 |
Saturday, July 18, 2009
 The press hopes you do. They hope you love a good yarn so much that you're not going to ask any questions, utilize common sense or, heaven forbid, think for yourselves. Which explains the latest wave of Operation Happy Talk. Iraqi forces, all by themselves, secured Iraq and Iraqis today. Mike Tharp (McClatchy Newspapers) is blabbering away faster than Rona Barrett declaring a psychic is running ABC. It's "their first big test," Tharp gueshes, and they "passed" -- not only did they pass, they did so "with flying colors"! and he's not done yet. Please. He quotes Maj Gen Qaasim Atta -- don't you love it when even the publicity hacks are given military titles? -- declaring, "This is the first 100 percent Iraqi security plan to protect the pilgrims. THe forces are all Iraqis, even the helicopters above." Oh, Tharp, if you want to play idiot, do so, but don't insult the rest of us. At his own outlet, Mohammed al Dulaimy already reported that US helicopters -- two of them -- were hovering over Baghdad. Well, ignore the two in Baghdad -- and pretend other US helicopters haven't been flying all over Iraq -- and you can swallow the spin, you can splash in the latest wave of Operation Happy Talk. Why, it's practically purple fingers! It's 2005 all over again! Reality is that Baghdad's rarely the point of attack. Reality is that the US forces, stepping away from Iraq cities, have been doing more work along the route of the pilgrims. Baghdad's the destination. But the pilgrims don't fly in to Baghad International, step onto the tarmac and rush to the shrine. That's not how it works. But if you're stupid enough, if you're as stupid as the press hopes you are, you will be grinning and swearing, "Mission accomplished!" Yes, with a little help from the press, you too can be as stupid as George W. Bush. And they hope you're as intellectually non-curious as George. That would allow you stop long before paragraph thirteen of Tharp's eighteen paragraph article where he sneaks in "two US choppers also provided surveillance on Thursday." Blink and you know you missed it, lose your love when you say the word "mine." The crackdown isn't explored. The crackdown includes curfews and a ban on traffic and that's mentioned (at the end, of course) and we get someone presented as something of a smart ass complaining but apparently actually interviewing pilgrims wasn't on the agenda. Apparently, taking dictation from the Iraqi spokesmodels was so much more important. We're focusing on Tharp but Timothy Williams has a piece of garbage that'll run in tomorrow's New York Times and you can pick off any liar at basically any outlet. In fairness to the press, it should be noted that this spin passed as reports should be part of a process wherein the coming days would explore what really happened. That still wouldn't justify relying solely on government spokesmodels, nor would it justify presenting unchecked spin as fact. But it doesn't matter because this won't be reported on. This won't be followed up on. And the point was always to get that splash of Operation Happy Talk headlines into the news cycle and never explore it. They never went back and addressed the problems in the January 31st elections, let alone in the 2005. It's all hype and hot air. And they can't even get their hype right. Tharp insists no pilgrims died from Thursday to today. Really? That would be a first in Iraq or anywhere. If people injured by bombings, if every single one of them. Tharps insists 48 people were wounded since Thursday) was injured in a bombing and not one later died on the way to the hospital or in the hospital. If that happened to three days worth of bombing victims, it would certainly be a first. AP reports, "The event was a relative success, despite bombings that killed several people and injured dozens." It's really something to watch as over 130,000 US forces are stripped of any credit because the press wants to paint Iraq as 'ready.' The press seems a little bit like a female singer who's sleeping with her guitarist and, therefore, eager to inflate his credit and build him up. So she goes around insisting he's really, really talented and really the brains behind every recording and no one would listen if he wasn't there. Reality, he's just the guitarist. In the real world, the assualt on the Sahwa ("Awakenings," "Sons Of Iraq") continues. BBC reports that Naeem Saleh al-Halbusi was injured in a bombing near Falluja attack targeting the Sahwa leader and wounding him and killing his son and two bodyguards. AP covers that bombing and notes one outside Falluja which claimed the lives of 2 children and left eight more injured. Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) notes a Baghdad roadside bombing which injured two police officers and a Mosul roadside bombing which injured two Iraqi soldiers. Reuters notes a Ramadi roadside bombing which injured one Iraqi soldier and a Mosul roadside bombing which injured one Iraqi police officer. Dropping back to yesterday, the US military reports 1 "Iraq local national was killed and another was injured during an accident involving a US military vehicle" in Basra. The US military announced today: DIYALA, Iraq Iraqi Security Forces delivered rice, flour, sugar and oil to citizens in Baqubah with the help of U.S. Forces. Video scenes include workers unloading five trucks of goods, and citizens lining up and receiving the products.DVIDSHUB.net has a one-minute package about the event as well as edited B-Roll and Interviews.
Direct link to the package: http://www.dvidshub.net/?script=video/video_show.php&id=64265Direct link to interviews: http://www.dvidshub.net/?script=video/video_show.php&id=64267Direct link to B-Roll: http://www.dvidshub.net/?script=video/video_show.php&id=64266For access to the video, contact the Digital Video and Imagery Distribution System by calling 1-877-DVIDS-247 or visit the Web site at www.DVIDSHUB.netYeah, that's right. Iraqi security forces couldn't even go into Baquba on their own. They came bearing gifts but still needed to be accompanied by US forces. But keep believeing the latest waves of Operation Happy Talk, the beautiful lie where Iraqi forces, all by themselves, ensured no pilgrim died. The thing about waves of Operation Happy Talk? They always crash into reality. Alsumaria reports of today's pilgrimage: "One citizen was killed and tens pilgrims were wounded as they were heading to Imam Moussa Al Kazem shrine (AS) due to roadside bomb explosions in Zaafaraniya, New Baghdad, Al Saydiya and Al Dora region." So even the fact-free hype falls apart upon examination. And Mike Tharp, Timothy Williams and assorted others? As Gladys once sang, "Now your head's little lower and you walk a little slower and you don't seem so proud." ( Ashford & Simpson's "Didn't You Know You'd Have To Cry Sometime?") Photo credit is: "Staff Sgt. Alan Cable, 30th Heavy Brigade Combat Team, (left), and 1st Lt. Adnan Ganim, 55th Iraqi Army Brigade, shake hands before returning to work at Joint Security Station Zubaida, south of Baghdad, July 15. Photo by Sgt. Mary Phillips, 30th Heavy Brigade Combat Team." In exactly seven days, the KRG holds elections. You don't hear a lot about that, do you? Compare it to the January 31st provincial elections which the KRG sat out (this is their provincial and presidential elections comined). Nada Bakri (Washington Post) reports from Sulaymaniyah on one candidate, Hallo Rasch: Rasch is running as an independent against the incumbent, Massoud Barzani, who was elected president of Iraqi Kurdistan in 2005. The pragmatic and cautious Barzani has been at the center of Kurdish politics -- in the region, in the rest of Iraq and in the broader Kurdish homeland -- since succeeding his father, a legendary guerrilla leader, as head of the Kurdistan Democratic Party more than 30 years ago.
Rasch's uphill candidacy is playing out in a region simultaneously considered the most democratic in Iraq and not all that democratic. Two main parties -- Barzani's Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, headed by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani -- have for years exercised a stranglehold on the region, dividing between them politics, patronage, investments and business deals. As noted last night, a helicopter crashed in Iraq. CNN reports it was an "Xe" (Blackwater) helicopter and that two employees died and another two were wounded. In other news, NPR's gone to the dogs. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqmcclatchy newspapersmohammed al dulaimythe washington postnada bakricnn
Posted at 08:01 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
First up, community business. Ann's started her own site, Ann's Mega Dub. She came up with the title to nod to her husband's site (and he helped some on the title). I did add it to the links last night but I'd already finished filling in for Elaine when Ann called and said she was going to start it. Ann filled in for Ruth for the month of June and just finished filling in for Mike last night. Yesterday the US military announced 3 deaths. Today the Dept of Defense released the following: The Department of Defense announced today the death of three soldiers who were supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. They died July16 in Basra of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked their unit using indirect fire.
Killed were:
Spc. Daniel P. Drevnick, 22, of Woodbury, Minn.;
Spc. James D. Wertish, 20, of Olivia, Minn.; and
Spc. Carlos E. Wilcox IV, 27, of Cottage Grove, Minn.
All three soldiers were assigned to the 34th Military Police Company, 34th Infantry Division, Minnesota Army National Guard, Stillwater, Minn.
For more information on these soldiers, media may contact the Minnesota Army National Guard Public Affairs Office at 651-282-4410.Hank Long (Woodbury Bulletin) quotes Minnesota National Guard Adjudant General Larry Shellito declaring, "We mourn the loss of these three soldiers; they were truly part of our National Guard family. We will never forget the dedication, loyalty and bravery shown by these soldiers for the United States of America and the state of Minnesota. I ask that you keep these soldiers, their families and loved ones in your thoughts and prayers now and forever." City Basra police chief Maj Gen Adil Daham, AP states that a supect has been arrested in the attack. Meanwhile Mike Tharp explores the dwindling farming in Iraq in " Once World's bread basket, Iraq now a farming basket case" ( McClatchy Newspapers) and we'll note this section: Just ask Naji Habeeb, 85. His family has been growing rice in this village 135 miles southeast of Baghdad for generations. Thin green shoots stick out of the flat paddies, shin-deep in brown water.
The Iraqi government, he claims, still owes him half of what he's due from last year's crop. He turned it in months ago and still hasn't been paid. "Shall I suck my fingers and eat like a baby?" he shouted. "The Ministry (of Agriculture) will never know my family is hungry!"
Habeeb's family members have farmed the 538-square-foot plot next to a branch of the Euphrates River the same way for centuries. Except today they till with tractors, run water pumps with gasoline and spread artificial fertilizer. They plant seedlings by hand in June and July, irrigate and keep bugs and disease away in the summer heat, harvest by hand in October.Some may not remember this, maybe they didn't screeching e-mails from the spokespeople a paper quoted, but the US military, years ago, was pimping the "We are teaching Iraqis how to farm! They will have date farms! They will have . . ." They have nothing and the point back then made here was that your problems were irrigation and pollution, that the irrigation and the rivers needed to be addressed. We didn't touch on the issue of damns, my mistake. But the military talking point was that Iraq would be a breadbasket again and it would be thanks to the US military and blah, blah, blah. To the one who wrote repeatedly (because apparently that's what you do when you serve in the spin wing of the military), I'm still not eating my words. How 'bout you? What's going on currently was all completely predictable and we noted what was happening and what would happen. This isn't the worst of it, this isn't the bottom. And it's amazing that approximately three years ago the US military lied big time and the New York Times was happy to run with it. They didn't do journalism, journalism would have been questioning those laughable assertions. And all this time later, they still avoid returning to that article, they still avoid going after that spin that they swallowed and repeated -- repeated and presented as fact when it never was. We'll note this from Sherwood Ross' " BUSH, CHENEY, TOLD LAWYERS TO GIVE THEM CRIMINAL ADVICE" ( Veterans Today): Torture instigators George Bush and Dick Cheney should not be allowed to evade prosecution on grounds they acted in good faith on their lawyers advice because they told their lawyers what advice to give. "Could Al Capone or Lucky Luciana receive immunity for acting in accordance with the advice of counsel when they told counsel what to advise?" asks Lawrence Velvel, dean of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover. "(Vice-President) Cheney and (President) Bush knew that they were ordering violations of law," Velvel points out. "The fact that they were doing so, and were well aware they were doing so, was one of the reasons why they, like a significant number of CIA officials who knew the same, demanded that lawyers produce legal cover for them in the form of Office of Legal Counsel memos authored by the likes of (John) Yoo and (Steven) Bradbury."Lower level CIA and military personnel that did not read the supposedly exculpatory memos, Velvel said, also cannot claim reliance on legal counsel because "they had to know that torture was forbidden no matter what some lawyers said. You could not grow up in America and not know this" any more than a person could claim murder was lawful because some lawyer told him so, Velvel writes."People who grew up in America cannot realistically claim that they thought it was lawful to beat people mercilessly, to smash their heads against walls, to kill about one hundred of them apparently, to hang them from ceiling hooks, to make them freeze, to deny them sleep for weeks on end, and so forth," Velvel writes in an essay in his new book "America 2008" from Doukathsan Press. The following community sites have updated since yesterday morning: Cedric's Big MixMICHELLE HAS PLANS FOR HEALTH CARE1 hour ago The Daily JotTHIS JUST IN! MICHELLE TO RESCUE HEALTH CARE!1 hour ago Mikey Likes It!Mike's back Monday20 hours ago Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)Ann starts a site, Cronkite passes away, and . . .21 hours ago Ann's Mega DubIraq21 hours ago Thomas Friedman is a Great ManAnalyzing the circus22 hours ago Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitudegordo's got more problems22 hours ago SICKOFITRADLZLie Face Melissa Harris Lacewell22 hours ago Trina's KitchenFries in the Kitchen22 hours ago Ruth's ReportWhat do you mean 'us,' Missy Comley Beattie?22 hours ago Oh Boy It Never EndsMelissa Harris Lacewell is an idiot22 hours ago Like Maria Said Paz'Poor' Sharon Smith22 hours ago The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqmcclatchy newspapersmike tharphank longsherwood rossanns mega dublike maria said pazkats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudethomas friedman is a great mantrinas kitchenthe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes itruths reportsickofitradlzoh boy it never ends
Posted at 07:59 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Friday, July 17, 2009
Friday,
July 17, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces
multiple deaths, at least 40 pilgrims are wounded in Baghdad bombings,
US war resister Robin Long speaks, increasing tensions between the
north and the central government, and more. This morning the US military announced:
"BAGHDAD -- Three Multi-National Division-South Soldiers were killed
when Contingency Operating Base Basra was attacked by indirect fire at
approximately 9:15 p.m. on July 16. The names of the deceased are being
withheld pending notification of next of kin. The incident is under
investigation." The announcement brings the number of US service
members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4326. Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) reports,
"Shortly after the attack, the Iraqi army gave the U.S. military
permission to carry out aerial searches northwest of the airport, the
area from where the rockets are thought to have been launched, U.S
officials said. Troops chased a car to a house, which they searched. A
joint U.S.-Iraqi patrol raided another home. Three Iraqi men were
briefly detained, the military said." Violence rocked Iraq as usual today but a lot of it targeted pilgrims. Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) explains
the pilgrimage "is expected to fill the streets of Baghdad on Saturday
in the first major security challenge for Iraqi military forces" with
"a limited curfew" being imposed and "thousands of additional Iraqi
soldiers and police officers . . . on the streets". Alsumaria reports,
"While thousands of pilgrims have poured in to Al Kazimiya to mark Imam
Kazem Anniversary (AS), citizens are complaining about closing main
roads which is usually caused by religious occasion." Muhanad Mohammed (Reuters) observes, "Despite intensive security, some bombers made it through." Turning to the reported violence today . . . Bombings? Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
a Baghdad roadside bombing which wounded thirteen pilgrims, a Baghdad
roadside bombing which wounded eight pilgrims, a Baghdad roadside
bombing which wounded five pilgrims, another Baghdad roadside bombing
which injured five pilgirms, a Baghdad roadside bombing which injured
three pilgrims, a Baghdad roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1
pilgrim and wounded six more, a Baghdad roadside bombing which injured
two men, a Falluja roadside bombing which injured nine males who were
playing football and a roadside bombing attack on the home of police
chief Abdulsalam Khawarm in Anbar Province resulting in the deaths of
two of his children and leaving eight more people injured. Reuters notes
1 dead in the Falluja bombing on the football players, a Mosul roadside
bombing left two Iraqi soldiers injured and a Shirqat sticky bombing
injured one police officer. Shootings? Reuters notes 1 person wounded in a Kirkuk shooting today and, dropping back to yesterday, one wounded in a Kirkuk shooting as well. Today on the second hour of NPR's The Diane Rehm Show, Diane and the Wall St. Journal's Youchi Dreazen, the Washington Post's David Ignatius and Foreign Policy's Moises Naim discussed Iraq. Diane
Rehm: Alright and let's turn now to Iraq and the latest on violence
there, David? You had three American soldiers killed Thursday after
insurgents fired mortar rounds into a US base in southern Iraq. You've
also got problems with the Kurds. You've got lots of issues still
going on even as the US is planning its pull-out. David
Ignatius: This was a week, Diane, that reminded us of the underlying
fragility of Iraq. We've gotten in the habit of not paying much
attention to it. Our troops are pulling back from the cities under the
timetable we agreed to with the Iraqis. And-and, these last weeks we
saw in these-these bombings and the political conflicts just how easily
Iraq could spin back into a very chaotic situation. Take the bombings
that happened on Wednesday. By my count, there were about eleven
people killed, something like fifty or sixty wounded. But what was
striking was that one of the bombs was in Ramadi -- in the Sunni
heartland, the area we thought had been stabilized by our
counter-insurgency work. Another bomb was in Sadr City. Another was
right in the heart of Baghdad, in Sadhun Street. Those latter two were
really going after Shi'ites, the first, in Ramadi, was going after
Sunnis. More of these bombings are going to again make Iraqis
frightened that they can't be secure without militias and then you're
back in the sectarian killing game and you're going to start finding
fifty bodies -- dead bodies -- every morning in the morgue. Diane
Rehm: At twenty-seven [after] the hour you're listening to The Diane
Rehm Show. And what's going on with the Kurds, Youchi? Youchi
Dreazen: In many ways, this is the most dangerous aspect of Iraq right
now. You've had recently [June 28th] a standoff between Kurdish
fighters and Iraqi national army fighters. Last year there was an
incident that did not get much attention here in which US drones that
were monitoring a similar standoff saw columns of armed Iraqi army
soldiers and columns of Kurdish peshmerga racing towards each other.
