 |

Monday, July 28, 2008
Monday,
July 28, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military says
"WOOPSIE!" for two incidents where civilians were killed, Sister
Barack bombs at the NOW convention, The Nation magazine continues to struggle with the concept of journalism (surprising absolutely no one) and more. Starting
with war resistance. Friday evening, a protest was held outside Fort
Carson in Colorado to show support for US war resister Robin Long, extradited from Canada, and now awaiting the US military's decision on what happens next. KKTV (link has text and video) reported on the protest live. David
Nancarrow: He joined the army in 2003 now 25-year-old Robin Long will
answer to military officials after he made a choice not to join his
unit in Iraq. Thanks for joining us tonight. I'm David Nancarrow. Michelle Molison: And I'm Michelle Molison. Robin Long flees to Canada just as his unit is being deployed to Iraq. David
Nancarrow: AWOL for three years, Long was deported from Canada and sent
back to the US just last week. This the first time since the Vietnam
era. KKTV's news reporter Eric Lupher joins us live at Fort Carson
tonight and, Eric, Long has plenty of supporters saying he had the
right to make the decision he made. Eric
Lupher: His support comes from a local activist group who was out
earlier today in protest claiming that Long didn't know what he was
getting into when he joined the service but others feel the exact
opposite, saying 'If you're going to join the military during wartime,
you better be prepared to go to war." Col
B. Shannon Davis: We join military service to fight our nation's wars.
When you join and you sign up, you know that right up front. Eric Lupher: This group disagrees. Garrett Reppenhagen: There's a huge propaganda smear across the country to get young men to join the military. Eric
Lupher: Garrett Reppenhagen, along with other members, supporters --
young and old from the Pikes Peak Justice Peace Commission stand in
protest at Alamo Square Park. [Unidentified
male demonstrating in support of Robin]: At the end of the day, you
know, we really feel that Robin should be free. Eric Lupher: Free from the military from the war Robin Long never wanted to fight. Lee
Zaslofsky: Robin Long did what he did because of his conscience and
because he believed that the war was wrong, that he was simply running
away or hiding out. Eric Lupher: But according to Col B. Shannon Davis, the requirements of service are clear from the very beginning. Col
B. Shannon Davis: There should be no reservations when you take the
oath of office to protect your country and fight for your country. Eric Lupher: But Long's supporters refuse to give up, refuse to believe the war in Iraq is justified. Lee Zaslofsky: I think most Americans now realize that the war in Iraq is a complete mistake. Eric Lupher: So they protest. Col
B. Shannon Davis:They're exercising the freedoms of this country
tonight and I'm not going to put them down for that. That's their
freedom, that's what I fight for them to have those freedoms. Eric
Lupher: Long will likely go to court-martial. Now Fort Carson is
hesitant to tell us what penalty is ahead of him. Now Long's attorney
[James Branum] tells us that his client could spend years in prison
and, worse case, face death. David and Michelle? David Nancarrow: Alright Eric Lupher live for us at Fort Carson tonight. Thanks very much. There
is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which
includes Andrei Hurancyk, Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis
Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall,
Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney
Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad
McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell,
Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha
Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister,
Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada,
Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen,
Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman,
Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck,
Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine,
Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey,
Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua
Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell,
Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake,
Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres,
Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and
Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada
have applied for asylum. Turning to Iraq. Over the weekend Sabrina Tavernise (New York Times) reported
that the pipeline between northern Iraq and Turkey is pumping oil at a
"more than tenfold" increase from 2007 and, oh, by the way, US forces
patrol the pipeline. Additionally, Tavernise noted (in her final
paragraph), "Also on Friday, the American military acknowledged that it
unintentionally killed the son of an editor for an American-financed
newspaper in the northern city of Kirkuk on Thursday.
The military said soldiers had been fired at from a taxi and shot back,
hitting Arkan al-Naiemi, 14, in the taxi." Consider it starting a
trend. June 25th snapshot: "Reuters notes
the US military shot dead 2 'suspects' in Samara and they shot dead 3
people in a car 'near Baghdad airport'. On the 3 in Baghdad, Doug Smith (Los Angeles Times) reports,
'Officials at Yarmouk Hospital identified the dead as a manager and two
female employees of a bank at the airport. Iraqi police also reported
that two bodyguards were injured' while the US military maintains they
were attacked by the bank employees." Sunday Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reported
that the US military has admitted the three slaughtered were civilians
and not, as they LIED in June, criminals. There's an apology tacked on
in there but it's not going over with the son of the bank manager.
Mohammed Hafeth "said the image of his father's burning vehicle haunts
him. He'd waited in his father's office that morning surprised that he
wasn't there yet. They'd left at nearly the same time that morning."
Fadel reports Mohammed learned of the shooting and arrived on the scene
to find the car on fire and being told by US soldiers that he had to
leave. He asks Fadel, "Why did they kill him like this? We demand
that they send those soliders to an Iraqi and American court." The
family turned down an offer of $10,000 from the US military. Today Sudarsan Raghavan and Qais Mizher (Washington Post) note
that the family wants a written apology and quote Mohammed stating, "It
was only $10,000. My father was the main provider for our family. We
are a displace people. We also have to replace our car. We are in a
very difficult time." Richard A. Oppel Jr. (New York Times) observes
that "the findings call into question the way the military handled the
aftermath of the shootings" and quotes Lt Col Steve Stover stating, "We
don't believe there was any cover-up." Saif Hameed and Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) remind,
"Initially, some soldiers thought that someone in the car was shooting
and that Iraqi police had found a weapon in the vehicle, the miltiary
said. However, no weapon was found and the passengers turned out to be
a man and two women who worked at the airport bank." Iraqi police had
found a weapon? Thought that. And then waived the vehilce through a
checkpoint? Really? Hameed and Parker also note
that multiple bombings struck Baghdad today: "Early today, 20 civilians
were killed and 47 wounded by three female suicide bombers in eastern
Baghdad as Shiite pilgrims marched to the Imam Kadhim shrine in west
Baghdad, an Interior Ministry official said. The attacks happened a day
before a religious festival marking the death of the revered Shiite
figure, who died in 799." Earlier, Mohammed Abbas (Reusters) reported 24 dead from 3 Baghdad bombings (all three bombngs are said to have been female suicide bombers). Nicholas Spangler and Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) report 24 dead in Baghdad with sixty-seven injured. Camilla Hall (Bloomberg News) points out
those figures are the ones being used by Jalal Talabani, Iraq's
president, in a message he left on his political party's website and
that he noted the dead includes women and children. The Telegraph of London explains,
"The pilgrims were walking through the Karrada district of central
Baghdad, towards Kadhimiyah in the city's north where up to a million
people will celebrate a Shia festival, when the bombers struck." The Australian notes,
"The bombers struck in quick succession in the Karrada district of
central Baghdad as tens of thousands of Shia pilgrims were making their
way on foot towards Kadhimiyah in the north of the Iraqi capital, site
of today's Shia festival, a ceremony that has been marred by bloodshed
in the past." "Thousands of Shi'ite Muslims walk through this popular
shopping district here in Baghdad, mournful religious sermons blare
from speakers set up to greet them," Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson (NPR's All Things Considered) explains from "less than two miles" where the three Baghdad bombings took place. Hussein Kahim (McClatchy) notes Baghdad has imposed a ban on cars from five a.m. tomorrow through five a.m. Wednesday. CNN places the death toll at 32 with one-hundred and two people wounded. It
was not the only major bombing today. North of Baghdad in the oil-rich
city of Kirkuk, it was politics, rather than religion, that drew a
suicide bomber this morning," Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson offered on NPR's All Things Considered. Washington Post's Sudarsan Raghavan (filing at the Financial Times) notes
the Kirkuk bombing (also said to be a 'female suicide bomber') and
states that nothing suggests the Baghdad bombings and the Kirkuk
bombing were connected. China's Xinhua cites
Birg Burhan Wasif (Kirkuk police chief) as the source for stating that
the bomber was a male and, using the police figures, state 22 people
died and one-hundred and eighty-seven were injured as they protested
the bill on provincial elections. (The one that the Kurds walked out on
the vote of and that Iraq's Presidential Council has already
rejected.) CBS and AP explain,
"Kurdish objections over a proposed power-sharing formula on the
provincial council in Kirkuk have blocked the law from being passed.
Kirkuk is in an oil-rich area and many Kurds consider it to be part of
their historical land. The area is home to Kurds, Turkomen, Arabs and
smaller groups." CNN reports
that Kirkuk has a ban on vehicle and pedestrian traffic ("from 3 p.m.
Monday until 7 a.m. Tuesday") and places the death toll at 38. In
other reported violence today . . . Bombings? Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Balad Ruz roadside bombing claimed 4 lives. Shootings? Reuters notes 1 woman shot dead in Mosul, 1 man shot dead in Mosul. Corpses? Reuters notes 1 corpse discovered in Mosul and 1 corpse ("handcuffed woman with a gunshot wound to the chest"). In other news, Katharine Euphrat (AP) reports
that the VA's suicide prevention hotline (1-800-873-TALK) has received
requests for assistance from over 22,000 veterans. The statistics are
from the government and the government also states that they have
prevented 1,221 veterans' suicides. Turning to the US presidential race. Thank The Nation
for us noting the first item. It's been covered. But when Air Berman
thinks he can lie and The Nation wants to let him, we have to cover
it. Thursday Barack Obama was in Germany. He was scheduled to meet
with wounded US service members there. He cancelled. He had a host of
excuses and the one he finally stuck with was that the Pentagon said
no. Air Berman runs with that and whines, "The Obama campaign scrapped
the troop visit after the Pentagon told them it would be viewed as a
campaign event." There is no hope for Air Berman. He is not a
journalist, he never will be. He wants to be a Mac Daddy but that'll
never happen either. Reality broke in the real media Friday
evening/night. Air ignores that -- by choice. His candidate is more
important to him than the truth. Dan Balz (Washington Post) reported,
"The Pentagon said Friday that it did no prevent an Obama visit" and
quoted Pentagon flack Bryan Whitman stating, "Nobody denied Senator
Obama the opportunity to visit our wounded being cared for at
Landstuhl. Obviously, as a sitting senator, he has an interest in that
and certainly visit in an official capacity." Dan Balz or Air Berman,
who you gonna trust? Exactly. So little Ari whines Barack was forced
to do it because the Pentagon said what was planned was a campaign
event! Ari, you no doubt know of Maj Gen Scott Gration (Barack
advisor). Caren Bohan (Reuters) quoted him
Friday evening stating, "Senator Obama did not want to have a trip to
see our wounded warriors perceived as a campaign event". Barack
cancelled the event. He did so when the Pentagon informed he could not
use it as a photo op. They didn't tell his campaign the visit couldn't
happen, they walked the campaign through what was allowed and what
wasn't. All the adoring press? Nope. When he found out he wouldn't
be able to use wounded GIs as cheap props in campaign photos, he blew
off the scheduled visit and went to his hotel to work out. That's
reality. CNN quoting
Whitman, "We do have certain policy guidelines for political campaigns
and elections. And what is appropriate and what is not appropriate in
those situations. But the Pentagon certainly did not tell the senator
that he could not visit Landstuhl." As Trina noted Friday,
"Usually everyone lies for him. But the Pentagon's not going to do that
for him and now he's exposed as the man who decided to skip out on
wounded service members after he was informed he couldn't turn it into
a campaign stop. If a tree falls in the forest when no one is around,
did it make a sound? If Barack emotes with no cameras around, he thinks
it won't make for a media sound-byte. So it was okay for him to blow
off US soldiers. How disgusting is he?" And how disgusting is Ari
Berman that he wants to show up on Monday and LIE and how disgusting is
The Nation that they go along with it? Pretty disgusting but the Campus Marxist King
went from Katrina's coffee-fetcher to Barack's official campaign
blogger and regularly brags he can get anything planted in The
Nation. Apparently so. Air Berman creates a conspiracy and then traces
it back to the White House ("the Bush Administration intervened to
block Obama's planned visit"). Now I know that there really aren't any
brains at the top of The Nation but when you start allowing
your staff to create their own rumors and print them as fact, you've
hit a new low. Air 'quotes' MSNBC but doesn't link, I believe it may be
to this and Domenico Montanaro added an update:
"One military official who was working on the Obama visit said because
political candidates are prohibited from using military installations
as campaign backdrops, Obama's representatives were told, 'he could
only bring two or three of his Senate staff member, no campaign
officials or workers. Obama could nto bring any media. Only military
photographers would be permitted to record Obama's visit." Barack Obama
is the presumped and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. John
McCain is the same for the GOP. McCain appeared on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos yesterday (transcript here) and George Steph asked him about the cancelled visit. John
McCain: Well, I know this, that those troops would have loved to have
seen him. And I know of no Pentagon regulation that would have
prevented him from going there -- without the media and the press and
all of the associated people -- nothing that I know of would have kept
him from visiting those wounded troops. And they are gravely wounded,
many of them. George Stephanopoulos: He's done it many times in the past. John
McCain: In Landstuhl, Germany, when I went through, I visited -- I
visited the hospital. But the important thing is that, if I had been
told by the Pentagon that I couldn't visit those troops, and I was
there and wanted to be there, I guarantee you, there would have been a
seismic event. And so, I believe he had the opportunity to go without
the media. And I'll let the facts speak for themselves. US News & World Reports points out that Whatever Happened to Baby Jane Senator Claire McCaskill stumbled onto the set of Fox News Sunday
to rail against an ad that McCain's running by bleating out, "The most
disappointing thing about this ad is that it's beneath John MCain,
because he's playing political football with wounded soldiers." No,
Claire, drop the 40 proof vodka long enough to grasp "the most
disappointing thing" is that Saint Barack bailed on wounded service
members when he found out it couldn't be a photo-op. (For other
'disappointing things about this,' look in the mirror, Claire.) Juliet Eilperin (Washington Post) notes that Diebold's own Chuckie Hagal took to CBS' Face The Nation where he roared (in his best Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?),
"I think John is treading on some very thin ground here when he"
cutting him off because Chuckie didn't have his facts. That's the US
Senate for you, they wake up and drink harder all day than the rest of
us. Knock another back, Chuckie. As usual when Bambi gets anything
but soft gloves and feather kisses, the campaign whines (and then
usually screams "racism!"). Tommy Vietor -- who's been the Agnes Gooch
to Barack's Mame for far too long -- whines to Eilperin, "I think a lot
of people are wondering what happened to the civil campaign John McCain
said he was going to run." Agnes Vietor whines a lot to the press -- click here for the whining to Alexander Cockburn in 2006. Note that the article was published in 2006 -- before Alex drank the Kool-Aid and peed it all over himself in public. Ava and I covered
the travelogue and Barack's alarming statements (alarming to those who
played fool or were fools) re: Iraq, Syria, Israel and more. We will
come back to that later in the week but for now check out Katie Couric's interview with Barack (CBS Evening News -- links has video and transcript). Now we're turning to Peggy Simpson's report (WMC) on
the NOW convention (July 18-20) which took place in Bethesda and
featured Marie Cocco, Patricia Ireland, Carol Jenkins, Carolyn Maloney,
Irshad Manji, Monica Aleman and others. Simpson reports NOW president
Kim Gandy announced to one and all that "sister" (I'm being sarcastic)
Barack sends greetings. From prison, Kim? Do we need to mount a Free
Barack action? He sends his greetings? That lousy pig who used sexism
non-stop sends his greetings? Let's drop back to June, to Katharine Q. Seelye and Julie Bosman (New York Times) reporting on the media finally maybe noticing the sexism targeted at Hillary: In
response, the Obama campaign directed a reporter to Representative
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrat of Florida who supported [Ms.]
Clinton but who is now speaking for the Obama campaign. She said Mr.
Obama had no specific plans for a speech on sexism, partly because he
already incorporated themes of discrimination as a societal problem in
his speeches. No specific plans -- now or
ever. He could travel all over the globe but he couldn't show up for
the NOW convention? No feminist wants to hear his garbage. Which is
obvious from Simpson's report.
She notes that Gandy's message from Sister Barack resulted in "a minor
ripple of applause." Simpson focuses on one organizer who spoke to the
conference, Jehmu "Green spoke last weekend at the national NOW
convention, one that was subdued rather than boisterous, in the wake of
Hillary Clinton's primary defeat by Barack Obama. Some NOW delegates
wore Hillary tee-shirts. There was minimal talk of Obama and loud
cheers whenever someone mentioned Clinton." She quotes Green
explaining, "We increased [women's] turnout by 200 percent in the
[Democratic] primaries -- gosh, we came really close to nominating
Hillary. . . I also was disheartened when I saw young women vilify
Senator Clinton and vilify being a feminist." To The Contrary's Bonnie Erbe (US News & World Reports) explains,
"Obama draws an adoring crowd of 200,000 in Berlin. He pulls ahead in
national polls. Meanwhile, McCain, who has run a near-disastrous
campaign, inches up in key swing states? Go figure. I say, give Obama
the guitar he so richly deserves and make him a rock star. Give McCain
a war to run somewhere. And let voters redo the primaries so they can
nominate two more mainstream candidates. Anyone who says the election
is over and Obama is the victor reminds me of the Obama partisans
drumming Sen. Hillary Clinton out of the race and turning off millions
of potential Democratic supporters in the process. They do their
candidate a much greater service if they duct-tape their mouths." On
the Berlin event, Just Say No Deal
issues this statement: "While coverage of Senator Obama's Berlin speech
provided audiences here at home nothing less than a visual 'shock and
awe,' it neglected to mention that the well-hyped speech had an opening
act: a gratis concert by two wildly popular groups, Reggae artist
Patrice and rock band Reamonn (pictured below with Barack Obama).
