barack's 100 days, modo's vacation while c.i. works

calvin woodward has an ap analysis of barack's claims: '"That wasn't me," President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One. It actually was him -- and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years -- who shaped a budget so out of balance.' be sure to read it because it goes on to establish the statments.

not that most rational adults need a great deal of persuading to remember that barack was in the senate before coming the the white house.

it points out that he voted for all the iraq war spending, that he was for bush's stimulus, that the congress was controlled for the last 2 years (both houses) by democrats.

so it is getting old to hear barack blaming bush for everything. it's been 100 days. does he have another tune to sing?

okay, here's bruce dixon at black agenda report on barack's 1st 100 days and i'm emphasizing the war section:


4. War and Peace
From 2003 onward, Barack Obama staked his political career on conveying to voters the impression that he opposed the war in Iraq, while vigorously signalling to the bipartisan freign policy establishment that he was really one of them. By early 2008 Obama closed the circle, openly endorsing the Bush "surge" and war aims in Iraq, confirming that thirty or fifty or seventy thousand troops, depending, could remain in Iraq throughout his first term. Unlike John McCain, who said the US should increase troop levels in Afghanistan because "we" are "winning," Obama wanted to boost the number of American boots on the ground there because "we" are losing. Halfway though his first week in office, Obama was launching missiles from drones at Pakistani mountain villages.
While the US spends more on things military than the rest of the world combined, the Obama military budget is higher than Bush's. Though the laughable "war on terror" is gone from our government propaganda, all or most of its machinery remains in motion under the new administration.
Barack Obama has kept Robert Gates, a bloodstained Reagan-era war criminal as chief of the Pentagon, and designated the bloodthirsty Susan Rice as National Security Advisor. Susan Rice is an enthusiastic advocate of genocidal military intervention practically everywhere on the African continent under the monstrously hypocritical cover of "stopping genocide."
The president says he will talk to Iran, which is worth a point, but continues the Bush policy of threatening Russia with NATO expansion right up to its borders, which takes away the single point.
Zero out of nine points.

now i want to focus on some 1 i consider a real journalist and some 1 i consider a hack. the real journalist? c.i. the hack? maureen dowd.

yesterday both wrote about the senate. c.i. reported on the move to abolish the war powers act and noted senator russ feingold declaring the following in the hearing of the senate foreign relations committee:

Senator Russ Feingold: I'd like to use some of my time to make a statement and then ask a couple of questions. As we continue to grapple with the profound costs of rushing into a misguided war, it is essential that we review how Congress' War Powers have been weakened over the last few decades and how they can be restored. The war in Iraq has led to the deaths of thousands of Americans and the wounding of tens of thousands and will likely end up costing us a trillion dollars. What if we had had more open and honest debate before going to war? What if all the questions about the administration's assertions had been fully and, to the extent appropriate, been publicly aired? So clearly any reforms of the War Powers Resolution must incorporate these lessons and foster more deliberations and more open and honest public dialogue before any decision to go to war.
I appreciate that attention is being drawn to this critically important issue which, of course, goes to the core of our Constitutional structure, its' a conversation that we need to continue to have. But I am concerned that the proposals made by the Baker - Christopher commission cede too much authority to the executive branch in the decision to go to war. Under the Constitution, Congress has the power "to declare war." It is not ambiguous in any way. The 1973 War Powers Resolution is an imperfect solution; however, it does retain Congress' critical role in this decision making process. The commission's proposal on the other hand would require Congress to pass a resolution of disapproval by a veto proof margin if it were unhappy with the president's decision to send our troops into hostilities. That means in effect that the president would need only one-third of the members plus one additional member of either house to continue a war that was started unilaterally by the president. Now that cannot be what the framers intended when they gave the Congress the power to declare war. Since the War Powers Resolution was enacted, several presidents have introduced troops into battle without obtaining the prior approval of the Congress. Campaigns in Grenada and Panama are a few examples. None of these cases involved eminent threats to the United States that justified the use of military force without the prior approval of Congress. A simple solution to this problem would be for the president to honor the Constitution and seek the prior approval of Congress in such scenarios in the future. And while the consultation required by the War Powers Resolution is far from perfect, I think it is preferable to the commission's proposal to establish a consultation committee. If this bill had been in place before the war in Iraq, President Bush could have begun the war after consulting with a gang of 12 members of Congress thereby depriving most of the senators in this room of the ability to participate in those consultations as we did in the run up to the Iraq War. The decision to go to war is perhaps the most profound ever made by our government. Our Constitutional system rightly places this decision in the branch of government that most closely reflects the will of the people. History teaches that we must have the support of the American people if we are to successfully prosecute our military operations. The requirement of prior Congressional authorization helps to ensure that such public debate occurs and tempers the potential for rash judgment. Congress failed to live up to its responsibility with respect to the decision to go to war in Iraq. And we should be taking steps to ensure it does not make this mistake again. We should be restoring this Constitutional system not further undermining it. Mr Baker, part of the premise of the commission's finding, is that several presidents have refused to acknowledge the Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, I know that of course in practice, most do honor the Resolution. In your view, does the president's commander-in-chief authority give him the authority to ignore duly enacted statutes?

as you can tell, that is serious business. and c.i. covered it and reported on it and included lengthy quotes.

now mo do worked yesterday to and you know that because her column ran in today's new york times. she's covering a senate hearing as well. i'll go her part with russ feingold as well:

Senator Russ Feingold got into the fray, asking Cheney sarcastically: “Can you tell us exactly which terrorist plots were foiled by torture?”
Cheney offered his mirthless smile. “Certainly,” he replied. “Shortly after 9/11, we disrupted a plot to assassinate a senator, penetrating two terrorist cells and uncovering a Serbian scheme. Our interrogator used a chokehold, threatened to withhold a detainee’s heart medicine, and broke a few laws, but it was well worth it.”

now let me explain to you that maureen's made up a hearing. she's 'reporting' on a mythical hearing where dick cheney thinks 24 is for real. that's nothing but masturbation. it's not even funny. funny might be her having bully boy bush say it but no 1 doubts that evil cheney knows the difference between tv and reality.

the war powers resolution of 1973 came about due to vietnam which was an undeclared war. congress passed it to try to force the president to abide by the u.s. constitution (which gives congress and only congress the right to declare wars). there is move to gut it, to completely trash it and put in it's place a law that would weaken congress and strengthen the presidency.

and no 1 except for c.i. covered it. but maureen dowd made time to offer up a really bad column where dick cheney thinks 24 (a tv show) is reality.

how much does the new york times pay her for this garbage? at which point do all these bad columnists get the point that they need to start reporting or get ready to be laid off?

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

Wednesday, April 29, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the Sadr City neighborhood of Baghdad is rocked with multiple bombings, Congress takes testimony on TRICARE, the United Nations voices grave concerns for Iraqi women, an attack leaves a US soldier wounded in Iraq, Steven D. Green's trial for War Crimes continues, and more.

Baghdad was rocked by bombings today. Two (Los Angeles Times, Reuters and Albawaba) or three (BBC, UPI, McClatchy, Xinhua, Washington Post) car bombings exploded in Baghdad's Sadr City. CNN reports the death toll from the Sadr City bombings (they say three) is "at least 45 people" with sixty-eight more injued. Xinhua explains, "The incident occurred in the afternoon when three booby-trapped cars parked at different popular marketplaces in Sadr City neighborhood in eastern Baghdad, detonated simultaneously, the source said." BBC notes, "The BBC's Jim Muir in Baghdad says the attacks are the kind of provocation, blame on militant Sunni Islamists, which triggered and fuelled a deadly spiral of sectarian violence in 2006 and 2007." Liz Sly and Saif Hameed (Los Angeles Times) report, "Survivors of the carnage turned their wrath on the security forces, hurling bottles and bricks at the police and army troops until the soldiers fired in the air to disperse the crowd." Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) provides this context, "The attack was the deadliest in Sadr City since the Iraqi army wrested control of the impoverished Shiite district from militias last May." He also notes Iraqi police claim "the defused three other car bombs shortly after the blasts." Corinne Reilly (McClatchy Newspapers) observes, "The attacks are the latest sign that security gains here are beginning to reverse. Large-scale bombings targeting civilians have been on the rise since March." Reilly points out that over 200 people have died in Baghdad this month thus far and the last time McClatchy shows that happening was March of last year.

