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.

obama caught lying again

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Merkel-ed" is above. marcia noted something tonight that i'm going to note as well. i agree with her that it is important. this is from hillary's campaign site and amy goodman will not note it when hillary gets endorsements.

"Hillary Clinton to be Joined by Senior Retired Military and Defense Officials at Today’s Foreign Policy Speech"
Clinton Unveils List of Flag Officers Endorsing Her for President
Hillary Clinton will set out her approach to American foreign policy in the 21st Century in a speech at George Washington University today. Joining her will be a group of senior retired military and defense officials who have endorsed her to be this nation’s next Commander-in-Chief. They are: General Wesley Clark, Lt. General Joe Ballard, Major General Antonio M. Taguba, Rear Admiral David Stone, Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr. and former Secretary of the Army Togo West. Generals Taguba and Watkins will formally announce their endorsement of Senator Clinton today.
Many of our nation’s most distinguished military officers stand proudly with Hillary Clinton because they believe that she has the strength, experience and leadership necessary to be President and Commander-in-Chief. They include three four-star generals, a former chairman and vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other Americans who have served their country with honor and distinction.
In addition to the endorsements of Generals Taguba and Watkins, Senator Clinton is proud to announce the endorsement today of Admiral William Owens (Ret.).
Admiral Owens served with distinction for more than 30 years in the Navy, rising to become Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the nation’s second highest ranking military officer.
Major General Taguba served his country with distinction for 34 years, retiring from the Army in 2007. The son of a Filipino-American who survived the 1942 Bataan Death March, General Taguba led the Army’s investigation into prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib in 2004.
Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr. served nearly 30 years in the Army and completed his military career as the Chief Operations Officer/Deputy Director of the Defense Information Systems Agency.
Admiral Owens, General Taguba, and General Watkins are among 27 flag-rank military officers who have endorsed Senator Clinton to be our nation’s next Commander-in-Chief. They join more than 2,000 veterans and military retirees who are members of Senator Clinton's national and state veterans’ steering committees.
Flag Officers Endorsing Hillary Clinton for President and Commander-in-Chief
General Wesley Clark
General John M. Shalikashvili
General Johnnie E. Wilson
Admiral William Owens
Lt. Gen. Joe Ballard
Lt. Gen. Robert Gard
Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy
Lt. Gen. Donald L. Kerrick
Lt. Gen. Frederick E. Vollrath
Vice Admiral Joseph A. Sestak
Major General Roger R. Blunt
Major General George A. Buskirk, Jr.
Major General Edward L. Correa, Jr.
Major General Paul D. Eaton
Major General Paul D. Monroe, Jr.
Major General Antonio M. Taguba
Rear Admiral Connie Mariano
Rear Admiral Alan M. Steinman
Rear Admiral David Stone
Brigadier General Michael Dunn
Brigadier General Belisario Flores
Brigadier General Evelyn "Pat" Foote
Brigadier General Keith H. Kerr
Brigadier General Virgil A. Richard
Brigadier General Preston Taylor
Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr.
Brigadier General Jack Yeager

amy goodman made time to note chris dodd. a laugh-a-minute senator. the human q-tip. which seems more important? i think it's obvious.

the university of austin's the daily texan (student newspaper) has come out with an endorsement as well. guess who they picked? hillary.

did you catch the debate? bambi wants credit for his judgement.

his judgement is 2002. he didn't have a vote.

in 2005, he did. and he used his vote repeatedly to vote for the illegal war.

i thought hillary made this point wonderfully. 'where is the difference?' she said noting he didn't have a vote in 2002.

i think she did an excellent job addressing qualifications.

bambi 'i was in the midst of a u.s. senate campaign' is what he said. c.i. told me 'LIE. he was re-elected to the illionis legislature in the nov. 2002 elections. he was not running for the senate. he was running for re-election. the speech was given in october.'

bambi just lies. that's all he has left now. 'the hope of liars.'

i feel bad. i called c.i. and c.i. just returned my call and is going 'now i have to put up something on this.' :) and c.i.'s already up. 'Barack Obama lied in the debate.'

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

Tuesday, February 26, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Senator Jim Webb asks hard questions of a general in a Senate hearing, a mass kidnapping takes place in Iraq, Pelosi wishes someone in Congress would do something (but not her), and more.

Starting with war resistance. Joshua Key's The Deserter's Tale and Camilo Mejia's Road from Ar Ramaid: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia are two books where war resisters tell their stories. They are also two books reviewed by Dee Knight (Workers World) who notes:

Both Mejía and Key had sufficient direct experience of being ordered to commit war crimes in Iraq that they had enough. As soon as they were allowed out of Iraq on leave, they decided not to come back. Mejía chose to refuse publicly and apply for conscientious objector status. He was rejected, and was sentenced to a year in military prison and a bad conduct discharge.Key just left. He rejoined his wife and their then three small children, and went underground for over a year. Finally, after "googling" the Internet with "deserter needs help," he got in touch with the War Resisters Support Campaign in Toronto."Sucking up the courage to drive to the border of my own country was the hardest thing I had ever done," he said.

Knight notes those who have followed Key and Mejia (and the other early war resisters of the Iraq War) including Lt. Ehren Watada and Pablo Paredes and the effects, "The GIs who have refused made their choices. And they have begun to change history."

Joshua Key and other 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."

This morning the US Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on the Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2009 and the Future Years Defense Program. Offering testimony were Pete Geren, Secretary of the Army, and Gen. George W. Casey, Chief of Staff Army. In a prepared joint-statement given to the committee in writing before the hearing began, Geren and Casey note:

The likelihood of instability will increase as populations of several less-developed countries will almost double in size by 2020 -- most notably in Africa, the Middle East, and South and Southeast Asia. The "youth bulge" created by this growth will be vulnerable to anti-government and radical ideologies and will threaten government stability. This situation will be especially true in urban areas in which populations have more than doubled over the last 50 years.
By 2025, urban areas with concentrations of poverty will contain almost 60 percent of the world's population.
Competition for water, energy, goods, services, and food to meet the needs of growing populations will increase the potential for conflict. Demand for water is projected to double every 20 years. By 2015, 40 percent of the world's population will live in "water-stressed" countries. By 2025, global energy demands are expected to increase by 40 percent, threatening supplies to poor and developing nations.

