Tuesday July 29, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, is Diyala being used for
for-show purposes, all-they-need-now-is-a-locust-plague news, Iraqi unions have
a victory?, and more.
Starting with war resistance. 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. Mark
Larabee's "Soldiers still go over the hill even in an
all-volunteer Army" (The Oregonian, July 16, 2007) would break the
news of James Burmeister and of the kill-teams targeting Iraqi civilians. And
Panhandle Media would respond with . . . silence and indiferrence. Maybe they
just found it all 'tedious'? Dee Knight never saw the job of indpendent media
to render war resisters (or the Iraq War) invisible. Knight (Workers World) reports that Erich Burmeister
(rightly) considers his son a hero, "I think my son is a hero. 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." Erich Burmeister
discusses the court-martial as well as the lead up and feels the military played
"'good cop-bad cop' . . . to perfection" in convincing James to enter a guilty
plea ("We took the bait and got our butts kicked"). Of the court-martial, he
notes, "I feel like the case was used as an example to other soldiers. Not only
will you get punished, but your loved ones will be too." James Burmeister can
receive letters "at Box A, Fort Knox, KY 40121." Earlier this month, Helen
Burmeister explained to Rachel McDonald (OPB), "I'm very disappointed in the way
they feel they can treat veterans of war. I think the reason my son went AWOL
was for a good reason. I don't think he deserved the punishment he got." James Burmeister was court-martialed July 16th,
Dee Knight covered the court-martial here and noted the
military came down hard on James because he was a whistle-blower.
Burmeister self-checked out and went to Canada. He decided to return to the
US in March and turn himself in. Robin Long self-checked out and went to Canada
as well; however, he did not make the decision to return. Judge Anne Mctavish
made the decision to extradite him and tried to pass it off as
deportation. Courage to Resist notes:
On July 15, 2008 U.S. Army PFC Robin Long became the first war
resister since the Vietnam War forced to leave Canada and to be turned over to
the U.S. military. Robin is currently being held in the El Paso County Jail, in
Colorado, awaiting his Courts Martial. He will be present for his Courts Martial
at Fort Carson, Co. He will likely be charged for AWOL, desertion, and possibly
speech-related violations of military discipline; he is facing a General Courts
Martial, the maximum penalty of such a trial is 20 years confinement. Support
Robin Long and all troops with the courage to resist!
War resisters in Canada need your help. 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.
In Iraq yesterday, bombings took place in Baghdad and another in Kirkuk.
Following the Kirkuk violence, Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Sabrina Tavernise (New
York Times) report, violence broke out in the form of mob attacks on
Turkmen, buildings were burned, guns were fired, rocks were thrown ("at least 25
Turkmen guards" were injured) leading Iraqi MP Saadeddin Arkej to declare, "I
can't practice democracy at the Parliament while the dictatorship is attacking
and burning the headquarters of the Turkmen Front in Kirkuk and burning and
looting other Turkmen establishments." Caesar Ahmed and Ned Parker (Los Angeles
Times) observe, "The bombing and reprisals provided a glimpse of the
passions among Kurds, Turkmens and Arabs over the future boundaries of Iraq's
Arab north and its Kurdistan region." Meanwhile AFP reports Turkey flew planes over northern Iraq in
an air strike which they state "completely destroyed" a cave used by PKK members
but Kurdish spokesperson Sinksar Abudllah states the bombings took place "where
there are only families who earn their living raising sheep. This is the first
time that Turkish planes have attacked during the day. We have not received any
information about casualties."
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Diyala
Province bombing that claimed 1 life. Diyala Province is where the assault began
today -- despite last week's leaks that it would start August 1st. Khalid al-Ansary (Reuters) reports that 14,000 to
18,000 Iraqi soldiers should be in the province now and notes, "A Reuters
witness said large numbers of Iraqi police and army personnel had deployed in
Baquba, where they were searching homes. The U.S. military was present in small
numbers backed by helicopters, the witness said." AFP notes the US military's attempts to hard-sell it
as an Iraqi operation (and ntoes they once claimed it would involved 30,000
Iraqi soldiers). AP quotes Ahmed Kadhim ("35-year-old
businessman") who criticizes the loose lips, "I think this allowed armed groups
to flee outside the province." Deborah Haynes (Times of London) appears
to back that up, noting that a serach in Fatamia found "only three or four
families remained. Six months ago there were 30 to 40 families. This eerie
scene has been played out repeatedly in other villages across the southeastern
corner of Diyala province, one of the country's most notorious areas." Which
should lead to questions of -- remember this was leaked well in advance --
whether or not this is a for-show measure intended to make it appear that things
are improving? In another report, Deborah Haynes (Times of London) notes
that Iraqi military is "backed by small US military teams". China's Xinhua points out that Diyala
Province is now under curfew. UPI reveals the assault's name "Omens of
Prosperity." BBC adds, "Apart from the deployment in Baquba,
Iraqi and US forces conducted raids in several outlying areas."