In other violence, Sahar Issa and Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) report a Baghdad car bombing left five people injured and two Baghdad car bombings which claimed 2 lives and left eight injured (this is in addition to the Sadr City bombings which they also note), a New Mosul roadside bombing which wounded two, a grenade attack in Kirkuk on US forces which resulted in two Iraqi civilians being shot and four more wounded. CNN cites US Maj Derrick Cheng stating that the US military had been "working with local police to provide micro-grants" when the attack took place and Cheng states 2 "attackers" were dead with two more injured as well, according to Cheng, one US soldier wounded. Reuters adds that Diyala Province roadside bombings claimed the lives of 3 Iraqi soldiers (two also left injured) and 2 Mosul roadside bombings (this is in addition to the New Mosul one) resulted in the death of 1 police officer and five Iraqi civilians being injured. Going with CNN's 45 dead in Sadr City, that would mean at least 53 reported deaths in Iraq today. Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) notes 41 is the death toll in Sadr City according to the political party website of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. Alsumaria quotes US Brig Gen David Quantock stating that the increase in violence is not due to the release of Iraqi prisoners from US prisons in Iraq.

According to US Major Cheng, one US soldier was wounded today. We'll use that to jump over to a US Congressional hearing this morning. "Today, the Military Personnel Subcommittee will hold a hearing on the organization of the office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs," stated Subcommittee Chair Susan Davis calling the hearing to order. Of Health Affairs/TRICARE Management Activity, she noted "we are clearly dealing witha different model than the rest of the Department. We do not know if that is good-different, bad-different, or just different. It is therefore important for us to examine this structure so that we may understand exactly how the organization operates and how that impacts care for our men and women in uniform and isn't really that the bottom line here that we're seeking?" (Click here for US House Rep Susan Davis' opening statement, non-PDF format -- but not that I'm quoting her remarks and they're not word for word the prepared statement.) Joe Wilson is the Ranking Member on the Committee and his opening remarks included noting, "General George Washington and the Continental Congress understood the necessity of good medical care during the fight for our independence. After suffering a sizeable number of casulities from disease, the Continental Congress established the medical department of the Army in July 1775. Washington then appointed the first Director General and Chief Physician of the Hospital of the Army." That was Dr. Benjamin Church -- a poor choice who was replaced by Dr. John Morgan. Church was a poor choice? He was a spy for the British. Wilson didn't go into that or name Church, I'm just tossing it in as historical trivia and wouldn't have known it if the office of a Dem House Rep hadn't told me after the hearing (when I asked about the trivia). Other triva included that it is "Surgeons General" and not "Surgeon Generals" when you are dealing with the plural. US House Rep Vic Snyder asked and established that.

Appearing before the subcommittee were the following: Acting Under Secretary of Defense, Personnel and Readiness Gail H. McGinn (DoD, -- PDF formart warning -- here for her opening statement), Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense Health Affairs (DOD -- PDF format warning, here), Lt Gen Eric Schoomaker (Army Surgeon General, PDF format warning, here), Vice Admiral Adam Robinson (Navy Surgeon General, PDF format warning, here), Lt Gen James G. Roudebush (Air Force Surgeon General, PDF format warning, here) and Maj Gen Elder Granger (DoD's Deputy Director TRICARE Management Activity, PDF format warning, here). It was Granger's last appearance before the committee who is retiring. From the opening statements, we'll note one section that is of interest and is not in the prepared remarks.

Lt Gen Eric Schoomaker: In a nutshell, the MHS [Military Health System] exist to support war fighters on the battlefield, the Direct Care System exist to deliver military readiness, Private Sector Care supports and fills the gaps in the Direct Care System. If form is to follow function then the MHS should be optimally organized to suport the Direct Care System. I don't believe this is always the case. For example in the budgeting process, Private Sector Care forecasts are considered must pay while Direct Care System estimates are considered "unfunded requirements." The Department's priority has been to fund the Private Sector Care at 100% of projected requirements while many of our Direct Care System needs are not addressed until year end when overforecasted PSC funding becomes available for distribution to the Direct Care System. Since Private Sector Care is often over-programmed , they return money to the MHS and they're seen as "cost containing." Our Direct Care System health care bills are always after the fact and are seen as "cost overruns." This resourcing construct appears to prioritize Private Sector Care over the Direct Care System.

Most veered from their prepared remarks (Robinson brought up San Antonio, for example) but Schoomaker's veer went to the issues raised in the hearing.

To cut down on the "gobbledeegook," US House Rep Vic Snyder gave the witnesses examples so they could speak in specifics.

US House Rep Vic Snyder: The first example is a special-needs kid which I think some of us have talked about before. General Schoomaker, you talked about supporting our war fighters overseas and I think nothing creates more heart ache for our folks overseas than if they have a special-needs kid and the kid is not getting the kind of care that they think they need while they're at a military facility some place. So let's take a kid with either insulin-dependant diabetes or autism or something that requires a fairly intensive amount of help. The second example might be that I think a lot of us have run into over the last several years would be a somebody in the reserve component who is mobolized for active duty for a period of 18 months or so, so there family then goes into the military health care system but may be geographically living in a place, not near a base, not near providers who are used to dealing with TRICARE. So what I would like each of you to do -- and just tell me if I'm off base. It may be the tensions that we were talking about, which you all were discussing, have nothing to do with those examples but how does what you're talking about relate specifically to our men and women and the care that they give and if these are a couple of examples where it may -- it may give you an opportunity to describe how the tension may relate to the actual care that men and women and their families get?

Lt Gen Eric Schoomaker: Well candidly, sir, from my perspective, both of the cases -- and I'll be interested in hearing what my colleagues have to say -- both of those cases I think are not necessarily confounded by the tensions that we're creating here. In fact, I think that both of them in many cases are a tribute to the far-sightedness and the vision of setting up a TRICARE system as we did 15 years or so ago. In the case of special-needs kids, we have an extraordinary generous benefit which is fairly uniformly applied and, in fact, I think it's resulted in -- in the military health care system being one of the elements of a family's decision with a special-needs child to stay in uniform. So I would have to say that doesn't necessarily -- I don't see my role in executing these programs as being interfered with in any way, shape or form in taking care of special-needs kids. I would have to say the same about the mobilized reserve component -- National Guard and Reserves -- many of whom come from places in this country where we don't have a robust Direct Care System: central Idaho, parts of Montanna, Wyoming. We don't have large, robust medical centers and health services systems. And so having an effective Purchase Care System and a Managed Care Support Contractor that is reaching out and providing care to those families is, I think, that again reflects the far sightedness of a well executed TRICARE program. I'm not taking away from any of that part of it.

Vice Admiral Adam Robinson: I would come at this a little differently. I don't completely disagree with General Schoomaker but I think that the autism and the insulin-dependent diabetic do come into play in this regard. Often -- first of all, the private sector care, the network care and the direct care can both play here. Let's take 29 Palms, I'll just take a Marine Corps base in southern California, very remote location. I'm not going to be able to get network care there. It's going to have to be direct care. It's going to have to be uniform care. Now when I say "I can't get it," there are people that will go there but that's very difficult so I have places in this country that are very difficult to, in fact, get network care. That means I need it in uniform [care]. However, very often there's also been -- and I don't want to get caught in the mire of the gobbledeegook -- but there's also thoughts that very often we on the direct care side and uniform should be be there for very specialized war fighting activities that make us incredibly essential for the battle and for the things that the military system in fact, was built to do. But, in fact, in 2009 we have taken on added responsibilities which include garrison and family care. So my question then is I need pediatric endocrinologists as much as I need trauma surgeons but it may be difficult sometimes to, in fact, get there because of how we have, in fact, looked at what we think we should get from the war fighting versus the non-war fighting situations. Now I'm not suggestiong to you that anyone's denying the Navy or the other services pediatric endocrinologists. I'm just simply saying that there is a tension that does exist because of some thoughts and some assumptions made as to how we really should in fact divy up our uniform versus our network. I'd like to add just one other thing. I'm not going to comment on the reserve component. I think that General Schoomaker's answer is -- would be mine also. I'd only like to say, overseas with our EDIS -- exception developmental instructional programs and also our exceptional family member programs this is also the case because overseas we're not able to, in fact, engage in that war care so if I don't have it -- if I can't either contract it to bring it or if I don't have it in uniform, it's much more difficult to get. And those are just challenges that I must look at. I'm not suggesting that anyone's keeping me from getting there but these are the challenges from an SG's perspective that I must look at.

Lt Gen James G. Roudebush: Congressman, I think you raise a point that really brings out the essence of what we're talking about this morning. There is a role and relationship and it's not "either/or" it's "and." For us in uniform there are in fact places where we are going to need to have in uniform speciality capabilities for family members because family care is mission impact. When our men and women are in harm's way, if they're not confident their families are fully cared for, they will not be focused on what's in front of them and that has mission impact. So family care plays directly into the mission. For us, TRICARE gives us that wrap-around in those circumstances where we may not have the capability readily available for our reserves in areas where we don't have a facility availabe for example. Or for special-needs youngsters, we may not have that readily available within the uniform service. TRICARE gives us that wrap-around capability. And, quite frankly, when you get to speciality care for our youngsters that is rather expensive to make and sustain in uniform. And the more cost-effective solution and clinically effective solution in many circumstances is in fact a contract for that capability and that care through the private sector TRICARE. So it's not "either/or," it's "and" and finding the right balance, each of us within our roles, to get that mission accomplished. So I think you do raise an intersection that's critically important for us to get right.