In the above statements you'll not only find where the US headed in the near future but the same sort of thinking that led to destabilization efforts in Greece, et al in the 1960s. "Young" populations have "worried" US planners for well over sixty years now. [PDF format warning, click here for the 24-page statement.] CNN reduces the hearing to troops stationed in Iraq or Afghanistan will drop from fifteen months to twelve month tours. That's rather skimpy for what was a very lively hearing. In regards to the issue of the months involved in a tour, the committee chair, Carl Levin, had to be rather specific repeatedly finally asking "shorthand, you have to drawdown to what level?" Levin also had to pin Casey and Geren down regarding stop-loss. Beaming, Geren declared that the Army will get the number of stop-lossed soldiers down to "a little less than 8,000 today" and insisted -- at length -- that the Army wanted to "move away from" using stop-loss. Stop-loss is the backdoor draft. It's when you're service contract is ending and you're told, "Forget what your contract says, you're staying." Pressed by Levin about the decrease in the number of soldiers stop-lossed that Geren was so optimistic about, the Secretary of the Army swallowed and stated, "It might get to 7,000." Wow. It might drop to 7,000. To hear him spin and spin before Levin pinned him down you would have thought the figure was going to be significantly below 5,000. Geren insisted, "We're growing this Army faster than we planned."

US Senator Bill Nelson wanted to know about the RAND Study. That's a study commissioned by the Army, conducted by RAND which reportedly found that the illegal war was not well planned for. "The chairman has already asked you to release" the report to the committee, Nelson pointed out and added, "I would like to additionally ask that the RAND study be sent to the intelligence committee." He addressed that topic quickly and moved to an issue he's been working on, "It has come to my attention from women in my state [Florida] about the rapes that have occurred in Afghanistan and Iraq. I have been after this to try to get information." But what he's getting is regarding the US military and what he's been asking for information on was the number of rapes among the contractors. He has asked for that information repeatedly and still has not received it. "What we're finding is incomplete information and also this never-never land of not knowing what to do and what the law is to apply and who's going to enforce it?"

Nelson went on to list what is needed. For Iraq, the information needs to start in March 2003 when the Iraq War started and needs to include:

*What are the service components and government agencies involved in each investigation?

*What is the status for the person involved in each investigation?

*Who has the jurisdiction or investigative authority?

*In writing a list of rules, regulations and policies governing these issues.

Nelson repeated that it's been a struggle to get any information at all and noted that one of the women assaulted is a Tampa constituent. The two witnesses assured it was possible for the information to be passed on. But these assurances have been coming since the end of the last year. And that is the point where the hearing (not dull before) really came to life.

"What law applied when you were commanding troops over there?" Senator Jim Webb wanted Gen. Casey to answer. UCMJ was Casey's reply, the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Webb asked if Casey was stating that "UCMJ applied to contractors?" Casey nodded and added it applied -- when he was commander of Iraq -- to those working for the Department of Defense. Webb wanted to know how many contractors this would have applied to and the number 20,000 was casually tossed around by Casey.

Webb: You had 20,000 contractors subject to the UCMJ?

Casey: I don't recall the number. . . . I want to say the number was around 7,000 to 8,000.

Webb wanted to know if any contractors "were discharged under UCMJ" and Casey replied, "I have vague recollections of a couple of cases, but I can't say for certain." The exchange between the two was an important moment and the press should pick up on it. Webb's face was pure disbelief in the comments Casey was making, the testimony Casey was offering. Webb declaed, "I'm not even sure how you could have a proper court under the UCMJ" for contractors since UCMJ applies to the military. Webb noted that when he started out on the Armed Services committee lat year, he was told that was a proposal -- UCMJ being used for contractors -- and now here was Casey before the Senate today "saying that it was being used?"

""I am not 100%" certain, Casey said attempting to beg off from his public statements. Webb responded, "I would think, quite frankly, if you were commanding you would know that. . . . It's not a difficult concept." Casey's command of Iraq (Commanding General of M-NF) began in June 2004 and lasted through the start of February 2007. For three years, Gen. George Casey was the top commander and a year after his command ended, he's stumbling around in public, making assertions and then attempting to withdraw them? While this exchange took place, Geren was attempting to intercede but would have to wait a bit longer.

Casey said that UCMJ was being applied to contractors of the Defense Department when he was commander in Iraq, Webb noted, "This came up in the personnell subcommittee last year as a proposal and I'm not aware of anyone, any civilian who was subject to the UCMJ." In addition, serious crimes have been committed by contractors and Webb would assume that if UCMJ applied -- as Casey was maintaining it did -- that there would have been something to pass on to the Senate sometime ago.

Again, it was the moment to follow in the hearing. Levin would later ask for all information regarding that and other issues of contractors breaking the law including "any understandings or agreements which have been reached between American or Iraqi authorities." Webb would ask Geren about modernizing the GI Bill to have something similar to what followed WII for those serving today and Geren would maintain everyone was all on board and for it which the Senate's heard before (repeatedly) leading Webb to ask, "Where's the hold up?" and "Does the administration oppose expanding GI benefits?" It was Geren's turn in the hot seat. He squirmed a little but fell back on US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and stated that Gates was reviewing recommendations currently.

Ted Kennedy would emphasize the Army's suicide rate which "was the highest it had ever been" in 2007 with 121 soldiers committing suicide "more than double the number reported in 2001 before we sent troops into Iraq." Kennedy would also note that that there has been a "24% increase in felony moral waivers" among recruits and that "only 79%" of recruits now have high school diplomas; furthermore he noted the shortage among officers which was 3,000 lower than the amount the Army stated they needed. All of this led Kennedy to ask about "a perfect storm": "It seems we're reaching a perfect storm here both in therms of young people going in" and those already serving in terms of retention, "is this the perfect storm that's happening in terms of the military? How serious should we be concerned about it?" Casey agreed ("You are right") and said this was an indication of "the signs of a force that is stretched and under stress."

