I think it is ridiculous not to acknowledge that a black candidate at this level is fundamentally different from all white candidates who have come before or who are now competing. the more so a black candidate who has risked jail by doing drugs, and who has relatives TODAY living in the Third World (Kenya).
that's a direct quote from a lefty pundit who endorsed bambi publicly and we wrote about it in 'the sad rot of the left' (the third estate sunday review) but we didn't name him. i'll name him here: dave lindorff.
dave lindorff of the nation fame, in these times fame, et al thinks that barack obama 'risked jail by doing drugs' and that's a reason to support him. oh, and he's got 'relatives TODAY living in the Third World (Kenya).' that gives you an idea of how pathetic the left is, dave lindorff thinks that some 1 'risking jail by doing drugs' has shown presidential character. me thinks dave's been smoking something.
i'll be less eager to ever read anything he says again. i noted last week that i found the endoresment he gave to bambi puzzling. if you didn't get why, maybe you do now.
the left's gone insane - the faux 'left' always has been. when some 1 like dave lindorff is arguing that bambi is presidential because he 'risked jail by doing drugs,' maybe it's time for the chattering class of the left to pack it in?
i think bob somerby's going to have to pack it in.
if obama wins the democratic nomination, he will most likely lose in november. that's not due to the lawsuit brought against him by the guy who says bambi had sex with him and gave him coke while bambi did crack. though popular on youtube, most people don't know about the lawsuit. it will be from the fact that he's a ken doll. all smooth and no bulge.
jimmy carter had to confess to lust in his heart to overcome it.
it also has to do with the fact that he keeps lying so badly. he got caught ripping off governor who's lines and comes back with (a) we're friends! and (b) i have permission!
no, you don't. even if he tells you that you can use his public lines without permission, you don't have permission to do so. plagiarism is plagiarism. and he provided a time fram for his lie (click here) that turns out not to be true because he was stealing before he was 'given' 'permission.'
there's the mansion he bought with the owners now saying that bambi toured the property with ... tony rezko. the rezko he pretends he barely knows. when bambi wanted to buy it, he couldn't afford it. it was a tiny parcel of land and a mansion. it had to be split up - and fortunately michelle obama served on chicago's landmark commission which gave the okay to split it up. after it was split up, he needed to find a buyer for the parcel of land. he takes tony to it. tony buys it (at list price) to do a favor for bambi. tony is under federal indictment.
bambi's not going to be 'swift-boated' if he gets the nomination, he's just going to up against a press that loves john mccain more than it hates hillary. when that happens, bambi is revealed as the inexperienced, foolish, too green to be president candidate he is.
and what happens then?
what may happen is bob somerby unleashes the vile he has. after wards, when it does no good.
he'll want to talk about how bambi smeared hillary (which bambi did) but he's not said a word while it's gone on.
he'll want to talk about how every columnist at the nation lined up to smear hillary - but he's not said a word while it's going on.
he'll want to draw comparisons between bambi and bill bradly and between hillary and al gore. but those comparisons needed to come now.
bambi's a joke, born a joke. die a joke. and bob could have used his keen 'insight' to make that case during this campaign. instead, he's played stupid out of fear that bambi might get the nomination and the truth might hurt bambi. guess what, you believe in the truth or you don't. you believe in the truth or you're amy goodman.
it's your choice.
but if bambi does get the nomination, when he goes down in flames and john mccain becomes president, remember that bob somerby - big tough bobby - let the real candidate be smeared, attacked and lied about without raising a voice, without making a peep.
he wants to lecture the world about the lessons we should learn from al gore but when these lessons have played out, he's stayed silent.
i don't like hillary. i didn't vote for her.
there's nothing in it for me to defend her.
but that truth is the truth.
and she's been attacked, smeared and slandered.
i can tell the truth. bobby wants to hide. play good sport because good sport's more important than the truth.
he's useless because that's all he had to offer, to explain how what was done to al gore is being done to hillary. and he blinked and he played coward. so if bambi gets the nomination don't listen to bob somerby when we've got president john mccain and suddenly bob wants to tell the world about what was done to hillary.
he should have been telling it in real time. when it mattered.
1 thing i have really come to admire about hillary in this campaign is her strength. i honestly didn't think she had it in her. i knew she wouldn't crumble in front of every 1 because she demonstrated that as first lady. but i had no idea how strong she was.
it takes real strength to run for president when you are attacked not just from the right but from the left. it takes real courage to get up each day and say, 'i'm staying in the race' when idiots at the nation and loonies like stephen zune are smearing you and lying about you. when non-democrats like eve ensler are calling you a fraud. (eve ensler is the fraud - a fraud with bad hair. she needs to get honest about her politics because she's got no business endorsing in any democratic primary.)
she gets up every day, hits the campaign trail and goes out among the people. if i saw her at an event, i'd cheer her for that alone.
she really has shown tremendous strength. and i'm not a hillary fan. but that woman has tremendous strength.
i am surprised.
no matter what happens with the nomination, she's shown real strength and, i think, real leadership. i don't have to like her to say that. i don't have to become a fan to say that. i just have to be willing to tell the truth.
though the politically closeted like eve ensler try to act as if gender has nothing to do with it (while pimping the moldy old play the vagina monologues yet again), history will show that hillary set a standard. the press will use all the crap they've used on hillary when the next woman runs but, thanks to hillary, she'll have an example of real strength.
i don't think people get how much hillary is giving women with the campaign she's running. she's giving a gift that will last forever. and though i'll probably never agree with her on any policy, i will salute her for that. i will say 'thank you, hillary' for that.
she has demonstrated that the lowest of attacks will not stop a woman. that all the venum in the world hurled will not stop her.
when she announced her run, i really did think she was in it for herself. you don't put yourself through what she's going through unless you really believe in the country. i think we'll always disagree about what's best for the country, but i will never again think hillary made a run for herself. this was about the country and the direction it needs to go - for her, that's what it was about. and i think she's conducted herself wonderfully on the campaign.
if she got the nomination, at this point, she'd probably have my vote in the general election just because of the strength she's shown. and i have not been planning to vote for the democratic candidate. i was going 3rd party or else leaving that blank. but she would get my vote now just because of her willingness to make her case to the people, day after day. if you've forgotten, she didn't come in 1st or 2nd in iowa. and look how many men immediately began dropping like flies. she stayed in and she's fought for all women by doing so. i'm really proud of her.
and i'm disgusted with little media. more so than big media. little media has lied about her. they have attacked and distorted her.
they could have held her and obama to the same standard but instead decided that hillary would be held to a standard no 1 else was (they were kinder to republican candidates than they were to hillary - they being little media). and they've decided there's no standard at all to hold bambi too.
when women's history is written, hillary's run will be a huge victory and source of pride for all women. the little traitors like eve ensler will be ripped apart. and let me be clear on that, voting for obama doesn't make you a traitor if you're a woman. supporting him publicly doesn't make you a traitor. you are a traitor when you, like eve ensler, take part in trashing hillary while lying about bambi. eve ensler is a traitor. she's also a fake. other playwrights have been honest about their politics. in fact, even during mccarthyism, playwrights could be honest. the red scare didn't exist on broadway (not that eve's ever made it to broadway) the way it did in the tv and film industry (and radio which was still big back then).
so eve's not lying to protect herself. she's lying to trick people. she's disgusting.
and i hope that every 1 gets her attacks on hillary go completely against the vagina monologues. she can distort it any way she wants, but that is reality. what's being done to hillary is a text-book example of the attacks documented in the vagina monologues. eve ensler is trash. she needs to stick to salons for her politics, where she can be honest to the invited. she needs to stop lying to people that she has a right to butt into the democratic primary.
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Tuesday, February 19, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces more deaths over the weekend, a disease outbreak effecting children in southern Iraq, an outrage outbreak in the UK as it turns out -- yes -- the intell was 'sexed up,' Howard Zinn offers the wisdom only he can, and more.
Starting with war resistance. US war resister Camilo Mejia,chair of Iraq Veterans Against the War, is the subject of the documentary Dear Camilo (Querido Camilo) which was awarded first prize in December at the Tenth Icaro Central American Film and Video Festibal in Guatemala. The film is plays next month at the 25th Miami International Film Festival. The Miami Herald notes: "Dear Camilo, a portrait of Camilo Mejía who was the first soldier of the U.S. to declare himself a conscientious objector to the war in Iraq and the first to be convicted for his refusal to return to the Middle East. In English and Spanish with English subtitles; 9:15 p.m. COSFORD. Also 9:15 p.m. March 7 at REGAL." A trailer for the film can be seen at YouTube. The summary from the official site notes: "Camilo Mejia was the first soldier in the U.S. Army to declare himself a conscientious objector to the war in Iraq, and went public with his refusal to return to the front line. On 21 May 2004, amid great public interest, court-martial sentenced the 28-year-old sergeant to one year of imprisonment. Dear Camilo tells his story from his perspective, but also from that of his parents and a former classmate. It is the story of a naive but intelligent young man who grew up in Nicaragua and Costa Rica. His parents advised him against volunteering for the army, but he did so all the same. After experiencing the ragages of the war in Iraq firsthand, he started to have serious misgivings. Upon his return from Iraq, he first went into hiding, but then realised he could not go on like that and openly decided to refuse military service. From prison, Camilo writes that even though he is behind bars, he finally feels free, because he heeded a higher power than his army superiors: his conscience." Camilo Mejia tells his own story in Road from Ar Ramadi: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia (published last May by the New Press).