Subcommittee Chair Susan Davis: Thank you, I'm going to move on. Ms. Tsongas?

US House Rep Niki Tsongas: Thank you. I'm enjoying this testimony and I have to say much of this as a new member as a relatively new member, much of it is new to me. I have to say, many years ago as a child of the Air Force, I needed a very delicate eye surgery and I was in an Air Force hospital in Langley Air Base and then subsequently at Tachikawa Air Base. I received remarkable care and, again, I was with Congressman Wilson in Balad where we did see the remarkable work that you're doing. But obviously we're in a time and an era when health care is far more complicated and far more expensive and it's clear that you're wrestling with both on multiple layers. My question, slightly different though, is we have representatives of the different services and you obviously have different cultures, some times very different needs as a result of the roles you play, and I'm just curious as how this plays itself out given the different tensions that you all have described? Is it another layer to it or is it really not particularly significant?

Lt Gen Eric Schoomaker: Well I'll speak for the Army. I think, ma'am, it's very significant and I think it's why we -- not for parochialism or not because we're looking to build duplication or triplication within -- within the defense health system -- why we insist on executing our programs in each one of our services. Each one of the services -- for very good reasons -- has important differences in how it fights war, in how its military health care uniform members support the deployed force. And that's not to say that there aren't commonalities in some large metropolitan areas, like in the national capitol region or San Antonio, we can't find shared platforms where we can retain common skills, where we can share the opportunities in the greater Washington area where we have 36 or 37 different health care facilities across the three services from Pennsylvania down to Quantico and as far west as Fort Belvoir. We have plenty of opportunities to share those platforms for caring for about a half-million beneficiaries. But when it comes down to ships at sea and brigades in battle, some of the remote sites that General Roudebush and I in the Army have to service, the service cultures are very much a part of this and it's why we, Surgeons General and commanders of our medical forces, want to have a very firm grasp on the execution of these programs.

Vice Admiral Adam Robinson: Each service has a concept of care. I think that as the long war has continued in both Iraq and Afghanistan our concepts of care have actually become much closer together. They've merged. From the Navy's perspective, I'm not speaking now for the Army or Air Force but I don't think they're much different, patient and family-centric care is our concept. It's what we think is important in order to make sure that we can meet the mission. Both the operational -- that is the war mission -- as well as the family and the garrison care mission because we can't separate them out any longer. Since people on the battlefield, men and women can now e-mail and text message family members during an intense encounter, it is no longer the case that I can, in fact not take care of families as I'm also taking care of men and women on the battlefield. We've moved into another era of communication, of technology and of the insistence by the people that -- our beneficiaries that we in fact care for them in a very organized and meaningful way and that's what I think all three services do but we all do it differently -- leverging those things that our service chiefs and the equities of Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps must have in order to meet their missions and at the same time making sure that we leave no patient, no family and no member behind.

US House Rep Niki Tsongas: And not to interrupt but do health affairs and TRICARE management acknowledge this in your relationship or is yet one more -- one of those things that is a source of tension?

Vice Admiral Adam Robinson: I think that Health Affairs does acknowledge that. I think that they do in fact understand the differences in the services and how to meet them. I also think that very often the concept of what is important from a patient perspective can sometimes get clouded or get shaded in relationship to the business perspective of efficiencies and effectiveness. Now that's the world that we live in so I'm not complaining to you about that because everyone has to look at costs and has to look at the bottom line that we're trying to get done. The key here in medicine is that patients usally when they're coming to you and they need something to save their lives, they need something that they think is going to be absolutely essential to their well being are not interested in hearing the business rules involved in doing that. My job is to, in fact, take that into account and to balance that out with the needs of the patient.

Subcommittee Chair Susan Davis: General, do you want to comment?

Lt Gen: James G. Roudebush: Just very quickly. At times folks will talk about culture and say, 'Well culture is interesting." I would suggest to you that culture is a signficant part of what we do. We have an all volunteer force. Every soldier joins the Army because he or she is attracted to the mission and the culture. Likewise every sailor and Marine and Air man joins that service because they are attracted to the culture and the mission. Their families are wrapped in that culture. We care for our servicemen within that culture and within that mission ethos. So culture is a big part and, particularly when these men and women are injured or ill, that culture wraps around them and supports them, helps them through that recovery, rehabilitation. And so while some of the -- many of the clinical activities are certainly the same in the Army, Navy and Air Force that wrap around, that family, that team that's caring for them is an important part of the construct and I think that can't be lost in the discussion.

FYI, April is Autism Awareness Month. Ruth has covered that here, here and here this month. For more information, the Autism Society of America is one resource.

Back to Iraq, a Sunday attack in Kut continues to make the news. The pre-dawn US raid resulted in two deaths and condemnation from Nouri al-Maliki. US Col Richard Francey spoke to the BBC earlier this week and today tells Alsumaria that the incident "could have been avoided" and that a joint US-Iraqi investigation has been launched. Alsumaria also reports, on the legislative front, "Iraq's Parliament voted to proceed with the secret intelligencer law rejecting the proposal of the legal committee which called earlier to suspend this law." Meanwhile the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq announces their latest report which finds "the overall human rights istuation in Iraq remains a matter of concern." More to the point:

The report shows that gender-based violence remains one of the key unaddressed problems throughout Iraq. Numerous murders of women under the guise of so-called "honour killings" are still being recorded as suicides, the report shows, while in the Northern Region of Kurdistan the practice of Female Gential Mutilation (FGM) remains a tolerated practice.
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, whose staff helped compile the report, said "the situation of Iraqi women is extremely difficult. Violent actions are taken against them on a daily basis and I urge the authorities to make it a priority to both improve legislation, and law enforcement in order to protect them properly."

Iraq is also the largest refugee crisis and women and girls who are internal or external refugees are at risk and are often victimized via Iraq's underground sex trade or the sex trade in other countries such as Syria. The US has done a lousy job providing Iraqi refugees with asylum. Nina Berman (Mother Jones) explores the conditions for some Iraqi refugees who make it to 'safety':

The United States took in a mere 735 Iraqi refugees between 2003 and 2006. Criticized for not doing enough, 17,000 are slated to arrive between September 2008 and September 2009. But the high-minded policy change seems more like another American broken promise. Recently arrived refugees interviewed in Dallas wonder how they're supposed to become self-sufficient on minimal assistance in the worst economy since the Great Depression. Rather than making new lives, they are facing unemployment, eviction and isolation. "The life here is closed," said Lara Yakob, whose husband, an architect in Mosul, has been out of work since he arrived five months ago. His best prospect to date: a tryout in a laundry room. "I think the American government feels that they made bad things for Iraq, so they bring us here. I don't know why they do that if they don't find us a job. This life they start for us, is a very bad life, " said Omar Ibrahim, who arrived in Dallas in 2008 and still is jobless. He lives in a housing complex on the edge of the city, on a tree-lined street off the freeway, near Garland. Around 100 refugee families from Iraq, Myanmar and central Africa share this neighborhood of two-story apartments around the corner from a gas station -- the site of a recent police killing -- a Cash America outlet, aging strip malls and shuttered superstores. His rent assistance stopped after four months, and to pay the bills he had to do the unthinkable. "I called my family in Iraq to send me money," he said. And they asked him, "You are in America, and you are asking us for money?"

A large number of Iraqi refugees are Christians and we'll note them tomorrow. Turning to legal news, Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi is the 14-year-old Iraqi girl who was gang-raped by US soldiers in March of 2006 while her parents and five-year-old sister were murdered and then Abeer herself was murdered. Steven D. Green is on trial in a federal court in Kentucky (he was discharged before the War Crimes came to light) for assorted charges including gang-rape and murder. The ones who have confessed thus far have all fingered Green as the ringleader. Time magazine has not ignored the War Crimes. It has covered them here and here. Noting the other trials for these War Crimes so far, Jim Frederick provides a walk-through on what's known going in:

Nursing a hatred of Iraqis stemming from heavy losses their unit had suffered, and fueled by several bottles of Iraqi whisky, they embarked upon a premeditated crime of gruesome barbarity. Donning black long underwear outfits as disguises, even though it was the middle of the day, they traveled a few hundred meters to an isolated farmhouse where they gang raped Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi, a 14-year old Iraqi girl and murdered her, her parents, and her six-year old sister. The men returned to their checkpoint unnoticed and for months afterwards, the massacre was considered by the Army and locals alike to be just another outburst of the frequent Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence that plagued the area.