As noted in yesterday's snapshot, Army Lt. General Carter F. Ham, the director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced that if there was a drawdown of US troops in Iraq over the summer, it wouldn't take the numbers below approximately 140,000 which would mean that approximately 8,000 more US service members would be stationed in Iraq since before the escalation/'surge' began. US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi reacted to the news by issuing the following statement yesterday:

The statement from the Pentagon today on troop levels in Iraq is an admission that the President's troop surge was not a temporary measure. There will be more U.S. troops in Iraq this summer than there were at the end of 2006, when the American people demanded a New Direction in Iraq. Both the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, and the Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey have stated that repeated Iraq deployments are severely straining military readiness, making our nation less capable of dealing with other serious threats. As we approach the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war, Americans continue to demand a New Direction in Iraq and reject a continuation of the President's plan for a 10-year, trillion dollar war in Iraq.

Pelosi's really surprised by this (obvious) development? On January 8, 2007, she said of the White House plans for an escalation that it was "war without end, which the American people have rejected." By "rejected," she was referring to the November 2006 elections when the voters returned control of both houses of Congress to the Democrats. January 5, 2007, she and the new Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent the White House a joint-letter:

The American people demonstrated in the November elections that they don't believe your current Iraq policy will lead to success and that we need a change in direction for the sake of our troops and the Iraqi people. . . . .
Despite the fact that our troops have been pushed to the breaking point and, in many cases, have already served multiple tours in Iraq, news reports suggest that you believe the solution to the civil war in Iraq is to require additional sacrifices from our troops and are therefore prepared to proceed with a substantial U.S. troop increase.


In an interview with Bob Schieffer (CBS' Face The Nation) which aired January 7, 2007, Pelosi declared, "Well if the president chooses to escalate the war, which is contrary to the, of course, the will of the American people -- they have spoken on the subject -- but even the advice of his own governement, his own generals -- in December, General Abizaid testified before the Senate that in his converstations with General Dempsey and with General Casey, they believe that adding more troops will not improve the situation there. And so he's not listening to the generals, the president isn't. And he's not listening to the American people." Schieffer specifically asked her about stopping funding (and noted that before the cameras rolled Pelosi had brought it up) but Pelosi would only say "oversight" would be exercised. By January 19, 2007 (that would be 12 days later), Pelosi had thrown in the towel -- and done so in an exclusive interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer:

Diane Sawyer: As we sit here right now, 3,500 troops are moving in. That's the first of the surge. It has begun. Fifty-one percent of the American people say they want Congress to stop the surge. Money is the method at hand to do that. Are you going to move to cut off funding for troops going into Iraq as part of the surge?

Nancy Pelosi: Democrats will never cut off funding for our troops when they are in harm's way, but we will hold the president accountable. He has to answer for his war. He has dug a hole so deep he can't even see the light on this. It's a tragedy.

The tragedy is Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leadership's failure to act. (In the House, Steny Hoyer has repeatedly stabbed Pelosi in the back publicly and privately. Leadership sent a message to Pelosi early on when they refused her pick of John Murtha. That's not a defense of Pelosi -- I've endorsed Cindy Sheehan for the eighth Congressional district out of California -- but that is noting a reality.) On December 31, 2006, the 3,000 mark would be reached for the number of US service members killed while serving in Iraq. January 1, 2007, Nancy Pelosi would issue a statement (one of the few who bothered), "The deaths of 3,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq is a sad reminder of the consequences of the Administration's failed policy." Pelosi was elected Speaker of the House January 3, 2007 and the 110th Congress was sworn in on January 4th. January 4th the number of announced US military deaths in Iraq stood at 3006. Today it stands at 3972. That's 28 away from the 4,000 mark (and 966 announced deaths since the 110th Congress was sworn in). Next month is the fifth anniversary of the start of the illegal war (billed once upon a time as a "cake walk") and Stop-Loss Congress is an action in response to congress' planned March vaction: "This March, while tens of thousands of Americans in Washington, D.C., and all over the United States participate in acts of nonviolent civil disobedience to protest the ongoing occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and when soldiers and innocent civilian victims begin another year of occupation, torture, and murder, Congressmembers will be on a vaction (from the 15th to 30th, technically a 'district work period'), ignoring the killing and suffering they have enabled, supported and financed. To intensify the irony, Congress has condoned a widespred stop-loss policy in the military which requires soldiers to involuntarily extend their tours and prolong the killing. It is time to Stop-Loss Congress!" To learn more about the action click here and click here to sign your support.

By the way, that's a real peace action. Unlike the crap Amy Goodman pimped on Democracy Now! today. Why is that? Why is it that real peace actions can't get attention from that program but faux-action, pretend action that exists only to put Democrats in Congress (they already control both houses) are pimped by Panhandle Media as "anti-war" and "peace"? Goodman never noted the reality of this "progressive" action, this "anti-war campaign." Here's AFP's first sentence from their report, "Anti-war groups launched a nationwide drive Mondy to unseat Republican members of Congress by linking the multi-billion-dollar costs of the Iraq conflict to the flagging US economy." It's not about peace, it's about churning out votes for Democrats. It's a fraud and didn't they already disillusion one veteran with this nonsense? (Yes, they did. He went public with it at The Philadelphia Daily News.) He thought these groups were really about ending the illegal war and he gave everything he had to them. Then he grasped that the groups were about electing Democrats. Further in, AFP notes the so-called peace 'activism': "The coaltion has identified around 50 Republican members of the House of Representatives and several senators that it believes are vulnerable to defeat in the elections".

Bombings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two Iraqi soldiers were wounded in Baghdad by a grenade, a man on a bus exploded his bomb ("vest bomb") in Nineveh killing himself and 14 others with an additional fifteen wounded, a Mosul car bombing that claimed the life of 1 police officer and left another wounded and a roadside bombing outside of Baquba that claimed 2 lives. Michael Kamber (New York Times) reports that two "Awakening" Council members are dead from a roadside bombing in Kirkuk.

Robbery and Kidnapping?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports "6 million Iraqi Dinars" were robbed from a Ministry of Health vehicle at gun point while 21 males were kidnapped off buses in Diyala Province. Meanwhile Matthew Moore (Telegraph of London) notes that a kidnapping victim has shown up in a videotape being aired on Al-Arabiya where he explains, "I have been held here for nearly eight months . . . Release their people from prison so that we can go home. It is as simple as that." The unidentified man was kidnapped along with four other British citizens nine months ago.