While we appreciate the Obama Campaign's hospitality, on behalf of
furthering US-Germany relations, offering free bratwurst, pizza and
even beer for three hours during the free rock concert, we question
whether or not the monies might have been better spent here on
financially strapped US citizens. Similarly, back on May 20, 2008 in
Portland, Oregon, Senator Obama took the stage following the critically
acclaimed local band The Decemerists, who gave a rare free concert for
75,000 fans. While news stories generated by both appearances focused
on the enormity of the crowd size, few mentioned the accompanying
perks, leaving some to question whether revelers are showing up for
Senator Obama or for free food and entertainment. Without this
additional information, Just Say No Deal
contends that Americans are being misled about the presumptive
Democratic nominee's true popularity." Let's just add to that the fact
that there are dangers in handing out free beer that go beyond driving
after. All in Germany who received free beer better have been at least
21-years of age (unless Barack's claiming a nationality other than
US). Doubt it? In 2002, a US House Rep just knew he would be the new
Minority Leader (the Dems were in the minority then). He could taste
it. His base was different than Nancy Pelosi's and he didn't think she
was all that. What deralied him? In 1992, he gave out free beer to 3
males -- two were 16 and one was 17. It was a campaign 'action.'
(Suburbs had been blockwalked, consider this an after-party.) He was
repeatedly warned that he needed to stop but, hey, he was in Congress,
he'll do what he damn well wants. He did at approximately 4:00 p.m.
The 'after-party' took place at his family's business on a busy,
downtown corner. The 'after-party' took place in the parking lot.
Photos were taken. For over ten years, he never gave it a second
thought. Then he wanted to be Minority Leader. Funny how things can
surface when you least expect it. Like photos of you and a bunch of
male teenagers pulling back on long necks in broad daylight. (And
that, by the way, is the real story on how Nancy Pelosi ended up
Minority Leader -- now Speaker of the House. You won't find it in the New York Times or the Washington Post but that is how the only real competition was cleared from the field.) Team Nader notes: Is Nader/Gonzalez for real? The country wants to know. Will Nader/Gonzalez be on enough ballots in November to make a run for it? And to be seriously considered for the Presidential debates? We're now on 18 state ballots, heading toward 30 by August 10 - on our way to our ultimate goal of 45 states by September 20. And
getting to thirty won't happen unless we hit our goal of $100,000 by
August 10. (Which would give us $2 million for the entire campaign year
to date.) Thanks to you, we're at over $13,000 in just a few short days. But we need to jack it up this week. Donate now and watch your contribution fuel our road-trippers all around the country. On the ground, things are heating up and the press is starting to take notice. In West Virginia, we turned in more than 24,000 signatures (15,000 valid required). In Montana, our road trip team collected and turned in more than 10,000 signatures (5,000 required). We've also collected enough signatures to get on the ballot in Tennessee and New Jersey. In Missouri, today we will turn in more than 20,000 signatures (10,000 valid required). This coming week, we're looking forward to ballot access victories in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Utah and Wyoming. None of this would have been possible without your help. Every time you hit the contribute button, you fuel this historic ballot access drive. During our last two fundraising drives, you came through with flying colors. First, we asked for $60,000. You did it - on time. Then we asked for $70,000, and you pushed us over the top with time to spare. Right now, we need to hit $100,000 to get us to 30 states. These are the most crucial two weeks of the campaign. Whether
Nader/Gonzalez is for real in November depends on whether we can raise
the money to pay for ballot access over the next two weeks. Plain and simple. So, please. Donate now whatever you can - $10, $20, $100, $500 - to help us give America a choice in November. For peace. For justice. For a safe and healthy future. For shifting the power from the corporations, back into the hands of the people. Together, we are making a difference. Onward iraq robin long mcclatchy newspapers leila fadel katie couric
the cbs evening news
mcclatchy newspapers |
Posted at 03:12 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
The
top U.S. military commander in Iraq isn't buying the increasingly
popular idea of a publicly stated timetable for American troop
withdrawal. Gen. David Petraeus, the Iraq commander, said in an
interview with McClatchy that the situation in Iraq is too volatile to
"project out, and to then try to plant a flag on, a particular date." With
violence at its lowest levels of the war, politicians in both the
United States and Iraq are getting behind the idea of a departure
timetable. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was first,
suggesting he would have combat troops home within 16 months of
Inauguration Day. The idea got a big boost during his overseas trip,
when Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki indicated support for that
general timeline. During a Friday interview on CNN's "The Situation
Room," Republican candidate John McCain, who had opposed setting a
timeline, appeared to shift ground. McCain said that 16 months "is a
pretty good timetable" but must be based on conditions on the ground.The above is from Nancy A. Youssef's " Petraeus won't join bandwagon for Iraq withdrawal timetable" ( McClatchy Newspapers). While Petraues hums Linda Ronstadt's "Different Drum," Dana Hedgpeth and Amit R. Paley probe the money in " U.S. Says Contractor Made Little Progress on Iraq Projects" ( Washington Post): The
U.S. government paid a California contractor $142 million to build
prisons, fire stations and police facilities in Iraq that it never
built or finished, according to audits by a watchdog office. The
Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) said Parsons
of Pasadena, Calif., received the money, part of a total of $333
million but only completed about one-third of the projects, which also
included courthouses and border control stations. The inspector
general's office is expected to release two detailed audits today,
evaluating Parsons's work on the contract, which is worth up to $900
million. Katharine Euphrat (AP) reports
that the VA's suicide prevention hotline (1-800-873-TALK) has received
requests for assistance from over 22,000 veterans. The statistics are
from the government and the government also states that they have
prevented 1,221 veterans' suicides. Juan Gonzalez interviews Ryan Lizza today on Democracy Now! and
you may have to go to the website to catch it. Pay attention, forty
minutes in, to the discussion on the 'big speech.' Pacifica's doing
fundraising and it appears they're going to bury that segment. WBAI is
ignoring it (focusing on the last segment of the broadcast). KPFA and KPFK are broadcasting the Lizza segment. It'll come at approximately 40 minutes into the show. (And you can visit the website for transcript regardless of whether your outlet plays the broadcast in full.) Kimberly notes this from a column today by Robert Novak (!): The
toughest interrogation of Obama came from CBS anchor Katie Couric in
Jordan last Tuesday. She asked four times whether the troop surge he
had opposed was instrumental in reducing violence in Iraq. Obama
answered straight from talking points by citing "the great effort of
our young men and women in uniform." That sounded like the old
politics. He would have sounded more like a new politician if he had
simply said, "Yes, the strategy did work." That would have infuriated
antiwar activists but not enough for them to drop Obama.The interview should be below and the transcript (in full) is here at CBS Evening News.
Posted at 03:11 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
The
family of Hafeidh Aboud, one of the three civilians killed on their way
to the airport last month, said late Sunday night that the U.S.
soldiers responsible should be prosecuted either in the United States
or in Iraq."Why did they do
this to us? My father liked the Americans very much," said Mohammed
Hafeidh Aboud, 21, one of Hafeidh Aboud's seven children. "The American
soldiers are guilty. Why did they do this? Why?"The
shooting took place June 25 as Hafeidh Aboud was on his way to Rasheed
Bank, where he had worked for 33 years. In the car with him were
employees Suroor Ahmed, 32, and Maha Youssef, 31.Around
that time, a convoy of American soldiers from the 4th Brigade Combat
Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light), were traveling in the vicinity,
the military said. One of the vehicles developed mechanical problems
and pulled off along a road adjacent to the airport.About
8:40 a.m., as soldiers tried to repair the vehicle, Aboud's Opel
approached the rear of the parked convoy, according to the military and
witnesses. The military said in a statement that the car was speeding
toward the soldiers, who viewed it as a threat. "When the vehicle
failed to respond to the soldiers' warning measures, it was engaged
with small arms fire," the statement said.The three civilians died instantly.The above is from Sudarsan Raghavan and Qais Mizher's " U.S. Says 3 Iraqis Killed In June Were Law-Abiding" ( Washington Post)and Lisa noted it. You can also see Leila Fadel's " U.S. concedes Iraq victims were law-abiding, not insurgents" ( McClatchy Newspapers) which we noted yesterday. For context, from the June 25th snapshot: " Reuters notes
the US military shot dead 2 'suspects' in Samara and they shot dead 3
people in a car 'near Baghdad airport'. On the 3 in Baghdad, Doug Smith (Los Angeles Times) reports,
'Officials at Yarmouk Hospital identified the dead as a manager and two
female employees of a bank at the airport. Iraqi police also reported
that two bodyguards were injured' while the US military maintains they
were attacked by the bank employees." Richard A. Oppel's " U.S. Military Says Soldiers Fired on Civilians" covers the story for the New York Times: But the findings called into question the way the military handled the aftermath of the shootings.For
example, a key assertion of the news release issued by the military on
the day of the killings was that "a weapon was recovered from the
wreckage." But the military said Sunday that no one claimed to have
found a weapon in the car or had seen a weapon taken from it.Instead,
one of the soldiers at the scene reported seeing an Iraqi police
officer pull something from the burned car and then place it in the
front seat of an ambulance, according to Lt. Col. Steve Stover, a
spokesman for the Fourth Infantry Division, which patrols Baghdad.The
soldier never said the item pulled from the car was a weapon, he said.
But the soldier's account nevertheless formed the basis for a statement
in an initial internal military assessment of the attack, which said
that a weapon had been pulled from the car."We don't believe there was any cover-up," Colonel Stover said.The
investigation also revealed that the car had already passed through a
major checkpoint leading into the airport, which required the occupants
to submit to a thorough search for weapons and other dangerous objects.
As they had many times before, the bank employees then drove down the
main civilian road to the airport.Saif Hameed and Ned Parker's " U.S. acknowledges that three Iraqis killed by soldiers were unarmed" ( Los Angeles Times) addresses original statements from the military back in June: In
its statement on the June shooting, the U.S. Army said its soldiers had
felt threatened when they saw a car speeding up a road toward them, and
the driver did not heed warnings to stop. The military said its June
statement describing the dead as criminals was incorrect. Initially,
some soldiers thought that someone in the car was shooting and that
Iraqi police had found a weapon in the vehicle, the military said.
However, no weapon was found and the passengers turned out to be a man
and two women who worked at the airport bank.Yesterday in the New York Times, Sabrina Tavernise contributed " A Shiite Militia in Baghdad Sees Its Power Wane"
which sounds the political death of Moqtada al-Sadr. A visitor e-mailed
the public account asking why we didn't note it. I don't believe it.
Had that article appeared at the start of the March, no problem. But
Tavernise's article seems completely unaware of Basra. Prior to the
uprising al-Sadr stirred and then calmed, the article would make more
sense and indicate that the US government's whispers that al-Sadr's
influence was over; however, what happened argued something completely
different. Again, at the start of March, it would seem possible.
Post-Basra? Turning to the US presidential race, Monica Johnson explains to the Free Lance Star how she's voting: If
a person feels that neither John McCain nor Barack Obama will make a
suitable president, then voting for one of them based solely on his
place in partisan politics is foolish and irresponsible.When
neither of the two main political candidates is satisfactory, it is up
to us, the voters, to look elsewhere for someone worthy of the office
of president.If you're looking for a scapegoat to blame for George Bush's victories over Al Gore and John Kerry, don't blame Ralph Nader.Blame
the thousands of registered Democrats who can't be bothered to vote.
Blame the Democratic National Committee for nominating candidates who
are unable to garner enough support to defeat a disliked commander in
chief.But don't blame Ralph Nader for doing his duty as an American, for trying to give the power back to the people.I will be voting for Ralph Nader this November because I don't want to waste my vote.Ralph Nader is running for president, he's an independent candidate and his running mate is Matt Gonzalez. Jennifer Latson (Houston Chronicle) reports on Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez' stop in Houston yesterday: When
Ralph Nader came to town, a group of about 60 dedicated followers dug
deep into their pockets to give more than $7,000 to the perennial
third-party presidential candidate.The
Sunday afternoon campaign stop at the Hilton hotel on the University of
Houston campus drew supporters who believed winning isn't everything,
and who said they were investing in the future of politics and
democracy.Nader criticized
his Republican and Democratic rivals for being influenced by corporate
donors. Multiple candidates help keep politics clean, he added.He
also criticized Texas for requiring more than 74,000 signatures to
place an independent candidate on the ballot. He wants the Legislature
to ease those rules."This
is the worst state in the country in terms of denying voters their own
choice of candidates," he said. "What is it about Texans, who consider
themselves rebels and tough critters, and they're just patsies when it
comes to corporate barons?"Many
who gathered in the hotel ballroom said they will write in Nader when
they vote. This is his fifth run for president. Since his controversial
run as the Green Party candidate in 2000, he has campaigned as an
independent.Sebastian Kitchen (Montgomery Advertiser) reports on Nader's visit to Montgomery Saturday: He
addressed about 20 supporters in front of the Rosa Parks Library and
Museum on Saturday, and attempted to draw a parallel between his
quixotic presidential quests and Parks' role in the civil rights
movement. "Rosa Parks challenged the system," he said. Nader, who
has made multiple runs for the White House, spoke out against the war
in Iraq, the Bush administration, the government catering to giant
corporations, the low minimum wage, and the atrocity of people living
in this nation without healthcare. "Why aren't these issues talked
about by the major parties?" Nader asked before saying those parties do
not represent the American people. He said he seeks to advance people's health, safety and economic well-being.Marie and Kendall noted the items on the Nader campaign stops. And Kendall asked if Dee Knight's " Military resister's father calls him 'a hero'" ( Workers World) could be noted again:: When
James Burmeister was court martialed last week, he was sentenced to six
months in the stockade and a Bad Conduct Discharge. "I feel like the
case was used as an example to other soldiers," his father told Workers
World. "Not only will you get punished, but your loved ones will be
too." "They attacked James as more of a sociopath than a patriot,"
said Erich Burmeister. "They hammered on the point of his going AWOL
and leaving his unit in great danger. They painted him as a coward." "I
think my son is a hero," Erich continued. "There are many Iraqis who
were not killed because of what he did, and many GIs whose lives were
saved because of it. He made a tremendous service to his country by
standing up and bearing witness to the ‘bait-and-kill’ war crimes." After
James went AWOL he exposed this program, in which U.S. sniper teams
leave "bait" to lure Iraqis and then kill them. When he denounced the
program, it turned into a media scandal. (See "U.S. aims to lure
insurgents with 'bait,'" Washington Post, Sept. 24, 2007.) Being on
a military base "unnerved me and my wife," Erich said. "In hindsight it
was the perfect 'good cop-bad cop' thing, played to perfection.”
Between the JAG lawyer the Army assigned, and the prosecution, Erich
said, "They really had me convinced that the best strategy for [James]
was to plead guilty. We took the bait and got our butts kicked." He
said their JAG attorney "was rotten. Had we been able to afford good
civilian legal defense, we could have pursued more options. I wish we
had done it." Speaking of James, Erich said, "The amazing thing is
he is taking it better than those of us who love him so much. He's very
strong. He told us, 'Understand this, anything the Army can do to me
can't be as bad as being in Baghdad doing what they wanted me to do.'
He's relieved not to have a gun in his hand anymore. That's what he
cares about. "Once he had achieved his goal, making the public aware
of 'bait and kill,' he was prepared to turn himself back in. He's
strong, and I'm sure he'll do okay. He didn't seem to be as troubled by
it as we were. We're hoping he'll stay that way and will be with us
soon." Supporters can write to James Burmeister at Box A, Fort Knox, KY 40121. Articles
copyright 1995-2008 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of
this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided
this notice is preserved. Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011Email: ww@workers.orgSubscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.netSupport independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.phpThe e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraq qais mizher sudarsan raghavan the washington post the new york times richard a. oppel jr. sabrina tavernise saif hameed ned parker the los angeles times jennifer latson sebastian kitchendee knightjames burmeistermcclatchy newspapersleila fadel
Posted at 03:10 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Sunday, July 27, 2008
And the war drags on . . .