War resisters are also in Canada and with Canada's Supreme Court refusing to hear appeals on the issue of safe harbor status for war resisters in Canada. The country's Parliament remains the best hope for safe harbor war resisters like McCall may 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.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Josh Randall, Robby Keller, 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 the United Kingdom much attention is focused on the lies that led to the illegal war. On Monday, Chris Ames (New Statesman) explained that "[t]he secret first draft of the Iraq WMD dossier written by Foreign Office spin doctor John Williams has finally been published after a ruling back in January under the Freedom of Information Act. . . . The document places a spin doctor at the heart of the process of drafting the dossier and blows a hole in the government's evidence to the Hutton Inquiry. . . . From the time that the row first erupted over Andrew Gilligan's allegations that the dossier had been sexced-up, the government has claimed that [Intelligence chief John] Scarlett's draft, produced on 10 September 2002, was the first full draft and produced without interference from spin doctors. But the Williams draft, dated a day earlier, shows that spin doctors were sexing up the dossier at the time the notorius 45 minutes claim was included." Today Alex Barker (Financial Times of London) reports the response to yesterday's release includes the fact that "[o]pposition parties renewed calls for an inquiry into the origins of the Iraq War" while Rose Prince (Telegraph of London) explains, "Opposition politicians said the report proved that the case for war had been based on the arguments and rhetoric of spin doctors rather than an impartial analysis by intelligence experts" and that while "Ministers were keen to stree that the dossier had been drawn up by the Joint Intelligence Committee . . . [,] critics last night seized upon the similarities between the draft written by Mr Williams and the final version." Nigel Morris (Independent of London) reports, "Last night, the opposition parties said the language used by Mr Williams, the former political editor of the Daily Mirror, showed that ministers initially turned to senior press officers to make eye-catching claims about the evils of Saddam's regime. They renewed calls for a public inquiry into the build-up to the conflict." As Great Britain's Socialist Worker points out, "It's no wonder that the foreign office tried to suppress it. . . . It's bad enough that Tony Blair took us into a war apparently on the basis of a document written by a foreign office press officer. But what's worse is that the infamous claim that Saddam Hussein could launch chemical weapons within 45 minutes was not in the draft document. It was written in the margin by someone else in Whitehall and appears in the final dossier -- backing up the claim that the dossier was 'sexed up' to justify the war."
Turning to some of the reports coming out over the weekend. As if cholera, malnutrition and becoming an orphan aren't enough risks for the children of Iraq, a disease long present in the region is suddenly thriving. Maria Cheng (AP) reported that already "275 children in southern Iraq have been infected with a disfiguring skin disease, an outbreak some health officials are blaming on the war's devastating effect on the public health system. According to the United Nations -- citing reports from Iraq's southern province of Qadissiyah -- 275 children have been struck with leishmaniasis, which is spread by sand flies. Most have a form that causes skin sores, but others have a type that strikes internal organs and can be fatal." IRIN explained yesterday, "Children are particularly at risk because they typically have weaker immune systems than adults, he [Qadissiyah General Hospital's Mohammed Sahib] said. A single sand fly bite can be enough to transmit the diesease." The one that produces sores but does not attack the body's organs is not simply a few 'bumps.' The CDC explains, "The skin sores of cutaneous leishmaniasis will heal on their own, but this can take months or even years. The sores can leave ugly scards. If not treated, infection that started in the sink rarely spreads to the nose or mouth and causes sores there (mucosal leishmaniasis). . . . Mucosal leishmaniasis might not be noticed until years after the original skin sores healed. The best way to prevent mucosal leishmaniasis is to treat the cutaneous infection before it spreads" and as for the other form (also currently being found in the children of southern Iraq), "If not treated, visceral leishmaniasis can cause death." The World Health Organization provides photos of those who had the disease on their face that show the permanent scarring produced (scroll down WHO's page). As for the version that attacks the body's organs, WHO notes, "Visceral leishmaniasis, also known as kala azar, is characterized by high fever, substantial weith loss, swelling of the spleen and liver, and anaemia. If left untreated, the disease can have a fatality rate as high as 100% within two years." On February 11th, IRIN was noting that 180 children had been diagnosed with it and quoted Fahan Mohammed ("head of Siniya local council"), "About a month ago, we informed the provincial officials about the spread of this disease in our area and that we did not have enough medicines for it. But no one responded in a serious way and that contributed to the spread of this disease, as our modest efforts in the area's medical centre were not enough." Ismail Salami (Iran's Press TV) observes the outbreak "is yet another appalling consequence of US invasion of Iraq. . . . Wars are wars but the invasion of a country under the banner of democracy and bringing disease and calamity instead to the women and children, looting a nation's natural resources and exercising greater control over the region for egoistic or military pursuits is a telltale charade orchestrated by the diseased minds of the imperialists who seek to achieve their fiendish goals by any means." Note that the article contains a photo of a very small child with the disease. AP notes, "Though the disease was first identified in Iraq more than a century ago, outbreaks were rare during Saddam Hussein's regime. But since the conflict began, experts say the destroyed health system has opened the way for diseases lurking in the environment." A photo of a woman with scars from the cutaneous leishmaniasis accompanies this IRIN article which notes, "The disease's incubation period is up to six months, so thousands could have the disease without knowing it."
While requests and pleas for help were ignored, ExxonMobile, Shell, Chevron and BP expect to be heard. UPI reported Saturday that Big Oil is pushing for the theft of Iraqi oil to be pushed through the parliament which "could wrap up next month" and "Shell, ExxonMobil, BP and Chevron are in discussions with Iraq's Oil Ministry for special technical support contracts". Meanwhile the Times of India reports today that "Reliance Industries Ltd is staying away from signing up for acreage auctions in Iraq for fear of being blacklisted by the government for signing oil deals with the Kurdistan Regional Goverment (KRG)." Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) noted yesterday that the theft of Iraqi oil legislation "remains stalled by bitter rows between Baghdad and the largely autonomous Kurdistan region in the north over who will control the fields and how revenue will be shared." Despite that conflict, the delay and the reluctance on the part of Reliance, Jonathan Saul (Reuters) reported yesterday, "Over 70 companies on Monday registered to compete for oil extraction and service contracts to help develop Iraq's oil reserves, the world's third largest." Meanwhile ConsumersforPeace and Dallas Peace Center have released a statement, "The Big Three Oil Boycott to End the War, against ExxonMobil, Shell and BP, will be taken to the street on Saturday, February 23 in Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas by the Dallas Peace Center and Consumers for Peace.org as part of a two-day international action with oil workers in Iraq and demonstrators in England, Indiana and Washington, DC." Noting Alan Greenspan's comments in his recent book ("It is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows -- the Iraq war is largely about oil"), Alex Callinicos (Socialist Worker) provides a walk through, "Oil runs through the history of US capitalism and its efforts to dominate the world. It's where its greatest business dynasty, the Rockefellers, made their money. Today the Western oil super-majors and their local rivals still ride high at the top of the global corporate hierarchy."
Some that might think they'd increased their own ranking on a hierarchy would be the members of the 'Awakening' Councils in Iraq -- the US collaborators who became 'allies' when coin was tossed their way. Sunday Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) reported on a Zab funeral where almost a thousand people turned out to mourn "family members of a sheik who died in an attack there" that they say was launched by the US while in Jurf al Sukr "a number of Iraqi guardsmen quit Saturday to protest the killings." Steve Lannen (McClatchy Newspapers) reported on Saturday that "Citizen brigades in the province of Babil quit work after three members were killed by U.S. Forces Friday, a local police spokesman said Saturday" which is the Jurf al Sukr group identified by Rubin and Lannen explains this is the 2nd walkout, "The action in Babil province follows a strike by citizen brigades members in Diyala province, northeast Baghdad, that has gone on for more than a week." Meanwhile the six month cease-fire/truce between Moqtada al-Sadr and US forces may or may not continue. Later Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) reported that in the face of claims that the US military killed innocent Iraqis who were in fact collaborating with the US , the US military is now asserting that these 'allies' "have fired on American troops twice in the last two weeks". On Sunday, Steve Lannen and Hussein Khadim (McClatchy Newspapers) reported on a Baghdad bombing which is thought to be "the fifth female suicide attack this year and the eighth since November" and quote eye witness Sameer Ahmed who explained the woman cried out "I am going to explode myself if you come near me" and was shot by a shop keeper at which point the bomb went off claiming 3 lives (in addition to the bomber) and wounding eight. On NPR's Morning Edition today, Lourdes Garcia-Navarro cited an al-Sadr spokesperson who said "Sadr is unhappy with the government actions against his followers. There have been intense negotiations between members of the government and Sadr's bloc in the run up to the deadline. The cleric so far has not given any indication what he will decide." Garcia-Navarro stated there is some chance that an announcement will be forthcoming "in the next few days." Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Mudhafer al-Huseini (New York Times) report 5 Iraqi civilians dead from a rocket attack that "struck the large American military base near Baghdad International Airport and a nearby neighborhood" yesterday. Rockets accounted for more deaths today. In some of today's reported violence.
Bombings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 woman dead from a Baghdad roadside bombing that also wounded two other people, a Baghdad house bombing that wounded one person and a Salahuddin roadside bombing that left four Iraqi soldiers wounded. Reuters notes a Mosul bombing where a driver apparently "rammed a minibus into a building used by Iraqi security forces" resulting in the death of 1 Iraqi soldier with two police officers wounded. Michael Holden (Reuters) explains 15 Iraqi police officers are dead in Baghdad with an additional forty-five injured from attempting "to defuse rockets that had been prepared for launch from the back of a truck." Muhammed Al Dulaimy reports that first "two U.S. military outposts were hit by at least eight rockets" and that when police responded, they discovered "a truck that was used as a launcher and some unexploded rockets."
Shootings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports one person shot dead in Baghdad in an attack on "a mini bus," a Monday night Diyala Province home invasion that resulted in the deaths of 4 people -- the wife and husband, "their son and a female guest" and, back to today, another attack on an official as "police Lt. Col. Taha Ghileith" was shot dead en route to work in Diyala Province.
Corpses?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 1 woman's corpse was discovered in Mosul
Sunday, ICCC noted [PDF format warning]: "Two Coalition Force Soldiers were killed as a result of a small arms fire attack in the Diyala Province Feb. 17. One Soldier was also wounded and transported to a Coalition medical facility for treatment." 19 announced deaths (US service members) is the current total for the month thus far with 3963 since the start of the illegal war.
