'HUBdate: Ringing' (howard wolfson, hillaryclinton.com):
Ringing: The campaign released a new 30-second television ad statewide across Pennsylvania. "Ringing" highlights Hillary’s readiness to be Commander-in-Chief of the economy on Day One. Sen. McCain "just said the government shouldn't take any real action on the housing crisis. He’d let the phone keep ringing." Watch here.
Tonight on The Tonight Show: Hillary will appear on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.
Strong on the Economy: At yesterday’s jobs summit, Hillary outlined her insourcing agenda that provides $7 billion in tax incentives and investments for firms creating jobs in America. Read the plan here. Read more and more.
Big Change: USA Today's "Clinton's goals for economy? Big change" details Hillary's plans for the economy given that "there is still time for policymakers to avert a lengthy and punishing downturn." Read more.
In Case You Missed It: Hillary appeared on CNBC's "Mad Money with Jim Cramer." Watch here. Swing State Lead: A new Quinnipiac poll shows Hillary beating McCain in key swing states. In Florida, she leads McCain 44-42 while Obama trails McCain by 9 points. In Ohio, Hillary leads McCain 48-39 while Obama is only ahead of McCain by 1. Read more.
For the Long Run: "Hang in there, Hillary...This Democratic presidential race is much too close - and you'd disappoint way too many people - if you let a bunch of party hacks and hand-wringers force you out now." Read more.
Active In The Tar Heel State: North Carolina For Hillary announced the grand opening of its state headquarters in Raleigh. Read more.
Previewing Today: Hillary hosts a "Hillary Live" fundraising event in Beverly Hills, CA.
A Tribute To Dr. King: On Friday, Hillary visits Memphis, TN to pay tribute to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in remembrance of the 40th anniversary of his assassination. She released a video inviting her supporters to submit testimonials about the impact Dr. King’s work has had on their lives. View here.
On Tap: Hillary will attend the North Dakota Democratic NPL State Convention in Grand Forks, ND on Friday and will be campaigning in Oregon on Saturday.

c.i.'s writing about pelosi tonight (and it's also in the snapshot) so i thought i'd ad my 2 cents to that topic. if i'd been prepping her, i would've asked her to define the day's objective in the press conference. once she said 'iraq,' i would have stated, then don't talk about anything else. you do it and you're begging the press to cover something else.

she wasted every 1's time holding a press conference. if you don't get that, google the news article. there are currently about 10 and 3 are republican responses. she embarrassed herself today and showed no leadership.

she showed that she can babble on about anything instead of focusing.

she showed that she could be inept.

she demonstrated that she can't offer leadership.

it really was embarrassing.

meanwhile nancy's candidate's suffering. from reuters:

A New York Times/CBS News poll published on Thursday found Obama's favorability rating among Democratic primary voters dropped 7 percentage points to 62 percent since late February. The decline was mostly among men and upper-income voters, the Times said.
McCain is now viewed positively by 67 percent of Republican primary voters, compared with 57 percent in February, according to the poll.
In a separate New York Times/CBS News poll, 81 percent of Americans said things were on the wrong track in the United States, the highest such figure since the survey started in the early 1990s.
McCain and Clinton were headed to Memphis, Tennessee, to mark the 40th anniversary on Friday of the assassination in that city of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.
Sources said NBC attempted to get all three candidates to appear together to talk about King in a nonpolitical way on Friday. McCain agreed to do it. Talks were under way with Clinton's camp. Obama's campaign said he had a prior commitment and would not be in Memphis.

so bambi's dropping and he thinks he turn down publicity? that's inexcusable. that's just like this week when he couldn't make time for a face-to-face with the prime minister of australia (kevin rudd). he really has no idea what he's doing.

i'm tired tonight. but for the last few days, i've intended to note maya angelou's 'Celebrating Women: A Note from Dr. Maya Angelou' (HillaryClinton.com):
You may write me down in history
With your bitter, twisted lies,
You may trod me in the very dirt
But still, like dust,
I'll rise.
This is not the first time you have seen Hillary Clinton seemingly at her wits end, but she has always risen, always risen, much to the dismay of her adversaries and the delight of her friends.
Hillary Clinton will not give up on you and all she asks of you is that you do not give up on her.
There is a world of difference between being a woman and being an old female. If you're born a girl, grow up, and live long enough, you can become an old female. But, to become a woman is a serious matter. A woman takes responsibility for the time she takes up and the space she occupies.
Hillary Clinton is a woman. She has been there and done that and has still risen. She is in this race for the long haul. She intends to make a difference in our country.
She is the prayer of every woman and man who long for fair play, healthy families, good schools, and a balanced economy.She declares she wants to see more smiles in the families, more courtesies between men and women, more honesty in the marketplace. Hillary Clinton intends to help our country to what it can become.
She means to rise.
She means to help our country rise. Don't give up on her, ever.
In fact, if you help her to rise, you will rise with her and help her make this country a wonderful, wonderful place where every man and every woman can live freely without sanctimonious piety, without crippling fear.
Rise Hillary.
Rise.

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

April 3, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Nancy Pelosi babbles in public, Bambi's War Hawk feathers get a little attention, curfews are not good for children and living things, and more.

Starting with war resistance. Joshua Key is an Iraq War veteran who could not continue to take part in the illegal war. He and his family (wife Brandi Key and their children) moved to Canada to seek asylum which was denied November 2006 by Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board. Currently he is appealing that decision before Canada's Federal Court. Colin Perkel (Canadian Press) reports that "lawyer Jeffry House told Justice Robert Barnes the board was wrong to conclude that the U.S. allows soldiers to object legally to what their military is doing in Iraq. In fact, House said, the United States Supreme Court has held that going to war is a high-level policy decision that cannot be litigated" and quotes him explaining, "There is no possibility whatsoever in the U.S. that anyone can raise the issue of an illegal war." In 2005, Orlando's WESH reported (text and video) on Joshua Key and quoted Jeffry House explaining of war resisters, "They shouldn't be punished because they are making a moral choice that has a lot to be said for it. . . . These are people that to me seem so innocent of any wrongdoing that I feel like I have to go the last mile for them." Joshua Key explains, "I went to fight for my country. To me, the Army, they lied to me from the beginning."

At 8:30 yesterday morning, Key attempted to receive the justice that has so far been denied to US war resisters in Canada. Peter Wilmoth (Australia's The Age) reviewed The Deserter's Tale (written by Key and Lawrence Hill) and quoted from the text:

I wish I could pass on my [PTSD] nightmares to him [George W. Bush]. America's sons and daughters are losing their lives because he fabricated reasons to go to war, the weapons-of-mass-destruction lie. I deserted an injustice and leaving was the only right thing to do. I owe one apology and one apology only, and that is to the people of Iraq.

Brian Lynch (Vancouver's Straight.com) quotes Key explaining, "I went to fight for my country, and I did what I was told. I left it only when I saw for myself that it was unjust and immoral. . . . It would've been easier just to say, 'Okay, I'll go back and do what I was doing.' The hardest thing was to do what I did. And I live with a clear conscience because of that." Last year, Jenny Dean (Denver Post) told the stories of several war resisters including Key:

Joshua Key was a welder and part-time pizza deliveryman in Oklahoma with a wife, two kids and a baby on the way. "I couldn't make ends meet," he says.
In May 2002, a recruiter in a strip mall offered a deal too good to refuse: steady pay, health insurance and, because he was a father, no combat duty.
But by fall when Key arrived at Fort Carson, the rumors of war had begun. He and others in the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment figured if war came it would be over quickly.
And, in fact, when Key first arrived in Iraq, there was virtually no resistance. He says he was taught how to blow doors off houses and search for terrorists and caches of weapons. In 200 raids, the private first class says, he never found more than the occasional rifle.
All males over 5 feet tall were to be handcuffed and sent away for interrogation, he says. The women and children were to be held at gunpoint, Key says. He adds that any money or valuables were fair game and admits to pocketing his share. After all, he figured, they were the enemy.
His uneasieness grew as the violence around him escalated. The tipping point came one day when his unit was traveling along the Eurphrates River and happened upon the bodies of four decapitated Iraqis. He says he was ordered to find evidence of a firefight. He found none.
But he says he did see a panicked American soldier screming "We (expletive) lost it here" as other soldiers kicked the heads like soccer balls.
"I'm not going to have no part of this," he says he told his commander. During a leave six months later, Key told his wife he wasn't going back: "I couldn't help but think we had become the terrorists. What if it was us and someone came breaking into our homes and held guns at our children?"

The Associated Press quotes him from outside the court yesterday explaining, "You're terrorizing the civilian population -- for what sense or for what reason, I don't know. The innocent killings of civilians happened on a systematic basis there. It wasn't every now and then, it was an everyday occasion." Colin Perkel (Canadian Press) reports that "Judge Barnes said he hopes to rule before August." Should the Federal Court not overturn the board's decision, Key's next step would be to appeal to the country's Supreme Court. Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey were the first US war resisters to appeal and, November 15, 2007, Canada's Supreme Court refused to hear their cases.

Should the Supreme Court also refuse to hear Key's the case, the best chance for Key and other US war resisters is a measure scheduled to be debated and voted by Canada's Parliament this month. You can make your voice heard. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum. Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

Turning to the United States. Shortly the White House sends Gen David Petraeus and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker off to make the rounds of Congress and attempt to launch another wave of Operation Happy Talk to convince the people of America that the illegal war must continue. Various efforts are taking place on the part of the US Congress to avoid being caught off guard the way they were in September. Some work, some don't. Case in point, the press conference this morning held by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

Pelosi, what was the point of the press conference? Reading the wires may result in confusion. Reuters reports on the conference in terms of . . . a bankruptcy bill. At some point, her nonsense on super delegates will be picked up. The topic was Iraq. Pelosi stated that when they took questions but refused to stick to that topic and felt the need to embellish on other topics repeatedly. After the other House members left, Pelosi continued to entertain questions (she even continued taking non-Iraq questions as she walked out of the room). You either focus or you don't. Pelosi didn't. Pelosi gave reporters every reason to focus on something other than Iraq (not that most need a reason to do so). She did a HORRIBLE job and, if that's the House's best effort, the American people are in a lot of trouble.

Others participating in the conference were Ike Skelton, Howard Berman and Rahm Emanuel. Skelton, who chairs the House Armed Services Committee, declared that, "It's the Iraqis that are letting themselves down. They have had, as a result of the so-called surge, space" to move foward but they "are not stepping up to the plate as they should. The American People should understand that it's theirs [the Iraqis] to win or lose." Berman referred to the need for the upcoming hearings to cover "broad issues about costs, readiness, the [US] role in Afghanistan" and he noted the escalation's "underlying premise" was "national reconciliation" in Iraq which hasn't taken place. He noted the benchmarks and how nothing has really happpened there either. Yes, a few laws have been pased, Berman noted, but they "are ambiguous and it's very unclear whether they will ever be implemented." He cited one in particular. The de-de-Baathifcation law. (Paul Bremer issued the de-Baathification order so anything that remedies it is referred to here as the "de-de-Baatification law. Berman didn't use that term.) Berman noted it was "passed two months ago and still is not implemented." He cited that as the sort of issues that Petraeus and Crocker needed to provide answers on as well as the "strengthening of Iran and even Iran's role" in the Basra conflict. Repeatedly stressed (including by Pelosi) was the issue of "cost" which includes "America's security, our armed forces and, as the Speaker said, our economy."

When reporters tried to enlarge the topic early on, Pelosi was prepared and declared, "Right now our focus is on the testimony next week." (That was in reference to an expected 'supplemental' war funding request from the White House.) But she couldn't even maintain that focus for the brief press conference. (It lasted approximately a half-hour). She noted the costs of the illegal war was "now in the trillions" and the White House declared, before starting the Iraq War, "that the war would probably cost about $50 billion and could probably be paid soon." She noted hos many millions oil revenues bring to Iraq each day and stated that the US is spending "about $300 million a day in Iraq and we get no offset."

"What I hope we don't hear from General Petraeus next week," she declared, is a glorfication of what just happened in Basra . . . because the fact is that there are many questions to arise from what happened in Basra." She listed some including that the US reported only received notice that the assault on Basra would be taking place "twenty-four hours ahead of time". She wondered what was worse -- that the US would only receive 24 hours notice or that US forces were then brought in? She mentioned Moqtada al-Sadr at length and noted "al-Sadr established the terms by which he would freeze the violence from his side -- terms probably dictated by Iran and they were accepted like that (snaps fingers) by al-Maliki."

Skelton noted, "The strain is heavy. It's not heavy just on those in uniform, but on their families as well." He continued by declaring that Afghanistan was not the only "interest" the US had and that "you can only stretch the military so far."

Rahm Emanuel actually rescued the Q&A because Pelosi was so defocused. He stepped up to the microphone at several points. His strongest section was when he noted that, regardless of what happens on the ground in Iraq, the White House cries "more troops, more timeand more money" and dubbed this a "policy cul-du-sac and we just keep going round and round".

Referencing WalkOn.org's General Betray-Us ads in Septemeber, Pelosi was asked if she was requesting any advocacy groups sit it out on the sidelines and she responded, "I don't deter anyone's right to speak out. I'm a big proponent of the First Amendment but I wope we [Congress] would shine a bright light of truth and mirror on what he [Petraeus] has to say." This was her strongest section in the press conference and she used the focus (provided by Rahm Emanuel rescuing the moment, let's all be honest) to discuss what needs to be focused on in next week's testimonies. 1) How is it helping the US fight "the real war on terror in Afghanistan"? 2) "How is it impacting our readiness?" 3) "How is it impacting our economy?" She went on to state that the Iraq War is "driving us into debt, which is driving us into recession and the American people are paying the costs." She should have closed with her next statement, reminding the reporters that "we have a general and an ambassador -- two employees of the United States -- coming" to offer testimony. That was the closing moment.

But Pelosi couldn't stay focused and, by this time, Rahm was gone and so were Skelton and Berman leading Pelosi, in this alleged "Let's focus on Iraq!" conference, to start rambling on about MLK, Ghandi, her recent trip to India ("which some of you may have read about") and blah, blah, blah, blah.

Could someone inform the Speaker of the House that the Democrats in Congress are attempting to prevent another snow job by Petraeus and Crocker? Pelosi needs to stay on topic. No one needs to hear about her travels to India. Or what's going on in the rotunda. Presumably, all press present were provided with a schedule of the day's events. The conference was about Iraq and specifically attempting to set down markers by which the American people could measure next week's testimony. Sadly, Pelosi still wasn't done and had to then offer her opinions on the issue of super delegates -- her opinion, it should be noted, to a question NO ONE ASKED. The topic, Pelosi apparently forgot, was Iraq and preparing for next week's testimony. She needs to stay focused or send out surrogates in the future.

If that seems minor, it's not. Congress is attempting to set the tone and expectations for next week's testimony. Many members are doing their part. No one needs Nancy Pelosi blowing off everyone's hard work because she wants to play Starlet Holds A Press Conference. Yesterday, US Senator Joe Biden did his part as the chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations as the issue of withdrawal was seriously addressed and explored via multiple testimonies. That was an all day session that broke only for lunch. The media seems to be willfully missing that. Possibly the same press that sold the illegal war doesn't want to discuss Congress exploring withdrawal? Today, the committee heard testimony for their panel entitled "Iraq 2012: What Can It Look Like, How Do We Get There?"

"Before the war began," Biden explained in his opening remarks, "this committee warned that the failure to plan and define realistic objectives in Iraq would cause us to pay a heavy price. We cannot continue to make it up as we go along. We must mark a direction on our strategic compass -- and deliberately move in that direction. Ironically, despite all the debate in Washington and beyond about our Iraq policy, there is one premise just about everyone shares: lasting stability will come to Iraq only through a political settlement among its warring factions. So the single most important question you would think we would be debating is this: 'What political arrangements might Iraqis agree to and what are the building blocks to achieve them? Yet we almost never ask ourselves those questions. Today we will."

Senator Richard Luger, the highest ranking Republican on the committee noted, "Yesterday, in two hearings, the Foreign Releations Committee examined the status of military and political efforts in Iraq. Today, our witnesses will look beyond immediate problems to the prospects for Iraq four or five years into the future. . . . We being this inquiry knowing that we have limited means and time to pursue an acceptable resolution in Iraq. Testifying before us yesterday, Major General Robert Scales joined our other witnesses in underscoring the limits imposed by the strains on our armed forces."

The sparsely attended hearing (Senator Bill Nelson was one of the few to show) may have had to do with the fact that three of the four witnesses were advocating for 'federalism.' The panel had no real diversity of thought. Harvard's Dr. Dawn Brancati (who supported 'federalism' from the start) would declare at the end of the hearing, "Actually I think discussion among the three of us has changed my position slightly." So there's little point in reviewing her opening statements or anything during the hearing. Brookings' Carlos Pascual and American University's Professor Carole O'Leary also favored 'federalism' (O'Leary would argue that using 'partion' was an obstacle). RAND's Dr. Terrence Kelly did not offer an opinion but felt that what Iraq currently has in the political system is what it will have for some time to come because no one will want to give up powers. Only the University of Vermont's Dr. F. Gregory Gause III would address larger issues than "wants" (on the part of the United States) and he focused on the players in the region. He identified Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia as "the most important regional players." He stated, "The Saudi-Iranian contest for influence is not a direct confrontation. Iran does not pose a military threat to Saudi Arabia, and the Saudis do not see Iran as such. While Riyadh worries about the Iranian nuclear pogram, that is an issue for the future, not the immediate present. President Ahmadinejad visited Saudi Arabia in 2007 and the two countries have kept lines of communication open." In terms of Turkey and Iraq, he noted that "the Turkish perspective on Iraq, is not regional; it is domestic. Ankara views events in Iraq through the prism of its own Kurdish issues. It has accommodated itself since 1991 to the de facto independence of Iraqi Kurdistan. Turkish businesses are developing substantial interests there. However, it will not long tolerate any actions by the Iraqi Kurdish leadership which it sees as encourging Turkish Kurds to dream of independence and revolt against the Turkish government." He listed the three most cited outcomes from a US withdrawal from Iraq. 1) Iraq violence spills over to Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. 2) Civil war (high intensity) breaks out in Iraq forcing neighboring states to intervene. 3) al Qaeda would use it as a base. "It is hardly inevitable," he explained, "that American withdrawal from Iraq would lead to any of these bad results. On the contrary, I will make the case that an announced intention to withdrawal on a realistic timetable might -- again, I stress 'might' -- actually push regional powers to take more coopertive stances on Iraq." On the first option, he felt Syria and Jordan would be at risk for refugees arriving and called for more international aid. On the second, he felt that various Iraqi elements within the country would stabilize as they "tested" their won powers. He felt that no one really wants to control Iraq. Iran has what it wants (influence), Turkey doesn't want to "annex" the Kurdish region of Iraq (not noted but that would further extend the Kurdish region in Turkey) and "the Saudi army is hardly capable of serious cross-border operations." On the third outcome, he stated that "making that . . . the reason to maintain our presence in Iraq gives Usama bin Laden a veto over American policy. That cannot be a good thing."

