i use youtube

to watch classic soaps.

i miss daytime tv.

and i don't mean whoopi goldberg getting fatter and fatter on 'the view.'

(did rosie perez really leave because she was afraid whoopi might eat her?)

i miss the days where you could start off with 'the doctors' and then watch four or five more hours of soaps.

being sick back then was worth it because you were home watching all the soaps.

'another world' - when it has cecile on - was 1 of my favorites and i will frequently watch those episodes on youtube.

and they have a lot of the classic soaps on there.

they also have some things like 'best abby moments' - clips of donna mills playing abby on 'knot's landing.'  those are fun too.


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

Wednesday, July 8, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, the Iraqi government sentences more people to executions, the Senate explores what's going on in Iraq, this includes starving civilians in Haditha, and much more.


Senator Joe Donnelly: I just got back from Iraq with Senator [Tim] Kaine who led our trip and one of the meetings we had was with a number of the Sunni tribal leaders and some of them were from the Haditha area and in talking to them they have said, "We have stood with you. We have faith with you.  But we have people who are now eating grass in our town.  We have no food.  We have no supplies.  And we have been told that the only airlifts that can come in would be on military transport.  Is there anything you can do to help feed our people?"  And so, I wanted to put that before you to see if there's something we can do to be of aid to these individuals.



Donnelly was speaking Tuesday at the Senate Armed Services Committee.  The Committee Chair is Senator John McCain and the Ranking Member is Senator Jack Reed.  Appearing before the Committee were Gen Martin Dempsey (Chair of the Joint Chiefs) and Secretary of Defense Ash Carter.

Donnelly states that he was told, in Haditha, food resources were so low that civilians were eating grass.

Though only in his second year in the US Senate, Donnelly has not racked up  a reputation for lying or misleading.

So it's fairly safe to assume this is what he was told.

Where's the outcry?

We drive our Bitch Moan and Whine vehicles all over the globe over this or that artifact destroyed in Iraq but you have civilians forced to eat grass and no one cares enough to make this a lead story?





Secretary Ash Carter: Well, uh, I'll say something about that and ask the Chairman if he wants to add.  First of all, I want to thank you, Senator Donnelly, also Senator Kaine for traveling there.  We appreciate it.  And on behalf of the 3,550 members of our armed forces that are in Iraq conducting this fight, thank you for taking the time to go visit them this Fourth of July weekend.  The humanitarian situation is yet another tragic consequence of what is going on with ISIL.  It remains one of the coalition's, uhm, uh, uh, efforts as I indicated in my opening statement.  To relieve the humanitarian, that's very difficult to do when there is not order and control on the ground.  And so, uh, this is why we need to get a security situation that's stable, ground forces that are capable of hol- seizing territory, holding territory and governing.  That's the only way to get the humanitarian situation turned around -- either in Iraq or in Syria.  It's very sad.  It's tragic.  And, uh, in the case of Iraq -- as has been noted --  uh, something brought about by the re-emergence of sectarianism in a really tragic way.  Chairman, you want to add anything?

Gen Martin Dempsey:  One of the reasons we went to [al-] Taqaddum Air Base [in Anbar Province] -- also locally called Habbaniyah -- is to advise and assist in the Anbar operations center which is where these kind of issues should actually migrate through.  And it's -- You should be interested to know the Iraqis have the capabilities to address that.  They have C-130J [Lockheed Martin transport aircraft], you know state of the art, uhm-uhm -- 

Senator Joe Donnelly:  I know they do, but they're not.

Gen Martin Dempsey:  Yeah, well we'll pass it to the guy who's embedded with -- 


Senator Joe Donnelly:  And you know, when you're hungry?  You're stomach doesn't tell you you want Iraqi food or US food, you just want help.  And one of the bonds created with these tribal leaders is they said, "We've always felt that we could count on you."  


Dempsey was a bit of a smart ass and there's no way to pretty that up.

If you caught the tone of, "Yeah, well we'll pass it to the guy," you grasped what a smart ass what he was being.

How nice for him that hearing of the starvation of others is so removed from anything he's ever experienced that he can make light of it, that he can mock it.

How very nice for him.

For those who don't remember how Barack kicked off the latest stage of the never-ending Iraq War, the Yazidis were trapped on Mount Sinjar and without food.

An air drop of humanitarian items was something we advocated for here.

Some people thought that the anti-war thing to do was to ridicule the trapped Yazidis.

All that did was drive people away.

It's not funny when people are in need, when they're starving.

Unless you're Dempsey or some other smart ass.

But with the Yazidis on Mt. Sinjar, Barack didn't just do air drops, he used it to further the Iraq War.

There's no reason that the US can't do an air drop.

Dempsey is correct that the Baghdad-based government could help.

While Haditha is frequently under attack (and, in fact, faced vehicle bombings earlier this week), it is not under the control of the Islamic State currently.

Dempsey could have cut the smarm and instead explored the lack of compassion on the part of the Iraqi government -- the Shi'ite led Iraqi government -- out of Baghdad with regards to the suffering of Sunnis (Haditha is a Sunni town).

Clearly, Iraq's (Shi'ite) Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi feels no pressure to send food.

(The State Dept had to strong arm him in to visiting a refugee camp last week.)

With them not willing to do so, the US military -- which all over Iraqi air space -- should immediately be dropping food over Haditha.

Is it hard to do?

Because the way I remember it, the Pentagon and the White House repeatedly insist that, when dropping bombs on Iraq, these are precision exercises.

So a bomb can be dropped precisely but there's some confusion over whether food and rations can be dropped precisely?

Again, the Baghdad-based government knows what's happening and has refused to step in.

US President Barack Obama repeatedly insists 'we're not taking sides.'

If you're looking the other way while a town of Sunnis are starving to the point that they're eating grass, if you're not rushing aid to them, you are taking sides, you are taking sides against Sunni civilians.


And with Barack, Dempsey and countless others insisting this is a 'generational battle,' I don't know that the citizens of Haditha can wait a "generation" for food.  (And Dempsey, in this hearing, defined "generational" as 20 years.)



We're going to note Senator Joe Manchin and Senator Kelly Ayotte for several reasons but chief among them after last moth's House Armed Services Committe hearing.

We covered that hearing and we were at it.  (See the June 18th "Iraq snapshot," "Barack wants Gulf states to send ground troops int...," and the June 17th "Iraq snapshot.")

But people who didn't bother to attend read a press report that inflated what Secretary of Defense Ash Carter said, stripped of its context and insisted Carter used his time before the House Armed Services Committee to either argue that Iraq needed to be split up into thirds or that splitting Iraq up into thirds was the goal of the White House.

This non-issue is what trickled down to the so-called independent media coverage.