Turning to the United States. Sewell Chan (New York Times) reported on a Friday NYC action where "20 antiwar activists gathered outside an Army recruiting office in East Harlem this afternoon to protest what they described as the military focus on persuading young blacks and Latinos to fight in Iraq" and quoted World Can't Wait! Drive Out the Bush Regime's Debra Sweet explaining, "The question of military recruitment is important because you can't carry out this war without fresh troops. These troops are being trained to carry out war crimes. We're sending a message that military recruiters are not welcome to prey on yought. The war will be stopped by the action of the people. That is the only way it will be stopped." A point Howard Zinn would argue as well and he does as he addresses (The Progressive) "election madness" and notes, "Would I support one candidate against another? Yes, for two-minutes--the amount of time it takes to pull the lever down in the voting booth. But before and after those two minutes, our time, our energy, should be spent in educating, agitating, organizing our fellow citizens in the workplace, in the neighborhood, in the schools. Our objective should be to build, painstakingly, patiently but energetically, a movement that, when it reaches a certain critical mass, would shake whoever is in the White House, in Congress, into changing national policy or matters of war and social justice. . . . The two leading Presidential candidates have made it clear that if elected, they will not bring an immediate end to the Iraq War, or institute a system of free health care for all. They offer no radical change from the status quo. . . . So we need to free ourselves from the election madness engulfing the entire society, including the left. Yes, two minutes. Before that, and after that, we should be taking direct action against the obstacles to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
On the press and Iraq, the Polk Awards have been announced. McClatchy Newspapers reports:
Leila Fadel, McClatchy's Baghdad bureau chief, won the George R. Polk Award for outstanding foreign reporting and The Charlotte Observer won the Polk Award for outstanding economic reporting, Long Island University announced Tuesday.Fadel, 26, was cited for her "vivid depictions" of the military and political struggle in Iraq. "Her work provided a comprehensive array of disturbing, first-hand accounts of violence and conflict by juxtaposing the agonizing plight of families in ethnically torn neighborhoods with the braggadocio of a vengeful insurgent proud of his murderous exploits, and the carnage and sorrow among victims of Iraq's most deadly car bombing in a remote region of the country where few reporters ventured," the jurors said.
Robert D. McFadden (New York Times) notes other winners which include Jeremy Scahill winning his second Polk, this time for his book Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army and Joshua Kors "a freelance, won the magazine reporting award for articles in The Nation exposing misdiagnoses by military doctors that cheated wounded Iraq veterans of disability and medical benefits by claiming they had pre-existing "personality disorders." After an uproar, President Bush signed a law requiring investigations of all discharges based on such diagnoses.." In April of 2007, NOW on PBS spoke with Kors and Bill Moyers spoke with Jeremy Scahill for Bill Moyers Journal last October.
Tonight on PBS (in most markets, check local listings), Frontline devotes the broadcast to examining the Haditha slaughter. This being Frontline, watch at your own risk. And that's watch and listen only because Frontline does not feel that -- despite being broadcast on public television -- it is their obligation to provide the deaf or hard of hearing with a damn thing (no transcripts, no summaries).
2/19/2008
talking post
that's Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "GOP Attack Machine". it went up today and this is a talking post. the baby had fever tonight which has finally broken and i'm too keyed up from that (i worry on the littlest things, i don't deny that, i worry big time) to go to sleep. so i was looking at the computer when i came over here to charge up the cell phones. then flyboy asked, 'are you hungry?' we were at a friend's tonight before the fever started and i was too busy wondering what was going on (yes, i was in a panic) so i really didn't eat. (and as soon as the fever broke out i was 'okay, we're leaving!'). so he's making some pasta - vermicelli with some fresh zuchini and some tomatoes and i thought i'd do a talking post to unwind.
kat's "Kat's Korner: Lenny rocks for a Love Revolution" went up today and i love lenny kravitz' new cd - it is time for a love revolution. i also love the next cd she's reviewing. i understand why she's waiting on it - or toying with waiting. she's expected to do 1 review after another and she never planned to a monthly piece, just when she had time. then she started thinking, 'okay 12 pieces a year.' and - because she's so good at it - we all want even more. with her going on the road almost every week with ava and c.i. and with her attempting to do her own site and other stuff, there's really not a great deal of time. so she's worried that if she reviews ___ next weekend, there will be this assumption of 'she's reviewing all the time!' and also what's she going to review for march?
there's not a lot out there. i love music and there's really not a lot out there.
we both read the new issue of spin and they have a thing in there, as part of the cover story, about upcoming cd releases to be excited about and there was only 1 that excited me. it was the breeders' new cd. kat's excited about that and 1 other cd. for me, that's the only thing that excited me. and it was interesting - we both noticed this - that women were hardly on the 'get excited' spin approved list. there were easily sround 60 acts and there were 3 or so women: breeders, no doubt (band fronted by gwen stefani) and some 1 i'm forgetting. i'm pretty sure c.i. told me carly simon has a new cd due out and that excites me. if i'm remembering right, this will be like joni mitchell's new cd in that it will be released 1st at starbucks.
i keep waiting for the good news from the digital front, by the way, but whether i'm reading a music magazine, the washington post, the new york times or whatever, it's always about how music's not selling in any format. that's really sad. i can't imagine growing up without having music blasting and that's really not changed since i grew up.
at 3rd, in 'Roundtable,' we talk music briefly at the start and i just want to back ty up on the fact that the recording of rufus wainwright doing judy is a big, big disappointment. he sounds out of tune and droning. judy at carnegie hall was a huge, huge album. i don't know if i heard it when it came out. i do know it was 1 my grandparents played non-stop later on. i love my grandparents and there's that and 2 other cds (both by frank sinatra) that i think of them from when i was a little kid anytime i hear them. (my grandmother is still alive, my grandfater passed sometime ago). so i know that album. i mean, if you wanted something from my grandfather, sing 1 of those judy songs from the album. he'd be thrilled you knew the song word by word. so i was really eager to hear rufus perform them. but listening, i was less thrilled. i don't know. judy reached for something artistically and rufus seems more like he's attempting to copy her imitators with a lot of angst tossed in. there's no joy - even on the joyful songs - and it never picks up. i was very, very disappointed.
as long as i'm talking about the roundtable, and i see people have e-mailed me asking about it (i've got two screens open and am checking my e-mail on the other) ...
it was fun. it was lively, it was fun, it was friends talking. there's nothing wrong with that. except ...
there's not time for it. now for me, there was. i did a little bit on the other stuff and then went to bed. i believe elaine did shortly after and i know wally and cedric did. hold on, because there's no way i'm doing all those links. i'll just copy and paste from 3rd:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
and Marcia SICKOFITRDLZ.
okay, that's who i'm talking about. cedric & wally also bailed early because they are campaigning for hillary in texas. now that was known ahead of time, that cedric and wally had to be off the phone at a certain time because they were speaking sunday morning at a church.
but here's where there's a problem with spending 6 plus hours on a roundtable, 3rd still has to put out an entire edition. dona and jim had an argument over this after all of us had left the phone (long after i had). (kat, jim, dona, ty, jess, ava and c.i. are always at c.i.'s place in california; elaine, mike, ruth and i were participating from mike's via phone; betty via phone from her home in georgia; marcia from her home; and wally and cedric from texas.) they've got to type up everything (d0na, jim, ty, jess, ava, c.i. and kat). they've got to do final edits. dona had huge hopes for them doing something sunday evening, something fun. at 9 there time, ava and c.i. told every 1 to go to sleep. that was due to the very raw feelings of dona and jim. (they're fine. couples disagree, they argue, that's life.) what that meant was they slept and then had to come back to typing, editing, et al. there was no sunday evening.
what happened in the roundtable is explained in the intro dona writes to 'House Armed Service Committee Hearings you should...' i love jim and 1 of the reasons is because he can admit it when he's in the wrong. jim does that in his 'A Note to Our Readers.'
as dona points out in her intro, there were long discussions about sports and about the matrix and a lot of defocusing. i left at 1 point to nurse and get the baby back to sleep. i was probably gone 45 or 50 minutes. when i left, sports was the topic and had been the topic for some time. when i came back, it was still the topic. and when there was a pause, i did point that out and ask, 'has this been the topic the whole time i was gone?'
there is no way that the bulk of that would have ever gone into the roundtable.
i don't want to call it 'a waste of time.' i know jim is calling it that because we talked on the phone today. it's a topic that interested a number of people participating. but the reality is that it and other things meant no sunday of fun. instead, the gang woke up and had to go back to work on 3rd.
and, jim said this was ava's biggest criticism, when 3rd's done, jim's done. that's not true for c.i.
c.i.'s got to write 2 entries for the common ills. (c.i. calls both of sunday's entries 'phoned in' due to being so tired.) and, ava's right, that is something to keep in mind. dona had plans and every 1 was going to be taking part and having fun. instead, not only did they all have to go back to work on 3rd when they woke up but after that was finally done, c.i.'s having to pull together stuff at the common ills. that's not fair and that's why there's a problem with including things in a long roundtable that you know will never be part of the transcript.
1 person e-mailed to take offense (e-mailed me) with dona's remarks that it was the guys talking sports and sci-fi movies. well, it was the guys doing it. betty loves sports so she may have taken part in some of that but jim doesn't remembering her talking a great deal if she did partake. but the guy e-mailing points out that c.i. & elaine are speaking a great deal at the end.
1st, c.i. and ava can speak as much as they want. they're the 1s taking notes (that get typed up as the transcript) so if they wanted to talk the whole time, no 1 could complain. 2nd off, c.i. & elaine didn't pull any remarks. every word they said was in the transcript. they did not talk about sports or sci-fi movies (or the other topics that were never going into the rountable). there is a part that's not in the transcript, where jim calls a break (which every 1 needs but especially ava and c.i. who are having to do stenography of the whole thing). as soon as he did, i heard dona tell jim very clearly, 'when we come back, wally and cedric are speaking, the topic is the texas campaign and they need to get off the phone because they have to speak early this morning and they've been up all night.'
we stepped away from the speaker phone - ruth, mike, elaine and i - and went into the kitchen to get something to eat and to talk about that. dona was obviously ticked off. i understood why, we all did. wally and cedric were supposed to have spoken over 4 hours ago and then be done so that they could sleep. it hadn't worked out that way.
when we were all back on the line, before we started, dona said, 'cedric and wally have waited patiently. they have real on the ground information. they are going to share that and we can stay on that as long as needed but that is the topic so let's stay with it. remember that texas community members are a large number of the community, remember that the texas race is very important to the democratic primary, remember that we're not seeing reports from the ground in texas in the press right now. people should comment and ask questions but let's keep the focus on texas. it does matter and readers from outside of texas have e-mailed noting they are very curious about what cedric and wally are seeing.'
so that allowed focus in that section. then impeachment followed. that was due to their readers e-mailing on it. i think all the comments made are worthwhile but i honestly wouldn't have included that. i know why ty did and i'm not insulting him - it was a huge deal in their e-mails. i also applaud ty for bringing up 1 more topic. if he hadn't, i think the roundtable would have been interesting but no great shakes other than texas. i don't think the impeachment was a topic to go out on. the topic he brought up was important.
and what happened was ty suggested it go to elaine and c.i. and every knew it should and understood why. jim said mike and i could come in on it. c.i. and elaine have been talking about this at length.
let me note the topic: non-democrats endorsing obama in the democratic party.
non-democrats endorsing him and doing so as 'democrats' or 'independents' when they are in fact socialists and communists.