Time notes: "Jim Frederick, a former editor at TIME, is writing a book about Green's unit, entitled Black Hearts: One Platoon's Disintegration in the Triangle of Death and the American Ordeal in Iraq, which will be published in Spring, 2010 by Harmony Books." Meanwhile the Washington Observer-Reporter makes the trial the topic of their editorial and they conclude, "But there are no hardships, military or otherwise, that could excuse an atrocity like this and you can't blame it on a 'lack of leadership'." AP's Brett Barrouquere has long cover this story (three years in a few more months) and he reports Col Todd Ebel's testimony yesterday was that the accused, Steven D. Green wanted to shoot civilians because "the enemy could be dressed as civilians" and that Lt Col Thomas Kunk began testifying today (continues this morning) "about the investigation into the deaths." The hearing continued today and Barrouquere reports that Lt Col Thomas Kunk was on the witness stand and stated he had heard rumors that Green wanted to murder "all Iraqis" so he spoke with him and Green denied that stating that there were 'some' good Iraqis and he didn't wish to harm them.

Meanwhile, as noted in yesterday's snapshot, Iraq War resister Cliff Cornell entered a guilty plea to desertion in his court-martial at Fort Stewart yesterday. UPI notes that Cliff has been sentenced to one year imprisonment and quotes Cliff's civilian attorney, James Branum, stating, "Cliff is being punished for what he believes, for his comments to the press. Because he spoke out against the Iraq war, Cliff's sentence is harsher than the punishment given to 94 percent of deserters who are not penalized but administratively discharged." Nanaimo Daily News reports Cliff "tearfully read a prepared statement to the judge apologizing for leaving his unit." Across Georgia quotes him stating, "It was wrong for me to leave my unit and go to Canada. I was very anxious about whether I might be asked to do things that might violate my conscience. I felt trapped. I didn't know what to do." Cliff went to Canada in 2005. He sought asylum there repeatedly and was rejected. He was to be deported when he left Canada in February and turned himself in. (Some say he was deported. Due to the order, we won't split hairs on either interpretation.) Travis Lupick (The Straight) gives the background story here. Frenchi Jones (Coastal Courier) explains, "Cornell was stationed at Fort Stewart at the time of his desertion. He was a soldier with the 1st Battalion, 39th Artillery Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, and 3rd Infantry Division." Courage to Resist notes that in addition to the year in prison, "The military judge, Col. Tara Olson, also ordered Cliff's rank be reduced to private and for him to receive a bad conduct discharge."

Meanwhile independent journalist John Pilger evaluates US president Barack Obama's first 100 days:

It is more than 100 days since Barack Obama was elected president of the United States. The "Obama brand" has been named "Advertising Age's marketer of the year for 2008", easily beating Apple computers. David Fenton of MoveOn.org describes Obama's election campaign as "an institutionalised mass-level automated technological community organising that has never existed before and is a very, very powerful force". Deploying the internet and a slogan plagiarised from the Latino union organiser Cesar Chavez -- "Sí, se puede!" or "Yes, we can" -- the mass-level automated technological community marketed its brand to victory in a country desperate to be rid of George W Bush. No one knew what the new brand actually stood for. So accomplished was the advertising (a record $75m was spent on television commercials alone) that many Americans actually believed Obama shared their opposition to Bush's wars. In fact, he had repeatedly backed Bush's warmongering and its congressional funding. Many Americans also believed he was the heir to Martin Luther King's legacy of anti-colonialism. Yet if Obama had a theme at all, apart from the vacuous "Change you can believe in", it was the renewal of America as a dominant, avaricious bully. "We will be the most powerful," he often declared. Perhaps the Obama brand's most effective advertising was supplied free of charge by those journalists who, as courtiers of a rapacious system, promote shining knights. They depoliticised him, spinning his platitudinous speeches as "adroit literary creations, rich, like those Doric columns, with allusion..." (Charlotte Higgins in the Guardian). The San Francisco Chronicle columnist Mark Morford wrote: "Many spiritually advanced people I know... identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who... can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet." In his first 100 days, Obama has excused torture, opposed habeas corpus and demanded more secret government. He has kept Bush's gulag intact and at least 17,000 prisoners beyond the reach of justice. On 24 April, his lawyers won an appeal that ruled Guantanamo Bay prisoners were not "persons", and therefore had no right not to be tortured. His national intelligence director, Admiral Dennis Blair, says he believes torture works. One of his senior US intelligence officials in Latin America is accused of covering up the torture of an American nun in Guatemala in 1989; another is a Pinochet apologist. As Daniel Ellsberg has pointed out, the US experienced a military coup under Bush, whose secretary of "defence", Robert Gates, along with the same warmaking officials, has been retained by Obama.


Lastly, ETAN notes:Groups Urge Meaningful Pressure on Jakarta for Papuan RightsContact: Ed McWilliams, WPAT, +1-575-648-2078John M. Miller, ETAN, +1-718-596-7668 April 27 - Two U.S. organizations concerned about human rights in West Papua today urged the U.S. government "to apply meaningful pressure on the Indonesian government and its security forces... to address long-standing Papuan concerns and grievances." The West Papua Advocacy Team (WPAT) and the East Timor and Indonesia Action Network (ETAN) called the new Obama administration's approach to West Papua "hardly fresh." In testimony before Congress last week, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called for supporting West Papua "in its efforts to have a degree of autonomy within Indonesia." "Failure of the U.S. government to think seriously and act responsibly about West Papua, before Indonesia's July presidential elections, risks further deterioration of human rights and communal violence," said Ed McWilliams, a retired U.S. diplomat and spokesperson for WPAT. "Papuans have repeatedly rejected 'Special Autonomy' and... have demanded instead an internationally-facilitated dialogue with the central government to address key issues, including demilitarization of West Papua, an end to intimidation, the release of political prisoners, and the right to self-determination," the groups said. The full statement is below. The U.S. government and Congress should "apply meaningful pressure" for such a dialogue and for "an end to restrictions that prevent the international community from monitoring human rights developments and the welfare of Papuans in the region." Pressure should include conditioning "assistance to the Indonesian military, Brimob, Indonesia's intelligence agencies on real reform [of the security forces], human rights accountability and demonstrated respect for people of West Papua." In recent weeks, their has been an escalation of both peaceful protest and violent conflict in West Papua, which Indonesia annexed in 1969. Since then Papuans have suffered massacres and other systematic human rights violations, environmental destruction, and marginalization in their own land. -30-Joint Statement by West Papua Advocacy Team (WPAT) and East Timor and Indonesia Action Network (ETAN) on U.S. Policy and West Papua Appearing last week before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, for the first time as Secretary spoke directly about the human rights crisis in West Papua. While candidly acknowledging the "many human rights abuses" in West Papua, Secretary Clinton framed both its problems and their solutions essentially in the same way that the Bush Administration had: She emphasized that West Papua was part of a "sovereign Indonesia," and said West Papua needed support "in its efforts to have a degree of autonomy within Indonesia." For nearly eight years the Indonesian government has pursued its "Special Autonomy" policy for West Papua. This was to have afforded long-denied fundamental rights to Papuans and ended decades of systematic human rights violations, environmental destruction and marginalization. Clearly, the Indonesian government has failed to implement this policy, instead continuing to rely on a security approach. Indonesia's military, militarized police (Brimob) and intelligence agencies continue to terrorize Papuans. These security forces violate fundamental human rights with impunity and collude with domestic and international corporations to deprive Papuans of their land. At the same time, the Indonesian government has drawn a curtain around West Papua preventing or limiting international monitoring of conditions there by journalists, international human rights officials, and others. Recently, it demanded the departure of International Committee of the Red Cross because its officials had met with Papuan political prisoners. The Indonesian government continued denial of essential services health, education and employment, leaving the Papuans to suffer among the worst levels of poverty, mortality and education in Asia. Papuans have repeatedly rejected "Special Autonomy" and -- in massive, peaceful popular demonstrations -- have demanded instead an internationally-facilitated dialogue with the central government to address key issues, including demilitarization of West Papua, an end to intimidation, the release of political prisoners, and the right to self-determination. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration appears to ignore the reality of Papuans' suffering and the urgent need for fundamental change in West Papua. Secretary Clinton's call for a "degree of autonomy" for West Papua is hardly fresh or progressive thinking. Rather than resort to the failed Bush Administration approach of calling upon Jakarta to afford "a degree of autonomy," the crisis in West Papua calls for fresh approach and a genuine commitment to Papuans fundamental rights, including a right to self-determination. A decade ago, the U.S. Government similarly failed to understand the dynamics of the deteriorating human rights environment in East Timor. During that crisis, the U.S. sought only to press the Indonesian military to take more seriously its responsibility to protect human rights in East Timor. Then (and now) the U.S. government failed to understand that the Indonesian military, (as well as Brimob and Indonesian intelligence agencies) bore ultimate responsibility for the death and destruction in surrounding the UN-organized referendum in 1999. Instead of offering stale policy prescriptions, we urge the U.S. to apply meaningful pressure on the Indonesian government and its security forces to press for an internationally-facilitated, senior level dialogue between the Indonesian Government and Papuans, including Papuan civil society, to address long-standing Papuan concerns and grievances. The U.S. government should urge an end to restrictions that prevent the international community from monitoring human rights developments and the welfare of Papuans in the region. The U.S. government should also press for fundamental reform of the Indonesian security forces which continue to violate human rights, are unaccountable before Indonesia's flawed judicial system, and are not fully subordinate to civilian government control. The current administration and Congress should clearly condition assistance to the Indonesian military, Brimob, Indonesia's intelligence agencies on real reform, human rights accountability and demonstrated respect for people of West Papua. etanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanJohn M. Miller Internet: etan@igc.org National Coordinator East Timor & Indonesia Action Network PO Box 21873, Brooklyn, NY 11202-1873 USA Phone: (718)596-7668 Mobile: (917)690-4391 Skype: john.m.miller Web: http://www.etan.org

iraq
brett barrouquere
caroline alexanderbloomberg newsbbc news
the los angeles timesliz sly
mcclatchy newspaperscorinne reilly
jim frederickbrett barrouquere
nina berman.
cliff cornelljames branumnanamio daily newsupi
john pilger
etan

heroes jumps the shark!

