norman finkelstein on the continued slaughter

The record is fairly clear. You can find it on the Israeli website, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. Israel broke the ceasefire by going into the Gaza and killing six or seven Palestinian militants. At that point—and now I’m quoting the official Israeli website—Hamas retaliated or, in retaliation for the Israeli attack, then launched the missiles.
Now, as to the reason why, the record is fairly clear as well. According to Ha’aretz, Defense Minister Barak began plans for this invasion before the ceasefire even began. In fact, according to yesterday’s Ha’aretz, the plans for the invasion began in March. And the main reasons for the invasion, I think, are twofold. Number one; to enhance what Israel calls its deterrence capacity, which in layman’s language basically means Israel’s capacity to terrorize the region into submission. After their defeat in July 2006 in Lebanon, they felt it important to transmit the message that Israel is still a fighting force, still capable of terrorizing those who dare defy its word.
And the second main reason for the attack is because Hamas was signaling that it wanted a diplomatic settlement of the conflict along the June 1967 border. That is to say, Hamas was signaling they had joined the international consensus, they had joined most of the international community, overwhelmingly the international community, in seeking a diplomatic settlement. And at that point, Israel was faced with what Israelis call a Palestinian peace offensive. And in order to defeat the peace offensive, they sought to dismantle Hamas.

the above is from norman finkelstein's 'The Facts About Hamas and the War on Gaza' (counterpunch). yes, the attack on gaza continues. it never really ends. sometimes gaza's attacked with blockades, sometimes it's attacked with 'minimal' violence that attracts little attention and some times the israeli government decides it's slaughtering time again. and every 1 just waves them through. what? you want to kill the palestinians? go for it!

that really is what it looks like from a distance if you examine the last 60 years.

who is the advocate for the palestinians?

they actually do have a few but they lack the power to compete with the u.s. and the u.s. is too vested in israel. the last thing they want is for the american people to find out what really goes on there.

al jazeera reports:

Sameh Akram Habeeb, a journalist and blogger, told Al Jazeera by phone from inside Gaza City in the early hours of Wednesday that periodic gunfire between Palestinian fighters and Israeli forces could be heard throughout the night.
Israeli helicopters could be heard firing and at least two big explosions were heard from the western and northern parts of the city, he added.
The Israeli onslaught continues as diplomatic manoeuvres by various parties - from this week's UN Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire to Egyptian attempts to broker a truce - have failed to stop the violence.
Al Jazeera has learnt that the UN General Assembly plans to hold an emergency session, but not until Thursday.

remember that the western media has been blocked from going in by the israeli government and al jazeera remains the only news network that the west has access to which has reporters in gaza. you can use these links for more coverage from al jazeera:

Analysis and features from Gaza and Israel
Al Jazeera Labs: Report on and track the war
Send us your views and eyewitness videos
Watch our coverage of the war on Gaza

i found the following excerpt in pakistan's dawn:

UN chief Ban Ki-moon got strong support from the Security Council on Tuesday as he briefed envoys on his upcoming Middle East tour to step up diplomatic efforts toward a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip.

“Everybody supported the role the secretary general can play... in getting an immediate ceasefire and for implementation of (Security Council) Resolution 1860,” Jean-Maurice Ripert, the council chair this month, told reporters after closed-door consultations.

“We think the timing (of Ban’s visit) is right. There are very important initiatives on the ground that could help,” he added, referring to Egypt’s efforts to broker a truce deal between Israel and Hamas.

UN spokeswoman Michele Montas told a press briefing that Ban’s goal during his tour was “to step up the pace of joint diplomatic efforts regarding Gaza and southern Israel.”

She said Ban renewed his call for an immediate ceasefire and for humanitarian aid to be delivered to the Gaza population without restrictions.

The UN chief was to leave later Tuesday for a tour that will take him to Egypt, Jordan, Israel, the West Bank city of Ramallah, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon and Kuwait, where he was to attend an Arab League summit next Monday.

Tuesday’s council meeting was the first since the 15-member body last week adopted Resolution 1860 which called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza leading to the withdrawal of Israeli troops.

Also last week, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak proposed an immediate ceasefire and allowing humanitarian aid into the besieged Palestinian enclave as well as ending arms smuggling between Egypt and Gaza.


meanwhile, the latest slaughter isn't winning any friends for the israeli government. sudarsan raghavan reports on the reaction in egypt in 'At Cairo Hospital, Injured Palestinians Increasingly Voice Support for Hamas' (washington post):

At Nasser hospital here in the Egyptian capital, the sound of Palestinian Arabic spills out from rooms and floats through the corridors of the fourth floor. "God is great, God is great," Ahmed Hussein, 25, said to a weeping Egyptian woman, one of a stream of visitors coming to pay their respects to those injured by Israeli airstrikes.
"May God make you be victorious," she said. "I cannot stand what is happening to your people."
Neither, apparently, can Hussein, a Palestinian policeman whose right arm was broken when Israeli missiles hit his police academy Dec. 27. Hussein voted for Hamas in the last election but said he never joined their militia. That's about to change.
"I want to go back and fight with Hamas," he said.
A cornerstone of Israel's strategy in Gaza is to crush Hamas's will to fight, especially its determination to fire rockets into southern Israel. But in interviews here with wounded supporters of the Islamist militia, Israel's assaults appear to be breeding more recruits and more popular support for Hamas.

well duh. i'm not talking duh to raghavan. i'm talking duh to israel. of course it was going to recruit. you're killing a people, you're slaughtering them. it is outrageous. it is appalling. you're insane if you think the whole world is going to scream, 'you go, israel! kill those palestinians!' apparently the country's government has forgotten how much they pay their foreign stooges in various countries and think all those israeli lobbyists are actually strangers.

they're not. they're on the payroll. and they are truly the only people in the world who will support this slaughter.

do they really think that after 60 years the bulk of the world hasn't caught on?

here's something else they ought to consider, not only have a large portion caught on but there's another portion that's just f**king sick of it. they're not interested in the politics, they're just damn sick of 60 years of big bullies going after the palestinians. israel's signing their eviction notice. they better start grasping that.

if you read during any of these slaughters, you know i take this very seriously and you know i get very angry. i've been that way since college on this issue and every few years c.i. will point out, 'rebecca, when you talked about it in ____, you were denounced and called every name in the book and look at what's going on today.' and that's true. it's not that hard to stand up today. it once was. (and i never had to stand alone because elaine and c.i. always had my back. but i was called filthy names. i don't just mean anti what ever. i mean 'sand ___ lover' and all those other 'enlightened' names.)

that's it for me tonight.

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

Tuesday, January 13, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Peter Pace wants to share his final thoughts, Iraq makes noise about evicting squatters, Joe Biden continued his Iraq visit, and more.

Yesterday, Bully Boy showed up for the final without his Blue Book and naked. Today General Peter Pace wanted to take a crack at getting in his final thoughts in the final days of the Bully Boy's administration. Lolita C. Baldor (AP) quotes Pace declaring, "I certainly made some wrong estimates. And I certainly made some recommendations that, if I could take them back and change them, I would." Noted homophobe Pace was a far cry from his frolicking earlier days as he stood before an oil painting that drawfed him. In June 2007, Isaiah featured Pace in "Bye-bye" as he quoted the outgoing Joint Cheifs of Staff Peter Pace from less than two years before (April 22, 2005) stating, "This is an incredible moment for me. It is both exhilirating and humbling. It's exhilirating because I have the opportunity, if confirmed by the Senate, to continue to serve this country. It's humbling because I know the challenges ahead are formidable." Baldor notes that former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld attended and she insists, "Both Pace and Rumsfeld were political casualties of the war, losing their jobs as the public became increasingly frustrated with the lack of progress in Iraq and the escalating troop deaths -- now numbering more than 4,200." On the deaths -- the actual fatalities -- yesterday we noted the death of a US soldier outside Samarra. There was a second death announced late yesterday: "A Multi-National Force – West Marine died as the result of a non-combat related incident here [al Asad Airbase] Jan. 11. The Marine's name is being withheld pending notification of next-of-kin and release by the Department of Defense. The incident is under investigation." The announcement brings the total number of US service members who have died in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4226. The total for the week thus far is 3 announced deaths.