there's nothing wrong or shameful about either group. but why are they lying about it? why don't they say 'i'm a socialist for obama' or 'i'm a communist for obama.'
and why are they endorsing during a democratic primary?
i mean, you're a democrat or you aren't. if you're not, maybe you need to shut up about who the democratic party chooses or not? the general election is for every 1 but the primaries are supposed to be for members of the party.
equally true is that the closet cases are all over 40 and they're not being open about their politics. equally true is that a number endorsing obama favor the current system of government being scrapped. so why are they suddenly interested in the political process?
these are conversations elaine and c.i. have been having at length (and both have talked to me about it as well).
it's an important topic. if you read it, you'll see i'll yield my time to be sure it will be discussed at length.
here's the other thing, c.i. speaks fast. so in terms of time - the e-mailer was going on about how c.i. and elaine 'hogged' the end - c.i.'s speaking twice as fast as any 1 else in the entire roundtable and doing that to stay on time and get the roundtable done quickly.
in addition, if c.i. wanted to hog time, when dona tosses to c.i. for a wrap up, c.i. would have done it. instead c.i. says, 'give it to mike.'
but if the e-mailer didn't grasp it, c.i. and elaine didn't pull any comments from the transcript. every thing they said in the roundtable is in the transcript.
you have whole hours that are not included - whole hours when c.i. and elaine didn't say a word - so i'd be careful about claiming some 1's hogging all the time.
as a general rule, elaine speaks the least of any of us in the roundtables except maybe ruth. so maybe that's what the e-mailer was picking up without realizing it? that it was 'more' elaine. but it was worth hearing and dona's always telling her before any roundtable starts, 'elaine, you need to speak more.'
in terms of c.i. - remember i've known c.i. for decades - you need to look at what c.i.'s talking about for the bulk of the roundtable. those aren't topics c.i.'s bringing up. it's not c.i. saying, 'this is what i want to talk about.' in any roundtable, the bulk of c.i.'s time is spent adding details or comments to represent the common ills community. c.i. has to do that because sometimes we say something that might be seen as an insult or we say something and don't grasp it's an issue to the community. c.i. has to speak for the community. that's not c.i. pulling a 'i want to talk about this.' in addition, there are some topics that c.i. has to be the go-to on.
we used to do a feature at 3rd called 'the third estate sunday review news review.' that was supposed to be a quick feature. dona thought it up thinking we could do it 'live' - have a transcript piece, and it would be 1 hour. about 30 minutes before, every 1 would prepare their 'report' for the news review. my focus was the environment and jess did the peace movement. i forget what every 1 else did. jim and dona were helping with research and being 'producers.' some 1 had to be anchor and we all agreed it had to be c.i. because c.i. has the widest base of knowledge.
c.i. would have no idea what a report was on. the most known would be something like 'jess is going to report on peace' so c.i. would ad-lib an intro to jess who would do his report and have an exchange with c.i. asking questions and making comments. and when the next report wasn't ready - and it often wasn't - c.i. and whomever was reporting at that time would be told to stretch. so it required big ad-libbing abilities and a wide range of knowledge.
c.i. didn't want to be anchor. c.i. hated being anchor. but c.i. did a great job. (as the thing began stretching to 90 and then 120 minutes, dona killed the feature and no 1 was happier than c.i.)
so there's a reason c.i. speaks in almost every case. it's not like me, just piping off. if you check the transcript, you'll see things like c.i. making comments to insert reporters' names into the conversation, providing background on comments made, etc. this isn't c.i. having fun, this is c.i. anticipating e-mail complaints, etc.
and c.i. is expected, by the community, to speak for them. if i make a mistake on something, no 1's surprised. if i have an insult, some 1 will e-mail me nicely and explain how i insulted them without realizing. (and i will e-mail back an apology.) with c.i., the whole community expects c.i. to represent. that's members who are irish-american (since kat and mike are irish-americans and since there are less press attacks on ireland currently, that's not as big a concern these days but in 2005 it was), that's third party members, that's the lgbt community, that's the south which feels maligned every time some idiot like laura flanders or amy goodman pens a column repeating stereotypes as truth, etc.
so the guy who e-mailed needs to go back through the roundtable grasping that (a) most of the time elaine hardly speaks and (b) looking at c.i.'s comments and seeing what's 'this is my personal opinion' and what's providing context, credit for reporting, etc.
okay, pasta, sauce and bread (bread! didn't know we were getting that too!) are ready so i'm done.
2/15/2008
joe conason, hillary
For the next month or so, the conservative valentines will arrive every day at the headquarters of Barack Obama's presidential campaign. The Illinois senator's image will be illuminated by the bipartisan aura of admiration from prominent Republican commentators and strategists, as they savor the promise of his victory over Hillary Clinton, long the object of their hatred. He may well imagine that they really like him -- and surely some of them do, at least for now.
Such happy feelings are easily conjured these days, when William Kristol hopes Democratic superdelegates will do "the good deed" of pledging their ballots to Obama, when George Will urges Democrats to choose Obama as "the party's most potentially potent nominee," and when Peggy Noonan promises that Obama will be "bulletproof" against Republican attack.
that's from joe conason's 'What's Waiting for Obama' (creators.com). some of my younger readers may ask, 'joe who?' once upon a time, before bambi fever struck the chattering class, joe conason could be found in many, many places. i don't mean official magazines. he publishes in 1 of the new york magazines. (c.i. just said the new york observer. i always get it confused with new york magazine.) he publishes in salon - the online mag. his column is carried by creators.com which i did not know until going through my e-mails and finding his latest sent in by gillian but from a site i don't highlight. c.i. told me to go to creators and i'd find the same column there. creators distributes it to newspapers around the country.
but once upon a time, joe could get links at all the websites with his latest. buzzflash, truthout, et al. and he could be on democracy now, he could be on randi rhodes (randi had a bit of a crush on him), he could even substitute for al franken (much to the relief of afternoon listeners). these days, he's out in the cold because of bambi fever.
don't drink the kool-aid and be banished because jim jones must be elected! i don't even know that he's for hillary. he wrote a piece not all that long ago where he said the dem he wanted to run wasn't running. i assumed he meant russ feingold but i could be wrong. but joe's 'wrong' was to try to practice journalism when 'independent' media thought 'journalism' meant running a bambi fan club. gillian wrote 'i love him for his mind and face' and, gillian, those are 2 good reasons. but toss in bravery on the list as well.
if you missed it, today in wisconsin, bambi resorted to stereotypes. this is from nedra pickler's ap article (via yahoo so if you're using the link 4 weeks after this went up, you waited too long):
"Hollering at Republicans and engaging in petty partisan politics didn't help health care get done," he said.
1st, hillary wasn't 'hollering' at republicans for health care and so he's lying. but notice that a woman who wants her way must 'holler' in his book. she's a screeching banshee in his book and he'll get away with it and not get called because the media doesn't give a damn about sexism.
it's why the pimping remark didn't even get an action alert from fair or a mention from amy goodman. or maybe amy goodman fears calling out a false smear that hillary pimped out her daughter would hurt amy goodman's chances to publish in hustler again?
if you paid attention, you noticed how new mexico was 'vanished' when it was announced yesterday that hillary won it. here's her statement on the win:
I am so proud to have earned the support of New Mexicans from across the state.
From strengthening the economy to providing health care for every American to jumpstarting a clean energy future, New Mexicans want real solutions to our nation's challenges.
As president, I will continue to stand up for New Mexico and will hit the ground running on day one to bring about real change.
new mexico voted on super duper tuesday. they only finished their count yesterday. on that day, hillary won arizona, arkansas, american samoa, california, massachusettes, new jersey, new york, oklahoma, tennessee and now new mexico.
if you click here, you can see the speech she gave on super duper tuesday.
if you think back to that night, i found her speech very impressive and i meant to post a link to it. i've got a baby who is not even 1 year-old yet. i'm nursing, changing diapers (flyboy changes diapers as well, but, no, he can't nurse, that's all me) and doing the usual baby things. so i will forget stuff when i finally get a chance to blog and when that time comes it may also be true that the baby decides to wake up or that mommy is the only one who can hold and rock right. so my apologies for not posting it sooner. sherry and marlene (who both support hillary) have both reminded this week and i told them i'd track it down on friday. this is 'Hillary's Remarks on Super Tuesday:'
Thank you so much.
Tonight, we are hearing the voices of people across America.
People of all ages and of all colors, all faiths and all walks of life. People on the day shift, the night shift, the late shift with the crying baby. Moms and dads who want a better world for our children. Young people who deserve a world of opportunity. All those who aren't in the headlines, but have always written America's story.
After seven years of a President who listens only to the special interests, you're ready for a President who brings your voice, your values, and your dreams to your White House.
Tonight, in record numbers, you voted not just to make history - but to remake America. People in American Samoa, Arkansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Tennessee... and the great state of New York.
On just one really serious note, we want to keep the people of Arkansas and Tennessee in our prayers. They suffered horrible tornados tonight. We just talked to some of our folks there and people have died in both states, and our thoughts and prayers go out to them in this moment of their need.
Tonight thought is your - tonight is America's night.
It's not over yet, because polls are still open in California for a few more minutes.
I hope all of you will join our campaign at http://www.hillaryclinton.com because you know - you know that politics isn't a game. It's not about who's up or who's down. It's about your lives, your families, your futures.
It's about the people who have shared their problems with me, looking for solutions. The mother whose insurance company wouldn't pay for her child's treatment. The couple so determined to send their daughter to college, they're willing to mortgage their home with a sub-prime second mortgage. The man who asked me what to do after training the person who will take his job in another country, the veterans who come home only to find they don't have the healthcare, the compensation, and the services they need.
It's also about the people who want to seize America's opportunity. It's about the unions and businesses who are training people for green collar jobs. It's about the auto companies and auto workers who want higher gas mileage cars so we can compete with the rest of the world. It's about our scientist and researchers who want to be able to do stem cell research right here in the United States of America.
It's about our contractors and construction workers who want to get to work to rebuild America from the bridges in Minnesota to the levies in New Orleans.
For seven years, we have seen President Bush's answer. They don't know what's at stake in this election, but we do. We know what we need is someone ready on day one to solve our problems and restore our opportunities. Because when the bright lights are off and the cameras are gone, who can you count on to listen to you, to stand up for you, to deliver solutions for you?
Well, the Republicans want eight more years of the same. They see tax cuts for the wealthy - and they say, why not some more? They see nine trillion dollars in debt - and say, why not trillions more? They see five years in Iraq - and they say, why not a hundred more?