He used "might" often. There were no such qualifiers from O'Leary who might want to turn that psychic eye to the financial markets if she is so sure of herself. She offered predictions (presented as fact and findings) as to what political parties would be standing (and which wouldn't be). When not predicting, she stressed the importance of tribal identities in Iraq and felt that tribes were the most logical unit that could explore issues such as "civil society" due to them being "the metaphor of family". As an acedmic exercise, O'Leary's presentations would be interesting. In terms of the topic of the hearing, O'Leary was too vested in what "should" happen ('federalism') and appeared eager to get to the issue of "How we make it happen!"

Dr. Terrence Kelly feels violence is a mainstain in Iraq for at least a generation regardless of anything else that does or does not take place. Echoing the generals at yesterday's hearing, he stated that the US is not equipped to do nation-building in Iraq. He noted the competing narratives among the three largest groups (Shia, Sunni, Kurd) and that "Americans do not undestand Iraqi social processes well, and so have not been effective at recognizing their importance. In many, though not all, ways, the U.S. cannot significantly influence these processes. Nor should it try to in most cases. The U.S.'s role in these issues are primarily to support insitutions and pressure political leaders to make needed changes."

In questioning, Kelly would return to the basics of a system such as when he noted "democracy requires a set of laws that people follow." In response to whether the current system (referred to as a 'cofederation') will exist but have "a dictator on top of it," Kelly replied that he didn't believe that was possible "because the dictator would want to have a unified government" and "I don't think that an army officer would say I want to be president of Iraq but I want the power to be in the provinces."

Biden noted the testimony of the generals on Wednesday and how the current course is not sustainable for the US military. It was not as in-depth (or as varied -- even from the center) as yesterday's hearing but it did get the point across that the Iraq War is not achieving and that political solutions are something the Iraqis will have to decide on, not the US.

Turning to Iraq where the 'solution' is always 'crack-down' and 'curfew.' The assault on Basra led to the expected reaction for anyone with a functioning brain but caught the puppet Nouri al-Maliki (and his handlers) by surprise. Their response was the usual curfews. The International Medical Corps notes:

Recent fighting and subsequent curfews in several major Iraqi cities have led to food shortages, disruption of health services, and above normal gaps in water and electricity supplies. Fighting, instability, and restriction of movements caused many people living under the curfew to feel depressed and agitated. The overall standstill of commercial life hit the poorest and most vulnerable Iraqis most.In a rapid assessment International Medical Corps (IMC) found that living conditions of Iraqis deteriorated under the multi-day curfews in almost all aspects. In telephone interviews people were asked to comment on their economic situation and their physical and mental well-being. "The curfews show how vulnerable Iraqis are to any further disruptions in their lives," says Agron Ferati, International Medical Corps country director in Iraq. "Over the last days we have seen how the everyday problems in the lives of ordinary Iraqis can quickly reach crisis proportions."A large number of respondents (75%) were either unemployed or support their families as day laborers. Although most said they are used to stockpiling supplies, people with a low or irregular income said they would run out of food if the curfew would continued. International Medical Corps also found large gaps in the health care sector. More than half of those respondents who needed medical assistance during the curfew said they had difficulties finding help, and a quarter could not get access to a health facility at all. Hospitals experienced shortages in medical supplies and were short-staffed during the curfew while the caseload of patients with serious injuries increased. Medical personnel could not reach hospitals and the referral system broke down due to the overall restriction in movement. In response to the crisis International Medical Corps is providing assistance to 2,000 families in Sadr City, a poor district in Baghdad, where fighting was especially fierce and citizens were cut off from assistance during the curfew. IMC is distributing one month's worth of food to the families -- including rice, cooking oil, sugar, beans, and flour - and is also delivering 100,000 liters of water in Sadr City. To avoid further disruptions in critical care three hospitals are receiving medication and supplies from International Medical Corps that will help them to better cope during curfews and administer life-saving care to patients. The insecurity and resulting curfews exacerbated existing worries and led to increased tension among family members. The vast majority of people interviewed for the survey said that the situation had made them feel hopeless, restless, and worthless.

Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 Iraq soldier and left three more wounded, two other Baghdad roadside bombings left four people wounded, a Baghdad bombing wounded a police officer, a Baghdad car bombing claimed 3 lives and left ten more people wounded, a Nineveh truck bombing claimed 7 lives and left twelve people wounded, a Mosul roadside bombing wounded eight people and a US airstrike on Basra claimed 4 lives and left six people injured. Reuters reports a Samara roadside bombing claimed the lives of 5 police officers and a clash in Hilla that ended with a US airstrike resulting in 6 deaths ("including 4 policemen") and fifteen more people left injured.

Shootings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 people were shot dead in Kirkuk last night.

Corpses?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad.

Meanwhile Reuters reports that Moqtada al-Sadr has announced a march against the occupation for April 9th as well as for a Baghdad "peaceful sit-in" this Friday. In the US, justice is delayed for crafts. Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi murdered and gang-rape was supposed to be the focus of a civilian trial starting this coming Monday. That has been delayed. March 12, 2006, US soldiers invaded Abeer's home and gang-raped her while killing both of her parents and her five-year-old sister. They then killed Abeer. While other soldiers have confessed to their part in the planning of the conspiracy and in the crimes, Steven D. Green has maintained his innocence -- despite being fingered in courtroom confessions as the ringleader. Part of the plot was to plan the crimes on Iraqi 'insurgents' and Green was discharged from the US military while these mythical 'insurgents' were still believed to be the culprits. As a result of the fact that he had been discharged, he was set to face a civilian court and that trial was finally due to start this coming Monday; however, AP reports the trial has been delayed "by three weeks to accomodate a quilt show". Also in the US, Erika Bolstad (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that Senators Patty Murray, Lisa Murkowski, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Blanche Lincoln, Jay Rockefeller, Ron Wyden and Charles Schumer have sponsored a bill which "would require that the VA system adapt to care for the 90,000 wmen who have served in the military since 2001" and "require the Veteran Administration's mental health staff to be trained to counsel victims of sexual assault." The bill is entitled the Women Veterans Health Improvement Act of 2008 and would "address many of the unique needs of female veterans by authorizing programs to improve care for Military Sexual Trauma (MST), increase research on the current barriers to care, and expand women veterans staff positions at the VA."

Turning to US politics, Kevin Zeese wonders "Is It Time for the Peace Movement to Start Protesting Senator Obama?" (Dissident Voice) because, frankly, he finds Bambi "has been sounding rather hawkish" lately. Lately? Zeese is apparently just waking up. He notes Bambi groupie Amy Goodman's 'earth-shattering' two minutes (she cornered Bambi) that didn't turn out so well. "First," Zeese huffs, "Obama acknowledged combat troops would be left behind as 'a strike force in the region'." First? Zeese, where have you been? Zeese goes on to quote Bambi saying that troops could be left in Kuwait. This is only news, Kevin Zeese, because the Pathetic Likes of Amy Goodman have schilled for Bambi for months. It's not news here. From the Nov. 2nd snapshot:

Writing up a report, Gordo and Zeleny are useless but, surprisingly, they do a strong job with some of their questions. The paper should have printed up the transcript. If they had, people might be wondering about the 'anti-war' candidate. He maintains Bill Richardson is incorrect on how quickly US troops could be withdrawan from Iraq. Obama states that it would take at least 16 months which makes one wonder how long, if elected, it would take him to move into the White House? If you can grab a strainer or wade through Obama's Chicken Sop For The Soul, you grasp quickly why he refused to pledge (in September's MSNBC 'debate') that, if elected president, he would have all US troops out of Iraq by 2013: He's not talking all troops home. He tries to fudge it, he tries to hide it but it's there in the transcript. He doesn't want permanent military bases in Iraq -- he appears to want them outside of Iraq -- such as Kuwait.

There's nothing new in Goody's brief report. That could have all been reported in real time -- back in November -- but Liars and Fluffers for Bambi didn't want people knowing that (or a great deal more). One of the Fluffers was Tom Hayden who saw the byline of Michael Gordon and just knew it had to be true! He failed to read the transcript and, when he finally got around to doing so, he broke . . . just like a little girl. That would be the same Tom-Tom who endorsed Bambi in the lead-up to Super Duper Tuesday and then immediately came back with "WE HAVE TO HOLD BOTH THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE!" You do that by endorsing? Age has not brought Tom-Tom any dignity. Glen Ford (Black Agenda Report) notes Tom-Tom, Stab, Bill Fletcher and Danny Glover and states they contributed the "most pitiful communication"

The self-styled "progressives" attempt to upend history and fool everybody, including themselves. The four claim that current conditions can be compared to the 1930s, when "centrist leaders" were compelled by activists "to embrace visionary solutions." There's a huge problem with that reasoning, however. In the 1930s, there were already strong movements existent before Franklin Roosevelt's 1932 and 1936 runs for the presidency. It was the movements -- many of them communist-led -- that shaped the Roosevelt campaigns and the New Deal, that in fact changed history. Today's four wishful signers insist that "even though it is candidate-centered, there is no doubt that the campaign is a social movement, one greater than the candidate himself ever imagined."
Really? Believe that hogwash when any of the loyal Lefties demand Obama discard his plans to add 92,000 addition soldiers and Marines to the total U.S. military ranks, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and bringing with it the certainty of more wars. Never happen. The signers have already claimed the political campaign is a movement. Would they expose themselves as poseurs and fakers by making futile demands on the campaign, which is, after all, supposed to be one with the "movement?" Would they risk being told to shut up? No, it's too late for Hayden, Fletcher, Ehrenreich, and Glover to strut around as if they have options; they pissed all that away in the initial glow of Obamamania, and from now on will have to accept their status as hangers on.

Again, if, like Zeese, Bambi's Iraq realities are emerging for you, blame it on Tom-Tom, Amy Goodman, self-loathing lesbian Laura Flanders and all the others in Panhandle Media who want to be seen as "fair" but don't want to actually be fair. Better to lie to your audience apparently. Friday Marcia covered the foursome Ford's addressing.

Andrew Stephen (New Statesman) charts one of the bigger lies (and yes, Goody repeatedly promoted it on her trashy show) and a non-stop 'strategy' by the Bambi campaign:


The genius of the Axelrod strategy thus far is that it has been directly centred on race while maintaining the appearance of the opposite, appropriating the race card as well as that of moral rectitude for Obama himself. Very early in the campaign, Obama's South Carolina press office put out a memo pronouncing routine political sniping from the Clinton camp to be racist. The memo came from a local "low-level staffer", Axelrod reassured us. In fact, it was written by Amaya Smith, a seasoned Democratic Party spokesperson and former congressional press secretary based in Washington -- and the labelling of the Clintons as racists had stuck.
Geraldine Ferraro, the Democrats' vice-presidential candidate in 1984 and a former congresswoman, was similarly targeted. In an interview last month with a tiny Californian newspaper called the Daily Breeze, that would have passed unnoticed by at least 99.99 per cent of Americans, Ferraro casually observed that if Obama was a white man or "a woman of any colour," he would not be a presidential candidate today. Her remarks led to a national furore, but nobody pointed out that it was Obama's campaign that alerted the national media to Ferraro's words.
"I'm always hesitant to throw around words like 'racist'," Obama said, doing just that. Ferraro, a veteran 72-year-old, riposted that "every time that campaign is upset about something, they call it racist". She sussed out the Axelrod strategy: to gain immunity from political attacks by immediately smearing attackers as racists.
The kind of thing that is worrying some super-delegates, too, is that Obama is increasingly emerging as no mean fibber himself. In his latest television ad, he declares that he does not take money from oil companies. According to the Centre for Responsive Politics, however, Obama is overlooking the $213,884 he had received from the oil and gas industry up to 29 February, most of it channelled directly from the CEOs of two major oil and gas companies.

Pimping Bambi required rendering a lot of people invisible. Such as students who support Hillary Clinton. Law student Diana Winer Rosengard explains, "As a law student, my respect for Senator Clinton has only continued to grow. I have spent the last two years working with victims of domestic violence, helping them obtain restraining orders and connecting them with community resources. Thanks to Senator Clinton's unwavering support for the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), federal funding is available to protect women and children who are frequently victimized by the ones they love. VAWA helps victims at the moments when they are most vulenerable by providing resources to train police officers, covering the court costs of emergency restraining orders, and giving victims access to advocates while they work their way through the criminal justice system. Senator Clinton's commitment to ensuring that federal funding continues means support for programs like the ones I volunteer with -- every week I get to see, first hand, the difference that Senator Clinton's work makes in the grateful faces of these women and children."

Lastly, the 40th anniversary of the assassination of MLK is tomorrow. Hillary Clinton offers (text and video), "I believe we can honor Dr. King and all Americans -- including the women and men serving our country around the world -- by remembering his timeless challenge: What did you do for others?"

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., says, "Here we are five years into this war, and the Pentagon is just now coming to grips with how to track and treat those … with TBI." Murray is a member of the Senate appropriations subcommittee that oversees spending on veterans issues.
One concern, Cox says, was that mild TBI symptoms often resemble simple problems such as a lack of sleep or stress.
Screening for brain injury is vital to the health of troops in the field, says Staff Sgt. Marcus Brown, 30. He was transferred to Fort Carson, Colo., where the Army has operated a pilot screening program for traumatic brain injury since 2005. There, Brown was screened for brain injury for the first time after serving two tours in Iraq and surviving three IED blasts.

that's from gregg zoroya's report for usa today and i'm quoting that section because other aspects are addressed in the snapshot including those that add further confirmation (adrienne kinne provided confirmation at winter soldier) that the choice was made not to screen the returning and to toss out the t.b.i. screen that had been developed. and BIG thank you to the person who e-mailed me the story (which i passed on to c.i.).

we had friends over for dinner tonight and mike called to say the snapshot was up. flyboy started reading it because 3 of the friends are doctors. they LOVE the snapshot today.

they also wonder if and when the media is really going to probe this issue in 'flood the zone' manner?

on dinner, i'm not a cook and every 1 knows that. when i plan an evening, it's catered or we grab take out. flyboy has 5 dishes he makes perfectly so if he's planning a dinner (as he was tonight), he's doing the cooking.

and it would have been a wonderful meal.

would have been because the stove went dead and 2 things, including the sauce, really needed the stove top. so i fixed 'dinner.' i told every 1 to consider themselves back in high school (which got a laugh as they saw what i was serving), corndogs and tatertots.

i can fix anything in the freezer section that's in a bag and just needs to be tossed in the oven and that's really the extent of my 'gifts' with the exception of a few dishes (mainly desserts) that c.i.'s talked me through over the phone. (i did a thanksgiving meal - sadly - not all that long ago with c.i. talking me through over the phone and it turned out very well. but i don't press my luck.)

it actually ended up being the best thing in the world. the music got cranked up, the kids (1 of the couples also has a newborn) were playing throughout and it was a much more down to earth evening.

we were discussing the war and mike had told me the snapshot was late because c.i. was addressing the veterans healthcare and a section of it he heard (overheard) while on the phone with ava. so i mentioned that and no 1, and remember 3 were doctors, knew that congress was holding a hearing today. actually, that they held a hearing this morning. you had people who caught npr and the evening news and no 1 knew about it.

it really demonstrates how little coverage there is of the issue. so when we learned the snapshot was up, every 1 wanted to hear it.

a few asked if c.i. covers medicine every day and i explained no but that the healthcare issue popped up regularly in the snapshots and why. to which 1 responded, 'that really is true because nothing was ever done about the problems before. there was a lot of talk about 'fixing' but then the war [vietnam] ended and everybody moved on.' he said he hadn't thought about that factor and was going to start mentioning it to every 1 because this issue really does have to be tackled while the war drags on.

after the illegal war and healthcare, the biggest discussion tonight was barack obama's 'issue' with the lgbt community. i don't read the atlantic myself, but 1 of the doctors does and i told her i'd highlight the section she was talking about at my blog tonight. i know nothing about megan mcardle and, again, i don't read the atlantic but this from her today:

Barack Obama is running as the sort of Uniter-Not-Divider politician who can bring us all together in rapturous harmony. But he keeps finding himself having to explain his choice in spiritual advisors and campaign committee members. The most recent story points out Obama's "connection to another racially divisive public figure—the stridently homophobic Rev. James T. Meeks", who was named by the Southern Poverty Law Center as one of the "10 leading black religious voices in the anti-gay movement". Incidentally, James Meeks was also behind the Halloween "hell house" which "housed a few denizens of "hell," including a pedophile trolling the Internet for a young victim, a meditating Buddhist, and two mincing young men wearing body glitter who were supposed to be homosexuals." Considering how the Progressives reacted to Obama's association with Donnie McClurkin, I would imagine this won't make people happy.

he really is awful. he is not a uniter. all but 1 of the guests had voted for hillary in the primary. the 1 who didn't had voted for obama and he said he wished he could take that vote back. he talked about how, looking back, he realized what a poor job the press did vetting barack. that's the truth.

