reply to the question (at today's press briefing), "The US military conducted 19 focus groups throughout Iraq last November, and its report on those focus groups stated that Iraqis from every ethnic and sectarian group are united in the belief that the US invasion is the root cause of the sectarian violence in Iraq and that the departure of the US military is the key to national reconciliation. And I wondered, has the President seen the military's report on those focus groups?"
In US political news, Margaret Kimberley (Black Agenda Report) shakes her head (rightly) at The Nation magazine:
It is incomprehensible that The Nation magazine endorsed Obama after making the following statement. "This magazine has been critical of the senator from Illinois for his closeness to Wall Street; his unwillingness to lay out an ambitious progressive agenda on healthcare, housing and other domestic policy issues; and for post-partisan rhetoric that seems to ignore the manifest failure of conservatism over these past seven years."
If The Nation has so many qualms about Obama, why endorse him at all? The editors could have simplay made a statement of non-support for Obama or Clinton. The sad plight of progressives is all too bovious. "While his rehtoric about 'unity' can be troubling, it also embodies a savvy strategy to redefine the center of American politics and build a coalition by reaching out to independent and Republican voters disgruntled and disgusted with what the Bush era has wrought." The Nation should explain to readers why Democrats ought to "redefine the center" with independents and Republicans instead of having their own agenda and fighting to make it a reality.
For another Nation critique, see Kat regarding Nader, and last night Bambi lied in the debate. Rebecca notes it here and it was also noted here. We may have time for that in tomorrow's snapshot.
SEN. OBAMA: Well, I think what is absolutely true is, is that when Senator Clinton continually talks about her experience, she is including the eight years that she served as first lady, and you know, often says, you know, "Here's what I did."
"Here's what we did." "Here's what we accomplished" -- which is fine.
does bambi push his wife around? does he give her orders? we know he goes on her job interviews with her. but what's going on when a tiny little man (a tiny little sexless man with the mojo of a ken doll) has to trash a woman's accomplishments. "here's what we did." i could hear the carters saying it. but apparently an obama presidency would mean michelle obama would be confined to a burqa.
now, granted, none of us ever want to again see michelle's side-boob, but none of us are calling for her in a burqa.
i think it's time we started worrying about michelle obama if her husband can't grasp why hillary clinton - 1 of the most activist first ladies, second only to e. roosevelt (or, as bambi might call her, 'mrs. f.d.r.') - would refer to it as 'we.'
hillary worked her ass off as 1st lady. unlike laura, she wasn't confined to the white house where she read trashy paper backs while going through a carton of lucky strike cigarettes. the difference between laura bush and hillary clinton is huge.
hillary actually worked. every time laura's tried to, in a 'soft' way, her screw-up husband has made it impossible. hold a poetry thing, great! woops, my idiot husband wants to start an illegal war and poets are speaking out, gotta cancel the event.
i don't see her as a step-ford wife. i don't think she's going around beaming all the time (certainly not when she's locked up with her smokes and paperbacks). i see her as a woman who is deeply saddened by her own life. i don't think i'm the only 1 who feels that way or the taboids wouldn't continue to pick up the narrative of 'they're going to divorce!'
she usually looks like she feels miserable in public. she generally puts on a forced smile and, as she tries to fake it, her voice rises higher and higher.
i feel sorry for laura bush. believe it or not.
i feel even sorrier when i picture her post-white house years because she and bully boy are very, very young for a 1st couple.
and now i feel sorry for michelle obama because she's married to a man who doesn't grasp what a partnership is. he doesn't respect marriage at all.
that's really not surprising when you look at his history. his father had 4 wives (i believe it was only 4 and this wasn't get-a-divorce, marry-again; this is multiple wives at the same time). his father's father had multiple wives. his books are embarrassing when it comes to his mother. she's practically a nympho the way he portrays her.
so he doesn't have any respect for women, that's clear. he makes it even more clear with his attacks on hillary. and with his refusal to show her respect. has any candidate ever touched their opponent as much as barack's touched hillary? this is a 1 time thing. this hasn't happened repeatedly. he reaches over and touches her.
it's offensive.
his ideas of women are offensive.
and women better remember that and remember that he has no record on abortion. he chose to vote 'present.'
he has shown outright hostility towards women and the only 'gals' invited into his circle are the 1s who are catty little bitches willing to attack other women for him. yeah, i mean miss clair and miss kathleen.