James
Burmeister was a class of 2007 war resister which we all know means
they got NO attention from Panhandle Media. His story was compelling --
as are the stories of all war resisters -- and it was also news
breaking. But Matthew Rothschild, Amy Goodman, Katrina vanden Heuvel,
et al always had something 'better' to do. American Idol's not going to
watch itself, after all, and they've got a Barack Obama to get into the
White House. When Burmeister went public at the end of June in 2007,
anyone in Panhandle Media that gave a damn could have interviewed him
and broken the story on the kill-teams. Didn't happen. Again, there was
always something 'better' to do. How proud they must be of themselves
today. Dee Knight has been among the very few journalists during this
illegal war that readers could repeatedly count on to bring them the
news of war resistance. From Knight's " Military resister's father calls him 'a hero'" ( Workers World): When
James Burmeister was court martialed last week, he was sentenced to six
months in the stockade and a Bad Conduct Discharge. "I feel like the
case was used as an example to other soldiers," his father told Workers
World. "Not only will you get punished, but your loved ones will be
too." "They attacked James as more of a sociopath than a patriot,"
said Erich Burmeister. "They hammered on the point of his going AWOL
and leaving his unit in great danger. They painted him as a coward." "I
think my son is a hero," Erich continued. "There are many Iraqis who
were not killed because of what he did, and many GIs whose lives were
saved because of it. He made a tremendous service to his country by
standing up and bearing witness to the ‘bait-and-kill’ war crimes." After
James went AWOL he exposed this program, in which U.S. sniper teams
leave "bait" to lure Iraqis and then kill them. When he denounced the
program, it turned into a media scandal. (See "U.S. aims to lure
insurgents with 'bait,'" Washington Post, Sept. 24, 2007.) Being on
a military base "unnerved me and my wife," Erich said. "In hindsight it
was the perfect 'good cop-bad cop' thing, played to perfection.”
Between the JAG lawyer the Army assigned, and the prosecution, Erich
said, "They really had me convinced that the best strategy for [James]
was to plead guilty. We took the bait and got our butts kicked." He
said their JAG attorney "was rotten. Had we been able to afford good
civilian legal defense, we could have pursued more options. I wish we
had done it." Speaking of James, Erich said, "The amazing thing is
he is taking it better than those of us who love him so much. He's very
strong. He told us, 'Understand this, anything the Army can do to me
can't be as bad as being in Baghdad doing what they wanted me to do.'
He's relieved not to have a gun in his hand anymore. That's what he
cares about. "Once he had achieved his goal, making the public aware
of 'bait and kill,' he was prepared to turn himself back in. He's
strong, and I'm sure he'll do okay. He didn't seem to be as troubled by
it as we were. We're hoping he'll stay that way and will be with us
soon." Supporters can write to James Burmeister at Box A, Fort Knox, KY 40121. Articles
copyright 1995-2008 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of
this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided
this notice is preserved. Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011Email: ww@workers.orgSubscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.netSupport independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.phpMark Larabee's " Soldiers still go over the hill even in an all-volunteer Army" ( The Oregonian,
July 16, 2007) broke the news in the US on James Burmeister and . . .
nothing from Panhandle Media. Last Monday, a week after Burmeister was
court-martialed, Goodman could finally 'make the time' to mention James
on her program. In headlines. A bad headline. Barack Obama? She can't
make it through a day without him. War resistance? She's got other
things to do. Burmeister went public about his resistance and the kill
teams was huge news. But can't force an unqualified War Hawk down the
public's throat and also find time to cover the things that matter so
Goody knew who buttered her bread. It's that time again, where she begs
for money on air. She can't do her daily Barack Obama Lovefest without
you, only with you. So give, give generously. If you didn't, she might
have to get a real job. They're just there to try and make the people free,But the way that they're doing it, it don't seem like that to me.Just more blood-letting and misery and tearsThat this poor country's known for the last twenty years,And the war drags on.-- words and lyrics by Mick Softly (available on Donovan's Fairytale) Last Sunday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war hit the 4,123 mark. And tonight? 4124. Just Foreign Policy's counter estimates the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the illegal war to be 1,245,538 -- same as last Sunday. In some of today's reported violence . . . Bombings? Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
a Baghdad rocket attack wounded three people, a Kirkuk roadside bombing
claimed the lives of 2 Iraqi service members, a Basra roadside bombing
wounded one person, a roadside bombing outside of Baquba wounded seven
Iraqi service members, a Basra bombing claimed the lives of 2
"Government guards protecting oil ministry facilities," bombers blew up
2 homes and "attacked Abo Khamees police station" wounding two children
and one police officer, and an Al-Anbar Province home bombing on Zaki
Obid's home resulted in no known wounded or dead but a bombing of
Obid's vehicle resulted in the deaths of 2 of his guards with two more
guards wounded as well as "Obid and his son." Shootings? Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
unknown assailants attacked and wounded Abdul Hadi al Jaza'iri
("official in Baghdad Operation Command") in Baghdad, 7 Shi'ite
pilgrims were shot dead as they headed "towards the holy shrine in
Kadehmiyah" according to the wires but "Officials in the Ministry of
Interior and local council of Mada'in" deny this took place, and an
armed clash in Neneveh resulted in the deaths of 2 Iraqi service
members with three more wounded. It's already Monday (even here on the West coast) as I rush to finish this. Mohammed Abbas (Reusters) reports
24 dead from 3 Baghdad bombings (all three bombngs are said to have
been female suicide bombers) and he confirms 7 pilgrims shot dead in
Baghdad on Sunday. Dropping back to the June 25th snapshot: " Reuters notes
the US military shot dead 2 'suspects' in Samara and they shot dead 3
people in a car 'near Baghdad airport'. On the 3 in Baghdad, Doug Smith (Los Angeles Times) reports,
'Officials at Yarmouk Hospital identified the dead as a manager and two
female employees of a bank at the airport. Iraqi police also reported
that two bodyguards were injured' while the US military maintains they
were attacked by the bank employees." Today Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
that the US military has admitted the three slaughtered were civilians
and not, as they LIED in June, criminals. They have issued an 'apology'
and it's not going over that well (nor should it): Mahdi's son, Mohammed Hafeth, said the statement was insufficient. He
said the image of his father's burning vehicle haunts him. He'd waited
in his father's office that morning surprised that he wasn't there yet.
They'd left at nearly the same time that morning. Hafeth drives bank
employees to work. That morning his father offered to take one of
Hafeth's passengers and picked up another female bank employee who
lived nearby their central Baghdad home. As he sat in the office a
colleague walked in and told Hafeth his father's car was broken down on
the airport road. Hafeth reached for his car keys. "I'll drive," he recalled his colleague saying. As
they approached his father's car he saw the flames. He jumped from the
car and started to run toward the burning vehicle, but U.S. soldiers
blocked his way. "Go," he recalled them ordering. But he said he
couldn't move. He dropped to the ground and wept as his father burned
inside the vehicle. "Why did they kill him like this?" Mohammed
Hafeth said Sunday in a phone interview. "We demand that they send
those soldiers to an Iraqi and American court." Mahdi was the father
of six, including Hafeth. Hafeth said he now shoulders the financial
responsibility for his family on his approximately $100-a-month salary. "I
was shocked that my father was killed by the Americans," he said.
"Supposedly we move in a secured area ... we used to wave at them and
they waved at us." Hafeth said he didn't accept the compensation
offered by the U.S. military. They offered $10,000, he said, and that
wasn't enough for his father's car let alone his father's life. "My
father was a peaceful man," he said. "He never did anything wrong.
Everybody knew his good reputation and everybody liked him."New content at Third: Truest statement of the week Truest statement of the week II A note to our readers Editorial: BonusGate TV: No, don't tell me more, tell me more Barack for Headmistress of the United States! CBS 'cares' enough to promote sexism Liar of the week: Amy Goodman Feminist History: Learn it or repeat Hair mail Phone ettiquette 21st Century Style Nader-Gonzalez marching on HighlightsThe e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqand the war drags ondonovandee knightjames burmeistermark larabeemcclatchy newspapersleila fadel
Posted at 11:08 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Raging Granny groups across North America have taken up the cause of US war resisters seeking refuge in Canada. From San Francisco to the Canadian capital of Ottawa, members of this international women's organization continue to petition Prime Minister Stephen Harper to respect the sentiment of the majority of Canadian citizens and "Let War Resisters Stay". This week San Francisco Grannies revved up their letter writing campaign while their sisters in Ottawa polled pedestrians in that city's busy Byward Market.Zach noted the above from R. Robertson's " Raging Grannies from SF to Ottawa Rally Around War Resisters" ( Indybay IMC) and Zach points out, "It's good to know they have a few pet causes these days besides their main one of pimping for Barack." In fairness, it appears to have been only the Brooklyn chapter that sold their souls, integrity and whatever was left of a good name in order to give a "peace" illusion to Barack. Zach offers a sing-along, "The old red mare just ain't what she used to be, ain't what she used to be, ain't what she used to be . . ." And wonders, "Too much?" No, Zach, they deserve that and a great deal more. Peace groups should focus on peace, certainly not on providing cover to War Hawk presidential candidates. Ric Lupher files " Peace Activists Rally In Support Of Robin Long" for Colorado's KKTV (link has text and video) on US war resister Robin Long who was extradited from Canada to the US and now awaits word on what happens next. Iraq Veterans Against the War's is quoted stating of recruitment, "There's a huge propaganda smear across the country to get young men to join the military." In the I'm-sure-it's-just-a-rumor area, whispers (this isn't in the report, I'm referring to the grapevine) continue that Robin will be court-martialed and that it will take place during the DNC convention. The convention will be held in Denver. The whispers maintain that the court-martial will take place at Fort Carson in Colorado. I'm not saying it's true, I'm saying it's what's being currently whispered. If you read various reports today, you'll see that presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack senses his High Flying Adore tour is being greeted with a backlash and repeatedly states that he may take a dip in the next round of polling as a result of it. His remarks, however, could also be seen as a way to lower expectations so that even a small bump could then be hailed as "victory." Presumped Republican presidential nominee John McCain notes Barack's travelogue in his radio address (link has only audio, no text at this point), "This week the presidential contest was a long-distance affair, with my opponent touring various continents and arriving yesterday in Paris. With all the breathless coverage from abroad, and with Senator Obama now addressing his speeches to 'the people of the world' I'm starting to feel a little left out. Maybe you are too." Princess Tiny Meat? Ava and I used that to refer to Barack sometime ago. Ty tried to include a question on that in roundtables and mailbags at Third but there was never time. Wally and Cedric use the term today. So for those wondering, I'm sure -- like most good slang -- it came from the gay culture. It entered the straight culture mercilessly in the 90s when a TV 'star' with two TV shows under his belt (if not much else) fancied himself as a 'ladies' man' but the grapevine responded "nothing much to brag about." He has no career today but, for that brief moment when he was known, he was known as Princess Tiny Meat. Either while near the end of his second show or right after he was fired, an online gossip columnist even picked up on the grapevine and ran a photo of 'star' in a very tight pair of jeans to reveal that there was no engine under the hood. Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader has many campaign events this weekend. Yvonne Wenger (Post and Courier) reports on a South Carolina event yesterday: Nader said it would take a "massive grassroots movement" for him to secure the presidency but that wasn't to say the fight doesn't have meaning. "If you don't resist the situation gets worse," Nader said. "The alternative is surrender." Nader said he wants to draw in young people who will push the progressive agenda in the future. Also, he said, he wants to convince the mainstream candidates -- Republican Sen. John McCain and Democratic Sen. Barack Obama -- to see his perspective on issues such as a living wage. "The stands McCain and Obama have taken again and again do not have the support of the majority of American people," Nader said.Ralph Nader will be in Austin, Texas Sunday evening. (He'll be in Houston earlier that day.) From David Shieh's " Nader prepares to campaign in Austin" ( Austin American-Statesman): American-Statesman: So why are you running for the presidency? Ralph Nader: Strong labor laws facilitating unions, strong consumer protections, environmental, foreign, military policy -- all these are not being addressed in a way that a majority of people in this country want them addressed. The majority of people in this country want single-payer health insurance. They want a living wage. They want to get out of Iraq. They want a lot of things that we stand for, and the other side -- (Sens. John) McCain and (Barack) Obama -- are either against it or ignore it. They don't want to talk about it. What do you think of the energy policies that Texas politicians have proposed? The competitors in this year's Senate race -- Democratic state Rep. Rick Noriega of Houston and Republican U.S. Sen. John Cornyn -- both support bringing lower gas prices to Texans by expanding off-shore drilling. That's nonsense. It's like this. Let's take an analogy with water. You're in your kitchen, and you're filling a basin of water. Unfortunately, there are five holes in the basin, and so someone says to you, "We got to go out and drill another well in our backyard because we don't have enough water in that basin." Someone else says, "Why don't you plug the holes?" Energy conservation is the fastest, shortest, cheapest, most environmentally benign solution to our problems. We waste well over two-thirds of our energy, and a barrel of oil you save is a barrel of oil you don't have to drill for. What issues will you focus on when you come to Texas? One I'm really going to emphasize is the piecemeal destruction of the civil justice system. The corporate lobbyists have gotten through the Legislature and have even amended the Texas constitution a few years back, severely restricting the ability of wrongfully-injured people to have their full day in Texas court before judge and jury -- to get full damages for medical malpractice or toxic contamination. What do you say to people who blame you for bringing George W. Bush into office in the 2000 presidential election? That's a politically bigoted statement against third-party independent candidates. They would never say "Bush stole votes from Gore" or "Gore stole votes from Bush." They always use those words and spoiler words to refer to smaller candidates, which is why I say it's political bigotry.Cynthia McKinney is the Green Party presidential candidate. Austin Cassidy's Independent Political Report notes that she is now "an official write-in candidate" in North Carolina. A drive-by whined that Austin Cassidy is a conservative and is linked to "so you can promote Cynthia McKinney." I'll assume "you" means me because the community is behind Ralph Nader. (I haven't stated whom I'm voting for in November -- or if I'll vote.) Whatever Austin Cassidy is or isn't, his site has provided coverage of all the campaigns. Were we an election site, we would as well. Were we a gas-bag site, we'd be like The Nation, The Progressive and all the others in Panhandle Media: Barack Love 24-7 -- dropped only for non-stop hisses at John McCain. The Ralph Nader focus was decided by the community in a vote. Nader would have been covered here regardless because of what was done to him in 2004. I don't enjoy the pack mentality of our so-called "alternative" media or the silences from Real Media. If you go into the archives for this site, you'll find it was made very clear in 2004 that if Nader ran in 2008, he would be covered here. The amount of coverage is dicated by (a) the silence from other outlets and (b) the fact that all voting in Gina and Krista's poll stated in April that if Hillary did not get the nomination, they would be supporting Nader. That included people who were already supporting Nader as well as Democratic members who saw through the illusions of Barack. McKinney could have split the vote in the community but, by that time, had already allowed a lifelong misogynist's articles to be posted at her campaign site. Her declaration that victory was 5% of the national vote only added to the pull-back from McKinney but it was the misognist that did her campaign in for the community. (And "Don't call me Latina!" Clemente's decision to try to speak for Lations -- to mispeak for them -- only hardened the opinion against the McKinney-Clemente ticket. It's rather cute to hear her billed now as "Puerto Rican born" when, no, she was not born in Puerto Rico. She was born in the Bronx. But it's the campaign realizing how serious a barrier Clemente is to Latino voters and trying their best to overcome it. Most likely, they can't. It's a decade long of remarks that Latinos see as insults and a rejection. It's not just that she chose to self-identify Black, it's that expressing her self-identification repeatedly also included non-stop jabs and insults to Latinos.) I don't know that Cassidy's is a right-wing site. It may be. What I do know is that when someone e-mails something from it (on McKinney), it's not full of snark and and attacks on McKinney. If Cassidy is right-wing, that's really sad for the left-wing because he is managing to offer an election site that does a better job of balance than anything from our left institutions. His site has been linked to for McKinney coverage and will continue to be linked to from time to time for that coverage. Anymore whining in e-mails about it from non-community members will most likely result in my putting it on the permalinks to the left. Repeating, regardless of his political identification or affilation, he's doing a better job covering the election -- covering the candidates -- than any of our allegedly left institutions. I don't care for Newsweek (to put it mildly). It's been linked to here twice in nearly four years and both times were hard sells before I would link to it. I've been hard sold (by a friend at Newsweek) again so we'll link to it one more time. Cynthia McKinney has a Q & A and from that: What kind of strategy are you employing for the campaign?There are currently about 200 members of the Green Party who are elected officials. These are mostly local elections. The Green Party does not yet have representation on the federal level, but it's quite a successful "minor" party. With 5 percent of the electorate, it can move from minor party status to major party status [and qualify the Green Party for federal funds]. So our goal is to get onto as many ballots as we can, since then achieving a 5 percent goal becomes possible. When I got to Washington D.C., I realized that public policy was made around the table. The 5 percent puts another seat at the table. Tell me about your prospects for getting this 5 percent, since polls are showing that all the third parties combined are only at about 1 percent. That's a pretty big gap. Yes, we have our work cut out for us. But I think the fact that Congress has failed to stop funding the war and is aiding and abetting in the illegal spying against American citizens, combined with the fact that we don't have a livable wage, don't have single-payer health care system, are not subsidizing higher education as we should be, have not seen a cogent energy policy come through Congress, are seeing people losing their homes in a record foreclosure mortgage crisis -- and predatory lending has not been tamed -- the Bush tax cuts have not been rolled back, then we certainly can't trust those who created the problems to solve them. A lot of those issues sound similar to the Democratic Party platform. I don't think that assessment is accurate. The Democrats stand for what we've been given now. While many Democratic activists may want a single-payer health care system, neither one of the final two Democratic candidates who were able to garner so many delegate votes were supportive of a single-payer health care system. They have also taken impeachment off the table. There are quite a few prominent third-party candidates running this year, including your former fellow Congressman from Georgia, Bob Barr, over at the Libertarian Party. Is he basically the conservative version of you? The only thing I would say about Bob is that it's interesting that Georgia is so well-represented in the non-major party lineup. Of course, I worked in the Congress for a long time with Bob Barr and, in fact, members of the Libertarian Party have reached out to me on several occasions this year and I expect there will be more mutual reaching. So you might actually be working together on some issues? I didn't say that. What does mutual reaching mean then?It means that where there is the possibility of having discussions, then I wouldn't turn down discussions. There's nothing afoot, if that's what you mean. I would take it issue by issue, and see what the future brings. Of course, there's the perennial third-party candidate question: What do you make of arguments that you'll pull votes away from the Democrats, thereby ushering into office a Republican who shares even fewer of your views? That's not grounded in the facts. As the film "American Blackout" points out very well, there were numerous instruments used in the 2000 and 2004 elections to disfranchise voters. Voter caging and voter ID laws exist to disfranchise voters. The question I believe Newsweek ought to be asking is how can we ensure that people who have the right to vote also have the opportunity to vote. And after their vote is cast, how can we ensure their votes are counted. How can an environment that does not ensure election integrity ensure us that the will of the voter is reflected in the announced outcome?For those trying to read 'tea leaves,' Cynthia is of the left and we'll try to note her campaign at least once a week. The community doesn't give a ___ about Clemente (for reasons outlined above) so we'll ignore her. But I do like Cynthia personally and we'll note her campaign at least once a week. That's not "Vote for Cynthia!" I don't care who you vote for and I'm not advocating that you vote for any presidential candidate (or that you vote). (If you are in Jason West's