The hearing had many disclosures and one of the big ones was that the White House felt they had enough foreign war planes in their 'coalition' but they wanted foreign countries to send more ground forces into Iraq so that they could assist the Iraqi forces with combat.


Instead of that being a lead headline or main point, we had to endure nonsense.

Nonsense may come about again.

But please note what Carter is saying in his exchange with Manchin and with Ayotte on the subject -- note it before it again gets distorted.



Senator Joe Manchin: As I go around the state of West Virginia, my little state, you know it's a very hawkish state and a very patriotic state and a lot of veterans.  Speak to all of them, they're confused right now, they really are. What -- and you [gestures to Senator Pete Sessions] you heard the frustration coming out.  But  basically, Iraq is not a united country.  You have the Sunnis, the Shi'ites and the Kurds.  And I think, Secretary Carter, that you've said until they have the will [Carter stated May 24th, of the fall of Ramadi to the Islamic State, "the Iraqi forces  just showed no will to fight"]  -- and I think, Gen Dempsey, you also said the same thing -- until Iraq has the will to fight -- but which group has the will to fight to defend the other group?  And that's where we're having a problem.  And I think it's been said, 'Well if you have a group that's fighting" and the Kurds want to fight "why do we still have to make them go through the Baghdad centralized government in order for them to get the weapons they need to defend themselves and be aggressive?" So they're confused about that, they're confused about, in Syria, trying to  spend the money trying to find  people to train when you acknowledge that we only had sixty of them successful right now with the amount of effort we're spending there.  But yet at that, I think you said you had the Kurds -- Syrian Kurds -- that were fighting. And some things of that sort.  I don't know.  And then I'm asked the question, they said, "We continue to keep trying to train and arm the Iraqis and it seems like all they're doing is supplying the ISIL with the equipment that the Americans are giving them and, you know, when are we ever going to stop giving equipment to the people who won't defend it and fight for it?  So, I guess, are we talking -- at your level, are you talking to the White House about rethinking the whole Iraqi position as far as one centralized government, one Iraq, or maybe a separated Iraq?


Secretary Ash Carter: I-I-I think we're all aware that it is very difficult to, uhm, govern Iraq in a multi-sectarian manner and so we thought about the alternatives to that.  I think we all have actually for years and I'm sure all of you have as well.  Uh, we are trying to assist Prime Minister Abadi in governing in a different way from the way [Nouri al-] Maliki governed which, as Senator Sessions noted, led to the disintegration of the Iraqi security forces, the sectarian coloration of them, and that's what ultimately led to their collapse in Sunni territory -- 


Senator Joe Manchin: [Overlapping] Secretary Carter, I think --

Secretary Ash Carter (Con't):  -- didn't fight for it.

Senator Joe Manchin (Con't): -- a question also along those lines, they -- I've been asked the question, you just remind me, they said, "Didn't we see signs that Maliki was incompetent, that he would have gone strictly to a sectarian position -- as he did -- not for a strong united Iraq?"  Did we not, with all of the people we've had there, did we not see that coming and could not have averted that from happening?


Secretary Ash Carter: Uh, I can only speak for myself in that regard and I was not closely involved in it in the time, I certainly had that concern about Mr. Maliki.  And I know that many of you met with him.  I met with him several times and it was quite apparent to me.  Nor Prime Minister Abadi says he has  a different intention which is to govern Iraq from the center but in a decentralized enough way that the Kurds, the Sunnis and the Shia each have enough space to-to, uh, uhm, carry on their own welfare in the way that they wish but there is a center, integral Iraqi state.  The -- Uh -- And that is what he says he's working towards and we're supporting him in that regard.  That's why, for example, when we provide arms to the Kurds, we do it with, uh, consent of the Iraqi government in order to indicate that we support the idea of a single Iraqi government in Baghdad but we also want the Kurds in the fight and armed.  And that has not delayed our arming of the Kurds --


Senator Joe Manchin:  It seems like the biggest problem we have is with the Sunnis and the Shi'ites and then -- .

Secretary Ash Carter: And the Sunnis and the Shi'ites.  And this is why the -- It's so important to take the time to train a truly multi-sectarian Iraqi force.  There are elements of the Iraqi forces that have that right character.  For example, there's CTS --

Senator Joe Manchin:  General --

Secretary Ash Carter:  And-and so our strategy, just to go to the beginning, is to uh-uh-uh train and equip those local forces, they're essential.  Then we can help them -- and it is a "chicken and egg" thing [to Senator Pete Sessions who had raised the chicken and egg issue] -- except that you need to have the capable and motivated ground force -- then we can enable it, rather than to substitute for it --

Senator Joe Manchin:  Well --

Secretary Ash Carter (Con't):  -- which doesn't lead to a lasting resort.

Senator Joe Manchin (Con't):  -- I would think, General Dempsey, it's been pointed out here that we've spent multiple years, ten years plus, a trillion dollars, lost a lot of lives in Iraq  and we had 100,000 troops there at one time trying to train and defend and get them motivated and that didn't work.  And so that's the hard question.  How do you go home and answer that?  How do I go home and answer that we're going to try this over again and maybe we'll do a better job of retraining?  I think that was the frustration you were seeing coming out of Senator Sessions. 

Gen Martin Dempsey:  Well sure.  I think it's probably worth mentioning that my judgment about how this will evolve over time is that it is a generational issue.  It is transregional, Senator.  You know it is elements of it in Afghanistan, we see it in Iraq and Syria, we see it in the Sinai, we see it in Libya and we can't just focus like a laser beam on one part of it, it has to be pressured across it and so what we're trying to do is achieve a, uh, enduring defeat which means we gotta' work it through partners because they own the -- they have more to gain and more to lose.  And, finally, we've got to find a sustainable level of efforts since I do believe this is a generational level challenge. 

Senator Joe Manchin:  I just think that-that basically my question would be that, overall, are we trying to defend the British lines that were drawn over 100 years and putting people in a territory that they don't believe that's their country?  I mean, why are we forcing something on people that don't want to accept -- 


Gen Martin Dempsey:  Well, I'll just follow up with you.  I also share that concern, that the Mid East will never be the Mid East again.

Senator Joe Manchin:  Yeah.

Gen Martin Dempsey:  And so everything that I recommend to the Secretary and to the President is recommended with the intention of being flexible enough that we can -- we can build upon it if we do find that inclusive, national unity government in Iraq or not.

Chair John McCain: I can't help but mention the situation was stabilized after the surge and we had won and we predicted if everybody was pulled out that the situation would descend into chaos.  It is a fact that thanks to Gen [David] Petraeus, the surge and great sacrifice, the Iraq War was won.  And to ignore that in that conversation, Gen Dempesy, is to me intellectually dishonest. 