Alex Spillius (Telegraph of London)
reports US Gen David Petraeus is estimating Iraqis could be in (security)
control of their country by the middle of 2010. Considering Petraeus' past
estimates, don't hold your breath. Gordon Lubold (Christian Science Monitor) tosses a
damp blanket on Petraeus -- the GAO says that after all this time, Iraq is still
not responsible (in full -- or puppet) for 8 provinces, most forces aren't at
any level of readiness, benchmarks remain unreached.
The Iraqi government has withdrawn an order banning eight key union
organisers belonging to the powerful Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions (IFOU). The
union leaders were ordered out of the southern city of Basra after the Western
backed government of Nuri al-Maliki said they were memebers of "militias" and
helped in the smuggling of oil. The union denied these charges. Hassan Juma'a
Awad, the head of the IFOU, called on unions around the world to rally to the
oil workers. In a statement he said, "This act is a clear evidence that the
Iraqi state seeks to liquidate trade unions in this important Iraqi economic
sector. It is important to note that the south is the main source of oil in
Iraq." Sabah Jawad, the spokesman for the Naftana, the organisation that
campaigns for Iraqi oil rights, told Socialist Worker that the government
reversed the order following mounting pressure from Iraqi unions and the
international anti-war movement. Jawad said, "We told Hussain al-Shahristani,
the Iraqi oil minister, that this was not acceptable, and informed him that we
were aware of the measures being taken by the oil ministry." US and European
oil multinationals are scrambling to grasp Iraq's vast oil reserves. George Bush
made the take-over of oil one of his key "indicators" that the "surge" is
succeeding. The return of the multinationals, 36 years after Iraq nationalised
its oil, has been greeted with widespread anger. The oil workers have been at
the head of the movement resisting the hand over of the industry to western
comanies. "The withdrawal of the order is a victory for international
solidarity and Iraqi trade unions," Jawad said.
I read an article in the July 12 edition of the New York Times titled
"Obama Won't Commit to Event at Military Base." The article confused me, because
in a recent Army Times article titled "If Obama Wins," you were quoted as saying
"Precisely because I have not served in uniform, I am somebody who strongly
believes I have to earn the trust of men and women in uniform."
The NY Times article mentioned, and it bears repeating, that Fort
Hood is the largest active-duty military installation in the country. Our post
is so large and our commitment to Iraq so great that the Killeen Daily Herald
published an article on July 13, 2008 about our sister division titled "4th ID
Association Looking to Expand Soldier Memorial."
Since speaking out against the war, I've had to take great
precautions to ensure that I'm never perceived to be speaking on behalf of the
United States Army nor the Armed Services as a whole, so I hope this letter
isn't perceived as such. But I have to say that I think it would be a huge step
toward earning the trust of men and women in uniform if you and your campaign
work with Carissa Picard and the Presidential Town Hall Consortium, and commit
to appearing at this meeting the way Senator McCain has.