congressional district in Chicago, I would advocate that you vote for him. He's the Green Party candidate in the race and he is a member of IVAW. I'm not aware of any other candidate that I've endorsed and were it not for his strong positions and the fact that he really does need attention and awareness for his race, I wouldn't be endorsing him.) But you should be aware, if you're in the US, who is running and what they're attempting to do. Barack is more than covered by the media. So much so that John McCain can actually start campaigning as the outsider if he wants to: "Barack's the choice of the media!" (I'm sure McCain would say "liberal media." Which, of course, I would disagree with. "Big money media" I wouldn't disagree with.) There are presidential candidates: Bob Barr, Cynthia and Ralph. (That's listed in alephabetical order by first name.) The other two are "presumed" candidates at this point, not having yet secured the official nomination from their party. But they're not covered. If they're not getting coverage now when they are the only ones who are actual candidates, imagine how much worse it will be in the fall? They should be noted in some form here because they are the only ones calling for an end to the illegal war. (Reducing US forces by approximately 90,000 -- leaving 50,000 behind for who knows how many years -- is not calling for a withdrawal.) UPI quotes Barr stating: American troops in Iraq would be at risk. U.S. citizens would be targeted for terrorist acts. Tehran could retaliate against Israel. Oil shipments would be disrupted, causing energy prices to soar even higher. Allied states in the Persian Gulf would be vulnerable to attack. Chances for democratic change in Iran would be set back. From Tom Searls' " Third-party presidential candidates' workers stump in state" ( Charleston Gazette): While supporters of independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader turned in petitions Friday that could enable him to gain ballot access in the Mountain State in November, workers for two other candidates continued to collect signatures around the state. Libertarian nominee Bob Barr's supporters set up a booth at Charleston's Rib Fest on Friday, in an effort to get the required 15,118 valid signatures of registered voters by Aug. 1, the last day to submit them. "We'll go to the very end, working from morning to night," vowed Andrew Davis, a spokesman for the campaign's West Virginia project.So far, they are well behind Nader's effort and are trailing the Constitution Party's push to get its nominee, Chuck Baldwin, on the state ballot.I do know Barr and disagree with him on many issues. He is a candidate who believes in ending the illegal war and he's the nominee for the Libertarian Party. He's a serious candidate. Noting that is not attempting to solicit votes for him. Barr, Nader and McKinney are all against the illegal war and can be covered here. I won't waste my limited time trying to cover Baldwin (offensive for many reasons including his positions on immigration and abortion) because we're a site opposed to the illegal war. That said, Baldwin should be invited to the debates. All candidates should be. But some candidates shoot themselves in the foot. McKinney long ago gave anyone wanting to shut out any candidate that wasn't Dem or Republican by declaring victory was 5% of the vote. In a media environment hostile to anyone not of the two-major parties (and a 'committee' of Democrats and Republicans who control who is invited to the debates), the threshold could be reduced to (which would qualify as an expansion this year) those actually running to become president. By her own remarks, she is not running to become president and if she's denied participation in the debates, we won't spend a lot of time here fretting over that. All other candidates -- unless they've stated they're only running for a percentage -- should be invited. It's one thing to acknowledge -- as Nader has -- that your run may be a longshot (Abe Lincoln's run was a longshot, and he won), it's another to define ultimate 'victory' as 5% of the votes. When you do that, you've given everyone an opportunity to exclude you from the debates and from coverage. Since yesterday morning, the following community websites have updated: Rebecca's Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude; Cedric's Cedric's Big Mix; Kat's Kat's Korner; Betty's Thomas Friedman is a Great Man; Mike's Mikey Likes It!; Elaine's Like Maria Said Paz; Wally's The Daily Jot; Trina's Trina's Kitchen; Ruth's Ruth's Report; and Marcia's SICKOFITRADLZ
From Team Nader, Lynda notes:
Help Fuel Ralph’s Tour of the South and West
We need gas money.
Why?
Starting today, Ralph Nader is on the road again.
This time campaigning through the South and then out West.
Over the next two weeks, Ralph will be in South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, Utah and up and down California.
His VP, Matt Gonazalez, will be joining Ralph on the campaign trail starting in Texas.
Check out the schedule below.
If you are in the neighborhood, come on out to hear and meet Ralph and Matt.
With both Obama and McCain saber rattling over Iran, the Nader/Gonzalez message of peace through justice is now more important than ever.
If your friends or relatives in the neighborhood, give them a shout and let them know.
But right now, we need gas money to fuel Ralph's South and West Coast Tour.
We've rented a car.
Gas prices are high.
And Ralph is on the move.
So, please donate whatever you can now to fill up our tank.
You can give up to $4,600.
But $500, $100, $50 - whatever you can donate is what we need.
Help us fill 'er up.
So we can get 'er done.
Onward.
The Nader Team
Ralph Nader's Tour of the South and West
Friday July 25, 2008 5:30 p.m. Athens, Georgia Nader for President 2008 Rally University of Georgia, Georgia Center- “Masters Hall” 1127 South Lumpkin St. Athens, GA 30602 Contribution- $10/ $5 student (404) 446-7093 or events@votenader.org
Friday July 25, 2008 8 p.m. Atlanta, Georgia Evening with Ralph Suggested Contribution $100 min RSVP (202) 471-5833
Saturday July 26, 2008, 6 p.m. Jackson, Mississippi Book Signing/ Speech Lemuria Bookstore 202 Banner Hall- I-55 North Jackson, MS 39206 (601) 842-6769 or events@votenader.org
Saturday July 26, 2008 8:00 p.m. Jackson, Mississippi Evening with Ralph Nader RSVP (202) 471-5833 Suggested Contribution $50
Sunday July 27, 2008 2:00 p.m. Houston, Texas Ralph Nader w/ Matt Gonzalez Hilton University of Houston 4800 Calhoun Suite 207, Houston, TX77204 Contribution- $10/$5 student (202) 471-5833 or events@votenader.org
Sunday July 27, 2008 7:30 p.m. Austin, Texas Ralph Nader w/ Matt Gonzalez Trinity United Methodist Church 600 East 50th St. Austin, TX 78751 Contribution $10/$5 student (202) 471-5833 or events@votenader.org
Thursday July 31, 2008 7:30pm Salt Lake City, Utah Nader for President 2008 Rally w/ Rocky Anderson Libby Gardner Concert Hall 1375 E President Circle, Salt Lake UT Contribution-$10/ $5 students (801) 916-6307 or ashley@votenader.rog
Saturday, August 2, 2008, 8:00 p.m. Davis, California Nader for President 2008 Speech Ralph Nader w/ Matt Gonzalez Varsity Theater 616 Second Street Davis, CA 95616 Contribution: $10/ $5 students (202) 471-5833 or events@votenader.org Sunday August 3, 1:30 p.m. Sebastopol, CaliforniaNader for President SpeechRalph Nader w/ Matt GonzalezSebastopol Community Center390 Morris St., Sebastopol, California 95472Contribution: $10/ $5 students(202) 471-5833 or events@votenader.org
August 3, 2008, 4:30pm Healdsburg, California Nader for President Speech Ralph Nader w/ Matt Gonzalez Copperfield's books 104 Matheson St., Healdsburg, California 95448 Contribution: $10/ $5 students (202) 471-5833 or events@votenader.org August 3, 7:30 p.m. Kentfield, CaliforniaNader for President 2008 Speech in MarinRalph Nader w/ Matt GonzalezCollege of Marin- Olney Hall835 College Ave., Kentfield, CaliforniaContribution: $10/ $5 studentsMore Info: (415) 897-6989 or events@votenader.org
PS: We invite your comments to the blog.
Your contribution could be doubled. Public campaign financing may match your contribution total up to $250.
ShareThisShareThisShareThis
Posted at 04:15 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
We're going to note US Senator Patty Murray's Senate floor remarks in full. They were delivered Tuesday (and the link contains audio as well as text). This is her " Military and VA Must Address Rising Number of Suicides by Troops and Veterans:" Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to raise awareness about one of the most heartbreaking and alarming consequences of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the five years since we invaded Iraq, we have seen a disturbing increase in the number of young men and women who return home struggling with the psychological impacts of war -- and then take their own lives. About 1,000 war veterans being treated by the VA attempt suicide each month. And it is a problem affecting communities across this country. Earlier this month, we lost a young man in my home state of Washington just hours after he sought care at the Spokane VA hospital. He was the sixth veteran in that community to take his own life this year. Now, the Spokane VA is investigating all six of those cases. I have also spoken to Secretary Peake. He has assured me that his team is also on the ground, taking a hard look to see what went wrong and what they can learn from the situation. But, Mr. President, while I appreciate the work Secretary Peake and the Spokane VA are doing, the fact is that this is a serious problem across the country. Every suicide is a tragedy. Those young men and women are someone's son or daughter, best friend, spouse, or even a parent. Our hearts go out to all of their families and friends. And their deaths are an urgent reminder that we must keep our eye on the ball. We owe it to all of our service members and veterans to demand that the VA and the Department of Defense make it a national priority to bring these numbers down. VA is Taking Steps by Promoting Prevention Hotline Mr. President, I want to acknowledge that the VA is taking steps to reach out to veterans and their families to let them know that help is available. This week, the VA is rolling out a public service campaign here in Washington, D.C. As part of a three-month long pilot program, the VA will run a series of ads on TV, and in buses, trains, and on the subway. The ads will highlight the VA’s 24-hour suicide prevention hotline, 1-800-273-TALK, and help assure veterans that it's OK to ask for help. I applaud the VA for this effort because it's a good step. We absolutely must get the word out to our veterans -- and their families. If this helps prevent even one tragedy, then it's more than worth it. I hope that the Defense Department will also publicize this number among its active duty troops so that when they leave the service they will already be aware of it. But, Mr. President, this is only a step. An ad campaign is only as good as the resources that are there when our service members seek help. And if we are truly going to make a difference, we need a bigger effort. We must do more to reach out, break down the barriers to seeking mental health care, and back up those efforts with enough resources to ensure that when a veteran goes into the hospital asking for help, the VA can offer the best care possible. VA and DoD Must Do More Outreach And so, Mr. President, while I applaud the idea of publicizing the suicide prevention hotline -- I believe the military and the VA must reach out long before our young men and women pick up the phone and call for help. And that will take creativity and leadership. Mr. President, the VA and the Defense Department can't keep doing things the way they've always done them -- because the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't like any we have ever fought. Our all-volunteer force has been on the ground in those two countries for longer than we fought in World War II. Troops get very little down time. And many of them are serving on their third, fourth, or even fifth deployments. The stress takes a toll on everyone. And for many, it gets worse when they come home to the pressures of everyday life -- to financial strain or family problems. That's especially true for members of the National Guard and Reserves. Unlike active duty troops -- who return from battle to a military base and a support network -- many Guard and Reserve members go home to family pressures and civilian jobs. Mr. President, the military and the VA must update their resources and outreach efforts to match the challenges our troops face when they return. And that safety net has to be in place before they ever leave the military. That means we must have creative programs that help service members transition from the battlefield to the home front. It means providing family and financial counseling to any service member who needs it. And it means developing a way for the military or VA to follow up with service members -- especially those who already have asked for help with psychological wounds. VA and DoD Must End the Stigma Against Seeking Care But, Mr. President, we also must encourage our service members and veterans to seek care when they need it by breaking down the barriers that prevent them from asking for help. The VA and the Defense Department must take strong steps to change the military culture so that service members no longer fear that seeking care will be viewed as a sign of weakness -- or one that will hurt their career. Even more important, service members and veterans must be convinced that if they ask for help, doctors and staff will take them seriously and provide the care they need. I have heard too many tragic stories about veterans who have gone to the VA in distress -- only to face a doctor who underestimated their symptoms and sent them home to a tragic ending. Mr. President, when someone with a history of depression, PTSD, or other psychological wounds walks into the VA and says they are suicidal, it should set off alarm bells. We can't convince veterans or service members to get care if they think they will be met with lectures and closed doors. That is unacceptable. At the very least, we must ensure that staff at military and VA medical centers have the training to recognize and treat someone who is in real distress. VA and DoD Must Back Up Efforts With Resources Finally, Mr. President, we must provide the resources to back up all of these efforts -- starting with making sure that the suicide prevention hotline is staffed with enough trained professionals who can provide real help to someone in need. I hope that will be the case. Unfortunately, this Administration has failed for eight long years to make good on its promises and provide the resources needed to carry them out. Time and again, it has taken leaks and scandals to get the Administration to own up to major problems at the VA -- from inadequate budgets to rising suicide rates. And its response to rising costs has been to underfund research and cut off services to some veterans. Mr. President, we must do better than that. Service members and veterans need more than an 800 number to call. They need psychiatrists and psychologists who understand the horrors of war and the stresses our troops feel. We also need to make sure that we have the facilities and systems set up to accommodate the troops who will be entering the VA system in the next decade. We must fast-track research into the signature injuries of the war, such as Traumatic Brain Injury and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, so that we understand how to diagnose and treat these conditions. And we need to speed up efforts that will enable the DoD and VA to share records so that fewer service members slip through the cracks as they transition from active duty to veteran status. Now is the time to invest in research and infrastructure. We can't afford to wait. This is About Saving Lives Mr. President, many of us are familiar with the story of Joseph Dwyer, a young Army medic made famous in a photo taken during the first week of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. In the photo, Joseph is running toward safety with an injured Iraqi child in his arms. It's an epic image of bravery and compassion. But when he came home, Joseph struggled to fit back into civilian life. He suffered from PTSD and, tragically, earlier this year, he died of what police are treating as an accidental drug overdose. The photo of Joseph Dwyer captured the incredible work our troops are doing everyday. But, sadly, Joseph's story is also an example of what far too many of our veterans face when they return home. The photo of Joseph was taken during the first week of this war. More than five years later, we should have the resources in place to treat the psychological wounds of war as well as we do the physical ones. But we don't. Mr. President, I want to ask my colleagues to put themselves in the shoes of a parent -- or a spouse -- who has lost a child, or a husband, or a wife to suicide. I want them to think of all the questions they might be asking. We might not be able to provide all of the answers -- but we should at least be able to say that we’re doing everything we can to address the problems. We know there are many, many dedicated, hardworking VA employees, who spend countless hours providing our vets with the best treatment. But we also must recognize that the system is still unprepared for the influx of veterans coming home. According to a RAND study, 1 in 4 veterans will struggle with PTSD. It is the duty of the VA and of a grateful nation to be prepared to care for their unique wounds. And in order to do that, we need strong leadership and attention to detail in Washington, D.C. -- Spokane, Washington -- and everywhere in between. At the end of the day, this isn't about bureaucracy or protecting turf, it's about saving lives. While I'm glad that the Administration plans to increase its outreach, a pilot program is only a small step. We must make it a national priority to address this tragedy. The Administration must back up its efforts by reaching out to service members, veterans, and their families, breaking down the barriers that prevent service members and veterans from seeking and getting mental health care, and providing adequate resources. No matter how you feel about this war, our troops are heroes. They have done everything we’ve asked of them -- and more. And it's time our commitment measured up to theirs.We quoted from the above in yesterday's snapshot and a number of e-mails came in glad that Murray had made the statements she did. Reading over the e-mails today, it's obvious that there's a problem not being pin-pointed. CounterPunch, The Progressive, et al will (and does) gladly rerun the comments of various male members in Congress. Outside of Barbara Lee (whom they praise more than quote), they pretty much ignore the women. Some males, like Russ Feingold, are worthy of posting in full and praising but others are not. They don't have much to say and their voting record says even less. Murray was among the women elected to the Senate in 1992, following the justifiable outrage over the treatment of Anita Hill and underscoring how male the Senate then was. If we're really honest, Barbara Lee gets her shout-outs on the Aretha factor (if that's confusing, hold on) and all other women get ignored for the same old reasons. Barbara Lee has a better voting record than at least 96% of the members of Congress (Lee is in the House) and I'm not attempting to insult her. I am noting that, as with music 'history,' only some get included. The 'gods' are a male list. Aretha's tacked on for 'color' and to indicate that the gatekeepers (White males) have (or think they do) a little soul. There can be only one Aretha which is why Maxine Waters and others receive so little coverage. And women are reduced which is why a Patty Murray or a Cass Eliott, Dusty Springfield, et al, gets written out of their respective histories. That same erasing of the women continues to this day and you can use Murray or any other woman in the US Congress and see that. Gotta' keep the 'boys club' male -- always. In today's New York Times, Sabrina Tavernise's " Oil Exports From Northern Iraq Rise Sharply" reports that the (US) Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction asserts "that oil exports . . . rose more than tenfold over the past year" via the pipeline exporting oil to Turkey from northern Iraq. Fourth paragraph tells that US forces patrol the pipeline. Maybe that's one of the non-combat duties Barack has in mind for keeping approximately 50,000 US service members in Iraq after his non-promised, 16-month 'withdrawal'? In her final paragraph, Tavernise reports: Also on Friday, the American military acknowledged that it unintentionally killed the son of an editor for an American-financed newspaper in the northern city of Kirkuk on Thursday. The military said soldiers had been fired at from a taxi and shot back, hitting Arkan al-Naiemi, 14, in the taxi.That's the shooting noted in Thursday's snapshot. Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that some of Saturday's violence included 4 Baghdad roadside bombing with at least eleven people wounded, a Baghdad shooting in which one "Awakening" Council member was wounded,a Kirkuk shooting in which 1 police officer was killed and one more was wounded (also notes a Friday shooting in Kirkuk that claimed the life of 1 "14 year-old kid") and 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqmcclatchy newspapersthe new york timessabrina taverniseiraq
Posted at 04:12 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Friday, July 25, 2008
Friday, July 25, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Congressional hearings, BonusGate and more. Starting
with war resistance. "When we arrived Al Assad, this was April or the
beginning of May 2003," declared Camilo Mejia, "and this is the very
beginning of the occupation and this is when we were being told that we
had to keep people on sleep deprivation, to psychological torture; the
orders came from way up top. Actually the people who were in charge of
running these camps were ghost agents, you know, working for the US
government. And when the Abu Ghraib scandal came out they tried to
tell the American public that, you know, this was an isolated event
that had only began in November or December of 2003. And that it was
the result of a few people, you know, who one day woke up and, you
know, they were evil, when -- in reality, you know from -- from my
experience, I can tell you that this was actually something that was
coming from the very top and that happened from the very beginning and
that it was not isolated to Abu Ghraib but that was happening elsewhere
in Iraq from the very beginning of the occupation." Mejia was speaking
on PBS two weekends ago and he continued, "Well in the military, we
have what is called spooks. And these are people who are highly
trained in counterinsurgency. They're highly trained in linguistics
and interrogation and weapons systems and things like that. And they
don't wear name tags. They don't wear Unit ID badges or anything like
that. They . . . [use] pseudonyms and you know they don't respond to
anybody in uniform. They -- they basically take their orders from --
from the very top. And they're -- they're untraceable and -- and
obviously, you know, they can conduct themselves with absolute
impunity. These were people who were giving the commands when we were
there -- not our commanders, not the people who belonged to any unit,
you know, but basically people with top secret clearance and, you know,
who would never be held accountable for any of the things that
happened." The PBS program was Foreign Exchange with Daljit Dhaliwal and Ava and I wrote about that appearance
two weeks ago. (And have heard the complaints re: streaming,
transcripts, DVDs, et al and we will be noting that in Sunday's TV
commentary. But anyone using that link will quickly realize that they
can't watch online.) When we noted it previously, we focused on
Camilo's rejection of the illegal war. Camilo tell his story in Road to Ar Ramadi: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia and he is also the chair of Iraq Veterans Against the War.