and then some. so then others were asking him 'well what made you support barack?' and what he said was bumper stickers and slogans. he identified them as that. he said he got caught up in the frenzy and wasn't thinking. like with 'change,' he said he never thought to ask, 'well what are you planning to change and how?' he said he thought he was being informed because he was following in msm but now realized he was steered. he mentioned 'independent' media which caused every 1 to laugh and i heard stories about sorry-ass 'independent' media that even i had never heard of. but they were all on the bambi wagon (and still are). bambi's been hyped more than the non-existant threat of w.m.d.s at this point.

if you're wondering why the rest were for hillary, remember it was mainly doctors and their spouses, the answer was healthcare. just by examining hillary's plan and barack's plan, it was obvious 1 was a serious candidate and 1 was a joke.

this is the hillary campaign's 'HUBdate: Strong on the Economy' for today:

Strong On The Economy: Hillary outlined her plans yesterday to provide tax relief to American families that could surpass $100 billion annually. She also called for immediate action to strengthen the regulation of financial markets and said the Bush administration’s proposal "comes late and falls short."
Yesterday in PA: Hillary hosted a roundtable discussion with middle class voters in Harrisburg, PA and held a "Solutions for the Pennsylvania Economy" Rally in Fairless Hills, PA. One supporter's reaction: "We love her so much. She has the experience and the heart that will put our country back to where it needs to be." Read more.
Polling Prowess in Kentucky: In a new poll, Hillary builds an impressive 2 to 1 lead over Sen. Obama among Democratic voters in the Bluegrass State, garnering support from 58 percent of those interviewed. View Results.
Not So Fast: An editorial in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette argues "the Clinton-Obama race still has a way to run" – "Mrs. Clinton says she will fight on - and she's right to do so…Simply put, this fight isn't over." Read more.
For the Long Run: Hillary reinforced her commitment to ensuring that the votes of remaining states count. She told a TV station from Billings, MT: "My take on it is a lot of Senator Obama's supporters want to end this race because they don't want people to keep voting...That's just the opposite of what I believe. We want people to vote. I want the people of Montana to vote, don't you?" Read more.
Setting the Record Straight: Today’s NYT features an op-ed written by former White House staff members traveling with Hillary to Bosnia in 1996: "The video of Hillary's arrival on the tarmac in Bosnia may be great theater and easy fodder for commentators, but it shouldn’t be allowed to obscure what else was happening on this important trip when the cameras weren't rolling." Read more.
Today On The Trail: Hillary continues her swing through the Keystone State with a tour of MJ Donovan Company in Philadelphia, and hosts "Solutions for the American Economy" events in Philadelphia, Wilkes-Barre, and Erie.
The Hillary I Know: Dr. Maya Angelou describes why she continues to stand alongside Hillary. "Hillary Clinton intends to help our country to what it can become. She means to rise. She means to help our country rise. Don’t give up on her, ever." Read here.
On Tap: Hillary will wrap up her Economic Tour of Pennsylvania with an economic summit in Pittsburgh on Wednesday.
Obama v. Obama: Sen. Obama on the primary: "good thing" or "Bataan death march"? Read more.

oh, here's an article on bambi's homophobic buddy. this is from dylan vox' 'This Gay Week in Review: Ellen DeGeneres, Barack Obama' (gaywired):

If you're thinking of speaking about gay marriage, just don't do it around Barack Obama. The Democratic delegate count front runner Obama, who has long been a proponent for repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, this week referred to gay marriage as a "wedge issue" in political campaigning.
While speaking to rally attendees in Medford, Oregon Obama stated, "The planet is, you know, potentially being destroyed. We've got a war that is bankrupting us. And we're going to argue about gay marriage? I mean, that doesn't make any sense."
Obama has been losing ground to Hillary Clinton in recent polls, and according to many gay political advocates has made very few efforts to connect with the gay community.
It remains to be seen whether or not he will "wedge" out Clinton for the party nomination.
Also losing ground is Obama’s top supporter Oprah Winfrey, who was crushed in a recent popularity poll by out and proud Ellen DeGeneres. The poll on AOL Television received over 1.35 million votes, and fans decidedly named Ellen as the number one talk show hostess.

that needs to get a lot more attention. it is disgusting. by the way, i included oprah in it for a number of reasons. 1st off, she's stuck her non-political ass into the election and i believe her last 'political act' was using her program to sell the illegal war. 2nd if the rumors about oprah and gayle are true, then she's supporting a candidate who can't stand her. i remember when liz smith was saying another big name was coming out - when ellen came out - and liz was dropping hints near daily. every 1 thought she was speaking of oprah because the clues pointed that way including the fact that oprah appeared on the program as the doctor who helps ellen's character admit she's gay. so if the big o is the closet case so many think she is, it's hilarious (a) that she's supporting barack and (b) that she stayed in the closet to 'protect' her image and ellen, who came out, is now more popular than she is.

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

Tuesday, April 1, 2008. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, the US military announces another death, the US Congress gets a song and dance on PTSD and TBI, they do learn that 12 months IS TOO SOON for redeployment, the puppet Nouri tries to claim sucess while begging the victors to return items, and more.


Starting with war resisters, Cherise Ryan (World On the Web) zooms in on war resister Phil McDowell who is not in Candad and cites a Washington Post report on McDowell in explaining how he enlisted following 9/11, deployed to Iraq and made the grade of sergeant, discharged and returned to civilian life only to discover he was being stop-lossed and re-deployed to Iraq. Instead, McDowell decided to seek refugee status in Canada, as many other war resisters have done. Currently, McDowell is among many waiting to find out what the Candidan Parliament will decide this month.

A measure is before it that would grant safe harbor to war resisters. Canada granted that to US war resisters during Vietnam. There's a really bad editorial from a right-wing Canadian paper that keeps popping up everywhere and argues that back then Canada was taking in draft dodgers and there is no draft. (What do you call stop-loss then?) No, there's not a draft but a lot of bloated men who sat out Vietnam in the US via a variety of deferrments sure do love to lie and claim opposition to the illegal war then was all due 'to the draft, man.' We've noted before the damage their lies (one took to inflating his 'service' and 'trauma' from enduring a physical -- he was never drafted, he had a college deferment among other things) do, their bragging, their boasting. It damages the peace movement (provides a nice easy out to avoid working harder) and we've also noted how it continues to damage the cases war resisters are attempting to make in Canada.

So let's review it one more time. During Vietnam, American males could go to Canada and seek asylum. There were two categories "draft dodgers" -- which everyone seems to remember -- and "deserters." A "draft doger" (also known as a "draft resister") was someone who had been called up. A "deserter" was someone already in the service. Canada's asylum then was not conditional upon someone being drafted. Those who were in the military and elected to resist were waived on through the border and welcomed the same way. There was no additional burden placed on them. They were not required, for instance, to prove that, yes, they were in the service, but they had been drafted into it. A male who chose to enlist and then began resisting after he was serving could go to Canada and be granted asylum. Pot apparently smoked the brains of not only our left 'leaders' of that period -- a pot haze is the only thing to explain the repeating of the lies of the draft -- but the Canadian education system failed to educate their citizenry on recent history because an editorial board that wants to argue -- as one did last week and all the right-wing Canadian cites have re-posted it -- that Canada should say "no" to today's war resisters because there was a draft during Vietnam and Canada only took in "draft dodgers" is merely flaunting how ignorant everyone serving on the editorial board is.

Had Canada put in a place a qualifier that said, "We will take war resisters but only those who have seen duty in Vietnam," Canada still would have been swarmed with some of the same war resisters. "Draft dodger" (or "draft resister") or "deserter," both cateogries were welcomed in Canada during Vietnam. That is reality and I'm sorry that the Canadian education system is so poor today. In terms of the US, honestly the same male 'leaders' of the left tripping out on tales of the draft today hurt the movement in many ways back then as well. They'll probably continue to do so when they are in their graves.

Then US president Gerald Ford pardoned Tricky Dick of crimes against the US citizenry, crimes against the US government, crimes against humanity and a great deal more. With the war resisters, he set conditions. Apparently he didn't think Tricky Dick's fat ass could make it through an obstacle course so he just waived Nixon on through. Ford granted war resisters an amnesty . . . . provided they went through a long process and met this criteria and that critieria and then, in the end, were judged to be worthy of the pardon. Having just pardoned the War Criminal Nixon, it was outrageous. Hearing an idiot, post-Ford's death, go on Democracy Now! and brag about Ford's program only explained to you just how much "establishment" is also in the left. In Canada (and I was visiting Canada when that program was announced) there was huge outrage and outcry -- from Canadians as well as US war resisters. Those who resisted the slaughter in Inochina were being asked to leep through hoop after hoop with no guarantee that if they made it through all the hoops they might be pardoned. Much speculation at the time was that it was a trap/trick to get US war resisters back in the United States where they would be tossed in prison. But Ford's program offered the obstacle course to both.

Jimmy Carter followed the Ford presidency. Carter didn't offer anything to deserters. Carter did offer draft resisters a limited asylum.In recent years, a number of war resisters from that era have been arrested while visiting the US. So there's really no excuse for people who lived through that time period to not know the difference. The only excuse is to provide cover for a peace movement that continues to struggle and to provide an excuse for your own inaction. (And to brag about days forty years ago which, let's face it, is all some left 'leaders' have to offer today having willingly been co-opted long ago.) Not grasping the difference, not speaking of that difference between reality then and 'reality' remembered now is hurting US war resisters and someone please throw a pie in the face of the next Baby Boom left male 'leader' who wants to gas bag about the hardships he endured due to the 'draft' that never found him called out because he knew how to game the system. It's the equivalent of fishing tales only damaging and it needs to stop. If you can't pie them, stop the males with, "When did you serve in Vietnam?" And when they stutter that they didn't, ask them how they got it. When they start to offer the tale of that 'invasive' physical, stop them and repeat, "I asked how you were able to avoid serving since you didn't go to Canada and you didn't go to Vietnam?" If one claims "I went underground" ask him, "From the time you turned 18 until Vietnam was over?" Because, no, the bulk of the 'leaders' jaw boning today did not go 'underground' and when a few did, it had nothing to do with the illegal war but everything to do with being kicked to the curb by the peace movement. But that's the story they never want to tell.

Their efforts at boasting stroke their own egos but they do not help today's war resisters. If you are interested in helping today's war resisters, you need to remember that the measure before the Canadian Parliament is supposed to be addressed early this month. You can make your voice heard. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum. Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).


"Post-traumatic stress disorder is among the most common diagnoses made by the Veterans Health Administration. Of the approximately 300,000 veterans from Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom who have accessed VA health care, nearly 20 percent –60,000 veterans- have received a preliminary diagnosis of PTSD. The VA also continues to treat veterans from Vietnam and other conflicts who have PTSD." That was how US House Rep Michael H. Michaud today opened the Subcommittee on Health that he chairs. The title of the hearing was Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Treatment and Research: Moving Ahead Toward Recovery and there were five panels to the hearing.

The first panel revolved around the testimony of US Army Director, Divisions of Psychiatry and Neuroscience, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research's Col Charles W. Hoge. That's the bulk of our focus because there were enough revelations and lies in that one panel to fill a book.



US House Rep John T. Salazar spoke of a veteran who had PTSD and was being denied benefits, explained that the veteran struggles to get the help promised and to navigate the VA system while working part-time at a Subway. Hoge didn't seem overly concerned. US House Rep Shelley Berkley spoke of speaking with a lifetime friend who was also a Vietnam veteran and shared with her that basically it was the exact same problems happening all over again. Hoge didn't seem overly concernced.

What Hoge did seem concerned with was repeatedly intoning "New England Jounal of Medicine" and trying out catch phrases. On the former, Hoge published. We're not his parents, we honestly don't give a damn. On the latter, considering all the questions he couldn't answer, a little less time attempting to manufacture sound bytes and a little more time spent doing the job that US tax payers pay him to do would be appreciated.

Hoge had a big problem and the implication was that the press was the problem. Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) gets too much attention, he felt. And even worse, he felt, there is mild TBI and no one wants to talk about that. When you see a story, he insisted, reported, they always go with the most extreme cases of TBI. What about mild TBI, Hoge wanted to know, what about mild TBI?

No doubt some people were grumbling, "Damn press." But the reality is, the press didn't push TBI. The Pentagon last year -- check any briefing -- repeatedly pushed TBI. Over and over. They are the ones, the generals they trotted out, who stated TBI was the signature wound of the Iraq War. Few in the press have any medical background. The easiest thing in the world is to toss out numbers and make assertions to them. If Hoge feels TBI's gotten too much attention from the press, he doesn't need to blame the press, he needs to blame the Pentagon. He was also blaming the press for the use of the term "TBI" and, no, the press did not invent the term.

Mild TBI, he insisted, was nothing more than a concussion, nothing more, he appeared to think he was really cute here, than having your bell rung -- like a boxer! But that damn press is going around chanting "TBI! TBI!" Again, check the transcripts of any Pentagon press conference (via video link or with all participants present). Who is introducing the term and topic each time, it's the Pentagon. If Hoge wants to point a finger he needs to point it at his own branch of government and not at the press. But he was more comfortable whining that, in the press, "it's often not made clear that the vast majority of those soldiers, service members, labeled as TBI injury have had concussions." Again, take it up with your own branch of government and quit blaming the press.

He did acknowledge there were also categories of "moderate and severe traumatic brain injury" but he wasn't interested in addressing that. He just wanted to repeatedly focus on mild TBI. "A lot of concern lately," he grumbled, "about mild traumatic brain injury and potential longterm effects of mild traumatic brain injury," when all it is is a concussion with symptoms such as "headaches, irrtability . . . concentration problems." He then wanted to state that mild TBI was most likely PTSD masking as mild TBI.

Apparently there is some trouble telling the difference between the two. Golly, if only there was a way to screen for PTSD and TBI. If only someone had worked on that . . . Oh, wait they have. On the first day of Iraq Veterans Against the War Winter Soldier Investigation a panel was held entitled The Crisis in Veterans' Healthcare. Among those speaking were veteran Adrienne Kinne who spoke not just of being a member and discharging in 1998 and then re-enlisting after 9-11, but of her time as a civilian following her second discharge and specifically, from that time period, of being a research assistant at a VA where she helped on a group that devised a way to screen for PTSD and TBI in such a way that there would be no confusion in diagnosing. Here's her testimony on what happened after they had study ready to be implemented.


Adrienne Kinne: And then they went to go to the next step, to actually make this happen. And I was actually on a conference call when someone said, "Wait a second. We can't start this screening process. Do you know that if we start screening for TBI there will be tens of thousands of soldiers who will screen positive and we do not have the resources available that would allow us to take care of these people so we cannot do the screening." And their rationale was that medically, medical ethics say if you know someone has a problem, you have to treat them. So since they didn't have the resources to treat them, they didn't want to know about the problem.

So Hoge, so important at Walter Reed, so informed, wanted to boo-hoo to Congress today that misdiagnosis is taking place but his branch of the government is the very branch that prevented the needed screening from taking place. The denial took place because the military didn't want to responsible for the costs resulting from TBI being identified, as Kinne noted, identify an illness and you are ethically bound to treat it. Last month, Gregg Zoroya (USA Today) reported on this issue noting:
For more than two years, the Pentagon delayed screening troops returning from Iraq for mild brain injuries because officials feared veterans would blame vague ailments on the little-understood wound caused by exposure to bomb blasts, says the military's director of medical assessments.

Which would appear to be what Hoge was doing with his dismissive listing of symptoms such as "headaches." Amazing that a doctor wouldn't cite the ringing in the ears and hearing loss, isn't it? Zoroya noted, "In a January 2006 report, scientists at the federal Defense and Veteran Brain Injury Center urged that troops be screend for TBI 'immediately'." January 2006. It's 2008. And Hoge wants to act like that never happened and thinks the problem is the press which, by his accounting, appears to have invented the term TBI and then alarmed the country falsely.


And wanted to assert that it is "very difficult to do screening and know with accuracy what the cause of the symptoms are." Yes, it is very difficult to screen for PTSD and TBI when the study for that has been buried. Since Hoge was mentioning and alluding to money, research grants, research he was working on, someone in Congress should have asked about the study Kinne worked on and why, instead of Hoge 'developing' one, the one already developed still wasn't in place? Why is the tax payer expected to pay Hoge to devise a screening when, in fact, one already exists and has been buried?

Why isn't that screening being used right now if Hoge really believes that, "There is a risk that [veterans] might get misdiagnosed with having braing injury" when it's really "PTSD or depression." When a screening has already been devised why is he asking for more money to develop his own screening while claiming it's "very difficult to do screening and know with accuracy what the causes of the symptoms are"?

He did allow that "there was a very strong" relationship between experiencing a concussion in Iraq and then developing PTSD ("almost half" went on to develop PTSD). He also stated that "One of the issues with multiple deployments and the dwell time for soldiers when they've come back, we've learned from the research that we've done, [is] that 12 months is not enough time for soldiers to reset and go back for another deployment."

That's a very strong statement and it's one he would attempt to back off from when he was questioned about it later. At at time when the military repeatedly sends troops on second and third and fourth and fifth deployments to Iraq, if the medical doctor is stating twelve months is insufficient to reset, then there is a problem and that needs to be explored.

Most didn't. Rep Berkley did in her follow up questioning.

Berkely: Not enough time between tours of duty, did I hear you correctly?

Hoge: Yes . . . What we've found . . . Yes. That's what I said . . . The 12 months is insuf- . . . appears to be insufficient.

All ". . ." in Hoge's statements above indicate pauses. That's not noting that he's been edited. That was his stumbling response when someone rightly pressed him on the biggest news to emerge in the hearing.

Berkely asked him to "correct me if I'm wrong," about his statement and what's actually taking place, "but many are being called back in less that 12 months." She wanted to know if that was his "understanding as well?" And what wisdom did Hoge offer? "I don't know."