The full letter is here. Meanwhile John Pilger (New Statesman) calls out
Barack's rah-rah on Afghanistan slaughter, "Having declared Afghanistan a 'good
war', the complicit enablers are now anointing Barack Obama as he tours the
bloodfests in Afghanistan and Iraq. What they never say is that Obama is a
bomber. In the New York Times on 14 July, in an article spun to appear as if he
is ending the war in Iraq, Obama demanded more war in Afghanistan and, in
effect, an invasion of Pakistan. He wants more combat troops, more helicopters,
more bombs. Bush may be on his way out, but the Republicans have built an
ideological machine that transcends the loss of electoral power -- because their
collaborators are, as the American writer Mike Whitney put it succinctly,
'bait-and-switch' Democrats, of whom Obama is the prince." Meanwhile, look what
happens when Gary Younge lets his Socialist roots hang free: He can tell the
truth the way he so rarely does in The Nation or the Guardian
of London. Writing for the UK's Socialist Review,
Young's Obama-devotion is not rushed to maximum high and includes the
following:
"[Obama] is being consumed as the embodiment of colour blindness,"
Angela Davis, professor of history of consciousness at the University of
California, Santa Cruz, told me last year. "It's the notion that we have moved
beyond racism by not taking race into account. That's what makes him conceivable
as a presidential candidate. He's become the model of diversity in this
period... a model of diversity as the difference that makes no difference. The
change that brings no change." Finally, he did not build a multi-racial
coalition but a bi-racial one. Clinton's base has been erroneously portrayed as
simply the white working class and older white women. But in California Latinos
and Asian-Americans went much more heavily for Clinton than whites did and made
her victory possible. The same was true with Latinos in Texas. Indeed the only
state where Obama won the Latino vote was his home state of Illinois. And even
then by just 1 percent.
Gary Younge, has it been erroneously reported? Yeah and you certainly did
your part to PUSH THE LIE in your other two outlets. In fact, he has been
nothing but a s**t stirrer and a LIAR throughout this election cycle as he
pretended he was 'one of us' (he's British, he will not be voting in this
election) and posed as a Democrat to make his lies just a little more forceful
to Americans. Either tell the truth or beg for Americans to start asking,
"Exactly who is Gary Younge?" (He's already lied again this week and the
misogynist Common Dreams was happy to repost it.) For the
record, Angela Y. Davis speaks the truth. [On truth, Michael D. Shear and Dan Balz (Washington
Post) try to track down the story of Barack's skipping out on wounded
US soldiers.] Patrick Martin (WSWS) points today to a Newsweek
interview with Barach where he "emphasized" "phased withdrawal" and Martin
observes this is "support for an open-ended US military presence in Iraq". It's
the 'residual forces' aspect that Barack will never be clear on -- but any
paying attention should have grasped he's not calling for withdrawal. Last week
Katie Couric (CBS Evening News -- video and
text at link) interviewed Barack and attempted to press him to get specific
about this "residual force" -- noting that "some of your advisors have said it
could be tens of thousands of troops. Why can't you be more specific as to what
you envision?" Barack's response included, "As I've said before . . . I am not
interested in a false choice between either perfect inflexibility in which the
next 16 months or the next two years I ignore anything that's happening in Iraq.
Or, alternatively, that I just have an open-ended, indefinite occupation of Iraq
in which we're not putting any pressure on the Iraqis to stand up . . . take
this burden on. What I'm gonna do is to set a vision of where we need to go, a
clear and specific timeframe within which we're gonna pull our combat forces
out." He would never answer the question. [Ava and I covered the interview here.] And unlike his remarks on Sunday, he did
agree the 'surge' was a success in that interview. (The 'surge' has not been a
success.) He's not supporting withdrawal. Which is why Patrick Martin (WSWS) concludes "The Amrican people
thus will be given the choice on November 4 of voting for War #1 or War #2, Iraq
or Afghanistan. In fact, they will be saddled with both wars, with only slight
differences between the Democrats and Republicans over which war should receive
the largest proportion of US military resources. Those who oppose American
militarism, who want to bring an end to the oppression and violence wrought by
imperialist aggression throughout the Middle East and Central Asia, have been
disenfrancised by the two big business parties." And voters have other choice
(including write-in, staying home, voting for other offices but not for
president) which includes other candidates because it is not a two-person
race. Ralph
Nader is the independent presidential candidate, Cynthia
McKinney is the Green Party presidential candidate and Bob Barr is
the Libertarian Party candidate. Last week the Nader - Gonzalez (Matt Gonzalez)
began a series of campaign stops that found local and regional media more
receptive to covering the presidential race than is the national media. Jim Galloway (AJC) quoted Nader speaking