Corpses?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad.

Turning to England, today BBC reports, "The government has been told to release the minutes of two cabinet meetings in the days before the 2003 Iraq war. The demand came from Information Commissioner Richard Thomas after a Freedom of Information request was rejected by the Cabinet Office." Adrian Croft (Reuters) explains, "Britian's information watchdog ordered the government on Tuesday to release the minutes of cabinet meetings held in March 2003 which discussed the legal justifications for going to war in Iraq. Release of the documents could embarrass Prime Minister Gordon Brown, whose predecssor Tony Blair was accused by critics of glossing over lawyers' initial reservations about launching the invasion of Saddam Hussein's Iraq." Michael Evans (Times of London) declares, "The Iraq War story is never going to go away. Now the Government is faced with an order to disclose the minutes of two Cabinet meetings where the reasoning bhind the decision to invade in Iraq in March 2003, was discussed by ministers. . . . The key interest would be to see which ministers cast doubt on the justification for war -- apart from the ones we know already (the late Robin Cook, then Leader of the Commons, and Clare Short, then International Development Secretary) -- and whether anyone referred, enthusiastically or otherwise, to the merits of regime-change in Baghdad. The Government has always denied that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was the main or even the secondary reason for invading Iraq." In contrast, Chris Ames (writing at the Guardian of London) offers, "My guess is that we will learn something new and potentially damaging to the government if the minutes are eventually released. But, with the smart money on a government appeal to the information tribunal, we're not there yet. There are two hugely controversial aspects of the way that Tony Blair took the country to war in Iraq. The first is the case that he made to parliament and the country in the form of the September 2002 Iraq dossier. . . . The other issue of great contention is how Blair persuaded the armed forces and the cabinet that the war would be lgeal, using advice procured from the then attorney general Lord Goldsmith."

Turning to US political news, as Rebecca noted last night, "senator crazy goes insane again. the wheels are off the show boat express." She's referring to Senator John McCain, of course, who has defined how he will end up elected president in the November 2008 election as convincing America that the there is not just a 'win' in Iraq but it is happening. On Sunday Ralph Nader appeared on NBC's Meet the Press (link has text and video) where he stated he was running for president:

You know, when you see the paralysis of the government, when you see Washington, D.C., be corporate-occupied territory, every department agency controlled by overwhelming presence of corporate lobbyists, corporate executives in high government positions, turning the government against its own people, you--one feels an obligation, Tim, to try to open the doorways, to try to get better ballot access, to respect dissent in America in the terms of third parties and, and independent candidates; to recognize historically that great issues have come in our history against slavery and women rights to vote and worker and farmer progressives, through little parties that never ran--won any national election. Dissent is the mother of ascent. And in that context, I have decided to run for president."

That's Ralph Nader, who turned 74-years-old today, explaining why he's running. John Nichols really wants Obama's class ring and felt the need to distort reality claiming Barack Obama responded "wisely" to the news of Nader's run (see Kat), Nader himself felt differently, "Former Constitutional law lecturer Senator Barack Obama is entitled to his un-nuanced opinions, but not his misstatements of facts. I invite him to join me in a cooperative effort to put back on the table the necessities of the American people that he, Clinton, and McCain have yanked off the table. Instead, he resorts to name calling -- labeling me a perennial candidate. Well, Senator Obama, perennial injustices deserve perennial candidates who fight them." For the record, Obama's public statements were rude to Nader. Not wanting to hop in bed with Obama, I can be honest -- unlike John Nichols. Vaughn Ververs (CBS News) reports that Michael Bloomberg (who may run himself) supports Nader's run noting (correctly), "Everybody's got a right to do it -- you're not spoiling anything. . . . If people want to vote fo ryou, let them vote for you, and why shouldn't they?"

Running for the Green Party nomination for president is Cynthia McKinney (Nader may or may not be, that's really not addressed in the Meet the Press interview). Last week, Wendy L. Wilson (Essence) discussed the run with McKinney:

Essence.com: You've been a Democrat all your life. Why switch to Green now? C.M.: You know, I never really got the chance to know the members of the Green Party across the country before. Now, I'm getting to know the most wonderful, idealistic, patriotic people who have made me feel at home. It's just wonderful to be with people who have thought through the process and how we can work to make it better. Essence.com: How many votes do you need to be considered? C.M.: The Green Party needs 5 percent of the votes in the 2008 election to be institutionalized as a third force in American politics. Essence.com: Why should we consider voting for you? C.M.: If people feel deep within their hearts that there is still something structurally wrong with the limited choices we have in our two-party system, then I want people to say let me be a part of the 5 percent that changes the structure of our country. Right now, public policy is made in a room where the door is locked. The people are outside; only two representatives [Democrats and Republicans] are in that room hammering out policy. Somebody gave the corporate lobbyists a key so they can come and go as they please. The Green Party will open the door for people who care about impeachment, the war, civil liberties, and economic justice. We will pull up a chair and be a part of the conversation. You'll get different results and people won't feel as if they were marginalized out of the process. Essence.com: You've done a lot for the people in New Orleans and the Gulf States after the Hurricanes. Why is their cause still so important to you? C.M.: I've been very active in the treatment against Hurricane Katrina survivors. After having participated in the International Tribunal on Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and visited New Orleans and the Gulf States several times, I have helped to put together a 10-point plan for the survivors, which is based on the Reconstruction Movement and the Reconstruction Party [in Canada]. This 10-point plan includes an electoral system that allows for integrity and voter choice, full employment including the right to organize, reparations, a budget for human needs, policies against police brutality, a way to end the drug war and prisons for profit, means to protect the environment, end militarism and continue to stand for peace. There's a lot more that our country can do in its own borders and in the global community.

Tonight Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama debate in Ohio as they continue to compete for the Democratic Party's nomination for president.

john halle, oscars, etc.