He'd told Congress that twelve months was insufficient time to redeploy, to reset and yet the US military continues to send to redeploy troops in twelve months or less. And Congress has been repeatedly told prior that this is a non-issue and certainly not an issue that Congress needs to address, told by witnesses trotted up before Congress. From the Feb. 28 snapshot, about the House Armed Services Committee hearing on the Fiscal Year 2009 National Defense Authorization Budget Request from the Deptartment of the Army:


US House Rep Patrick Murphy was also concerned about readiness. He wanted to know specifically that, regardless of any upcoming announcements, would the length of tours be reduced. On Tuesday of this week, Casey and Geren appeared before the Senate's Armed Service Committee also offering testimony on the 2009 Fiscal Year. From that hearing, the only thing that the media picked up on was that tours in Iraq and Afghanistan would (maybe) drop from fifteen months to twelve months. (Some outlets picked up on the stop-loss issue, stop-loss will continue but they 'hope' to drop the numbers from 8,000 to 7,000 -- ignored was Senator Jim Webb's questioning of Casey which produced Casey's claim that the UCMJ had been applied to Defense Department contractors serving in Iraq.) Murphy wanted to know specifically with the Afghanistan War still going on, an incomplete serach for Osama bin laden, with "the majority of our military in Iraq," what happens "if we're still bogged down refereeing a civil war in Iraq?" And when Petraeus appears before Congress, Murphy wanted to know, "What happens" in terms of the reduction of tours of duty "if he comes back to us and says we need a 'pause' not a 'drawdown.' Casey maintained that regardless of a "a brief pause, as you say, that will not impact our ability to come off of 15 months . . . the most important thing for us to do is to come off 15 months."

Murphy noted that "we're begging for about 7,000 troops for Afghanistan from our allies" and wondered if Congress needed to "mandate that if you deploy for 15 months, you're home for 15 months, if you deploy for 12 months, you're home for 12 months"? Casey wasn't keen on that idea and claimed it would interfere with the military's ability to do their job. Which makes the 'promise' Casey and Geren made earlier this week seem even more hollow (even more hollow than Casey claimed, in today's hearings, his experiences in the seventies were).

Hoge admitted today that 12 months wasn't enough. When he was pressed on that statement, he attempted to back track and Congress has repeatedly been told not to worry about this issue, that the military is handling it. General Casey even said that for Congress to address it would tie the military's hands. If Congress isn't going to address this issue, who will?

Repeating from Hoge's testimony today, "One of the issues with multiple deployments and the dwell time for soldiers when they come back, we've learned from the research that we've done, [is] that 12 months is not enough time for soldiers to reset and go back for another deployment."

Berkely wasn't done with this issue even with Hoge attempting to avoid her questions. She offered an example from her own state (Nevada) where a man served in Iraq, came home and was informed he would be redeployed. The man "told his grandmother he'd rather kill himself than go back" and the military's 'medical' response was to supply him with Prozac and put on him suicide watch while they redeployed him anyway. Once in Iraq, they took him off suicide watch "and the day he was taken off suicide watch, he killed himself. It seems to me that we should be doing a better job of screening people" and grasping when they can't handle "the strain of war. Do you agree with me?"

"I do," replied Hoge before going into a lengthy blah-blah-blah leading Berkley to interrupt. "Forgive me for interuppting," she stated, "but don't you think if the military put this young man on suicide watch," he wasn't up to being redeployed? Hoge attempted to beg off by declaring that "I can't comment on the specifics" before going on to comment by insisting that he was sure "they had good reasons for doing that." It's interesting how Hoge can't comment on something but can go on to declare that he just knows there was good reason for the actions the military took. Here's reality on suicide watch (and the snapshots late because I had six different doctors walk me through it over the phone this afternoon), you're merely 'stable' at best. You may be having a good day, you may be pretending to have a good day. But the military has none of the transition phases that would take place in civilian treatment where you'd have a buddy for a set number of hours, the way someone in a civilian clinical system would. In the military, you're on it or you're off it. And it's a joke when you're on it because nothing's really done other than a superficial assessment of whether to continue it (which is nothing but regular eye checks, someone making a visible assessment and that someone isn't always a doctor but just someone assigned to take a look at X time and determine that the subject hasn't killed him or herself). In a civilian clinical setting, there are stages of transition from suicide watch (and there can be transitions to it the first time, but once played on it, you're more likely to immediately be placed back on that stage should warning signs appear). There is nothing like that system in the military.

Hoge may want to assert that he is sure there was good reason to take the man off suicide watch; however, since he's already noted that he doesn't know the case, he can't assert that with any real authority and that should have been pointed out to him. He should have also been required to explain's the military's process of suicide watch because those not familiar with the term may assume "they're doing something!" and those only familiar with how it works in a clincial setting may assume the military is doing something similar when, in fact, they are not.

Hoge was much more interested in passing off PTSD as some sort of normal evolution process in service members stationed in combat. He wanted to stress that the problems, such as sleep deprevation, were actually "needed" in combat and considering that he avoided the biggest problem with seeking treatment, that statement may have explained more than he realizes. We'll come back to that.

He couldn't stop pushing his own need for clinical trials and research (again, a screening has already been developed and only a glory hog would be asking for money to work on a new one while ignoring one that's ready to go straight into clinical trials). Psychotherapy and medical therapy had "huge gaps" and he thinks "the gaps remain." It seemed less a testimony and more of a testimonial funding pitch for his own work. "Within my own institute," he declared, "I think one of the key studies we're planning, we've done a lot of work at helping solders transition with a program called 'battle mind.' It didn't have the effectiveness we'd like to see, so my team is working on developing an advanced version of that that we'd like to test." Again, he's asking for money. He's asking for money to play with, to waste, when a screening the military has buried already exists.

What has his research produced? Nada. Nothing. He bragged that it had produced "recommendations" in three areas.

* There needs to modifications to our post deployment screening to ensure that all symptoms are addressed.

*There needs to be risk communication/education because he thinks "even just the term mild Traumatic Brain Injury, which is synonmous with concussion" is "misfortunate because 'concussion' is better understood and sounds less severe than mild TBI."

* Getting the word out. He wants to be sure that it's not "blow[n] off" the way he says "soldiers tend to do and athletes as well."

That's what his 'research' has produced, the verbal equivalent of a pamphlet. Now he wants more money. For more 'research.' Notice who gets the problem pushed off on them: the service members.

His laughable 'research' is junk-science that exists to place the blame for the failure of the medical military leaders and the military leaders period off on service members. If service members are "blowing it off," why would that be? His 'treatment' is a pamphlet for service members and avoids the issue of why there is a reluctance to go for screenings in the battle zone and why PTSD is overlooked in the battlezone -- and why both takes place outside the battle zone. The commanders are not experiencing combat. This is a remote control war for them and they're safely hidden away from all the battles and all the injuries and deaths. The closest they get to 'witnessing' is some footage a predator drone transmits. As such, they dismiss PTSD. Want to change the way it's seen? That's really not a medical issue demanding research, but if that's your goal, address the commanders. The military follows chain of command. If there's a problem in the ranks, it goes to the signals from the top. Hoge can mass produce as many pamphlets (based on his 'research') as he wants. That won't change the climate that's set at the top. Why is it set at the top that way? As he confessed, PTSD has its benefits in combats. Hyper-aware, hyper-on-edge, those can be used by the commanders. The problem is not within ranks, the problem is at the top. But just as Hoge tried to blame the press for what officials and generals had done at the Pentagon, he tried to blame the enlisted for the attitudes towards PTSD.

His attempting to "switch terminology" was noted by subcommittee chair Michaud who stated that it sounded like it might "shift the burden to the veterans." Hoge wasn't interested in that. It became obvious that all Hoge was interested in was selling his 'research' for more funding. It would be money wasted. That his 'research' has produced nothing more than the 'findings' one would come across in a veneral disease pamphlet (something the military has long produced) is appalling. He had the nerve to state the wasn't "seeing a change in perceptions" of PTSD or TBI and blame that on the ranks as well. Again, you want to change perception, you address the issue at the top. He tried to blame the veterans for the failures of the system and bemoan that there was "no way to force them" to get screenings once they left. That led to an embarrassing exchange. On Congress' part, we'll assume the questions were well meaning and they were seeking information. On Hoge's part it was more blather. PTSD is not a gun shot wound bleeding. All patients have the right to refuse treatment. That's a point Hoge never raised while 'explaining' why he didn't think screenings could be forced on anyone. It was an embarrassing exchange and, again, Congress seemed unfamiliar with the concept of 'informed consent.' That Hoge also did was appalling since he is a medical doctor. But the issue HAS NEVER BEEN, despite Hoge's claims otherwise, that a large number are refusing treatment for PTSD; the issue has been and remains that they are not getting the treatment they need and want and are often being told that their benefits do not cover it. Instead Hoge wanted to tell Congress (omitting a patient's right to refuse any treatment and informed consent) that the problem's really that a patient has to want to get better. That was patronizing, insulting and ignorant. On the latter, to 'get better,' one has to be aware there's a problem and, again, from the top of chain on down, a lot of time's been spent convincing veterans and active service members that there's not a problem and that asking for help is a sign of weakness. Hoge didn't want to address that.

Let's go to Rep Berkley again because she noted that she was hearing from doctors in Nevada treating veterans that the government was either not paying or being very slow with payments. Hoge had no response to that. Since the government has outsourced treatment (like they've outsourced everything else) this is a serious issue. But it's not a new one and it's why Elaine stopped trying to get payment for the veterans she works with as early as the end of 2003. It's why FactCheck.org has blood on its hands for stating in 2004 that the White House was fully funded veterans care -- as they rejected US Senator John Kerry's on the money claims that veterans care was a disaster and becoming more so. FactCheck.org is not a medical organization, has no medical training but was happy to LIE for the White House on the eve of the 2004 election. Everything veterans face today, all the problems with healthcare, are in part a result of FactCheck.org saying "Liar! Liar!" when John Kerry rightly noted you can't fight two wars -- increasing the number of veterans needing assistance -- and not increase the monies being spent on veterans care. The monies are not being paid to civilian doctors and they are either doing what Elaine's done for years (pro bono) or they're refusing to take on patients. That's reality. Hoge played dumb.

Berkely had asked about a specific suicide, as noted before, and he had no knowledge of it but wanted to insist that everything was done for the man. Whenever he was pressed on funds, he would attempt to beg off and then insist that the funds were being spent on research and spent well. One exchange found him declaring, "I'm not the person to comment on the expenditures of funds." But of course he went on to declare that research was adequately funded. You're either the person to comment or not. You can't have it both ways.

He was happy to blather on and on about "the grant process" and "my hope" and "clinical trials" (to produce more pamphlets?). He wasn't able to deal with reality. Such as homeless veterans which was a topic raised at length. Were they suffering grom PTSD, shouldn't this be addressed? Hoge's response in full was a flat "Yes, sir." Had he not been begging for money, he might not have even offered that. (The House Committee on Veterans' Affairs will hold a hearing on homeless veterans April 9th -- hopefully, they will have someone more qualified to testify to them.)

There were other hearings in Congress today but we're focusing on the first panel because (a) veterans healthcare is largely ignored and (b) if it's not addressed while the illegal war drags on, it won't be addressed. As Vietnam veterans saw after that illegal war ended, the US Congress and the public would rather address anything else. The 'weary' attitude already evident among so many will only set in futher when the Iraq War ends. Winter Soldier didn't get much press to begin with and what press it did ignored veterans healthcare. The US Congress also held a hearing today on oil and since 'cost of war' is a huge talking point for 'corporatist peace groups' rushing to elect Democrats this fall, you can be sure 'independent' media will steer themselves towards that instead. Probably work in something psuedo 'pithy' about Shell's announcement today that they are eager to 'help' Iraqis. They are eager to help themselves to Iraqi oil. Big difference. For more on the topic see The Third Estate Sunday Review's "Veterans Healthcare."

In some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded two police officers and two civilians, 2 Baghdad mortar attacksthat wounded five people and a Mosul roadside bombing that claimed the lives of 5 "Awakening" council members and left three more wounded. This may be the same bombing that the US military refers to in Ninewah Province today but they state eight were killed (three wounded).

Shootings?

Reuters notes 6 "Awakening" council members were shot dead in Shirqat.

Corpses?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad.

Late yesterday, the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division – Center Soldier was killed as a result of an improvised explosive device attack south of Baghdad March 23.
The Soldier died of his wounds at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Landstuhl, Germany March 29."

Meanwhile CBS and AP report that puppet of the occuaption Nouri al-Maliki is trying to call the assault he carried out on Basra at the US government's request a "success" -- this despite the fact that he had his lunch handed to him via Moqtada al-Sadr. al-Maliki's announcement is made all the laughable by the fact that Tahsin al-Sheikhli wants some publicity. The person in charge of Iraq's security was kidnapped last Thursday and he rushes to tell Abigail Hauslohner (Time magazine) all about it: "There were 40 of them. My guards engaged them [with gunfired] for 45 minutes. Part of the house caught fire. They destroyed it." Apparently, al-Sheikhli is going for either the sympathy factor or the "missing blonde" aspect. Neither shore up al-Maliki's absurd claim of having a "success." In the real world, Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reports the Sadr City section of Baghdad remains roped off by US and Iraqi military, notes that the battle over Basra is seen as a win for al-Sadr and quotes ICG's Joost Hiltermann stating, "The Iraqi government looks silly in the face of their ardent statements." Yes, they do. Especially when James Hider (Times of London) reports that the "increasingly isolated Prime Minister" has "asked gunmen to return the 50 government cars and armoured vehicles they captured from his forces during a week of fighting that left close to 500 people dead."

Fadel and Warren P. Strobel report on the Iranian who helped broker the peace arrangement over the weekend, and note, "Brig. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, who helped U.S.-backed Iraqi leaders negotiate a deal with radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr to stop the fighting in Iraq's largely Shiite south, is named on U.S. Treasury Department and U.N. Security Council watch lists for alleged involvement in terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear and missile technology. His role as peacemaker, which McClatchy first reported Sunday, underscores Iran's entrenched political power and its alliances in Iraq, according to analysts." So the winners from the assault were al-Sadr and Iran. That was not the intent when the US government asked for the assault. It was supposed to shore up al-Maliki's non-existant credentials to be leaders. It only exposed as an inept puppet right before US Gen David Petraeus and US Ambassador Ryan Crocker gear up to make the rounds of Congress and deliver their 'progress' reports.

CNN notes that official figures for Iraqi deaths in March (always an undercount) show an increase after a decline had seemed the big talking point for months.

above is Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Stumbling for Maturity" and that's probably the only thing that will make you laugh this post. i hope you read ava and c.i.'s amazing 'TV: A very strange week.' they covered the news and public affairs show and anchored it with nbc's medium.

i'm bawling because medium just finished airing. jim was begging them to drop medium for sunday. he wanted them to tackle news. they were adament that medium would be covered. i thought they were right before tonight's episode.

watching tonight's episode, really got their commentary. it's not necesary that you watch the show to get the commentary, you can enjoy it without watching. let me quote their conclusion:

It was a very strange week and the thing we had to keep reminding ourselves is that Medium is scripted but our 'news' and 'public' affairs programs aren't supposed to be. NBC is airing Medium now on Monday's in prime time's final hours. The program also streams episodes online. In the latest storyline, viewers learned that, last decade, Cynthia's daughter was kidnapped. Allison had clues but Cynthia didn't want to believe her. Allison's one fictional woman fighting for her truth. In the real world, Hillary Clinton is among the many doing so.

so if you missed it, you can watch online. if you don't want spoilers and plan to watch online, stop reading now.

cynthia (anjelica huston) killed the woman who killed her daughter. i did not see that coming. at the end, when allison (patricia arquette) meets her on a porch, at night, i didn't even think, 'cynthia lives in a hotel.' i was just absorbed - and already crying - as cynthia recounted how when her daughter was 3-years-old she came to her upset about daycare and telling her how the other kids hit her when the teacher wasn't looking. cynthia tells allison that she told her that you have to stand up for yourself because no 1 else will. i was on a crying jag by that point.

anjelica huston was just amazing in the whole episode but especially that scene.

then she says but the thing was her daughter was 3-years-old and she was supposed to protect her. and she didn't.

then she says she did tonight.

allison asks whose house they're at?

it was the little ___ who kidnapped and tortured cynthia's daughter.

allison goes inside and sees that cynthia has shot the woman (dead) and comes back out and asks what she can do and cynthia explains that she's already called the police and just sit with her and hold her hand.

i'm having to wipe my eyes just from remembering to type the above.

the whole time anjelica has been amazing as cynthia, for all the episodes she's been on but this 1 topped every thing. i understand now why ava and c.i. were telling jim to shut up, saying that they were doing medium.

if you'd never watched and caught their review sunday, i really hope you watched because it was just so amazing. i spoiled it, telling you the end. but anjelica huston and patricia arquette truly were amazing tonight.

last week, allison had seen a woman kidnapped and it was cynthia's daughter who was kidnapped in 1998. later she would see that woman killed. (see is 'vision.') that was a powerhouse episode but it did not prepare me for this week.

a man and a woman kidnapped cynthia's daughter to toy with her, to trick her and to kill her. for fun. they were disgusting.

but the woman allison was seeing was a woman who'd just shot her kidnapper so it looked like allison was wrong in her vision. this episode was about learning the woman was a sociopath. she only killed the man helping her because she got spooked they were going to get caught.

there were these carefully structured cat & mouse games going on throughout the episode and by the time cynthia's about to give up mid-episode, allison finds the lake she'd seen, where cynthia's daughter's body had been dumped.

that's plot.

i really wish i had the words to capture what anjelica did. it was just amazing. and she's been amazing on every episode but this was a whole other level.

ava and c.i. wrote about the 2 women's acting styles clashed and meshed to make this amazing duo performance and i really saw that tonight. especially as the episode progressed because patricia - who's an incredible actress - really did have to make some serious choices. it would have been really easy for her to go to anjelica's level in that last scene.

but if she had, it would have taken the focus off anjelica's tragedy and sacrifice. it was just amazing to watch the choices patricia made which added so much believability and really worked with what anjelica was doing. they were an incredible duo. (i'm assuming anjelica's character is now off the show, having committed murder. i could be wrong.)

i've talked before, in terms of films and in terms of this show, of how great i think patricia is as an actress. and i love anjelica. but the work those 2 did together was so much more than either has done alone and each has given some amazing performances.

ava and c.i. were right, it really was a powerhouse duo.

flyboy and i were just sitting there when the episode ended. i was trying to not to wipe my tears obviously. i finally look over at him and he looks like he's about to cry as well. and he is not a crier or a weeper. he's not a robot but he's not that good at expressing sadness. anger he can handle. happy he can handle. sadness he generally shoves inside.

he goes 'wow.' and his voice was shaking when he said it. so that's like 12 tissues full of tears for your average person.

if you've ever liked any thing anjelica or patricia has done, please, if you missed that episode, watch in online. those 2 women were amazing and they really did show how it's done.

i wish i had the ability to be more specific. i know c.i. could go through a list of the acting choices anjelica and patricia made. there was 1 head movement, where anjelica was trying to keep it together half-way after the mid-point that i did register, during the commerical after, that had just added so much to scene. it was quick, and you might not even notice it. you probably aren't supposed to. but i was trying to the gestures she'd just done because i was planning on writing about it. so i'm doing my bad copy of what anjelica had just done and then i remember the head thing and when i did that, i realized that was a form of foreshadowing to the final scene.

as far as i'm concerned, there's no point of nominations for drama best actress and best guest star. just put them their names on the ballot already. they deserve the emmys this year for their incredible performances and for the performance they gave together.

this isn't what i planned to write about. i knew from ava and c.i. that i did not want to miss the episode. so we got the baby down early and managed to catch medium from the start with no interruptions.

i wasn't planning on making my whole post tonight about it. but it deserves it.