Today the incoming US vice president, Joe Biden, continued his visit in Iraq. AFP calls it "a trail-blazing visit" and notes that he met today with puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki in Baghdad before moving onto the oil-rich and disputed city of Kirkuk "where he met governor Abdul Rhaman Mustafa and his deputy Rakan Saeed al-Juburi." Timothy Williams (New York Times) notes bombings took place "a few hours before" Biden's arrival. Al Jazeera observes, "Violence in Iraq has marred a visit by Joe Biden" and notes that "[d]espite the decreasing violence across the country, local police are still being targeted as they take over control of the provinces from US forces" and that continued today with at least two incidents involving attacks on police officers. Brian Montopoli (CBS News) noted yesterday, "The visit was not officially announced." Tim Cocks and Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) quote al-Maliki stating, "Senator Joe Biden asserted the importance of cooperation . . . to implement the foreign troop withdrawal agreement signed by the two countries." That would be the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement and that, if true, would be the same treaty Joe Biden loudly opposed throughout 2008, up to the November election. The treaty extends the US presence to 2011 if both sides agree to exercise the two renewal options and do not alter the treaty. Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) notes Biden met with Jalal Talabani, President of Iraq, the day before and that Senator Linsey Graham was also on the trip to Iraq. AP adds that Biden also met with "Vice President Adel Abdul Mehdi and Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih." Not listed but he also met with Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari. AP does note that Graham and Biden had dinner with members of Delaware's National Guard including Beau Biden, the vice president-elect's oldest son who delivered a very moving speech nominating his father at the Democratic National Convention last August.

Meanwhile Baghdad residents have received news via e-mail: The price of electricity is going up. A McClatchy Iraqi correspondent (Inside Iraq) reports, "Most of us in Iraq (Im talking about regular people not officials) have power for four hours a day and you can imagine the crises happening in every house. There is a specific time for bathing and another time for washing the cloths. Every single member in the family should follow the schedule. Breaking the rules means destroying the system which leads the life of the family." The rate increase comes at a time, as noted, when Iraq still can't count on electricity, when potable water is an issue ignored (until September and October roll around and the cholera outbreak returns), and many internal refugees remain without homes they can call their own. Iraqi squatters have existed throughout the illegal war. Some took over the homes of others or abandoned homes. Others set up homes in abandoned Iraqi buildings. That group was, in fact, encouraged by the US who gave the okay for it and allowed it to continue. In the last few years, the puppet has tried to show how 'strong' he is by repeatedly cutting the rations Iraqis depend on and by repeatedly threatening to evict squatters. An Al Jazeera video report from last July is here. Current context includes that the Ministry of Displacement and Migration does not have the funds for the housing projects they promised and so some construction has been delayed "until 2010". Despite that, IRIN reported last week, "The Iraqi government has decided to evict all people who have been squatting in government buildings or on government land since the 2003 US-led invasion" and quotes a government stating that the decision was made by the Iraqi Cabinet. That would be al-Maliki's cabinet. Yesterday they reported a move on the part of the Iraqi Parliament and NGOs to halt the planned evicitions until winter has ended. IRIN quotes the Parliament's Displacement and Migration Committee's chair Abdul-Khaliq Zankana stating, "The law must prevail, but I do believe the best way to deal with this issue is to postpone the implementation until the middle of the year as it is winter now and we can't turn those people out onto the street. This will affect the attendance of their children at school."

Meanwhile Deborah Haynes (Times of London) reports that, as required by the Iraqi government of all foreigners, she took an AIDS test and she describes what she saw at al-Alwiya Hospital in Baghdad:

. . . it was immediately clear that there was minimal electricity. The small entrance hall was dark and dirty, with steps zigzagging upstairs. A couple of elevators on one wall appeard to have been out of action for a while.
Gingerly climbing up the stairs to the third floor, I was told that the doctor who handles foreigners' blood was running late so "would I sit in the waiting room."
This compromised a sorry line of chairs in the corridor. A dustbin in one corner overlowed with empty cans of fizzy drink. A thin meshing covered the windows, which hung open on rusty hinges, letting a cold draft.
A tatty-looking poster warning people about the perils of smoking hung from one wall, while a couple of feet away a make-shift snack stall on a rickety table sold packets of cigarettes as well as piles of biscuits, sweets and nuts."

While Iraq's services and infrastructure remain largely non-existant the US did set up the thugs in Iraq the same way they went to the war lords in Afghanistan. Anthony Shadid (Washington Post) reports on Nadhim Khalil, the thirty-year-old wonder-thug who was "on the losing side" (attacking the US) but has seen where the money is . . . for now and has set himself up as the war lore of Thuluyah: "His formula is simple: With God, guns and money, he is now the authority in town." Shadid quotes him stating, "I'm sure the Americans will leave after a little while, and there's nothing I achieve by kililng them now. I could kill them anytime, anywhere, and so what?" The thug controls the town and waits. To do what? Who knows? Shadid reports:

The elected city council can only watch and complain -- in whispers -- about a man they fear. The town's elders scoff at his age and pedigree, with a wayward glance.
"My opinion?" asked Abdullah Jabbouri, a council member and former general. He paused, smiling a little sheepishly.
"Anyone who has absolute power becomes dangerous, even to himself," he said.

As US Senator Barbara Boxer noted of thugs on the US dime in a Foreign Relations Committee hearing last April, "You cannot count on them." Or why the incoming vice president questioned these sudden 'allies'. As Anna Badkhen (San Francisco Chronicle) pointed out, found, "Sen. Jospeh Biden, D-Del., said these U.S.-funded militias may one day 'turn their guns on us'."

Moving over to medical care. Yesterday's snapshot noted, "The CBS Evening News reported (link has text and video) on PTSD December 26th and noted, 'There were 115 military suicides last year, and 93 through just August of this year'." Suicide among the military is in the news today. Starting with Marines and dropping back a bit to when Ann Scott Tyson (Washington Post) reported on the 2004 Marine suicide rate (reported Feb. 25, 2005) noting it had increased by 29%, that 31 Marines had taken their own lives and 83 more had tried to do so. Tony Perry (Los Angeles Times' Babylon & Beyond) reports there are 41 "possible or confirmed [Marine] suicides" for 2008. As Gregg Zoroya (USA Today) points out, none of the 2008 numbers are final yet. Zoroya tells Army combat soldier and Iraq War veteran Josh Barber's story of taking his own life because the "smell of death" couldn't be escaped and grieved over his PTSD and the military's being unable/unwilling to treat it. Zoroya explains, "Marines and combat veterans who have killed themselves in recent years, at a time when the Pentagon has stretched deployments for combat troops to meet President Bush's security plans in Iraq. The Marine Corps reported 41 actual or suspected suicides in 2008, a 20% increase over 33 in 2007. In 2007, the Army counted 115 suicides, the most since tracking began in 1980. By October 2008, that record had been surpassed with 117 soldier suicides. Final numbers for 2008 have not been released. Suicides among Iraq and Afghanistan veterans doubled from 52 in 2004 to 110 in 2006, the latest statistics available, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)." This comes as the Defense Dept and the Dept of Veterans Affairs is in the midst of their multi-day Department of Defense/Veterans Affairs Annual Suicide Prevention Conference in San Antonio (through the 15th). Michael Tolzmann (Defense Media Activity) notes that Dr. Loree K. Sutton (Army Brig Gen) explained that "toxic leadership" creates stigmas "that can kill" such as when "[a]n Army staff sergeant who had lost Soldiers in the war zone was called a coward, a wimp and a wuss form a leader when he mentioned he might need psychological help."