Well, they've got until January 20, 2009 - and not one day more.
Now we know the Republicans won't give up the White House without a fight, well let me be clear, I won't let anyone swift boat this country's future. Together we're going to take back America because I see an America where our economy works for everyone, not just those at the top, where prosperity is shared and we create good jobs that stay right here in America.
I see an America where we stand up to the oil companies and the oil producing countries, where we launch a clean energy revolution and finally confront the climate crisis.
I see an America where we don't just provide health care for some people, or most people, but for every single man, woman and child in this country - no one left out.
I see an America where when a young man or woman signs up to serve our country, we sign up to serve them too.
An America with a 21st century GI bill of rights to help veterans go to college, buy a home or start their own businesses.
I see an America respected around the world again, that reaches out to our allies and confronts our shared challenges - from global terrorism to global warming to global epidemics.
That's the America I see - that's the America we will build together.
I am so lucky to have the most extraordinary staff, volunteers, and supporters...
And I am so grateful for all those long hours and late nights that you've been putting in.
And I want to thank the most important people in my life, first Bill and Chelsea, for their incredible love.
They have done so much day in and day out and I want to thank all my friends and family, particularly my mother, who was born before women could vote, and is watching her daughter on this stage tonight.
I also want to congratulate Senator Obama for his victories tonight. And I look forward to continuing our campaign and our debate about how to lead this country better off in the next generation, because that is the work of my life - that is why I started my career fighting for abused and neglected children, children who have drawn the short straw in life, because this nation gave me every opportunity and we can do the same for every child.
We must continue to be a nation that strives always to give each of our children a better future, a nation of optimists who believe our best days are yet to come, a nation of idealists holding fast to our deepest values, that we are all created equal, that we all deserve to fulfill our God-given potential, that we are destined for progress together.
It is the ideal inscribed on the base of the Statue of Liberty in this great city, that has overlooked our harbors through wars and depressions and the dark days of September 11, the words we all know that give voice to America's embrace: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free" - a constant reminder that here in America, we face our challenges and we embrace all of our people.
So today we say with one voice, "Give us the child who wants to learn, give us the people in need of work, give us the veterans who need our care. We say give us the economy to rebuild and this war to end, give us this nation to heal, this world to lead, this moment to seize."
I know we're ready.
Thank you all and God bless you.
check out trina tonight, by the way. she's blogging right now (we're in her kitchen) and c.i. and ava are fine with (they support) an idea i just pitched for 3rd regarding a balance to slanted 'independent' media. so we'll have a hillary piece sunday (i know what it is and with ava and c.i. agreeing that's 1/2 the battle - i'm only semi-joking. but trina likes it so mike will and it will fly. i just don't want to talk about it here because what's the point of reading it on sunday if i've already talked it to death here?)
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Friday, February 15, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US kills allies, the refugee crisis has a new wrinkle -- voting, and more.
Starting with war resistance. Brad McCall is a war resister who went to Canada because he could not serve in an illegal war. Yesterday he blogged about an e-mail he received from an angry Petty Officer 1st Class Daniel Driggers whom McCall attempts to explain it again to, "I am protecting my nation by doing what I have done. I am also supporting my fellow soldiers that are serving in this war. By leaving and making it clear that I will not conform to this act of hate committed by my government, I make it clear that there are soldiers with conscience and that we (soldiers) should be kept safe in our own borders, and not in some country that we have no business in." Earlier this week, he addressed another e-mail from a soldier and responded, "You see, the military is built so that men, and women, have no chance to speak out against what is obviously wrong. In the Army there was this saying: 'Out of sight, out of mind'. Most lower ranking soldiers live on that principle. They believe that the quieter they stay, the smoother they will flow through, and essentially, the quicker they will get out. They are afraid to speak out. They know what can happen. I knew what would happen when I spoke up."
With Canada's Supreme Court refusing to hear appeals on the issue of safe harbor status for war resisters in Canada. The country's Parliament remains the best hope for safe harbor war resisters like McCall may 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.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Josh Randall, Robby Keller, 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."
IVAW calls for an immediate end to the illegal war, for reparations for the Iraqis and for full benefits for US service members. Today the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the US House Armed Services Committee held a meeting on "Medical Care For Wounded Soldiers."
US House Rep Susan Davis is chair of the subcommittee and she opened with a statement which included: "The purpose of today's hearing is for members to get an update on the implementation of the Army's Medical Action Plan (AMAP) and hear how the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force are caring for their wounded warriors. At out last hearing on this subject back in June of last year, the Army's Vice Chief of Staff, General Cody, suggested that we have him back in October and January to testify on the progress of AMAP towards Full Operational Capability. Circumstances precluded such follow-up hearings, and we understand that General Cody has just returned from Iraq in the past few hours, but we will nonetheless push foward so that we may learn how far the AMAP has come, and how far it still has to go." Testifying were Vice Admiral Adam Robinson, Surgeon General of the Navy; Lt. Gen. Eric Schoomaker, Surgeon General of the Army; and Brig. Gen. Michael Tucker, Assistant Surgeon General of the Army. With those and members of Congress, you might think the hearing could get somewhere.
You would be wrong. Can someone offer US House Rep Joe Wilson a job with MoviePhone? How much time did he use talking about the documentary Fighting for Life? Did the limited time of the hour and 45 minute hearing really allow for Wilson to read from p.r. material for the film? To note a screening? But regardless of the Congress member, there appeared to be far too much concern with making nice and far too little concern about getting down to what was being done or what needed to be done.
Rep John McHugh broke from his peers to ask actual questions regarding demobilization and to address the stories the committee was hearing about servicemembers "being ordered to demobilze while still undergoing treatment." McHugh noted the information on this continues to come in despite the fact that "we brought those concerns to your predecessor and we were assured by Navy leadership that those practicies would end." Robinson claimed to be unaware of any such stories and insisted that care for those in the service was maintained before offering, "From the surgeon in me, I'm tell you that most of the time I don't think that anyone should leave the service until their medical condition has been delineated or treated." It was all a lively side-step by Robinson. The question wasn't 'What do you think?' Again, to McHugh's credit, he did show some focus and determination and followed up with, "To be clear, in general terms, it would not be the navy's policy to discharge a soldier who a few days later had surgery scheduled?" When pressed Robinson would answer and answered, "That is correct." However, he quickly followed with, "I would expect that we would care for them." You would expect? What is the policy and is the policy followed? This is the military appearing before Congress -- what is the policy, what are the orders. It's very basic.
Bethesda (National Naval Medical Center) was mentioned often. Walter Reed Army Medical Center is set to be closed and replaced with a systematic facility that would see Bethesda expanded. Schoomaker stated that the "full integration of services" has already began and used US Secretary of Defense Robert Gate's shoulder injury to illustrate the way the system flows. Robinson maintains that, under the new system, "there won't be anyone left behind" and that "inroads" are being made.
US House Rep Nancy Boyda started off noting that a one year ago the committee was informed "military to civilian transitions were supposed to be halted" but when she looks at the 2009 budget, she sees they "are still in there." In March of 2007, the subject was addressed with US House Rep McHugh endorsing the 'need' for military positions to be transitioned to civilians as 'cost-cutting' steps. At that time, McHugh noted that 5,500 positions had already been 'transitioned' to civilians with 2,700 left to go. Boyda's point was that, after previous hearings, this is still in the budget. The response was, for the Air Force, that the positions "not filled by 2009 will revert back to the military." Did Boyda have a point in asking the question? Apparently not because she mistook herself for a high school guidance counselor in all that followed -- non-stop repetitions of speaking-for-me-we-want-to-make-sure-your-needs-are-met. Over and over. Really, when you a member of Congress, why not try conducting yourself like one. Boyda went on to insist that we (but really her, remember, speaking for herself) want the military to have "the ability to make the decisions that you think are best for our military personnel." Boyda may see that as footage to run in her re-election campaign but the reality is not only does Congress have an obligation but there's also the fact that the Walter Reed scandal requires that Congress provide serious oversight. If anyone member of Congress other than McHugh (a Republican) had any idea what they were doing in that hearing, they hid it very, very well.
Having wasted so much time with 'Help-me-help-you' babble, there wasn't time for all the witness to answer her question on what they needed. Schoomaker stated "we need more latitude" when it came to mental health. It really would have been nice to have had a follow up to that but Boyda ensured that no follow ups would come as she wasted her time. Schoomaker also wanted to see "a medical suppliment".
Susan Davis, the chair, captured the mood of the hearing and it wasn't pretty as she asked, "Any additional thoughts on what the problems were? Whether there was a" here she laughs "misscomunication somewhere?" Exactly what was funny about that? And does Davis really think that's how to chair a committee? It was disgusting. Davis wanted to know about the "bedside training" of the military's CADRE.
Tucker explained that the CADRE comes "from all the ranks in the Army" and that the course-work is currently a 40 hour training; however, it is becoming a three week course based out of Houston beginning in October. The three week course will put "them through the bedside manner, like you've spoken about, ma'am." He explained the special duty pay which was not initially in place (this despite his terming the CADRE's work to be "the Lord's work"). Currently they get $300 of special duty pay a month the first year and $375 the second.
Schoomaker gave a complicated example that was meant to confuse but, judging by their performance, the committee showed up confused. Schoomaker's example rested around the fact that when you are in the military and found to have a health problem, say weak ankles, they discharge with a rating, say 30%. But a person usually has more than just that or, as Schoomaker termed them, a "total person," they have a "combination of problems." And the problem with military care for active duty service members, according to Schoomaker is that. After discharge, the same service member will begin receiving treatment in a VA hospital and the VA will certify him or her for additional health problems. Schoomaker appeared to be making an argument that both the VA and the military should work from the same table -- this was what he found "fundamentally flawed" in the process. It really shouldn't require a great deal of work on the part of Congress to ensure that the VA and the military work from the same disability tables. And it should be the VA's because, as Schoomaker pointed out, that table addresses the "total person" and the health in full. Why don't they use it currently? No one on the committee thought to ask. It's cheaper to discharge with one disability, cheaper for the military. It keeps the costs of beneifts down. Sure would have been nice if Davis or Boyda had thought to use their time for something that really mattered. Schoomaker cautioned of quick fixes, "When you speed up a bad process all you have is a fast bad process."