2 women at the top of their craft and just reaching these levels that, if they were 2 men, the whole world would be raving over. the whole world right now would be talking about it.

i don't control the whole world, certainly. certainly and obviously. but i do control my blog. so i just want to use tonight to applaud patricia arquette and anjelica huston. i hope many more people do. but i can do it here.

they really were amazing.

that's really all i have to say tonight. i'm sorry. there were 3 topics i was going to cover tonight but not now. i'll grab them tomorrow and later in the week. today is the last day of women's history month and i think it's worth noting 2 artists who really achieved something special. they were exceptional.

added: flyboy suggested i come back in and put in 'Morning HUBdate: Too Short on Action:'

Too Short on Action: Clinton responds to "the Bush administration's plans to shake up U.S. financial market regulation” by saying the plans are “too short on action… there is still a very serious gap between what the administration is proposing and the immediate crisis that we face." Read more. Read Hillary's plan.
Don't Stop Campaigning: A Washington Post editorial says that an "extended contest informs the electorate and serves to battle-test [both candidates]. We don't see why the process should be short-circuited when millions of votes are yet to be cast..." Read more.
Stronger Across America: The New York Times describes the "enthusiasm [of] voters to have their voices heard." "No way should she get out of the race,” said one Indiana voter, “She’s stronger and her support is much stronger than what many people think." Read more.
Voting Her Heart in Media, PA: Gertrude 'Geri' Clausen was "born in 1913 - before women had the right to vote…[she] was a loyal registered Republican for 73 years....Now she's a Democrat who wants to elect a woman president." Geri's daughter says "her mother is channeling a lifetime of slights and hope into one vote." Read more.
Surprising Support: The NYT reports on the change of heart from Richard Mellon Scaife, owner of the Pittsburgh Review-Tribune. Despite strong criticism in the 90s, Scaife reflected on his recent meeting, describing Hillary as having "'exhibited an impressive command of many of today's most pressing domestic and international issues.' Her answers, he added, 'were thoughtful, well-stated and often dead on.'" Read more.
Previewing Today: Hillary hosts "Solutions for the American Economy" events in Harrisburg, PA and Fairless Hills, PA where middle class tax cut will be the focus.
Canvassing for Hillary: First-time political volunteer Terry Gish writes about his first canvassing experience. “The doors did open, along with a flood of enthusiasm for this campaign. When I asked one lady if Hillary could count on her vote, she roared, ‘You bet she can!’” Read more.
The Hillary I Know: Congresswoman Hilda Solis knows that with Hillary as president "women will have a true advocate in the White House and makes the changes our country and women everywhere need to move forward.""'ead more.
On Tap: This Wednesday, Hillary hosts an economic summit in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

that's women's history too.

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

Monday, March 31, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, a missing US soldier's remains are identified, al-Sadr continues his winning streak, what would make a magazine (falsely) claim that their tax status prevented them from covering news makers, and more.

Starting with war resistance. Camilo Mejia, chair of Iraq Veterans Against the War, tells his story in Road from Ar Ramadi: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia and he also shares it in person. Saturday Dawson Raspuzzi (Vermont's Rutland Herald) reported that Mejia spoke to "a packed auditorium at Green Mountain College" last week:

When a student asked what needs to be done to end the war, Mejia answered that he doesn't believe any elected presidential candidate can end the war -- soldiers just need to stop fighting it.
"The first step in helping the rebuild their country is getting the hell out," he said.
[. . .]
"It's not patriotic to support the war, it's patriotic to stand against it," he told the audience, to a round of applause.

Sunday AP reported on Kristen Westerberg who enlisted "in October 2005" and "recruiters told her she would probably never see war duty." March 11, 2008 she was arrested (the article doesn't tell you how) and she is now at Fort Knox facing charges of desertion. Her family backs up her claims that she wouldn't have enlisted if she hadn't been told she wouldn't be shipped off to war and the military responds by declaring they don't "know why a recruiter would tell someone they wouldn't be sent to war." Jerome Burdi (South Florida Sun-Sentinel) reports Westerberg self-checked out in 2006 and quotes her father (Tom Westerberg) stating, "She doesn't agree with the war." Burdi also notes: "Palm Beach County sheriff's deputies found her in a vehicle behind a closed business after midnight March 11. They arrested her when they learned the Army had a warrant for her on a desertion charge." Why would they lie to a recruit? To make their quota. Joshua Key, another war resister in Canada, was told the same thing. Joshua Key tells his story in The Deserter's Tale (written by Key and Lawrence Hill).


Joshua Key self-checked out and is among many US war resisters currently in Canada who are attempting to seek asylum. They need support as a measure is expected to be debated next month. For those in Canada, the nation's Parliament remains the best hope for safe harbor war resisters have, you can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum. Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).


Turning to the continued assault on Basra in Iraq. On Saturday, Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) reported that Moqtada al-Sadr was rejecting any call for a draw down "urging militiamen fighting Iraqi and U.S. forces to reject calls to disarm as American airstrikes continued." Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) was reviewing puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki's decision Friday to stop demanding fighters disarm by Saturday. Counting corpses discovered on Saturday, Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reported at least 31 deaths throughout Iraq and at least twenty-two wounded with fifteen of the deaths resulting from US air strikes. Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reported Sunday's death toll as at least 22 across Iraq with at least twenty-five wounded. Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reported on the Saturday efforts of the puppet government to get al-Sadr to call for a truce and how he had "rebuffed" those requests. But what happened on Sunday was a source of confusion.

Reuters reported that al-Sadr was calling for his followers to turn in their weapons. (No link, they've changed their online version with no note of a correction.) By Sunday evening, AP was explicitly stating that al-Sadr said no such thing. AP noted that Moqtada al-Sadr called for his followers to get off the street and and on the puppet government in Baghdad to cease "illegal and haphazard raids" as part of a nine-point plan. Many outlets are terming what followed a "lull." AP notes that a TV station in Basra was seized as Iraqi military troops ran from the building. In addition, Aqeel Hussein and Colin Freeman (Telegraph of London) reported that members of the Iraqi military forces were leaving the military and going over to al-Sadr's side in Basra. Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) reports today, "Even after Sadr's declartion, residents hunkered down in their homes continued to hear fierce gunfire and explosions in central Basra and southwest of the city." Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) observed of Baghdad, "The mortar shells sailed across the sky Sunday evening and ripped through the corrugated tin roof of the barbershop. They shattered brick walls, mangled beams and knocked over leather chairs. Smoke, debris and glass covered the street outside." Fadel reports that members of the Iraqi parliament "traveled to the Iranian holy city of Qom over the weekend to win the support of the commander of Iran's Qods brigades in persuading Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr to order his followers to stop military operations, members of the Iraqi parliament said. . . . There the Iraqi lawmakers held talks with Brig. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Qods (Jerusalem) brigades of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps and signed an agreement with Sadr, which formed the basis of his statement Sunday, members of parliament said." Meanwhile Mohammed Tawfeeq and Jonathan Wald (CNN) quote the mouthpiece (Sami al-Askari) of the puppet of the occupation (Nouri al-Maliki) declaring "outlaws" will continue to be attacked in Basra but that the assault will wrap up by week's end.

Today Jenny Booth (Times of London) states, "Life appeared to be returning to normal in Basra and Baghdad today". AFP maintains, "Gun-toting fighters of hardline Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr melted away from Iraqi streets on Monday after week-long clashes with security forces that killed at least 461 people." Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) notes that while there is talk of the edict issued by al-Sadr having effect in Basra "[a]t least three rockets or mortar rounds were fired at Baghdad's fortified Green Zone today, U.S. officials said, despite" al-Sadr's edict. Erica Goode and James Glanz (New York Times) note, "No serious clashes were reported in Basra on Monday." And that's all that's worth noting from an article that doesn't even grasp what happened in Iran and doesn't tell the readers what happened. (Even AP is noting "well-informed Iraqi political officials said the Iranians played a key role in hammering out the peace deal" -- it's just the Times playing their readers for fools.) Afif Sarhan (Al Jazeera) notes the impact on citizens in the populated area and quotes Abu Kareem explaining, "We need food and water. Electricity has been cut off [for] three days and all food we had in our refigerators has been lost. Many houses are being used [by] fighters to hide and yesterday they entered my home twice, raising the dangers of an air strike over us. My sons and wife are scared and when I tried to refuse their [fighters'] entrance, I was beaten." CBS and AP note, "In Basra some supermarkets and stores were open on Monday, but residents said few people were venturing out." The International Red Cross/Red Crescent notes that in addition to food and water needs, "Life-saving medical services have been affected by the fighting in Basra, Baghdad and elsewhere in the country" and that they are planning "to deliver eight tonnes of medical supplies to four hospitals in Baghdad and to hand over a futher six tonnes to the Department of Health in Kut for the Kut, Hilla and Najaf hospitals." Meanwhile AP reports that Tahseen al-Sheikhly, kidnapped Thursday, was released today (he is over security in Baghdad).

Sam Dagher (Christian Science Monitors) notes graffiti is popping up through Baghdad -- "The Charge of the Sadrs" -- which "mocks Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's security operation -- 'The Charge of the Knights'." Dagher concludes, "Mr. Sadr has demonstrated his power, dspite the blows dealt to his movement over the past few years . . . the widespread instances of surrender among the Iraqi forces and the seizure of their equipment and vehicles by the Mahdi Army shows that despite all the funding and training from the US, Iraq's soldiers remain greatly swayed by their sectarian and party loyalties and are incapable of standng up in a fight without US backing." AP evaluates the results as well noting that the puppet government was surprised by al-Sadr's response which "sent officials scrambling for a way out of the crisis. It enabled al-Sadr to show he remains a powerful force capable of challenging the Iraqi government, the Americans and mainstream Shi'ite parties that have sought for years to marginalise him." Maybe US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was jet lagged but he seems to miss the reality everyone else is getting. In Denmark today, he declared, "All of us in the government were pleased to see Prime Minister Maliki be willing to take this on and take the initiative and go down there himself with Iraqi forces to try and resolve the issue." Gates also insisted that Basra was "under the control of a bunch of thugs and gangs and militias".

Thugs? The "Awakening" Council. The thugs put on the US payroll ($300 each per month) because if you're going to attack people in your own country, you might as well get paid by the US to do so. They are the 'miracle' . . . or so the world was told. Keep rubbing that lamp and hoping for a genie because it's nearly two years since the PR efforts gained intense traction and nothing is working. Walter Pincus (Washington Post) reports, "While public attention has been focused on Shiite-vs.-Shiite fighting in Basra and Baghdad, U.S. military leaders are taking a cold second look at the future intentions of the roughly 90,000 'Sons of Iraq' -- the locally recruited and primarily Sunni security forces that are armed and supported by the United States at $300 per person each month." Tax dollars at work. The same way the US government decided to arm the Sh'itie thugs who felt the best thing to do was to attack Iraqi women, destroy their rights and take Iraq back to the stone ages. The ongoing femicide in Iraq didn't just happen, it was US funded.

Turning to some of today's violence . . .

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad mortar attack that wounded two people, a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded two police officers, a Falluja bicycle bombing that was an attack on "one of the Faulluja governing council members' car" that claimed 1 life -- a person who purchased "the car from the governming member yesterday" and wounded four more people, a Balad Ruz roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and a Moqdadiyah roadside bombing which was an attack on "the vice governor's convoy" and claimed the lives of 2 bodyguards.

Shootings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 "Awakening" Council members were shot dead in Diyala Province.

Corpses?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 6 corpses were discovered outside Latifiya and 1 in Mahaweel.

Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division -- Baghdad Soldier was killed at when the vehicle he was riding in was struck by an improvised-explosive device approximately 4 p.m. in northeast Baghdad March 31." In addition, the Defense Department announced a change in status today: "The armed forces medical examiner confirmed on March 29, human remains recovered in Iraq were those of Staff Sgt. Keith M. Maupin, 24, of Batavia, Ohio. Maupin had been listed as missing-captured since April 16, 2004. His convoy came under attack by individuals using rocket-propelled grenades and small arms fire on April 9, 2004." In their news briefs round-up in today's paper, the Washington Post notes that the deceased was known as "Matt" and that his father, "Keith Maupin said that an Army general told him Sunday that DNA was used to identify the remains of his on". AP quotes Matt Maupin's father stating, "My heart sinks, but I know they can't hurt him anymore" and the mother, Carolyn Maupin, declaring, "It hurts. After you go through almost four years of hope, and this is what happens, it's like a let down, so I'm trying to get through that right now." AP incorrectly states that two soldiers remain missing in Iraq. They note Michael Speicher (missing since 1991) and Ahmed Qusai al-Taayie whom they say "was abducted while visiting his Iraqi wife on Oct. 23, 2006" -- he got married while in Iraq. Alex R. Jimenez and Byron W. Fouty remain missing. You don't need to drop back to a previous war for them, they went missing in the May 12, 2007 attack.

Turning to US politics, US Senator Hillary Clinton notes the significance of today: "Today I join millions of Americans in commemorating the life of one of our great civil rights leaders, Cesar Chavez. Driven by his strong desire to ensure better quality of life for migrant farm workers across the country, Chavez helped found -- along with Dolores Huerta -- the United Farm Workers of America, arguably one of the first effective farm workers' union in the United States. Under his leadership -- highlighted by nonviolent protest -- thousands of farmers across the country were able to secure improved wages and benefits, humane living and working conditions, and better job security. Through his lifetime of service, he has paved the way for many, and provided inspiration for countless others. Cesar once said 'We can choose to use our lives for others to bring about a better and more just world for our children.' It is in that spirit that I join my friends and supporters Dolores Huerta, Cesar's brother Richard and grandson Cesar Chavez Jr., as well as many Americans across the country in celebration of his birthday. We honor a true American hero and a role model to all of us who are committed to bringing change and fight for justice." Hillary Clinton is running for president. Seth (Seth in the City) notes his support for her and lists reasons including, "I can't quite get past the fact that Senator Obama invited not one but several openly anti-gay individuals to join him on a political tour in South Carolina. Yes, he added an openly gay pastor to the tour, but only after he was heavily critized." The LGBT community was tossed under the bus by Obama and remain there still to his campaign. If you doubt it, Duane Wells (GayWired.com) reports on James T. Meeks who provides "spirtiual counsel" to Obama, is an Obama delegate to the DNC convention this August and was part of "Obama's exploratory committee for the presidency". Meeks, like Bambi, takes money from the federally indicted Antoin Rezko and 'reaches out' to the right (Focus on the Family among others). Where do the two men's similarities end? A question worth missing when Meeks is associated with a group who compares AIDS to lung cancer and labels same-sex sex the equivalent of smoking, when Meeks is infamous for statements such as condemning "Hollywood Jews for bringing us Brokeback Mountain" and actively works in the Illinaois legislature to disenfranchise LGBT Americans. You are who you stand with, Bambi. Wells notes:

But the question remains: At what point must a candidate for the highest office in the United States be held accountable for the small coterie of individuals who make up his or her inner circle and potentially bear influence on his interpretation of the constitution? And at what point does the benefit of the doubt give way to guilt by association? Moreover, how can a candidate cultivate a constituency like that of Rev. James Meek, essentially espousing a shared belief in their value system, become an effective and powerful advocate on behalf of issues like LGBT rights that run counter to fundamental agenda of that constituency without experiencing severe repercussions? The answer is he can't.