Meanwhile Iraq War veteran Nathan Ryan Smith is AWOL in the US. Scott Michael (ABC News) reports he is "charged with kidnapping, rape, arson and tampering with evidence." Michael quotes a rape victim stating he allegedly told her, "I have killed several people in Iraq. I'm crazy in the head, and if I get caught by police I will come looking for you and kill you." Ian Demsky (Tacoma's News Tribune) reported last week that court records describe the police involvement beginning as follows:

Police responding to a missing persons report Jan. 1 found the woman they were looking for. Her body bore the signs of torture. Rope burns on her arms were "deep and distinct." She had scratches on her back and sharp red lines running across her chest. There was blood inside her coat and on her pants.
The officers took her to Tacoma General Hospital.
She told police she had been walking to the store when she noticed a silver pickup truck with a canopy pull into the parking lot behind her. A man got out and shouted for her to come to him. He then grabbed her and choked her unconscious.
She said she woke up in a strange room. She was naked and her arms and legs were bound with plastic zip-ties. She tried to free herself, but a male voice told her, "If you fight, you'll die."
Her abductor held a butcher knife to her face and promised she'd go home if she cooperated. He picked her up by the ties and carried her to another room. She told police she saw Army patches in a windowsill.
She said she was dropped onto a bed, gagged, sexually abused and raped. She told police she was tortured with a device hooked up to a battery.
When the man was done, he let her get dressed. She said he told her he'd kill her and her family if she told anyone.

Turning to some of today's reported violence in Iraq . . .

Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad mortar attack that left seven people wounded, a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded eight people and a Mosul roadside bombing that claimed the life of 1 police officer and left another wounded.

Shootings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a police officer was "severely" injured in a Mosul shooting.

Corpses?
Reuters drops back to Monday to note 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad.


Josh Foster, of Boston, writes the London Review of Books over a bad piece the periodical ran:

The London Review let itself be carried away by an uncharacteristic fit of optimism with the cover line of Patrick Cockburn's latest report on Iraq, 'America Surrenders' (LRB, 18 December 2008). There are nearly 150,000 US troops deployed throughout the country, and while they're perfectly content to let Iraqis do the killing for them (along the lines of Nixon's 'Vietnamisation' strategy), there's no telling when (or if) they'll leave. It's possible, of course, that the Status of Forces Agreement is being ignored in the US because it shows how little America has achieved for its efforts in Iraq. But the failure of the press to report the story fully may also reflect a sensible recognition that Iraq's real future is being written in the streets, not in parliament. How likely is it that SOFA won't end up being as useful a guide to Iraqi reality as Stalin's 1936 Constitution was to Soviet reality? That constitution, which remained in effect until 1977, was described as the most democratic in the world. It included universal direct suffrage and recognised an impressive range of social and economic rights -- and wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

Those late to the party on Patrick Cockburn's maniacal ravings can see The Cat's Blog here and here -- the latter of which notes:

As I wrote in my previous blog, the same day Counterpunch published P. Cockburn's article, Reuters reported, "Ali al-Dabbagh, spokesman for the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, said some U.S. forces could be needed for 10 years": "We do understand that the Iraqi military is not going to get built out in the three years. We do need many more years. It might be 10 years," Dabbagh said at a Pentagon press briefing.But besides what this or that puppet might say, one needs just to stop the flow of propaganda and think; if the US didn't respect the UN Charter and international law when they invaded Iraq, they will certainly not respect any meaningless agreement signed by its own Quisling government. To focus on the SOFA is just another diversion; the US plan, far from being a "total defeat", as Cockburn writes, has been completely successful. Mission accomplished.The official lib-left intelligentsia must continue its real job as gatekeeper of dissent; its audiences, the most aware, active and willing to stop their governments from continuing to perpetrate crimes against humanity for the sake of elites' profit and power, must be controlled through "friendly" propaganda. When Obama's war machine is preparing to use all its bestial might against the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan and with an economic and financial crisis without precedent hitting millions of people, the public opinion in the West needs to be tamed once again. The eunuchs have gladly renounced to their organs in change of a little place at the table of the gods, or maybe they are just happy for some falling crumbs.The eunuchs have gladly renounced to their organs in change of a little place at the table of the gods, or maybe they are just happy for some falling crumbs.


You can also refer to this site's December 11th "Iraq snapshot" and "I Hate The War" for more on Cockburn's fevered prose.

In US political news, Brian Montopoli (CBS News) notes Senator "Roland Burris will likely be sworn into the U.S. Senate sometime Thursday afternoon, reports CBS News' John Nolen."

In other news, The Women on the Web score an exclusive interview with singer and songwriter Phoebe Snow:

wOw: You and I spoke very briefly between Christmas and New Year's. You were very upset because you missed your daughter, Valerie, who died last year. How are you feeling now, in the New Year?Phoebe: Well, let's just say I've shifted into neutral. I have a lot of work to do. You know, she was my only child and we had a very unusual, very unique relationship. We lived together for 31 years. I'm very forthcoming about this -- I want people to know about her now, because I sort of kept all this under wraps for most of the time that she was alive. She was a victim of multiple birth injuries. Her brain damage was caused by the birth, by the doctor. There was a gigantic medical malpractice suit that came to trial. It took 17 years to come to trial. I don't want to go there.

wOw: I understand.Phoebe: Basically her original prognosis was that she would live in a persistent vegetative state -- although they didn't use those words back then -- that she wouldn't be conscious, fully, because she had been so terribly brain damaged that she would probably expire sometime around her first birthday, if even that long. And she lived to be 31 years old. I instantly, and forever, rejected the idea that she would live in any other type of place except with me. wOw: That's rough, Phoebe.Phoebe: And for most of this experience I was a single parent. She did live with me for 31 years. And we were ... anyone who knows us will validate this -- we were madly in love with each other. And, you know, her death had nothing to do with any of her other pre-existing medical conditions. She ... I don't want to talk about that right now. But she died very suddenly, very unexpectedly. It was the worst curveball that life has ever thrown me. And, you know, I'm shattered. I'm absolutely shattered. But I'm putting the pieces back together little by little.

Disclosure, I know Phoebe (and many of the women who make up "The Women of the Web"). Recommendation, read the article and get Phoebe's new CD Live.

The Green Party of Michigan released the following statement on the slaughter in Gaza:


Green Party leaders in Michigan condemned the brutal air strikes and military assaults by Israel on unarmed civilians in Gaza and called for a boycott of Israel. The Israeli blockade of Gaza, erected in 2006 after the democratic election of Hamas, was an act of war. As a result of the blockade, 80% of Gazans live on less than two dollars a day, unemployment hovers at 50-60%, with only 195 factories working, reduced from 3,900 in 2005. In spite of this near strangulation of their society, the people of Gaza agreed to a ceasefire with Israel. Now, Israel drops dozens of bombs on students and children, killing over 820 people and wounding 3,000. United Nations aid for the injured is blocked; reporters are completely barred. Israel leaflets Gazans telling them to leave and closes all the borders. And this pogrom isn't over yet. Derek Grigsby, chairperson of the Detroit Green Party and candidate for Michigan House of Representatives, 7th district, said: "We demand that the Bush administration stop using the state of Israel as a terrorist force against the people of the Middle East and use the money being given to them for basic necessities here at home, like healthcare and education." He continued: "We call on all of our elected leaders to stand up for justice and human rights and roundly condemn the murderous aggression committed by Israel on the Palestinians." Margaret Guttshall, candidate for Wayne State Board of Governors, spoke of her experiences. "When I was a student at Wayne State a few years ago, we organized and convinced the Student Council to support divestment from Israel, one of the first schools to do so. Now it is time to implement divestment as well as academic sanctions against Israel, just as we did against the apartheid regime of South Africa." "We want all military and economic aid from the U.S. to Israel stopped immediately," said Fred Vitale, state chairperson and candidate for Michigan House of Representatives from the 3rd district. "We support, among other actions, boycotts, divestment campaigns and sanctions against Israel -- until it ceases to deny Palestinian history, ends the occupation, ceases discrimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel, and permits displaced Palestinian refugees to return to their homes," Vitale concluded.