Ash Carter is not Robert Gates.

Former Secretary of Defense Gates was a more clipped type speaker -- Dempsey without the snide.

He's also not Leon Panetta who is a conversationalist able to discuss any topic freely, off the top of his head without notes.

Then came Chuck Hagel who was ground down by the military brass and learned CYA -- cover your own ass.

That explains both how, as senator, he went from supporting whistle blower Sibel Edmonds to silence when it became too controversial.

It's also how he could depart from his position and the administration with most people unaware of how unhappy and disgusted he was with the aims and focus of the White House.

If Barack feels Gates and Panetta wrote books that weren't kind to his abilities and leadership, he better prepare himself for Hagel who's the type who sits there and says "Yes, sir" but banks each and every disagreement for a later retelling.

Ash Carter is not like any of the ones back to Gates.

He's not a comfortable speaker.

The easy out on that is you stick to the script (as Hagel did).

Carter refuse to do that.

He tries to answer in his own words.

I grit my teeth every time he says "multi-sectarian government" -- a phrase he's been using since his confirmation hearing (we covered it in the February 4, 2015 snapshot) -- because why would you want that?  Dempsey uses terms like a "unified" government, etc.

But Carter's creating his own phrases and doing so as he tries to avoid stock answers or scripted replies.

This means he can be easily distorted.

That's especially true since he's considering as he speaks and can drop a line of thought mid-point and pick up on another one instead.

This does not make for smooth 'pull quotes' or partial quotes.

And he can be easily misconstrued.

He has never advocated, as Secretary of Defense, in a Congressional hearing for splitting up Iraq.

Asked about it, he will consider it and will sometimes offer pros and cons.

That's all he's really done.

His manner of speaking means you need to pay closer attention.


And, as someone attending the hearings, I do appreciate the fact that Ash Carter is not sticking to a script and appears to be considering and responding off the cuff.


Let's move to  some of Ayotte's line of questioning.


Senator Kelly Ayotte: I wanted to ask you, Secretary Carter, you had said in answer to Senator Manchin that in fact that the arms that we're providing to the Kurds, we're doing so with the consent of  the Iraqi central government.  Does that mean we're doing it directly or we're going still through the Iraqi central government?

Secretary Ash Carter:  Well, first of all, we're not the only ones.  But we and others basically convey the weapons directly to the Kurds.  But we inform the Iraqi government and get their formal consent to it.

Senator Kelly Ayotte: So --

Senator Ash Carter:  So it doesn't delay the arming of the Kurds.

Senator Kelly Ayotte:  So right now --

Secretary Ash Carter (Con't): try to stick up basically for the central Iraqi government.

Senator Kelly Ayotte:  Previously we had heard complaints about it originally going through the Iraqi central government and then to the Kurds so I'm glad to hear that we're directly providing it to the Kurds, letting the Iraqi central government know what we're providing. 


Secretary Ash Carter:  Mr. [Kurdistan Regional Government President Massoud] Barzani was here in town, you may have met with him, a few weeks ago.  And, he, uh, was grateful for what was being provided and he noted that, uh, the delays which is the principle problem that were experienced early on are not being experienced now -- either in the shipment of our equipment or that of others, for example the Germans providing anti-tank munitions which they value very much.  But we are trying to stick up for the principle that Iraq is a single unitary, multi-sectarian state.  And difficult as that may be, that is much preferred to the alternative which is the sectarian disintegration of Iraq.


Senator Kelly Ayotte:  Let me follow up. So clearly the Kurds are capable and motivated and, at this point, are they receiving all of the weapons that they've asked for?  Because, as I understood it, ISIS at one -- Certainly, unfortunately, ISIS has captured some of the armaments that we left in Iraq -- and some of them heavy armaments.  The Kurds are quite effective but it's hard if you're out-armed.  And are they now receiving -- What have they requested that we're not providing?  And, if so, why?


Secretary Ash Carter:  I'll let Chairman Dempsey answer that but with -- again, to say, it's not just us.  There are more than 12 nations over all arming the Kurds.  And-and I noted I was with the German Defense Minister [Ursula von der Leyen] over in Germany last week and she, uh-uh, was providing to the Kurds these critical anti-tank weapons -- a kind the Germans make that is especially effective.  So it's not just us.  And the Kurds are an example of what we're looking for -- which is an effective ground force that will stick up for itself, hold together, take and hold territory, and that's why we're providing them with support.

Senator Kelly Ayotte: So we agree with that.  I think that there's been broad agreement on that.  I just want to make sure that they have what they need.

Gen Martin Dempsey:  Senator, I'm not aware of anything that they've asked for that we haven't provided.  We probably haven't provided in the quantity that they may have desired -- MRAPs [Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles]  for example and we're working to address those short -- those quantity issues.



"By, with and through the government of Iraq" is how Ash Carter described the process for arming the Kurds in an exchange later in the hearing with Senator Joni Ernst.


We'll cover the hearing again in the next snapshot.

Meanwhile, AP notes that 24 people have been sentenced to death by an Iraqi court for the killing of Shi'ite soldiers dating back to June of 2014.

AP fails to note that there have been no arrests in any of the murders of Iraqi journalists throughout the Iraq War.

AFP notes all 24 deny they took part in the killings and:


 Some defendants swore they were not even close to Tikrit on June 11 last year, others that they never saw a lawyer.
"We are still looking at the full details of the case, but the Speicher trial bears the hallmark of unfair trials that have seen thousands of those accused of terrorism in Iraq sentenced to long prison terms or to death," Amnesty International said in a statement to AFP. 



Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts  175 violent deaths across Iraq today.




Community posts on movies, Stan's "Pee Wee," Rebecca's on a Prince Charming movie "well it's about damn time!," Elaine's "Why Indie?," Ann's "Goodbye Kitty," Mike's "Ted 2." Trina on Nicholas Cage almost playing Superman "Super Cage?," Kat's "Film nightmare," Marcia's "Jaws," Betty's "Diane Keaton"  and Ruth's "How do you watch?"







iraq
antiwar.com
margaret griffis

well it's about damn time!

1. Us Weekly ‏@usweekly 4h4 hours ago

   Prince Charming is getting his own live-action movie from Disney: http://usm.ag/1ClqHWh 

   21 retweets 30 favorites

 

i'm being sarcastic in the title.

who needs a prince charming film?

he's a cypher we build upon.

he's a blank canvas we color in.

that's why he's so romantic - because he is our projection.



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

Tuesday, July 7, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, Barack's 'facts' get challenged, Jill Stein links arms with Hillary Clinton to form Two Candidates Who Won't Talk Iraq, we note the shameful Iraq Body Count, the proposed law for Iraq's National Guard is published, and much more.