But watch the likes of self-loathing lesbian Laura Flanders play dumb again, the way she did when he put homophobes on stage in South Carolina. Laura Flanders, quickly becoming the Tammy Bruce of the 'left.' Remember, kids, not only is she a self-loathing lesbian, she's also stuck her nose into Democratic presidential primaries, going so far as to endorse Barack Obama on Super Duper Tuesday when, in fact, she's not a Democrat. If he couldn't depend on support from outside the party, he'd have damn little support. Allison Stevens (Women's eNews) reports that Hillary Clinton can depend on the support of EMILY's List, "Next week EMILY's List will launch a major ground initiative on Clinton's behalf in and around Philadelphia ahead of the state's April 22 primary. The group will target 150,000 women in southeastern Pennsylvania with mailings and phone messages urging them to go to the polls and pull the lever for the former first lady. The messages -- aimed at working women, older women and female college students -- will promote Clinton as a more experienced candidate capable of handling the faltering economy, an issue of paramount importance in a state with a strong blue-collar base and one that played well in neighboring Ohio in its March 4 primary." As NOW PAC notes: "Clinton has been through fire and emerged stronger with each challenge. She can take anything her opponents and the press can dish out, and give it back double. The Democrats need her and the country needs her. Clinton is a national leader of the highest order, with the strength and dtermination and experience to deliver real change to our country. She has been a leader on women's right and civil rights for over 30 years. Clinton is an unparalled champion for women's reproductive rights, justice and health, which is why the NOW PAC endorsed her a year ago this month. Make no mistake, Clinton is the strongest candidate to win in November, and to set our country right. It will take someone with her economic depth and foreign policy experience to beat John McCain." Alida Brill (Women's Media Center) notes her mother's 100 birthday was on the day of Hillary's wins in Texas Ohio and as well as a frienship she (Alida Brill) has formed during the campaign, "I was stunned by his ability to decipher the subtle codes of sexism when the media was attempting to be sly. I was astounded when his anger was equal to mine over a Chicago Sun Times cartoon depicting Senator Clinton as a 'witch' in a boxing ring down for the count. I emailed him, 'who are you?' I learned he was a man whose mother and grandmothers had both died and that all of these women in his life had told him, at the first inauguration of Bill Clinton, that he should keep his eye on Hillary for the future. He was the feminist child I never had, but he was a young man and not a young woman. Perhaps that is when I understood that not only is her candidacy good for young women; it is essential for young men."

If you look at the links in the previous paragraph, you may notice an outlet missing: Ms. magazine. Ms. magazine is AWOL by choice. In one of the most hilarious claims put forward today, it was stated that Ms. couldn't cover Hillary Clinton and Cynthia McKinney's historic runs for their parties nominations -- the claims was they'd lose their tax status. Are you laughing yet. I haven't laughed so hard since a writer needing help with her book put a call to everyone and anyone and gave none credit. (Oh, I'm laughing so hard about that book. I'm laughing so hard because I know all about it. From the top of the sources all the way down to an e-mail regarding a recorded concert -- 'a great lady if ever there was one.' I can tell you -- to this day -- the name and the e-mail account of the person who supplied the author with that. Again, from the top of the source list to the bottom. And every morsel was used but no one got thanked -- in the book or out. I've known that story since . . . gee, back when the book was being researched. It's a funny story. I may have to share it some day.) (Yes, that is a personal message to the person repeating the current lie.) Ms.' tax free status DOES NOT prevent it from covering the presidential race. Ms., by it's very nature, is a magazine that tracks issues pertaining to women. There was nothing preventing Ms. from covering Hillary Clinton and Cynthia McKinney's campaigns to win their party's nomination. Ms. is supposed to be a periodical that offers journalism. Say it with me, "journalism." I was kind at Third. I won't be if the LIE that Ms. is prevented from doing journalism due to its tax-status continues to circulate. The magazine was AWOL by choice. Since I'm commenting, let me state that I happen to agree with Betty's comments in that piece for Third:

Betty: I'm sorry, I've got to jump back in and I'll try to be brief. I know when we're done with this, we're done [with the edition]. But Marcia is so right that false charges of racism were used and are used repeatedly by the Bambi campaign and its surrogates. They have charged Gloria Steinem with it and Robin Morgan with it. Guess what Ms., this Black woman thinks you did an awful job. This Black woman is currently ashamed to be seen reading you because when women were falsely attacked, when they were attacked nationally, to silence them, you chose to be silent. You should be ashamed. You've dug yourself a big hole and I'm not sure you can get out of it. I have no interest in reading your magazine at present. Short of a lengthy mea culpa, I can't imagine ever plunking down a nickel for your magazine. Gloria Steinem and Robin Morgan have fought for all women and have been there for Ms. That Ms. couldn't return that favor, couldn't return for all women, many of whom are now scared to speak against Bambi for fear of being labeled racist, is appalling. Your silence is not just shameful, it encourages the attacks on other women. You should be embarrassed and you should be considering right now, seriously, whether you issue a mea culpa or just close shop because there really isn't much else you have to offer. Apologize or cease publication. It's gotten so bad that The Nation has posted that idiot Gary Younge's attack on women, on Robin Morgan and Gloria Steinem specifically. When a British transplant, who can't even vote in the election, feels he can tear into those two women, it happens for a reason and that reason is that feminist outlets allowed men to think there was a space created where it was safe to attack women. Shame on you, Ms. magazine, shame on you.

Time would probably be better spent by the magazine working on a mea culpa and not attempting to invent laughable excuses this morning that their tax status prevents them from covering news events. That would be CENSORSHIP of journalism. And, no, it's not taking place. For those taken in by the popular lie of the day, burning up phone wires and e-mails, ask yourself about Nancy Pelosi making the cover of Ms. in 2007. If the tax status of Ms. prevented it from covering the news (it doesn't), they wouldn't have been able to put Pelosi on the cover in 2007 since they never put Dennis Hastert on the cover.

Pelosi made the cover because it was news. Hillary Clinton and Cynthia McKinney are newsmakers. Ms. doesn't have to endorse either to cover them. Don't believe the lies.

'HUBdate: Creating Jobs'
by Howard Wolfson, Communications Director
3/27/2008 9:34:12 AM
Today In The Tar Heel State: Hillary will deliver a major economic policy address on rebuilding the middle class by creating new jobs and promoting job training in Raleigh.
If You Watch One Thing Today: Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) tells voters in Fayette County that Hillary is the only candidate with the strength and experience to be president on Day One. Watch Here.
Family Ties: Big and enthusiastic crowds have continued to greet Chelsea at her campaign stops, including in Washington, DC yesterday, where she introduced her mother at a "March To Victory" rally. Read more.
Michigan Counts: Following yesterday's court ruling regarding Michigan's January 15th primary, Campaign Manager Maggie Williams issued a statement "urg[ing] Senator Obama to join our call for a party-run primary and demonstrate his commitment to counting Michigan's votes." Read the statement here.
If You Read One Thing Today: "Clinton Finds Warm Welcome Among Pennsylvania Voters." Read More
Hoosiers For Hillary: Hillary will be joined on her Indiana campaign swing this Friday, March 28, by two winners of the "Hoosiers For Hillary" contest. Congratulations to Lynn Schwartzberg from Bloomington and Kelly White from Newburgh.
The Hillary I Know: Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) supports Hillary because "[she] has fought for over 35 years…and Hillary will fight for us every day in the White House." Read More.
Just Words: "Sen. Obama knows that if he focused on his experience, he'd get questions about the shortcomings in his record and the efforts he has made to embellish it." Read more.

okay, that's hillary. let's turn to the obama campaign where bambi continues to make an idiot out of himself. from reuters on the latest re: jeremiah wright:

"(Jesus') enemies had their opinion about Him," Wright wrote in a eulogy of the late scholar Asa Hilliard in the November/December 2007 issue, according to CNSNews.com. "The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans."
Obama was asked about the latest information about Wright during a CNBC interview.
"I've, I think, talked thoroughly about, you know, the issue with Rev. Wright. And, you know, everybody, I think, who examines the church that I attend knows that it is a very traditional, conventional church," he said.

i think i've talked thoroughly, you know -- that's our great orator!

the man's a moron. anytime he has to leave a script, he's full of 'you knows'. he's as 'folksy' as bully boy (translation, as stupid).

and no, he's not addressed it. and that's the topic of third's editorial sunday. c.i. had a phrase that jim immediately called all of us and said, 'don't write about that! it's an editorial and that's the title!'

but wright is just a hate filled man. he just oozes hate. and bambi lapped it up for 20 years. and pretended to the electorate like it wasn't there as late as february. if this had come out sooner (if the media had done their job), it would have killed his 'unity' campaign. as it is, he's on the ropes and he knows it.

i could say more but jim's asked us to all hold off.

i will ask, 'did you ever think some 1 whose pastor damned the united states could get this close to the white house?' there must be a lot of self-loathing americans in this country or, more realistically, a lot of them in panhandle media churning out the 'it's no big deal' nonsense.


meanwhile ap reports: 'Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is telling a Fort Bragg-area audience that it's time to bring troops home.'

read this very important cnn article on bill nelson. the plan was to write about it but the baby woke up and i had to take care of that (for 90 minutes).

i'm going to bed myself. let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Thursday, March 27, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, Puppet al-Maliki painted in a corner, Bully Boy apparently high, fighting continues in Basra and throughout Iraq, and more.

Lawrence Toppman (Charlotte Observer) disses Kimberly Peirce's brave new film Stop-Loss but we'll noting his opening paragraph, "Creedence Clearwater Revival's "Born on the Bayou" sears the soundtrack, a young man chooses between a tour of duty overseas and exile in Canada, an unpopular president sends people to war against their will -- did I fall into a time machine before the screening of 'Stop-Loss'? It felt as if I'd flown back 40 years, as I watched somebody go AWOL while dealing with a "de facto draft" that shoves soldiers into combat more than once." Stop-Loss opens tomorrow.

In the meantime, war resisters in Canada need support as a measure is expected to be debated next month. For those in Canada, the nation's Parliament remains the best hope for safe harbor war resisters have, you can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (http://us.f366.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (http://us.f366.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (http://us.f366.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum. Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

Before we get to Basra, a factoid from UPI's "The almanac" worth noting, on this day "In 2003, U.S. President George Bush, seeking to calm concerns that the war in Iraq is proving tougher than expected after its first week, said the United States and Britain will battle Saddam Hussein's forces 'however long it takes to win'." And you can be sure that, five years ago, some idiots not only applauded, they high-fived.

Turning to Iraq where the assault on Basra receives more criticism. This morning Sudarsan Raghavan and Sholnn Freeman (Washington Post) reported that "independent Kurdish legislator" Mahmoud Othman was staing that there was no discussion of the assault "with parliament or other political groups" and is quoted declaring, "Everybody is aksing, 'Why now?' . . . . People have ill-advised Maliki. The militias like the timing. Iran likes the timing. They wnat to show there's no progress in Iraq." People have ill-advised puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki? Who could do advise a puppet? Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that the US government is concerned over bragging rights with both the White House and the Pentagon rushing forward yesterday to attempt to grab "partial credit for the Iraqi government's new military offensive". This despite the fact that, as Youssef notes, "There was no sign from the ground, however, that the new offensive, which involves 15,000 Iraqi troops and police units, was suceeding." Let's see, even Gen David Petraeus, due to 'report' to Congress next month, is calling out al-Maliki. Democrats and Republicans in both houses of the US Congress are calling out the puppet. Who would think a 'show of strength' would go over well? The US administration. How's it going over in Iraq?

Sudarsan Raghavan, Sholnn Freeman and Howard Schneider (Washington Post) report, "Thousands of supporters of hard-line cleric Moqtada al-Sadr poured into the streets of the Iraqi capital Thursday to protest an ongoing security crackdown against Sadr's militia . . . Demonstrators rallied in the Shiite stronghold of Sadr City and the neighborhood of Kazimiyah, carrying a coffin decorated with a picture of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki -- a symbol of the political risks Maliki has run by ordering Iraqi security forces to move against Sadr's Mahdi Army and other politically backed armed gangs in Basra." Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) explains that on the coffin, under the photo, "were the words 'The New Dictator'." Today's chant goes, "Maliki, keep your hands off. People do not want you." Leila Fadel and Ali al Basri (McClatchy Newspapers) described a popular chant in Najaf on Tuesday, "Oh Nouri, you coward. You spy of the Americans." James Glanz and Graham Bowley (New York Times) note, "In direct confrontation with the American-backed government in Iraq, thousands of supporters of the powerful Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia took to the streets of Baghdad on Thursday to protest the Iraqi Army's asault on the southern port city of Basra, an intense fighting continued there for a third day." The photo by Joao Silva of those demonstrating should make the front page of the Times tomorrow -- note how many are marching. Adam Brookes and Crispin Thorold (BBC) quote a Baghdad protestor declaring, "We are very patient but if the government does not respond to our demands, something bad will happen" and the demands are defined "the prime minister must resign; foreign troops must leave Iraq; the operation in Basra must be halted." Glanz and Bowley quote demonstrator Jabbar Azem Hassan: "They are killing our sons and they are harming innocent people. We need to reform the national government from all parts of the Iraqi populace."

CNN plays stupid so before we get to the violence and its effects on the Iraqi people, let's address the nonsense Michael Ware pushes that "the Iranians" have a relationship with Moqtada al-Sadr. No more so than with al-Maliki. But the reality that's being missed is that al-Sadr was neutralized and on his way to little importance before the assault. It was widely accepted that, as he continued his education, he was a hotel clerk in Najaf. Not the stuff of legendary rebels (even allowing for the "Pirate Jenny" aspect). He was out of Baghdad and that had turned some followers against him for the basic reason that while he was seen as 'getting on with' his own life, they felt they were under daily attack from al-Maliki's forces and militias. The break-aways going public and criticizing were doing a very natural thing -- if your leader abandons you and the movement (and that's how it looked), he is no longer in charge. Had the Basra assault not taken place, al-Sadr would have continued to decrease in influence. What al-Maliki has done is 'rebrand' al-Sadr, turn him into Moqtada! and make him even more influential (regardless of the outcome) than he was before. His influence was fading and it had nothing to do with "the Iranians" which CNN chatters on about (having absorbed that crap from the US military brass). Basic realities, when a leader and his/her followers are apart and the leader appears to have things easier, the followers toss him or her aside. al-Sadr's strength was waining and without the assault on Basra someone (more likely someones) would step forward claiming to be the true leader of Sadr City in Baghdad. That person would have to gather strength slowly (and ward off rivals). That was six to eight months time the US and al-Maliki would have had without any real issues. Instead, they've armed al-Sadr by turning him into a rebel all over again. No matter what happens in Basra, al-Sadr now has more power today than he ever had and that power will only continue. Should he be killed, he will only be even more power and mythic. But as it is, he is now seen as the one person in Iraq who is defending the Iraqis, defending the country. This elevates him higher than in 2004 because in 2004 he had others on the scene to compete with. Today, thanks to actions by the US and the puppet, he is Iraq.

Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) underscores how al-Maliki has yet against set himself against the people of Iraq in his referring to those associated with al-Sadr was "criminal gangs". Leila Fadel (McClatchy) quotes Nouri insisting, "The government does not negotiate with a gang; the government does not sign understanding memorandums with outlaws." Not only has the assault increased al-Sadr's power, it's weakened al-Maliki's. This morning, James Glanz (New York Times) reported, "American officials have presented the Iraqi Army's attempts to secure the port city as an example of its ability to carry out a major operation against the insurgency on its own. A failure there would be a serious embarrassment for the Iraqi government and for the army, as well as for American forces eager to demonstrate that the Iraqi units they have trained can fight effectively on their own." Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London) offers, "A new civil war is threatening to explode in Iraq as American-backed Iraqi government forces fight Shia militiamen for control of Basra and parts of Baghdad. . . . The gun battles between soldiers and militiamen, who are all Shia Muslims, show that Iraq's majority Shia community -- which replaced Saddam Hussein's Sunni regime -- is splitting apart for the first time."

A point missed by the Bully Boy of the United States. Speaking at the Wright Patterson Air Force Base's National Museum of the United States Air Force today, Bully Boy declared, "The military achievements in Iraq have been accompanied by a political transformation." Whatever he's smoking, shouldn't he be arrested for it? He spoke of non-existant political gains and claimed his 'surge' was a success ("But this much is clear: The surge is doing what it was designed to do.") With Tony Blair and John Howard gone from power, Bully Boy needs a new boy-crush so he inflates and elevates Nouri, "And as we speak, Iraqi security forces are waging a tough battle against militia fighters and criminals in Basra -- many of whom have received arms and training and funding from Iran. Prime Minister Maliki's bold decision -- and it was a bold decision -- to go after the illegal groups in Basra shows his leadership, and his committment to enforce the law in an even-handed manner. . . . Prime Minister Maliki has traveled to Basra to oversee it firsthand." That last statement may have been a speechwriter getting in a jab over Bully Boy's failure "to oversee" the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina "firsthand." In terms of Iran, there is still no proof, only baseless accusations intended to sell another illegal war. As Ruth noted yesterday, the New York Times' Steven Lee Myers appeared on NPR's The Diane Rehm Show and continued to insist -- with no proof -- that the Iranian government was supplying weapons to Iraqi resistance fighters. He needed to insist on that even when, as Ruth noted, Rehm pointed out that weapons tend to travel over borders all on their own without government assistance of any kind leading Myers to reply that this was true which was why he wasn't sure which branch of the Iranian government was passing on the weapons but . . . He has no proof and repeatedly lied to claim a connection he can't back up. Bully Boy did the same today. The paper has enlisted in selling the next war. Anna Mulrine (US News & World Reports) notes the "postive spin" Bully Boy attempted today and that US military officials do not share his upbeat evaulation. One is quoted explaining, "It' snot a sign of success. . . . It's too early to tell." Adam Brookes and Crisipin Thorold (BBC) note that Nouri's deadline has less than 48 hours left yet "the militiamen -- in particular those of Mehdi Army, loyal to the cleric Moqtada Sadr -- show no signs of doing so. . . . Mehdi militiamen are holding key points around Basra, say local sources, and are harassing Iraqi troops from alleyways and back streets, where armoured vehicles find it hard to manoeuvre." Sam Dagher and Abdul-Karim al-Samer (Christian Science Monitor) report, "At the moment, witnesses in Basra say there appears to be no sign of any letup in fighting between government forces and the Shiite gunmen, who are said to still control 75 percent of the city."