the illustration of nbc's monday night line up is by Kat, Betty's three kids and Wally.

i'm covering heroes tonight.

ay-yi-yi.

the show jumped the shark last night. stop reading if you don't want to know.

nathan is how they jumped the shark. nathan was killed by sylar.

so that was it and i'd miss the actor.

except he's not gone.

nathan is still around.

as a ghost?

that might be interesting.

no, he's sylar. or, rather, sylar is him.

how so?

nathan's mother angela just can't let go of her son (sylar slit his throat and nathan bled to death). so she has matt parkman use his mental powers to make sylar (who can shape shift) believe he is really nathan and, she says, since he has nathan's memories, it'll be like nathan.

uh, no, it won't and it's kind of a freaky gross story.

are we supposed to root for nathan next year?

or sylar?

are we supposed to hope sylar figures out what happened?

and breaks matt's spell

and returns to being sylar and eager to destroy every 1?

i found the episode very, very disappointing.

as usual, we could count on clair in her scenes.

peter was good as well.

by the way, peter and clair don't know that the man isn't nathan.

angela, noah and matt know it's really sylar and that's it.

i really don't see how any 1 can watch next year and take the thing even semi-seriously.

that really is jump the shark. and when sylar woke up (looking like nathan and thinking he was thanks to matt), angela was hugging him like he was her son and it was just so damn creepy.

now in addition, we find out that maybe tracy didn't die. at the very end, a woman is killing people and it looks like tracy. or maybe it looks like nikki or her split personality jessica. or maybe, since those 2 are played by the same actress and both characters have been killed off, it's their third sister barbra?

i don't know.

but i do know that this was the cliff hanger and because they'd screwed over their storylines and killed off tracy, they couldn't promote the actress being on monday's show.

and i know that's butt stupid because that actress has the 3rd lead in the number 1 movie in the country. if they hadn't screwed up they could have used that as a lure to grab viewers 'and be sure to catch ali who's in the number 1 film in the country in this season finale of heroes.'

they're so stupid.

i can't imagine watching next year.

i may just to see ali and clair and peter. but the show just jumped the shark and i don't see how it can recover.

nathan is clair's biological father, if you don't know. he's peter's brother.

they don't know it's really sylar.

at some point they'll have to find out but in the meantime, they'll be interacting with him like he's nathan. this is just sick.

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

Tuesday, April 28, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the Senate discusses proposed changes to the War Powers Resolution of 1973, James Baker thought it was a Costume Ball and showed up as Titus Semple, talk of overthrowing Nouri al-Maliki who is more focused on demanding an apology, Steven D. Green's 'nutty' defense, and more.


Starting with war resistance, Iraq War resister Cliff Cornell faced a court-martial this afternoon at Fort Stewart in Georgia where he entered a guilty plea to desertion.

Today the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on declaring war and the biggest concern appeared to be whether or not the creation of a joint-committee might usurp their own committee. While the turf war raged, Senator Russ Feingold appeared to be the only one who'd read the proposal in terms of how it might actually impact the issue of going to war.

Appearing before the committee as witnesses were BFFs James Baker and Lee Hamilton, packing enough 'bi-partisan' scandals between themselves to rock a Jackie Collins look at DC. The panel was rounded out by Warren Christopher whose service can be traced back to the LBJ years. Senator John Kerry chairs the committee and he called it to order and skipped any messy realities about the three to instead note that "they are here to discuss one of the most vital questions that comes before our democracy: The question of how America goes to war?"

Kerry noted that the reason for the hearing was the "fundamental tension in how America goes to war. The president is commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces while Congress has the power to declare war." Hamilton, Baker and Christopher sat on the National War Powers Commission. No, no election was held to elevate those three to a commission on such an important issue. No, their tinkering around with the law -- and, yes, with the Constitution, is not how things are supposed to be changed per the Constitution. But if DC didn't have cronyism, no one ever be seated for a meal at Marcel's. So three elderly men -- at 78, Lee Hamilton's the baby in the trio -- that few would trust with a bank deposit slip have been put in charge of recommending changes in war powers. As Phil Ochs once sang, "It's always the old to lead us to the war, always the young to fall" ("I Ain't Marching Anymore") and the LiverSpots Trio demonstrated that and then some.

If there was anything more distressing than the absence of senators -- this was a full committee hearing even though the full committee elected to skip it -- it was most likely the huge absence of the press. If changes are being made in how the United States goes to war shouldn't the press be present? Where were they? And while the Real Press was largely absent, where were the beggars of Panhandle Media? Possibly encamped on the White House lawn hoping to get a shot of Bo doing his business.

Their own business apparently did not include fact checking the chair. John Kerry declared in his opening remarks, "What is clear to all is that the 1973 War Powers Resolution has simply not functioned as intended?" Really? Is that what's going on? No, Congress has refused to do what the War Powers Resolution gives them the power to. Equally true is that some aspects have been skirted by presidents. Kerry's starting from a false premise and begging the panel to snow job him.

What Baker, Christopher and Hamilton are proposing is repealing the War Powers Act of 1973 and replacing it with something different. This would be a major change and, again, where was the press?

Baker noted in his opening remarks [PDF format warning, click here], "Two years ago, Chris [Warren Christopher] and I were approached by the Miller Center at the University of Virginia to co-chair an independent bi-partisan commission to consider an issue that has bedeviled legal experts and government officials since the Constitution was framed -- the question of how our nation makes a decision to go to war." If Baker is an example of those "experts" and "officials," no wonder they're "bedeviled." The Constitution is very clear that Congress, and only Congress, can declare war.

Warren Christopher followed and he gulped water throughout the hearing which appeared to be taxing him. A sure sign that he shouldn't have co-chaired the panel, let alone served on it. He tried to open with a joke but it flopped. Of Baker he declared, "Without going on about it, let me just say that it is a lot more fun working with Secretary Baker than working against him." Again, the joke flopped. He then almost immediately made a case for Kerry to bring down the gavel and end the hearing. Christopher was speaking of the tension between the executive and legislative branches [PDF format warning, click here] and the issue over declaring war when he stated, "Only a Constitutional amendment or decisive Supreme Court opinion will resolve the debate; neither is likely forthcoming anytime soon, and courts have turned down war powers cases filed by as many as 100 members of Congress." The response to that should be: "Well if only a Constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court verdict can decide the issue then why the hell are we listening to you?"

And that is the thing. What they're proposing resolves nothing. It does, however, weaken Congress' powers. On the plus side, as John Kerry pointed out, it's better to address this now than in the lead-up to a war, "While the nation's attention is not focused on this issue today and while the kleig lights and the hot breath of the media is not as intense here at this moment, everybody in this room and particularly at the table understand the implications and how important it is to be here now trying to figure out the best path through this rather than the middle of a crisis." We're going to zoom in on the most pertinent discussion which took place shortly after Senator Russ Feingold joined the hearing and as he began speaking.