women should be very worried about barack obama. we all know him. he's the guy who ignores what we say at parties while staring down our dresses. he's the patronizing asshole who makes a show of 'humoring' us. he doesn't respect women and that's obvious.
he's been in search of a daddy since he got into the senate. joe lieberman, john mccain ... exactly what women does bambi get along with?
the man who says he grew up poor. the man who LIES because his grandmother was a banking wiz, a woman who broke through barriers. and we're supposed to believe his 'i grew up poor' b.s. because what does a woman matter?
he's a liar. he strips women of their accomplishments.
he's every guy who's ever followed you when you were getting your coat and tried to paw you. and you know not to feel bad for kneeing him in the nuts because, come tomorrow, he's going to be lying as he brags to every 1 that he got a little.
he has no stand on women's issues. is any 1 going to catch that?
are they going to grasp that this 'smooth talker' is the usual trash that we've all met. the 1 we try to ignore who just gets drunker and drunker and more aggressive?
he's practically pawed hillary in public. that's his mind-set. he works with 'men' and women are nothing but sexual release.
he is a smutty, smutty man with a tiny, tiny brain. women better pay attention to what he has to offer because it will not be good for us or good for the country.
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Wednesday, February 27, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US Congress holds some hearings, a journalist dies in Iraq, the Turkish invasion continues in northern Iraq and more.
Starting with war resisters. Earlier this month, Paul Boers (The Goshen College Record) reported on war resister Rob Weiss. At age 17, Weiss signed up for the US military and, following high school graduation and basic training, the Army sent him to Germany where he was stationed. For 18 months all was fine until he was home at the end of 2006 when the fiance of his sister died en route to the hospital and, as Boers explains, "This event caused Weiss to start thinking about his own mortality, especially as a soldier." Weiss explains to Boers about how he would explain his death, "What would I say? 'Sorry, I didn't have time to go to church. I was hung over.' I thought, 'maybe it's time that I would do something productive with my life other than getting bar fights and getting hammered drunk'." Exploring these issues and turning to the Bible, Weiss explains, "I was shocked by this message of peacemaking. There is a constant, recurring message of not responding in violence, unlike in the Army where they teach you to kill everything." On June 6, 2007, Weiss filed his conscientious objector status and as he waited for a response, he was sent to Iraq. While in Iraq, the decision came down: his CO application was denied. While on leave, Weiss self-checked out and went underground in the US. Speaking to Boers, Weiss explained, "I think it's better to turn yourself in and get it over with. I don't want to live in people's basements until the day I die."
Meanwhile war resisters who have moved to Canada were dealt a serious set-back when the Canadian Supreme Court refused to hear the appeals of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Today, Canada's Parliament remaining the best hope for safe harbor war resisters have, you can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. That is the sort of thing that should receive attention but instead it's ignored.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty 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 [(877) 447-4487], 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 addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC action:
In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation. Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'." As part of their fundraising efforts for the event, they are holding houseparties and a recent one in Boston featured both IVAW's Liam Madden and the incomprable Howard Zinn as speakers. IVAW's co-chair Adam Kokesh will, of course, be participating and he explains why at his site, "But out of a strong sense of duty, some of us are trying to put our experiences to use for a good cause. Some of us couldn't live with ourselves if weren't doing everything we could to bring our brothers and sisters home as soon as possible. The environment may be unking, but that is why I will be testifying to shooting at civilians as a result of changing Rules of Engagement, abuse of detainees, and desecration of Iraqi bodies. It won't be easy but it must be done. Some of the stories are things that are difficult to admit that I was a part of, but if one more veteran realizes that they are not alone because of my testimony it will be worth it."