at the University of Georgia, "[Obama is] always talking about his past as a
community organizer. But again and again, day after day, he's back-tracking,
surrendering, flip-flopping -- and appointing the worst corporatist advisors you
can imagine." John O'Connor (The State) covered
Ralph's appearance in South Carolina where Ralph explained of Barack and
presumed GOP nominee John McCain, "They represent a minority viewpoint. We
represent a majority of the American people." Yvonne Wenger (Post and Courier)
reported on the South Carolina stop as well quoting Ralp stating, "If you
don't resist, the situation gets worse. The alternative is surrender. . . . The
stands McCain and Obama have taken again and again do not have the support of
the majority of the American people." Sebastian Kitchen (Montgomery Advertiser) reported on his
stop in Montgomery at the Rosa Parks Library and Museum and how he noted "Rosa
Parks challenged the system" and wondered of the Iraq War, corporate control of
the country, minimum wage and healthcare, "Why aren't these issues talked about
by the major parties?" Marshall Griffin (KWMU) reported yesterday,
"Ralph Nader is a step closer to getting his name on Missouri's presidential
ballot. Robert Dalaviras, State Coordinator for the Nader campaign, delivered
two boxes of petitions to the Secretary of State's office in Jefferson City this
morning." KXAN reported on his Austin stop noting that he
called for a number of issues:
"A comprehensive, negotiated military and corporate withdrawal date
from Iraq" "A single-payer, Canadian-style, private delivery, free-choice
public health insurance system for all" "A living wage and repeal of the
anti-union Taft-Hartley Act" "A no nuke solar-based energy policy supported
by renewable, sustainable, energy-efficient sources" "A carbon tax to deter
global warming "An end to corporate welfare and corporate crime that has
resulted in millions losing pensions, savings and jobs and squandered tax
dollars" "More direct democracy reflecting the preamble to our constitution
which starts with 'we the people,' and not 'we the corporations"
Jennifer Latson (Houston Chronicle) reported on Ralph and
Matt Gonzalez' stop in Houston and how they received $7,000 in donations -- in a
state that as a result of restrictive (to put it mildly) ballot access laws,
they won't even be on the ballot for. (Texas voters can write-in
Nader-Gonzalez.) Nader declared in Houston, "This is the worst state in the
country in terms of denying voters their own choice of candidates." Prior to the
Austin stop, David Shieh (Austin American-Statesman) did
a Q&A with Nader:
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.
Austin Cassidy (Austin Cassidy's Independent
Political Report) explains that August 2nd and 34d will find Ralph,
Cynthia McKinney, Brian Moore an Gloria La Riva competing in Sacramento for the
Peace and Freedom Party's nomination which would allow the candidate to be on
the ballot in California. (Cynthia's already on the ballot as the Green
nominee). La Riva was part of a woman of color presidential ticket in both 1996
and 2000 (with Monica Moorhead). 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.
First off, Democracy Now! features an Asian-American voice. Linda Jue. If you've been paying attention this year or read Liang's column in Polly's Brew
Sunday, you know how rare that has become for the show that has
increasingly defined "race in America" as Black and White (or, as some
argue, as Black and Jewish White). Juan Gonzalez is again hosting today
so consider making time to check the broadcast out.
Let's turn
to columns which we rarely note. Background, years ago, during the
initial second wave of the Women's Liberation Movement, there were
outlets that refused to let female reporters cover the movement, that
claimed that women couldn't be objective. The same thing happened
following Roe v. Wade with
regards to abortion coverage. If you want to know what was supposedly
feared in terms of lack of objectivity, look no further than Bob
Herbert's latest incoherent nonsense entitled "Can Obama Run the Offense?". Now most of us are aware Herbert made a mini-'name' for himself (and interested the Times to begin with) by demonizing African-Americans (primarily African-American males) while working at The New York Daily News. If he thinks his work on behalf of the bi-racial blunder changes that past or makes up for it, he is sadly mistaken.
If the Times
thinks he contributes a column, they are sadly mistaken. Before we go
further, it should be noted that (at best) Gail Collins and Maureen
Dowd went out of their way to demonstrate (repeatedly!) that they were
not bound by any internal, self-ruling to support other women.
Herbert's felt no need to assert any 'independence.' And, of course, no
one has ever expected it from him. Because in American society, it's
always the worst to be the "girl."
Here's Herbert attempting (yet again) to ride to Barack's rescue (opening paragraph):
Let's
see if I've got this straight, Barack Obama is a United States senator,
a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and his party's
candidate for president of the United States -- and yet it was somehow
presumptuous of him to meet with foreign leaders last week during his
trip to the Middle East and Europe.
First, Barack is the
"presumed" or "presumptive" candidate. Until the convention, there is
no candidate. Try sticking to the facts. "Meet with foreign leaders"?