Senator Russ Feingold: I'd like to use some of my time to make a statement and then ask a couple of questions. As we continue to grapple with the profound costs of rushing into a misguided war, it is essential that we review how Congress' War Powers have been weakened over the last few decades and how they can be restored. The war in Iraq has led to the deaths of thousands of Americans and the wounding of tens of thousands and will likely end up costing us a trillion dollars. What if we had had more open and honest debate before going to war? What if all the questions about the administration's assertions
had been fully and, to the extent appropriate, been publicly aired? So clearly any reforms of the War Powers Resolution must incorporate these lessons and foster more deliberations and more open and honest public dialogue before any decision to go to war.
I appreciate that attention is being drawn to this critically important issue which, of course, goes to the core of our Constitutional structure, its' a conversation that we need to continue to have. But I am concerned that the proposals made by the Baker - Christopher commission cede too much authority to the executive branch in the decision to go to war. Under the Constitution, Congress has the power "to declare war." It is not ambiguous in any way. The 1973 War Powers Resolution is an imperfect solution; however, it does retain Congress' critical role in this decision making process. The commission's proposal on the other hand would require Congress to pass a resolution of disapproval by a veto proof margin if it were unhappy with the president's decision to send our troops into hostilities. That means in effect that the president would need only one-third of the members plus one additional member of either house to continue a war that was started unilaterally by the president. Now that cannot be what the framers intended when they gave the Congress the power to declare war. Since the War Powers Resolution was enacted, several presidents have introduced troops into battle without obtaining the prior approval of the Congress. Campaigns in Grenada and Panama are a few examples. None of these cases involved eminent threats to the United States that justified the use of military force without the prior approval of Congress. A simple solution to this problem would be for the president to honor the Constitution and seek the prior approval of Congress in such scenarios in the future. And while the consultation required by the War Powers Resolution is far from perfect, I think it is preferable to the commission's proposal to establish a consultation committee. If this bill had been in place before the war in Iraq, President Bush could have begun the war after consulting with a gang of 12 members of Congress thereby depriving most of the senators in this room of the ability to participate in
those consultations as we did in the run up to the Iraq War. The decision to go to war is perhaps the most profound ever made by our government. Our Constitutional system rightly places this decision in the branch of government that most closely reflects the will of the people. History teaches that we must have the support of the American people if we are to successfully prosecute our military operations. The requirement of prior Congressional authorization helps to ensure that such public debate occurs and tempers the potential for rash judgment. Congress failed to live up to its responsibility with respect to the decision to go to war in Iraq. And we should be taking steps to ensure it does not make this mistake again. We should be restoring this Constitutional system not further undermining it. Mr Baker, part of the premise of the commission's finding, is that several presidents have refused to acknowledge the Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, I know that of course in practice, most do honor the Resolution. In your view, does the president's commander-in-chief authority give him the authority to ignore duly enacted statutes?

James Baker: Duly enacted statues? Not in -- not in my view. On the other hand, there have been -- you said most presidents, Senator Feingold, all presidents have refused to acknowledge the -- all presidents have questioned the Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution.

Russ Feingold: Right.

James Baker: Both Democrat and Republican.

Russ Feingold: Right. I simply said several presidents.

James Baker: Right.

Russ Feingold: But most have honored the resolution in practice.

James Baker: Well that's really not quite accurate, sir. They send -- they file reports "in keeping with," the language is "in keeping with," but never has one president filed a report "pursuant to" the War Powers Resolution.

Russ Feingold: Well, nonetheless, I appreciate your answer to the basic question. It seems to me that much of the ambiguity you attribute to the War Powers Resolution would be resolved if future presidents simply abided by the Resolution -- that would help solve the ambiguity. Mr. Hamilton, before the Iraq War, every senator had the opportunity to at least review the intelligence assessments on Iraq -- particularly the October 2002 NIE. I concluded that there was insufficient evidence to justify the decision to go to war Under your bill, wouldn't the full Congress have even less access to the intelligence supporting the decision to go to war ? Wouldn't that intelligence be limited to the gang of members on the consultation committee?

Lee Hamilton: With the consultative committee, I think you expand the number of members that would be brought into the discussions involving the highest level of intelligence. In other words, you'd have more members involved under our proposal than you do now. Because you --

Russ Feingold: I was a relatively middle - junior member of the Foreign Relations Committee. I was not at that time a member of the Intelligence Committee. At some point I was afforded the opportunity to go down to a secure room and to hear directly from the CIA people whether they felt the same thing we were hearing publicly. And I got to tell you, their tone when they were trying to express these arguments the president was making was rather tepid and it gave me a feeling that something was wrong here. And I would apparently, under this scenario, not have been a part of that process. I'm not saying my role was critical but I did end up being one of the people who went to the floor immediately and said 'I'm not buying this al Qaeda connection, I'm not buying the notion that Saddam Hussein is likely or ready to attack the United States.' It appears that somehow somebody in my situation would not necessarily be able to be a part of that pre-military operation process. Mr. Hamilton?


Lee Hamilton: Well I think under the law today the president doesn't even have to consult with members of Congress before he takes you into war because the provisions in the War Powers Resolution are very vague with regard to consultation. We expand greatly the number of members who would be involved in that consultative process here.

Russ Feingold: It appeared though in this circumstance of Iraq that this was part of the consultative process. That our access to the people from the president's CIA was pursuant to a discussion that led to a vote of the full Senate --

Lee Hamilton: Well the ---

Russ Fiengold: how the process worked. All members -- well perhaps not all. But at least members of the Foreign Relations Committee were given the opportunity to participate in that kind of a set up --

Lee Hamilton: And the proposal that we're putting before you, members of Congress are required to vote on it.

John Kerry: Senator --

Lee Hamilton:You don't have that requirement under present law.

John Kerry: There is no requirement. under present law. What happened is we did it under the prerogatives of each of the committees because the committee chairs and ranking members understood that this was part of the responsibilities Nothing in here -- and we discussed this before you [Feingold] came here -- about this consultative component in fulfillment of the requirement that the president let us know what he's thinking about doing so that those Committees, that's why they're part of it. The Intelligence Committee, the Armed Services Committee, the Foreign Relations Committee, would then go about their normal business involving all of their members. I mean, but there's no statute that required that for you either.

Russ Feingold: I'd like to believe that, Mr Chairman, but it strikes me that this provides an opportunity, that the president doesn't currently have, to say, "Look. I went through this consultative process that's provided by this new statute so I have even less a need to go through a formal vote which, as we just talked about, most presidents have decided -- President [George H.W.] Bush on the first Gulf War, even though he may not have taken the view that he had to do it, he went ahead and did it. I think this creates a process that could end run the feeling on the part of a president that he needs to go through a process that would actually involve participation but I'm not saying that this doesn't literally require it --

James Baker: Senator --

Russ Feingold: Yes, Mr. Baker?

James Baker: We require a vote within 30 days so the president is going to be facing a vote of the Congress. If the vote is a resolution disapproval, that is going to very adverse impacts on the president's ability to

Russ Feingold: But in the case of Iraq of course [shrugs, throws up hands]

James Baker: Well that of course -- I mean

Russ Feingold: 30 days after wouldn't have been not too helpful.

James Baker: That's -- that's true. But the president -- both presidents went to the Congress to get approval and actually obtained approval. Back to . Back to the point you made about the c-- about the observance a statute duly enacted and whether a president can question it's Constitutionality. There's all -- there's always been the ability of presidents to question Constitutionality and in this area it has consistently been questioned by both Democratic and Republican presidents. Presidents have sent troops abroad, Mr. Feingold, 264 times -- during which period the Congress has declared war 5 times. So faced with the situation, we expressly -- I think before you arrived, we made it -- we had a dialogue here about the fact that we have expressly preserved the rights of Congress to make the argument that I think you are making and the right of the president to make the argument presidents have made since the War Powers Resolution was passed that the Constitution gives either (A) the Congress or (B) the president the authority. Expressly reserve those Constitutional arguments, put them to the side, they are not going to be solved in the absence of a Constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court opinion. So we don't prejudice either branch. What we're trying to do is find a workable solution here that will improve the relationship and the consultation that takes place between the president and Congress when the nation's going to war.

Russ Feingold: I respect the effort and I respect the intent and it may well work that way. My concern -- and I know my time's up, Mr. Chairman

John Kerry: No, take [more] time, no problem.

Russ Feingold: Is that I witnessed as a non-senator the excellent debate that was held on the floor of the United States Senate prior to the first Gulf War, I also was involved in the truncated and unfortunately weak debate prior to the Iraq War. But any process that could make a president feel that he somehow did not need to go through that process prior to such a major action would trouble me. So that's how I need to review this. Could this lead to that practical effect as opposed to the literal effort you have made to avoid such a consequence. These are my concerns.

James Baker: I don't think so. Let me just quickly answer. I don't believe so because the president has the power today. So we're not -- this effort -- I don't see this as giving the president something he doesn't have today.

Russ Feingold: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

John Kerry: Thank you Senator Feingold. Those are important inquiries and I think worth examining the sort of Iraq experience in terms of the vote up front versus late.


Kerry entered the commission's entire report into the record at the start of the hearing and noted, at the end of the hearing, that the record would remain open for a week to include any additional responses from the panel.

Before Feingold joined the hearing, there were no strong objections from Democrats. In fact, Kerry and others accepted premises that they probably shouuldn't do without speaking to their constituents if they want to at least pretend to represent anyone other than the beltway. For example, there are many people (put my name on the list) who do not believe that pre-emptive war and pre-emtive attacks are illegal (and it is illegal by the doctrine of just wars) so it was really something to hear John Kerry, who damn well knows better, accept the committee's working premise that the president had the right to do those without Congressional authority. For those confused, international bodies say those actions are wrong. Who the hell were these three crooked thieves bouncing between commerce and politics to accept as legal things that are still open to debate?