Staying with veterans, the US House Committee on Veterans Affairs' subcommittee on Health held a hearing today. Subcommittee chair Michael Michaud explained in opening remarks, "Today's hearing is an opportunity for the VA, Veteran Service Organizations and members of this subcommittee to discuss draft legislation dealing with Fiscal Year 2009 VA construction. 38 United States Code requires statutory authorization for all VA major medical facility construction projects over $10 million and all major medical facility leases more than $600,000 per year. This hearing is a first step in this important process." Dennis Cullinan, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the US, testified on behalf of the VFW regarding the proposed "Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Authorization and Lease Act of 2008." Cullinan felt the budges were too low and placed the blame for that on "the administration" which "saw fit to halve the major and minor construction accounts from the Fiscal Year 2008 levels, failing to meet the future needs of our veterans." The White House has played it on the cheap with veterans care throughout this decade and they've generally gotten away with that. Cullinan stated the proposed legislation "demonstrates that this Congress is ready, able and willing to correct this situtiona and to advance VA's construction priorities so that future generations of veterans -- such as those currently serving in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Aghanistan -- will have a first-rate VA health care system ready to fully meet their needs." The proposal, as US Dept of Veterans Affairs' Donald Orndoff noted, mainly is about the "authorization for six major medical construction projects and twelve major medical facility leases".
Meanwhile, Dr. Dean Kilpatrick of the Medical University of South Carolina testified to the House Committee on Veterans Affairs yesterday on the subject of PTSD and this morning he testified to the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Kilpatrick is the direcyor of the National Crimes Victims Research and Treatment Center. And for context, the American Public Health Association's 135th Annual Meeting last November utilized these numbers for PTSD -- 12 percent to 20 percent of all veterans from the Iraq War will suffer from PTSD, over 52,000 veterans have already been diagnosed and treated with PTSD. In December 2006, Ann Scott Tyson (Washington Post) reported, "U.S. soldiers serving repeated Iraq deployments are 50 percent more likely than those with one tour to suffer from acute combat stress, raising their risk of post-traumatic stress disorder, according to the Army's first survey exploring hos today's multiple war-zone rotations affect soldiers' mental health." In his opening remarks today, Kilpatrick explained the basics.
Kilpatrick: I will begin with some background information of posttraumatic stress disorder. Briefly described, PTSD is a psychiatric disorder that can develop in a person after a traumatic experience. Someone is diagnosed with PTSD if, in response to that traumatic experience, he or she develops a cluster of symptoms that include
* reexperienceing the traumatic event as reflected by distressing recollections, memories, nightmares, or flashbacks
* avoidance of anything that reminds them of the traumatic event
* emotional numbing or feeling detached from other people
* hyperarousal as reflected by trouble sleeping, trouble concentrating, outbursts of anger, and having to always be vilgilant for potential threats in the enivornment
* impairment in social or occupational functioning, or clinically significant distress
The focus of the hearing was not PTSD, however. Kirkpatrick and others were members of the Institute of Medicine committee studying veterans health issues with a primary focus -- today -- on the ratings. Is the Scehdule for Rating Disabilities -- currently used to determine the financial benefits paid to wounded veterans -- adequate or even fair? Former American Medical Association president Dr. Lonnie R. Bristow gave an overview of areas the committee felt needed futher exploration and these included compensation for loss of quality of life, the differences in employment income for those suffering brain injuries as opposed to physical ones. Scott Zeger, of John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health noted veterans with "medical conditions that develope after military service" and the need to for "Congress or the Department of Veterans Affairs . . . to make a 'presumption' of service-connection so that a group of veterans can be appropriately compensated. Presumptions are made in order to reach decisions in the face of unavailable or incomplete information." The Center for Health Research and Policy's Joyce McMahon also addressed compensation and the need for a system that was inclusive, "Congressional language indicates that the intent of VA compensation is to provide a replacement for the average impairment in earning capacity. VA compensation is not an individual means-tested program, although there are minor exceptions to this." As with most studies, by the committee members own statements, the emphasis was on males and before Congress creates an 'inclusive system,' it would be better to actually be inclusive. At this late date, there's really no excuse to set up a system that will treat male as the norm and take decades of pressure to include women in the studies and then to begin addressing health and disability issues specific to women. Aaron Glantz (War Comes Home) reported last month on the continued crisis in veterans health care and noted, "The average wait time for a veteran's disability claim to be decided is now 183 days. More than 600,000 disabled vets are waiting. Tens of thousands more veterans are being totally denied medical care and disability benefits they were promised after serving abroad." The 600,000 waiting should especially stand out to those who remember the 2004 presidential debates. Senator John Kerry noted the crisis -- it was then and it is now a crisis -- in veterans health care and among the lies Bully Boy tossed out (and the likes of FactCheck.org quickly swallowed) was that the wait-time was going smoothly, right on track, boom-boom-boom. The reality, as Kerry pointed out repeatedly before the debate and after was that the wait-time was increasing. So when the figure of 600,000 emerges today, it has recent historical roots. Let's return to PTSD to note this from AP (November 2007): "About 42 percent of the Guard and reserves compared to 20 percent of active-duty troops, were identified as needing medical health treatment in two screenings. The first testing was immediately upon return from Iraq and the second six months later. Problems showed up more often on the second screening. . . . For those citizen soldiers, the military's Tricare health insurance benefits expire after six months: VA benefits expire two years after a soldier's return to civilian status." Ron Jacobs (Dissident Voice) reviews Michele Barrett's Casualty Figures and notes of PTSD, "We associate this disorder primarily with veterans of combat. What many people do not know is that this disorder was included into the bible of therapeutic mental health disorders only after a long struggle by the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and some other US veterans organizations in the 1970s."