Yeah, he looks like a complete strutting ass going to Europe to meet
with leaders and there's a reason for that -- one Herbert never
commented on in real time.
Keven Rudd, Australia's Prime
Minister, visited the United States and attempted to meet with front
runner candidates (as well as visit the White House) face-to-face.
Which front runner couldn't be bothered? That would be Barack Obama.
Australia has a long, long historic relationship with the US. Sadly,
those ties led Australia into the illegal war (though former prime
minister John Howard didn't need a great deal of prodding). But Barack
didn't have time for Kevin Rudd. A prime minister elected with the hope
that he would end Australia's involvement in the Iraq War. A person
hailed as a "change" leader. And Barack was just too damn busy?
Herbert
might try leaving his bubble in NYC and interacting with the world.
This community has a ton of Australian members and they found it
offensive -- they found a great deal offensive. Barack issued a press
release and couldn't get John Curtin's name correct (a huge insult in
Australia). Barack made a few minutes (20) time for a phone call to
Rudd while Hillary broke from campaigning to meet with Rudd
face-to-face for twice that amount of time. I'm real sorry that Bob
Herbert is so terminally ignorant but there's no reason to punish
readers for that fact.
Couric's
follow up question should have been, "You're saying that Afghanistan is
something the full Senate committee should address and you're touting
Afghanistan as 'the central front in the war on terror.' Well on
January 31st, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on
Afghanistan, heard testimony from the State Dept.'s Richard Boucher and
you didn't attend that hearing. Do you think now you should have been
at the hearing?" We're sure
Barack would have tried to weasel out with the claim that he was
debating Hillary in Los Angeles. Yes, that night. The hearing started
at 9:30 a.m. EST. With a three hour time difference between the East
Coast and the West Coast and a 'new' thing called "airplanes," there
was no reason for him to skip the hearing. While
the hearing was going on, Barack was speaking at the Trade Technical
Community College -- which was only one of his many campaign stops that
day. We do not agree with a 'war on terror,' nor do we claim that
Afghanistan needs more US troops or more war. But Barack claims that .
. . now. What did he say about 'ready on day one isn't enough, you have
to be right on day one'? On January 31st when Afghanistan was the issue
of the committee he 'serves' on, he thought it was more important to
visit community colleges and drum up votes than to focus on what he
calls 'the central front in the war on terror.'
Barack
couldn't be bothered on Januray 31st. Bob Herbert will go on to lament
the housing crisis, et al, in his column. He will write, "Americans are
losing jobs, losing the equity in their homes, losing their retirement
nest eggs, and tragically, in increasing numbers, actually losing the
family home itself." And exactly how is that addressed with Barack
traipsing the globe? These aren't new developments and of course, one
of Barack's initial sell-outs as US Senator was to side with the
banking industry and make it more difficult for citizens to declare
bankruptcy. Barack's also got big money backing him that is tied to the
current crimes. And "current" needs to be clarified. These aren't new
developments. Barack's not addressed them. And he can't address them on
a whirlwind European and MidEast tour. [July 18th, Bill Moyers Journal (here for transcript) did the strongest report on the housing crimes of any American outlet so far.]
Herbert's
column is so pathetic that he tries to drag Rev. Jesse Jackson into it
-- or rather, tries to drag Rev. Jackson through the mud. Yes, he's
allegedly writing about Barack's summer trip but he's got to go back to
an already dead topic. (Or maybe he still has a need to trash
African-American males? That would explain his love for Barack.)
His
love affair is so intense that he's even willing to disown his past
work regarding Iraq and to trash the topic of the illegal war as he
furiously scribbles: "And for all the tedious talk about timelines and
what the surge in Iraq has or has not accomplished, the top three
issues in this campaign are still the economy, the economy and the
economy." Oh look, Bob Herbert has spliced James Carville and Tim
Russert into one person ("It's the economy, stupid" meets "Florida,
Florida, Florida!"). It's 2008 and we're getting tired crap -- recycled
from 1992 and 2000 -- from Bob Herbert?
"All the tedious talk about timelines"? The Iraq War has gone on for five years now. I'm really sorry that Bob Herbert's Dream Lover can't answer a damn question;
however, the people have a right to know about timelines and the
'surge.' It's too bad that Bob Herbert has sold out whatever tiny bit
of integrity he had to whine that Iraq is a distraction. He really is
pathetic and his column today is a horrid piece that not only lacks
style or grace, it lacks coherent thought. Paul Krugman's been advised
to focus on the economy before. Maybe Bob Herbert needs to be advised
to focus on the topic he was hired to cover -- and, no, it wasn't
national political races.