That and eliminating Congressional authority for war -- currently written into the Constitution -- seemed the main purpose of the Baker-Christopher commission. Some might say, "Well the Court would rule against it if it's wrong!" The Supreme Court is going to decide that Congress shouldn't have surrendered a contested power? No. They've consistently refused to rule on this terrain and were Congress to adopt this craziness the Court would either ignore it or rule that Congress didn't have the power stripped from them, they voted to give it away. This is a very serious issue and Russ Feingold was the only one who appeared to grasp that.

Baker kept talking about "bi-partisanship" and he looked so oily throughout that only two words captured him: Titus Semple. You found yourself longing for Lane Bellamy to show up and explain what they did to out of control elephants in the circus. At one point, he sprayed himself with snake oil and did his best Eddie Haskell grin while declaring the problem was with two political parties, it was between branches of government.

"The problem" James Baker sees is in reality the checks and balances set up in the Constitution and if he has a problem with those maybe he should take his autum years to another damn country. This is not someone who doesn't know better, this is a mad elephant on a rampage, determined to trample everything in his path. As Lane says in Flamingo Road, "You know sheriff, we had an elephant in our carnival with a memory like that. He went after a keeper that he'd held a grudge against for almost 15 years. Had to be shot. You just wouldn't believe how much trouble it is to dispose of a dead elephant."

Richard Lugar's the ranking member. We'll quote in when he manages to finish a sentence as opposed to pretending to ask a question that's nothing but multiple half-sentences strung together for over six minutes. Somewhere in his tape reel of Libyia, the evening news, Ronald Reagan and more he declared "what all you people in Congress need to understand . . ." Who was he speaking to? Presumably every senator on the panel understood their duties. While Edward Kaufman is new (the only one persent who is), Kaufman's run Joe Biden's Senate office for decades. Somewhere around the six minute mark, Lugar finally came up for air.

Or as Warren Christopher put it in one of the panel's most honest responses, "Senator Lugar talked quite a lot". He then went into Section 4a of the statute (committee recomendation) and rushed to assure that "we certainly don't mean to pre-empt the jurisdiction of this committee or other committees." Kerry wanted to know about 3c and how it speaks of the consultation committee make up. Was it an ongoing committee? Baker said Congress could determine that. The back and forth was pointless.

Senator Edward Kaufman compared the War Powers Act to a game of ruby football, noting how it's "been kicked around" and he stated he would feel derelict in his duty if he didn't raise the issue of Declaration of War. Warren Christopher dismissed it as no longer used so nothing to worry about ("The Congress has decided apparently to go the route of authorization . . ."). Kaufman should have pursued that further but, in fairness to him, there was no support for it among his fellow senators (Feingold was not yet present) and the panel played dumb. Kaufman was right to raise the issue and just because Congress uses one tool today or even in the last few decades does not mean it surrenders another one for all time.

Slimy Jim Baker wanted to grin while telling Feingold he missed things discussed earlier. No, he didn't. It wasn't discussed. But he did miss out on Warren Christopher saying the proposals were to help the president "speak to all the members of Congress" and Lee Hamilton adding that 535 members of Congress is just too much and "presidents today do not know with whom to consult." Hamilton explained this would limit who the president spoke to in Congress to a small number which would then spread out the word and, as a result, no member of either house could "complain, 'I wasn't consulted'." Actually, they could. Their remarks were exactly what they would deny when Feingold pursued his line of questioning. They had already established that the committee would be the one to address it and that the members not on that committee would need to get info from the committee (Hamilton: "This provides a president with a focal point for consultation.")

On the Republican side, Bob Corker was the only Republican senator other than Richard Lugar. Corker actually had a few points to make and pointed out that the proposal really doesn't resolve any of the limitations with the War Powers Resolution. Baker agreed but said you'd need a Constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision for that. So can someone explain why the Congress should nullify the War Powers Resolution and put in its place something that resolves nothing (but limits Congress' power and scope)? Corker labeled the proposal nothing but a "sort of . . . code of conduct. . . . It's really not going to have the effect of law." Baker shot back, "Oh, it would have the effect of law." Pause. "I think." Corker also disputed some of the exceptions the proposals recommend such as "the safety of the troops." Corker said that out would be there in any action, allowing the president to overrule Congress, because once troops are deployed "the safety of our troops would always be an issue." Baker agreed. ("That's correct. I think that's correct.") This hearing should have had a ton of reporters present. If anything is changed, if the War Powers Resolution is trashed, it will have longterm effects. For the record, the War Powers Resolution? Covered by NPR, Pacifica and all three broadcast networks back in the day.

It's amazing that anyone wants to listen to James Baker regarding war. But others are rehabilitated all the time. Betty noted Bob Somerby calling out non-journalist Rachel Maddow's latest on-air clowning:

But on last Friday's program, Maddow's interview with Lawrence Wilkerson was, in our view, much worse.
Who the heck is Larry Wilkerson? As Maddow explained in her introduction, he was "chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell from 2002 to 2005." As such, he played a key role in the way the United States went to war in Iraq. In particular, Wilkerson was in charge of the preparation of Powell's UN presentation in February 2003--the presentation which sealed elite opinion in favor of war.
[. . .]
According to Wilkerson, he and Powell were babes in the woods, thumb-sucking innocents who managed to get themselves "snowed" and "used" by others. Powell had even complained to David Frost about the fact that those in the know never came to him with the truth: "What really upset me more than anything else was that there were people in the intelligence community that had doubts about some of this sourcing, but those doubts never surfaced up to us."
No one came to Powell with the facts! Quite correctly, Tim Russert was ridiculed when he made a similar, keister-covering statement to Bill Moyers. And yet, when Wilkerson grandly presented himself on our "progressive" news program last Friday, he received no questions of any kind about this crucial episode. You see, he was willing to call Dick Cheney names! For that reason, he was allowed to gild his own lily and, by extension, Powell's.
Increasingly, this seems to be the peculiar function of Maddow's "progressive" program.

Rachel Maddow was a War Hawk throughout 2004 and 2005. Only when public opinion hugely shifted did she ever stop saying the US had to stay in Iraq. Listeners of Unfiltered damn well remember her constant praise of Colin Powell and her repeatedly getting it wrong about the Pottery Barn analogy -- the Pottery Barn does not have a policy of you-broke-it-you-bought-it. Rachel would drool on air over Colin back in those days. People have this idea that because she's a lesbian she's somehow hugely progressive. She's not. She's a centrist and, most importantly, she will and has sold out everyone to get where she is today -- on basic cable with, as Rebecca pointed out, very few viewers. She's a media created 'star.' Like a plethora of Vanity Fair cover boys and girls in the 90s who were movie 'stars' because Van Fair told you they were. The box office loudly disagreed. (When's the last time you spotted 'star' Julia Ormond?) Rachel Maddow gets soft and easy press for a number of reasons -- one she uses her friends who are in the closet (hey, she protected her closet case friend who wrote the Ann Coulter Time magazine cover story -- Liar Rachel refused to discuss that story -- a big left story -- or call out Time or the writer and she refused to tell listeners of her show that she was friends with the author); MSNBC needs a female face and 'jock' like Rachel isn't too 'girly' so she doesn't threaten anyone; and, most importantly, she doesn't threaten the power structure. She is a little suck-up who sucks up like crazy. But if those MSNBC ratings keep dropping, this isn't Air America. Her father leading a 'save-Rachel's job!' campaign won't work and will get her laughed off the chat & chew circuit. Rachel worships Colin Powell and will never ask him a tough question and she'll never ask his little buddy one either.

In Iraq, a Sunday attack in Kut continues to make the news. The pre-dawn raid resulted in two deaths and condemnation from Nouri al-Maliki. Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) reports that the Iraqi Council of Ministers is stating that the assault was "an unnaceptable breach of the withdrawal of forces agreement between the parties" which would be the thing more popularly known as the Status of Forces Agreement and that it was breached by a military operation being carried out without a warrant or without Iraqi consent (allegedly without Iraqi consent). No alleged on the warrant because if there was a warrant, the US would have waived it around by now. Instead you have US Col Richard Francey running to the BBC to express US forces are "deeply saddened" by the "terrible tragedy." That did not appease the Iraqi government. Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) reports they are demanding "an official apology". The SOFA was never carved in stone despite all the bad reports insisting it was. Amy Goodman (Democratcy Now!) noted that the US is now planning to stay in some Iraqi cities beyond June 30th. Of the treaty masquerading as a SOFA, Jeremey Scahill (at CounterPunch) notes:

Of course, the celebrations were and remain unwarranted. Obama's Iraq plan is virtually identical to the one on Bush's table on January 19, 2009. Obama has just rebranded the occupation, sold it to liberals and dropped the term "Global War on Terror" while, for all practical purposes, continuing the Bush era policy (that's why leading Republicans praised Obama's plan). In the real world, US military commanders have said they are preparing for an Iraq presence for another 15-20 years, the US embassy is the size of Vatican City, there is no official plan for the withdrawal of contractors and new corporate mercenary contracts are being awarded. The SoFA Agreement between the US and Iraq gives the US the right to extend the occupation indefinitely and to continue intervening militarily in Iraq ad infinitum. All it takes is for the puppets in Baghdad to ask nicely…

Independent journalist Dahr Jamail (at Pacific Free Press) observes:

Make no mistake about it - there is a war on. The floodgates of hell have once again been opened, largely as the result of US unwillingness to pressure the Maliki government to back off its ongoing attacks against the US-created Sahwa, which have led to the Sahwa walking off their security posts in many areas, which has been a green light for al-Qaeda to resume its operations in Iraq. In addition, many of the Sahwa forces, weary of not being paid promised wages from the government, as well as broken promises by the occupiers of their country, have resumed attacks against US forces. Again, there doesn't appear to be anything in the short term to indicate these trends will stop.