For more information: www.gpus.org www.MIGreens.org http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10056.shtmlfor information on the call for a boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel.
iraq mcclatchy newspapers the washington post ernesto londono
ann scott tyson
anthony shadid
deborah haynesthe new york timestimothy williams
the los angeles times
tony perry
gregg zoroyausa today
the cat's blog
brian montopoli
cbs news
anna badkhen
scott michaelabc news
tim cocks
the world today just nuts

the slaughter never ends

3 January, 2009

Expanded Extraordinary Ministerial Meeting of the Executive Committee Held at General Secretariat of

Iraq participated in the urgent meeting of the Executive Committee of the Organization of the Islamic Conference on the ministerial level on 3/1/2009, chaired by His Excellency Iraqi Foreign Ministry Undersecretary, Dr. Mohammed Haj Hmoud, who gave a speech at the meeting expressing Iraq's stance in supporting the Palestinian issue and the Iraqi people and Government condemnation in the strongest words of the Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people in general and in Gaza in particular, which is a flagrant violation of international law and humanitarian law.

The Government of Iraq has summoned the ambassadors of the permanent members of the Security Council and informed them of Iraq's request to hold an urgent meeting of the Security Council to stop the Israeli aggression on the Palestinian people in Gaza and in all the occupied Palestinian territory.

The Iraqi Government has sent medical and humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip with several aircraft loaded with such assistance.

This stance comes to continue the firm stance of Iraq in supporting the Palestinian people and their just cause.

The meeting adopted a final statement that included:

Expressing the strongest condemnation of the Israeli barbaric aggression, which continues committing flagrant violations of international law and war crime, and calls for those responsible for committing these crimes to face justice.

Expressing support for the efforts of the Arab League to speed the meeting of UN Security Council to adopt a resolution which requires the immediate cessation of Israel's aggression and provide international protection for the Palestinian people and lift of the siege.

Welcoming Egypt's opening of the Rafah crossing for humanitarian purposes.

Call for an urgent meeting of the Human Rights Council on the human rights violations arising from the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip.

c.i. thought i might be interested in the above (i was) and it's from iraq's foreign ministry, januray 3rd. i also wanted to highlight dennis loo's '“Human Shields”? World Class Deceit, World Class Crimes' (world can't wait):

Israel continues to claim that the hundreds of civilian deaths (including children) in its war upon Gaza are the result of Hamas using civilians as human shields.
Israel repeated this claim today in responding to the International Committee of the Red Cross' unusually blunt criticism of Israel wherein the Red Cross describes conditions as "shocking" (including finding infants next to the corpses of their mothers) and that it had to take the wounded out during the three hour ceasefire by donkey cart because of Israel's building berms making ambulance use impossible.
Defenders of Israel's actions also repeat the absurd human shields claim ad nauseum. Some others, who are decidedly not Likudniks, have also bought into this assertion or some other variant, such as arguing that Palestinians voted for Hamas so this somehow makes them legitimate targets for death from Israel's bombs, tanks, rockets, and guns.
Gaza, as others have pointed out, is one of the most densely populated places in the world. This density is not something the Palestinians imposed upon themselves. It is something that Israel itself has created and enforced. (I am reminded here of my response as a child when first hearing that the Irish were starving because of the potato blight: why did the Irish plant only potatoes? It was only many years later that I learned that the land that the British permitted the Irish to use could only grow potatoes.)
Where are the Hamas fighters going to go and not be among civilians? Even if Hamas was using civilians as human shields, and there is no evidence that it is, Israel's war tactics (and its preceding occupation and blockade of the entire civilian population of Gaza) are designed to target everyone. This is a war that Israel's been preparing for for at least a year.

ruth was making similar points friday in 'Gaza' with regards to the liar spokesperson speaking on pbs.

so last week the u.n. pushed for a cease-fire and israel's government blew them off. what's up at the united nations? today's press briefing noted:

U.N. AGENCY LAUNCHES “OPERATION LIFELINE GAZA”
The Office of the UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process (UNSCO) reports that the Kerem Shalom and Karni crossings, between Israel and Gaza, are partially open today. But the Nahal Oz fuel pipelines remain closed.
The Rafah crossing, between Egypt and Gaza, is partially open for the entry of aid supplies and the evacuation of medical cases. The Erez crossing between Israel and Gaza is closed for all Palestinians with the exception of very urgent medical cases.
Over the weekend, the World Food Programme (WFP) launched Operation Lifeline Gaza, a global appeal to ramp up the distribution of food to people caught in the current conflict.
WFP’s Executive Director, Josette Sheeran, who went to the Egyptian border with Gaza on Friday, made the announcement after meetings with the Egyptian Minister of Trade and Industry and with Suzanne Mubarak, who is the head of the Egyptian Red Crescent as well as Egypt’s First Lady. The Egyptian Government, which gathered a large number of companies in Cairo for the launch of the new initiative, pledged to facilitate Operation Lifeline Gaza by offering assistance to companies that can provide food to WFP.
WFP says that, while it has enough food stocks to feed almost 360,000 people for the next three weeks, the heavy fighting has limited the possibility of wide-scale distributions. Many truck drivers and forklift operators have been unwilling to work due to the insecurity, and the civilian population is often too frightened to go to food distribution points.
For its part, UNICEF reports that a charter flight from its supply hub in Copenhagen was due to arrive this morning in the region, carrying emergency medical supplies for Gaza. Those supplies include equipment for specialized obstetrics care.
UNICEF also says that, yesterday, it managed to deliver 30,000 bottles of water from the West Bank to Gaza, where safe water supplies are dangerously low. In addition, 500 family water purification kits were delivered into Gaza from the Israeli port of Ashdod.
Meanwhile, the Director-General of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Koïchiro Matsuura, has deplored attacks on media installations in Gaza and condemned the killing of Palestinian journalist Basel Faraj.
Asked about a letter from Qatar’s First Lady that calls for schools in Gaza to be used as safe havens, the Spokeswoman said that the letter is certainly in line with the Secretary-General’s primary objective: to obtain a ceasefire and ensure the protection of civilians.

al jazeera offers this on the united nations:

A resolution condemning Israel's military offensive in Gaza has been adopted by the UN Human Rights Council.
The non-binding resolution, approved in Geneva on Monday, said Israel's operation had "resulted in massive violations of human rights of the Palestinian people".
More than 900 Palestinians have died during the fighting, many of them women and children, and a further 4,100 have been wounded.
At least 25,000 have been displaced due to the ongoing bombardment, but are unable to flee the overcrowded territory as crossing points remain closed.
The resolution, drafted by Arab, Asian and African countries, called for an international mission to be sent immediately to the Gaza Strip to investigate Israel's actions.

al jazeera has a great deal of coverage including:

Twitter: Live Gaza war updates
Video: Fighting erupts in Gaza
Activists abandon Gaza aid mission
Shelled family recounts Gaza horror
Israeli reservists join Gaza war
Timeline: Gaza crisis

on al jazeera, noam cohen's 'Few in U.S. See Jazeera's Coverage of Gaza War' (new york times) noted the following in today's paper:

In a conflict where the Western news media have been largely prevented from reporting from Gaza because of restrictions imposed by the Israeli military, Al Jazeera has had a distinct advantage. It was already there.
There are six reporters in Gaza, two working for Al Jazeera English and four working for the much larger and more popular Arabic version of the network, which was created in 1996 with a $150 million grant from the emir of Qatar, Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani. Al Jazeera describes itself on the air as “the only international broadcaster with a presence there.”
While getting to the story has not been an insurmountable problem for Al Jazeera English’s journalists — they are, in effect, surrounded by it — getting their reports to the English-speaking public has been a bit trickier. The network is largely unavailable in the United States, carried only by cable providers in Burlington, Vt.; Toledo, Ohio; and Washington, D.C. (In Burlington, the local government last summer rejected public calls for the city-owned cable provider, Burlington Telecom, to drop the channel.)
By contrast, Al Jazeera’s English-language service can be seen in over 100 countries via cable and satellite, according to Molly Conroy, a spokeswoman for the network in Washington.
Recognizing that its material from Gaza will have influence in the United States only if it is highly accessible online, Al Jazeera has aggressively experimented with using the Internet to distribute the information it has gathered.
For example, Mohamed Nanabhay, the 29-year-old executive who established Al Jazeera’s new-media group, beginning in late 2006, said that Al Jazeera planned to announce this week that all its video material of the war in Gaza would become available under the most lenient Creative Commons license, which basically means it can be used by anyone — rival broadcaster, documentary maker or individual blogger, for example — as long as Al Jazeera is credited.