In terms of his place in the resistance of the Iraq War, he was the
first Iraq War veteran to publicy oppose the illegal war. As noted earlier this week, "The Unitarian Universalist Service Committee
(UUSC), an international human rights organization based in Cambridge,
Mass., will be hosting a series of training sessions and workshops at
the General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association to be
held from Wednesday, June 24 to Sunday, June 29, at the Fort Lauderdale
Convention Center, Fort Lauderdale, Florida." Mejia will be a speaker
on June 25th as well as on June 28th. More information can be found here." Though
Meija never went Canada during his resisting while in the military, he
has been a very vocal supporter and has joined many in calling on the
Canadian government to grant safe harbor to US war resisters in
Canada. To pressure the Stephen Harper government to honor the House of Commons vote, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist
all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca"). Courage to Resist collected more than 10,000 letters to send before the vote. Now they've started a new letter you can use online here. The War Resisters Support Campaign's petition can be found here.
Long expulsion does not change the need for action and the War
Resisters Support Campaign explains: "The War Resisters Support
Campaign is calling on supporters across Canada to urgently continue to
put pressure on the minority conservative government to immediately
cease deportation proceedings against other US war resisters and to
respect the will of Canadians and their elected representatives by
implementing the motion adopted by Parliament on June 3rd. Please see
the take action page for what you can do." There
is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which
includes Andrei Hurancyk, Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis
Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall,
Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney
Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad
McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell,
Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha
Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister,
Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada,
Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen,
Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman,
Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck,
Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine,
Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey,
Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua
Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell,
Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake,
Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres,
Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and
Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada
have applied for asylum. On
Wednesday, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing entitled
"VA's Response to the Needs of Returning Guard and Reserve Members" and
the most interesting exchange took place at the end of the second panel
in the last thirty minutes. The second panel was made up of Dr. Joseph
Scotti (West Virginia University), Col Bradley Livinsgton (Director of
the Joint Staff, Joint Force Headquarters, Montana National Guard), Lt
Col John Boyd (Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel Vermont Army
National Guard), Sgt Roy Meredith (Team Leader Maryland Army National
Guard) and Maj Cynthia Ramussen (RN, MSN, CANP Combat Stress Officer
Sexual Assualt Response Coordinator 88th Regional Readiness Command). Senator
Jay Rockefeller: My first question would appear to be hostile but it's
not. Why is it that everybody, but Dr. Scotti, had to say "I'm
speaking personally not on behalf of the Reserve, the Guard or the
Department of Defense? I really want to know that. Does that mean
that they're afraid that you might tell the truth? Does that mean that
they are embarrassed by what you might say because their culture is
"everything always works and it always works right"? I'd like to know
why you have to say that? Col Bradley Livingston: Sir I might be able to address that because my testimony -- Sen Jay Rockefeller: You can't correct it because you said it -- Col Bradley Livingston: (Overlapping) Correct -- Sen Jay Rockefeller: you can explain it. Col Bradley Livingston: Okay, I can explain it then. My testimony had not been vetted through DoD and so I -- Sen Jay Rockefeller: Well Isn't that a very good thing? Col Bradley Livingston: Sir, . . . I was instructed that my testimony had to have that statement put on it, sir. At "I was instucted," everyone burst into laughter including Livingston. Sen
Jay Rockefeller: You see, I can understand that I'm -- I've got so many
questions, I don't even know where to begin. I can understand that if
you're from the Department of Transportation. If you come back from
the kind of experiences that you've all come back from your testimony,
Major Rasmussen, probably was the best I've ever heard here and I've
been on this committee for 24 years. I -- it just -- it just breeds a
sense of suspicion. Not at you but in them. They got to be "right."
You didn't vet it with them. Therefore, you're dangerous. You're
telling the truth, you're telling the truth like few people ever do
before this committee. One of the -- one of the problems in fact is
that when -- when the VA and other people come before this committee we
know that everything they've said has been vetted. So there's no real
reason for us to listen particularly careful to them because we know
that it's not necessarily what they think. You're telling us what you
think. And therefore, you're real. You really help us. This is superb
help to us just at the time that the whole care of veterans has become
-- along with global warming -- one of the two top issues for the
entire Congress because it's like we've suddenly rediscovered you. Our
own guilt, our own mistake, regardless of political party or anything
else going back over many years. And there are reasons for that but I
won't go into them. It annoys me that you have to say that because it
implies that if you didn't, you'd get in trouble. And that makes me
angry. We'll come back to the second panel but Les Blumenthal (McClatchy Newspapers) reported
on the first panel when the committee learned that the VA "failed to
send benefit packages to nearly 37,000 National Guard and Reserve
members" who served in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars which had Senator
Patty Murray pointing out, "While the VA has targeted outreach programs
in place to help service members, we still miss far too many veterans
who need help and aren't aware of the services and benefits they have
earned." You may remember Iraq Veterans Against the War Winter Soldier Investigation in March. From the March 17th snapshot: The panel on The Crisis in Veterans' Healthcare followed. Adrienne Kinee spoke on that panel and a correction to Friday's snapshot:
Kinne did not state that, "The best preventative healthcare . . . for
our soldiers in uniform is to not use them to fight illegal wars"; she
stated, "The
best prevantative healthcare . . . for our soldiers in uniform is to
not use them to fight illegal occupations in the first place." Kinne testified
about serving in the military, discharging in 1998 and then enlisting
again and discharging during the Iraq War. The differences she saw
were immense. The first time she left the US military, she found a
great deal of help and resources, people helped her with her paperwork,
they advised her of her benefits and assisted her in a smoother
transition to civilian life. By contrast, when she discharged during
the Iraq War, she was provided no help, no assistance and something as
simple as having a physical would require that she live on a base for
four to six more weeks before the military would discharge her. There
was no attempt made to explain the benefits available to veterans. Earlier
this month, we lost a young man in my home state of Washington just
hours after he sought care at the Spokane VA hospital. He was the
sixth veteran in that community to take his own life this year. Now,
the Spokane VA is investigating all six of those cases. I have also
spoken to Secretary Peake. He has assured me that his team is also on
the ground, taking a hard look to see what went wrong and what they can
learn from the situation. [. . .] More
than five years later, we should have the resources to treat the
psychological wounds of war as well as we do the physical ones. But we
don't. It is the duty of the VA and of a grateful nation to be
prepared to care for their unique wounds. And in order to do that, we
need strong leadership and attention to detail in Washington, D.C.,
Spokane, Washington, and everywhere in between. At the end of the day,
this isn't about bureaucracy or protecting turf, it's about saving
lives. We must make it a national priority to address this tragedy. 1-800-873-TALK
is the VA's suicide prevention hotline, 24 hours. That was Tuesday.
Back to Wednesday. "The military is a culture of its own," Maj Cynthia
Rasmussen explained in her opening testimony. ( Click here
for prepared remarks but that's nothing like what she delivered in her
stated opening remarks.) Sen Rockefeller would single her out for
praise and we'll note a portion of her opening testimony (again, it
will not match up with the prepared remarks submitted prior to the
hearing). Maj Cynthia
Rasmussen: Multiple competing tasks when a service member gets home
cause confusion. We don't know how to think that way. We know how to
be mission oriented. We receive an op order it tells us who, what,
when, where, why and how -- basically. We don't get op orders when we
get home five days after when we take the uniform off. Owen Rice
-- who is a Hennepin County sherrif deputy in Hennepin County Jail has
been to Iraq, Traumatic Brain Injury in Iraq -- says, "Ma'am it's like
this: One person talks in the military and everyone else listens; when
you get home: everyone talks, everyone listens and nobody hears." What
I hear from soldiers across the country -- service members across the
country: "Ma'am, it's too chaotic here. Please send me back where I
know how to survive, I know how to function, I know how to do that." [.
. .] Emotions and anger. In war, we control our emotions. Obviously,
you would not want your warrior having their emotions out in the open
anywhere. Plus we cannot accomplish a mission if we have different
emotions going on. We numb out. Anger is useful. Anger is not only
useful, anger is an awesome emotion. We want anger, we like anger we
encourage it. Because it's the fight/flight response. It makes your
body, your mind and everything about you be the best that you can be
and accomplish the mission you need to accomplish. We encourage it, we
live that way, we like to live that way. But guess what? When you
take the uniform off, that anger that you've learned in practice and
felt good about does not go away. It looks like this: Not talking
about your emotions and being angry in war is a strength. It
only leads to you can't talk about your emtions at home which is
considered a weakness. We look insensitive to others when we get
home. It's not that we're insensitive, it's that we have not practiced
those emotions for a long time. Emotions take practice. We have a
decreased ability to read other's emotions -- not because we don't
care, not because we're cold hearted warriors, but because we haven't
practiced that for a long time. This can lead to increased
irritability and defensiveness because if you're spouse, you're mom,
dad or someone accuses you of not caring anymore and not showing
emotions. We're not going to say, 'Oh, yes, you're right thank you.
Thank you. I'm sorry I was unable to articulate that.' We're going to
say, 'What are you talking about? That's not true.' We're going to
get defensive -- as all of us would if someone siad that to us. It
leads to increased alcohol and drug use to cover up our emotions. You
know why? Not because we're warriors and we learned to do that. It is
more socially acceptable in our society to go to the bar and have a few
drinks or to sit home and slam down a case of beer with your friends or
buddies then it is to raise your hand and say "I need help. I need
medication. I need to talk to someone" -- not just in the military but
across the board. In our program we work with all branches of the
service and many VA and civilian organizations across the country.
Despite this amazing comprehensive program, service members and
families are still falling through the cracks. I had the honor and
opportunity to speak to 150 Purple Heart National Service Officers at
their training in Phoenix a few months ago. I received this note,
handwritten, put it in my pocket and went back to my hotel room. And
it read: "Ma'am, for the last three years I've been treated for PTSD by
doctors, nurses and others that have no clue over what is being a
soldier and have this feeling inside," this is a quote by the way, "I
can't thank you enough for coming today. In the last two hours, you
have done what nobody could have done: You make me feel normal again.
That is a feeling that I thought I would never feel again since I was
discharged from the army. Thank you and God bless." This was an
Operation Iraqi vet from Puerto Rico, approximately 24-years-old. One
final point I want to make. Not all issues with service members are
about PTSD. We need to deal with the combat stress, the operational
stress, those things I just talked to that are normal habits for all
service members. When I spoke to the Purple Heart receipiants, a WWII
vet raised his hand and started sobbing and said, "Where were you when
I came home?" I had a Korean wife say to me last weekend, Battle Creek
VA, if you had been around 40 years ago I would not be divorced from my
husband who is a Korean vet because now I understand why we had all
the problems we had. This isn't PTSD. This is a warrior taking his
uniform off and trying to come home. We have operational stress, we
have grief issues, we have lost a year or more in whatever life it was
we thought we were going to have. We have depression, we have anger
issues, we have PTSD, we have all king of issues. Please, please,
please stop just calling it PTSD, I want to be called a combat vet
coming home with some issues. Thank you. Wednesday's snapshot covered Tuesday's House Armed Services Committee's Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing. Dana Milbank (Washington Post) covered it in depth (and was noted in that day's snapshot) Talk Radio News Service provided a summary of the main points and that was it from the press. Today the New York Times makes that hearing their lead editorial (A18), entitled " Wounded Warriors, Empty Promises" and describes it as "the latest low moment for Army brass". From the editorial: Under
skepitcal questioning during a hearing in February, Lt. Gen. Eric
Schoomaker, the Army surgeon general, told the subcomittee that "for
all intents and pruposes, we are entirely staffed at the point we need
to be staffed." He also said: "The Army's unwavering commitment and a
key element of our warrior ethos is that we never leave a soldier
behind on the battlefield -- or lost in a bureaucracy." That
was thousands of wounded, neglected soldiers ago. There are now about
12,500 soldiers assigned to the warrior transition units -- more than
twice as many as a year ago. The number is expected to reach 20,000 by
this time next year. The nation's
responsibility to care for the wounded from Iraq and Afghanistan will
extend for decades. After Tuesday's hearing, we are left pondering the
simple questions asked at the outset by Representative Susan Davis, the
California Democrat who is chairwoman of the military personnel
subcommittee: Why did the Army fail to adequately staff its warrior
transition units? Why did it fail to predict the surge in demand? And
why did take visits from a Congressional subcommittee to prod the Army
into recognizing and promising -- yet again -- to fix the problem? Still on Congress and veterans, Edward Colimore (Philadelphia Inquirer) reported
on a Congressional bill 'addressing' stop-loss. Stop-loss is the
(illegal) policy by which Bully Boy has extended service members'
length of service. The service contract has been completed but instead
of moving towards discharge, Bully Boy is claiming a national emergency
and extending service. If the Iraq War has caused a "national
emergency" for the United States, you certainly can't tell it by the
tiny trickle of reporting on the Iraq War. So Congress has decided to
'address' it. By writing a law making clear how unlawful the policy is?