By the account of everyone who was watching it, bruising for a fight,
and they stood down only amidst much mediation by US embassy and
military -- as was the case here where there was US mediation. And
what you have is this very thorny issue about what will be the
boundaries between Kurdistan, what will be the boundaries between
Arab-Iraq? How will they divide oil? How will they divide Kirkuk?
These issues have been kicked down the road again and again and again.
And now they're at the end of the road. They have to at some point be
resolved. I think what you've seen is, when the US invaded, there was
a status quo that existed under Saddam that was toppled, there was a
Sunni-led status quo. Then there was a new status quo that was not
sustainable where you had fighting between Sunni and Shia Arabs and the
Kurds were kind of left off to their own devices in the north. Now you
have a new status quo where the Shia-Sunni tensions are much reduced --
the Arab tensions -- and now their focusing much more again on the
Arab-Kurdish tensions that were there under Saddam decades ago. Moises
Naim: And the Kurdish prime minister yesterday said that the Kurdish
autonomous region was closer to going to war with the central
government than ever before, since 2003, since the US invasion. And
that points, as Youchi said, to the tensions about the divisions --
federalism, they're trying to find out what is the divisions of
authority, power between a centralized government and a regional
government. And this is a region that is quite different in its
governance, in its function, in its economy, in its politics, than the
rest of the country. Diane
Rehm: And the United States population is certainly concerned as is the
Iraqi that what if the violence continues to uptick, gets worse? Do
troops reinvigorate, US troops? What do you do? David
Ignatius: Well for the administration, I think there's a recognition
that, as we reduce our military presence there, it is inevitable that
violence will increase. That's accepted. And it's just a price of our
getting out. The Iraqis want us out, we want to get out. So some
increase in violence, it's understood, will happen. And the question
is: Will the Iraqi forces be strong enough to contain it within
acceptable levels? And what's-what's-what's your choke point? If
you're President Obama and you're seeing ten people die a day, well,
what do you say? Suppose it gets up to fifty, what do you - what do
you do then? And that's -- it's-it's grisly. But that's the kind of
decision I fear that the-the Obama administration going to have to make
about Iraq over the coming year. Moises
Naim: It's very hard to imagine that there's a political environment in
the United States that will support a massive increase of troops -- of
US troops -- in Iraq. The-the line their will be crossed if Iran
becomes very influential country in Iraq. If Iranian influence there
which it hasn't seemed to be the case but that will be then the-the
political base for it. [. . .] Diane Rehm: To Charlie in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Good morning, you're on the air. Charlie:
Good morning. I'd like to go back to the MidEast a little bit in terms
of I think that Iraq is a lost cause. I think Sadr, Ayatollah Sadr's
militia has only stood down under orders from Iran and under
realization that the US military would destroy Sadr City. They will
res -- they will resurge and they will take over the south and if --
have this very informal reunion with Iran. The Sunnis were bought off
with US money and viagra pills for their ancient sheiks -- and that's
the truth, not a joke. And the Kurds, our most loyal allies, are the
largest tribe, as far as I know, on earth without a homeland. And I'm
afraid that they -- especially with the oil money -- do not intend to
be left behind this time. I think also I'd like one more comment, on
the Gaza situation again. [. . .] What
about Gaza? This isn't the Gaza snapshot. And by bringing that up,
Gaza, it's what everyone quickly glommed on after David's initial
remarks on Iraq. David Ignatius: Well,
I think the -- it's too early for me at least to say that Iraq is a
lost cause. One interesting fact about Iraq is that our greatest
potential problem -- which is Iranian influence, Iranian support for
extremist militias, like Moqtada Sadr who the caller was referring to,
Iran politically is imploding. That threat, the ability of Iran to
destabilize Iraq, is, I think, somewhat reduced, I want to say
signifianctly reduced -- becuase of the chaose following the election.
And I think you can generalize that to potential Iranian clients all
ove. Political parties in Iraq that are supported by Iran must be
worrying, "Holy smokes our paymaster are in trouble." As
noted in Diane's discussion, things are very tense between the central
government in Baghdad and the Kurdish Regional Government. Anthony Shadid (Washington Post) reports,
"In separate interviews, Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani and the
region's president, Massoud Barzani, described a stalemate in attempts
to resolve long-standing disputes with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki's emboldened government. Had it not been for the presence of
the U.S. military in northern Iraq, Nechirvan Barzani said, fighting
might have started in the most volatile regions." Quil Lawrence (NPR's All Things Considered) reported
this afternoon on the tensions quoting Barzani, "Whoever wants to get
ahead in Iraqi politics does so by criticizing the Kurds." On
territorial disputes and what may have been an attempt by al-Maliki's
government to enroach on Kurdish territories June 28th, Lawrence quotes
Barzani stating, "Our problem is that we do not believe there is any
political will in Baghdad to solve this problem." Gordon Duff (Salem-News) addresses the June 28th confrontation and offers his opinions: News
stories reporting on this conflict conveniently omit Kurdish history.
Our NATO partner, Turkey, that refused to allow US troops access to
Northern Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom, has long been an enemy of
our Kurdish allies. If Turkey had joined with the US, the military
disaster that led to years of conflict might have been averted.
Instead, the US depended on Kurdish armies to defeat Saddam in Northern
Iraq. Reports of Kurdish
incursions in and around Kirkuk fail to mention that the Arabs in the
region are remnants of Saddam's occupation forces, not residents. The
efforts by the Baghdad government to continue control of this Kurdish
region is driven by need to control the regions oil revenues and
continue to fuel Iraq's massive corruption. Elizabeth
Dickinson: With [US Vice President Joe] Biden as the U.S. envoy for
reconciliation in Iraq, what priorities should he be pushing for?
Jay
Garner: No. 1, a referendum on disputed lands, because I don't think
you can ever have a stable Iraq as long as you have an unstable
Arab-Kurdish border. No. 2, a resolution on the oil law because it's a
thorn in everybody's side. No. 3, continue to exert whatever leverage
we have on the Iraqi government to get these things done.
Anything
that happens here, whether it is Kurds versus Arabs or Shiite versus
Sunni -- and those are huge flash points -- is not an Iraqi problem;
it's a regional problem. It's huge. It's much greater than Iraq,
because if it's Shiite-Sunni you are going to have Iranians on the side
of the Shiites and you are going to have the Gulf region on the side of
the Sunnis. If it's Arab-Kurdish, you are going to have an ethnic war,
and lives will be gone and other countries will get involved because
they are going to want to shape how it comes out.
I don't think
the [U.S.] administration wants to pull out in 2011, run for the
presidency in 2012, and have this whole damned thing blow up on them,
you know? So it is good that [U.S. President Barack Obama has]
appointed Biden; it's good that he's made a special envoy; and it's
good that Biden is drilling in on this. Biden is a guy that has studied
a long time. He is more thoughtful about this than the other people,
and I think that's a good first step. But you've got to have some
leverage to execute that. So whatever leverage we have left, we need to
make sure that those flash points are solved before we leave. Garner mentioned the oil law (aka the theft of Iraqi law) and Nouri's sending messages on that today. Missy Ryan (Reuters) reports
that the Oil Ministry's spokesperson Asim Jihad declared today of talk
that unions might stop the British Petroleum and China National
Petroleum Corporation oil deal (jointly, they were awarded a contract
from the puppet government in the oil auction -- that was the only
awarded contract from that auction), "The government will protect the
companies." 'At all costs' was left implied. Yesterday's snapshot noted the House Veterans Affairs Disability and Memorial Affairs Subcommittee's joint-hearing with the Subcomittee on Health. Kat covered the hearing last night and noted the discussion on rape victims. That was the first panel, Service Women's Action Network's Anuradha Bhagwati, Wounded Warrior Project's Dawn Halfaker and National Association of State Women Veterans Coordinators, Inc and the Texas Veterans Commission's Delilah Washburn. Grace After Fire's
Kayla Williams raised an issue during questioning about suicide rates.
Asked of the number of females, she explained she didn't know that
number and then explained that the military is only tracking the
suicides for those on active duty and not the number of suicides among
veterans. (Or, at least only releasing the data for those on active
duty.) Something to keep in mind as the Los Angeles Times reports:
"About 37% of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have mental
health problems, a nearly 50% increase from the last time the
prevalence was calculated, according to a new study published today
analyzing national Department of Veterans Affairs data. The study,
which examined the records of about 289,000 veterans who sought care at
the VA between 2002 and 2008, also found higher rates of post-traumatic
stress disorder and depression." Turning to war resistance, last week Robin Long was released from the brig. Today he spoke on KPFA's The Morning Show "Not for a second do I regret or wish I'd done something different." Philip Malderi: You're listening to The Morning Show on KPFA,
I'm Philip Malderi. I'm joined in the studio by Robin Long. Robin was
in the US army. He enlisted shortly after the Iraq War got under way
in June of '03. He was guaranteed by his recruiter that he wouldn't be
sent to Iraq but of course those promises were not exactly fulfilled.
In 2005, realizing he had made a mistake, he went to Canada and decided
to resist serving in Iraq. Canada ultimately sent him back and he went
to a navy brig down in San Diego to serve a year in prison. And now
he's out. He joins me in the studio. Robin Long, welcome to KPFA. Robin Long: Good morning. Philip Malderi: Uh, again why did you decide to join in the first place? Why don't we start there. Robin
Long: You said initially I'd joined in June. I'd actually signed up
for the delayed entry program in about February. You know, I'd always
grown up thinking I want to join the army and, you know, a lot of
people in my family are in the military and I just thought it was
something I would do my whole life and so I signed up for the delayed
entry program. And shortly after we went and invaded Iraq. And at the
time I actually thought, you know, this is the right thing to be doing,
you know there's connections with al Q-al Qaeda and there's weapons of
mass destruction there but by the time June came when I was actually, I
was getting ready to go to basic training in October, but around June,
I was talking to my recruiter and said, "Hey, I have-have some moral
qualms with what's going on over there." And he, uh, at that time, he
assured me that I wouldn't go to Iraq, I'd be sent to a nondeployable
post and -- Philip Malderi: And you believed it. Robin
Long: Oh, yeah, I believed it. They-they kept true to their word. I
was stationed at Fort Knox for two years but speaking out while I was
there, saying stuff, that's when they decided to give me orders to go
to Iraq -- the only person in my unit. I don't know if it was
punishment or what it was but they, uh, they ended up sending me to a
unit that was already in Iraq . Philip Malderi: They pulled you out of your unit in Kentucky and only you and sent you to a unit that was already in Iraq? Robin Long: I was -- Philip Malderi: But was going to send you actually? Robin
Long: Yeah, they were - they were going to send me. They were sending
me to Fort Carson, Colorado to join up with Second Brigade, Second
Infantry and they were already in Iraq at the time so I was just
supposed to report there and meet up with them in Iraq. They'd already
been there for like four months. Philip Malderi: So what did you decide to do? Robin
Long: Well I told them when they told me where I was going that, "No,
I'm not going to go there. You know, if you're going to give me these
orders, I'm going to - I'm going to refuse them. I'm not going to show
up at Fort Carson." They said, "Yeah, you are. You're going to show
up." Eventually, you know when the time came to hop on the plane, I-I
didn't, I didn't get on the plane to go to Fort Carson and it took me
about two months to actually decide to go up to Canada. I lived
underground in a friend's basement for-for a good two months. Philip Malderi: So what happened in Canada? Was there a system of support for war resisters? Robin
Long: I initially went up there by myself. I didn't now anyone. I was
up there for six months before I even found a group called the War
Resisters Support Campaign. There based out of Toronto but they have
chapters in cities all across Canada and they help with financial
needs, finding you a place to stay. They raise money to-to pay for
lawyers and stuff up there so there's like a legal avenue people are
trying to do up there by applying for political refugee status and they
just kind of help out with everything with that. So. Philip Malderi: So where did you settle down? Robin
Long: Initially, I settled down in a little town called Marathon,
Ontario on the most northern tip of Lake Superior. You don't know cold
until you've lived there, negative forty for months at a time. Philip Malderi: (Laughing) This was -- this was your punishment. Robin Long: Yeah, you know, nice in summer time but the winter? It's definitely cold. Philip
Malderi: Uh, now, during the Vietnam war, those that can remember it,
people who resisted going to Vietnam and went to Canada, the Canadian
government of that time protected them and did not send them back to
the States to be prosecuted. What changed? What happened this time? Robin
Long: Well, the -- the Canadian people and the majority even of
Parliament still want the war resisters, actually all conscientious
objectors from any war to be able to stay in Canada. Parliament voted
-- has voted twice in the last two years to allow war resisters and
their families to stay. But the Conservative government that is in
charge -- you know, that Parliament votes on laws and everything, but
the government that's in charge has to actually implement the laws.
They're just ignoring the votes. And they're ignoring their
constituents and what most people want. [C.I. note: No law has been passed. We'll go over that point at the end of the transcript.]
So they're just acting like this vote never even happened. So it's
really just the Conservatives, a Bush-supporting Conservative
government led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper that's changed. Philip Malderi: And how did they capture you? Robin
Long: The RNC, the Mounties, came to where I was staying and said I had
a nation-wide immigration warrant, picked me up and I didn't get hand
cuffed or anything, they just put me in the cop car, brought me to the
Nelson city cell. I was staying in Nelson, British Columbia at the
time. And took about seven days and I was handed over to the US
authorities in Blaine, Washington. Philip Malderi: And then the Army prosecuted you? Robin
Long: Yeah, they, about forty days later, they prosecuted me for
desertion with intent to remain away permanently which, uh, has a
maximum sentence of three years but, uh, I -- there was no refuting
it. I-I had deserted. It's all paper work so to get a lesser
sentence, I pled guilty to it and only received fifteen months. The
judge -- because there's a pretrial agreement -- the judge what she
actually does is she gives you a sentence and whichever's less, what
your pretrial or what she gives you, is what you get. So she gave me
thirty months and a dishonorable discharge but the pretrial gave me
fifteen. Philip Malderi: So where did you serve this time? Robin Long: I served it down in San Diego. To
be clear, Parliament didn't pass a law. Both votes were non-binding.
That's why Stephen Harper can ignore them. Harper, the Prime Minister
of Canada, would be forced -- as would any future Prime Minister -- to
follow the two motions passed already if either had been legislation
and not a non-binding motion. Why the political parties haven't pushed
for a real vote on real legislation may be due to the Senate or higher
up. The only one passing anything -- another reason it couldn't be a
law -- is the House. Both times that the non-binding motion was
brought before a body, it was brought before the House. Canada
has a bi-cameral Parliament with an upper and lower house. The Senate
is the upper house and it has never voted on it. In practice, usually
the Senate goes along with what the House does becuase the House is
directly elected by the Canadian people. The Senate is staffed, not
elected. They are rubber stamped by the Governor General of Canada . .
. on the say so of . . . the Prime Minister. Meaning, Stephen Harper's
recommended people since he was in power. Once recommended, they serve
until they retire (with a mandatory retirement age) or die while in
office. The bulk of the Senate shouldn't be Harper supporters or even
Conservative Party supporters because the last decades -- as far back
as the sixties have seen the Liberal Party the primary party in power.