Yesterday, US President Barack Obama spun on Iraq.


Today, State Dept spokesperson John Kirby tried to re-spin when problems were noted with Barack's 'facts.'


QUESTION: Iraq?


MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you. Just on the President’s statement yesterday at the Pentagon, he mentioned a number of battlefield victories in both Iraq and Syria. He actually pointed namely to seven areas. And what I noticed was that six out of those seven areas were in the northern regions of Iraq and Syria, where basically the Kurds are in control. Can you say the Kurds are your only effective partner on the ground?


MR KIRBY: What I can say is – and I’m not going to get into military analysis – is that when you have capable, effective partners on the ground against ISIL – indigenous partners on the ground – you can be much more effective against that group. We’ve seen that in parts of Iraq where – whether it’s Peshmerga up in the north or Iraqi Security Forces down in the south, when they are effective, they can have an immense impact on ISIL. And we have seen that in areas in northern Syria with counter-ISIL fighters there. And again, the President detailed some of that and I talked to some of that yesterday as well. They have been effective in certain places and at certain times.


QUESTION: And, like, the only example really he gave that was outside the Kurdistan regions was Tikrit, which was achieved with the help of Iranian-backed Shia forces. So can’t you --


MR KIRBY: No, that’s not true. He talked about --


QUESTION: What else?


MR KIRBY: -- Mosul Dam, he talked about --


QUESTION: Mosul Dam was with the Kurdish forces. It was --


MR KIRBY: He talked about – there’s been other – the Baiji refinery. I mean, there’s been other areas in Iraq. I know where you’re trying to go with this, and what I’m trying to tell you is that you need good partners on the ground. In Iraq, we’re building and we’re working towards helping advise and assist the Iraqi Security Forces so that they can become more capable. And in some ways and in some places and at some times in this fight, they have been very capable.

In the north in Iraq, of course, there’s been some assistance provided to the Peshmerga, as they have taken the fight to ISIL in northern Iraq. And yes, we have provided some coalition air support to counter-ISIL fighters in the north in Syria. And we’re still trying to get a program stood up to train and equip a moderate Syrian opposition. Now it’s going slow. We talked about this yesterday. I think we all recognize there’s a lot of work to be done. But the whole focus of that effort is to help create additional competent, effective, capable security forces inside Syria that can go after ISIL – could protect their neighborhoods, their communities, and go after ISIL.



Barack's speech led Mike to name him "Idiot of the week" and to note Barack claimed Baiji on the same  day Rudaw reported "Clashes resume in Baiji after 'great victory'."  Trina offered "Barack wants more war" which emphasized Thomas Gaist (WSWS) report:

Rather than attempt a legal justification for the war, which has been launched and prosecuted behind the backs of the American people and in defiance of popular opposition, Obama defended his administration’s war policies by boasting of the large kill count achieved by the US-led coalition.
“It’s important to recognize the progress that’s been made. We’ve eliminated thousands of fighters,” Obama said, underscoring the fact that it has become routine for the American president to speak of “killing” or “taking out” people around the world.
Obama reiterated the US goal of regime change in Syria, declaring that the US would do more to aid the anti-Assad opposition, and adding that “the only way” to end the civil war in that country was to “transition to an inclusive government” without Assad.
Noting that he had recently discussed the war against ISIS with Russian President Putin, Obama hinted that Putin was amenable to Washington’s plans to topple Assad.
He said that the US would step up its counterterrorism operations in countries “from Afghanistan to Nigeria.” This was a signal that Washington will continue its drone strikes, bombings, commando operations and other illegal actions in Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries.
Obama devoted nearly half of his remarks to what he called the fight against terror threats within the United States. He said, ominously, that his administration was “partnering with Muslim communities” in the US and added that “we expect those communities to step up.” This was a thinly veiled justification for continuing government surveillance of the American people and other repressive measures, carried out under the pretext of “protecting the homeland.”
His remarks followed days of media scaremongering leading up to the Independence Day holiday on July 4. For several days, the networks led their news broadcasts with alarming reports of heightened terror threats, without producing a shred of evidence to substantiate their warnings, while acknowledging that the government had not detected any “credible, specific threats.”
Obama’s emphasis on the “war on terror” at home made clear that the relentless campaign of the government to sow fear and anxiety among the public in order to justify internal repression and external military aggression would continue unabated.

Rebecca noted how poorly Barack looked in "barack looks like s**t" while Kat pondered Barack's claims of "Success?" with Kat concluding:

Today really was Barack's "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" moment.
Did anyone notice?

Barack's speech was offensive and insulting on so many levels.

This included his conclusion:

In closing, let me note that this Fourth of July we celebrated 239 years of American independence.  Across more than two centuries, we’ve faced much bigger, much more formidable challenges than this -- Civil War, a Great Depression, fascism, communism, terrible natural disasters, 9/11.  And every time, every generation, our nation has risen to the moment.  We don’t simply endure; we emerge stronger than before.  And that will be the case here.  
Our mission to destroy ISIL and to keep our country safe will be difficult.  It will take time.  There will be setbacks as well as progress.  But as President and Commander-in-Chief, I want to say to all our men and women in uniform who are serving in this operation -- our pilots, the crews on the ground, our personnel not only on the ground but at sea, our intelligence teams and our diplomatic teams -- I want to thank you.  We are proud of you, and you have my total confidence that you’re going to succeed.  
To the American people, I want to say we will continue to be vigilant.  We will persevere.  And just as we have for more than two centuries, we will ultimately prevail.  

He wants to thank the military but not the American people at large?

He wouldn't have a job if it weren't for the American people at large.

He's just another War Hawk who never wore a uniform or carried a gun but wants to pretend like that's the only way to measure patriotism.

We could offer the fear examples but I really don't care to promote his scare tactics.

When Bully Boy Bush pulled this sort of thing, he would be mocked and called out.

We no longer live in such a world.

That became clear over the weekend when the dreadful Jill Stein announced she was seeking the Green Party's presidential nomination -- presumably so she could damage the party even more than she did in her 2012 run.

As we noted at Third, "Editorial: The endless joke that is Jill Stein."

Stein used her announcement speech to take a strong stand against . . .

talking about Iraq.

In her silence on the topic, she linked arms with Hillary Clinton, the only other candidate who can't and won't talk about Iraq.

That's who should be the presidential nominee?

March 10, 2008, the Green Party issued a statement which included:

WASHINGTON, DC -- Green Party leaders today compared the Green demand for an immediate end to the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan to the pro-occupation positions of the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates.

Greens said that party members supported protests planned by International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) locals on the west coast on May 1, 2008.