No, by tossing out a few dollars at the problem -- "an additional
$1,500 a month of extnded duty . . . retroactive to October 2001". If
this is step-one, it's needed. It's past due. But if this is the 'fix,'
it's not repairing anything. IVAW's Kristopher Goldsmith favors ending
the illegal stop-loss and tells Colimore, "Instead of being a civilian
again and starting my life, I was doing the polar opposite: putting on
a unifoorm and returning to Iraq. I had come back with pretty severe
PTSD and depression and was having panic attacks." It's
Friday. And Gidget's finishing up the World Salvation Tour so the
press can't be bothered too much with Iraq. In the limited reports
from Iraq . . . Bombings? Reuters notes a Mosul roadside bombing that left three police officers injured. Shootings? Corpses? Turning
to US presidential politics and starting with Gidget the presumptive
nominee of the Democratic Party. But don't tell his staff that.
Apparently, selecting his shade of lip gloss tires them out. Which is
why the Telegraph of London's Toby Harnden (at RealClearPolitics) explains that
Jim Steinberg got huffy with the press and started talking about how
when he worked for another president (Bill Clinton), he never had to go
on record with the press -- only to have the press remind Steinberg
that Barack was not president. He's not even the nominee. But don't
confuse them. Susan Rice -- lunatic and War Hawk -- was defending
Barack Does Berlin and insisting he wasn't be political, "When the
President of the United States goes and gives a speech, it is not a
political speech or a political rally." Causing a reporter to shoot
back, "But he is not President of the United States." It's all so
confusing for the Cult. He's not even the nominee yet. Cedric and Wally weighed in on Ms. Minelli's Cabaret last night. Ralph Nader is a presidential candidate, not a 'presumptive' one, an actual candidate for president. Stealing from Marcia yesterday, " Ruth ( Ruth's Report) has been covering it, Kat [ Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills) ] has been covering it, Elaine ( Like Maria Said Paz) has been covering it, Rebecca ( Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude ) has been covering it. C.I. ( The Common Ills) has covered it over and over and Third Estate Sunday Review has covered it." She had noted Mike
in the previous paragraphs but he's covered BonusGate as
well. BonusGate, where at least 50 Democrats conspired to keep Ralph
Nader off the state's ballot in the 2004 eleciton. John L. Micek (The Morning Call) explains
that Pennsylvania's AG Tom Corbett was "armed with a 74-page grand jury
presentation two weeks ago, alleged that Democratic House employees
worked to challenge the 51,273 signatures Nader and running mate Peter
Camejo had gathered for access to the 2004 presidential ballot. A dozen
former and current House Democratic lawmakers and employees face theft,
conspiracy and conflict of interest charges, partly for their alleged
role in derailing Nader's campaign." Nader held a news conference on
the issue yesterday. Charles Thompson (The Patriot-News) reports
"Nader wants relief from an $81,102 penalty for legal costs following
court battles over his presidential nomination petition in 2004. He
said he will file a challenge with the state Supreme Court. Nader said
those damages should be dropped in light of criminal charges brought
this month" and quotes Nader stating, "This was one of the most
fraudulent and deceitful exercises ever perpetrated on Pennsylvania
voters." Amy Worden (Philadelphia Inquirer) quotes
him stating, "According to the grand jury, millions of dollars in
taxpayer funds, resources and state employees were illegally used for
political campaign purposes -- including to remove the Nader-Camejo
ticket from the ballot." Alex Roarty (Politicker) reported yesterday, ""House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese
(D-Greene County), law firms and the country's 'corrupt' two-party
system -- each were warned Wednesday by Ralph Nader that the ongoing ' Bonusgate'
investigations will reveal their rampant political corruption."
Surprisingly, "Democracy" "Now" can't be bothered with this story.
While addressing all of that, Nader's still running a presidential
campaign and Nader and Matt Gonzalez are on the move all weekend. From Team Nader: We need gas money. Why? Starting today, Ralph Nader is on the road again. This time campaigning through the South and then out West. Over the next two weeks, Ralph will be in South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, Utah and up and down California. His VP, Matt Gonazalez, will be joining Ralph on the campaign trail starting in Texas. Check out the schedule below. If you are in the neighborhood, come on out to hear and meet Ralph and Matt. With
both Obama and McCain saber rattling over Iran, the Nader/Gonzalez
message of peace through justice is now more important than ever. If your friends or relatives in the neighborhood, give them a shout and let them know. But right now, we need gas money to fuel Ralph's South and West Coast Tour. We've rented a car. Gas prices are high. And Ralph is on the move. So, please donate whatever you can now to fill up our tank. You can give up to $4,600. But $500, $100, $50 - whatever you can donate is what we need. Help us fill 'er up. So we can get 'er done. Onward. The Nader Team Ralph Nader's Tour of the South and West Friday July 25, 2008 5:30 p.m. Athens, Georgia Nader for President 2008 Rally University of Georgia, Georgia Center- "Masters Hall" 1127 South Lumpkin St. Athens, GA 30602 Contribution- $10/ $5 student (404) 446-7093 or events@votenader.org Friday July 25, 2008 8 p.m. Atlanta, Georgia Evening with Ralph Suggested Contribution $100 min RSVP (202) 471-5833 Saturday July 26, 2008, 6 p.m. Jackson, Mississippi Book Signing/ Speech Lemuria Bookstore 202 Banner Hall- I-55 North Jackson, MS 39206 (601) 842-6769 or events@votenader.org Saturday July 26, 2008 8:00 p.m. Jackson, Mississippi Evening with Ralph Nader RSVP (202) 471-5833 Suggested Contribution $50 Sunday July 27, 2008 2:00 p.m. Houston, Texas Ralph Nader w/ Matt Gonzalez Hilton University of Houston 4800 Calhoun Suite 207, Houston, TX77204 Contribution- $10/$5 student (202) 471-5833 or events@votenader.org Sunday July 27, 2008 7:30 p.m. Austin, Texas Ralph Nader w/ Matt Gonzalez Trinity United Methodist Church 600 East 50th St. Austin, TX 78751 Contribution $10/$5 student (202) 471-5833 or events@votenader.org Thursday July 31, 2008 7:30pm Salt Lake City, Utah Nader for President 2008 Rally w/ Rocky Anderson Libby Gardner Concert Hall 1375 E President Circle, Salt Lake UT Contribution-$10/ $5 students (801) 916-6307 or ashley@votenader.rog Saturday, August 2, 2008, 8:00 p.m. Davis, California Nader for President 2008 Speech Ralph Nader w/ Matt Gonzalez Varsity Theater 616 Second Street Davis, CA 95616 Contribution: $10/ $5 students (202) 471-5833 or events@votenader.org Sunday August 3, 1:30 p.m. Sebastopol, California Nader for President Speech Ralph Nader w/ Matt Gonzalez Sebastopol Community Center 390 Morris St., Sebastopol, California 95472 Contribution: $10/ $5 students (202) 471-5833 or events@votenader.org August 3, 2008, 4:30pm Healdsburg, California Nader for President Speech Ralph Nader w/ Matt Gonzalez Copperfield's books 104 Matheson St., Healdsburg, California 95448 Contribution: $10/ $5 students (202) 471-5833 or events@votenader.org August 3, 7:30 p.m. Kentfield, California Nader for President 2008 Speech in Marin Ralph Nader w/ Matt Gonzalez College of Marin- Olney Hall 835 College Ave., Kentfield, California Contribution: $10/ $5 students More Info: (415) 897-6989 or events@votenader.org PS: We invite your comments to the blog. NOW on PBS
(begins airing tonight in most markets) sits down with John Edwards to
discuss the troubles facing families across the country, some struggle
to make it in single parent homes, for example. Bill Moyers Journal
explores torture (among other topics) and Jane Mayer is a guest. BMJ's
Michael Winship files an editorial on torture, "The Company We Keep:" The
administration remains in denial. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft
told the House Judiciary Committee, "I don't know of any acts of
torture that have been committed by individuals in developing
information," he said. "So I would not certainly make an assumption. I
would attribute the absence of an attack [since 9/11] at least in part,
because there have been specific attacks that have been disrupted, to
the excellent work and the dedication and commitment of people whose
lives are dedicated to defending the country. Interrogators have used
enhanced interrogation techniques but they haven't used torture." Grim
hairsplitting. This week, as the result of a Freedom of Information Act
suit, the ACLU received a heavily redacted copy of an infamous August
2, 2002 memo, signed by then-head of the Justice Department's Office of
Legal Counsel Jay Bybee and written with his subordinate, the equally
infamous John Yoo. "An individual must have the specific intent to
inflict severe pain or suffering," it reads. "… The absence of specific
intent negates the charge of torture… We have further found that if a
defendant acts with the good faith belief that his actions will not
cause such suffering, he has not acted with specific intent." Jameel
Jaffer, head of the ACLU's national security project told Spencer
Ackerman of The Washington Independent, "Imagine that in an ordinary
criminal prosecution a bank robber tortures a bank manager to get the
combination to a vault. He argues that the torture was not to inflict
pain, but to get the combination. Every torturer has a reason other
than to cause pain. If you're going to let people off the hook for an
intention other than to cause pain, you're not going to be able to
prosecute anyone for torture." Deborah Pearlstein, a
constitutional scholar and human rights lawyer who has spent time at
Guantanamo monitoring conditions there, testified to Congress that, "As
of 2006, there had been more than 330 cases in which U.S. military and
civilian personnel have, incredibly, alleged to have abused or killed
detainees. This figure is based almost entirely on the U.S.
government's own documentation. These cases involved more than 600 U.S.
personnel and more than 460 detainees held at U.S. facilities
throughout Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay. They included some
l00-plus detainees who died in U.S. custody, including 34 whose deaths
the Defense Department reports as homicides. At least eight of these
detainees were, by any definition of the term, tortured to death." More is online at Bill Moyers Journal
where you can watch, listen or read (transcripts) and BMJ never forgets
to serve all communities and remembers public television's key word is
"public." On Washington Week, Gwen and the Gas Bags jaw over the non-news. Helene Cooper ( New York Times) is the only one qualified to address the international scene so expect a lot of snorts, bromides and tidbits from the rest. iraq camilo mejia |
Posted at 03:30 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
While serving in Iraq several years ago, Thomas James Hermann had what he called an awakening.Hermann,
a Barre farm worker, spent 16 months in the country after signing up
for the Army soon after the March 2003 invasion. At the time, it was a
war he supported. That perspective quickly changed."I
began to have a lot of empathy for the people of Iraq and that really
opened my eyes," said the Iraq war veteran on Thursday at the Old Labor
Hall in Barre. "I saw that there are more than just two sides to every
situation."Hermann is now
challenging U.S. Rep. Peter Welch, Vermont's freshman Democrat, who he
says has fallen far short of his campaign promises in 2006 to rein in
the politics of President Bush's administration and end the
five-year-old war in Iraq.The
29-year-old is running as a member of the Vermont Progressive Party and
is the only major party candidate challenging Welch this year in the
general election after the state's Republican Party failed to put
forward a candidate.The above is from Daniel Barlow's " Veteran of Iraq war challenges Welch for seat" ( The Barre Montpelier Times Argus) and Hermann doesn't appear to have a website yet. Staying with the topic of veterans, Les Blumenthal (McClatchy Newspapers) reports on yesterday's Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing: The
Department of Veterans Affairs failed to send benefit packages to
nearly 37,000 National Guard and Reserve members who fought in Iraq and
Afghanistan because it mistakenly thought they were ineligible.Several
senators raised the discovery Wednesday, detailed in a report by the
VA's Office of Inspector General, as the Senate Veterans' Affairs
Committee held a hearing on whether Guard and Reserve members are being
adequately informed of the benefits that are available to them."While
the VA has targeted outreach programs in place to help service members,
we still miss far too many veterans who need help and aren't aware of
the services and benefits they have earned," said Sen. Patty Murray,
D-Wash., a senior member of the committee.Murray
and others have long criticized the VA and the Defense Department as
not doing enough to ensure that the more than 488,000 members of the
National Guard and Reserves who've been mobilized and deployed are
notified of and receive the benefits they're entitled to.Turning to US politics, we'll again note this from Team Nader: Nader Releases Letter to Conyers on Impeachment Hearing News Release FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Chris Driscoll, 202-360-3273, chris@votenader.org NADER RELEASES LETTER TO CONYERS ON IMPEACHMENT HEARING WASHINGTON,
July 23, 2008----Independent Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader today
sent the following letter to U.S. House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers
on the hearings about presidential misconduct scheduled for Friday,
July 25.
July 23, 2008
Chairman John Conyers House Judiciary Committee U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Chairman Conyers:
For
years I have been urging you to initiate a resolution of impeachment of
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for chronic, repeated violations of our
Constitution and the many "high crimes and misdemeanors" they commit
day after day. These two men are the worst recidivist impeachable
occupiers of the Presidency and Vice Presidency in American history.
Since assuming power over both Houses, the Democratic leadership declared impeachment to be "off the table."
During
our 2004 Nader/Camejo independent campaign for the Presidency, we
invited the American people to sign on in support of our demand for the
impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Many thousands of
citizens signed.
We have had several conversations and two
meetings where impeachment was discussed. On March 24, 2008, I wrote
you a letter describing the various options open to you as chairman of
the House Judiciary Committee (see enclosed.)
A
few days ago, it was reported that your Committee will hold hearings
this Friday July 25, 2008 on Congressman Dennis Kucinich's article of
impeachment referred to your jurisdiction.
You have invited four
members of the House to testify including, of course, Congressman
Kucinich and several observers of the subject, including the
inestimable former mayor of Salt Lake City Rocky Anderson, Bruce Fein
and John Dean. The Libertarian candidate for President, Bob Barr is
also on the witness list, but I am not.
This is not the first
time that I have been excluded from testifying on subjects both of us
have been concerned about and have discussed. Remember your invitation
to testify at your unofficial public hearing right after the 2004
elections regarding "irregularities" in Ohio? Within two days, your
chief of staff, Perry Applebaum, persuaded you to disinvite me.
Applebaum
has been a problem with my appearing before a Committee Chairman whom I
have known, admired and worked with for nearly forty years. He has
performed his exclusionary behavior on other occasions. It is time to
make this public and to ascertain why he prevails again and again with
his superior either not to invite or to deny requests to testify
regarding subjects well within my knowledge, experience, and
forthrightness.
Sincerely, Ralph Nader P.O. Box 34103 Washington, D.C. 20043 For more information on the Nader/Gonzalez Campaign, see: VoteNader.org
-End- ShareThisShareThisShareThis The
hearing takes place today; however, Conyers and others think they can
use the Congress for their own partisan gain. They think they can
decide who is the "good" Democrat (Barack's really taken over the
party!) and it's appalling. The Nader team has many events beginning today and extending over the weekend: - Friday July 25th, 12pm
- Lunch w/ Ralph Nader
- Columbia, SC
- RSVP (202) 471-5833
- Suggested Contribution $50
- Map it
- Friday July 25th, 5:30pm
- Nader for President 2008 Rally
- Athens, GA
- University of Georgia, Georgia Center- "Masters Hall"
- 1127 South Lumpkin St. Athens, GA 30602
- Contribution- $10/ $5 student
- (404) 446-7093 or events@votenader.org
- Map it
- Friday July 25th, 8pm
- Evening with Ralph
- Atlanta, GA
- Suggested Contribution $100 min
- RSVP (202) 471-5833
- Map it
- Sat. July 26th, 6pm
- Book Signing/ Speech
- Jackson, MS
- Lemuria Bookstore
- 202 Banner Hall- I-55 North Jackson, MS 39206
- (601) 842-6769 or events@votenader.org
- Map it
- Sat. July 26th, 8:00pm
- Evening with Ralph Nader
- Jackson, MS
- RSVP (202) 471-5833
- Suggested Contribution $50
- Map it
- Sun. July 27th, 2pm
- Ralph Nader w/ Matt Gonzalez
- Houston, TX
- Hilton University of Houston
- 4800 Calhoun Suite 207, Houston, TX77204
- Contribution- $10/$5 student
- (202) 471-5833 or events@votenader.org
- Map it
- Sun. July 27th, 7:30pm
- Ralph Nader w/ Matt Gonzalez
- Austin, TX
- Trinity United Methodist Church
- 600 East 50th St. Austin, TX 78751
- Contribution $10/$5 student
- (202) 471-5833 or events@votenader.org
- Map it
NOW on PBS
(begins airing tonight in most markets) sits down with John Edwards to
discuss the troubles facing families across the country, some struggle
to make it in single parent homes, for example. Bill Moyers Journal explores torture (among other topics). On Washington Week, Gwen and the Gas Bags jaw over the non-news. Helene Cooper ( New York Times) is the only one qualified to address the international scene so expect a lot of snorts, bromides and tidbits from the rest. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraq daniel barlow les blumenthal amy worden washington week pbs bill moyer journal now on pbs helene cooper
Posted at 06:30 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Kamal
was just 16 when gunmen snatched him off the streets of Baghdad,
stuffed him in the trunk of a car and whisked him away to a house. But
the real terror was about to begin. The men realized he was gay, Kamal said, when he took his shirt off and they saw that his chest was shaved. "They
told me to take off my clothes to rape me or they would kill me
immediately. This moment was the worst moment in my life," he said,
weeping as he spoke of the 2005 ordeal. "I was watching them taking
off their clothes, preparing to rape me. I did not know what to do, so
I started shouting loudly, 'Please do not do that! I will ask my family
to give you whatever you want.'"The above is from Frederik Pleitgen, Mohammed Tawfeeq and Wayne Drash's " Gays in Iraq terrorized by threats, rape, murder"
(CNN) and, if you look really hard, you can find a few things that are
news and are about Iraq. If you look really, really hard. In
terms of the papers, you're best skipping all but the New York Times.