US Rep John Kline wondered if "we let this emphasis on PTSD . . . pull us away from this orthopedic effort?" Schoomaker disagreed that there was a signature injury to the Iraq War although he did feel there was a signature weapon "blasts." On "blast injury," Schoomaker wondered, "Are we keeping balanced? Are we looking at all the gaps? . . . And are we doing all the things for this singular weapon which is blast?" Robinson offered that "amputations are seen" which makes it appear to have an end point that conditions such as PTSD may not appear to have. He stated that "research needs to be done also in terms of the limbs and the bio-mechanics and the future is really bounding with opportunities." But TBI -- traumatic blast injury -- "is something that's unseen and we don't know what we don't know. With a limb there is an amputation . . . With" TBI "you don't know." Robinson also noted that PTSD was present during Vietnam and the veterans who developed it "were not treated . . . and now we're seeing . . . 35 years later that that was an important thing."
Davis was in wind-down mode (even though the hearing could have run for 15 more minutes) and wondered whether evaluations (she termed what had transpired an "evaluation") should be done yearly or every six months. All offering testimony agreed that a year was too long and that they should meet every six months on this topic. Davis' website notes, "A leading advocate for military families in San Diego and around the world, Davis intends to conduct thoughtful hearings which will focus on the needs of our servicemen and women and their families." That intention was not present in the hearing.
In today's New York Times, Lizette Alvarez and Deborah Sontag continue to explore the violence taking place for veterans when they return and they open with the story of Sgt. Erin Edwards who, despite taking the necessary steps to keep her husband Sgt. William Edwards away from her, was killed by her husband in 2004. Steps she took were not followed through on and one example is the fact that William Edwards was not supposed to be allowed off base without an officer accompanying him but that wasn't enforced. The reporters observe that there was a minor wave of attention to domestic abuse and spousal homicide rates in the US military at the end of the 90s, but "just as the Defense Department undertook substantial changes, guided by a Congressionally chartered task force on domestic violence that decried a system more adept at protecting offenders than victims, the wars in Afghanistan and then Iraq began." The reporters note that, "The fatalities examined by The Times show a military system that tries and sometimes fails to balance the demands of fighting a war with those of eradicating domestic violence. According to interviews with law enforcement officials and court documents, the military has sent to war service members who had been charged with and even convicted of domestic violence crimes. Deploying such convicted service members to a war zone violates military regulations and, in some cases, federal law." On January 27th, Alvarez and Sontag contributed "Combat Trauma Takes the Witness Stand," January 13th, they contributed "Across America, Deadly Echoes of Foreign Battles" and, February 14, 2007, Alvarez reported on the the increase for moral waivers allowing those with felony convictions to join the military.
Meanwhile, Ian Fisher (New York Times) gets a first for his paper, Iraqis killed by US forces are innocent -- and before an investigation! If you're thinking there's a major shift taking place at the paper of record, think again. The six dead aren't just any Iraqis, they're the heart of the counter-insurgency plans, the 'Awakening' Council. Fisher reports that the six "mistakenly fired on American soldiers in the north, the Iraqi police said. The American forces fired back, killing them and two women in nearby houses, the polic said." Contrast that with any other event even the September slaughter in Baghdad on the part of Blackwater. No Iraqi dead ever gets that sort of treatment from the New York Times but the "Awakening" Council isn't any mere Iraq, they are Iraqis on the US payroll, paid to drop arms against the US, and 'loyal' as long as the money's there. Those deaths were yesterday (and the two women are barely dealt with). Today, Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) reports 3 'Awakening' Council members shot dead in Baghdad by "an American helicopter" which also wounded two more and notes, "Sheik Mohammed Ghuriari, who heads the so-called Awakening Councils that supply fighters to protect neighborhoods in north Babil province, said it was the third U.S.-led strike on one of their checkpoints in less than two months.".
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad car bombing claimed 2 lives and left four more wounded. Reuters notes a Tal Afar bombing where 16 civilians were killed at a mosque. Sahar Issa reports that there were two bombers with one getting shot and the other detonating the bomb. Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) explains, "The attackers struck during the midday Friday prayers, the most important of the Muslim week." M-NF announces, "Attack helicopters responded to a small-arms fire attack on Coalition Forces near the town during the early morning hours Feb. 15. The helicopters engaged one structure with rockets."
Kidnappings?
Reuters reports aa family of four ("including two women") were kidnapped in Balad Ruz today.
Corpses?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 corpses in Baghdad and 5 corpses in Diyala Province. Reuters notes 1 corpse discovered in Balad Rus.
Meanwhile, Moahmmed Abbas (Reuters) quotes puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki who apparently -- possibly during his time as exile -- is a big fan of Donna Summer: "We must keep our fingers on the trigger." Because? Love is in control?
Picking up from yesterday, we'll return to the subject of the refugees. Over 4 milliion refugees have been created by the illegal war. The figure includes internal and external refugees -- both those displaced outside their country and those displace internally. The Iraqi Parliament is calling for provisional elections and Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) reports that among the unanswered questions are those pertaining to the refugees including where they would vote if they were allowed to vote? Would they be counted as voters in the provinces they hailed from or, if internally displaced, voters for the provinces they currently reside in? Rubin also notes, "The problem is that many of the nation's most powerful political parties have divided up most of the seats on the Independent Higher Election Commission, which oversees national election policy. That means there are few, if any, independent brokers overseeing the election process, according to Iraqi academics and lawmakers. Some other parties are not represented on the commission."
Yesterday, Antonio Guterres, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, reminded that is still not safe for refugees to return to Iraq. IRIN quotes Guterres: "We have clear criteria for the promotion of returns -- those criteria are not met by the situation in Iraq now. So we are not promoting returns to Iraq in the present circumstances because we do not believe the conditions are there for that to be possible on a meaningfuly scale." Haifa Zangana (Guardian of London) explains:
The return of some refugees is not related to the success of the surge, the establishment of security or a reduction in "sectarian violence", the euphemism for death squads that have infiltrated the security services and local militias. The savings of most refugees have run out, and they face real poverty since they cannot compete for the few jobs available in countries that have historically been poorer than Iraq. While I was in Amman in June, I met an Iraqi engineer who now works as a cleaner to provide for his family. Others, especially the elderly and children, are exhausted by visa restrictions; Most refugees, being of urban backgrounds, rented flats at steep prices, forcing families to share, sometimes with up to five adults and children in one room. Many refugees, previously from professional backgrounds, have had to rely on charity donations or support from relatives living in Europe.
Refugees in Syria or elsewhere rely on pensions, requiring them to go back to their workplaces in Iraq once every couple of months, leaving their families behind. Some go back also to collect monthly food rations to partially sell in the country. In the past, due to corruption in various government offices, some employees didn't attend work but collected half their salaries. Their bosses collected the rest in exchange for allowing them not to show up except for occasional days. All these arrangements came to an end after neighbouring countries implemented visa restrictions and it is almost impossible to get a visa to the UK or the US, despite their responsibility in creating the mayhem in Iraq. Now many refugees who have survived so far with such arrangements are desperate, and their only remaining hope is to share life with their extended families inside Iraq. In most cases they are "internally displaced", ie still refugees.
The Myth of the Great Return. Or as Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London via CounterPunch) observed last weekend: "As a propaganda exercise designed to show that the Iraqi government was restoring peace, it never quite worked. The majority of the returnees said they were returning to Baghdad, not because it was safer, but because they had run out of money in Syria or their visas had expired. There has been no mass return of the two million Iraqis who fled to Syria and Jordan or a further 2.4 million refugees who left their homes within Iraq." The propaganda push did a lot of damage in real time.
Turning to US politics, as Mike, Marcia, Kat, Rebecca, Cedric and Wally noted yesterday, Hillary Clinton won New Mexico -- a Super Duper Tuesday state that only finished its count yesterday.
Such happy feelings are easily conjured these days, when William Kristol hopes Democratic superdelegates will do "the good deed" of pledging their ballots to Obama, when George Will urges Democrats to choose Obama as "the party's most potentially potent nominee," and when Peggy Noonan promises that Obama will be "bulletproof" against Republican attack.
that's from joe conason's 'What's Waiting for Obama' (creators.com). some of my younger readers may ask, 'joe who?' once upon a time, before bambi fever struck the chattering class, joe conason could be found in many, many places. i don't mean official magazines. he publishes in 1 of the new york magazines. (c.i. just said the new york observer. i always get it confused with new york magazine.) he publishes in salon - the online mag. his column is carried by creators.com which i did not know until going through my e-mails and finding his latest sent in by gillian but from a site i don't highlight. c.i. told me to go to creators and i'd find the same column there. creators distributes it to newspapers around the country.
but once upon a time, joe could get links at all the websites with his latest. buzzflash, truthout, et al. and he could be on democracy now, he could be on randi rhodes (randi had a bit of a crush on him), he could even substitute for al franken (much to the relief of afternoon listeners). these days, he's out in the cold because of bambi fever.
don't drink the kool-aid and be banished because jim jones must be elected! i don't even know that he's for hillary. he wrote a piece not all that long ago where he said the dem he wanted to run wasn't running. i assumed he meant russ feingold but i could be wrong. but joe's 'wrong' was to try to practice journalism when 'independent' media thought 'journalism' meant running a bambi fan club. gillian wrote 'i love him for his mind and face' and, gillian, those are 2 good reasons. but toss in bravery on the list as well.
if you missed it, today in wisconsin, bambi resorted to stereotypes. this is from nedra pickler's ap article (via yahoo so if you're using the link 4 weeks after this went up, you waited too long):
"Hollering at Republicans and engaging in petty partisan politics didn't help health care get done," he said.
1st, hillary wasn't 'hollering' at republicans for health care and so he's lying. but notice that a woman who wants her way must 'holler' in his book. she's a screeching banshee in his book and he'll get away with it and not get called because the media doesn't give a damn about sexism.
it's why the pimping remark didn't even get an action alert from fair or a mention from amy goodman. or maybe amy goodman fears calling out a false smear that hillary pimped out her daughter would hurt amy goodman's chances to publish in hustler again?
if you paid attention, you noticed how new mexico was 'vanished' when it was announced yesterday that hillary won it. here's her statement on the win:
I am so proud to have earned the support of New Mexicans from across the state.
From strengthening the economy to providing health care for every American to jumpstarting a clean energy future, New Mexicans want real solutions to our nation's challenges.