Columnists? Reading the New York Times'
news section, you may be reminded of another columnist. Specifically
Norman Solomon. Solomon once billed himself as a media critic but that
really doesn't fly now that he's a delegate for Barack. The reality is
that Solomon's as bad as Herbert about dusting off old columns each
year and trying to call them "new." Around 2006, Solomon was no longer
of any use to Iraq. As most will remember, he could go storm any outlet
to plead for a reporter while forgetting that Ehren Watada
was the story and Ehren was facing a court-martial. Norman was so
devoted to the female reporter that some joked he was showing up on CB
radio to plead her case. (The reporter might be asked to testify at
Watada's court-martial and -- horror! -- if asked, she might have to
decide whether she should testify or shouldn't! She couldn't say what
she'd do. But she wanted the whole world to be outraged for her. As did
Norman.)
Thom Shanker contributes "Air Force Plans Altered Role in Iraq"
-- the air war. Which has been ongoing and which -- as during Vietnam
-- will only increase. Fear of draw-downs in the number of US troops
stationed in Iraq (which the Air Force agrees will happen), plans are
made to increase the fly-overs and the bombings. And, guess what,
"technical advisors" (remember Barack's 'plan' leaves those behind)?
They'll be calling in air strikes. In fact, that's presented as a
'good' thing. "General North," Shanker writes, "dismissed that concern,
saying that only United States or allied air controllers would be
allowed to call in airstrikes from Americans or allied fighters and
bombers. These restrictions would be part of a program to limit
accidental civilian casualties should bombing play a larger role in the
months ahead, commanders say." Limit casualties? Before Norman got
hitched to Barack, he could have a field day with that laughable
concept. Shanekr went to the "air operations center" but signed "a
written agreement" which forbids him from naming "the base" or
revealing its location. A lot of good minds going to waste trying to
prop up a man. Maybe it's so disgusting to feminists because we long
ago stopped seeing it as our life's goal to stroke the male ego?
Luckily for Barack, handmaiden has become a gender neutral job.
Unluckily
for Iraq, two who could be counted on to provide some much needed
perspective and reality on the Iraq War have gone AWOL in order to prop
up a War Hawk candidate. If there's any good to be found from Bob
Herbert's public ditherings, it's that Norman Solomon is no longer the
man who has embarrassed himself the most due to a crush on Barack. It's
now Herbert. (We're not factoring in idiots like Tom-Tom who never
possessed an ounce of intellectual heft. We're talking about strong
minds and Norman and Bob Herbert were once of the two of the strongest
when it came to taking on the Iraq War.) Solomon could grab Shanker's
report and produce a blistering column. But he's a Barack Groupie these
days and so many of them, like Bob Herbert, find talk of timelines for
withdrawal "tedious." Find discussing the 'surge' "tedious."
Once
upon a time, Bob Herbert and Norman Solomon grasped that if they didn't
hit hard on the Iraq War, few would and the spin would take hold. It
wasn't "tedious" back then. The 'surge' didn't work. Was never going to
work. Because Barack couldn't say those words to Katie Couric, because
he instead pushed the notion that it had worked, Barack's groupies no
longer feel 'vested' in addressing the topic. It's all so 'tedious.'
Funny thing is that US forces haven't left Iraq and many US families
and Iraqi families would find the use of "tedious" to scoff at
discussing timelines for withdrawal to be flat out offensive. But screw
Iraqis, screw US service members, Bob Herbert's got a lover man to get
into the White House.
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.
Dear Bill Greider, Jim Hightower, and Bob Kuttner:
I
write this letter of inquiry out of respect and wonderment to my three
friends whose progressive writings over the past generation have been
second to none in the community of public intellectuals.
You
write cogently - as if people matter first, as if responsive elections,
politics and government are critical for a resourceful society that is
functionally and institutionally dedicated to the pursuit of justice.
There is one exception to the above generalization with which I have direct familiarity.
In
your recent writings and interviews, where you have had pertinent and
relevant opportunity to inform your audiences, you declare your
dissatisfaction with the two major parties and their leaders over
specific issues and records of evasions and neglect.