So where's the problem in the Senate? Noel
Kinsella. Who is he? He's the Speaker of the Senate. How does
someone become the Speaker? In the House, they're elected. In the
Senate, they're appointed. In his position, he could refuse to allow a
vote or do any number of things. But it's also true that you've got
barriers above him. Say the Senate went along with the House (either
out of tradition or conviction), you don't have a law yet. It has to
be signed off on. The first who could sign
it into law would be Michaelle Jean. She's Queen Elizabeth II's
representative. Her posts is Governor General of Canada and the queen
appoints her. If a bill passed both houses, Michaelle Jean could allow
it to become a law, nix it or leave the issue up to the Queen. Nixing
it -- no reason needs to be given -- means no law. Passing it onto the
Queen who can say yea or nay. (The Queen also has two years after the
Governor General to decide, no, it's not a law. It would be a law
throughout that time but the Queen can reverse it.) So if we follow
all of that, the ultimate reason why the House does non-binding
measures may be due to the fact that they grasp the pressure from the
Bush administration and now the Obama administration (which makes their
opinions known through an acting ambassador, Terry Breese, because
they've not filled the post of Ambassador to Canada) on Canadian
officials would also be conveyed to the Queen of England who, having
refused to stop the illegal war in 2003 (she could have), wouldn't
allow this to become law. While the British are largely out of Iraq
(approximately 400 British troops remain), they are still in
Afghanistan and have had war resisters. Queen Elizabeth II is not
about to go along with that (or give Canadian troops an argument for
not serving in Afghansitan). Repeating because England has kept their
monarchy (Canada didn't "keep it" -- they remain endentured to England
because they never had a revolution which is why Queen Elizabeth is
their head of state), Queen Elizabeth could have prevented England from
entering the Iraq War. She didn't. It's another reason why you have
rumbles of doing away with the monarchy in England. But
Canada has no real independence. If England declares war, Canada has
as well, whether they delcare it themselves or not. Which means that
while Canada chose not to send soldiers to Iraq, as part of England,
they officially are in support of that war. (That illegal war.) And
that's the difference that Philip Malderi was asking about: England
didn't take part in a war on Vietnam. Not the Indochina War or the
later American conflict. That's one reason why Canada could take the
stand they did during Vietnam. Also true, a strong prime minister,
like Pierre Trudeau, could take that stand right now. The Queen is
head of state but Harper is head of government and, in a face off on a
popular issue, the Queen might go along. Harper being Harper, such a
face off isnt likely to take place. The above
is a very complicated process and one that's very different from the US
-- which fought a war to have their independence from England and
fought the 1812 war when Canada was being a proxy for England. What's
not complicated is that the Iraq War is not ending. There are over
130,000 US troops in Iraq presently. So it was amazing, on allegedly
left radio, Philip Malderi tried to declare that the Iraq War was
winding down. Well, as a colleague of his on campus said during 2008, " Phil's no longer just drinking the Kool-Aid, he's drinking the urine."
We wished that Phil could have been in Harlem Tuesday night so Carl Dix
could have set him straight on the Iraq War (Dix was in a dialogue
with Cornel West at Aaron Davis Hall). But Robin Long was present and
tried to walk Philip through, "What's going on in Iraq, they say all
combat troops are leaving but, if you look at it, they're just changing
the name. They're being called the same thing they were being called
in Vietnam. They're being called 'advisers' now. And we have 30
permanent bases in Iraq. Just because they're not being called combat
troops, there's still a lot of people there." Turning
to TV notes. Tony Blair's appearance at The Hague may be delayed for a
bit; however, the War Criminal can be found this week on your TV screen
via NOW on PBS: Once
one of the most dangerous and violent cities in the West Bank, Jenin
was the scene of frequent battles between the Israeli military and
Palestinian fighters, and the hometown of more than two dozen suicide
bombers.Today, however,
there's been a huge turnaround. Jenin is now the center of an
international effort to build a safe and economically prosperous
Palestinian state from the ground up. On Jenin's streets today, there's
a brand new professional security force loyal to the Palestinian
Authority and funded in part by the United States. But can the modest
success in Jenin be replicated throughout the West Bank, or will the
effort collapse under the intense political pressure from all sides?This
week, NOW talks directly with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair,
the international community's envoy to the region and an architect of
the plan. We also speak with a former commander of the infamous Al-Aqsa
Martyrs Brigade in Jenin about his decision to stop using violent
tactics, and to residents of Jenin about their daily struggles and
their hopes for the future.To
Blair, the Jenin experiment can be pivotal in finally bringing peace to
the Middle East. He tells NOW, "This is the single most important issue
for creating a more stable and secure world."A war
criminal, an architect of the illegal war on Iraq, wants to tell the
world what our "single most important issue" is and expects to be
trusted? Tony Blair belongs behind bars, not on your TV screen. On PBS'
Washington Week,
Gwen sits around the table with USA Today's Joan Biskupic, the New York
Times' Mark Mazzetti (aka The Little Asset Who Could), and Time
magazine's Karen Tumulty and Hedda Hopper Lives!' Jeanne Cummings who
will continue her efforts to be seen as the tabloids' new Jeane Dixon. Bonnie Erbe sits down with Bay Buchanan, Avis Jones-DeWeever, Tara Setmayer and Amy Siskind on PBS' To The Contrary. Check local listings, all three PBS shows begin airing tonight on many PBS stations. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers: Gun Rush
Americans
are snapping up guns and ammunition at an increasingly higher rate
despite the economic downturn. But as Lesley Stahl reports, the
economic downturn, as well as the election of Barack Obama, may be the
reason for the run on guns. | Watch Video
Poisoned
The
African lion, already down as much as 85 percent in numbers from just
20 years ago, is now in danger of becoming extinct because people are
poisoning them with a cheap American pesticide to protect their cattle
herds. Bob Simon reports. | Watch Video
Steve Wynn
The
casino mogul most responsible for taking Las Vegas to new heights of
gaming and glitter talks to Charlie Rose about his spectacular success
and the eye disease that's slowly robbing him of his ability to see the
fruits of his labor. | Watch Video
60 Minutes, Sunday, July 19, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
Posted at 03:35 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
3 US soldiers killed in Iraq
This morning the US military announced:
"BAGHDAD -- Three Multi-National Division-South Soldiers were killed
when Contingency Operating Base Basra was attacked by indirect fire at
approximately 9:15 p.m. on July 16. The names of the deceased are being
withheld pending notification of next of kin. The incident is under
investigation." The announcement brings the number of US service
members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4326. In other reported violence today, AFP notes
a Falluja bombing which has claimed the lives of 2 children and left
six people injured. The bombing took place at the home of Lt Col Abdel
Salam Khawam in the latest of the continued attacks on Iraqi police. Reuters notes
a Baghdad roadside bombing which injured four pilgrims, a second
Baghdad roadside bombing which claimed the lives of 2 people and left
twelve more injured (apparently pilgrims), a Shirqat sticky bombing
targeting police which left one police officer injured, 1 person shot
wounded in a Kirkuk shooting and, dropping back to yesterday, one
person wounded in a Kirkuk shooting. The pilgrims are the topic of Mohammed al Dulaimy's " Shiite pilgrimage poses major challenge for Iraqi military" ( McClatchy Newspapers):
Authorities
have imposed a limited curfew in Baghdad, and thousands of additional
Iraqi soldiers and police officers are on the streets for the annual
commemoration of a revered Shiite holy man who died in the eighth
century.
A brigade from the Iraqi Federal Police -- previously known
as the Iraqi National Police -- set up checkpoints at which men, women
and children were searched Thursday, and Iraqi army helicopters flew
low over the crowds.
Two American helicopters also hovered overhead; in the past, Iraqis had asked that only U.S. helicopters protect their missions.Meanwhile Alsumaria reports,
"While thousands of pilgrims have poured in to Al Kazimiya to mark Imam
Kazem Anniversary (AS), citizens are complaining about closing main
roads which is usually caused by religious occasion." On religion,
Anthony Shadid's " A Shiite Schism On Clerical Rule: Iraqis See Their Concept Gain on Iran's" ( Washington Post) explores the changes made by the US backed and installed 'leadership' in Iraq: But
three decades after the Iranian revolution brought to power one notion
of clerical rule -- and six years after the fall of Saddam Hussein
helped enshrine another version of religious authority here -- the
relationship between religion and the state in Iraq, clerics here say,
seems more enduring than the alternative in neighboring Iran."It's
true," said Ghaith Shubar, a cleric who runs a foundation in Najaf
aligned with Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, Iraq's most powerful cleric.
"The spiritual guidance of the people in Iraq has become stronger than
the guidance offered under the system in Iran. The marjaiya" -- the
term used to describe the authority of the most senior ayatollahs --
"has more influence in Iraq, spiritual and otherwise, than it does in
Iran." While al-Maliki's clique self-congratulates, Rachelle Marshall (Media Monitors Network) reminds: Al-Maliki
has steadfastly refused to honor Americas commitment to the thousands
of Sunni fighters whose willingness to join the American side two years
ago was responsible for a dramatic decline in violence. The Sunni
Awakening Councils provided soldiers who fought with the Americans
against al-Qaeda and in return were paid by the American army. They
also were promised they would be given government jobs and allowed to
join regular Iraqi security forces.Instead
of meeting these commitments, the Iraqi government began arresting
senior Awakening Council leaders, claiming they are still insurgents,
and demanding that members of the Councils be disarmed. Awakening
Council members are also being attacked by Islamic militants whom they
turned against when they joined the Americans. The security situation
in general has deteriorated, with many Iraqis claiming the Iraqi forces
are too inept to provide security. Turning to TV notes.
Tony Blair's appearance at The Hague may be delayed for a bit; however,
the War Criminal can be found this week on your TV screen via NOW on PBS: Once
one of the most dangerous and violent cities in the West Bank, Jenin
was the scene of frequent battles between the Israeli military and
Palestinian fighters, and the hometown of more than two dozen suicide
bombers.Today, however,
there's been a huge turnaround. Jenin is now the center of an
international effort to build a safe and economically prosperous
Palestinian state from the ground up. On Jenin's streets today, there's
a brand new professional security force loyal to the Palestinian
Authority and funded in part by the United States. But can the modest
success in Jenin be replicated throughout the West Bank, or will the
effort collapse under the intense political pressure from all sides?This
week, NOW talks directly with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair,
the international community's envoy to the region and an architect of
the plan. We also speak with a former commander of the infamous Al-Aqsa
Martyrs Brigade in Jenin about his decision to stop using violent
tactics, and to residents of Jenin about their daily struggles and
their hopes for the future.To
Blair, the Jenin experiment can be pivotal in finally bringing peace to
the Middle East. He tells NOW, "This is the single most important issue
for creating a more stable and secure world."A war
criminal, an architect of the illegal war on Iraq, wants to tell the
world what our "single most important issue" is and expects to be
trusted? Tony Blair belongs behind bars, not on your TV screen. On PBS'
Washington Week,
Gwen sits around the table with USA Today's Joan Biskupic, the New York
Times' Mark Mazzetti (aka The Little Asset Who Could), and Time
magazine's Karen Tumulty and Hedda Hopper Lives!' Jeanne Cummings who
will continue her efforts to be seen as the tabloids' new Jeane Dixon. Bonnie Erbe sits down with Bay Buchanan, Avis Jones-DeWeever, Tara Setmayer and Amy Siskind on PBS' To The Contrary. Check local listings, all three PBS shows begin airing tonight on many PBS stations. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers: Gun Rush
Americans are snapping up guns and ammunition at an increasingly higher
rate despite the economic downturn. But as Lesley Stahl reports, the
economic downturn, as well as the election of Barack Obama, may be the
reason for the run on guns. | Watch Video
Poisoned
The
African lion, already down as much as 85 percent in numbers from just
20 years ago, is now in danger of becoming extinct because people are
poisoning them with a cheap American pesticide to protect their cattle
herds. Bob Simon reports. | Watch Video
Steve Wynn
The casino mogul most responsible for taking Las Vegas to new heights
of gaming and glitter talks to Charlie Rose about his spectacular
success and the eye disease that's slowly robbing him of his ability to
see the fruits of his labor. | Watch Video
60 Minutes, Sunday, July 19, at 7 p.m. ET/PT. Turning to public radio. On NPR's The Diane Rehm Show
this morning (begins airing on most NPR stations and streaming online
at 10:00 am EST), Diane's panel for the first hour (focusing on
domestic issues) is composed of The New Republic's Michael Crowley, the
ever present Jeanne Cummings and CBS and Slate's John Dickerson. For
the second hour, the international hour, the panel is composed of the
Wall St. Journal's Youchi Dreazen, the Washington Post's David Ignatius
and Foreign Policy's Moises Naim. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqmcclatchy newspapersmohammed al dulaimythe washington postanthony shadidalsumariarachelle marshall60 minutescbs news
Posted at 06:19 am by thecommonills
Permalink
The fault lines between the KRG and the central government
Iraq's
autonomous Kurdish region and the Iraqi government are closer to war
than at any time since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, the Kurdish prime
minister said Thursday, in a bleak measure of the tension that has
risen along what U.S. officials consider the country's most combustible
fault line. In separate
interviews, Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani and the region's
president, Massoud Barzani, described a stalemate in attempts to
resolve long-standing disputes with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki's emboldened government. Had it not been for the presence of
the U.S. military in northern Iraq, Nechirvan Barzani said, fighting
might have started in the most volatile regions. The above is from Anthony Shadid's " Kurdish Leaders Warn Of Strains With Maliki: Military Conflict a Possibility, One Says" ( Washington Post). It's the must-read article on Iraq this morning and you have to wonder where the New York Times is? You
have to wonder or you have to stop caring and we're probably moving
away from the paper for three reasons. First, in reporting last week, they offered a very bad dispatch featuring all the US talking points and nothing resembling journalism. And that was their 'big' piece. Jay Garner called it out in a letter to the paper.
That didn't lead them to refile and go in depth. They just ignored it.
The way they're ignoring the KRG's upcoming elections. I'm
getting sick of the paper and all the money they waste on Iraq. Forget
that they can't find the 'energy' to file an Iraq article every day
(which their budget should demand), they can't even keep a blog up and
running. That's ridiculous. They are ridiculous. Three, I'm
looking at e-mails (two from visitors, four from community members) and
wondering, "What the hell is going on with the paper now?" They flipped
their outsourcing for subscription services back near the end of 2006,
I believe. And they've had non-stop problems. Their latest problem?