This is why, as we should remember from 2004, not a word of protest was heard from Dennis when he was prevented by party insiders from addressing the Democratic convention despite his being entitled, due to his strong showing in several primaries, to do just that. Nor was there a peep from Dennis when anti-war signs were pried from the hands of Kucinich delegates by party hacks or when those protesting the pro-war nominee were confined to free speech zones on the periphery of the convention site, in blatant violation of the first amendment.
Nor was Dennis anywhere to be found in the months prior to the 2004 election as the body count mounted in Iraq. What was, in the year before, an active and aggressive peace movement was kept under lockdown least its visibility endanger the Democrat ticket. It has never recovered and remains comatose.
In 2008, the tragedy was replayed as farce, with Dennis barely breaking into the low single digits. Rather than make trouble by endorsing the long shot candidacy of Edwards, Dennis threw his support behind a candidate endorsing pre-emptive strikes on Pakistan, who is calling for 92,000 new troops, explicitly rejects single payer health care, and is a prime mover behind environmentally suicidal subsidies for biofuel and clean coal.
And now we have the spectacle of Dennis pleading for our support against a primary challenge sponsored by the party leadership.
It appears that he can be cut loose since his services will not be needed due to the powerful sedative the Obama campaign and presidency is likely to administer to the left for the forseeable future.

that's from john halle's 'kucinich goes down' (counterpunch). if you're not grasping why c.i. (rightly) said, 'dennis does what's best for dennis,' read the piece in full.

dennis is the decoration on the tree, there to be sparkle and delight but most of all distract. i was the dnc convention in boston and he sold out big time. halle also makes the point about what happened after the convention. where was our anti-war 'leader' dennis to be found then?

i'm not telling any 1 not to contribute (if i were, i'd pull the link from the excerpt - give money if you want, don't if you don't want to) but i hope people grasp that fiery dennis was up against many obstacles but that 1 of the biggest obstacles he was up against was dennis kucinich.

i had a hilarious e-mail today from an angry person accusing me of being part of a conspiracy to hide 'john mccain's affair.' it's noted that all community sites avoided it and that i have 'sex' in my title.

there was no conspiracy. there is thus far nothing there. c.i. would avoid it unless it had some level of proof and then it wouldn't be a dominant theme. (c.i. doesn't do the sex scandals and has disclosed that as far back as 2004 at the common ills.) if there was anything in it so far i would've written about it. i read the article. i yawned. it was like some 1 handing you a heavily thumbed through paperback in high school and telling you the sex scenes would blow you away but when you read it, every time the sex got close, the writer was off telling you about the fireplace and the logs burning. they may have the story, the paper, but they haven't published it so far.

there's no conspiracy. there may be anger on my part that they hyped something so big and when i was ready to get down and dirty with the story i found out they had nothing to offer.

if you want to laugh at john mccain, you can laugh at him here:

McCain, a staunch supporter of the Iraq war, retracted an earlier statement that he would lose the November election if he did not convince Americans that the U.S. military was succeeding in Iraq.
"I don't mean that I'll, quote, lose," McCain told reporters on his campaign bus. He said what he meant is that it is an important issue for American voters.


senator crazy goes insane again. the wheels are off the show boat express.

like elaine ('Noam Chomsky, Oscars') let me talk oscars. i was among the few watching on tv. (very, very low ratings.) it was awful. john stewart (as ava and c.i. noted) was so bad he was stealing from will & grace in his opening bits. from the 1st year of will & grace. he was a really bad host. a really, really bad host. steve carrell was equally lame and the 'sheeeeeeeesh' always seemed on the verge of going to 's**t' which i don't think is acceptable for a planned skit. i'd have no problem with a winner saying it in a speech (out of anger or just caught up in the moment - like pat benetar did at the grammys 1 year) but in terms of rehearsed bits, i think it's tacky.

and i thought the whole thing was tacky. as elaine notes she picked 1 winner (best song). i did a little better but was heartbroken that julie christie didn't win best actress. we were all pulling for her (c.i. avoided being in the pool on that category due to pulling for julie so strongly). julie's british but she's also an international star and known by millions of americans. if she'd won, we would have seen some star power. i didn't think we saw any. i think the general reaction to the winners was 'who are these people?'

i was talking about it on the phone with t. she said, 'i believe they outsourced the awards last night' and that does just about sum it up. apparently no american actor gave a performance worth recognition in 2007 - not in best actor or actress, not in best supporting actor or actress. hollywood gathered to celebrate their own and sent all the oscars overseas.

are we supposed to cry 'yea!'

along with julie christie, i wouldn't have had a problem if the actress from juno had won. she wasn't my pick but she was really good in the film. the winner was really bad. i felt like i was watching a high school drama club attempt to do an opera and, like the actress in that film, the high school actress had a judy garland fetish. will we ever hear from her again?

probably not. the oscars have really become a curse of late.

take julia roberts. she makes her best film with erin brokavich, wins an oscar and goes on to commit career suicide. i told you when the film was due to open that she was awful in it (she is) and that she wouldn't get a nomination (she didn't). so all we're left with is that she played a trashy bleached blonde in a film no 1 saw and no 1 wanted to see and she wasn't even the lead. the career's over.

along with the juno actress, i could've accepted cate blanchett winning over julie christie. i would've been okay with it. not thrilled, but okay. she basically has 2 show stopping scenes in the film and it seems like she's always at the gate throughout waiting to get to those 2 scenes. julie, by contrast, shaped a performance - an amazing 1 - throughout the film. laura linnley (sp?) wasn't bad but the clip they chose to telecast explained why she wouldn't win. it was too much like shirley maclaine's character in terms of endearment and linnley's timing was off. if you're doing a copy-cat role at least bring it some zest. instead, those who hadn't seen the film probably thought, 'oh yeah, shirley was great in terms!' they didn't think, 'i've got to go see laura in that film!'

the clips were so-so. they seemed to think we were as touched by jack lemmon as they were. they seemed to go for the most schmalzy highlights. in terms of the past award winners sharing their memories ...

i thought barbra today came off very well but thought it was shameful that they cut away from her going to the podium. there was a reason that moment was big beyond her win in a tie. the lights disappeared part of her dress. it aired in real time and i have no idea why it could not today. her comments from today were nice. the only other 1s who were worth hearing were michael douglas and catherine zeta-jones. the 3 of them added star power. the rest of the time i was yawning. (if i've just insulted your favorite, please note, i had to breast feed during part of the oscars and wasn't by the tv during that so i may have missed your favorite.)