On the ground, Alexandra Zavis and Peter Spiegel (Los Angeles Times) observe, "Basra residents trapped in their homes by raging gun battles worried that food was running out with no end in sight to the clashes between Iraqi security forces and followers of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr and other armed factions." At McClatchy's Inside Iraq, an Iraqi correspondent explains that their mother's eye surgery was scheduled for Tuesday but due to the strikes in Baghdad, the clinic the surgery was to take place had shut down and they had to make multiple trips just to get to a hospital (Sadrists turned them away on the first three attempts). Charles Levinson (USA Today) observes, "Al-Sadr's ironclad control over Iraq's health system and other key ministries has come under renewed scrutiny following recent clashes between his Mahdi Army militia and the Iraqi army. . . . The Health Ministry has been under al-Sadr's control since 2005, when his political party gained more seats than any other group." AFP counts "[a]t least 105 people" who "have died countrywide in clashes since" the assault on Basra began. Richard Beeston (Times of London) cautions, "The battle for Basra now raging on the streets of Iraq's second city shows every sign of turning into a nightmare for the dwindling British forces near by" and notes that British troops might have to be added to the region or "[t]he only other option would be for Britain to admit finally that it has lost the fight in southern Iraq."

Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an east Baghdad mortar attack that claimed 1 life and wounded two people, a central Baghdad mortar attack that wounded one person, a Baghdad car bombing damaged one wall of the Red Crescent office, the Baghdad Da'wa Party (al-Maliki's party) was "torched, causing only material damage" a Baghdad mortar attack on a bus station claimed 2 lives and left fifteen wounded, a Baghdad mortar attack on a commercial area wounded two people, a Baghdad mortar attack on the Ministry of Interior claimed 1 life (an employee) and left four more wounded, a Baghdad mortar attack on an apartment complex wounded two people, an RPG attack on Amara's Badr Organization Bureau which left a civilian wounded, a Baiji bombing claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier, a Khanaqin roadside bombing wounded two people, a Kirkuk car bombing claimed the life of Capt. Tayib Mahmoud ("a Kurd security intelligence agency" officer) and wounded two "of his security detail" plus five more people, the torching of the Hilla "offices of al-Da'wa and the Supreme Council" that resulted in the deaths of 3 police officers (four more wounded) and, on Wednesday, Mona Ajaj was killed from a Baiji mortar attack that also wounded two adults and three children. This morning Reuters reported: "A giant column of black smoke was visible near the U.S. embassy in Baghdad's Green Zone on Thursday after an apparent mortar strike, a Reuters reporter said." CBS and AP note 1 "American was killed . . . a government employee whose identity was being withheld" and CBS News Lara Logan "reports the Green Zone, not long ago one of the safest areas of Baghdad, has become in recent days one of the deadliest. In a visit to one of the foreign embassies inside the area, Logan says she and her crew had to quickly move into protecitve bunkers four times with one hour due to the relentless rocket fire. She says all non-essential movement of personnel within the Green Zone has been restricted." AFP notes a Basra car bombing targeting Maj Gen Abdul Jalil Khalaf (police chief) that he walked away from but in which 3 police officers died.

Shootings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports "the Commander of Garmian Peshmerga Forces" was shot dead along with 4 members "of his security detail," 5 Iraqi soldiers were shot dead in Basra, a Salahuddin Province home invasion targeting a member of the "Awakening" Counil that claimed the life of the US collaborator and his son (wounding two women), 2 people were shot dead at Yugoslav Bridge (seven more wounded) from the crossfire exchanged by the Iraqi and Mahdia armies, 1 Iraqi soldier and 2 police officers shot dead in Hilla during an armed clash that also wounded thirty others, seventeen Iraqi soldiers were wounded in Basra (and transferred to Baghdad for treatment), three Iraqi soldiers were wounded in Baghdad, in Talbiyah's armed clash eight Iraqi soldiers received injuries, 1 father a thirteen-year-old son were shot dead in Talbiyah and a Baghdad shooting that wounded one person. Reuters notes 3 police officers killed (three more wounded) in Hamza

Kidnappings?

Sudarsan Raghavan, Sholnn Freeman and Howard Schneider (Washington Post) report "gunmen seized a well-known member of Maliki's government, storming the home of Tahseen al-Sheikihli and taking him prisoner. Sheikhli is a chief spokesman for the Baghdad security plan, in charge of a big to build public support for Iraqi efforts to quell violence in the city." It does not appear that his job has worked. Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) notes that "at least one of" his bodyguards is reported wounded during the kidnapping and that "Sheikhly has appeared frequently at news conferences alongside U.S. officials discussing what they consider progress of the security plan. The bold abduction, in the middle of the afternoon, was a sign of the spreading insecurity since the Basra offensive began."

Corpses?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 5 corpses discovered in Baghdad, 5 discovered outside Baquba, 4 were discovered "south of the town of Baladruz," and 4 corpses were discovered "south of the town of Baladruz."

Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division -- Baghdad Soldier was killed at approximately 4:30 p.m. March 27 after being struck by an improvised explosive device in eastern Baghdad while conducting a combat patrol." The announcement brings the number of US service members to 4004 killed in the illegal war since it started.

Returning to the violence and economcis. Mark Mooney (ABC News) notes "a bomb blasted a crucial oil pipeline in Basra, triggering a massive fire and threatening the country's ability to export oil" causing the price of crude oil barrel to rise to $107. Remember the shock months ago when oil reached a hundred dollars a barrel? Atul Aneja (The Hindu) states that the bombing's impact will be huge, "Oil exports are expected to be affected in a big way as Zubair 1 -- the main pumping station -- has also been shut down. Nearly one-third of the oil produced in the area is transported through the affected pipeline." Mark Shenk (Bloomberg News) states that prices have actually risen "above $107 barrel". Australia's Sydney Morning Herald notes, "US crude oil futures ended higher for the third consecutive day on Thursday, fueled by a rally in heating oil futures and as traders remained edgy over a major oil pipeline explosing in Iraq."

Turning to US presidential politics, why does Amy Goodman distort for Bambi? (We know why.) Today on her crap-ass show, which she claims informs (she also claims she's an author but Ava and I will put that lie to rest next month at Third), she declared, "In other campaign news, Senator Obama's former pastor has canceled scheduled appearances in Texas set for this weekend. The Reverend Jeremiah Wright has come under heavy criticism from political pundits for linking the attacks of September 11 to US foreign policy in the Middle East and for saying the United States was founded on racism. In a statement, Reverend Wright cited safety concerns for his decision to cancel his appearances." Jeremiah Wright has come under heavy criticism for damning the United States. Amy Goodman may pretend otherwsie but that is what he's under fire for. As for his cancelling apperances, those appearances were cancelled for him. When institutions that had invited you make it clear that you're no longer wanted, you really don't need to cancel. In the real world, MSNBC's First Read notes that Barack Obama is attempting to target Pennsylvania's 30% Catholic voters (not a chance) and will do so so by attempting to "play down the Rev. Jeremiah Wright issue." The issue's not going away. Play it up, play it down. It's here to say and liars like Amy Goodman (who is in real danger of losing NPR outlets due to her 'ethics') can keep lying through their yellowed teeth but the controversy will continue. First Read also notes that "Clinton backers Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and Robert F. Kenney Jr. last week wrote a letter to Pennsylvania Catholics emphasizing her plans on health care, mortgage foreclosures and fuel costs." Bruce Fisher (ArtVoice) appears to right the obituary for the Obama campaign today and cites Jeremiah Wright. Joe Wilson (via No Quarter's reposting) notes, "Among other things, Wright preaches that the United States government unleashed the HIV virus in Africa to kill blacks. (Having worked in African for much of my adult life, including with one of the early AIDS researches, Dr. Jonathan Mann, I can safely say that there is absolutely no evidence to sustain Wright's reckless charge.) Obama had no choice but to address his 20-year close relationship with a man he still considers, as he made clear in his speech, a mentor." Joe Klein (Time magazine) weighs in on the topic of what he calls "Jeremiah 'G-- damn America'" Wright. Democrats will soon learn how damaging that relationship might be in a general election." And this morning on NBC's Today, Andrea Mitchell offered some of the latest:

Andrea Mitchell: And now even more controversy regarding Rev. Wright. An internet search reveals church bulletines over the past year with controversial pastor pages from the reverand. Some reprint anti-Israel writings from a range of people -- from Archbishop Desmond Tutu to an advisor to Elijah Muhammad and Louis Farkahn of the Nation of Islam and Hamas leader Musa Abu Marzook. One of Marzook's columns, reprinted by the church from the Los Angeles Times, says "Why should any Palestinian recognize the monstrous crimes carried out by Israel's founders and continued by its deformed modern apartheid state?" Obama told the Jerusalem Post the church was outrageously wrong to reprint the article and he denounced Hamas. And Trumpet, a magazine run by Wright's daughters quotes him as saying "White supremacy is clearly in charge" and slurring Italian's quote "garlic noses" and he also calls Jesus' crucifixion "a public lynching Italian style."

And that, which is offensive, is the only thing that Michal Tomasky (American writing for the Guardian of London -- no link to Tomasky's trash) is bothered by, calling the slur against Italians "inconceivable". Mitchell also a noted a Wall St. Journal - NBC poll which we're not interested because of the oversampling error Taylor Marsh draws to everyone's attention. It wouldn't fly in any research and methodology class and it's amazing that the two outlets didn't scrap the poll when they learned of the oversampling. In other campaign news, Taylor Marsh highlights MSNBC's Race for the White House where Richard Woffe (a Brit still nursing his political crush on Joe Lieberman) gets called to the carpet by Joe Scarborough who pounces on Wright's "we" to point out, "We? You said that's how 'we' decided it? If that's the way the Democratic Party decided it then they wouldn't have super delegates! Let me tell you what 'we' love to do. 'We' in the media love to tell everybody, which 'we' have been telling everybody for months that the numbers don't add for Hillary Clinton, she can't get enough delegates . . . Well guess what? The numbers don't add up for Barack Obama but 'we' don't tell that side of the story, do 'we'?" The super delegates are the rules of the Democratic Party and they can go any way they want."

In other news, Mike Gravel has left the Democratic Party. AP reported yesterday that Gravel sent out an e-mail to supporters stating that the party "no longer represents my vision for our great party. It is a party that continues to sustain war, the military-industrial complex and imperialism -- all of which I find anathema to my views. . . . I look forward to advancing my presidential candidacy within the Libertarian Party, which is considerably closer to my values, my foreign policy views and my domestic views." Meanwhile Cynthia McKinney, who also left the Democratic Party, is running for the Green Party presidential nomination. Larry Pinkney (Black Commentator) notes, "Sister Cynthia McKinney has both the credibility and the capacity to truly excite the people in a substantive vs. superficial fashion; and can inspire people to see that they themselves/we oursevles are the only viable solution to the Republicrats and their flawed and corrupt electoral system. We must move the people from being excited about meaningless superficialities that do nothing to address systemic change -- to being excited about substance that is the catalyst for systemic change." The indepdent Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez ticket is collecting signatures for ballot access and have currently set up a location in Albuquerque where they are gathering signatures.

And we'll note this statement from the Hillary Clinton campaign:

Yesterday, a Pennsylvania editorial board asked Sen. Clinton how she would have "responded if [her] pastor had said some of the things that Rev. Wright said?" In response, she said Rev. Wright would not have been her pastor, an honest view shared by many Americans.
The Obama campaign's response? Attack Sen. Clinton and accuse her of trying to divert attention from the Bosnia trip story and her record of foreign policy experience.
Sen. Clinton's response was sincere. The Obama attack was disingenuous.
We are happy to discuss Sen. Clinton's foreign policy experience and her record overall. Unfortunately, the Obama campaign doesn't want to discuss its candidate's record and prefers personal attacks instead.
Sen. Obama knows that if he focused on his experience, he'd get questions about the shortcomings in his record and the efforts he has made to embellish it.
He'd have to deal with the fallout from this week's Washington Post report on his gross exaggeration of his role on immigration reform and housing policy.
Sen. Obama would have to explain why the New York Times reported that he claims credit for passing nuclear leak legislation that never got out of committee.
He'd have to confront reports from FactCheck.org and other independent organizations that say his claims of providing a universal health care plan are based on selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers.
He'd have to discuss the LA Times story that reported on how his fellow organizers say he took too much credit for his community organizing efforts.
He'd have to explain why he regularly claims he was a law professor when in fact he held no such title.
Sen. Obama seems to think disingenuous attacks on Sen. Clinton will address the concerns voters have about his record and readiness to be the Commander-in-Chief and the steward of our economy. They won't.
In the end, Sen. Obama's words cannot erase Hillary's 35-year record of action because when all is said and done, words aren't action. They are just words.

Meanwhile West Virigina University's student body president Jason Parsons explains his support for Hillary's presidential campaign, "As the student body president at West Virginia University and as an ordinary college student, I talk to my friends everyday who are saddled down with debt and college loans. They face the dilemma of tuition going up while financial aid is going down, and many have fallen victim to predatory student loan companies. Hillary Clinton, throughout the course of her presidential campaign, has talked consistently about the challenges college aged people face and she has offered solutions. That's why I support her. The 35 years of experience she brings to this race is so important at a time when our country needs real change and when young people need to believe that our best days are still ahead." To be creeped about by Obama groupies, check out the video noted by intranets (Corrente) which is like a Hitler moment and there's no other word for it. As intranets notes, it is "creepy". Truly, like Hitler campaign propaganda. (If you view, pay attention to the background and not the cult-like testimonials, pay attention to the subliminals. It truly is the GOP's 2000 campaign.) And as the topic returns to Bambi, Anibal Acevedo Vila, governor of Puerto Rico and pledged super delegate for Barack Obama "was charged Thursday with 19 counts in a campaign finance probe, including conspiracy to violate U.S. federal campaign laws and giving false testimony to the FBI."

FARMERS AND SCHOLARS WHO FLED EUROPE TO MAKE DEMOCRACY
Where to begin? How about the beginning, when he refers to Independence Hall across the street from the site of his address in the following terms:
"Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787. The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery..."
Sorry, but most of the people attending the Constitutional Convention had been born in British Colonial North America and had not "traveled across the ocean." Some of their English and European ancestors had migrated to "escape tyranny and persecution" but a larger number likely came to advance their fortune or simply to make a living.
Many of the "farmers" at the Constitutional Convention were large-scale planters and slave-owners. They along with many other Founders were architects and beneficiaries of "tyranny and persecution" in the New World, much to the detriment of countless Native Americans, black slaves, indentured servants, landless laborers, and impressed soldiers and sailors.
The Constitution was an experiment in codifying the rule of the propertied elite, richly consistent with leading Founder John Jay's statement that "the people who own the country ought to run the country." "Democracy" was the last thing the framers wished to see break out in America; it was their ultimate nightmare, to be perfectly honest.
Accordingly, they built a carefully crafted system of republican rule designed to check and contain genuine popular governance -- to keep the people at bay. We are still living with the terrible legacy of their masterful blueprint, which was stained by more than slavery. It was a great Thermidorian restraint on the democratic Hope of the American Revolution.

that's from paul street's 'Obama's Latest "Beautiful Speech"' (z-net). it's good to know there is a functioning left in america, even if you have to visit a canadian website to find it.

an e-mail from a bambi groupie (for the record i support hillary, paul street does not) came in and he wanted me to know that hillary doesn't stand a chance of winning the nomination. if so, why did he got on for 33K in a single e-mail? if so, why does obama's campaign keep trying to force hillary out of the race.

as c.i. said recently, 'this is where it gets fun.' and it is where it gets fun. the bambi groupies have tricked a lot of people and most of the press. but they haven't fooled democratic insiders and what you are going to be seeing is that the superdelegates are not so in love with bambi. you've got people like c.i., ava and elaine lobbying the delegates. i have money now, but i made that late in life. the 3 of them have money and have and can give it to the democratic party. if you think democrats are going to roll over and just let a non-democrat, a republican appeasing non-democrat like bambi get the nomination, you really don't know the first thing about how the democratic party works. you're living in some obama version of candy land. stick to your age appropriate board games because the bambi groupies are out of their element now.

when c.i. got involved, the whole gameboard changed. not because c.i. alone is so powerful. but because c.i. knows how to structure arguments and c.i. knows how to create excitement. you've got super delegates who were apathetic that are now excited. you've got super delegates who were going along with the faux 'wave' of bambi that are now not doing so. you had a major power shift and that comes about by power players like c.i. rolling up their sleeves and getting down to work. c.i.'s pulling in a lot of others who've sat out the race. it's becoming a democratic issue and there is real excitement for the hillary campaign now in the quarters that will decide. reality is that bambi's myth his campaign's created works against him and it only took a real brain (not a party hack who's run and ruined many failed campaigns) to get involved and pull in others. hillary's got a brain trust behind her now and the press hasn't caught on but it's there and it is working.

they're not working on the votes in state primaries, they're not working on the campaign. they're focused on the super delegates because no 1 will have enough delegates by the end of the run. and this group is big. and this group gives big. and this group will be heard by democratic party insiders.

bambi's always just had a motley crew of support. in terms of power players, bambi's really not had any in d.c. ted kennedy isn't a power player. the dems aren't even that fond of him. he pissed off the teacher's unions.

now that's 1 of the biggest supporters of democrats in every race. and the party never does anything for them really other than a generic 'education is important to our future.' the teachers don't demand a great deal either (compared to other labor groups) and you really have to be a bonehead to piss them off. but ted kennedy got on board with the white house's 'no child left behind' and rallyied for it. there is tremendous anger over that. more each year as teachers are unable to teach their courses but instead have to throw everything out the window in order to teach for that stupid testing (which isn't about learning).

ted can't raise big bucks. he goes on too much in hearings. if you'll notice he doesn't have a huge number of democrats backing him when he goes off script (often) in the senate.

then there's john kerry. who really, really wanted to be president in 2004. and who really, really wanted to run in 2008. he couldn't run and that right there tells you that john kerry is on the outs with the party. he's loathed nationally by many voters because he refused to stand up for ohio in 2004.

john kerry and ted kennedy are his 2 biggest supporters and both are losers within the structure of the democratic party.

kerry especially is not some 1 you want on your team because 2004 was his election to blow. the fact that he's put his 'judgement' and 'expertise' into pushing bambi alone tells you that it's probably not a good or safe bet.

so if you're a hillary supporter, don't fret it. this campaign has 2 stages. the 1st is the people voting and the 2nd is the super delegates voting.

the bambi-bots have run a divisive, slash & burn campaign. that could have worked if he had achieved the magic number of delegates. but he didn't and he won't. the fact that hillary has stood up through all of this and held her own (the 2 are essentially tied and hillary's ahead if you focus on just democratic voters) is a testament to her electability that the super delegates are not ignoring.

did you see this from reuters:

A group of prominent Hillary Clinton donors sent a letter to House of Representaties Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday asking her to retract her comments on superdelegates and stay out of the Democratic fight over their role in the presidential race.The 20 prominent Clinton supporters told Pelosi she should "clarify" recent statements to make it clear superdelegates -- nearly 800 party insiders and elected officials who are free to back any candidate -- could support the candidate they think would be the best nominee.