As president, I will continue to stand up for New Mexico and will hit the ground running on day one to bring about real change.
new mexico voted on super duper tuesday. they only finished their count yesterday. on that day, hillary won arizona, arkansas, american samoa, california, massachusettes, new jersey, new york, oklahoma, tennessee and now new mexico.
if you click here, you can see the speech she gave on super duper tuesday.
if you think back to that night, i found her speech very impressive and i meant to post a link to it. i've got a baby who is not even 1 year-old yet. i'm nursing, changing diapers (flyboy changes diapers as well, but, no, he can't nurse, that's all me) and doing the usual baby things. so i will forget stuff when i finally get a chance to blog and when that time comes it may also be true that the baby decides to wake up or that mommy is the only one who can hold and rock right. so my apologies for not posting it sooner. sherry and marlene (who both support hillary) have both reminded this week and i told them i'd track it down on friday. this is 'Hillary's Remarks on Super Tuesday:'
Thank you so much.
Tonight, we are hearing the voices of people across America.
People of all ages and of all colors, all faiths and all walks of life. People on the day shift, the night shift, the late shift with the crying baby. Moms and dads who want a better world for our children. Young people who deserve a world of opportunity. All those who aren't in the headlines, but have always written America's story.
After seven years of a President who listens only to the special interests, you're ready for a President who brings your voice, your values, and your dreams to your White House.
Tonight, in record numbers, you voted not just to make history - but to remake America. People in American Samoa, Arkansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Tennessee... and the great state of New York.
On just one really serious note, we want to keep the people of Arkansas and Tennessee in our prayers. They suffered horrible tornados tonight. We just talked to some of our folks there and people have died in both states, and our thoughts and prayers go out to them in this moment of their need.
Tonight thought is your - tonight is America's night.
It's not over yet, because polls are still open in California for a few more minutes.
I hope all of you will join our campaign at http://www.hillaryclinton.com because you know - you know that politics isn't a game. It's not about who's up or who's down. It's about your lives, your families, your futures.
It's about the people who have shared their problems with me, looking for solutions. The mother whose insurance company wouldn't pay for her child's treatment. The couple so determined to send their daughter to college, they're willing to mortgage their home with a sub-prime second mortgage. The man who asked me what to do after training the person who will take his job in another country, the veterans who come home only to find they don't have the healthcare, the compensation, and the services they need.
It's also about the people who want to seize America's opportunity. It's about the unions and businesses who are training people for green collar jobs. It's about the auto companies and auto workers who want higher gas mileage cars so we can compete with the rest of the world. It's about our scientist and researchers who want to be able to do stem cell research right here in the United States of America.
It's about our contractors and construction workers who want to get to work to rebuild America from the bridges in Minnesota to the levies in New Orleans.
For seven years, we have seen President Bush's answer. They don't know what's at stake in this election, but we do. We know what we need is someone ready on day one to solve our problems and restore our opportunities. Because when the bright lights are off and the cameras are gone, who can you count on to listen to you, to stand up for you, to deliver solutions for you?
Well, the Republicans want eight more years of the same. They see tax cuts for the wealthy - and they say, why not some more? They see nine trillion dollars in debt - and say, why not trillions more? They see five years in Iraq - and they say, why not a hundred more?
Well, they've got until January 20, 2009 - and not one day more.
Now we know the Republicans won't give up the White House without a fight, well let me be clear, I won't let anyone swift boat this country's future. Together we're going to take back America because I see an America where our economy works for everyone, not just those at the top, where prosperity is shared and we create good jobs that stay right here in America.
I see an America where we stand up to the oil companies and the oil producing countries, where we launch a clean energy revolution and finally confront the climate crisis.
I see an America where we don't just provide health care for some people, or most people, but for every single man, woman and child in this country - no one left out.
I see an America where when a young man or woman signs up to serve our country, we sign up to serve them too.
An America with a 21st century GI bill of rights to help veterans go to college, buy a home or start their own businesses.
I see an America respected around the world again, that reaches out to our allies and confronts our shared challenges - from global terrorism to global warming to global epidemics.
That's the America I see - that's the America we will build together.
I am so lucky to have the most extraordinary staff, volunteers, and supporters...
And I am so grateful for all those long hours and late nights that you've been putting in.
And I want to thank the most important people in my life, first Bill and Chelsea, for their incredible love.
They have done so much day in and day out and I want to thank all my friends and family, particularly my mother, who was born before women could vote, and is watching her daughter on this stage tonight.
I also want to congratulate Senator Obama for his victories tonight. And I look forward to continuing our campaign and our debate about how to lead this country better off in the next generation, because that is the work of my life - that is why I started my career fighting for abused and neglected children, children who have drawn the short straw in life, because this nation gave me every opportunity and we can do the same for every child.
We must continue to be a nation that strives always to give each of our children a better future, a nation of optimists who believe our best days are yet to come, a nation of idealists holding fast to our deepest values, that we are all created equal, that we all deserve to fulfill our God-given potential, that we are destined for progress together.
It is the ideal inscribed on the base of the Statue of Liberty in this great city, that has overlooked our harbors through wars and depressions and the dark days of September 11, the words we all know that give voice to America's embrace: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free" - a constant reminder that here in America, we face our challenges and we embrace all of our people.
So today we say with one voice, "Give us the child who wants to learn, give us the people in need of work, give us the veterans who need our care. We say give us the economy to rebuild and this war to end, give us this nation to heal, this world to lead, this moment to seize."
I know we're ready.
Thank you all and God bless you.
check out trina tonight, by the way. she's blogging right now (we're in her kitchen) and c.i. and ava are fine with (they support) an idea i just pitched for 3rd regarding a balance to slanted 'independent' media. so we'll have a hillary piece sunday (i know what it is and with ava and c.i. agreeing that's 1/2 the battle - i'm only semi-joking. but trina likes it so mike will and it will fly. i just don't want to talk about it here because what's the point of reading it on sunday if i've already talked it to death here?)
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Friday, February 15, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US kills allies, the refugee crisis has a new wrinkle -- voting, and more.
Starting with war resistance. Brad McCall is a war resister who went to Canada because he could not serve in an illegal war. Yesterday he blogged about an e-mail he received from an angry Petty Officer 1st Class Daniel Driggers whom McCall attempts to explain it again to, "I am protecting my nation by doing what I have done. I am also supporting my fellow soldiers that are serving in this war. By leaving and making it clear that I will not conform to this act of hate committed by my government, I make it clear that there are soldiers with conscience and that we (soldiers) should be kept safe in our own borders, and not in some country that we have no business in." Earlier this week, he addressed another e-mail from a soldier and responded, "You see, the military is built so that men, and women, have no chance to speak out against what is obviously wrong. In the Army there was this saying: 'Out of sight, out of mind'. Most lower ranking soldiers live on that principle. They believe that the quieter they stay, the smoother they will flow through, and essentially, the quicker they will get out. They are afraid to speak out. They know what can happen. I knew what would happen when I spoke up."
With Canada's Supreme Court refusing to hear appeals on the issue of safe harbor status for war resisters in Canada. The country's Parliament remains the best hope for safe harbor war resisters like McCall may 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.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Josh Randall, Robby Keller, 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."
IVAW calls for an immediate end to the illegal war, for reparations for the Iraqis and for full benefits for US service members. Today the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the US House Armed Services Committee held a meeting on "Medical Care For Wounded Soldiers."
US House Rep Susan Davis is chair of the subcommittee and she opened with a statement which included: "The purpose of today's hearing is for members to get an update on the implementation of the Army's Medical Action Plan (AMAP) and hear how the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force are caring for their wounded warriors. At out last hearing on this subject back in June of last year, the Army's Vice Chief of Staff, General Cody, suggested that we have him back in October and January to testify on the progress of AMAP towards Full Operational Capability. Circumstances precluded such follow-up hearings, and we understand that General Cody has just returned from Iraq in the past few hours, but we will nonetheless push foward so that we may learn how far the AMAP has come, and how far it still has to go." Testifying were Vice Admiral Adam Robinson, Surgeon General of the Navy; Lt. Gen. Eric Schoomaker, Surgeon General of the Army; and Brig. Gen. Michael Tucker, Assistant Surgeon General of the Army. With those and members of Congress, you might think the hearing could get somewhere.
You would be wrong. Can someone offer US House Rep Joe Wilson a job with MoviePhone? How much time did he use talking about the documentary Fighting for Life? Did the limited time of the hour and 45 minute hearing really allow for Wilson to read from p.r. material for the film? To note a screening? But regardless of the Congress member, there appeared to be far too much concern with making nice and far too little concern about getting down to what was being done or what needed to be done.
Rep John McHugh broke from his peers to ask actual questions regarding demobilization and to address the stories the committee was hearing about servicemembers "being ordered to demobilze while still undergoing treatment." McHugh noted the information on this continues to come in despite the fact that "we brought those concerns to your predecessor and we were assured by Navy leadership that those practicies would end." Robinson claimed to be unaware of any such stories and insisted that care for those in the service was maintained before offering, "From the surgeon in me, I'm tell you that most of the time I don't think that anyone should leave the service until their medical condition has been delineated or treated." It was all a lively side-step by Robinson. The question wasn't 'What do you think?' Again, to McHugh's credit, he did show some focus and determination and followed up with, "To be clear, in general terms, it would not be the navy's policy to discharge a soldier who a few days later had surgery scheduled?" When pressed Robinson would answer and answered, "That is correct." However, he quickly followed with, "I would expect that we would care for them." You would expect? What is the policy and is the policy followed? This is the military appearing before Congress -- what is the policy, what are the orders. It's very basic.
Bethesda (National Naval Medical Center) was mentioned often. Walter Reed Army Medical Center is set to be closed and replaced with a systematic facility that would see Bethesda expanded. Schoomaker stated that the "full integration of services" has already began and used US Secretary of Defense Robert Gate's shoulder injury to illustrate the way the system flows. Robinson maintains that, under the new system, "there won't be anyone left behind" and that "inroads" are being made.
US House Rep Nancy Boyda started off noting that a one year ago the committee was informed "military to civilian transitions were supposed to be halted" but when she looks at the 2009 budget, she sees they "are still in there." In March of 2007, the subject was addressed with US House Rep McHugh endorsing the 'need' for military positions to be transitioned to civilians as 'cost-cutting' steps. At that time, McHugh noted that 5,500 positions had already been 'transitioned' to civilians with 2,700 left to go. Boyda's point was that, after previous hearings, this is still in the budget. The response was, for the Air Force, that the positions "not filled by 2009 will revert back to the military." Did Boyda have a point in asking the question? Apparently not because she mistook herself for a high school guidance counselor in all that followed -- non-stop repetitions of speaking-for-me-we-want-to-make-sure-your-needs-are-met. Over and over. Really, when you a member of Congress, why not try conducting yourself like one. Boyda went on to insist that we (but really her, remember, speaking for herself) want the military to have "the ability to make the decisions that you think are best for our military personnel." Boyda may see that as footage to run in her re-election campaign but the reality is not only does Congress have an obligation but there's also the fact that the Walter Reed scandal requires that Congress provide serious oversight. If anyone member of Congress other than McHugh (a Republican) had any idea what they were doing in that hearing, they hid it very, very well.