Kat's "Kat's Korner: The really best of Janis Ian"

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Princess Brat's Big Plan"

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

Monday, January 12, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, Bully Boy rewrites history, Joe Biden goes to Iraq, PTSD remains in the news, and more.

"Clearly putting a 'Mission Accomplished' on a aircraft carrier was a mistake," said the Bully Boy of the United States at the White House today in what he billed as "the ultimate exit interview." That was a mistake, when he was asked to identify them, he threw that out. The Iraq War itself? "And when the history of Iraq is written," declared the ahistorical Bully Boy, "historians will analyze, for example, the decision on the surge. The situation was -- looked like it was going fine and then violence for a period of time began to throw -- throw the progress of Iraq into doubt. And rather than accepting the status quo and saying, oh, it's not worth it or the politics make it difficult or, you know, the party may end up being -- you know, not doing well in the elections because of the violence in Iraq, I decided to do something about it -- and sent 30,000 troops in as opposed to withdrawing. And so that part of history is certain, and the situation did change." What's certain is that he continues to misrepresent what was taking place (including Moqtada al-Sadr's cease-fire/truce) at that time.

"Mission Accomplished," he wanted the world to know was a mistake. Abu Ghraib, by contrast, was "a huge disappointment during the presidency." Not a mistake, not a crime, just "a huge disappointment during the presidency." He found also label the lack of WMDs in Iraq "a significant disappointment." In fact, let's note that passage of his remarks -- and the question had been about mistakes: "There have been disappointments. Abu Ghraib obviously was a huge disappointment during the presidency. Not having weapons of mass destruction was a significant disappointment. I don't know if you want to call those mistakes or not, but they were -- things didn't go according to plan, let's put it that way."

Let's not. Abu Ghraib isn't a disappointment, it is a WAR CRIME. And the criminals were never punished because they went straight up the chain of command. As for WMD -- what's one supposed to think about his statements today? Presumably, he means that since he lied about WMD ahead of the illegal war, he's "disappointed" that none were found and that's due to the "rationale" for the illegal war. But some will rightly point out that the construct of his response indicates he wishes WMD had been in Iraq. In which case, that would have meant what for the US service members sent there? Or is that more thinking than Bully Boy is capable of?

By the same token, he should have been forced to walk out his mistake a little further. He said, "Clearly putting a 'Mission Accomplished' on an aircraft carrier was a mistake. It sent the wrong message. We were trying to say something differently, but nevertheless, it conveyed a different message." He's referring to his May 2, 2003 padded-crotch strut across the USS Abraham Lincoln below a banner proclaiming, "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED." If the banner was a mistake, was it a mistake to blame others for it? Was it a mistake all along or just when he got caught out? When did Bully Boy believe it became a mistake? John Dickerson (Time magazine), November 1, 2003:

Asked at a news conference whether the "Mission Accomplished" banner had been prematurely boastful, the president backed away from it, saying it had been put up by the sailors and airmen of the Lincoln to celebrate their homecoming after toppling Saddam's regime.
Not long afterwards, the White House had to amend its account. The soldiers hadn't put up the sign; the White House had done the hoisting. It had also produced the banner -- contrary to what senior White House officials had said for months. In the end, the White House conceded on those details, but declared them mere quibbles. The point was, they said, that the whole thing had been done at the request of the crewmembers. Even that explanation didn't sit well with some long-time Bush aides. "They (the White House) put up banners at every event that look just like that and we're supposed to believe that at this one it was the Navy that requested one?" asked a senior administration official. Others remember staffers boasting about how the president had been specifically positioned during his speech so that the banner would be captured in footage of his speech.

Mission Accomplished? Reuters notes at multiple bombings in Baghdad today and that incoming US vice president Joe Biden has landed in Iraq. We'll come back to that but first let's turn to peace news to wipe away the smell of the Bully Boy. Military Familes Speak Out plans a February sixth through ninth action in DC entitled "The Change WE Need:"

President Elect Obama opposed the war in Iraq before it started, calling it a "dumb war." But he and his advisors have also said that they plan to spread the return of combat troops from that "dumb war" out over sixteen months and to keep tens of thousands of other troops on the ground in Iraq indefinitely.
So from February 6-9, MFSO will be traveling to Washington to bring the new President and new Congress the message that it is long past time to bring all our troops home from Iraq. The four days of events will include:
A teach-in on Capitol Hill featuring the voices of military families, veterans, and Iraqis, explaining the need for an immediate and complete end to the war in Iraq -- and the human impacts of continuing the occupation.
A march from Arlington National Cemetery to the White House.
Lobbying members of Congress to end the war in Iraq.Watch for more details in the days to come!

March 21st, A.N.S.W.E.R. will be among those sponsoring the "Bring the Troops Home Now" March on the Pentagon:

Tragically, the criminal occupation of Iraq will not be over even by the sixth anniversary of the start of the war in March 2009. People around the world will be marching together on the sixth anniversary in the strongest possible solidarity with the people of Iraq demanding an end to the occupation of their country. Marking the sixth anniversary of the criminal invasion of Iraq, on March 21, 2009, thousands will March on the Pentagon to say, "Bring the Troops Home NOW!" We will also demand "End Colonial Occupation in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and Everywhere" and "Fund Peoples' Needs Not Militarism and Bank Bailouts." We will insist on an end to the war threats and economic sanctions against Iran. We will say no to the illegal U.S. program of detention and torture. To endorse the March 21 March on the Pentagon, click here. To sign up to be a Transportation Organizing Center, click here. While millions of families are losing their homes, jobs and healthcare, the real military budget next year will top one trillion dollars--that's $1,000,000,000,000. If used to meet people's needs, that amount could create 10 million new jobs at $60,000 per year, provide healthcare for everyone who does not have it now, rebuild New Orleans, and repair much of the damage done in Iraq and Afghanistan. The cost for the occupation of Iraq alone is $400 million each day, or about $12 billion each month. The war in Iraq has killed, wounded or displaced nearly one third of Iraq's 26 million people. Thousands of U.S. soldiers have been killed, and hundreds of thousands more have suffered severe physical and psychological wounds. The U.S. leaders who have initiated and conducted this criminal war should be tried and jailed for war crimes.

On the topic of violence, Sunday the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division – Baghdad Soldier died when an improvised explosive device struck his vehicle in eastern Baghdad at approximately 8 p.m. Jan. 10. The Soldier's name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin." Today the US military announced: "A U.S. Solder died as a result of a non-combat related injury near Samarra, Iraq Jan. 11. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next-of-kin and release by the Department of Defense. The incident is under investigation." The death brings to 4225 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war.

Over 1.5 million Iraqis have died since the start of the illegal war. Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing and a car bombing at eight this morning that claimed 3 lives and left ten people wounded, a Baghdad sticky bombing fifteen minutes later that claimed 1 life and left another person wounded, a Baghdad roadside bombing forty-five minutes later which claimed 1 life and left three people wounded, a Baghdad roadside bombing one hour later that wounded four people and, one hour later, a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed the lives of 3 Iraqi soldiers and left three people wounded. Al Dulaimy also notes a Mosul sticky bombing targeting al-Hadbaa National List's Faris Sinjari -- they are among the political parties in Mosul competing for seats in the provincial elections scheduled for January 31st. BBC has video on today's violence.