"Along with the election of Greens to Congress, actions like those planned by ILWU members are what we need to force the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and Afghanistan," said Rodger Jennings, Green candidate for the US House in Illinois (District 12) < http://www.rodgerjennings.org>. "The longshore workers intend to press Democratic and Republican presidential candidates to change their warhawk positions. Like the Green Party, the ILWU has opposed both of President Bush's wars from the beginning."

The text of the ILWU's February 26, 2008 resolution can be read here <http://www.labournet.net/docks2/0802/ilwu1may1.htm>. The ILWU letter to the AFL-CIO can be read here <http://www.labournet.net/world/0802/ilwu1may2.html>.

The Green Party of the United States has called for immediate troop withdrawal and impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney for numerous crimes and abuses of power, including deception and manipulated intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq. Greens also favor a sharp reduction in the military budget, shifting funds over to health care, conservation programs, efforts to curb global warming, and other urgent needs.

"While Democrats have retreated, our own Green presidential candidates -- Jesse Johnson, Cynthia McKinney, Kent Mesplay, and Kat Swift -- have aggressively promoted the Green Party's position on the wars and on impeachment," said Dr. Julia Willebrand, co-chair of the Green Party's International Committee <http://www.gp.org/committees/intl>.

Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have promised to pull 'combat' troops, but would leave thousands of US military personnel and contractors, including mercenary security firms, in Iraq to prolong the illegal occupation. Republican John McCain would maintain the Bush policy that would extend the occupation for several generations, bankrupting America both morally and fiscally.

On other war-related issues, Ms. Clinton, Mr. Obama, and Mr. McCain agree (while Greens hold contrary positions):

Jill Stein's speech was racially tone deaf and insulting.  A White woman, her former running mate in 2012, is going to speak for African-Americans?

Thanks to so many in this room who are leading the charge - to Cheri Honkala for lifting the voices of black, brown and poor people in the fight for economic justice [. . .]

And as Ava has repeatedly noted, Brown people?

Who is okaying this as a term to call Latinos and Hispanics because there was no vote taken on the matter?

And because what crayons do we next pull from the box to describe Asian-Americans and Native Americans and Arab-Americans?

"Black" has a long and proud history in the African-American community -- Black Is Beautiful, Black Power, Black Panthers, etc.

But "Brown" really does seem to be imposed on the Latino community by a number of Anlgo White activists.

At any rate, it's unclear how White Anglo Cheri is "lifting the voices" of African-Americans or Latinos?

Equally unclear is how that became her 'job'?

Cheri and Jill ran an uninspiring non-campaign in 2012 that did much to drive Greens away from the party.

Ava and I noted Jill's campaign failures immediately after the election in "Let The Fun Begin."  Jill has done nothing to address those criticisms.

This go round, she does appear willing to take on Hillary.

As Stan noted of Jill in "The White Bitch Cometh," her entire reason for campaigning appears to be in order to engage in a sexist catfight with Hillary Clinton.  (And, as he also noted, her attacks on Hillary only make the larger voting pool sympathetic to Hillary.)

In a speech consisting of over 1400 words, Jill Stein never found -- or made -- the time to note Iraq.

Again from that 2008 Green Party press release:

"While Democrats have retreated, our own Green presidential candidates -- Jesse Johnson, Cynthia McKinney, Kent Mesplay, and Kat Swift -- have aggressively promoted the Green Party's position on the wars and on impeachment," said Dr. Julia Willebrand, co-chair of the Green Party's International Committee <http://www.gp.org/committees/intl>.

So why is it that Jill Stein 'deserves' the party's nomination.

Kat Swift or Kent Mesplay or Jess Johnson would all be a strong choice.  

(I would have no problem with 2008's nominee Cynthia McKinney running again but due to her experiences in 2008, I seriously doubt she would.)

And Kat, Kent and Jess have put in their time.

Jill really is the 'Green' Hillary Clinton.

She's coming in with a sense of entitlement, insisting she's the only choice.

It's amazing how the Democratic Party's 'little sister' can't stop emulating it.

In the Iraq that Jill Stein's 'beautiful mind' (she's so Barbara Bush) can't be bothered with, Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 231 violent deaths on Tuesday alone.

Today, Pierre Bienaime (CJR) explores the issue of deaths in Iraq and specifically the infamous Iraq Body Count.  Among other things, the report allows people to once again note Nafeez Ahmed's  "How the Pentagon is hiding the dead" (Medium):






In this exclusive investigation, Insurge Intelligence reveals that a leading anti-war monitoring group, Iraq Body Count (IBC), is deeply embedded in the Western foreign policy establishment. IBC’s key advisers and researchers have received direct and indirect funding from US government propaganda agencies and Pentagon contractors. It is no surprise, then, that IBC-affiliated scholars promote narratives of conflict that serve violent US client-regimes and promote NATO counter-insurgency doctrines.
IBC has not only systematically underrepresented the Iraqi death toll, it has done so on the basis of demonstrably fraudulent attacks on standard scientific procedures. IBC affiliated scholars are actively applying sophisticated techniques of statistical manipulation to whitewash US complicity in violence in Afghanistan and Colombia.
Through dubious ideological alliances with US and British defense agencies, they are making misleading pseudoscience academically acceptable. Even leading medical journals are now proudly publishing their dubious statistical analyses that lend legitimacy to US militarism abroad.
This subordination of academic conflict research to the interests of the Pentagon sets a dangerous precedent: it permits the US government to control who counts the dead across conflicts involving US interests — all in the name of science and peace.


And money.  Don't forget money.

Oh, most did.



Let's drop back to the June 26, 2014 snapshot:


Through yesterday, Iraq Body Count counts 1681 deaths from violence in Iraq so far this month.  And --

Oh, goodness.  Only 1681?

I'm the biggest liar in the world!  I'm the biggest bitch!  I've said the count was at 3,000 and clearly I'm just a damn liar.

See, here's a screen snap of the count.




What a damn liar I am!

Oh, wait.

I'm not.

I pay good money for information.  So today when Martha told me an e-mail came in saying take a screensnap of IBC's count immediately and explained why, I told her to reply that I would be hitting their pay pal account with a generous thank you.

Here's the count minutes before IBC changed it.



No, I didn't lie.

But I'm told -- and paid for this information -- that IBC lowered the count under pressure from US officials.

I paid for it so I'll damn well repeat it.

And Iraq Body Count may not like that charge being exposed; however, when you drop a count from 3211 to 1681, don't think no one will catch you.

I'm sure they'll now try to come out with some alternate reason.

But I believe what I was told.  That source has been consistently honest.

More to the point, why does IBC drop their count by nearly half with no note?  Why do they try to hide what they did?