the songs. oh they were awful. they were hideous. elaine picked the winner (in our oscar pool) and did so ahead of time how? by listening to all the nominated songs (which were all dreadful) and picking the worst 1. i'm not joking. when we all made our picks 2 weekends ago, i was shocked and asked her why she was going with that 1 and she explained she just went with the worst 1. is that how voters picked?

i was really sad that tommy lee jones didn't win. not as sad as i was about julie christie because i really love julie christie and think the oscar really would have meant something there. tommy lee jones is going to work regardless (true of most men) but it could have made a difference in what julie was offered. (though, true to form, she'd probably turn the bulk of it down.) i also felt like tommy's film could turn some voters off (more for the way it was so badly marketed) but i didn't see how any 1 couldn't love julie's film. or julie in it. that was so amazing and she didn't overplay a scene. that actually may have hurt her since the academy seemed to want overblown and over the top this year.

i also can't believe that cate blanchette didn't win 1 award. that's 1 c.i. called right (c.i. called most of it correctly). i kept saying, 'jessica lange!' jessica was nominated for both best actress and best supporting actress and she won the latter. c.i. pointed out when signorey weaver was nominated for both categories in the same year and lost in both. c.i. said that only works (and the winner gets best supporting) if you're considered 'new.' jessica was already famous for king kong and had made other films. but frances and tootsie were showing (in the same year) that she wasn't a joke and she was really a talented actress. that made her 'new.' sigorney weaver was already a big star by the time she got her double nominations and she lost in both categories. that was c.i. logic and cate did go home empty handed in both categories.



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

Monday, February 25, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Turkey continues it's invasion of northern Iraq, the US military death toll in Iraq is 28 away from 4,000, Oscar winning actress Julie Christie raises the issue of war resisters and more.


Starting with war resistance. Who knew an Oscar winner and multi-nominated, internationally known actress was a news outlet? Saturday, Lee-Anne Goodman (The Canadian Press) quoted Julie Christie explaining how Stephen Harper, right-wing prime minister of Canada, was her problem with the country, "I love Canada, I've always loved Canada, I feel proud of Canada - it's only just now that I am starting to lose my pride in Canada because of this guy who is your prime minister." Goodman explained the "longtime peace activist, accused Harper of refusing to welcome traumatized American soldiers to Canada who are deserting the army amid amid the prolonged and bloody war in Iraq" and quoted Christie explaining, "I was in Canada in the 1960s and 1970s . . . the place was full of war resisters and they were accepted by Canada and I've loved Canada ever since then. The fact that he's turned that around, and the cruelty of that and the meanness of it, it's put a little edge on my love of Canada." Julie Christie's commnets were covered an amplified widely including by entertainment outlets such as Canada's Jam! Showbiz and news outlets Bruce Kirkland in The Winnipeg Sun. Long before her remarks were amplified, Christie had already said more on the topic of war resisters than Democracy Now!, The Nation or The Progressive had in an entire month (add the last two's websites to the print editions). That should disturb consumers of Panhandle Media long before they grasp how especially necessary coverage of war resisters is right now.

Not just due to the fact that the illegal war drags on, but also because war resisters in 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.


Earlier this month, Michele Richiniki (The Northeastern News) reported on Justiniano Rodrigues who signed up for the Army Reserves only to discover that war conflicted with the values of his Roman Catholic religion and he was advised by a sergeant that he was a conscientious objector. No guidance was given to Rodrigues on how to be declared a CO so he "began to take steps on his own. He met with various people to begin the process, including psychologists." As his date to deploy to Iraq loomed closer and more convinced that he could not participate in the Iraq War, Rodrigues decided (August 2006) to self-checkout. He explains to Richiniki, "At that point I didn't trust the war and wasn't going to leave the country with a company I didn't trust because of their misguiding. That's when I decided to go AWOL." Via The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Rodrigues finally began to receive the help that the military is supposed to provide CO applicants with. He now had a lawyer and they went to an Oklahoma military base where he turned himself in where, he explains, "I spent one week at the barracks and then they out-processed and discharged me." With a less than honorable discharge and Rodrigues is now attempting to be granted CO status. Today Jeff Miranda (The Northeastern News) writes about Rodrigues and people like his own brother who is in the ROTC program. Miranda concludes with this, "They're fighting a war so few believe in and there's no doubt to the degree of courage it takes to serve your country in a way few others have. It takes a different brand of courage to stand up for what you believe is right and speak your mind when everyone says you're wrong. My brother has proven he possesses one kind of courage. But his real strength might lie in learning to adopt both."


There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes 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."