Moving to Iraqi politics but starting with a US example. Willam Brockman Bankhead was the Speaker of the US House of Representatives for over four years. He died unexpectably of a heart attack on September 15, 1940. (For those unfamiliar with Bankhead, he was the father of Tallulah Bankhead.) The following day, Sam Rayburn became Speaker of the House. The following day. December 23rd, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani was forced out of the Speakership of the Iraqi Parliament. The week prior he had stated he was resigning. He attempted to take that back but a large number wanted him gone as Speaker and had wanted him gone for some time with repeated public efforts to oust him. It is now January 12th and they have still not appointed a new Speaker. Today Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) reports that the Parliament will address the issue on Saturday and they expect to continue discussing it. Saturday -- when they do not expect to make a decision -- will be the 17th. It will be almost one month later. Repeating, when US House Speaker Bankhead unexepectedly died in office, he was replaced by Speaker Rayburn the next day. Repeating, al-Mashhadani was wanted out by many (in the summer of 2006, believing whispers, the New York Times reported he would be out of the post shortly). Despite all the planning to oust him, despite the fact that it was not a surprise, nearly a month later and they have yet to name a replacement. Sam Dagher (New York Times) reported yesterday, "According to political agreements, his successor must be a Sunni Arab, as part of a codified effort to help Iraq's Sunni minority feel it has a voice in government. But disagreements over the choice led to more walkouts from the main Sunni political coalition, Tawafiq, on Saturday, weakening the bloc before crucial provincial elections scheduled for the end of January and raising the possibility of street protests by outraged Sunnis. The dispute may also keep Parliament from passing any legislation until a speaker is chosen and confirmed." Kimi Yoshino and Ali Hameed (Los Angeles Times) added, "The defection came just a couple of weeks after five Sunni members from Mashadani's party, the National Dialogue Council, withdrew."

Meanwhile incoming US vice president Joe Biden arrived in Baghdad. Or, as the New York Times puts it, "Bombings in Iraq as Biden Arrives." The paper's Timothy Williams notes, "Mr. Biden met with the Iraqi president, Jjalal Talabani, according to Iraqi state television, but there were no accouncements regarding their content." AFP quotes Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari stating, "President Talabani and I have met with him. We discussed the latest developments in Iraq and the good progress that has been made. He is aware that his new administration is facing a new reality."


"Under the leadership of Dr. James Peake, the Veterans Administration has shown callous disregard for the intense suffering of Veterans like my husband who are struggling with psychological injuries. My husband has described his treatment at the hands of the Veterans Administration as frustrating and belittling -- and has been outraged at the dismissive attitude the leadership of the VA has demonstrated twoard the epidemic of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and suicide plaguing veterans of the war in Iraq," says Military Families Speak Out's Stacy Hafley. We're focusing on PTSD again. Underfunded and hidden away by the military culture. JD Malone (Express-Times) reports on Afghanistan War veteran Rob Kislow: "A Taliban fighter blindsided the 19-year-old soldier from East Allen Township with three shots from a high-powered rifle. He lost most of his right leg. His right forearm is so reconstructed it feels like a steel pipe. He kept the bullet that pierced the back of of his skill." Malone's article includes this:

"The injury is nothing now," Kislow said, pointing to the side of his head, "it's the fight up here now."
The fight Kislow speaks of is one with posttraumatic stress disorder, which afflicts almost one in five veterans of the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, according to the National Center for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.
He said PTSD is a ghost: present at times, invisible at others. He's learned to cope with not having a leg, and with the recovery from his brain injury.

Jeff Schogol (Stars and Stripes) broke the story last week on the decision not to recognize PTSD as a wound eligible for the Purple Heart: "The matter came up in May, when a military psychologist at Fort Bliss, Texas, told reporters he felt that making troops suffering from PTSD eligble for the Purple Heart would help remove the disorder's stigma." Schogol quoted Dr. John E. Fortunato stating, "These guys have paid at least a high -- as high a price, some of them -- as anybody with a traumatic brain injury, as anybody with shrapnel wound, and what it does is it says this is the wound that isn't worthy, and I say it is." Justine Judge (CBS 3 -- link has text and video) reported Saturday on the Pentagon's decision and the reaction to it. Judge spoke with MFSO's Kevin Lucey, father of Iraq War veteran Jeffrey Lucey who was butchered and neglected by what passes for mental 'health care' in the VA. Lucey explained, "If anybody even questions how lethal or how damaging PTSD can be and whether its real we would invite them to go down to our son's grave." Pentagon apologist Stephanie Salter (Terre Haute News) believes everything is as plain as her face: "No blood, no Purple Hearts." Let's quote Kevin Lucey again, "Unless you see blood then it's not really a wound? Well I can tell you the day that I found our son Jeff was bloody, on his arm and down his shoulders." The CBS Evening News reported (link has text and video) on PTSD December 26th and noted, "There were 115 military suicides last year, and 93 through just August of this year." Kimberly Dozier noted the military culture of denial and illustrated it with this: "Commanders at one army base posted a fake 'Hurt Feelings Report' -- portraying a crying cartoon face -- to moke soldiers seeking help for combat stress. Selections on the form ncluded: 'I am a crybaby,' 'I want my mommy' and 'All of the above.' It was tacked on the barracks bulletin board, next to the sign-up sheet for the mental health clinic." Stephanie Slepian (Staten Island Advance) reports, "Joseph Di Giovanni, commander of the Military Order of the Purple Heart, Father Capodanno Chapter, who lost a finger and took shrapnel in the eyes and chest during an ambush in Vietnam, believes the Pentagon should rethink its decision. . . . William Liell, a Korean War veteran and adjutant for the Capodanno Chapter, shares that view." John E. Bircher III, Director of Public Relations of Military Order of the Purple Heart, disagrees and you can click here for his thoughts.

Mental Health Counserlor William Anderson offers his thoughts to the Sarasota Herald- Tribune:

The Pentagon has decided that the disabled and damaged young people who return from war with post-traumatic stress disorder should not get the Purple Heart, which recognizes the sacrifice that soldiers have made. The Pentagon says this is because the wound is not physical and because the damage was not caused intentionally by the enemy.
Those who say this live in unbelievable ignorance. They need a higher awareness of the nature of warfare today, and a better knowledge of medical science.
Today the weapon of our enemy is "terror," and we have identified our enemies, the "terrorists," not by nation, but by their chief weapon of destruction and the damage it causes. PTSD is a result of contact with not only the enemy's terror, but with the bullets and bombs used to create it. PTSD is a tormenting, disabling condition, caused by direct contact with violent trauma. The enemies' destruction of us is certainly intentional, and the reality of our troops' psychological wounding is not up for debate.
PTSD is well-documented, relatively easy to diagnose and clearly identified in the DSM-IV-R, the diagnostic manual used in behavioral medicine and psychiatry. In many cases, PTSD is much harder to recover from than other potentially crippling wounds. It most certainly deserves the Purple Heart. I've heard of people getting Purple Hearts for minor injuries; PTSD is a major one.
Come on, you who want to lead our soldiers. Earn your leadership, or let more knowledgeable and wiser people take your place.