Meanwhile the US House Committe on Oversight and Government Reform's subcommitte (Government Management, Organization and Procurement) held a hearing today where the issue was contractors and focused on three proposals (H.R. 3033, H.R. 3928 and H.R. 4881). Normally, this isn't a committee worth watching but US Rep Chris Murphy was in charge of the bulk of the hearing. Murphy had some serious exchanges with Paul Denett (Office of Federal Procurement Policy Office of Management and Budget) who appeared to be present mainly to throw a road block in front of the three proposed bills. "Your remark in your written testimony was" about stifling competition, Murphy noted, but "we already have this information . . . when it comes to public companies . . . Why are we concerned that simply requiring private companies to disclose a modicum of what we require public companies to disclose" would adversly effect competition?
Denett's reply was, amazingly, given with a straight face, "There are a lot of small busines who would be discouraged . . . [because] they don't want their employees to know what they're making." "Executive compensation" was the issue and Murphy wanted to know why these contracts -- to companies such as Blackwater -- result in executives making more -- in these private companies -- than the executives of public companies. Denett attempted to dismiss the issue by maintaining that "fixed price contracts" don't explore a company's compensation; however, Murphy noted that you can't determine fair price without knowing the profit margin and whether "10% to 20% is being taken off the top for executive compensation." Murphy noted that "any private investor" considering investing in a company would factor these facts into a decision of whether or not to invest in the company, so why doesn't the government factor them in when awarding contracts? US House Rep Peter Welch would also explore this noting that there has to be "some public disclosure" when these business are wanting tax payer dollars. Welch asked the US Government Accountability Office's John Hutton if the proposed legislation would cause Hutton professional problems and Hutton begged off with a lot of words that went no where leading Welch to observe, "I don't understand what you just said." Welch reminded that the money being handed ou twas "tax payers' dollars" and what was being asked for was "public information" -- "We're just simply asking for some information -- in this case salary information -- I don't see how it would in any way interfere with the procurement process." US House Rep Carolyn Maloney (apparently dressed to battle Dr. Doom -- what were those things, wings? -- I'm sorry, you wear that to a meeting, you're asking for your outfit to be discussed) noted that the legislation proposed is not out of the norm and already applies to construction companies. She futher wanted to know what was happening with regards to companies being awarded federal contracts when they didn't pay taxes? By then the hearing was already over because the committee's chair, Edolphus Towns, had finally arrived. The annual CBC report explains Towns but, for those who've never read it, let's just note the first question Towns elected to ask, "What needs to be done to bring you on board?" The question, naturally went, to Big Business and Pork Cheerleader Alan L. Chvotkin (Professional Services Council). As if that wasn't bad enough, after the hearing, Eldophus Towns would be walking around the hall clutching Chvotkin's beefy right arm. POGO's Scott Amey testifed as well and his opening remarks (PDF format warning) can be found here.