They're not getting paid for the paper. Their contractor's computer
system had some sort of a glitch and they're sending out dun letters to
tell people they owe for the paper. They owe? These are people who have
their credit cards on file and they're supposed to be automatically
billed each month on their cards. As a vistor explains, "I don't have
over $170 in one lump sum to pay this month. They were supposed to be
billing me each month. I've subscribed since 2004 and never had this
problem. I come home and there's a letter telling me that I haven't
been paying and I now owe over $170. I called that non-customer service
number and, oopsie, yeah my credit card is on file. I'm told it's a
problem that they've had with a number of accounts." If you're a
subscriber to the paper, you may need to check and see if you've been
billed each month or not. And apparently, if you haven't been billed
each month, that's your fault and not the paper's. I'm not in the mood
for this garbage. Since they switched contractors, they have had
nothing but problems and there is no quality care at the paper, no
concern over how many subscribers they are losing due to their
contractors. I'm not in the mood for the paper right now. If there's an
article I feel warrants attention, we'll note it. Otherwise, I'm ticked
off because I don't have a lot of sympathy or admiration for
incompetents who destroy newspapers and that's what the New York Times is doing right now. (And
this doesn't effect me. My 'subscription' costs several times more than
the average subscription because I pay the local distributor that
excessive amount to ensure that I have the paper at my home by X each
morning. I could stop doing that since I'm never home anymore but I
won't. However, on the road each week now, I may be less and less
inclined to track down a copy of their paper each day. For those who it
does effect, you should be arguing loudly. That was their mistake and
they should be able to half the amount owed -- at the least -- and you
should also press for a six month pricing plan that they offer new
subscribers. That's the very least that should be done.) If you read the Times, you have no idea of the tensions emerging but you do have a concept of "bad Kurds!" which might make a few people feel better but doesn't really inform anyone. In addition to bad reporting, we get bad columns like Thomas Friedman's " Goodbye Iraq, and Good Luck" -- a real load of garbage from the smug trash collector Friedman. John Boonstra calls out the column in " Friedman: Occupation only makes Iraqis 'want' and 'need' U.S. help" ( UN Dispatch): I
just got around to reading Tom Friedman's column from the other day
about Kirkuk Iraq. It's odd in a number of ways, from his love of using
jokes to make a point, to his blithe assumption that the U.S. military
has "left a million acts of kindness" in the country, and his bizarre
contention that Iraq is "100 times more important" than Bosnia (what is
the point of a powder keg competition between the Middle East and the
Balkans, anyway?). But this is what struck me most from Friedman's
outlook: Senior
Iraqi officials are too proud to ask for our help and would probably
publicly resist it, but privately Iraqis will tell you that they want
it and need it. We are the only trusted player here even by those who
hate us. They need a U.S. mediator so they can each go back to their
respective communities and say: "I never would have made these
concessions, but those terrible Americans made me do it."First,
I have a hard time believing that Thomas Friedman can reliably attest
to the private desires of most Iraqis (especially when he is writing
from Kirkuk, but makes no mention that Kurds, who form a substantial
part of Kirkuk's population, have a notably different outlook toward
Americans). Second, I have an even harder time believing that six-plus
years of military occupation has made Iraqis "want" and "need" more
American help (something tells me that simply observing the diversity
of American military personnel has not, as Friedman weakly argues, made
an impression on Iraq's own ethnic politics). January
31st, 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces held provincial elections. The Kurdish
region did not take place in those elections. Their elections take
place next week. The Economist offers " Change in the air?" (unsigned, but not billed as an editorial): AS
IRAQ'S Kurds prepare to vote on July 25th for a regional assembly and a
president, the buzzword is Goran, meaning change. It is also the name
of a new movement that is trying to defeat -- or at least to dent --
the two parties that came into their own when the Kurds won self-rule
in 1991, after the Americans and their allies chased Saddam Hussein out
of Kuwait in the south and then prevented him from beating up the Kurds
in the north. The elections promise to be the most hotly contested
during the Kurds current golden era of autonomy. As Changes campaign
gathers pace, its name and logo, an orange candle on a dark-blue
background, is emblazoned on buses, taxis, T-shirts, baseball caps and
balloons. The movement is on a roll. Whether this translates into votes
in a society where patronage and clan loyalties still largely hold sway
is not yet clear.Change
says it wants to improve the lives of Kurds across the region. It
castigates the corruption and cronyism of the two main parties: the
Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), long a fief of the Barzani clan in
the north and western parts of the region around Dohuk and Erbil; and
the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), run by the Talabani clan in
Sulaymaniyah province to the east and in the disputed lands to the
south around Kirkuk. Having wasted millions, the New
York Times is now trying to make a profit via destruction of the Boston
Globe. As they attack those workers and attempt a tag sale on the
assets, the Boston Globe actually does more real work in journalism
than the Times could ever dream of. That includes this morning's
editorial " An obligation to refugees:" AS
AMERICAN TROOPS withdraw from Iraq, they leave behind a population of
refugees who are only part of a humanitarian crisis encompassing war
zones all around the world. The United States is the largest donor of
refugee relief, yet despite this effort and the United Nations refugee
program, temporary shelter and aid give little comfort to refugees who
are highly vulnerable to contagious disease and violence. As people
grow up and die in camps, the idea that only temporary shelter is
needed has become an idyllic fairy tale. The United States should
provide a haven for more refugees.Each
year the US government sets a number of refugees to resettle in the
United States for protection, and this year the ceiling was raised from
70,000 to 80,000. This increase acknowledges the scale of the crisis
but ignores the thousands of available spots that go unfilled each
year. Existing programs to select refugees cannot meet the cap, and few
refugees, who lack homes or clean water, could be expected to apply
without help. Meaningful offers of resettlement require expanding
support for programs that encourage eligible refugees to apply.On the subject of refugees, Miriam Jordan (Wall St. Journal) reports
that the US has agreed to take in 1,350 Palestinian refugees from Iraq
-- these are apparently among the over 3,000 refugees stuck in the
'camps' between Iraq and Syria. From Jordan's article: "These
particular Palestinians are a fallout from the Iraq War," said George
Bisharat, a professor at the University of California Hastings College
of Law, who specializes in Middle Eastern law. "The Obama
administration had to take some responsibility for the consequences of
the invasion."The news comes one week after International Middle East Media Center reported
on the death of Suad Abdul-Qader Al Hallaq who died in one of the
'camps,' Al Waleed -- one week before her death, Shihada Mohammad Abu
Hamad had died at the camp. Meanwhile International Organization for
Migration announces money received from the US government in " US$ 10 Million to Help Returning Iraqi Families Reintegrate:" Posted on Friday, 17-07-2009Iraq
- IOM has received US$10 million from the US Department of State Bureau
of Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM) to meet the most urgent
needs of Iraqi returnees.Working
with the Ministry of Displacement and Migration (MoDM) and host
communities, IOM is assisting returnees and local residents without
jobs or underemployed by providing information and counseling; grants
for the purchase of tools, equipment or basic materials; and vocational
and/or business training, to create or expand small businesses or to
find employment.IOM is
working with returnees in Baghdad, Ninewa, Diyala, Babyl, Wassit and
Missan governorates. With the new funding from PRM, IOM will assist at
least 3,500 individuals in Baghdad, Babylon, Diyala and Ninewa, and
will expand the geographical coverage to other governorates, namely
Anbar, Basrah, Erbil and Sulaymania. IOM
monitors have identified some 52,000 post-2006 returnee families in
approximately 800 locations; with the majority returning to Baghdad,
and significant groups to Diyala and Anbar.Seventy-one
per cent of returnees interviewed by IOM said they had decided to
return to their places of origin because of improved security or a
combination of improved security and difficult conditions in their
place of displacement.Nationwide,
returnees have told IOM monitors that their immediate needs are food,
fuel, and non-food items (such as mattresses or cooking utensils),
along with healthcare and legal assistance. In the long term,
employment, shelter and property restitution are the major concerns for
returnee families."Individual
returnee families have widely differing needs. Many have come home to
destroyed, damaged, or looted property," explains Mike Pillinger, Chief
of the IOM Mission in Iraq.Thirty-nine
per cent of returnees interviewed by IOM reported finding their home in
poor or uninhabitable condition. Others have no job or a way to support
their families. In Baghdad, 64 per cent of heads of household
interviewed by IOM are unemployed; 61% in Diyala and 31% in Anbar. In
other cases health care services or obtaining missing documents are
priority issues.MoDM
and the Kurdish Regional Government's Directorate of Displacement and
Migration estimate that there are approximately 1.7 million post-2006
internally displaced Iraqis. There
are an estimated number 2.8 million internally displaced persons in
Iraq. Some 1.6 million of them were displaced after the bombing of the
Al-Askari mosque in Samarra in February 2006. More than 1.5 million
other Iraqis are living in neighbouring countries.IOM
has also received funding for this programme from the governments of
Japan, Germany and Australia's International Assistance Programme
(AusAID).Returnee
reports, along with IOM's regular reporting on displacement, including
governorate profiles, bi-weekly updates, tent camp updates, and yearly
and mid-year reviews, are available at http://www.iom-iraq.net/library.html#IDP.For more information please contact:Rex AlambanIOM AmmanTel: + 962-79-906-1779E-mail: ralamban@iom.int Hugh McMillan reports on one group of Iraqi refugees who have been admitted to the US in " Iraqi family safe in Gig Harbor" ( Peninsula Gateway): Hanaa
al Janabi knows what it's like to be forced to leave her homeland in
fear for her life while still grieving for a murdered husband and
father. She knows what its like to arrive in a different country, with
only the clothes on her back. There was a language barrier, and she
didnt know how to provide for her children.With help of a Gig Harbor church, al Janabi and her family also know what it's like to be safe.Watching
the fall of Baghdad, Americans saw exploding bombs and Iraqis cheer as
the statue of Saddam Hussein was pulled down. Few understand the impact
the violent period has had on a single Iraqi family, what it was like
for al Janabi as she fled with her children along a tortuously
difficult path through fear and frustration.Al
Janabi's Army officer husband, Khaled al Janabi, fell out of favor with
Saddam but escaped with his family to Jordan to obtain political
refugee status. As the United States prepared to invade Iraq, he
volunteered as a translator and cultural adviser to the U.S. Army.
During the invasion, he returned to Baghdad, embedded with the American
forces.There, while his wife was visiting him, he was recognized and killed on the street in front of her. The following community sites updated last night: The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqthe washington postanthony shadidthe economistjohn boonstrathe wall street journalmiriam jordanhugh mcmillanthe world today just nutslike maria said pazkats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudethomas friedman is a great mantrinas kitchenthe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes itruths reportsickofitradlzoh boy it never ends
Posted at 06:15 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Thursday, July 16, 2009
In sometimes-graphic testimony in a Houston federal courtroom Wednesday, Naval Criminal Investivative Service agent Kelly Barcino described how Breda's alleged victim said Breda forced himself on her. After helping move her into new quarters, Breda tried to kiss the woman, exposed his penis, and pushed the alleged victim onto the bed, according to Barcino's testimony.
"KBR immediately reported the allegations of assault against Mr. Breda to the NCIS and cooperated fully with their investigation," said KBR spokeswoman Heather Browne in an emailed statement Wednesday. "KBR in no way condones or tolerates unethical or illegal behavior. The safety and security of our employees, subcontractors and customers is our top priority." Thursday morning, Breda's attorney Roderick White said that "it wouldn't be appropriate for me right now to comment on the specific facts of the case."
Present at Wednesday's hearing was Jamie Leigh Jones, a former KBR employee who alleged in 2007 she had been a victim of a gang rape while working in Baghdad. No charges were ever brought in her case, although a 20/20 investigation of her story brought worldwide attention to the plight of sexually assaulted U.S. workers in war zones.
"I wanted to be here and I just can't believe it is finally happening that one of us does get justice," she said outside the hearing. The above is from Gina Sunseri and Justin Rood's " Sexual Assault Charges for Former Iraq Contractor" (ABC News) and good for Jamie Leigh Jones for continuing her efforts and good for the reporters for noting her but it's not her and the most recent victim. In fact, 20/20's own aired investigation spoke to more than that. But it's a sign of how little it matters that it still receives so little attention. People will gas bag all day tomorrow about video of an accident in 2004 and what ever other 'important' topic. They'll lose themselves (repeatedly) in the most inconsequential gossip and rumors and all around the world falls apart and women and men are sexually abused but no one wants to face that either -- didn't the big 'news' story of this month teach us that as well? Veterans testified today before a House Veterans Affairs subcomittee and MST (Military Sexual Trauma) was among the topics. How much attention will that hearing get? Those who followed it learned that some rape victims seeking VA treatment for their assault are forced to report to mental institutions for their therapy. They're victims of sexual assault but they're having to go to a mental ward or institution for therapy? How does that happen? Tuesday in the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing we learned that the VA has gynecologist tables facing the door, feet first facing the door, and that in at least once instance, the door opened out into the waiting room. How does that happen? How do either of those things happen? Because we don't care that much about sexual assault in this country. We certainly don't care enough to be outraged. And, let's get really honest, as a country we don't care about the troops. I'm not saying the troops should be your first concern or shouldn't. I am saying that a lot of people spent a lot of time acting like the troops were heroes and their best friends and put a flag here and a yellow ribbon there. But in both hearings this week, the ones testifying were veterans. And they weren't just disrespected because they were women, they were also disrespected because they were veterans. I'm not referring to Congress disrespecting them. I'm referring to what passes for the 'news.' Now let's think of the morning 'news' programs. On broadcast TV. They had plenty of time to devote non-stop to a dead entertainer day after day, week after week this month. And they found time to speak to trash Levi whatever, the man who doesn't support his child and is a homophobe who posed shirtless for a men's magazine out this month while the text told you that Levi would beat up any gay man he encountered or any man he suspected was gay. Oh, the passion! I guess those 'straight' readers of men's fashion magazines (surely only straight guys read men's fashion magazines, right?) are supposed to drool over the topless photo of Levi and jerk off to the thought of him beating them? The network 'news' is happy to do that. It's how you get a known homophobe, a person who brags about it, a person who is unemployed and apparently can't hold down a job, a person who is a Deadbeat Dad, a person who does nothing but trash the family raising his child, a person who brags about how he doesn't believe in birth control -- that's how you get such a person on TV as an 'expert.' On network 'news' as an expert. That crap you get. Coverage of veterans? Forget it. They'd rather sniff the panties and boxers then take the time needed to actually do a report. They'd rather find some non-news topic that's already proven to be popular and tease it and tease it until they climax and the ratings fall. There was the OJ circus in the 90s and seems like it's always a circus. (And we do realize that Levi's nothing but a CW version of Kato Kaelin: The Early Years, right?) It's rarely ever news however. The Los Angeles Times reports: "About 37% of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have mental health problems, a nearly 50% increase from the last time the prevalence was calculated, according to a new study published today analyzing national Department of Veterans Affairs data. The study, which examined the records of about 289,000 veterans who sought care at the VA between 2002 and 2008, also found higher rates of post-traumatic stress disorder and depression." You know what? If the trashy people of TV news and can stop stroking and fingering themselves for a few seconds, they may find time for that tomorrow. More than likely, they'll have some more non-news to provide you with. More trash and some will eat it up. A lot will turn it off and possibly assume there are no big stories in the world today because if there were the TV trash wouldn't be repeatedly allowed to waste your time. Their own time? Hey, fish got to swim and pigs got to wallow. So the TV trash has to wallow in this cesspool. But we don't. And we don't have the time to waste on that garbage. It's over, I'm done writing songs about loveThere's a war going onSo I'm holding my gun with a strap and a gloveAnd I'm writing a song about warAnd it goesNa na na na na na naI hate the warNa na na na na na naI hate the warNa na na na na na naI hate the warOh oh oh oh-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!) Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4322. Tonight? 4323. In tomorrow's The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqi hate the warthe balletthe los angeles timesabc newsgina sunserijustin rood
Posted at 09:50 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Thursday,
July 16, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the tensions over Kirkuk
continue and garner a little attention, US House Rep John Hall notes
the disparity in the treatment of veterans based upon gender and
declares "Congress cannot allow that to happen to this nation's
daughters who have served her" and more. "Good
morning, ladies and gentlemen," declared US House Rep John Hall today,
"the Veterans Affairs Disability and Memorial Affairs Subcommittee and
the Subcommittee On Health joint-hearing on Eliminating the Gaps:
Examining Women Veterans' Issues will now come to order." Hall is the
Chair of the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance Memorial Affairs and
he chaired the joint-committee hearing this morning. This hearing
follows Tuesday's Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs hearing on women
veterans' issues (here for Tuesday snapshot, here for Kat Tuesday, here for Wednesday's snapshot, here for Kat Wednesday).
The hearing was divided into three panels with a length break (over an
hour) between the second and the third panel. The first panel was
composed of women veterans: Grace After Fire's Kayla Williams, Disabled American Veterans' Joy J. Ilem, Service Women's Action Network's Anuradha Bhagwati, Wounded Warrior Project's Dawn Halfaker and National Association of State Women Veterans Coordinators, Inc and the Texas Veterans Commission's
Delilah Washburn. The second panel was composed of GAO's Randall
Williamson, Society's for Women's Health Research and Georgetown
University Medical Center's Janice L. Krupnick. Panel three was made up
of VA's Bradley Mayes, Patrica Hayes, Lawrence Deyton and Irene
Trowell-Harris. We'll focus on the first panel. In his opening remarks, Subcommittee Chair Hall addressed some of the recent Congressional hearings: I
am particularly eager to recognize the women veterans in this room
today and to be enlightened by their experiences with the Dept of
Veterans Affairs. VA owes them the proper benefits and care -- just
like their male counterparts. However, they are a unique population,
since they comprise only 1.8 million of the 23.4 million veterans
nationwide and deserve special attention. So VA's mission to care for
them must not only be achieved but monitored and supported as well.
Sadly, that is not always the case. In response to reports of
disparities, during the 110th Congress the Disability Assitance and
Memorial Affairs and Health Subcommittees held a joint hearing on women
and minority veterans. This Congress too has been very active in its
oversight activities to assist women veterans and a record number of
them have testified at various hearings. Additionally, on May 20th,
Chairman [Bob] Filner of the full [House] VA Committee hosted a special
roundtable discussion with women veterans from all eras who were able
to paint a picture of military life as a female in uniform and then as
a disabled veteran entering the VA system. In many cases, they have
served alongside their male counterparts but have not had the same
recognition or treatment. Chairman Filner also hosted a viewing and
discussion session with Team Lioness members who were on search
operations and engaged in firefights but, since there is no citation or
medal for this combat service, their claims are not always recognized
by VA as valid, so they are denied compensation. Another example of
this Committee's commitment to women veterans is our work on HR 1211,
the Women Veterans Health Care Improvement Act, which was introduced by
Ms. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. My Subcommittee favorably reported this
bill to the full Committee in early June and this important legislation
passed the House recently on June 23, 2009. Specifically, HR 1211
requires key studies assessing the VA health care services provided to
women veterans -- including an assessment of barriers. The bill also
provides seven days of medical care for newborn children of women
veterans receiving maternity care, authorizes a child care pilot
program, requires mental health professionals to receive training on
caring for veterans to serve on the VA's Advisory Committee On Wommen
Veterans and the Advisory Committee On Minority Veterans. While we
have made some progress on the issues facing women veterans, it is
clear that more needs to be done. Just earlier this week, there was an
article in MSNBC about the VA inadequately serving women veterans.