Having wasted so much time with 'Help-me-help-you' babble, there wasn't time for all the witness to answer her question on what they needed. Schoomaker stated "we need more latitude" when it came to mental health. It really would have been nice to have had a follow up to that but Boyda ensured that no follow ups would come as she wasted her time. Schoomaker also wanted to see "a medical suppliment".
Susan Davis, the chair, captured the mood of the hearing and it wasn't pretty as she asked, "Any additional thoughts on what the problems were? Whether there was a" here she laughs "misscomunication somewhere?" Exactly what was funny about that? And does Davis really think that's how to chair a committee? It was disgusting. Davis wanted to know about the "bedside training" of the military's CADRE.
Tucker explained that the CADRE comes "from all the ranks in the Army" and that the course-work is currently a 40 hour training; however, it is becoming a three week course based out of Houston beginning in October. The three week course will put "them through the bedside manner, like you've spoken about, ma'am." He explained the special duty pay which was not initially in place (this despite his terming the CADRE's work to be "the Lord's work"). Currently they get $300 of special duty pay a month the first year and $375 the second.
Schoomaker gave a complicated example that was meant to confuse but, judging by their performance, the committee showed up confused. Schoomaker's example rested around the fact that when you are in the military and found to have a health problem, say weak ankles, they discharge with a rating, say 30%. But a person usually has more than just that or, as Schoomaker termed them, a "total person," they have a "combination of problems." And the problem with military care for active duty service members, according to Schoomaker is that. After discharge, the same service member will begin receiving treatment in a VA hospital and the VA will certify him or her for additional health problems. Schoomaker appeared to be making an argument that both the VA and the military should work from the same table -- this was what he found "fundamentally flawed" in the process. It really shouldn't require a great deal of work on the part of Congress to ensure that the VA and the military work from the same disability tables. And it should be the VA's because, as Schoomaker pointed out, that table addresses the "total person" and the health in full. Why don't they use it currently? No one on the committee thought to ask. It's cheaper to discharge with one disability, cheaper for the military. It keeps the costs of beneifts down. Sure would have been nice if Davis or Boyda had thought to use their time for something that really mattered. Schoomaker cautioned of quick fixes, "When you speed up a bad process all you have is a fast bad process."
US Rep John Kline wondered if "we let this emphasis on PTSD . . . pull us away from this orthopedic effort?" Schoomaker disagreed that there was a signature injury to the Iraq War although he did feel there was a signature weapon "blasts." On "blast injury," Schoomaker wondered, "Are we keeping balanced? Are we looking at all the gaps? . . . And are we doing all the things for this singular weapon which is blast?" Robinson offered that "amputations are seen" which makes it appear to have an end point that conditions such as PTSD may not appear to have. He stated that "research needs to be done also in terms of the limbs and the bio-mechanics and the future is really bounding with opportunities." But TBI -- traumatic blast injury -- "is something that's unseen and we don't know what we don't know. With a limb there is an amputation . . . With" TBI "you don't know." Robinson also noted that PTSD was present during Vietnam and the veterans who developed it "were not treated . . . and now we're seeing . . . 35 years later that that was an important thing."
Davis was in wind-down mode (even though the hearing could have run for 15 more minutes) and wondered whether evaluations (she termed what had transpired an "evaluation") should be done yearly or every six months. All offering testimony agreed that a year was too long and that they should meet every six months on this topic. Davis' website notes, "A leading advocate for military families in San Diego and around the world, Davis intends to conduct thoughtful hearings which will focus on the needs of our servicemen and women and their families." That intention was not present in the hearing.
In today's New York Times, Lizette Alvarez and Deborah Sontag continue to explore the violence taking place for veterans when they return and they open with the story of Sgt. Erin Edwards who, despite taking the necessary steps to keep her husband Sgt. William Edwards away from her, was killed by her husband in 2004. Steps she took were not followed through on and one example is the fact that William Edwards was not supposed to be allowed off base without an officer accompanying him but that wasn't enforced. The reporters observe that there was a minor wave of attention to domestic abuse and spousal homicide rates in the US military at the end of the 90s, but "just as the Defense Department undertook substantial changes, guided by a Congressionally chartered task force on domestic violence that decried a system more adept at protecting offenders than victims, the wars in Afghanistan and then Iraq began." The reporters note that, "The fatalities examined by The Times show a military system that tries and sometimes fails to balance the demands of fighting a war with those of eradicating domestic violence. According to interviews with law enforcement officials and court documents, the military has sent to war service members who had been charged with and even convicted of domestic violence crimes. Deploying such convicted service members to a war zone violates military regulations and, in some cases, federal law." On January 27th, Alvarez and Sontag contributed "Combat Trauma Takes the Witness Stand," January 13th, they contributed "Across America, Deadly Echoes of Foreign Battles" and, February 14, 2007, Alvarez reported on the the increase for moral waivers allowing those with felony convictions to join the military.
Meanwhile, Ian Fisher (New York Times) gets a first for his paper, Iraqis killed by US forces are innocent -- and before an investigation! If you're thinking there's a major shift taking place at the paper of record, think again. The six dead aren't just any Iraqis, they're the heart of the counter-insurgency plans, the 'Awakening' Council. Fisher reports that the six "mistakenly fired on American soldiers in the north, the Iraqi police said. The American forces fired back, killing them and two women in nearby houses, the polic said." Contrast that with any other event even the September slaughter in Baghdad on the part of Blackwater. No Iraqi dead ever gets that sort of treatment from the New York Times but the "Awakening" Council isn't any mere Iraq, they are Iraqis on the US payroll, paid to drop arms against the US, and 'loyal' as long as the money's there. Those deaths were yesterday (and the two women are barely dealt with). Today, Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) reports 3 'Awakening' Council members shot dead in Baghdad by "an American helicopter" which also wounded two more and notes, "Sheik Mohammed Ghuriari, who heads the so-called Awakening Councils that supply fighters to protect neighborhoods in north Babil province, said it was the third U.S.-led strike on one of their checkpoints in less than two months.".
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad car bombing claimed 2 lives and left four more wounded. Reuters notes a Tal Afar bombing where 16 civilians were killed at a mosque. Sahar Issa reports that there were two bombers with one getting shot and the other detonating the bomb. Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) explains, "The attackers struck during the midday Friday prayers, the most important of the Muslim week." M-NF announces, "Attack helicopters responded to a small-arms fire attack on Coalition Forces near the town during the early morning hours Feb. 15. The helicopters engaged one structure with rockets."
Kidnappings?
Reuters reports aa family of four ("including two women") were kidnapped in Balad Ruz today.
Corpses?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 corpses in Baghdad and 5 corpses in Diyala Province. Reuters notes 1 corpse discovered in Balad Rus.
Meanwhile, Moahmmed Abbas (Reuters) quotes puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki who apparently -- possibly during his time as exile -- is a big fan of Donna Summer: "We must keep our fingers on the trigger." Because? Love is in control?
Picking up from yesterday, we'll return to the subject of the refugees. Over 4 milliion refugees have been created by the illegal war. The figure includes internal and external refugees -- both those displaced outside their country and those displace internally. The Iraqi Parliament is calling for provisional elections and Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) reports that among the unanswered questions are those pertaining to the refugees including where they would vote if they were allowed to vote? Would they be counted as voters in the provinces they hailed from or, if internally displaced, voters for the provinces they currently reside in? Rubin also notes, "The problem is that many of the nation's most powerful political parties have divided up most of the seats on the Independent Higher Election Commission, which oversees national election policy. That means there are few, if any, independent brokers overseeing the election process, according to Iraqi academics and lawmakers. Some other parties are not represented on the commission."
Yesterday, Antonio Guterres, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, reminded that is still not safe for refugees to return to Iraq. IRIN quotes Guterres: "We have clear criteria for the promotion of returns -- those criteria are not met by the situation in Iraq now. So we are not promoting returns to Iraq in the present circumstances because we do not believe the conditions are there for that to be possible on a meaningfuly scale." Haifa Zangana (Guardian of London) explains:
The return of some refugees is not related to the success of the surge, the establishment of security or a reduction in "sectarian violence", the euphemism for death squads that have infiltrated the security services and local militias. The savings of most refugees have run out, and they face real poverty since they cannot compete for the few jobs available in countries that have historically been poorer than Iraq. While I was in Amman in June, I met an Iraqi engineer who now works as a cleaner to provide for his family. Others, especially the elderly and children, are exhausted by visa restrictions; Most refugees, being of urban backgrounds, rented flats at steep prices, forcing families to share, sometimes with up to five adults and children in one room. Many refugees, previously from professional backgrounds, have had to rely on charity donations or support from relatives living in Europe.
Refugees in Syria or elsewhere rely on pensions, requiring them to go back to their workplaces in Iraq once every couple of months, leaving their families behind. Some go back also to collect monthly food rations to partially sell in the country. In the past, due to corruption in various government offices, some employees didn't attend work but collected half their salaries. Their bosses collected the rest in exchange for allowing them not to show up except for occasional days. All these arrangements came to an end after neighbouring countries implemented visa restrictions and it is almost impossible to get a visa to the UK or the US, despite their responsibility in creating the mayhem in Iraq. Now many refugees who have survived so far with such arrangements are desperate, and their only remaining hope is to share life with their extended families inside Iraq. In most cases they are "internally displaced", ie still refugees.
The Myth of the Great Return. Or as Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London via CounterPunch) observed last weekend: "As a propaganda exercise designed to show that the Iraqi government was restoring peace, it never quite worked. The majority of the returnees said they were returning to Baghdad, not because it was safer, but because they had run out of money in Syria or their visas had expired. There has been no mass return of the two million Iraqis who fled to Syria and Jordan or a further 2.4 million refugees who left their homes within Iraq." The propaganda push did a lot of damage in real time.
Turning to US politics, as Mike, Marcia, Kat, Rebecca, Cedric and Wally noted yesterday, Hillary Clinton won New Mexico -- a Super Duper Tuesday state that only finished its count yesterday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)