Dan Rodrick (Baltimore Sun) evaluates the issue:

The Pentagon has decided that soldiers who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) do not deserve the Purple Heart. "PTSD is an anxiety disorder caused by witnessing or experiencing a traumatic event," Defense Department spokeswoman Eileen Lainez told Stars and Stripes. "It is not a wound intentionally caused by the enemy from an 'outside force or agent.'" In short, the psychological wound does not merit the same medal the nation would award for a physical one; witnessing your buddy blown apart by a 107- mm rocket is not as significant as taking shrapnel from it.Anyone who has kept an eye on the Bush administration's conduct of the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and that's an ever-shrinking number of Americans -- would understand why the Pentagon wants nothing to do with Purple Hearts for PTSD. This isn't as much about upholding standards as it is about maintaining, in classic military style, the status quo in the face of overwhelming evidence that increasing numbers of troops are surviving combat but with severe psychological trauma.According to RAND Corp. estimates, about 320,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan sustained brain injuries by 2007, while close to that number -- about 300,000 -- reported symptoms of PTSD or major depression. (An estimated 1.8 million Americans have served in Iraq and Afghanistan.) The last thing an administration waging a long, costly and unpopular war wants is for the number of casualties from that war to run into the hundreds of thousands; that's far more Purple Hearts than budgeted. The Purple Heart ruling is in keeping with what Aaron Glantz, author of a new book on the neglect of veterans during the George W. Bush years, calls the official shortchanging of service members who were sent to fight."The Bush administration was never seriously interested in helping veterans," Mr. Glantz concludes in The War Comes Home. "The sorry state of care for Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans is not an accident. It's on purpose. After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Bush administration fought every effort to improve care for wounded and disabled veterans. At the root of that fight was its desire to hide the true costs of the war in order to boost public support." And, says Mr. Glantz, rejecting PTSD claims is one way of making sufferers not only ineligible for benefits but also fit for multiple tours of duty, something vital to an all-voluntary military challenged to reach recruitment goals.

Glantz' book is due out January 15th. In the 2004 presidential debates, Democratic Party nominee John Kerry rightly called Bully Boy out for not adequately funding the VA. His thanks for that bit of truth telling was to be slammed by various outlets and to have the alleged "FactCheck.org" dismiss his statements and call them false. John Kerry was exactly right and anyone paying attention to the issue at that point would have seen (as Elaine did, she has always rightly noted that FactCheck.org has blood on their hands) Senator Kerry was correct. For those who are still living in denial, McClatchy's Joseph L. Galloway (Salt Lake Tribune) observed the p.r. efforts to make Bully Boy appear to have done something for the VA and offers the actual reality on what Bully Boy did:

Those who try to rewrite history credit Bush with increasing veterans' benefits and transforming veterans' health care. They claim that he instituted reforms in the care of wounded soldiers coming home from his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and expanded resources for mental health services for troops coming home with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injuries (TBI).
The truth is that Congress passed virtually every bill to spend more money on benefits for veterans over the opposition of the Bush administration. Reforms in the care of wounded soldiers came only after The Washington Post exposed the shameful warehousing of the recovering wounded at Walter Reed Army Hospital, less than five miles from the Oval Office.
Even as the Iraq War dragged on and the numbers of severely wounded troops began rising sharply, Bush's Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson, a former Republican National Committee chairman, was up on Capitol Hill delivering a budget with cuts in health-care staffing at VA and cuts in nursing home care.
Nicholson, on White House orders, blocked four congressional attempts to streamline the VA's handling of a disgraceful six-month backlog in veterans benefit claims -- a backlog that's only grown worse in subsequent years.

Veterans for Common Sense is staying out of that debate:

We believe a more important issue is the troubling fact that many soldiers and veterans are waiting months, often years, for mental healthcare and disability benefits.
What veterans need are pre- and post-deployment medical examinations as well as prompt and high-quality treatment without stigma. Congress ordered the military to conduct the deployment examinations in 1997, yet the military still refuses to perform the exams required by the Force Health Protection law, PL 105-85, Sections 761 - 771. Once again, VCS urges the DoD to follow the law.
What the public needs are facts about PTSD and traumatic brain injury (TBI) so discrimination against our veterans is mitigated. For example, the Department of Labor launched a new website that we highly recommend for employers and others interested in PTSD and TBI.

Turning to US political news, Senator Roland Burris has still not be seated. Yesterday he spoke with Bob Schieffer on CBS' Face the Nation (link has text and video):

Roland Burris, the former Illinois Attorney General chosen by Gov. Rod Blagojevich to fill out Obama's term, said this morning that according to the Illinois State Supreme Court and by other constitutional authorities, the appointment was legal. Appearing on CBS' Face The Nation this morning, Burris also said that the documents he has submitted are in compliance with Senate Rules, and furthermore he complied with the requests of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Illinois' senior Senator Dick Durbin to appear before the Illinois House of Representatives' impeachment committee to answer questions about Blagojevich. Following a meeting between his attorneys and the Senate's lawyers, Burris said, "It is our position that we have done everything that's required, and that, yes, I should be seated forthwith, and I should be seated prior to the inauguration of our 44th president, a seat for which I now hold." "I am the junior senator from the state of Illinois. There is no question of my legality of appointment," Burris told host Bob Schieffer. "Illinois has two senators. That is the law. We have two senators."

Senator Burris has been made to jump through hoops unheard of (see Third's editorial yesterday). This afternoon, John Nolan (CBS News) reported that Senator Burris' attorneys were "in the Secretary of the Senate's office". Thomas Ferraro (Reuters) reports, "U.S. Senate officials on Monday approved Roland Burris to fill the Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama, which would give Democrats 58 of the Senate's 100 seats, their biggest majority since 1981." Evan Glass and Dana Bash (CNN) add:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Illinois senior senator and Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin said Monday that the Senate would accept the credentials of former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris.
"The Secretary of the Senate has determined that the new credentials presented today on behalf of Mr. Burris now satisfy Senate Rules and validate his appointment to the vacant Illinois Senate seat. In addition, as we requested, Mr. Burris has provided sworn testimony before the Illinois House Committee on Impeachment regarding the circumstances of his appointment," the two said in a statement.
"We have spoken to Mr. Burris to let him know that he is now the Senator-designate from Illinois and as such, will be accorded all the rights and privileges of a Senator-elect," the statement said. "Accordingly, barring objections from Senate Republicans, we expect Senator-designee Burris to be sworn in and formally seated later this week. We are working with him and the office of the Vice President to determine the date and time of the swearing-in."


iraqjohn e. bircher iiidan rodricksaaron glantz
kimberly dozier
cbs news
the new york timessam dagher
alissa j. rubinthe los angeles timeskimi yoshinoali hameed
face the nationmcclatchy newspapers

p.t.s.d.

i love my laine and c.i.

seriously. my 2 best friends from college still amaze me. flyboy and i were reading c.i.'s morning entry and i said, 'i'm reposting in full.' but i'm adding a few things 1st.

elaine, bless her, does amazing work and does it pro bono. but she would be the 1st to tell you that c.i. sends her veterans as clients and c.i. sends them to other friends as well. she'll tell you that c.i.'s created a mini-network in the last nearly 6 years.

so with that said, here's ...

'No, John Bircher, you are not correct on PTSD'

We're starting out with an e-mail from John E. Bircher III, the Director of Public Relations of Military Order of the Purple Heart.


Before we go further, this isn't a "a blog." It might have been one for about two to five days at the very beginning (it might not have, I was inept at that as well) but this is site, it's a community, it's not a blog. It's not "What I wanted to write about . . ." That would be a blog. It's not a minor issue and someone in public relations might want to try to get the basics correct before e-mailing. Hint, it is as bad as spelling someone's name wrong. Bircher's taking offense at this Thursday morning entry and this is noted (in full) with his permission:

Greetings: I couldn't find any way to post a comment on your blog, so thought I’d just send an email for the "other side of the story."
Let me just start by saying, you did not quote me accurately -- yes, the quotes were right -- but you made it sound as though I did not think PTSD was a 'real injury', Nothing could be further from the truth.
As a Purple Heart recipient I do support the Pentagon's decision not to award the Purple Heart for PTSD.
I am also very sympathetic to those who suffer this terrible disorder and believe that that the Military and the VA are now finally aware of its effects and are offering treatment.
The criteria for this particular medal, however, is the suffering of physical wounds on the battlefield as the result of combat action by the enemies of the United States. There are many other kinds of injuries on the battlefield -- someone can have a leg crushed by a vehicle, you can be injured by friendly fire, you could be exposed to chemical or biological agents, you can even contract a life-long disease. After Vietnam, for example, those soldiers exposed to Agent Orange are now suffering from many diseases, including Diabetes. After the first Gulf war, many suffer from "Gulf War Syndrome." Where do you draw the line?
Moreover, PTSD is a treatable disease -- loss of a limb, or any combat wound for that matter, is a permanent physical and emotional scar. And, what about those who feign the illness just to receive VA medical treatment; or, what about a group who witnesses a battlefield trauma together, but only one or two suffer from PTSD; should they all receive the Purple Heart?
NO!
Just for the record, this is not a new phenomenon, it just has a new name. Soldiers have suffered from "Shell Shock", "Combat Fatigue", and other symptoms since the beginning of warfare.
Since its inception in 1932, this Medal honors those who have spilled their blood or given their lives in the defense of their country. Expanding that criteria only denigrates its honor and those who wear it proudly.