This article described the key findings of a GAO report which reveald
that no VA hospital or outpatient clinic is complying fully with
federal privacy requirements. In other words, many VA facilities had
gynecological tables that faced the door, including one door that
opened to a waiting room. Beyond these privacy concers, VA facilities
were built to serve male veterans and, therefore, do not accomodate the
presence of children. This means that some women veterans have had to
resort to changing babies' diapers on the floors of VA hospitals due to
the absence of changing tables in the women's bathrooms. In light of
these challenges which continue to face women veterans, it is important
that we do more to address these issues. US
House Rep Harry Teague noted briefly, "I think that everybody has had
enough of us talking about this issue and we need to hear from the
experts and let them tell us what the problems are and what we need to
do to ensure that all female veterans get a chance to get the help that
they deserve and the benefits that they have earned." Which is a good
lead in to the following exchanges. Chair
John Hall: I would start with Ms. Ilem and ask when the VA trains it's
service officers does it provide special sensitivity training on issues
pertinent to female veterans, for instance MST [Military Sexual Trauma}? Joy
Ilem: Yes, as far as I'm aware within our service program -- I mean,
there's definitely discussion of MST claims. We have a number of women
NSOs but it's provided to all our NSOs -- information about VA's, you
know, manuals and regulations, looking for different evidence to help
them support their claims and different ways that they can help. Chair
John Hall: How many of your service officers are female? Can they
assist in developing claims even if a veteran is from another state? . Joy
Ilem: Yes, our NSOs can provide services to anyone. I think in our NSO
corps of about 260, I would have to look at the exact number, but I
think there's a range of about 30 now. There's been a number of
recent new hires of women veterans especially from OEF-OIF populations. Chair
John Hall: And the time that DAV has been working with these issues
relating to women veterans, what is your observation on how well VA has
responded to the concerns you've raised and how successfuly are they
addressing those issues? Joy
Ilem: I think I mentioned in my testimony, one of the concerns I've
had, I've been reaching out to the VA for some time and we would
appreciate the subcommittee's assistance just to verify especially on
the SAPRO, the DoD Sexual Assault Prevention & Response Office --
looking at their confidentiality policy issues, it appears that there's
some problem they may have in being able to release those records even
with the -- for restricted reports of military sexual assault -- even
with the consent of the veteran and so trying to work with VA staff
just to try and see if they're collaborating with them to work through
some of these barriers and to make sure that their claim developers are
aware of the SAPRO policies and where in each of the military services
these records are kept and for how long? And can VA, with the consent
of the veteran, get access to those reports which can include a
physical examination as well as mental health and counseling treatment.
So we think those records are critical and we would ask that the
Subcommittee try to work to see if VA does in fact collaborate with
SAPRO on those policies. Chair
John Hall: Thank you. And Ms. Bhagwati, is the lack of legal
representation more determental to women when their claims are the
result of a crime? Anuradha Bhagwati: I'm sorry, sir, the lack of legal work? Chair John Hall: Legal represenation. Anuradha
Bhagwati: Absolutely, sir. I'm finding that, without the assistance of
an attorney, many of those legal claims would be left behind. It takes
a lot of courage, stamina, finacial assistance for a veteran -- either
male or female -- to pursue an appeal or reconsideration of a claim. A
lot of pride and a lot of issues wrapped around a veteran's identity go
into the claim process and when a claim is rejected by the VA -- even
when the claim is deemed to be sort of sufficient to get an awarding of
compensation -- when that denial happens, it can be life shattering.
And many veterans, both male and female, just fall off the map. Chair
John Hall: I understand more all the time as we have these hearings
about the issues surrounding reproting problems with MST, but what
about domestic violence that takes place while the wife is on
active duty? How are those instances of PTSD or other disabilities
resulting from those injuries adjucated by the VA? Anuradha
Bhagwati: Sir, that remains to be seen. I think a lot of data as both
the congressman and Ms. Halfaker pointed out has not been collected on
domestic violence in particular. Right now, I can tell you
anecdotally, we're working on a case in the marine corps with a -- an
NCO who's going through through a commissioning program whose partner
spent five days in jail for attempting to kill her and that partner who
spent five days in jail is now at Officer Candidate School. So that
shock factor -- it's almost unbelieveable that that can happen but
there are ways around the system. And DoD needs to explore that. Chair
John Hall: Unfortunately, there are ways around the system not just for
men who assault women but also for men who assault men. I know one case
particulary that I'm familiar with in my district but it's more
egregious and harder to rectify when it's an attack on a female
soldier. Ms. Halfaker, for the more seriously injured female veteran
is there an outreach effort made directly too them? Are there OEF-OIF
coordinators trained to specifically interact with them regarding their
needs? Dawn
Halfaker: Sir, I think there is much needed outreach programs. I don't
think there is anything specifically targeted for women veterans and I
think that's where you get a lot of women initially slipping through
the cracks -- especially with the Guard Reserve component. I-I also
believe that, you know, peer support is probably a good way to start
advocating. It's been Wounded Warriors Project's experience that women
-- and particularly this generation of veterans -- are much more
responsive and receptive to kind of learning about programs and things
like that through their peer network. So I think that the VA needs to
explore ways to promote outreach using peer neatworks and things like
that. As far as the OEF - OIF coordinators at the hospitals? I mean,
it was my experience that there's a lot of inconsisitency and
variablity. The VA facility that I go to, the model just to have any
kind of coordinatior was stood up incredibly late and its my sense that
the coordinators could use a lot more education on the specific
programs and -and clinical care that women need and how women can best
access thtat care. Chair
John Hall: Thank you. And Ms. Washburn, your suggestion to track MST
data has been made by the Center for Women Veterans and its advisory
committee but has not yet been implemetned by the VBA. How effective
do you think the Center and the committee are in promoting these issue
and acting as change agents on behalf of the women they represent? Delilah
Washburn: I believe those things that are imposed by Congress get done,
I believe those recommendations sometimes do not. Chair
John Hall: Can you provide us with any more information on the training
protocol that the state women veterans coordinator receive in order to
assist veterans in filing claims? And secondly what outreach activites
to your women's veterans coordinators or do your women's veterans
coordinators already perform? Delilah
Washburn: Most of our women's veterans coordinators are also state
service officers and are also acredited with other service
organizations such as the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars,
Military Order of the Purple Heart. So we hold more than just one
military organization credential. So whenever we have the opportunity
to counsel with our veterans, whether it's male or female, we have to
maintain the accreditation that the Dept of Veterans Affairs mandates
for service officers. So we have annual training, we have testing and
we are proficient at doing those jobs as service officers. And in most
cases with the new training force that we see in the regional offices
with all the new employees that have bene hired, most of our service
organizations and veteran coordinators are more knowledgable than the
new VA employees. So we are doing the very best job that we can do to
help train some of the new VA employees by pointing out things that
they have missed in the letter of the law that says that they can grant
benefits. So we're doing our very best job as service officers to
continue to not only help them through the maze -- the bureacratic maze
-- of getting their claims processed. Chair
John Hall: Thank you. And Ms. Williams, I'm going to ask you this
question and then ask each of the other panelists so quickly, because
my time is long expired here, quickly give me an answer if VA and the
DoD could do one thing to better assist women veterans what would that
be? Kayla
Williams: I believe that electronic medical records are absolutely
imperative to prevent problems with lost paperwork and missing files
and missing records. And that that would really help smooth the
transition from the DoD to the VA. Chair John Hall: Ms. Washburn? Delilah Washburn: Yes, sir. Chair John Hall: Ms. Halfaker? I'm just asking for an answer to that same question, just quick if you could. Delilah
Washburn: The one thing that I think that they could do immediately
that will make a difference, and not just for gender specific issues,
we're talking about we no longer have to worry about providing the
stressor for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. If you're in combat its
conceeded. And let's press on with getting a diagnosis and write those
claims and get them off the table because the near million claims that
are pending is just something that we cannot continue to live with.
It's a barrier to veterans getting their benefits. Chair John Hall: Thank you for the wonderful endorsement of my bill HR 952. Dawn Halfaker: Outreach. Chair John Hall: Outreach. Ms. Bhagwati? Microphone please. Anaradha
Bhagwati: Sorry, sir. One thing on the DoD side would be enforcement
of VO policy and sexual assault policy. On the VA side, it would
be education and training of claims officers about what it's like to be
a woman in uniform. Joy
Ilem: I think just true collaboration on all levels within VA, VHA and
VVA would be really extremely important. There's just so many areas
where they can benefit working together to really solve the problem. It
just can't be done piece meal. It helps to work on the preventative
side with DoD and during that transition period for women coming to VA. Chair
John Hall: Thank you. And if our members from the Disability
Assistance Committe would not object, I would go to our only member of
the Health Committee who's here, Ms. Brown. US
House Rep Corrine Brown: Thank you, Mr. Chairmen. And thank you for
holding this hearing. I'm going to be real brief. You know, in the
early 90s, I called for the first women veterans hearings and then we
had a roundtable discsuon a couple of months ago and it seems as if
things have not improved. And part of it is the culture. What, if you
were making recommendations to the VA or to the Congress, what would
you recommend that we do to change the culture and that's for all the
panelists? We can start with Ms. Williams? Kayla
Williams: That's a great question and I think one that both the Dept of
Defense and the VA are struggling with every day.I truly believe that
this conflict is going to change the way that women are treated within
the military and the VA because young leaders, young soldiers and
service members, they serve alongside women in combat. As they grow in
their leadership positions through time, they're used to serving
alongside women they're beginning to recognize that women are service
members too -- that they aren't just females that happened to show up
sometimes. And that change in attitude will slowly trickle through the
rest of the system but that's going to take a very long time. I do
think that cultural change can also come from systemic changes. When I
first got out of the military I went to the VA facility in Washington,
DC, which I must admit was an atrocious experience for me. The facility
was not clean, I was not given coordinated care and I had a truly
unpleaseant experience that scared me away from the VA for many years.
Just last month, I went to the VA facility in Martinsburg, West
Virgingia and had a profoundly different experience at their OEF - OIF
integrated care clinic. I saw several providers, I was led from one
appointment to the other to make sure that I knew where I was going. I
was sensitively asked about MST, about my combat experiences. And this
model is one that I think is worthy of emulation though it may not be
perfect in every facility. They also have a women's care clinic. So I
know that by putting these facilites in place, staffing them with the
right people, that proper care can be given. US House Rep Corrine Brown: When you first went to the facilities that was in when? When you first? Kayla Williams: I went to the DC VA in 2006 and then I went to the Martinsburg VA just last month. US House Rep Corrine Brown: Yes, ma'am? Delilah
Washburn: That's an excellent question. There are several points that I
would like to share with you. In today's culture, I could see just
from the veterans that talk with us that some of the problems that they
face is that now we have appointments that come in the mail to us and
we're notified of five or six different appointments. They're not on
the same day and these are people that are trying to hold a job down.
And they just cannot go to all of these appointments. So -- and then
we have child care on top of that. So we have we can't take off from
work, so the hours that they're being seen is an issue. We have
children that we have to provide care for and -- because we can't take
them to the VA, we already know that -- and those are concerns. And
why can't we do a better job at scheduling? Why can't we provide it
during hours that they're available? If its once a month on a
Saturday, why can't we do a women's clinic once a month on a Saturday?
If we're doing women's health on Wednesday, why can't we do that from
noon to six p.m. to give them an opprotunity to go after work? And
where that there would be someone else to help with children? So those
are some things that we need to look at that I think culturally we have
to change. When we're talking about Military Sexual Trauma, there are
so many of the cases that are identified by DoD and where DoD is taking
action under the Uniform Military Code of Justice and we already see
that these women are having medial problems -- physical as well as
mental health issues -- and why don't we get them through the medical
evaluation process because that is a disability. And it would help us
if DoD would step up and if they have an opportunity to be awarded a
military evaluation board or a PEB board, lets get it done because we
are finding all too often, after we do finally get them through the VA
syste, we're going back to do correction on military record. So DoD
could do a better job. If it's an opportunity where they can meet the
requirements of medical evaluation, lets get it done. US
House Rep Corrine Brown: Those are some very good suggestions and I
don't know why we can't do that Saturday or Sunday afternoon and have
someone there to take care of the kids. I mean, I don't see why we
can't. Because you were talking about the waiting list and what did
you say was the waiting list for women? Delilah
Washburn: We do have appointments that come out through the VA computer
system that will often times not consolildate to get you there on one
day and often times we have folks that are coming in from a rural area,
that's traveling 100 or 200 miles to the large VA medical center. So
that's a hardship, transportation is a hardship. US
House Rep Corrine Brown: Right, transportation is a hardship. Question
do we have any, and I've been thinking about it, do we give any kind of
a gas voucher or anything like that? Delilah
Washburn: There are some organizations, whether it's Disabled American
Veterans where they have a transportation program, there are some
organizations, Veterans of Foreign Wars they give vouchers, and often
times the VA medical centers have monies for that as well but it's not
the norm and not everyone knows that they can get help. We're just not
advertising it. US House Rep Corrine Brown: Okay. Thank you. Next. I don't have much time. Next? Yes, ma'am? Dawn
Halfaker: Yeah, I think that, you know, perception and culture can
change through action and I think, you know, some of
the recommendations that Wounded Warriors Project is prepared to
make are actions such as outreach, peer support, consistency in the
way VA delivers care and services to women veterans. And it's
interesting, I've had the exact same experiences as Ms. Williams.
First went to Walter Reed Army Medical Center to the VA facility in
Washington, DC. and just had horrible experience after experience
there. And again, they are -- they've made some strides in trying to
coordinate a OEF - OIF care model where they have, you know, the case
managers and things lik that but again it's not -- I don't think that
the women veterans who are continuing to recevie care have actually
felt any of the changes and certainly there's been no change in culture
at that particulra VA. US House Rep Corrine Brown: And this is the one in DC? Dawn Halfaker: Yes, ma'am. US House Rep Corrine Brown: Is it just bad for women or is it bad for everybody? Dawn
Halfaker: I think that would be a good question. I mean, I think that
it was initially bad for me just because, you know, when you do just
walk through the doors to the VA, it's very -- it's not a pleasant
environment. And it's not a safe environment. You know, often times
you may encounter somebody yelling, cat calling at you, making a crude
remark and it's just, I think, a true culture shock going from the
military where that would never be tolerated to a VA facility where
you're trying to get care and, you know, you're uncomfortable. US
House Rep Corrine Brown: You know this is the second or third time
I've heard about the cat calls and I just don't know how you deal with
it because they're not in the military any longer, they're civilains.
And you know we face this probelm if we're walking down the street and
we see a work crew or something. Dawn
Halfaker: Yes, ma'am, I think that-that it's a leadership issue and,
you know, if I was the director of that hospital, I would do whatever I
had to do to ensure that that environment couldn't happen so I think
it's a leaderhsip issue. Kayla
Williams: And, if I may, ma'am, I do believe that that
facility inadequately serves both male and female veterans. My
husband's care at that VA was so bad. He was sent back and forth
between multiple clinics, told he was in the wrong place, his paper
work was lost, he felt that the doctors didn't care about him. His
experience there was so bad that he has since refused to go back to the
VA at all and relies exclusively on civilian providers even though they
are less familiar with blast injuries and post-traumatic stress that
results form combat. US House Rep Corrine Brown: Just quickly. Anuradha
Bhagwati: Ma'am, my personal exprinces with the VA hospital in New York
City have been personally devestating and I pay out of pocket for as
much care as I need. I use the VA right now for emergency care. You
know, I've experienced MST and I had a very bad expereince with a
claim. It doesn't take much to disappoint me right now with VA care.
I-I every time I walk in there I go with open arms, a generous
spirit, I hope to be received well. And there are some fantastic
health care providers there, but there are, by and large, both male and
female staff members and medical staff do not understand what its like
to be a woman in uniform. US
House Rep Corrine Brown: You know and I've had, when I've said part of
the problem is the VA and the number and when I've suggested that
perhaps we may need to do vouchers so people can go outside, I got real
push back from the women. So I mean, if the service is not there, what
can we do to change the system? And when I talk to women veterans well
they want to go to the VA but the service isn't what they want. Anuradha
Bhagwati: Well ma'am, I think we need to push the VA to provide equal
services for women. That needs to be done comprehenslivly. We can't
give up on the VA but I need to stress that, especially for women who
have been traumatized, now that can be through sexual trauma,
post-traumatic stress from combat, whatever the case may be, if they're
expereinceing negative epsidoses at the Va hosptials they may just turn
away and never come back and so fee-based care needs to be an option.