Sahwa, "Awakenings" and "Sons Of Iraq" are all the same group. Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) notes the targeting of Sahwa and asks the following of the government's intentions:

Is it reaching out to former Sunni insurgents such as Abu Azzam in the true spirit of "national reconciliation," or in hopes of splintering the movement? And will the government's campaign against men such as Abu Maarouf succeed in snuffing out potential rivals? Or is it planting seeds for a long-term Sunni revolt? The crackdown also points to a significant change in the U.S. forces' onetime policy of nurturing and protecting the Sons of Iraq. As the Iraqi government has arrested some of the movement's leaders, forced others into exile and failed to deliver jobs for rank-and-file fighters, the Americans have regularly deferred to Baghdad's wishes as they hand over responsibility for the country's security.

Don't expect answer to any questions from al-Maliki's government, however they are insisting upon one thing: They captured Abu Omar al Baghdadi. Corinne Reilly (McClatchy Newspapers) notes, "Iraqi officials have touted the arrest of Baghdadi several time before, and each time the claims have turned out to be false. But they said this time was different." When originally trumpeting this arrest last Thursday, the officials were saying they'd have DNA proof. They still fail to mention DNA. Reilly observes, "Officials may be using the arrest to try to bolster confidence in Iraq's security forces ahead of an upcoming drawdown in U.S. troops here. There's widespread fear among Iraqis that violence will increase when Americans leave Iraqi cities at the end of June, a timeline mandated by an agreement signed last year between Washington and Baghdad." While Baghdad insists it's the 'terrorist,' the US has refused to say so since Thursday. AFP reports the US Defense Dept sticks to asseting they can't confirm it. Sam Dagher and Atheer Kakan (New York Times) note, "The government has not provided proof of his capture since announcing the arrest on Thursday, beyond showing a photograph of a man with a trimmed beard wearing a black T-shirt." al-Maliki might try paying attention to other things. Liz Sly (LAT's Bablyon & Beyond) reports Sheik Ali Hatem Sulaiman "has been trying to rally the support of tribes across Iraq for a tribal conference whose goal, he says, will be to replace the government of Prime Minister Nouri Maliki unless certain, as yet unspecified demands are met."

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports "the father of two policemen" was brutally murdered in Mosul today.

Turning to legal news, Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi is the 14-year-old Iraqi girl who was gang-raped and murdered March 12, 2006. James Barker is among those who confessed. The Guardian of London summarized Barker's written testimony, ". . . Green dragged the father, mother and younger sister into a bedroom, while Abeer was left in the living room. . . . Barker said [Paul] Cortez appeared to rape the girl [Abeer], and he followed. He said he heard gunshots and Mr. Green came out of the bedroom, saying he had killed the family, before raping the girl and shooting her with an AK-47."That's what Barker confessed to, Cortez' confession matched it. No need to say "alleged" with regards to them. No need to say it with regards to Steven D. Green. His attorneys are not disputing the statements that he was the ringleader, that he murdered four people, that he took part in the gang-rape or any of it. They're arguing 'yes, but not guilty'. He's being tried in a Kentucky federal court and his trial began yesterday. The ambulance chasing public defenders representing Green are the Keystone Cops of the legal field as they make one offensive argument after another. The case they presented yesterday was, "Yes, he did it, but think about what he went through and think about the fact that some US service members died in Iraq and think about . . ."Think about this, that's as offensive as the argument the judge disallowed. The judge's refused to allow Green's attorneys to argue to the federal court jury, the civilian jury, that they can't judge Green because they weren't in Iraq. The defense offered yesterday is as offensive because it continues one of the threads which is: "This is normal behavior." It is not normal behavior. Were it normal behavior, every US soldier in Iraq would be doing what Green did. The defense is arguing that this is normal behavior and a normal response and it's not and that insults everyone who's served in Iraq or any other war zone.The defense argues it was a normal response (murder and gang-rape) and that Steven D. Green is the victim here because he had problems. No question he had problems. He joined the military because he'd been arrested AGAIN. He joined the military to get out of being tossed into prison. He joined the military from jail. He couldn't get it together, no question.But when you don't dispute the charges and when the charges are multiple murders and gang-rape, when your client could get the death penalty, you don't argue "normal" reaction. You argue that your client is mentally ill and was exhibiting those signs early on.Green was unfit for entry in the military. There's no question of that. To get him, he required a 'moral' waiver. That's your case.When the defense starts asking the jury to feel sorry for Green because it's "normal," they're running off the jury. The argument for this line of defense should be, "Yes, he did this. He did it because he's got huge problems and that's why you need to sentence him to a medical institution."But when the defense wants to claim this is 'normal,' it's offensive. It's offensive to the society we live in. It's offensive to the military. And it also says, "Put him to death." That's what the defense is accidently arguing. If they're arguing this is 'normal' -- and it's not -- the jury's looking at Green and thinking, "Normal for him." Meaning it's incumbent upon them to ensure that he never has the option of doing anything like that again.Does Green qualify for an insanity plea? I don't personally know. But that's all the defense has to argue because everyone else involved confessed to his actions and their own, because he was observed leering at Abeer and stroking her face and doing other things that made her uncomfortable (he was at a checkpoint in her neighborhood and harassed her repeatedly when she would have to pass through). If you're going for the insanity plea, you're asking the jury to consider your client out of control.If you're client's 'out of control' is also, you argue, 'normal' then don't be surprised if a jury decides they're dealing with a rabid dog that needs to be put down.It is very doubtful Green looks sympathetic or will come off as such. The strongest defense is that Green is f**ked up and that this was ignored by every institution and outlet he came before, repeatedly ignored so the jury is the last chance for him to receive help. That might get him institutionalized as opposed to put to death. But the arguments the defense is making currently or more likely to piss of the jury because, again, they're not disputing the charges.Andrew Wolfson (Louisville Courier-Journal) reports Abeer's cousin Abu Farras testified that seeing the corpses, "I thought it had to be terrorists. This was a massacre, not a crime. I thought no American would do such a thing." Abeer's brother Mohammed al-Janabi also testified stating he was coming home when he saw the smoke and had no idea it was his home. (From when Abeer's body was set on fire.) Alsumaria reports, "A relative of the victim's family in Baghdad, Rashid Hamza, said that two family members attended the trial in the United States. He wished the US solider accused of this atrocity be executed." AFP provides this context: 3 soldiers are serving life sentences for their actions and a fourth "was sentenced to 27 months in jail." Steven Robrahn (Reuters) quotes one of Green's attorneys, Patrick Bouldin, telling the jury, "You have to understand the background that leads up to this perfect storm of insanity." AP's Brett Barrouquere has covered this story for almost three years now. He reports on yesterday's proceedings and notes Brian Skaret, one of the prosecutors, explaining that Green and the others had a card game and whiskey, talked about sex and Abeer's name came up, they invaded her home, Green shot her sister and and parents, took part in the gang-rape and then "Steven Green went over to the wall and picked up a gun and he shot her in the face again and again."

Lastly on Iraq, Deborah Haynes (Times of London) did some outstanding reporting the last years in Baghdad. We called her out here once (a blog post about riding in a jeep) and we're not here to award gold stars. Translation, criticized once (or twenty times in one year) is nothing. Haynes did an outstanding job and uncovered many stories (hospitals, pregnancies, exclusive interview with Gen Ray Odierno) that no one else managed to. She's posted her last blog post at her paper's Inside Iraq and notes what she'll miss about Baghdad and what she won't. She also files a brief report on Camp Cropper (US prison in Iraq) and notes that over 12,350 prisoners remain there currently.




iraq
brett barrouquere
caroline alexanderbloomberg newsbbc news
waleed ibrahim
dahr jamail
the los angeles timesned parker
liz sly
andrew wolfsonsteve robrahndemocracy now
the new york timessam dagher
deborah haynes
jeremy scahill