John E. Bircher III
Director of Public Relations
Military Order of the Purple Heart
5413 B Backlick Road
Springfield, VA 22151

[. . .]
web: www.purpleheart.org

Actually, that's not in full. I don't agree with him (to put it mildly) and I'll have a few comments but I don't want to start some "Bombard him with e-mails, faxes and phone calls!" thing. For that reason "[. . .]" indicates his contact info has been removed. A link to his group is included (twice, before the e-mail and in the e-mail).

I don't agree with a damn thing he says and he, in fact, proves the points we were making Thursday (and "we" includes more than me):


Who needs help from something so insignificant, so minor? Military Order of Purple Heart's John Bircher III 'explains,' "There were wounds there" for 'real' injuries and that to receive a Purple Heart, "Shedding blood is the objective."
That is so insulting and it backs up the culture of denial inbred in the US military when it comes to PTSD. Until it's confronted, many will not receive the treatment they need. The Pentagon's latest stunt and the remarks by so many in the article go a long way towards ensuring that PTSD is not seen as the very real war wound that it is.

He proves the culture of denial and he also falls into what Don Henley would describe as the I-got-mine! category. Yes, Bircher, you have your Purple Heart -- and apparently it devalues the honor for you if others get honored as well?

I don't give a damn (and I'd love to use stronger words) what you think about physical or mental wounds. Who cares what you did in the Dark Ages? Who the hell cares? Society's progressed. We grasp that mental wounds are as real as physical wounds.

You fail to grasp what PTSD is and you seem obsessed with this idea that there's faking going on -- FAKING! MUST STOP THE FAKING! Hate to break it to you, but if any faking exists today, it existed back then as well. So maybe someone lost 70% mobility and they managed to fake it to 80%? It really doesn't interest me but running a con is in our human natures and I'm sure it occurs with some claiming PTSD and I'm sure it has always existed within those applying for benefits through the VA. I'd also guess it is a small number today and was in the past and nothing to be alarmed over.

There are far more losses than the loss of limbs. And we're not going to create a hierarchy just because it makes you feel good. I will assume you've visited your share of hospitals (military and civilian). I will assume you've failed to grasp the very real wounds that did not involve bodily harm so I'm not sure how much your visits provided other than a smiling face.

You walked into this, I'm not going to sugar coat my response to you. Your remarks are insulting. They'll be seen as insulting by this community and probably 1/2 the drive-bys that read them. You may grab 1/2 the drive-bys in your favor. But your opinion is out of date and borders on hostility towards today's wounded.

And this attitude, this minimizing and belittling of PTSD, explains why so many today have trouble getting the help they need. This is exactly the culture we were talking about. 'We've always had it! We called it shell-shocked! You didn't lose a limb! It's not a real wound!'

Bircher got to express his opinion. A HUGE mistake. Huge. Forgetting Elaine's work on this issue (and her writing on PTSD in this community for the gina & krista round-robin), forgetting the members of this community with PTSD or with a spouse or loved one with PTSD, it was a huge mistake for Bircher to express his opinon.

I'm sure Bircher's a nice person, but he happens to be 100% wrong on this issue. I am more than fine with allowing for differences of opinion on most issues. I can say, "We just disgree." Not on this. This has to do with people's lives and people's suffering. I don't play with that, I don't high road it. The wounded are not getting the treatment they need. In some cases, that's due to the culture of denial on PTSD. In other cases, it's due to the appalling lack of funding on this issue. I've sat in on the Congressional hearings, I've heard all the crap from the military speakers about how they need to focus on this wound and that wound but PTSD is just getting too much money. Bull-f**king-s**t. PTSD is still not funded as needed, the bulk of those suffering have better chances of getting treatment outside the military health care. What does Elaine do? She doesn't have one paying patient. She hasn't in a little over three years. She goes to her office five days a week and treats veterans -- everyone of them pro bono. Elaine's far from the only psychologist across the country treating veterans at no charge. (She is the only one I know who makes zero dollars a week. But she can afford that.) And she does that because she's a wonderful person, yes. But also because there is a need for it.

So Bircher picked the wrong person to try to make his case to. It was never going to fly with me. He got his say. He can take comfort in the fact that the New York Times agrees with him -- the editorial board. That's not much to brag about considering last week's embarrassment that attempted to advocate for proper funding and training for the US census by arguing it was a . . . Democratic Party issue. Situational ethics. It'll be great to read their argument for the same things when a Republican is in the White House. (That truly was the most idiotic editorial in the world and the fact that no one critiqued it as such -- media watchdogs -- is astounding. Maybe everyone has given up reading those bad editorials?)

Last night I mentioned we'd hold Dan Rodricks' "Averting their eyes from troops' psychological scars" (Baltimore Sun) for this morning to pair it with something. The something was Bircher's comments. This is an excerpt of Rodricks' column:

The Pentagon has decided that soldiers who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) do not deserve the Purple Heart. "PTSD is an anxiety disorder caused by witnessing or experiencing a traumatic event," Defense Department spokeswoman Eileen Lainez told Stars and Stripes. "It is not a wound intentionally caused by the enemy from an 'outside force or agent.'" In short, the psychological wound does not merit the same medal the nation would award for a physical one; witnessing your buddy blown apart by a 107- mm rocket is not as significant as taking shrapnel from it.
Anyone who has kept an eye on the Bush administration's conduct of the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and that's an ever-shrinking number of Americans -- would understand why the Pentagon wants nothing to do with Purple Hearts for PTSD. This isn't as much about upholding standards as it is about maintaining, in classic military style, the status quo in the face of overwhelming evidence that increasing numbers of troops are surviving combat but with severe psychological trauma.
According to RAND Corp. estimates, about 320,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan sustained brain injuries by 2007, while close to that number -- about 300,000 -- reported symptoms of PTSD or major depression. (An estimated 1.8 million Americans have served in Iraq and Afghanistan.) The last thing an administration waging a long, costly and unpopular war wants is for the number of casualties from that war to run into the hundreds of thousands; that's far more Purple Hearts than budgeted. The Purple Heart ruling is in keeping with what Aaron Glantz, author of a new book on the neglect of veterans during the George W. Bush years, calls the official shortchanging of service members who were sent to fight.
"The Bush administration was never seriously interested in helping veterans," Mr. Glantz concludes in The War Comes Home. "The sorry state of care for Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans is not an accident. It's on purpose. After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Bush administration fought every effort to improve care for wounded and disabled veterans. At the root of that fight was its desire to hide the true costs of the war in order to boost public support." And, says Mr. Glantz, rejecting PTSD claims is one way of making sufferers not only ineligible for benefits but also fit for multiple tours of duty, something vital to an all-voluntary military challenged to reach recruitment goals.

Glantz' book is due out January 15th.

Bonnie notes Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Princess Brat's Big Plan" Kat's "Kat's Korner: The really best of Janis Ian" went up yesterday.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.


iraq
john e. bircher iii
dan rodricks
aaron glantz
the new york times
kats korner
the world today just nuts