If you talk to women who've been working around MST for awhile, they
will -- I would say by and large they agree that fee-based care needs
to be accesible for surivors of MST whether that's -- US House Rep Corrine Brown: It should be an option? Anuradha Bhagwati: Aboslutely. US House Rep Corrine Brown: Okay, that's what I'm thinking. Yes, ma'am? Ideally,
we'll come back to the hearing tomorrow. There's more on the first
panel. In a perfect world, there'd be time tomorrow to go over some
other things from it and from the second panel. Remember that Kat
will cover the hearing tonight at her site as well. Hopefully, this
hearing will get plenty of coverage from the press and if that happens,
tomorrow we can just provide some links to that coverge. Turning to Iraq where Farah Stockman (Boston Globe) reports
that "UMass Boston professor Padraig O'Malley laid a wreath today at
the site of a bombing in Iraq that killed at least 72 people last month
which appeared to be aimed at foment ethnic tensions in the volatile
Kirkuk region. Kirkuk is one of five 'divided' cities participating in
a peace forum established in Boston by O'Malley this past April.
Elected representatives from Kirkuk visited Massachusetts this past
April to learn about how Boston had overcome violence and division
during the busing crisis of the 1970s." Parliamentary and presidential
elections take place in the Kurdistan region July 25th. Mohammed A. Saliah (Asia Times) observes
that the US efforts in Iraq are said to include the postponement of the
vote the KRG intended to hold on their new constitution: "The Kurdish
draft constitution had heightened tensions between Kurds and other
ethnicities in the country such as Arabs and Turkomans, as well as the
Iraqi government." The referendrum on the proposed KRG constitution is
not the only one currently on hold. Article 140 of Iraq's Constitution
calls for an election to be held to resolve the issue of oil-rich
Kirkuk. The disputed territory is claimed by both the central
government out of Baghdad and the KRG. Jonathan Steele (Guardian) writes,
"Although the referendum has been delayed, the pause may only last a
few months. Obama's team will have to work hard to resolve a crisis
that has simmered since Saddam Hussein's overthrow in 2003. At that
time the Kurds took the opportunity to rush out of their autonomous
enclave and establish their forces in the disputed territories,
creating a new de factor internal boundary in Iraq that diplomats now
describe as 'the trigger line'." AFP quotes
an unnamed "senior Western diplomat" stating, "I think we are in a
situation that neither side wants a war but, where there are serious
tensions and people are extremely well armed, then something could
easily happen." AFP also notes "a growing numver of incidents between the Iraqi army and the Kurdish peshmerga". The Kurdish Globe reports
that KRG President Massoud Barzani is calling for the constitution to
be followed on the disputed issue of Kirkuk and "Barzani rejected the
proposal that Kirkuk should be divided on 4 sectors, 32% for each of
the Kurdish, Arab and Turkoman communities and 4% for the Christians,
as a solution. 'Why should the elections be held then' Barzani said
criticizing the solution." In the spring of 2004, the Iraqi Governing Council's Law of Administration for the State of Iraq for the Transitional Period
(known as the Transitional Administrative Law) went into effect. It
specifically notes Kirkuk: "The Iraqi Transitional Government, and
especially the Iraqi Property Claims Commission and other relevant
bodies, shall act expeditiously to take measures to remedy the
injustice caused by the previous regime's practices in altering the
demographic character of certain regions, including Kirkuk, by
deporting and expelling individuals from their places of residence,
forcing migration in and out of the region, settling individuals alien
to the region, depriving the inhabitants of work, and correcting
nationality. [. . .] The previous regime also maniputlated and changed
administration boundaries for political ends. [. . .] The permanent
resolution of disputed territories, including Kirkuk, shall be deferred
until after these measures are completed, a fair and transparent census
has been conducted and the permanent constitution has been ratified.
This resolution shall be consistent with the principle of justice,
taking into account the will of the people of those territories."
Iraq's Constitution was adopted by referendum October 15, 2005. [PDF
format warning, click here for the Constitution.] Article 140 is the section which applies to Kirkuk: First:
The executive authority shall undertake the necessary steps to complete
the implementation of the requirements of all subparagraphs of Article
58 of the Transitional Administrative Law. Second:
The responsibility placed upon the executive branch of the Iraqi
Transitional Government stipulated in Article 58 of the Transitional
Administrative Law shall extend and continue to the executive authority
elected in accordance with this Constitution, provided that it
accomplishes completely (normalization and census and concludes with a
referendum in Kirkuk and other disputed territories to determine the
will of their citizens), by a date not to exceed the 31st of December
2007. That's what the Constitution states, the one Chibli Mallat (The Daily Star) notes
Iraqi leaders quote from. December 2007 came and went. It has still
not been followed. It's not difficult to comprehend what Article 140
is stating, it's straight forward; however, there's an effort of late
to take a situation and render the Kurdish side invisible -- see Sam Dagher's article last Friday ( click here for critique). A letter on A20 (national edition) of Tuesday's New York Times addressed the one-side nature of the article: To the Editor: Re "Defiant Kurds Claim Oil, Gas and Territory" (front page, July 10):The
Iraqi Constitution, specifically Article 140, requires a vote by
referendum to resolve Iraq's disputed territories. To cast this as a
"threat" is unfair. The Iraqi Kurds are simply trying to carry out the
constitutionally mandated referendum.Furthermore,
the Iraqi Kurds are not defying Baghdad in formulating a regional
constitution; they are embracing their right to create such a document,
which is allowed in the Iraqi
Constitution. The
Kurds, who represent the most stable and progressive element of Iraq,
have made it clear that they desire to be a part of a united Iraqi
nation. To
allow for a responsible and phased withdrawal of American forces from
Iraq, which is the stated policy of the Obama administration, several
issues must first be resolved, the most important of which is that of
the disputed territories. Only then will a stable and united Iraq be
able to thrive. Jay Garner Erbil, Iraq, July 10, 2009 The
writer, a retired lieutenant general in the Army, was director of the
Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance for Iraq in
2003. While that's
predicted to be a shaky line that violence could break out along,
violence today and last night was largely aimed at pilgrims. Bombings? Shootings? On the pilgrimage, Sam Dagher (New York Times) explains,
"On Saturday, Iraq's majority Shiite population will commemorate the
death of Imam Musa al-Kadhim, a revered religious figure buried in
Kadhimiya in northern Baghdad. Pilgrims have already started trekking
to his shrine from all over the country. The event usually attracts
hundreds of thousands of people despite the potential danger." US
troops' withdrawal from Iraq's cities and towns to their military bases
has been loudly acknowledged by the Iraqi regime and its agents, but
they underplay the role of the remaining troops. As pro-West Iraqis
celebrated the US withdrawal, a car bomb in the northern city of Kirkuk
killed at least 27 people. The Americans, loud and overbearing after
their speedy victory six years ago, fell quiet and thoughtful that day
because of fear of retaliation by the suppressed and terrorized people.
USA stressed that there would still be a lot of US combat capabilities
in Iraq for months to come" and "still have a very robust number of US
troops in Iraq and, in fact, those troops will not begin to withdraw
from Iraq until probably several months from now. Signs were draped on
some of Baghdad's concrete blast walls reading " Iraq : my nation, my
glory, my honor" made to order by the ruling
regime.
That in simple language only means
western terror war in Iraq has not ended! Though there are many ifs and
buts yet many believe that it is beginning of the end of war in that
unfortunate country.. Some 131,000 US troops remain in Iraq until at
least September, including 12 combat brigades encircling cities if not
saturating them, and the total is not expected to drop below 128,000
until after the Iraqi national election in January. Pentagon says
roughly 150 American bases have been dismantled or handed over to the
Iraqis across the country, but in some cases, especially in Baghdad,
city limits have been redrawn to allow American bases to remain to
control Iraq effectivley through the neo-Iraqi regime. Nor will the
total number of U.S. troops in Iraq decline overall. USA determines the
entire course of Iraqi life hereafter as well. Turning to the US, as always Cedric's " Worst Drama Queen in the World" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! WORST DRAMA QUEEN IN THE WORLD!"
was a must read. They're calling out a tele-bully who's having a hissy
fit over a conscientious objector, Major Stefan Frederick Cook. We're
not going to attack Cook. If he speaks publicly somewhere, we will
note him the way we note other war resisters. There have been some
whose reasoning I've agreed with 100%, some a little less. Doesn't
matter. We are not and will not be a place where we join a dog pile on
a CO. That others need to says a great deal about them -- some do it
for respectability (which I could care less about as anyone who knows
me . . .) and some do it to serve their modern day Christ-child.
Neither option interests us. I haven't read any legal opinion and I
know nothing about his attorney so we're not quoting anything here.
He's not spoken publicly. If and when he does, we'll make a point to
include him. Evan Knappenberger is someone who's seen a pile on from
time to time for speaking out -- and sometimes those participating in
it were especially shocking (the inside-enemy is always the most
disappointing). He made it through the attacks on him and continues to
speak out. At CounterPunch he writes about a CO, his friend Amy: In
2007 while in Iraq, Amy started reading feminist literature. As a
woman steeped in a male-dominated world of violence and oppression,
feminism must have struck a chord. As Amy read, she started noticing
the way she was changing emotionally and intellectually. Amy
decided to apply for Conscientious Objector status. She spent a week
in between shifts, mortar attacks and guard duties trying to put into
words exactly how, why, and when she had become opposed to violence.
Never having loaded, much less having fired her M-4 rifle, it never
occurred to her to turn the weapon in to her commander along with the
CO packet when she was finished. In fact, a soldier without a weapon
in Iraq is trouble waiting to happen: you can't even get in to the
mess-hall without one. Because
of this oversight, her commander turned down Amy's request for CO
status. Amy couldn't really be opposed to violence if she carried a
rifle slung on her back, could she? The army was not willing to give
up a good linguist for some conscientious abstraction when they needed
bodies so badly. So Amy was punished and berated by her comrades. She
was mocked and ridiculed by the men in her unit. Her moral standing
had come full-circle; the freedom she had joined to protect was now
being denied to her. The day her unit returned from Baghdad to Fort
Hood, Texas, she left. She deserted. She went AWOL. "They
told me that my unit was scheduled to go back before my time was up,"
she explained. "It was either re-up for a different station, or spend
another 15 months in Iraq." We opened with women in the US and we'll close with the focus on Iraqi women, this is from Dawn Calabi's " Iraq: Don't Forget Displaced Women" (Refugees International): As
a humanitarian talking with displaced Iraqis be prepared for a lot of
anger. "You destroyed my country," said one woman. "Those ruling have
no place for us. What will you do?" Millions of people have been
displaced inside and outside the country. Small numbers have returned
home. For others, insecurity, plus the absence of the rule of law,
infrastructure, employment prospects, or basic services like water,
sanitation, education or health care prevent them from returning home.
Individuals or members of groups targeted for religion, ethnicity or
politics are unlikely to return. These families, often headed by women,
live in extremely poor, overcrowded conditions, subject to extreme heat
and cold. Many are skeptical Iraq will invest the political and
financial resources needed for safe sustainable
returns. In
Erbil, a displaced woman living in a tent wanted the world to
understand. "We need security in Iraq
tell the politicians to make an
agreement. Poor people are the victims of the struggle. Kurd, Arab,
Sunni, Shia, Christian, we are all one people, Iraqis, and we need a
secure country! Ask our government, the Government of Iraq and the
Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) to pay attention to our needs, to see
how we are living and suffering." Unlike
last year, Iraq has not contributed to the UN or neighboring countries
aiding its citizens. The KRG complained of receiving insufficient funds
to pay grants to people registered as internally displaced and
insufficient medicines for those with chronic illnesses. But displaced
people inside Northern Iraq are grateful to the KRG.
Posted at 04:50 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Two
weeks after U.S. combat troops withdrew from Iraq's major cities, amid
sporadic outbreaks of violence countrywide, Iraqi authorities aren't
asking American forces for help. Although U.S. troops are "just a radio
call away," in Baghdad and five other major urban areas, it appears the
Iraqis haven't asked even once.
In Baghdad, the Iraqis also won't allow U.S. forces on the street, except for supply convoys.
The
failure to trigger the "Onstar option" suggests that the government of
Iraq and its military think that they can deal with the car bombings,
homemade bombs and attacks with silencer-equipped handguns that have
plagued parts of the country in recent days. The above is from Mike Tharp's " Iraqis have told U.S. military no patrols permitted in Baghdad" ( McClatchy Newspapers).
Now explain again why the US military is in Iraq? Supposedly to manage
a smooth transition. But the US installed Nouri al-Maliki, a thug, and
the US can't do a thing to protect Iraqis. If Nouri launches another
ethnic cleansing, like 2007, what happens? The US can't enter the
cities without al-Maliki's permission so how does their presence
protect anyone -- anyone except Nouri? That's something people
should be thinking about and it's something that the US Senate once
discussed. In fact, along with Senator Russ Feingold, one of the best
speakers on this topic was then-Senator Joe Biden, now vice president
of the United States. April 10, 2008, the US Senate's Committee on Foreign Relations, then chaired by Biden, held a hearing.
Biden noted, "We've pledged we're not only going to consult when there
is an outside threat, but also when there is an inside threat. We've
just witnessed when Mr. Maliki engaged in the use of force against
another Shia group in the south, is this an inside threat?" He went on
to point out that this "internal threat" aspect to then-proposed
agreements with Iraq (since rammed through by the Bush administration
and continued by the Obama one) requires that the US "support the Iraqi
government in its battle with all 'outlaw groups' -- that's a pretty
expansive committment." It also required, in his words, that the United
States "take side in Iraq's civil war" when "there is no Iraqi
government that we know of that will be in place a year from now --
half the government has walked out. Just understand my frustration. We
want to normalize a government that really doesn't exist." Senator
Feingold pointed out, "Given the fact that the Maliki government
doesn't represent a true coalition, won't this agreement [make it
appear] we are taking sides in the civil war"? No, that hearing
didn't blaze through the next day's papers. No, it didn't get
tremendous attention. It should have. And those who ignored it in real
time should be paying attention now. The same issues exist now and the
US military's position in Iraq is no longer a hypothetical. The
agreements were rammed through. What power does the US military have?
Why is it still present? To allow al-Maliki to remain in power? To
allow him to launch another attack on the Iraqi people? Sam Dagher's " Bombings in Iraq Kill 11 People" ( New York Times) covers some of yesterday's violence -- some because there were 20 reported deaths
before the work day ended in Baghdad. He quotes Abbas Mohammed issuing
a common complaint, "Where is the government? Where are the security
forces? If they cannot control the situation, then let our sons take
over." Our sons? He could mean the "Sons of Iraq." Sahwa. "Awakening."
If he does mean that, Dagher doesn't explain it. Reuters notes that six pilgrims were wounded in a Baghdad bombing last night and eight were wounded in a Baghdad roadside bombing today. Alsumaria cites
the Iraq's Minister of Finance Bayan Jaber stating that increased
"revenue from oil plus about $2 billion in fees from mobile phone
companies will provide the country a supplementary budget of up to $3
billion". Where does the money go? Not to the people. Aseel Kami (Reuters) reports
on a 'housing' project. It's not housing, it's mixed -- housing and
commercial. The project has a $30 billion price tag on it. Sounds
impressive. Nouri's going to spend some money with at least some of it
going to address the housing needs of Iraqis. But that's not really
what's going on. The price tag is $30 billion. $20 billion of that will
come from foreign investment (which most likely indicates the
investment in the commercial district and not housing) while, over ten
years, Iraq will kick in $10 billion. That's one a year. And how much
of that will go to housing, no one knows. Kami notes that "Baghdad like
other Iraqi cities is woefully behind the times when it comes to basic
services such as water and power, not to mention an ever-more-desperate
lack of suitable housing. " Farah Stockman's " A wreath laid in Iraq" ( Boston Globe) posted yesterday afternoon: UMass
Boston professor Padraig O'Malley laid a wreath today at the site of a
bombing in Iraq that killed at least 72 people last month which
appeared to be aimed at fomenting ethnic tensions in the volatile
Kirkuk region.Kirkuk is one
of five "divided" cities participating in a peace forum established in
Boston by O'Malley this past April. Elected representatives from Kirkuk
visited Massachusetts this past April to learn about how Boston had
overcome violence and division during the busing crisis of the 1970s.On the subject of Kirkuk, Mohammed A Salih offers " US diplomacy leaves Kurds adrift" ( Asia Times): More
signs of US involvement are emerging as Admiral Michael Mullen, chair
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US military, visited Kirkuk on
Monday with the aim of urging Kurds, Arabs and Turkomans there to reach
a power-sharing agreement. The US had been widely criticized in the
recent months for not doing enough to settle disputes among Iraqi
factions, especially Kurds and Arabs.Joost
Hiltermann of the International Crisis Group (ICG) believes that
unilateral decisions by Kurdish leaders such as the draft constitution
were partly due to US reluctance to throw heavier diplomatic weight
behind efforts to address the ethnic problems in the country.But Biden's very new central role to steer US policy in Iraq, he says, shows that "Obama's administration means business"."And
his visit to Iraq is a sign that the US is serious in its efforts to
broker a deal [on problems between Kurds and Iraqi government],"
Hiltermann told Inter Press Service in a phone interview from Jordan.However, as attempts to forge an agreement intensify, the key question is what kind of a deal is possible and sustainable. The
Kurdish region votes (parlimenatry and presidential elections) July
25th. The upcoming elections have gotten very little from domestic news
outlets, the same ones so eager to pimp the January 31st elections
non-stop. Why the silence on the KRG elections? For one thing,
the January 31st elections were never about the elections. They were
about US outlets justifying their own withdrawal from Iraq, the story
was an attempt to tie a bow around it all, call it a gift, grab your
coat and hit the door. Second, those elections were fairly easy to
cover. US reporters stayed in Baghdad, relied on stringers to flesh out
details from beyond the Green Zone and offered 'reports.' The KRG? Too
far from the Green Zone. McClatchy
does intend to have Adam Ashton reporting on the KRG elections, FYI. On
the subject of female internal refugees and touching on the KRG, this
is from Dawn Calabi's " Iraq: Don't Forget Displaced Women" (Refugees International): As
a humanitarian talking with displaced Iraqis be prepared for a lot of
anger. "You destroyed my country," said one woman. "Those ruling have
no place for us. What will you do?" Millions of people have been
displaced inside and outside the country. Small numbers have returned
home. For others, insecurity, plus the absence of the rule of law,
infrastructure, employment prospects, or basic services like water,
sanitation, education or health care prevent them from returning home.