Yesterday Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) and an interpreter visited the Iranian ambassador in Iraq and the interpreter noted that he was "the second ruler of Iraq . . . After [US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan] Crocker." Fadel notes, "She never mentioned the Prime Minister of Iraq, Nouri al Maliki. She expressed what most Iraqis feel, Iraq is a tug of war for power between Iran and the United States." Which might be a good time to note that al-Maliki's back in London again -- he always seems to flee the country whenever there's a problem. The big problem for him these days is the invasion of nothern Iraq by Turkey. Kevin Whitelaw (US News and World Reports) explains that despite US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates calling for Turkey to 'quickly' complete it's invasion, "Turkish diplomats say the incursion will continue as long as the Turkish military deems necessary." Some have described the puppet government in Baghdad as 'anguished' and certainly al-Maliki's cabinet ministers (especially Kurdish ones) have called for Turkey to cease the military invasion. But al-Maliki, out of the country yet again, can't be feeling too much 'anguish.' Borzou Daragahi (Los Angeles Times) observes that today is day six of the invasion and that Turkey has rebuffed Iraq's insistance upon a speedy withdraw with Ahmet Davutoglu ("Turkish envoy") declaring, "Our objective is clear, our mission is clear and there is no timetable until . . . those terrorist bases are eliminated." Ben Knight (Australia's ABC) explains the time frame being addressed, "The US says Turkey should end its military campaign against Kurdish rebels in Iraq in a matter of weeks, rather than months."
In some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing that claimed the life of 1 person and left another injured, another bombing "targeting a Caprice carrying fuel cans" claimed 1 life and left two more injured, a Mosul bombing claimed 2 lives, two people were wounded in a Diyala Province bombing and, in the latest known attack on officials, Col. Anwar Qadir (chief of police) was targeted for assassination via a car bombing today but survived.
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports unknown assailants shot dead 1 border guard outside Tirkit and left two wounded, unknown assailants shot dead police Lt. Raid Khudair in Basra and (Tuesday night for this crime) unknown assailants shot dead a student at Mosul University. Reuters notes an armed clash in Mosul left two people dead and that unknown assailants "attacked a checkpoint manned by Iraqi police and members of U.S.-backed neighbourhood police unit, killing two and wounding three". Wisam Mohammed (Reuters) notes that Shihab al-Tamimi is dead from wounds received this weekend when he was attacked in Baghdad (gunfire) and notes the 74-year-old man "was an independent journalist working for many local newspapers. He was known for his outspoken views against the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the continued presence of U.S. troops on Iraqi soil."
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses were discovered in Baghdad and 1 corpse was found in Babil Province
In the US, how sad it must be to be Dana Perino today (let's be kind and leave it at today). The White House Flack declared earlier this week (Feb. 25th), "The President has been working towards reconciliation between the Sunnis and the Shia, and it's actually working on a political level in some ways. Especially we saw that last month, when they passed three laws in one day, which was quite a significant achievement for the Iraqis." It's no longer "three," it's now "two." CBS and AP report, "Iraq's presidential council rejected a measure Wednesday setting up provincial elections, sending it back to parliament in the latest setback to U.S.-backed national reconciliation efforts. The three-member panel, however, approved the 2008 budget and another law that provides limited amnesty to detainees in Iraqi custody. Those laws will take effect once they are published in the Justice Ministry gazette." Borzou Daragahi (Los Angeles Times) explains, "The Bush adminstration downplayed the setback. 'This is democracy at work,' said White House press secretary Dana Perino." Perino also declared today "I don't know if he has." That was in reply to the question (at today's press briefing), "The US military conducted 19 focus groups throughout Iraq last November, and its report on those focus groups stated that Iraqis from every ethnic and sectarian group are united in the belief that the US invasion is the root cause of the sectarian violence in Iraq and that the departure of the US military is the key to national reconciliation. And I wondered, has the President seen the military's report on those focus groups?"
In US political news, Margaret Kimberley (Black Agenda Report) shakes her head (rightly) at The Nation magazine:
It is incomprehensible that The Nation magazine endorsed Obama after making the following statement. "This magazine has been critical of the senator from Illinois for his closeness to Wall Street; his unwillingness to lay out an ambitious progressive agenda on healthcare, housing and other domestic policy issues; and for post-partisan rhetoric that seems to ignore the manifest failure of conservatism over these past seven years."
If The Nation has so many qualms about Obama, why endorse him at all? The editors could have simplay made a statement of non-support for Obama or Clinton. The sad plight of progressives is all too bovious. "While his rehtoric about 'unity' can be troubling, it also embodies a savvy strategy to redefine the center of American politics and build a coalition by reaching out to independent and Republican voters disgruntled and disgusted with what the Bush era has wrought." The Nation should explain to readers why Democrats ought to "redefine the center" with independents and Republicans instead of having their own agenda and fighting to make it a reality.
For another Nation critique, see Kat regarding Nader, and last night Bambi lied in the debate. Rebecca notes it here and it was also noted here. We may have time for that in tomorrow's snapshot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)