I am told Iraq Body Count was under pressure from US officials to drop their count and agreed to.  That's what I believe happened but I can't wait to hear the fairy tale IBC intends to offer the world -- and, tip, be sure your lie includes a reason for not explaining at your site that you dropped the count.



IBC never offered a reason for their actions.

They probably thought it would just fade away.


But it didn't.

And it's part of many examples of how the 'independent' IBC actually answers to the US government and does their bidding.



Today,  Alsumaria published the text for the bill on the National Guard.  The proposed law does note the Sons Of Iraq (Sahwa, "Awakenings" -- a largely Sunni body) as well as tribal fighters, it notes the Shi'ite militias as well.  As written those groupings would be allowed to join the National Guard.  In terms of arms, the law declares the group would be more heavily armed than the federal police but less than the Iraqi army.  It goes into commissions and, as I'm reading it, Sunnis might have difficulty of meeting the criteria since they've been shut out of the process and might not have the one year qualification to be made a Major General.  The Guard itself is put under the Prime Minister in his/her role as Commander in Chief.


Article 13 outlines some general requirements which include:


* Both parents must be Iraqi

* volunteer must be at least 18

* permanent volunteers cannot be older than 35 and reserve volunteers cannot be older than 45

* must meet medical requirements (pass physical)

* no felony conviction (or misdemeanor on moral turpitude)



In yesterday's snapshot, we again noted the failure of the Parliament to pass the National Guard bill (while they did make time to vote on a new national anthem). National Iraqi News Agency notes that, in addition to the National Guard bill, they also failed to pass a law regarding the Federal Court as well as one regarding the justice and accountability commission.









iraq
antiwar.com
margaret griffis

barack looks like s**t

as i watched c-span today and saw barack lying about 'success' in iraq, what stood out most?

how awful he looked.

ronald reagan was mocked by the press for dying his hair.

but barack was the 1st presidential candidate (in 2008) to wear lip gloss - the first male.

he was always so heavily made up.

and i used to marvel over how he was practically boy george and the press still wouldn't talk about his make up.

he wears less now, but he still wears it.

but not today.

today, boy george went to the pentagon and apparently decided the trip should be make up free.

and without that make up?

barack looks like s**t.


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

Monday, July 6, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, an Iraqi war plane drops a bomb on a civilian area (and it's not Falluja), Barack launches into a lengthy Iraq 'update,' and much more.









Today, US President Barack Obama spoke publicly about the Islamic State.  The address took place at the Pentagon or, as ABC News put it, the address took place "in a rare visit to the Pentagon."

In other words, he may have visited all 50 states, but the Pentagon's never really been on his travel itinerary.

Dana Milbank (Washington Post) also noted the "rare visit" nature:

Obama had used the phrase before, but this was shock-and-awe-worthy — the commander in chief, in a rare visit to Defense Department headquarters, standing onstage with grim-faced and medal-festooned generals and likening war strategy to . . . an arcade game.


Milbank noted Barack "had used the phrase before."

That's true.

But the person who applied it to Iraq first and most persistently was Senator John McCain who began using it over and over in 2006.

For only one example of this, we'll flash back to the August 3, 2006 United States Senate Armed Services Committee hearing when the following exchange took place:

Senator John McCain: So, General Abizaid, we're moving 7,500 troops into Baghdad, is that correct?

General John Abizaid: The number is closer to 3,500.

[. . .]

McCain: And where are these troops coming from?

Abizaid: Uh, the troops, the Styker Brigade, is coming down from Mosul.

McCain: From Mosul? Is the situation under control in Ramadi?

Abizaid: Uh, the situation in Ramadi, is better than it was two months ago.

McCain: Is the situation under control in Ramadi?

Abizaid: I think the situation in Ramadi is workable.

McCain: And the troops from Ramadi came from Falluja, isn't that correct?

Abizaid: I can't say senator, I know that --

McCain: Well that's my information. What I worry about is we're playing a game of whack-a-mole here. We move troops from -- It flares up, we move troops there. Everybody knows we've got big problems in Ramadi and I said, "Where you gonna get the troops?" 'Well we're going to have to move them from Falluja.' Now we're going to have to move troops into Baghdad from someplace else. It's very disturbing.

It was hard not to recall that exchange as Barack spoke today.

Such as the quote from Barack's speech Milbank offers, "ISIL lost at the Mosul Dam. ISIL lost at Mount Sinjar. ISIL has lost repeatedly across Kirkuk province. ISIL lost at Tikrit. . . . ISIL lost at Kobani."


Mosul?

Really?

The dam may have been 'saved' via intense bombing from US war planes but who controls Mosul?


As Reuters noted Saturday, "The city has been under Islamic State control since the Islamist militants took over in June last year" and "[t]he Shi'ite-led government has promised a military offensive to retake Mosul but progress has been slow."

A year and one month to 'retake' Mosul?

Yeah, I'd say that's pretty slow.

Despite that reality, Barack was insisting at the Pentagon that "today, it's also important for us to recognize the progress that's been made."


And, of course, the Islamic State seized control of Ramadi in April and remains in control of it.

But Barack spun this as a 'victory' as well, insisting in his long winded remarks today that "the fall of Ramadi has galvanized the Iraqi government."

The claim is laughable in terms of scoring it as a 'win.'

It's also factually a lie.

Since August, the US has insisted that a national guard in Iraq was a possible solution.  They've prodded the government on that.

Parliament's refused to vote on it.

And the fall of Ramadi?

It didn't push it onto the agenda.  In June, for example, the Parliament made time to vote on a national anthem but tabled talk -- forget a vote -- on a national guard until the next session.


Desperate to find 'success' somehow, Barack insisted, "Altogether, ISIL has lost more than a quarter of the populated areas that it had seized in Iraq,"

As has been noted throughout the long Iraq War, Iraq is about the size of California.

And yet the Iraqi government -- with help from so many nations (Barack said 60 in his speech) -- still can't reclaim territory?

A year in and Barack sees regaining a quarter of the territory as progress?

How very sad.

As were his attempts to disguise his own failures by dubbing the battle against the Islamic State "a generational struggle" which would last years.

I'm sorry, I'm not remembering FDR insisting that the war against the Nazis was "a generational struggle."

But then, FDR addressed the issue, he didn't play kick the can and set up whomever followed him in office for failure.

Some outlets are insisting that Barack declared the 3,500 US troops he's sent into Iraq over the last year or so are it and no more will be sent in.

That's is incorrect.

Maybe listening to his blather put them to sleep?

Barack actually declared on that issue, "There are no plans to do so" -- no plans to send more US troops into Iraq currently.

But, of course, when he first began sending them in, he insisted that the number would be small and few thought he would reach 3,500.