Individuals or members of groups targeted for religion, ethnicity or
politics are unlikely to return. These families, often headed by women,
live in extremely poor, overcrowded conditions, subject to extreme heat
and cold. Many are skeptical Iraq will invest the political and
financial resources needed for safe sustainable returns. In
Erbil, a displaced woman living in a tent wanted the world to
understand. "We need security in Iraq
tell the politicians to make an
agreement. Poor people are the victims of the struggle. Kurd, Arab,
Sunni, Shia, Christian, we are all one people, Iraqis, and we need a
secure country! Ask our government, the Government of Iraq and the
Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) to pay attention to our needs, to see
how we are living and suffering."Unlike
last year, Iraq has not contributed to the UN or neighboring countries
aiding its citizens. The KRG complained of receiving insufficient funds
to pay grants to people registered as internally displaced and
insufficient medicines for those with chronic illnesses. But displaced
people inside Northern Iraq are grateful to the KRG. Women
aren't helped by 'marital payments'. That's not in the above, it's a
story that's circulating. Allegedly, men who will marry out of their
sect will receive money from Nouri's administration. First, that's
offensive, period. Second, a woman married to a man who 'found' her to
get paid is probably not going to have an 'enjoyable' life after the
payment money is gone and considering the new divorce laws enshrined
under US occupation, she's going to have a very difficult leaving him
although he will be able to leave her with great ease. He'll also be
able to falsely accuse of her of anything, kill her and, at the most,
'suffer' through police questioning before being released.
New Zealand's TVNZ wants you to know
that Baghdad's night life is 'thriving.' Any who caught the BBC World
Service yesterday heard the news of the Baghdad concert. What an
advance it was. Oh, it took place in the afternoon. It had to because,
due to the violence, people are still not comfortable going out at
night. But the concert was a hit. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqmike tharpmcclatchy newspapersthe new york timessam dagheradam ashtonthe boston globefarah stockmanmohammed a. salihrefugees internationaldawn calabi
Posted at 06:52 am by thecommonills
Permalink
US negotiated and no one has anything to show for it
An
ex-Foreign Office minister has said he doubts Britain negotiated with
the right people in its attempts to free five men kidnapped in Iraq.In a BBC interview, Kim Howells also said he had become "very frustrated" with the Iraqi government. The above is from BBC News' " Iraq hostage policy is questioned"
(link has text and audio). Howells states, "I'm not convinced we were
ever negotating with the right people. I mean, that's doubtful. The
only real proof of life that I saw were the video. And there were
stories circulating that a suicide had taken place, there were
deadlines that came and went." That's a snippet from the interview and
the BBC notes: "Find out more from The Report on BBC RAdio 4, Thursday 16 July at 2000 BST. You can also listen via the BBC iPlayer after broadcast or download the podcast." What's he talking about? A
trade of prisoners in US custody, two brothers who were supposed to
have orchestrated the worst attack on a US base in Iraq during the last
six years, an attack that resulted in five US service members being
killed. The two brothers' organization had attacked British civilians
and kidnapped five of them -- IT contractors and security. Prior to the
release of the brothers' last month, the 5 British hostages had been
held for over two years. And what does anyone have to show for it? Two of the five British hostages have since been 'released.' Two corpses. (Jason Creswell and Jason Swindlehurst.) Danny Chism is the father of Jonathan Bryan Chism who was one of the five killed on January 23, 2007. From ICCC, let's note the five: US 1st Lieutenant Jacob N. Fritz Karbala Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire, grenades US Private 1st Class Jonathan Millican Karbala Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire, grenades US Captain Brian Scott Freeman Karbala Hostile - hostile fire - mortar, small arms fire US Specialist Johnathan Bryan Chism Karbala Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire, grenades US Private Shawn Patrick Falter Karbala Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire, grenades June 9th, Danny Chism learned the two brothers were released and he declared to Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP),
"They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer
for it." The US government failed to inform the families who lost loved
ones in that attack that they were releasing the two men they believed
were responsible for the deaths. On June 9th, the negotiating with 'terrorists' or terrorists got a little play. From that day's snapshot: This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times
of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have
been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody
Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused
of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly
did so because his organization was not going to release any of the
five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and
the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has
nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just
released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times,
"This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the
Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the
governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for
prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if
they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so
while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side
that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages
while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a
prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make
the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the
tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor
declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the
standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that
the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any
organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted
the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really
insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were:
Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N.
Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of
Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York;
and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are
the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais
al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. The
US repeatedly denied that it had negotiated but it was clear that it
had. The British wanted it to free their five citizens and Nouri
al-Maliki said the brothers had to be release for political
reconciliation to go through. That would be the same Nouri who opposed
any reconciliation with the Kurds over the issue of Kirkuk or any
reconciliation with former Ba'athists -- including the meeting that is
supposed to take place in DC with them, the one Vice President Joe
Biden pitched to al-Maliki on his recent trip to Iraq and that
al-Maliki shot down as soon as Biden had left Iraq. Unlike most US outlets, the Christian Science Monitor did not do a one day story and then forget it. From Jane Arraf's June 11th report: Marking
a gradual but dramatic shift in policy, the US appears prepared to
release a major figure it accuses of masterminding the killing of five
American soldiers in one of the most carefully planned insurgent
attacks of this war, according to Iraqi and US officials.
Sheikh
Laith al-Khazali, a senior member of a Shiite extremist group that the
Iraqi government is trying to bring into the political process, was
released from US custody over the weekend in what the Iraqi government
called a wider reconciliation effort with extremist groups.
The
release of his brother Qais al-Khazali, who heads the Iranian-backed
militant group Asa'ib al-Haq and is directly linked to a lethal attack
in Karbala in 2007, is expected to follow as talks progress, according
to US and Iraqi officials. The officials asked not to be identified due
to the sensitivity of the issue.
Freeing the two men, along with a
Lebanese Hezbollah operative arrested by US forces at the same time in
Basra two years ago, is also linked to the release of British hostages
who have been held by Shiite extremists for the past two years. The
release has not proven to be successful thus far. Was it ever worth it?
That's a discussion the US should be having publicly and openly. But in
terms of the British? At this point, it doesn't appear to be. Two
prisoners got their release and two corpses were handed over. Where are
the other three people? Are they alive? Are they dead? It doesn't
appear to have been a success for the US and, thus far, it is not a
success for the British. For the US government, it appears to be one of
the stupidest things they've done in 2009 and it's amazing how little
attention it has received in the US. For two years, those
brothers were held because they were believed to be the ones who
orchestrated the attack. Should they have been held without evidence
and trial? No. But maybe the US never wanted to put it to trial because
they were planning a trade? I don't know. No one does because the
government's not being pressed to tell the citizens what happened. All
this time later, the only truth emerges unofficially. This is not a
minor thing and it will be one of the incidents that haunts Barack's
legacy as president. As the Iraq War haunts the country despite all the best efforts to pretend the illegal war is over. Paul Purpura (The Times-Picayune) reports: About
3,000 Louisiana Army National Guard soldiers and their families,
including several hundred in the New Orleans area, have received
confirmation they are going back to Iraq.The
256th Brigade Combat Team received orders this past weekend to mobilize
in January for predeployment training at Camp Shelby, Miss.The brigade will spend one year in Iraq. The following community sites updated last night: As
noted yesterday and the day before, those who don't need
second-by-second, minute-by-minute coverage of the Sotomayor Circus can
click here for BBC Radio. If
any actual news is made in the hearing, you'll hear it there.
Otherwise, you'll be informed of life beyond the circus, around the
world. You won't find that on Pacifica which all about "Baby cried the
day the circus came to town" passed off as news. And if you're
following the circus or trying to, Betty continues to offer level headed coverage. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqjane arrafthe new york timescampbell robertsonalissa j. rubindeborah haynespaul purpuramartin chulovbbc newslike maria said pazkats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudethomas friedman is a great mantrinas kitchenthe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes itruths reportsickofitradlzoh boy it never ends
Posted at 06:49 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Wednesday, July
15, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, realities about the 'movement'
to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, did Mullen strong arm the Kurds,
details emerge about the Iranian diplomats held hostage, and more. The
report by the Government Accountability Office found wide variation in
the medical centers' facilities and programs for female
veterans.
Investigators visited 18 veterans'
facilities and found that basic services, like pelvic examinations,
were being provided and that patients had access to female providers
for gender-specific care. But the facilities were lacking in some
simpler accommodations, such as the configuration of exam rooms and
privacy in check-in areas.
The department says it is
taking comprehensive steps to improve, including programs for primary
care and mental health care for female veterans, along with having a
female veterans' program manager in each of its medical
facilities. WASHINGTON,
D.C. -- Senator Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI), Chairman of the Veterans'
Affairs Committee, held an oversight hearing to outline gaps in VA care
for women veterans and highlight strategies to bridge those gaps.
Akaka gathered a panel of women veterans and representatives from the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Government Accountability
Office to share their personal experiences and views on the VA system.
The witness testimony yesterday illustrated the gap between the
Department's wide array of services for women veterans and the actual
experiences of many women veterans. "VA
plans many valuable programs and services for women veterans. However,
our witnesses demonstrated that VA must do more than just set mandates
-- the Department must ensure that women veterans know about the
services available to them and are given assistance to receive them," said Akaka.
Witnesses included: Genevieve
Chase, a veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom, and founder and
executive director of American Women Veterans. During her service in
OEF, Ms. Chase was attacked by a suicide vehicle-borne, improvised
explosive device (IED) and returned home with symptoms of PTSD and
TBI. Jennifer
Olds, who served during the first Gulf War. She discussed her
experiences dealing with Military Sexual Trauma (MST), the difficulties
of rehabilitating, and the strengths and weaknesses of the care she
received at VA. Kayla
Williams, who was part of the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003 and is
currently on the Board of Directors of Grace After Fire. As a soldier
with the 101st Airborne Division (Airborne Assault), she came under
small arms fire and was mortared -- an experience she shares with other
women veterans despite the myth that female servicemembers don't
experience combat situations. She testified about VA care from her own
experiences. Tia
Christopher, a veteran and Women Veterans Coordinator for Swords to
Plowshares. VA determined she has service connected PTSD associated
with MST. She described for the committee the changes she has seen
since her discharge eight years ago and the need for additional
changes, such as child care for male and female
veterans. Joy
Ilem, a veteran and Deputy National Legislative Director for the
Disabled American Veterans. She testified that when she left the
service in the 1980s, there was little to no information for women
veterans and that she neither recognized herself as a veteran or knew
she was entitled to VA benefits for disabilities she incurred in
service. Two decades later, Ms. Ilem feels that VA is finally taking
steps in the right direction to address the needs of women veterans. The
Veterans Health Care Reauthorization Act (S. 252), Chairman Akaka's
omnibus veterans' health care bill that was unanimously approved by the
Committee earlier this summer includes provisions to help VA understand
why outreach to women veterans is falling short by identifying the
barriers women veterans face when seeking care from VA. S.252 would
also authorize VA to: Implement a program to educate, train, and certify professionals to provide MST-related mental health care (more background here);
Establish
a pilot program to provide child care for veterans who require
intensive care and are primary caretakers;
Report
to Congress whether there is at least one full-time women veterans'
program manager at each VA Medical Center; and
Provide care for the newborns of eligible women veterans. The
Chairman's opening statement, as well as the witnesses' written
testimony including the Government Accountability Office's audit of VA
health care for women, is available here. Senator
Patty Murray: Ms. Williams, you mentioned that you were both a care
giver and a care seeker. You're husband was in the military. I assume
that that is fairly common for a woman to be married to a fellow
military officer and be in the same position. What can be done to help
us care for women veterans who are not only dealing with their own
readjustment issues but our dealing with spouse or children as well? Kayla
Williams: I think that it's important that care be more comprehensive.
And you're right, the percentages are very high. Among active duty
enlisted married female service members, over 50% are married to other
service members -- compared to only 8% of their male peers. And my
husband and I were both enlisted. I know that the VA is trying very
hard to do outreach. I once got a call, for example, asking if I had
sustained a Traumatic Brain Injury as part of their outreach efforts to
make sure that they're catching everybody. And I said, "No, I didn't
but I'm glad you called because my husband did and our family is in
shambles right now I don't know how to hold myself together and my
family together and keep my job and I'm struggling really hard here.
And he said, "Well I can't really help you with that. I'm calling to
ask if you've suffered a brain injury." And that's the way that I
think that we can try to make sure that we're addressing entire
families. If you have one -- if you have a service member who has
sustained an injury -- both while they're in the DoD and once they've
transitioned to VA care -- making sure that their familiy is being
taken care of is an important step. I know The VA does not cover
care for family members but if they learn that the spouse is also a
veteran, it's important that they take the extra step and reach out and
contact them proactively and ask if they need help as a caregiver.
And, of course, this does apply to both male and female spouses, it's
just the number of female spouses is much higher. US
Senator Patty Murray: I hear a lot from women about the access of child
care being a barrier to the VA. You, several of you, mentioned this in
your testimony and I don't think a lot of people realize that you tell
a woman there's no child care, they just simply don't go, they don't
get their health care. Do you for all the panelists, do you think that
the VA providing child care would increase the number of women veterans
who go to the VA and get the care that they need? Joy? Joy
Ilem: I would say definitely. I think researchers have repeatedly
shown this as a barrier for women veterans and that's the frustration,
you know? How many research surveys do you have to do when women keep
saying this is a barrier to access for care? And I think it was Kayla
who mentioned the experience of someone who was told it was
inappropriate for them to bring their child with them and some of
these very personalized for appointments for mental health or other
things -- it may be very difficult but they have no other choice. I
think it would definitely be a benefit and we would see an increase in
the number of women veterans who would probably come to VA. Senator Patty Murray: Ms. Williams? Kayla
Williams: I definitely think that usage rates of the VA would increase
if women knew that they had child care available. There are a variety
of innovative ways that we could try to address the problem of
women having to balance their needs of child care with their needs to
get services. Among them would be increasing the availability
of tele-help and tele-medicine where women don't have to necessarily go
all the way to a remote facility and spend four hours trying to get to
and from and then be in-care. And there are also opportunities for
innovative programs. For example, the VA has small business loans
available if they could provide loans to women veterans who want to
provide child care facilities near VA facilities, that would be a great
way to try to marry these two needs. There are also a lot of community
organizations that stand ready and waiting to help that would be happy
just given a small office to staff it with volunteers and be able to
provide that care for the time that a woman has to be in appointment.
I think, as many others have said, the specific solutions may vary by
location but there are a lot of innovative way that we could forge
public-private partnerships to try to meet these needs. We'll
be covering the topic again tomorrow. If you use the link in the press
release from the Committee, you'll not only have their written
testimony, you'll also have the option of streaming the hearing.