But you make no mention of the Nader/Gonzalez campaign and its policies that are square on with your positions.
You
ignore the areas of action and engagement we are representing or
furthering and that McCain and Obama either oppose or ignore.
We're
not inferring any endorsements here - just pointing out candidates who
are reflecting your kind of political and economic advocacy.
My question is this:
If,
year after year, the two major parties oppose or ignore our policy
prescriptions, and often facilitate making conditions worse for the
people, how do you propose to jump start or spark some movement inside
the presidential electoral arena?
You
and most of your policy colleagues, whether they write, speak,
interview or conduct conferences, almost never choose to recognize or
mention the positions and records very similar to yours that were
taken, or are being taken, inside the presidential electoral arena by
Nader/Camejo (2004) or Nader/Gonzalez (2008).
There
are times during interviews on television or radio when the comment or
question thrown out at you begs for some mention that someone out
there, whom you have known for a long time, is contrasting and
challenging the two party "elected" dictatorship that defiantly
excludes or marginalizes competition - through state ballot laws and
closed debates (a serious civil liberties issue, if nothing else).
The
corporate Democrats who control the Party know that they will not be
taken to task by the leading writers and polemicists of the progressive
community in a way that will discomfort them - i.e. pointing out that
their voters can avail themselves of other options on the ballot.
Is there any other language that they understand inside the electoral process?
It
is as if your predecessors in the nineteenth century spoke out for
abolition, suffrage, labor and farmer empowerment without mentioning or
recognizing the existence of those small parties and independent
candidates who pioneered, along with parallel civic movements, those
great social justice advances we now take for granted.
None
of these political candidates ever won a national election, but active
speakers, writers, and conveners did not treat them as non-persons.
A
very few of your colleagues are beginning to write about the number
three presidential and vice presidential candidates in this race. (In
Wimbledon or the NCAA tournament, the number 60th seed or team is given a chance to play.)
They realize what an effort it takes just to place one's candidacy on the playing field of a rigged system.
You should empathize enough to cover us on the road after Labor Day.
One journalist - Chris Hedges - found his breaking point and has written columns supporting our campaign.
What is your breaking point in this context?
Is
that a valid question to ask as our country is being driven into the
ground and its global corporations are tearing at its heart and soul?
Have you ever visited our websites in 2004 and 2008 - voternader.org?
I know about the uni-directional jackhammer nature of Washington's opinion oligopoly.
What
I have difficulty understanding is what is its antonym in the
progressive media when it comes to reporting and commenting about those
who are contending inside the electoral arena?
I look forward to your considered response.
In
the meantime, all of us at the Nader/Gonzalez campaign continue to
absorb and value your insights and proposals but with a growing sense
of puzzlement over the missing gap.
Sincerely yours,
Ralph Nader
P.S.
Look at the near blackout nationally of the indictments this month
brought by the Pennsylvania Attorney General against state Democratic
legislators and legislative aides using government time and taxpayer
money to move against electoral and political opponents, including
removing Nader/Camejo from the ballot during the 2004 presidential
campaign. It was headline news in Pennsylvania but nationally, even the
civil liberties groups were not moved. Without candidate rights, how
valuable are voter rights in a gerrymandered nation?
Wearing
their flowing black garments, they can carry hidden explosives past
most checkpoints because customs of modesty prevent male guards from
frisking them. On Monday, four female suicide bombers in two Iraqi
cities used this tactic to enter areas defended by hundreds of soldiers
and police officers.
The above is the opening of Sudarsan Raghavan's "Four Women Kill Dozens In Suicide Blasts in Iraq: Kurdish Protest Hit in Kirkuk; Shiites Targeted in Baghdad" (Washington Post)and
the focus is on the the bombings in Baghdad and the bombing in Kirkuk.