Barack's failed and he needs to be called out.

He had the nerve to declare today, "Now all this said, our strategy recognizes that no amount of military force will end the terror that is ISIL unless it’s matched by a broader effort, political and economic, that addresses the underlying conditions that have allowed ISIL to gain traction."


He's not wrong about that.

He wasn't wrong June 19, 2014 when he said the same exact thing:


Above all, Iraqi leaders must rise above their differences and come together around a political plan for Iraq's future. Shia, Sunni, Kurds -- all Iraqis -- must have confidence that they can advance their interests and aspirations through the political process rather than through violence. National unity meetings have to go forward to build consensus across Iraq's different communities.
[. . .]
They have their own politics. And what we have tried to do is to give them our best advice about how they can solve their political problems. Now that they are in crisis, we are indicating to them that there is not going to be a simple military solution to this issue. If you start seeing the various groups inside of Iraq simply go to their respective corners, then it is almost certain that Baghdad and the central government will not be able to control huge chunks of their own country. The only way they can do that is if there are credible Sunni leaders, both at the national level and at the local level, who have confidence that a Shia majority, that the Kurds, that all those folks are committed to a fair and just governance of the country. 



Where he's wrong is that he's done nothing on the political.

Despite insisting June 19, 2014 that the only answer to Iraq's crises was a political solution, he has spent the last year doing nothing on this.

Today, he insisted, "Ideologies are not defeated with guns, they're defeated by better ideas."

No disagreement with the statement but where have his actions matched those words?


He has made a retired US general his diplomatic envoy -- he has made someone an ambassador who doesn't even appreciate the title, who holds his nose in disgust and insists instead on being called "general."

That's not how you work towards a political solution.

The 'general' has a roll dog.  The State Dept's Brett McGurk who, like his boss Secretary of State John Kerry, has confused his role and appears to believe he works for the Defense Dept.


Iraqi politicians could have used some help from the so-called 'diplomatic' arm of the US government.

Instead, that arm has been used in two ways.

First, it's been used to scare up countries to bomb Iraq and to send forces into Iraq.

Second, that arm has been held hostage by Iran.

Barack can't make the deal with Iran.

He keeps extending the deadline.

He keeps wasting US resources (including John Kerry) on this nonsense that has sidelined every year he's been in the White House.

Iran's calling the shots because Barack's never grasped the most important point of hard bargaining: You have to be prepared to walk away.


Now you can walk away and then return.

That's not weakness.

But if you say, "We will negotiate until X" and then X comes and goes and you continue negotiating?

No one takes you seriously.

They know you're not walking away, they know they're in charge.

And as Iran has held Barack hostage, Iraq has suffered.




Barack babbled on in that mindless, finger pointing manner that never really addresses anything but takes up a great deal of time.

People are asking, "Where is the transcript?"

Not even the White House itself wants to transcribe all that useless crap -- nor has any news outlet bothered.

We'll offer highlights (and you can click here for the video -- goes to DoD and not the embarrassing blog post by a White House blogger who needs to consider losing that idiotic grin photo -- at least when posting on serious topics).

"ISIL," Barack insisted, "is backed by no nation.  It relies on fear, sometimes executing its own disillusioned fighters."

Hmm.

That's sad.

Barack, of course, doesn't execute America's "disillusioned fighters."

He just persecutes them.

Which is why Chelsea Manning sits in a military jail for being a whistle blower.  It's why NSA whistle blower Ed Snowden remains in Russia.  (Former US Attorney General Eric Holder spoke of Ed today.)


The Islamic State is a terrorist organization.

I don't know many who debate that label.

But if you're going to give a speech where you brag about US "values" (as Barack did today), maybe you shouldn't be persecuting "disillusioned fighters" yourself?


Equally true, if you refuse to work towards a political solution -- as Barack has -- you're routing yourself into combat as your only role.

That needs to be recognized now.

Because that's where it's headed if the US does not immediately begin using its diplomatic influence to assist the Iraqi government in moving towards a political solution.


Barack's claims of success came on the same day that a horrible tragedy took place in Iraq as a result of the Iraqi military.


At least seven civilians are dead as a result of what the Iraqi government is calling an accidental bombing.  You know it's true since the Iraqi war plane dropped the bomb on Baghdad and not Falluja or any other Anbar Province city or town.  AFP reports the war plane accidentally dropped the bomb on eastern Baghdad and a spokesperson said "it fell on three houses." The pilot was flying a Sukhoi Su-25 which Iraq got "from Russia and Iran last year."  Shen Qing (Xinhau) updates the number of homes destroyed to six and notes the bomb also "caused damages to several nearby buildings and civilian cars, the source told Xinhua on condition of anonymity."

Meanwhile, the US will be supplying Iraq with F-16s.  Rudaw reports that Shi'ite MP Abed Issawi is insisting that there is a conspiracy to prevent Iraq from obtaining the planes and that the US government is insisting the F-16s be stationed in Jordan.  Issawi is quoted declaring, "We have information the US has decided that the three F-16s should carry out airstrikes from the land of Jordan while Iraq has a big airbase in the Ziqar province in southern Iraq."


Iraq was briefly noted in the State Dept press briefing moderated by spokesperson John Kirby.


QUESTION: Iraq. John, have you heard about the Iraqi pilot accidentally bombed one of the Baghdad neighborhood? I don’t know if you heard of that, but my – this is not the question, but the question is about the F-16 jets, that there were communication between U.S. and Iraq that – to be shipped to Iraq in last month or this month maybe. But there are also the problem – maybe communication’s not a problem between U.S. and Baghdad, to be positioned in Jordan, not in Iraq. Do you have anything on that?


MR KIRBY: No, I don’t.


QUESTION: What about any update about Baghdad and Erbil deal? There are reports that --


MR KIRBY: Baghdad and Erbil what?


QUESTION: The deal, the oil deal. That it’s not working. Do you have any updates that you have your people on the ground?



MR KIRBY: Other – look, I’m not – I won’t – I don’t have any comments specifically about the discussions inside the Iraqi Government about this. We’ve long made clear that what we’d like to see is an oil revenue sharing system that’s good for all Iraqis. But I don’t have anything beyond that to speak to specifically.



On the inability to address Iraq?  The State Dept is appalling.

On Kirby's remarks re: the failure of last Decembers' 'agreement' between Baghdad and Erbil?

The remark is embarrassing when you consider what the State Dept has previously said going back to the hideous Victoria Nuland.  However, I believe this is Kirby's first statement on the deal and we'll avoid slamming him on it unless he begins yammering away on the topic.

Nuland couldn't stop from offering her personal opinions -- which misled Nouri al-Maliki on American laws and structures, by the way.