Genevive Chase was on the second panel and she was part of last Wednesday's Voices of Honor
press conference. US House Rep Patrick Murphy is gathering public
attention to the need to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Monday he was
on the start of NPR's The Diane Rehm Show with USA Today's Susan Page filling in for Diane. Susan
Page: Before we go to our panel, though, we're joined on the phone from
Bucks County Pennsylvania by Patrick Murphy. He's the Democratic
Congressman from Pennsylvania's eight district and an Iraq War
veteran. Congressman, thank you for joining us. US House Rep Patrick Murphy: Thanks so much, Susan, for having me on. I appreciate it. Susan
Page: Now last week you announced that you would lead an effort to get
Congress to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. What - what would your bill
do? US House
Rep Patrick Murphy: Sure. It will repeal the discrimantory practice
which is in effect right now: The Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy does not
allow the gay soldiers to serve openly in the military. And, Susan, the
reason why this policy needs to be repealed, uh, right away is because
it is hurting our national security. We have let go over 13,000
troops. That's over three-and-a-half combat brigades at a time when
our troops are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and we need every
qualified and able-bodied individual to serve in our military. Susan Page: Now what kind of experiences did you have on this issue when you were serving in Iraq? US
House Rep Patrick Murphy: Sure. Well first, you know, when I was in
Baghdad as a paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division, you know,
there were obviously gay soldiers [. . .] there were gay soldiers
serving with us. You know, it's, people knew it but they didn't talk
about it. The fact is that our troops, when they're - when they're in
Baghdad or whether they're in Kabul, Afghanistan, they don't care
whether you're gay or straight, what religion you are, what color you
are, what creed you are, they care whether or not you can fire an M4
assault rifle, whether or not you can kick down a door, can you get the
job done. That's the important thing, not what your orientation is. Susan
Page: Now President Obama campaigned last year during the presidential
election opposing Don't Ask, Don't Tell so why not have him issue an
executive order that would change this policy or lift it? US
House Rep Patrick Murphy: Sure. Well first it was an act of Congress
that put this all into place, the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. And it
will take an act of Congress to repeal it. You know, when I was a
Democrat -- and I've only been in Congress, as you know Susan, for two
and a half years -- you know I used to have a hard time and I used to
criticize President Bush when we would pass laws and he would have
these executive signing statements that basically would say, "I know
Congress passed such and such, but we're going to ignore that part of
it." That's not having the proper respect for co-equal government. And
it just got worse, oh so much worse. Patrick apparently believes
you're Dumb Ass Stupid and unaware that Barack's doing the same signing
statements today -- most recently with regards to the IMF issue in his
war supplemental. And there's something really pathetic about the
approach he's pushing. I'm not talking about his shameful covering for
Barry O. I'm talking about this bulls**t of, "Our national interest!"
What does it remind you of because it reminds me of Bette Midler in Big Business
at the big stock holder meeting saying that they're appealing to your
instinct to "Save your own ass!" It's really pitching it to the
lowest, basest argument around and, in doing so, it's telling you a
great deal about how the American people are seen. It's disgusting. How
sad that America can't be asked to do anything for equality
apparently. I do wonder what that says about how we see ourselves.
And, remember, on this issue, we lag behind. We're not leaders. Is
that what happens when we're not leaders, we can no longer appeal to
people to do the right thing? We have to be selfish and say, "It's
hurting this or that?" That's a lousy argument in reality. Now we
need the best military? Now? I would assume anyone serving in the
eighties or seventies would assume that they needed the best military.
I appreciate that Patrick Murphy is speaking of the topic (all that's
taking place is speaking -- if the House wanted to vote on this, they
already would have, we'll come back to that point) but I didn't "serve
with gays and lesbians in the military." I am friends with gays and
lesbians and I have family members who are gays and lesbians. It's not
an issue that's going to come up every few years at some military
reunion for me, it's a regular part of the fabric of human life. And
I'm very aware that there is a growing vocal disgust within the gay
community over the way this is being presented. Fair is fair, right is
right. This is the United States of America and we are all supposed to
be equal. Anytime that argument isn't made -- with or without 'oh the
money it costs us!', it is heard by an increasingly vocal segment of
the LGBT community as, "Your life is too 'icky' for us to defend on the
grounds of fairness." That's offensive. And it's all the more so when
it comes from a would-be gay-leader assoicated with the campign who an
actual gay rights leader refers to as "The self-loathing Bette Midler
freak -- who is all for that approach -- and he apparently enjoys
seeing himself as 'icky' when getting 'freaky' -- but Gay Pride long
ago made self-loathing unfashionable." If you want to get serious, get
serious. Playing the economy card isn't getting serious. Playing the
scare people with fear ("National security!") isn't getting serious.
Now you can include those reasons as part of a tapestry of reasons why
the policy needs to be repealed; however, if you're not also making the
fairness argument, you're being insulting -- and it doesn't matter if
you're straight or gay, you are being insulting to the LGBT community.
The Voices org plans to go on tour. They better their act together
before they do or plan to play to just straight audiences because I
knew about Murphy's appearance Monday and just intended to ignore them
(I also thought -- on the same broadcast -- Julian E. Barnes made an
ass out of himself -- along with demonstrating he doesn't actually know
the law). But I live in the Bay Area and we don't play the Plessy v.
Ferguson game with each other out there. Translation, very vocal
leaders from that area are complaining and raised the issue. I
listened, their complaints and valid and we will cover it. And
here's the big point. Fairness needs to be argued because it is a
value. An actual value. One enshrined in the Constitution of the
United States. Long after Don't Ask, Don't Tell is gone, the LGBT
community and other communities will still need the fairness argument
for equality. So no one -- straight, gay, bi, non-sexual, what have
you -- benefits when the fairness argument is tossed aside. Is it
worth it, though, in the short term, when the US could see the hideous
Don't Ask, Don't Tell repealed. Don't Ask, Don't Tell isn't getting
repealed anytime soon. Congress doesn't give a
damn about changing this policy. This is a song-and-dance to take the
heat of Barack. That's the reality. I will assume Patrick is serious
about this issue. Ellen Tauscher was. But the White House doesn't want
this. (And I know that from friends at the White House which is another
reason we're covering this topic so strongly today.) And it's not
happening short of intense pressure (the October rally in DC could
apply tremendous pressure). The myth is that Barry O wants to repeal
it. And that he's tasked Congress with getting a bill on his desk so
he can repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The reality is that House and
Senate leadership (Democratic control of both houses) would be putting
it to a vote immediately if that's what Barack really wanted. He
doesn't want it and the leadership is attempting to bury it. The
bill's written, it's called the Military Readiness Enahncement Act of 2009.
Ellen Tauscher introduced it March 3, 2009. It's July 15th. There has
been no vote despite the fact that there are 161 sponsors. Now that's
the House. In the Senate? Allegedly the issue will be steered by Ted
Kennedy. Other than Senator Roland Burris, no one in the Senate has
spoken publicly in support of changing it in the last few weeks when
it's been a major topic in the press. As for Kennedy leading on it?
He has other issues including his own health and promoting his upcoming
book. So you have a bill that, if the House leadership was serious,
they'd be voting on tomorrow. They're not. The White House doesn't
want it and leadership in the House is blocking a vote. (In the Senate
there is no action at all.) So, sorry, we're not gong to be silent
when the LGBT community is being treated as a concern only out of fear
and not out of fairness. That's a short sighted argument and it really
is insulting. It wouldn't cut for Civil Rights, it wouldn't cut it for
universal suffrage, it wouldn't cut it to end slavery. But someone
thinks it's okay to make it the sole argument for ending Don't Ask,
Don't Tell? There's an LGBT history moment the country should run
from: In 2010, due to national security fears, Don't Ask, Don't Tell
was finally repealed. Said Republican Senator Jeff Sessions, "I don't
have to like them, I don't have to respect them and you better believe
I won't let them marry! But I care about national security so even
these 'pervs' get my support." (Sessions didn't say that but it's not
very far from what he would say if it passed.) In
the US today, the morning began with news of violence in Iraq. An
apparent attack on a police checkpoint in Ramadi, capital of Anbar
Province, has resulted in multiple deaths. BBC News says
it was a mini-bus bombing and that the dead number 6 with an additional
seventeen injured (dead actually would number seven -- it was a
'suicide' attack). AP adds
that the dead include five police officers and notes that a funeral for
two other Baghdad police officers -- Hussein Qassim and Jassim Shuwaili
who were killed yesterday -- took place today. Reuters notes,
"Salah al-Obeidi, a doctor at the Ramadi hospital, said some of the
wounded were in grave condition. He said the death toll might rise." As
usual the response is 'crackdown' -- closed streets, etc. In other
violence today, Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
a Baghdad boming "targeting pilgrims" which resulted in 10 dead and
another Baghdad bombing which claimed 5 lives and left thirty-four
injured. As the violence continues, word emerges that the US may be sewing more sectarian strife. Iran's Press TV reports
that US Adm Mike Mullen, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, visit to
the oil-rich Kirkuk Monday was "a warning to ethnic Kurds" that they
should "forget their dream of annexing Kirkuk". Last week the US military released 5 Iranian diplomats they'd been imprisoning for over two years. CNN noted
that they returned to Iran Sunday where: "They were greeted at the
airport by dozens of cheering men, who placed wreaths around their
necks and carried them on their shoulders from the plane to the airport
building, Press TV pictures showed. Some in the crowd flashed victory
signs, while others took pictures of the returning men." Today Barbara Slavin (Washington Times) reports
on US State Dept talk that three of the imprisoned "were held for more
than two years even though they had not been involved in anti-US
activities and were functioning as diplomats at the time" and that they
were held to be hostages in an effort to strong-arm "Iran to reduce its
support for anti-U.S. violence in Iraq." That is what is being said
and it demands an independent investigation. The US is not supposed to
take hostages. Diplomats have a level of immunity that was violated
when the five Iranians were held. When Robert McNamara did the world a favor and died earlier this month, Democracy Now! aired a roundtable. Historian Marilyn Young (author of many books and recently co-editor of Iraq and the Lessons of Vietnam) explained of McNamara: One
of the legacies is that there is none, in a sense. The first clip that
you ran, you could have run it now. About Iraq, several years ago,
about Afghanistan today. It's as if it doesn't go anywhere. There is
knowledge, and then it's erased in between McNamara should be kind of a
morality tale. During his tenure as Secretary of Defense, he initially
-- he was responsible really -- for the initial escalation. In 1964, he
and Bundy gave -- '65, I'm sorry -- gave Johnson what's called "The
Fork in the Road Memorandum," in which they said, "Now, we have really
thought this over and we have two choices. We could increase military
pressure or we could negotiate." And they strongly urged the increase
of military pressure and Johnson went along with that. Not that he was,
you know, I think he was a little unwilling, but that is another
subject. "One of the legacies," she said, "is that there is none." If you doubt her, you've slept through the news cycle. Gordon Lubold (Christian Science Monitor) writes
that four "Advisory and Assistance Brigades" are being sent to Iraq.
These are military troops. But they're "advisory" and "assistance" and
not "combat" troops. (As Thomas E. Ricks
has noted when fully awake, there is no pacifistic wing of the
military.) Lubold is very good at repeating Defense Dept propaganda,
but search in vain for any clue that Lubold is educated. Apparently,
he's not. Apparently, he's one more glorified general studies major.
Maybe it's past time that journalism programs were dropped if this what
they produce? A history major reporting the same news today would
probably be likely to note that "advisors" in Vietnam just signaled
further US involvement. But Lubold's not just unqualified, he's
apparently an idiot or a liar. Xinhua reports the detail he leaves out, and it's a pretty big one: " However, they will also conduct coordinated counterterrorism missions." Repeating Marilyn Young on Vietnam and McNamara, "One of the legacies is that there is none." And there's certainly no legacy of awareness as evidenced by Thomas Friedman and his ridiculous column this morning " Goodbye Iraq, and Good Luck."
Does The World Is Flat And My Ass Is Huge Thomas Friedman really think
the US withdrew from Iraq? Does he think that already happened? In
the bad column, he retells a joke that a Kurdish leader told Mullens
and company Monday in Iraq and then plays
I-know-what-the-Kurd-said-but-here's-what-I-think-he-meant.
(Apparently, Thomas Friedman was too busy autographing bad books and
landfills to ask the man what he meant by his joke.) In his insulting
interpretation, the Kurd was stating that Iraqis love to talk and talk
about their suffering (which is apparently solely the fault of Saddam
Hussein -- in Thomas Friedman's mind -- and has nothing to do with a
six-years-and-counting illegal war or ongoing occupation). In the
joke, the suffer is making a plea for compensation and has to endure
retelling everything that happened to a stranger. Strange -- or maybe
not so -- that Friedman didn't interpret the joke as what the average
person in Iraq has to do for even a morsel today -- prostate themselves
to strangers (i.e. foreigners?) to get ahead? Unlike Friedman, Diana West (Washington Times via Jamestown Sun) is aware that the Iraq War has not ended and she notes in a column today: The
first I heard about what happened to Lt. Col. Timothy Karcher, the last
U.S. commander of Sadr City who recently signed over jurisdiction to
Iraqis, was from a reader. He e-mailed me about my last column, which
argued that "allies" don't declare victory over each other (as Iraq's
prime minister Nouri al-Maliki declared "victory" over the United
States), and the sooner we realize Iraq isn't our "ally," the better.
It also bemoaned the U.S. military's deference to Iraq, quoting top
brass beginning with Gen. Raymond Odierno and including Lt. Col.
Karcher, in their execution of what I, myself, consider a futile U.S.
policy to Westernize Islamic cultures.
"I
appreciate your fervor and feelings about Mr. al-Maliki's comments, but
I must say that your biting commentary regarding the quote from Lt. Col
Karcher has driven me to reply," he wrote. "You may not be aware," he
continued, "but since signing over jurisdiction to the Iraqis, Lt. Col.
Karcher suffered a roadside bomb attack and lost both legs. One of his
men, Sgt. Timothy David of Beaverton, Mich. -- a veteran of six tours
in Iraq and Afghanistan -- was killed by a second EFP." Timothy
Karcher is at Walter Reed currently. The attack which claimed Timothy
David's life took place June 28th, as West observes, "two days before
Iraq's 'victory' celebration". Turning to
England where an inquiry is going into the death of 26-year-old Iraq
Baha Mousa in September 2003 while in the custody of British forces. Deborah Haynes (Times of London) reports: Geoff
Hoon, the former Defence Secretary, could be called to give evidence at
a public inquiry into illegal techniques used by British forces in Iraq
to prepare detainees for interrogation. A
list of witnesses has yet to be finalised and his name is not believed
to be on the latest draft. Asked yesterday whether Mr Hoon would be
called as a witness, however, Gerard Elias, QC, counsel to the inquiry,
told The Times: "Possibly." A second lawyer said: "It may well be that
an application will be made to call politicians. However, it is early
days." BBC News (link has video and text) refers
to Baha Mousa's death as "a stain on the British military" and that the
abuse also includes abuses such as urinating on prisoners. The abuses
are in violation of the Geneva Convention and BBC reports that the
inquiry says they will go as high up the chain of command as
necessary. Deborah Haynes reports
that the UK Ministry of Defence is stating that the abuse was the
result of "a lack of trained interrogators" and a 2002 MoD memo states,
" "The lack of prisoner handling and tactical questioning-trained
personnel within deployed force elements risks the loss of potentially
accurate, timely and life-saving information/intelligence during our
fighting operations ... The less well-trained our troops are, the
greater the chance that they may mishandle prisoners" UNITY in the antiwar movement: SAVE these dates: Monday October 5; Saturday October 17; Friday March 19, 2010
I was among the World Can't Wait supporters attending the National Assembly to End the Occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan this weekend in Pittsburgh. Read the proposal
World Can't Wait brought. I'm glad to be able to say that out of the
Assembly came a vote and intention to support a two-week period of
mass, united actions against the occupations from October 3 - October
17, 2009. Based on support of most of the participants, a demand was
added to "end war crimes, including torture."
This
action period includes Monday, October 5 as a mass protest and
non-violent civil resistance action in Washington, at the US House
offices and the White House to mark the US occupation of Afghanistan,
which begun that week in 2001. The period culminates with Saturday
October 17th regional and local actions against the wars. October 17 is
the 40th anniversary of the famous Vietnam Moratorium in 1969 that
Daniel Ellsberg referred to as so huge that it forced Richard Nixon to
shelve plans to nuke Vietnam.
[. . .]
The
arguments against March 19, 2010 were that other groups need to be
consulted before what is likely the largest antiwar conference of the
year decides on a date; and that working people won't take off a week
day to protest. As far as I'm concerned, the antiwar movement has
collapsed and urgently requires decisive, principled leadership now
in order not to become completely irrelevant. So I'm saying, now that
we should have the necessary discussion and planning quickly, and get
on it!
Posted at 04:01 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
|
|
|
|
|
|