As for women, maybe now is a good time to ask why the US government
thought it was okay to pay female "Awakening" Council members 20% less
than their male counterparts? But that question will probably never be
explored. You'll note that many outlets (CNN among them) are tacking on
the female "Awakening" Council members angle to this story -- but no
one seems to mention (let alone question) the fact that they're being
paid 20% less. (For the record, this community does not support putting
thugs on the payroll. We are noting that the US government is sending a
strong -- and bad -- message when they pay Iraqi women 20% less for the
same job.) Like the Post, the New York Times front pages the bombings via Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Sabrina Tavernise's "Bombers and Ethnic Clashes Kill 61 in Iraq" which really focuses more on Kirkuk and part of the reason for that may be due to what followed the bombing in Kirkuk:
No
one claimed responsibility for the bombing, which bore the hallmarks of
Sunni Arab extremists. Nonetheless, many in the crowd blamed Turkmen
extremists for the attack, and within minutes a mob of enraged Kurds
began attacking Turkmen political offices and setting their buildings
ablaze. "They burned Turkmen buildings and they burned many cars," said Brig. Burhan Taha of the Kirkuk police. Gunfire
and rocks from the mob wounded at least 25 Turkmen guards, according to
the Kirkuk police. The guards -- some armed with machine guns --
returned fire, killing at least 12 Kurds in the mob. An additional 102
people were wounded in the melee that followed the bombing, the police
said, though it was not clear how many were shot by Turkmen guards or
wounded by other violence. Another
senior Kirkuk police commander, Brig. Sarhad Qadir, said the mob that
attacked the Turkmens included members of the Asaish, a Kurdish
security force, who were not in uniform but were carrying weapons.
Iraqi
MP Saadeddin Arkej is quoted stating, "I can't practice democracy at
the Parliament while the dictatorship is attacking and burning the
headquarters of the Turkmen Front in Kirkuk and burning and looting
other Turkmen establishments." Tavernise and Oppel also note that the
province's governor has requested United Nations troops on the ground.
In
both Baghdad and Kirkuk, fingers were pointed. Baghdad may have seen
retaliation violence aimed at those perceived to be responsible;
however, Baghdad violence is so common that it's rarely of interest to
reporters these days (or columnists -- hold on for the next entry) and
it's also true that an attack on Shi'ite Pilgrims that enraged the
Shi'ite controlled city of Baghdad would most likely result in
retaliation that was kept 'underground'. (In other words, corpses found
two or three days from now -- or maybe a mass grave in a few months.)
Caesar Ahmed and Ned Parker's "Bombings kill dozens in Baghdad, Kirkuk" (Los Angeles Times):
Ordinary
residents in Kirkuk worried about the aftermath of Monday's bombing and
mob violence. "Today's events will create a big crisis. A solution for
the Kirkuk issue must be found," said Burhan Shirko Qadir, a Kurdish
merchant. Turkmens were
seething. Turkmen Front local leader Nazhat Abdul-Ghani said four party
members had been wounded and seven others kidnapped. "Today
the Kirkuk issue took a dangerous turn," said Jankeez Yousif, a Turkmen
who works in the oil industry. He bitterly criticized Iraqi security
forces in the city, which he accused of being an extension of the
Kurdish political parties -- a common complaint voiced by groups in the
north. All sides blamed outsiders for carrying out the bombing. In
Baghdad, militants turned their attention to the country's Shiite
majority. Three female suicide bombers blew themselves up over the
course of an hour, targeting Shiite faithful on their way to a sacred
shrine. At least 32 people were killed and 102 wounded. About a million
Shiites were expected for the event commemorating the death in 799 of a
religious leader regarded by Shiites as a saint.
Dean Yates and Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) place
the death toll of the bombings at 58 and the number wounded at 250. The
New York Times places the death toll at 61 and the wounded at 238.
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.
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 . . .
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.)
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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 10011 Email: ww@workers.org Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php
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 10011 Email: ww@workers.org Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php
Mark 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 tears That 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."
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.
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.
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:
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.
Your contribution could be doubled. Public campaign financing may match your contribution total up to $250.
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.
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?
Reuters notes that 1 Iraqi soldier was shot dead in Mosul.
Corpses?
Reuters notes that 1 corpse was discovered in Baghdad.
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:
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.
cbs
evening news
katie
couric
jennifer
latson
sebastian
kitchen
the
new york times
richard
a. oppel jr.
sabrina
tavernise
ned
parker
the
los angeles times
caesar
ahmed
john
pilger
juan gonzalez
linda jue
bob herbert
thom shanker
ehren watada
norman solomon
bill moyers journal
pbs
sudarsan raghavan
the washington post
the cbs evening news
mcclatchy newspapers
peggy simpson
dan balz
qais mizher
juliet eilperin
bonnie erbe
julie bosman
saif hameed
iraq veterans against the war
aimee allison
daniel barlow
les blumenthal
amy worden
washington week
bill moyer journal
now on pbs
helene cooper