Want a lot of fluff about 'glamor' that ignores why Miramax, et al are
'helping' Kuridstand? Rush to the Los Angeles Times and take a garbage bag. Richard A. Oppel Jr.'s " 8 Die in Iraq in Suicide Bombing, Apparently by Woman" ( New York Times) covers the bombing in Baquba yesterday: If
the explosion proves to have been carried out by a female suicide
bomber it will be at least the 16th time that a woman has donned a bomb
and exploded herself in Diyala Province since last year.Wearing
billowy, black head-to-toe garments, the female bombers have been able
to conceal powerful explosives and slip into crowded areas too heavily
guarded for a male suicide bomber to ease through undetected. While men
often undergo physical searches, Islamic rules do not allow male
security officers to pat down women.It
was not immediately clear how many of Mr. Dulaimi's guards and militia
fighters were among the victims in Baquba. The dead also included two
police officers, and six police officers were among the wounded. A
local council member was also killed, according to an Iraqi security
official.Alissa J. Rubin covers
Iraqi collaborators with the US who are having immigration problems. We
are not interested in that story. We will never be interested in that
topic. If you are, there's a link. (And if you're confused, the widows,
the children, the elderly, these huge, vast groups, have no advocates
for them. The fact that the US military will advocate for the
collaborators mean they have all the help they need.) Returning to Oppel, he also contributes " State Department Inspector to Investigate Texas Oil Company’s Deal in Kurdistan"
which explores the continued attempts to get infomation about the deal
Hunt Oil made with the Kurdistan region -- bypassing and undercutting
the central government in Baghdad -- while the US State Dept did . . .
what? Nothing? ". . . earlier this month a Congressional committee
released internal e-mail messages and documents from the State
Department and Hunt Oil that suggested that State Department officials
did not try to dissuade Hunt Oil from signing the deal with the Kurds."
State Dept Inspector General (acting), Harold W. Geisel has announced
an investigation. Turning to US politics, " Why Workers World is endorsing Cynthia McKinney for president" ( Workers World): Workers
World newspaper in the past has supported the candidates of Workers
World Party running for national office in the U.S. presidential
elections and who have put forward a revolutionary socialist program.
This time we are taking the unusual step of endorsing the candidacy of
Cynthia McKinney because these are unique times and this is a unique
candidate.McKinney, a
courageous Black woman and former U.S. Congresswoman from Georgia, has
become one of the most militant leaders and voices for the U.S. left,
progressive and Black movements.Because
of her militancy in the struggle against the war, the struggle to
impeach Bush, as well as her struggle to expose the government’s role
in the displacement of survivors of Hurricane Katrina, she was branded
too Black and too radical to walk the halls of Congress. She was pushed
out, not once but twice, by the leadership of the Democratic Party.
Last year, McKinney severed her ties to that party.On
July 12, McKinney and her running mate, activist Rosa Clemente, won the
Green Party’s nomination to run for president and vice-president,
respectively. The Green Party’s nomination will put McKinney on the
ballot in about 20 states, which is no small thing in the U.S. where
the ruling class has made it very hard for any electoral formation
independent of, and even slightly to the left of, the two major
ruling-class parties to get ballot status. The Green Party is not the
reason why we are supporting McKinney.McKinney’s
"Power to the People Campaign" gets most of its program from the draft
program of the still-in-formation Reconstruction Party. Activists in
New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, together with supporters nationwide,
have been developing a Reconstruction Party as a mass political vehicle
to fight for the reconstruction of the Gulf and justice for Katrina
survivors.The draft program
of the Reconstruction Party is inspired by the program of the original
Black Panther Party. The Reconstruction Party draft program calls for,
among other things: self-determination for Black people, the relocation
of displaced survivors of Katrina back to the Gulf, jobs, healthcare
and housing, reparations for Black people, an end to racist terror and
political repression, an end to the prison-industrial complex and an
end to the war.McKinney's
campaign is laying the foundation for a radical coalition of Black,
Latino, Asian and Indigenous activists, trade unionists, progressives
and revolutionaries. This is important and timely.We
have no illusions regarding the difficulty that McKinney's campaign
will face, because this presidential election is like none other before
it.The economic crisis and prospects for class struggleBarack
Obama is the first Black person to be the nominee of a ruling-class
party, and he could be the first Black president of the U.S. Many are
understandably excited about Obama's candidacy, especially Black people.No
matter how far Obama moves to the right, most likely Black people are
going to come out in unprecedented numbers in November in the hopes of
achieving something that very few thought possible a year ago. Apart
from Black voters, many others will vote for Obama in November for
reasons that are historically progressive. And some will not vote for
Obama because of his name, because they think he's Muslim and because
he's Black.Race, or what some of us call the national question, is central to this year’s election.But
then there is the negative side to this contradictory development.
Should Obama win the election (a prospect that shouldn't be considered
certain), the U.S. imperialist ruling class will have a gifted Black
politician to help them save their troubled empire. An Obama presidency
as the face of an imperialist state will not change anything
fundamental, but on the surface it will mark a change, a new situation.The
U.S. capitalist class desperately needs to try something new to help
them with their overlapping crises of deepening economic turmoil and
imperialist war. In the board rooms of Wall Street, some are, no doubt,
hoping that someone like Obama can delay or derail an uprising against
widespread depression-level social conditions, or at least be the
scapegoat for the unbearable misery that the ruling class has in store
for workers.The Obama
phenomenon is more than anything else a sign that the period of
political reaction, which has held the working class back and weakened
revolutionary movements, organizations and their revolutionary ideas,
is coming to an end.No
matter who wins the election, the magnitude of the spiraling crisis of
world imperialism, centered here in the U.S., is going to challenge all
the forces who share an anti-imperialist, working-class-centered
socialist orientation to put aside narrow views, sectarian habits and
small differences that have festered during a long and demoralizing
period of world reaction.The
material conditions for resurgence of the working class may sooner than
later reach levels not seen in this country since the 1930s. In order
for the working-class movement to grow politically and
organizationally, it will take time, experience in the class struggle,
and the assistance of conscious political forces who are dedicated to
reviving the struggle.What
is required of all of us who consider ourselves among the dedicated? At
a minimum it is a higher level of clarity, seriousness, confidence,
solidarity and coalition building.McKinney's
campaign is Black-led, anti-imperialist, working-class-centered and has
a multinational radical base with the potential of unlimited growth.Of
course, we believe that the struggle should not be confined to the
electoral arena, especially as the capitalist ruling class completely
dominates the electoral process. We must be in the streets fighting the
war, fighting foreclosures and evictions, fighting in solidarity with
immigrant workers, etc. However, Workers World believes that supporting
the McKinney campaign is a step forward towards the path that the
movement needs to take.Articles
copyright 1995-2008 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of
this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided
this notice is preserved.Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011Email: ww@workers.org Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.phpAs noted in yesterday's snapshot: Staying with women, Cynthia McKinney
and Rosa Clemente (McKinney is the Green party presidential nominee,
Clemente is her running mate) are not the first women of color ticket
in a US presidential race. Amy Goodman repeated that nonsense on Monday
(and we called it out Monday -- and Jim did with the note he added to my morning entry) and has refused to correct it. As noted in the July 11th snapshot and many times since: " What About Our Daughters? explains
that, if McKinney is the nominee, this is the third time two women of
color would be on the ticket with the first being Lenora Fulani and
Maria Elizabeth Munoz in 1992 (New Alliance Party) and Monica Moorehead
and Gloria La Riva (Workers World Party) in 1996." Workers World Party
confirmed to Martha this week that, yes, Moorehead and La Riva were
women of color and also noted that the party's publication (Workers World) has endorsed a presidential candidate for this election: [. . .] Thank you to Martha.
Amy Goodman never issued a correction. She 'misses' a great deal such
as efforts to attack democracy. Turning to BonusGate, where at least 50
Democrats conspired to keep Ralph Nader off the state's ballot in the
2004 eleciton. From John L. Micek's " Nader wants feds to investigate state Democrats" ( The Morning Call): Attorney
General Tom Corbett, armed with a 74-page grand jury presentment two
weeks ago, alleged that Democratic House employees worked to challenge
the 51,273 signatures Nader and running mate Peter Camejo had gathered
for access to the 2004 presidential ballot.A
dozen former and current House Democratic lawmakers and employees face
theft, conspiracy and conflict of interest charges, partly for their
alleged role in derailing Nader's campaign.On
Thursday, Nader's attorney, Oliver Hall of the Center for Competitive
Democracy in Washington, D.C., took aim at House Majority Leader BillDeWeese's
claims that he was unaware that his staff and his second-in-command,
then-Democratic Whip Michael Veon, were engaged in allegedly illegal
activity."Where was Bill
DeWeese?" Hall asked. "He hasn't been indicted, but [former DeWeese
chief of staff Michael] Manzo and Veon have. Attorney General Corbett
has made clear that his investigation is ongoing, and we would urge him
to focus on the role of Bill DeWeese. This needs to be clarified."Charles Thompson's " BONUS SCANDAL: Nader hits deceit in '04 fight on petition" ( The Patriot-News) continues the story: Nader
wants relief from an $81,102 penalty for legal costs following court
battles over his presidential nomination petition in 2004. He said he
will file a challenge with the state Supreme Court.Nader
said those damages should be dropped in light of criminal charges
brought this month by Attorney General Tom Corbett against 12 people
with ties to the state House Democratic caucus. Among allegations of
illegal activities, Corbett said House Democratic staffers were
deployed on state time in a successful effort to get Nader knocked off
the ballot four years ago. "This
was one of the most fraudulent and deceitful exercises ever perpetrated
on Pennsylvania voters," Nader said. He added that it was symptomatic
of attempts to quash independent and small-party candidates across the
nation.And from Amy Worden's " Nader to ask Pa. court to reopen presidential nomination case" ( Philadelphia Inquirer): "According
to the grand jury, millions of dollars in taxpayer funds, resources and
state employees were illegally used for political campaign purposes -
including to remove the Nader-Camejo ticket from the ballot," Nader
said at a news conference here.The
Supreme Court in 2006 upheld a lower court order for Nader and his
running mate, Peter Miguel Camejo, to pay the court costs.In
announcing the indictments of Rep. Sean Ramaley (D., Beaver), former
House Minority Whip Mike Veon, and 10 former and current House
Democratic staffers on July 10, Attorney General Tom Corbett described
a "massive" effort by Democrats to oust Nader in order to help
Democratic candidate John Kerry win Pennsylvania.As
many as 50 House staff members worked on a challenge to Nader's ballot
petition, and more than half received state-funded bonuses, in part for
their "Nader efforts," according to the grand jury report.The
grand jury report also cited Democratic efforts to bounce former Green
Party candidate Carl Romanelli, who in 2006 challenged Democrat Bob
Casey for a U.S. Senate seat, from the ballot. Last week, Romanelli
asked the Supreme Court to reopen his ballot-access case on similar
grounds.Bonnie notes this from the Nader Team: 15 Dollars, 15 States, 15 Days Drop fifteen dollars now on Nader/Gonzalez. Why? We now enter the most difficult and challenging ballot access stretch of the campaign. We need to get on fifteen more states in fifteen days. Last month, we laid out an ambitious ballot access plan. Thanks to you, we have met stages one and two on time and on schedule. Now, on to stage three -- 15 more states, a total of 30 states, by August 10 -- on our way to 45 states by September 15. And we need to raise $100,000 by August 10 to fuel that drive and push us over the $2 million mark for the campaign. Why is it important to put Ralph Nader on the ballot -- and get him into the Presidential debates this fall? For one, because Nader is the only candidate who would take the bombing of Iran "off the table." As Obama made clear yesterday in Israel, he's keeping the military option against Iran "on the table." As would McCain. And if you doubt the seriousness of the situation, check out Israeli historian Benny Morris' recent Op-Ed in the New York Times in which he predicts that Israel will bomb Iran within four to seven months. Cooler heads must prevail.
While McCain and Obama are fueling the Israeli drive to bomb Iran, even
some of their own advisors are warning about the disastrous
consequences of such a policy. Yesterday, Brent Scowcroft told the Israelis
to "calm down" and Obama advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski said the "all
options on the table" talk was "counterproductive." Brzezinski said he
would tell Israel "don't do it." That's of course why we need the strong Nader/Gonzalez off the table voice in the debates. And the chances improve as we continue to poll at or above five percent -- see yesterday's NBC/WSJ poll here.
This was the third major poll putting us at five percent and above.
(Remember, John Anderson and Ross Perot both got into Presidential
debates because they met the then threshold of five percent.) So, please, we need 1,000 of you, our loyal supporters, to hit the button now and contribute $15 each to kick off our drive to get to 30 states. How will your generous donations help us on the ground? Think
about the more than 50 young at heart, dedicated road trippers working
10 and 12 hours, day after day -- working through blazing hot summer
afternoons, ducking under covered awnings during heavy thunderstorms,
and bringing the Nader/Gonzalez message to thousands of voters state by
state. We need your $15 donation to help buy gas for their rental cars, feed them, and help pay for thousands of photo copies. We need your $15 donation to help buy Greyhound bus tickets, Amtrak tickets and airplane tickets. Of
course, we're always looking for one or two angels willing to max out
and cover the "filing fees" -- like the one in West Virginia that will
cost us $2,500. How badly and urgently do we need your help? - Our New Hampshire crew needs to collect 4,000 signatures in 10 days -- that's 400 a day.
- In Maine, starting Saturday, our crew has 12 days to collect 5,000 signatures.
- Our people in Ralph's home state of Connecticut need to collect more than 700 signatures a day over the next 13 days.
- In South Dakota, we need 1,500 signatures 10 days.
- In Wyoming, we need 2,000 more signatures in 10 days.
- In Virginia, we need to collect 600 signatures a day over the next couple of weeks.
- In the Buckeye State, our Ohio crew needs to collect 11,000 signatures in the next couple of weeks -- 350 to 400 a day.
In short, our backs are up against the wall. And the best way you can help get us on the ballot is to donate $15 now. Help us lift off toward the debates in November. Thank you for your generous support. Together, we are shaking it up. Onward The Nader Team ShareThisShareThis The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraq frederik pleitgen mohammed tawfeeq wayne drash richard a. oppel jr. the new york times alissa j. rubin workers world john l. micek charles thompson
Posted at 06:30 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Two
years earlier a soldier like those, who openly opposes the Iraq war,
quietly returned to his home in Utah. Sgt. Marshall Thompson had served
in the military as a journalist for six years, previously in Kosovo,
from where he returned proud of the work he had done. Returning from
Iraq was a very different experience. "I just had to do something," he
since said about that time. "This is an unjust war. I couldn't not do
something." What he decided to do was to set out on a 500-mile walk
for peace across the conservative, pro-war state of Utah and to make a
documentary about the journey. Many people who now oppose the war are
branded in the media and by certain members of the government as
un-American, unpatriotic, or worse, some sort of enemy of the state. It
would be difficult to label Sgt. Thompson in this way. He is a devout
Mormon and the son of a former Mayor of Logan, Utah, not to mention a
soldier who has served for a significant amount of time. In fact, he
considers himself to be very patriotic. The film that documents
Thompson's story will be screened on Saturday at 7:30 p.m. at the
Westhaven Center in Trinidad. It is being presented by Ted Pease, a
journalism professor at Utah State University, who lives locally when
he is not in Utah. Pease knows Thompson from the days when he was his
teacher and they have remained friends.The above is from Robyn Hillman-Harrigan's " A Soldiers Peace to be screened at Westhaven Center" ( Times-Standard). Meanwhile, Edward Colimore's " A move to take care of 'stop-loss' service members" ( Philadelphia Inquirer)
reports on a Congressional bill 'addressing' stop-loss. Stop-loss is
the (illegal) policy by which Bully Boy has extended service members'
length of service. The service contract has been completed but instead
of moving towards discharge, Bully Boy is claiming a national emergency
and extending service. If the Iraq War has caused a "national
emergency" for the United States, you certainly can't tell it by the
tiny trickle of reporting on the Iraq War. So Congress has decided to
'address' it. By writing a law making clear how unlawful the policy is?