In northern Iraq over the weekend, the invasion launched by Turkey into the Kurdish region of Iraq continued. As noted in Friday's snapshot, the US State Dept was acknowledging that they had advance knowledge of the attack and that they shared intelligence with the government of Turkey. On Saturday, Tina Susman and Yesim Comert (Los Angeles Times) would report that "five bridges" were destroyed on Friday by the Turkish military "in violation of its pledge to target only rebel bases". Alissa J. Rubin and Sabrina Tavernise (New York Times) would quote Hoshyar Zebari, the foreign minister of Iraq, condemning the invasion and calling for "Turkish troops" to withdraw "from Iraqi territory." The reporters would not noe that Zebari has condemned every action by the Turkish military in Iraq or that he was a Kurd. McClatchy Newspapers Yassen Taha and Leila Fadel would not only stick to the facts, they'd share them explaining that it was still unknown how many soldiers Turkey had sent into Iraq but the estimate offered by the puppet government in Baghdad was 1,000 while the PKK (labled as a terrorist organization by the US and the European Union) stated that there were 10,000. They would note that it appeared "that Kurdish Regional President Massoud Barzani probably approved" Kurdish militia to move close to the battle and noted that "Barzani has been a frequent critic of the United States and Iraq's central government for their cooperation with Turkey in targeting the PKK, which is widely popular in Iraq's Kurdish region, but which the United States considers a terrorist organization. A confrontation between Turkish forces and the Kurdish militia would be a major escalation in the standoff over PKK attacks in Turkey, which have killed hundreds of Turkish civilians and soldiers in recent years." As the invasion continued Fadel would explore the prison system in the Kurdish region noting that this area that the White House has long touted as one of the "success stories" of the illegal war was also a region where "advocates and family charge" there "is a growing human rights crisis" in the Kurdish jail system and Fadel would cite Dana Ahmed Abdul Rhaman's mother who would share that after the year and a half her son has spent in a Kurdish jail, not only do they not know whey he's been held but they also do not "when he'll be released" and she will explain that in her only visit with her son, she saw that he had been tortured ("His face was as black as my dress"). It was a reality that went unaddressed on Democracy Now! today but then they booked a lobbyist for the Kurdish region as a guest. Today, McClatchy Newspapers reports that the the Union of Muslim Clerics in Kurdistan had issued a statement calling for Iraqis to engage in the battle against Turkey) while the New York Times notes acall from outside the region issued by Moqtada al-Sadr demanding Turkish troops withdraw from northern Iraq. Paul de Bendern (Reuters) reports that the invasion continues for the fifth day today and quotes White House flack Dana Perino declaring, "We hope that this is a short-term incursion so that they can help deal with the threat." Not quoted is the reply Perino gave today when asked if the Bully Boy knows "what percentage of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces to leave?" Perino replied, "Look, what we do know is that the -- there might be polls telling -- saying different things about who wants us where. What we know is that the Iraqi government wants us there, neighboring countries want us there. And we also know that if we were to leave too quickly that the possibility for chaos and mass violence is too great, and the President won't risk that." In other words, Perino is saying the White House just doesn't care what the Iraqi people want and that the focus of the press should be not on the will of the Iraqi people but on the puppet government the US installed in Baghdad. At the US State Department today, deputy spokesperson Tom Casey was asked about Turkey invading Iraq and stuck to the usual talking points, "The PKK is a threat to the United States, to Turkey, and to Iraq as well. We continue to urge cooperation between Turkish and Iraqi authorities on this. We are conducting diplomacy towards that end. We certainly want to see and make sure that the Turks continue with their stated policy, which is to make sure that any of these military actions minimize the impact and take very serious account of the concerns of civilian populations in the area." Casey was then pressed on US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates remarks on Sunday which asked for political and economic offers from Turkey to quell the violence of the PKK and Casey responded, "The PKK is a common enemy and I think all Secretary Gates is doing is stating the obvious, which is that a – this is a problem that requires more than just a military solution and I think all sides recognize it and that's why we'll be continuing our diplomacy on it." At the Pentagon today, Lt. General Carter Ham declared, "We continue to provide intelligence and appropriate information to the Turkish government as directed, and as part of that agreement, the Turkish military forces informed us and have now undertaken a limited ground operation against the KGK terrorist elements in northern Iraq. Central Command, European Command and Multinational Force-Iraq are clearly monitoring these operations very carefully." He also refuted the notion that the Turkish invasion might be "winding down".


Sunday saw mass fatalities from an Iskandariyah bombing during a Shi'ite pilgrimage. Leila Fadel and Yasseen Taha (McClatchy Newspapers) report, "As pilgrims stopped for water and food at a tent set up to serve them along their journey, a suicide bomber walked into the crowd and detonated, killing and wounding many of the pilgrims, said Muthanna Ahmed, spokesman for the police in Babil province." Amit R. Paley and Joshua Partlow (Washington Post) report that 12-year-old Ahmed Ali had been "serving tea to pilgrims" when the bombing took place, that his left leg has now been amputated "below the knee" as a result of the wounds he received and they quote his mother asking, "What is his guilt? He is just a little kid who should have been in school." They also reported that the death toll from the bombing had risen to 60. Solomon Moore and Sabrina Tavernise (New York Times) explained that the region's three hospitals were "overwhelmed" and quoted 28-year-old Ahmed Yassin who was taken to Hilla General Hospital explaining, "I saw a woman rush into the tent. Then there was an explosion and I went unconscious" and 23-year-old Fadel Khadhim explaining, "The smell of burned flesh is still stuck in my nose."

Violence continued in Iraq today and among the reported incidents . . .

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed the lives of 4 pilgrims and left twelve more injured, two Baghdad roadside bombings that left two civilians wounded, a Diyala Province roadside bombing that left 2 people dead, a Salahuddin wheelchair bombing that killed the wheelchair victim as well as Brig. General Abdul Jabar Rabiaa Salih ("assistant commander of Samarra operations") and a Mosul mortar attack that claimed 3 lives and left four more wounded

Shootings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 people shot dead in Baquba, unknown assialants dressed as Iraqi soldiers shot dead a woman in Diyala Province, an attack in Diyala Province that left 8 members of the Iraqi military dead and an attack on "oil company guards" outside Basra that claimed 1 life and left two other guards wounded. Reuters notes a young boy shot dead in Mosul and, in a separate incident, 4 police officers shot dead in Mosul.

Corpses?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad, 8 corpses discovered (all women) in Diyala Province and the corpse of Ali Mahmoud at Hamdan was discovered in Basra (the engineer was kidnapped last month "by gunmen who were wearing police uniforms").
Yesterday, the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division – Baghdad Soldier was killed when an improvised explosive device struck the Soldier's vehicle during a combat patrol in northern Baghdad Feb. 24." And they announced: " A Multi-National Division – Baghdad Soldier was killed by small-arms fire during combat operations in southern Baghdad Feb. 24." The deaths brought ICCC's total for the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 3972 with 28 deaths announced for the month of February thus far and 28 away from the 4,000 mark. [Thank you to got Elaine and Mike for filling in here last night.]

At the Pentagon today, Army Lieutenant General Carter F. Ham, director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, declared that maybe, possibly there might be a drawdown over the summer of US troops in Iraq from the current total of approximately 156,000 to 140,000 which would still be about 8,000 more than were in Iraq prior to Bully Boy's escalation popularly known as "the surge". "Yes, it is bigger" than the pre-escalation level, Ham boasted. But "it" (the summer prediction of a drawdown) isn't in concrete at this point and, as Ashford and Simpson once wrote in a different context, "Ain't nothing but a maybe." Ham tossed out the morsel but then declared speculation was "premature at this point" and that actually applies to both the return to the pre-escalation level and the possible drawdown over the summer. The most 'concrete' statement Ham could make on the possible summer drawdown (which, no doubt, will lead to headlines without any qualifiers "Pentagon says draw-down this summer!") was, "Well, we hope it would be made before July, but I'm not sure how much more before July."