If Kirby doesn't want to go into it, then don't.

And we won't rip him apart.

But if he starts lecturing like Nuland -- or worse, lying like Nuland -- we will call him out.

Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 134 violent deaths across Iraq today.

Finally, in the June 27th snapshot, we covered the June 25th House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing with the big takeaway being: How did the VA end up with a shortfall?  It is big news and it is serious news.  I wasn't aware that Paralyzed Veterans of America and others had weighed in.  This is from Paralyzed Veterans of America:




FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 25, 2015

Call for immediate action to address a reported $2.6 billion shortfall in medical care funding for FY 2015, a problem that could also repeat in FY 2016.

WASHINGTON, DC—The co-authors of The Independent Budget (IB)—AMVETS, DAV (Disabled American Veterans), Paralyzed Veterans of America (Paralyzed Veterans) and the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW)— today issued the following joint statement calling on Congress and the Administration to end their political posturing and work together to immediately address a projected $2.6 billion shortfall in veterans medical care funding. 


“Today, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will testify before the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs that it faces a potential shortfall of nearly $2.6 billion in medical care funding for FY 2015, possibly even running out of money by mid-September.  VA’s data shows that overall demand on the VA health care system has increased by more than 10 percent between FY 2014 and FY 2015, while its budget has only increased by 2.8 percent. Unfortunately, that reality could lead to a potentially devastating outcome for the delivery of health care services to the millions of enrolled veterans, and the surprisingly large number of new veterans, seeking care. 


“Last year we released, The FY 2015 Independent Budget which recommended approximately $61.1 billion for total medical care for the VA in FY 2015.  However, in January 2014, Congress only provided approximately $58.9 billion for all medical care services provided by VA.  We proclaimed then that VA was being placed in a precarious position that could leave it woefully short in providing health care services.  Reports over the last two weeks suggest that may certainly be the case.” 


“It is clear that despite the negative media attention and pressures being placed on VA to address problems with access and accountability, veterans are seeking services from the VA—both inside the system and in the community—at unprecedented rates.  This continues a pattern of inadequate resources for rising demand that we have identified regularly for more than a decade, yet our calls for sufficient resources have too often fallen on deaf ears.”  


“We are distressed that Congress and the Administration seem intent on playing political games and appear more interested in assigning blame than finding solutions.  The simple fact is steps must be taken immediately to ensure the funding stream to provide critical health care services does not dry up.” 


“There are some leaders in Congress who attribute the shortfall only to VA inefficiency, waste and mismanagement and focus on demanding accountability.  On the other hand, the Administration cites insufficient resources, yet is reluctant to formally request an emergency supplemental appropriation, instead requesting authority to transfer resources from the $10 billion “choice” fund.  However, unless this impasse is resolved quickly, it will be veterans caught in the crossfire who will have to worry about when or whether they will be able to get the health care services they need.” 


“It’s time for Congress and the Administration to get serious about providing the additional resources needed – regardless of how they are provided – to meet demand on the system and to ensure that the interests of veterans seeking health care come first.” 


“We call on both Congress and the Administration to work together in good faith and swiftly find a solution that provides VA with additional funding this fiscal year to meet the needs of veterans seeking care both from VA and through VA’s purchased care programs.”


“In addition, we call for increased funding for next fiscal year (FY 2016) for both veterans medical care and construction, to ensure that VA can fully meet the health care needs of all veterans seeking care in the future.“


“Earlier this year, we released our Budget Report for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for FY 2016 and FY 2017, which identified a need for an additional $1.35 billion for veterans medical care in FY 2016 compared to the advance appropriation already enacted.  Similarly, funding for VA’s infrastructure to support the delivery of that care, primarily VA’s Major and Minor Construction accounts, are also inadequate.  We recommended $1.5 billion more for construction funding in FY 2016 than the Administration requested; and the House cut that request down by another $500 million.  In addition, Congress and the Administration must still reach a final funding solution to complete the Denver VA replacement medical center, a project whose completion we fully support, further increasing the need to boost funding.”


“America will not stand for her veterans being denied the health care they have earned and deserve. Congress and VA must work together now to ensure that no veteran’s health care is denied or delayed. It’s time to end the political games and keep the promise to the men and women who served.”

MEDIA CONTACTS: 

AMVETS: Dave Gai, 703-966-2267, dgai@amvets.org
DAV: Charity Edgar, 202-641-4822, cedgar@davmail.org
Paralyzed Veterans: Lani Poblete, 202-416-7667, lanip@pva.org
VFW: Joe Davis, 202-608-8357, jdavis@vfw.org

About AMVETS:
AMVETS—A leader since 1944 in preserving the freedoms secured by America’s armed forces, provides support for veterans and the active military in procuring their earned entitlements, as well as community service and legislative reform that enhances the quality of life for this nation’s citizens and veterans alike. AMVETS is one of the largest congressionally-chartered veterans’ service organizations in the United States, and includes members from each branch of the military, including the National Guard, Reserves and Merchant Marine. Learn more at www.amvets.org.

About DAV:
DAV empowers veterans to lead high-quality lives with respect and dignity. It is dedicated to a single purpose: fulfilling our promises to the men and women who served. DAV does this by ensuring that veterans and their families can access the full range of benefits available to them; fighting for the interests of America’s injured heroes on Capitol Hill; and educating the public about the great sacrifices and needs of veterans transitioning back to civilian life. DAV, a non-profit organization with 1.2 million members, was founded in 1920 and chartered by the U. S. Congress in 1932. Learn more at www.dav.org.

About Paralyzed Veterans of America:
Paralyzed Veterans of America is the only congressionally chartered veterans service organization dedicated solely for the benefit and representation of veterans with spinal cord injury or disease. For nearly 70 years, Paralyzed Veterans has ensured that veterans have received the benefits earned through their service to our nation; monitored their care in VA spinal cord injury units; and funded research and education in the search for a cure and improved care for individuals with paralysis. With more than 70 offices and 34 chapters, Paralyzed Veterans serves veterans, their families and their caregivers in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. (www.pva.org)



About the VFW:

The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. is a nonprofit veterans service organization comprised of combat veterans and eligible military service members from the active, Guard and Reserve forces. Founded in 1899 and chartered by Congress in 1936, the VFW is the nation's largest organization of war veterans and its oldest major veterans organization. With nearly 1.9 million VFW and Auxiliary members located in more than 6,800 Posts worldwide, “NO ONE DOES MORE FOR VETERANS.” The VFW and its Auxiliaries are dedicated to veterans’ service, legislative advocacy, and military and community service programs worldwide. For more information or to join, visit our website at www.vfw.org.

iraq
 the washington post
 dana milbank
antiwar.com
margaret griffis