No, by tossing out a few dollars at the problem -- "an additional
$1,500 a month of extnded duty . . . retroactive to October 2001". If
this is step-one, it's needed. It's past due. But if this is the 'fix,'
it's not repairing anything. From the article: Though
also in favor of the additional pay, Kristopher Goldsmith said he would
much rather see stop-loss ended. The policy, he said, nearly ended his
life. A former Army sergeant, the Long Island, N.Y., resident served
in Iraq in 2005, returned home, and was called up again - under a
stop-loss order - to be part of the troop surge last year. "Instead
of being a civilian again and starting my life, I was doing the polar
opposite: putting on a uniform and returning to Iraq," said Goldsmith,
a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, an anti-war group with 47 chapters across the country. "I had come back with pretty severe PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder] and depression and was having panic attacks." He said he attempted suicide on Memorial Day last year and received a general discharge. Such
stories leave former soldiers such as Steve Mortillo, 25, of West
Philadelphia, unimpressed by the extra money being sought for the
troops. "I'm glad people realize the situation soldiers are in,"
said Mortillo, an Army specialist who served in Iraq from 2004 to 2005
and is president of the Philadelphia chapter of Iraq Veterans Against the War, which has 1,200 members. The extra pay "is better than nothing, but it doesn't address the larger issue."Now we're into the talking entry portion. Jess wrote " Dear Late To The Party"
this evening. He has every right to express his opinion, he's doing me
a favor by helping out with the e-mails. I'm not disagreeing with
anything he wrote, but I am going to address some of what's behind it. The
Cult of St. Barack has been very illuminating and demonstrated just how
many posers make up the 'left' as they repeatedly found ways to excuse
the War Hawk. Jeremy
Scahill 'cut him slack' for his plan to keep contractors in Iraq and
savaged Hillary who was moving to the position Scahill claimed to
support. Allan
Nairn, pressed, had to admit that Barack took Big Money but then
quickly added the ridiculous 'justification' that if Barack didn't take
the money, Big Money wouldn't trust him. Poor Barack. You had Dave Lindorff nonsense that Barack should be supported as "a black candidate who has risked jail by doing drugs".
You had Amy Goodman turning over her program -- and all journalistic
standards -- to the Barack campaign. Pick any example but the
BIGGEST ETHICAL problem was her bringing on Melissa Harris-Lacewell to
discuss the New Hampshire primary and allowing MH-L to talk about the
candidates (she ignored Hillary -- that would be the winner of the New
Hampshire primary) and allowing Melissa Harris-Lacewell to deliver a
testimonial on a Barack speech she 'just happened' to catch when MH-L
has been campaigning for Barack since 2007 and Goodman damn well knew
that. You do not let someone who is part of the campaign come on
your program and praise the candidate without informing your audience
that the person is part of the campaign. Had she been an employee NPR
and pulled that stunt, it would have been grounds for dismissal.
Obviously Pacifica has no standards. If you missed it, that's
how KPFA offered a two-hour 'analysis' of the Texas debate that
featured only Barack endorsers but Larry Bensky and KPFA failed to
inform the listeners of that. Hillary lost that debate they cried
(or "cackled" to use the term Laura Flanders seemed unable to stop
repeating) and the listeners had a right to know that these
'independent' judgments were coming from people who had endorsed
Barack. There are many more examples and you can include Robert Parry's
latest attempt to scare up votes for Barack: The Supreme Court! You
might get another John Roberts! Uh, Barack's adviser Cass is the 'left'
voice that made Roberts acceptable. Everyone's sick of the
lies and the liars. "Alternative Media" is not supposed to translate as
"Democratic Party Organ." So there is a factor of disillusionment at
play. In terms of whom Jess is replying to, we're talking about
a Green who thought she had a right to butt into a Democratic primary,
who practiced Hillary Hatred and who pimped Barack. As offensive as all
of that is, it was her attempt to lecture Ty about how awful racism is.
And her attempt to minimize Barack's use of homophobia. For the record,
Ty doesn't need a White straight woman to tell him about either topic.
As an African-American male, he knows racism personally, he doesn't
need to hear lectures on how awful it is from a White woman. As a gay
man, he doesn't need to hear the same Barack-Loving-Freak tell him how
homophobia isn't that important. I got dragged into that because when
she continued to persist with her e-mails, Ty was too upset to write
her back. So when she e-mailed today and Jess saw it and saw her
attempting to order me to cover a topic (a topic we've covered for
weeks now but why should she be more informed today than she's been all
year?), he'd just had enough. None of us have ever e-mailed anyone
saying, "Please highlight us." And Jess is just damn sick of all these
people, especially that woman, showing up to take from this community
when they never give anything. It goes into the nonsense another
woman pulled. A four day event produced many panels. We praised all but
one. Instead of accepting the fact that, as critics, we're not just
going to toss out roses, she went from person to person, e-mailing,
trying to turn us against each other. While the panel was called out at
Third, in the same edition, Ava and I included strong aspect from it in
our TV commentary. So it's not as though it just got a pan. But that
wasn't good enough, it had to be 100% love from us or nothing at all. That's not how it works. We're not for sale and we don't take money from anyone. We are responsible only for this community and only to tell the truth as best we can and as we see it. Which brings us to that idiotic e-mail on July 4th. ABC
News reported something. Some idiot has to e-mail in (and, yes, he was
speaking for the war resister in question) and scream and yell at me
about how I hadn't done this or done that (I had covered the topics he
said I hadn't) and yell his conspiracy theories about ABC and his
nonsense about how I blindly accept the MSM. I had made all the
points he supposedly wanted made but reading is apparently too damn
difficult. Now The Nation's 'online exclusive' repeated the ABC story
and I seriously doubt he (or the war resister) e-mailed screaming at
them. That soured everyone. And we're still having to deal with
the fall out everytime it's time to write another edition for Third.
Yes, one bad apple can spoil everything for everyone. Especially when
they're manipulative. Now none of us expect thank yous or praise
for covering war resisters (when they are ignored by every outlet in
Panhandle Media). But we also don't expect little meltdowns from video
artistes. That goes straight to the lack of gratitude that Jess feels and that a number of others feel. It's
also irritating because this community is not for sale. No one helped
build it, the community built itself. There's no pledge drives, there's
no asking for money. As Gina has long pointed out, this is a private
conversation in a public sphere. If you don't like it, move on to other
sites. There's another area that I'm not supposed to know about
because it involves someone I know and like. But I do know about it.
Despite Ruth not saying a word to me about it. Ruth called out a media
critic for his silence on the sexism in the Democratic primary. As I'm
guessing it happened, he e-mailed Ruth a private e-mail where he
objected to her 'tone' (this part is really not guessing, she wrote
about it without identifying him and implying that he might just be a
drive-by, he wasn't, he was a media critic). He got the e-mail back
from her where she explained (in a tone he approved of) where he was
failing. She took her responses public noting at her site that if a
dialogue was sincerely wanted, then have that dialogue in public where
others could explore it as well. At which point, no more e-mails. What
appears to have happened is he didn't like being called out for
sleeping on the job, he wanted a private e-mail exchange where Ruth
would speak the way he wanted to speak. That is BULLS**T. I like him, I
know him, but that is bulls**t. Don't try to shame people for calling
you out for not doing your job. You want a dialogue, have one with Ruth
publicly. That's offended people. It's offended them because
Marcia has let it rip on the person in question and he KNOWS to avoid
Marcia because she's not going to put up with any of that s**t. Rebecca
wouldn't either. And Elaine made it clear (with AlterPunk) that you
snarl and hiss at her, she'll take your e-mail public and not even
delete your e-mail address when she does. You can yell and
scream all you want if you've been written about. You can't try to
manipulate and that's what's behind all of the anger, that some try to
manipulate. The panel we didn't care for resulted in rushing to
Rebecca, to Mike, to Elaine, to me. I don't know who else, but it was a
long list. Trying to turn us against one another. It's not going to
happen. Ruth was really excited by an e-mail praising her work
from a site we used to highlight. It was nothing but a fishing
expedition. Ruth was trusting. That site is not linked to anymore by
any of us as a result. Ruth and Jess are both trusting and you screw
with them and you piss us all off. FAIR wrote this site, with an
apology. Jess replied for me and included a few comments on his own. I
didn't ask him about the e-mail, I asked him to reply, but I never
asked him what he wrote. So imagine my shock when I'm hearing about
what he wrote not from him but from a friend at The Nation. I can't
believe it. I insist FAIR wouldn't have forwarded Jess' e-mail to The
Nation. My friend says, "Okay, check your inbox right now, I'm sending
it to you." All this time later and Jess has still not gotten an
apology. In fairness, FAIR -- in their apology -- was forwarding me
e-mails from a journalist to them. I didn't know that and would have
told Jess not to bother replying if I had known that. FAIR wanted to
apologize to me and wanted to then score some brownie points with The
Nation by forwarding Jess' e-mail. That's disgusting. Jess didn't say
anything embarrassing. He did reveal that we would be posting our six
month study on how few women The Nation was publishing on July 4th.
That's why Ben rushed in with his e-mail trying to kill that story. On
July 2nd. That's why Ben thought Third didn't have an e-mail address.
It was briefly down when the templates switched -- something noted by
Jess in his reply to FAIR. We could go on and on with a long,
long list. And I don't know the bulk of them. I haven't read all the
e-mails to the public account since January 2005. It's too much for one
person. Martha and Shirley give me a report and Eli gives me a report.
That's how they prefer to handle it. Ava and Jess can handle any e-mail
anyway they want. And if they handle it, there's no reason to even
bring me in on it. If it's an e-mail from someone complaining about
something that I wrote about them or their work, I will read that. And
it doesn't have to be polite and I don't get my feelings hurt. But
what's really going on is the attempts at manipulation. That started
very early with something Kat wrote where a man wanted her to retract
what she wrote. One sentence where she said stupid Bernie can love Bob
Dylan or not. And Bernie has a meltdown that she said he loved Bob
Dylan. No, she said "can." Can implies ability. But Kat's attitude is
pretty much the attitude non-stop in this community. We've had our say,
have your say. She told Bernie she'd post whatever comment he wanted at
her site. But that wasn't what he wanted. He wanted her to post these
statements of praise about him -- but as if she was writing them. That's
not how it works. You cannot put words into someone else's mouth. That
whole thing was so ridiculous and offensive. Kat's post only mentioned
jerk-off Bernie in one sentence (the "can" sentence). He'd already
responded by falsifying a sentence from her. (He took a sentence at her
site and intentionally misquoted it -- refusing to correct it unless
she posted his words as her own at her site.) Kat didn't give a damn
what he wrote about her and he had no other blackmail so he (and his
partner) slowly slinked away. Nobody has to like us. We're not
in the running for a popularity contest or the congeiality title. But
we're tired of the attempts at manipulation. We're tired of the "I'll
pretend to be high-minded and I want a dialogue and then when I get
something like, 'Maybe you're not sexist,' I'll get my nut and blow."
Ruth needs to go back to critiquing that person by name. Her critiques
were valid. She was not wrong to make them. Because I know him, she
felt she was in bind. She hasn't talked to me about this (and no one's
run back to me to tell me) but I can tell from what she wrote what went
down. And while all this backstory intrigue plays out, what is
Panhandle Media doing to end the illegal war? Not a damn thing. They
have all the time in the world for their private e-mails, for their
private whines. And I need to take accountability here because I did
tolerate it myself and it put others in a position where they felt they
had to. Mike gets screamed at by some lunatic who praised Barack on TV
and Mike feels badly about that? He shouldn't have and Kat and I both
told him to let it rip in response at his site because Mike was being
nice. All he had to do was quote the man from that TV broadcast. Save
your firey e-mail speeches about how you don't really support Barack
but if you call him out it's hard to get work and ___ won't have you on
their show or ___ won't publish you or whine, whine, wah, wah. You sell
yourself, that's your business. You sell yourself in the public sphere,
get ready for criticism. That's a given. Don't do it in public if you
can't take criticism of it. If we're creamed at another site, we
don't sob. We don't even sob when we're regularly ripped off. We don't
e-mail the sites and say, "How dare you! Let's have a private
conversation!" We don't e-mail at all. We're focused on what we need to
do. But others have all the time in the world to devise these (not so)
complex schemes of how they'll manipulate the community. "I know," some
must be thinking to themselves, "I'll tell Rebecca that Elaine's not
just trashing me, she's also getting her digs in at Rebecca!" Which,
for the record, a mainstream reporter attempted to do. Foolish, foolish
man. Rebecca, Elaine and I went to college together, we lived together,
we have a decades long friendship. You're not the first man who thought
you could come between our friendship, and you're not the first man to
learn that, no, you couldn't. But you had plenty of time to scheme --
from your work e-mail -- and plot that out. At this point, we
really don't reply to private e-mails. For all the reasons above and
many more. One more example? David Swanson showing up to tell Rebecca
what a fan he was of her site and blah, blah, blah. Rebecca responds to
him and then finds an e-mail from Lennox Yearwood in her inbox. She
opens it. He's out of the country. He has his e-mail set up to
automated reply. David Swanson 'shared' her e-mail with Yearwood
without telling Rebecca. In fact, he shared it right after she sent it.
In other words, he wrote Rebecca to get some information and then
immediately started forwarding it. Who knows to how many? But when
Rebecca calmly confronted him on it (I know Rebecca and I've read the
e-mails, she was calm -- mainly because she was in shock -- she
actually liked Swanson), he started denying he'd forwaded her e-mail.
She was crazy! She was nuts! It never happened. But she was looking
right at it (and I've seen the print out). He didn't realize that the
automated reply meant Rebecca would be cc-ed. So little stunts like
that, little manipulations means we're not interested in private
conversations. (Yearwood is not linked to or mentioned here as a result
of that. That really hurt Rebecca's feelings because she thought
Swanson was someone trustworthy. Due to the fact that she'd written
Yearwood to ask if he was involved in this or it was being forwarded
without her knowledge, and due to the fact that he never saw fit to
reply to her, I wrote him. He no longer exists to this community --
however, Betty, Cedric and Ty were already on record at Third as being
tired of his s**t before that took place.) So when the White
woman who felt it was her place to both dismiss homophobia and to
attempt to tell Ty how hard it was to be Black e-mails ordering me to
cover something and Jess sees it today, he's had enough from her. Even
with my explaining clearly how upset Ty was and why, she never felt the
need to apologize to him. She is White Green, she knows all. So what if
she came off racist to Ty (who was the one replying to her e-mails in
the past) and insulted him. She didn't care. Not enough to e-mail and
apologize. Though she's been happy to e-mail non-stop requesting links
for this and links for that. And then today she decided she could try
to order me to cover something. (Which I may now ignore because I don't
take orders.) Jess saw the e-mail and it was the last straw for him. I
don't blame him one bit. All of the things mentioned above (and
there are many more examples that could be provided) go to attempts to
manipulate. You can't manipulate this community, you can't take over
it, you can't control it. In the end, we will always stand with each
other. It doesn't matter how 'big' you think your name is or how
wonderful you think you are. If you're not a community member, you are
an outsider and you do not dictate to this community. When
Panhandle Media decided that 'independent' translated as "lie for a War
Hawk," we didn't drink the Kool-Aid. We didn't fret the bullying
e-mails. As an outsider, you have no power in this community. And it's
really amazing how so many had so much time to plot. Think about the
time that went into e-mailing Mike, then Elaine (three times for
Laine), then Rebecca, then Cedric, then me. Think how much time went
into that "I will divide them!" plot. That time could have been better
spent focusing on the illegal war. Especially in covering war resisters. It's over, I'm done writing songs about loveThere's a war going onSo I'm holding my gun with a strap and a gloveAnd I'm writing a song about warAnd it goesNa na na na na na naI hate the warNa na na na na na naI hate the warNa na na na na na naI hate the warOh oh oh oh-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!) Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4122. Tonight? 4124. Just Foreign Policy lists 1,245,538 as the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the Iraq War up from 1,236,604. In
various forms, the talking entry has been addressed at other community
sites. To put an end to it (hopefully), it's being addressed here. It
has become a problem and may be one of the main reasons the writing
editions for Third are taking so long. I'm not in the mood for a 36
hour writing session this weekend. The community sites are: The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, and Ava, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Trina of Trina's KitchenRuth of Ruth's Report, Wally of The Daily Jot, and Marcia SICKOFITRDLZ. And the community stands together. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqi hate the warthe ballet
Posted at 11:29 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
|
 |
|
|
|
|