The issue continues in what can be termed "When Media Hookers Collide." Exactly that happened on Democracy Now! today when Amy Goodman and Sammy Power shared face time as they each attempted to pimp their candidate of choice Barack Obama. Juan Gonzales offered actual worth noting, "About this issue of the Iraq war, as I know there's been much discussion about it and certainly on this show, we early on raised many of the questions in terms of the justifications for the war. But it does seem to me that it's a little bit different being a state legislator in Illinois from a district that's probably very much antiwar and having him being in the US Senate. If he had been in the US Senate and taken the same position at the time, I think that would have been a much firmer stand, that he could say, 'I was against the war from the beginning.' But when you're in a district in Illinois, you're along with about one-third to 40 percent of the American people who at that time were questioning of the war to a large degree, and I think that it was a tougher situation for those who were in the Senate. It still doesn't mean that Hillary Clinton was right in her judgment, but I find it hard to equate the two positions because of the relative differences in where they were at the time." From the broadcast:

JUAN GONZALEZ: Yeah, I have one last question, having watched many of these debates, as, on one hand, he argues that the arrogance of old of the United States around the world needs to change; on the other hand, he has argued to sharply increase the size of the US military, I think, by 90,000 troops, when this country already has a military budget that is equal to the rest of the world combined. Why does the United States need more military troops?
SAMANTHA POWER: I think because, much more than I, anyway, he has spent the better part of the last decade spending time with military families and has some sense of just how broken the military is right now, at its bending or its breaking point, from the standpoint of overstretch, from the--and this, I'm talking really specifically about soldiers,

We're cutting the War Hawk Sammy Power off there. Bring the troops home from Iraq -- end the illegal war -- and there's no "breakage" of the standing (and overstaffed) US military. Power, as Amy Goodman has panted and gushed Friday and again today, might be the Secretary of State in an Obama administration. The War Hawk Power is stating very clearly that Obama intends to increase the military. An increase is needed why? Some of his left and 'left' supporters need to get real real damn quick. Power's use of "responsible withdrawal from Iraq" should alarm the hell out of all who remember Vietnam, remember that it didn't end even after the publication of the Pentagon Papers. Obama is not an "anti-war" candidate and people need to quit deluding themselves. "Responsible withdrawal" is the same garbage tossed to the people during Vietnam in an attempt to take the pressure off the call to end that illegal war. It's 'pretty words' that make it seem as though something is being done but it's just an illegal war being prolonged.

Also of alarm should have been A Problem From Hell Power declaring that "as you get out of Iraq . . you could actually get to that moment where, you know, the United States could actually be supportive of peacekeeping missions, could transport soldiers to Darfur --" Power is calling for US soldiers to be sent to Darfur. It's a stance Our Modern Day Carrie Nations has long held because she's nothing but a cheap War Hawk propped up by a lot of fools (add Amy Goodman to that list). In the current issue of FAIR's Extra! Julie Hollar addresses exactly how much damage the US military would do to the situation in Darfur in "The Humanitarian Tempataion" (pp. 17 through 21). Having allowed her program to be used to call for more imperial war, Goodman would do well to invite on Hollar to discuss her article. Here's Goody stumbling and fumbling around:

AMY GOODMAN: But as you say, you know, he's looking at a broken military now because it is so overstretched. The idea is that if he were president, I think he's putting forward that--if he's saying he would pull out of Iraq--
SAMANTHA POWER: Absolutely.

AMY GOODMAN: --well, there are your soldiers. Why would he call for vastly expanding the US military?
SAMANTHA POWER: Well, this is what I'm trying to suggest is that there are going to be functions for US soldiers to perform. . . . So, I mean, there are national security and humanitarian challenges out there that are going to require American attention, and sometimes that's going to require military attention.

"National security and humanitarian challenges out there." For those who missed it and still can't grasp it a number of left and 'left' voices got on board with the illegal Iraq War due to the 'humanitarian' nature of the mission. Humanitarism is a pose for War Hawks today, it's what they hide behind to sell their illegal wars. While Tom Hayden made a perfect fool of himself last week declaring that Obama had just said that he would end the illegal war by 2009 (if elected), the reality is that Obama was speaking off the cuff and only refers to "combat" troops which leaves thousands and thousands of US service members in Iraq. More importantly, Obama advisor Sammy Power declared to Goodman and Gonzales that "Obama's aim is to get those soldiers out within sixteen to eighteen months, a brigade or two a month." She's an advisor to the campaign. Maybe Tom Hayden and The Nation could stop being so damn stupid and stop pimping a candidate by lying to the public that he's "anti-war" and will end the illegal war in 2009?

In other US political news, Ralph Nader declared he is running for president and spoke with Tim Russert on NBC's Meet The Press on Sunday. We'll close with "Figures on the Iraq occupation" (Great Britain's Socialist Worker):4.4% – The portion of Iraq's national budget that is being spent on reconstruction12,000 – The number of Iraq's 34,000 doctors that have now fled into exile 54% – The proportion of Iraq's population living on less than 50p a day. Some 15 percent of the country lives in "extreme poverty" 75% – The proportion of Iraqi children that have no school place 4 million – The number of Iraqi refugees -- the largest refugee crisis in the Middle East since the fall of Palestine in 1948 40% – The unemployment rate in Iraq. Inflation is running at 50 percent 77% – The proportion of Iraqis who have been affected by air bombardments, shelling or rocket attacks 60,000 – The average number of Iraqis displaced each month during 200775% – The proportion of Iraqis who know someone close to them who has been killed or murdered 26,000 – The number of Iraqi prisoners held in US custody – more than the 24,000 held by the Iraqi governmnent 100 – The number of "suspected insurgents" seized by US troops each day80% – The proportion of Iraqis who have witnessed a shooting. Some 72 percent have witnessed a car bomb. $500 billion – The amount of money spent by the US government on the Iraq war and occuption so far
» email article » comment on article » printable version
© Copyright Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original and leave this notice in place.
If you found this article useful please help us maintain SW by » making a donation.