A group of prominent Hillary Clinton donors sent a letter to House of Representaties Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday asking her to retract her comments on superdelegates and stay out of the Democratic fight over their role in the presidential race.The 20 prominent Clinton supporters told Pelosi she should "clarify" recent statements to make it clear superdelegates -- nearly 800 party insiders and elected officials who are free to back any candidate -- could support the candidate they think would be the best nominee.

expect to see a lot more things like that happening in front of the cameras and a whole lot more going on behind the scenes.

it's a real shame that barack obama has no class. if he hadn't trashed hillary and bill so, i doubt very seriously people like c.i. would be getting involved at this point. c.i. really stayed out of it. and really is still out of it in terms of primaries. but this race has a 2nd component and every 1 who expected that this would be a fair competition and didn't weigh in is now getting on board to weigh in due to the destructive polices of bambi.

what's really going on is a brain trust being built that's more than capable of lobbying the super delegates. they have the record, they have the money and they're real democrats unlike the crowd hanging around bambi.

this is 'NEW VIDEO: Rep. John Murtha On The Trail With Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania
Tells Supporters Pennsylvania is Hillary Country!' from hillary's site:

The Clinton campaign today released a new video of Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha on the trail with Hillary Clinton in the Keystone State. In the video, Murtha expresses his belief that Hillary is the only candidate who can responsibly end the war in Iraq and restore fiscal responsibility to our government.
Watch the new video here
Following is the script for the video:
Let me tell you something. I’ve served with seven Presidents. I am convinced that we're in probably one of the worst situations that I've seen in the 35 years I've been in Congress. We need a person with experience, a person that understands the policy.
When the Clinton administration left, there was a $250 billion surplus. Now, there’s almost a $3 trillion deficit.
The military has been so depleted by this war. We’re spending $343 million dollars a day to build roads in Iraq and we're not spending money on the projects that are so important.
And who can solve that problem -- Hillary!
Finally, a person that listens to the people, listens and works with people, and can get the country together and reunite us, restore our credibility, restore our military, and put us back in a fiscal policy worth the United States history.
The next President of the United States -- Hillary Clinton!
This is Hillary country. She's had a tremendous reception here in Fayette County -- she's going to get that kind of reception all over Pennsylvania. There is no individual that can do this more effectively than Hillary Clinton and I support her wholeheartedly.

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

Wednesday, March 26, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US and UK announce deaths, the assault on Basra continues, Barack Obama returns from his R&R to hide behind Iraq and more.

Starting with war resistance. Canada's CTV offers a report on war resister Phil McDowell which features text and a video clip. Below is a transcript of the video report.

Tom Hayes: Phil McDowell and Michelle Robidoux hang out with a morning coffee but it's a relationship that goes much deeper. McDowell is a US army deserter and Robidoux is helping him out. It was this day [Sept. 11th, footage of NYC and the Pentagon shown] back in 2001that sent McDowell running to the enlistment office. After all he felt he had to defend his country. Then his country decided it was going into Iraq.

Phil McDowell: There's no doubt that he [Saddam Hussein] has weapons of mass destruction. There's no doubt that he has, that Saddam Hussein has ties with al Qaeda.

Tom Hayes: Did they convince you?

Phil McDowell: They convinced me I believed it.

Hayes: McDowell wants to be clear: He's not afraid to go into combat, not afraid to pick up a gun. We know this because he's already been there. McDowell served a year in Iraq. He was a model soldier. He survived and was sent home. He was then discharged. No longer in the army, he was told to go off and get on with his life. But a few months later, Uncle Sam wanted him back, back to fight a war he no longer believed in.

Phil: This can't be right, I don't want to have anything to do with this. They said, well you don't have a choice. You're going back whether you like it or not. I signed up to defend my country. I didn't sign up to take part in wars of aggression.

Tom Hayes: There are about 150 US deserters now in Toronto. They are seeking refugee status on the grounds the US is fighting an illegal war. But it's a tough sell. Much tougher than in the sixties when Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau welcomed Vietnam draft dodgers with open arms. Prime Minister Stephen Harper isn't so keen on a motion to allow the deserters to stay. The House of Commons will decide that by mid-April but that could already be too late for eight US war resisters who have already received deportation notices. And if they are sent back, they will be arrested the minute they step foot on US soil. Robidoux runs the group Resisters.ca. She's currently helping out more than fifty US deserters. McDowell calls her a good friend. His wife has also joined him here in Toronto. If he is allowed to stay, however, he faces a future without an extended family. If he's not allowed to stay, he faces up to five years in prison.

Phil McDowell: I would definitely go back to visit my relatives but if it's -- the choice I made here to move to Canada rather than fight in an illegal war, I'd make the same decision any time.

Tom Hayes: Tom Hayes, CTV News.

For those in Canada, the nation's Parliament remains the best hope for safe harbor war resisters have, you can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. That is the sort of thing that should receive attention but instead it's ignored. We will note war resisters in Canada tomorrow. There is not time today, my apologies.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum. Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

Turning to Iraq, battles continue. Today on NPR's The Diane Rehm Show, McClatchy Newspapers' Leila Fadel provided a report and overview, calling in from Baghdad.

Diane Rehm: Can you talk about what set off the fighting in Basra and where things stand right now?

Leila Fadel: Well Basra has been spiraling out of control for months now, the British military pulled out late last year basically handing it over to Shia militias in a city that are battling for power. Maliki, the prime minister here, finally declared a security operation on Monday night and the battle has been fierce mainly between Iraqi government forces and the Mehdi Army which is loyal to the Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. Basra is a strong-hold for the Mehdi Army and the Sadrists are saying this is a battle against them to consolidate power for their Shia rivals, the Supreme Council here in Iraq.

Diane Rehm: And what is Prime Minister Maliki threatening? What is he demanding? What is he threatening?

Leila Fadel: Well Prime Minister Maliki is saying that he wants every weapon in the hands of the government. He wants all weapon smugglers, this is a very important city, 90% of Iraq's oil comes from there, it's a border town. It has the main port of Iraq there. And a lot of the weapon smuggling, oil smuggling happens there. And so the main families that deal with oil smuggling, weapon smuggling have been targeted in Basra. He has given what he calls outlaws 72 hours to surrender while the battle continues it seems that the main targets and the people fighting back are the Medhi army and the Sadrists are saying that they are the targets, the sole targets, of this operation.

Diane Rehm: And how likely are they to respond to al-Maliki's demands?

Leila Fadel: Well today Moqtada al-Sadr asked Maliki to leave Basra and to try to deal with the situation through dialogue. The response has been fierce from the Mahdi army. The cease-fire is not intact in Basra, they are battling and they are battling hard in that city. So far it's unclear how many people have died. We have a number of thirty-three but residents are telling us there are dead bodies in the street and at least one Sadr neighborhood the dead bodies are being put in the mosque because they can't get to the morgues and the hospitals because of the curfew. And hospitals are barely functioning with little to no medical staff and medical supplies. The whole city and the province has been sealed off and curfews have been implemented all throughout the south.

Diane Rehm: And Leila, you're in Baghdad what's the situation there right now?

Leila Fadel: Well the Medhi army has done a forced sit-in in all Medhi army neighborhoods and so what has happened is that they sealed off neighborhoods where they have large control and, at gun point, told shopkeepers to close, the kids are not allowed to go to school, in one situtation they evacuated the school that was functioning. In Sadr City there have been violent clashes between Iraqi security forces, US forces and the Medhi army in Sadr City. Sadr officials are saying that at least 20 people have died and a hundred were wounded, among them women and children. But it's unclear what's happening there because it's completely sealed off by the militia.

Diane Rehm: So do you see this as the end of Moqtada al-Sadr's cease fire that was first called in August and then renewed in February?

Leila Fadel: At this point it is unclear if Moqtada al-Sadr can really afford to lift that cease-fire. His statement from the Mehdi army yesterday was to pass out the Quran, holy book of Islam, and olive brances to the police. He only said police, though, not the army. But the cease-fire doesn't seem to be intact. The Green Zone has been coming under heavy, heavy mortar fire for three days now. Three US citizens, government workers, were injured seriously today. And throughout the capitol, police have abandoned their checkpoints inside the Mehdi army controlled neighborhoods and they're now only on the main roads now. There have been attacks on police checkpoints, on Badr offices which is the military wing of the Supreme Council the biggest Shia of rival of the Sadrists in Iraq. In Basra, they're reacting fiercely and fighting hard and so watching what's happening on the ground doesn't seem to be a cease-fire. Although the military, the US military, is trying to say this is only special groups, splinter groups, from Moqtada al-Sadr's movement which doesn't seem to be the case on the ground.

Diane Rehm: Well Leila, final question for you. How much of the drop in violence during this US troop surge can be attributed to Moqtada al-Sadr's cease fire?

Leila Fadel: I think a lot of the drop in violence can be attributed to the cease-fire.

At that point, Fadel's call was lost (actually during "cease"). Fadel filed a report today noting that, "U.S. forces joined Iraqi troops in Baghdad to fight Mahdi Army militants, and police said that at least 20 people had been killed in the Sadr city neighborhood, a stronghold for Sadr's backers. . . . In Baghdad, Mahdi Army-dominated neighborhoods remained sealed off, angering residents who couldn't open their businesses, get to hospitals or send their children to school. In the south the fighting spread to Kut as Maliki sent more forces from Karbala to supplement the 15,000 troops he already had. U.S. air support attacked targets on major roadways and the homes of suspected weapons smugglers, said Abdel Kareem Khalaf, a spokesman for the Ministry Interior." Sam Daghr (Christian Science Monitor) echoes Fadel's observations on Baghdad being shut down ("Buses stopped running and shops closed") and writes, "Residents and Mahdi Army militans alike appeared to be bracing for a coming battle, guarding against US and Iraqi forces advancing to stop the rockets allegedly fired from Sadr City that hit the Green Zone again Wednesday for the third day since Saturday." Alexandra Zavis and Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) note that not only has the violence spread elsewhere in Iraq, so have the demonstrations. Leila Fadel and Ali al Basri (McClatchy Newspapers) describe a popular chant in Najaf yesterday: "Oh Nouri, you coward. You spy of the Americans." In Basra, Atul Aneja (The Hindu) explains, "the Mahdi Army has now apparently established control over the main road from the town of Amara to Basra, allowing it to cut off military supplies for the government troops which pass through this way. Fearing an attack from the Mahdi Army, members of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) and the Da'wa Party have fled their headquarters in the city. The ISCI is led by the Shia cleric Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim, while Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki heads Da'wa." Zavis and Parker cite analysts describing the Basra conflict as a struggle for political power, note the upcoming provincial elections (October 2008) and how Da'wa and ISCI have failed to deliver anything to mos Iraqis. Ben Lando (UPI) quotes Congressional Research Service's Kenneth Katzman who says the battle "was planned a month ago" by the central government in Baghdad and that what is going is "an internal Shiite war for who is going to represent the Shiite community in Iraq." On the first hour of today's The Diane Rehm Show, of the US Institute of Peace and the James Baaker circle-jerk, expressed surprised that Mosul was not the focus, couldn't imagine why Basra was where Iraqi and US forces were moving and made it clear that he didn't believe the US military initiated the action. Fadel and al Basri explain that "Maliki is taking a major political risk in attemptin gto recover Basra, which was virtually handed over to militias when the British military withdrew late last year. The risk was heightened by his presence at the start of the operation. His critics were quick to portray his decision as a political gunpoint." AFP describes the events this way, "The city has become the theatre of a bitter turf war between the Mahdi Army and two rival Shiite factions -- the powerful Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council (SIIC) of Abdel Aziz al-Hakim and the smaller Fadhila party -- ahead of provincial elections in October. The three factions are fighting to control the uge oil revenues generated by the city, seen as the economic nerve centre of the country."

Focusing on some of today's reported violence . . .


Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that in addition to the mortar attack Fadel noted above (that wounded three US 'officials') the Green Zone was hit with six more mortar shells while another hit outside and killed 1 person and left six more wounded, a Baghdad bombing left two people wounded, a mortar attack in Baghdad's Karrada neighborhood claimed 3 lives and left fifteen more people wounded, another 3 were killed in a southeast Baghdad mortar attack that also left twelve wounded, a downtown Baghdad mortar attack claimed 2 lives and left five more people wounded, an east Baghdad mortar attack left four people injured, a Baghdad bombing left three people wounded, a Basra rocket attack killed 4 police officers, a Basra mortar attack on "the detainees affairs department" left seven prisoners injured, 60 dead in Babil as a result of US helicopters that "bombed the neighborhoods" and another US air strike claimed 8 lives "including Judge Munaf al Azawi a court judge and his two sons, two women, a child and a man". Reuters notes a US air strike in Hilla which led to dthe deaths of 11 people and eighteen wounded (at least, on both figures).

Shootings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports armed clashes in Sadr City between residents and US (and presumably Iraqi) forces resulted in 20 civilians dead and 115 wounded, the Mahdi army shot dead eleven people in downtown Baghdad in a half hour this morning,

Corpses?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad, in Tikrit the corpse of Mohammed Shakir Mahmou was turned over (he "died after being tortured by a US sponsored militia"),

Today the US military announced: "A Mulit-National Division -- Baghdad Soldier was killed by hostile fire in eastern Baghdad at approximately 4:30 p.m. March 26." And they announced: "A Multi-National Division -- Baghdad Soldier was killed during a small-arms fire attack at approximately 12:35 p.m. March 26 while conducting a combat patrol. After being shot, the Soldier was medically evacuated to a Coalition forces combat support hospital, where he succumbed to his wounds." The current total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war is 4003. The UK Ministry of Defence announced: "It is with deep regret that the Ministry of Defence must confirm the death of a British soldier in Iraq today, 26 March 2008. The soldier died as a result of gunshot wounds sustained during a firefight in the early hours of this morning." Thomas Harding (Telegraph of London) explains that the death took place "during a covert operation" somewhere in Baghdad and "It is believed the trooper from 22 Special Air Service Regiment was part of a troop of Special Forces who were carrying out the raid . . . A firefight broke out as the soldiers broke into the location and the soldier, who was wearing body armour, was killed in the exchange of gunfire.". The total number of UK forces killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war stands at 176.

Turning to US campaign politics. Today Barack Obama, of all people, had the nerve to toss out Iraq as his latest excuse to hide behind. Before we get there, Barack has been hiding out in the Virgin Islands (see Wally, Cedric, Rebecca, Wally and Cedric again and Mike). Taking a page from the 'successful' John Kerry 2004 presidential campaign, Obama decided hiding out in the Virgin Islands was the perfect way to address the Jeremiah Wright controversy that is not going away. Jeremiah Wright would be Barack's friend, mentor, pastor, and just about everything but helpmate -- for over 20 years. Hiding out in the Virigin Islands does you little good when Wright can't stop making the news. Specifically Anna M. Tinsley (Fort Worth Star-Telegram) reports on TCU (Texas Christian University) deciding that Jeremiah Wright -- who used his pulpit to damn the United States -- wasn't appearing on their campus. Fredreka Schouten (USA Today) reports that a Tampa, Florida church has also cancelled a schedule appearance (and, no, it wasn't due to 'security'). AP reports that THREE Houston churchs have cancelled appearances by Wright scheduled to take place this Sunday. The issue is what USA Today notes as "God d—- America for treating our citizens as far less than human." Wright damned America. It offended many.

But Obama ignored it last week and the press ran with the distraction. He refused to address specifically the offensive remark in last week's nearly 5,000 word speech. It should have been addressed. Instead we got nonsense. Lots and lots of nonsense. And drooling in the media (mainly White) because that speech wasn't about race. In fact, I keep waiting for someone to point out the most offensive aspect of Barack's speech. He wanted to take it to historical oppression and go back to what he dubbed "original sin" in the region we call the US today. Well gee, Bambi, long before anyone, ANYONE, sailed over by choice or force, Native Americans populated this region so if you're going to talk about "originial" anything, trying getting your facts right. Or try being inclusive -- Liang offered her response to that bad speech here. But as Ava and I noted, the MSM is never going to be honest about race and Panhandle Media has made sure to convey that they too only see race in two shades: Black and White. It's amazing to hear all the gushers gushing over a speech that ignored race in the US so completely. But the speech was never supposed to be about race. It was supposed to distract Americans -- that is who will be voting in the presidential election in November -- from the fact that Barack Obama believes it is perfectly okay to belong to a church whose pastor uses the pulpit to damn the United States -- to damn the country Barack Obama says he can represent, says he wants to represent, says he can defend. Defend or damn? That's the question on many minds.

Today AP reports that Bambi showed up in North Carolina to claim that Wright's comments were nothing but "a half-minute sound clip" -- that's all they were? -- and that "We cannot solve the problems of America if everytime somebody somewhere does something sutpid, that everybody gets up in arms and forgets about the war in Iraq and we forget about the economy." Uh, excuse me, Barack Obama, but who forgot the illegal war. That would be you. That would be you who told Elaine and I, when you were running for the US Senate and begging for money, that the US was in Iraq now and so the troops had to stay to win. And, sure enough, when you made it into the US Senate, you didn't do a thing to end the illegal war. And in your campaign, you haven't done a thing. In fact, Samantha Power -- your then foreign advisor -- revealed to the world -- via BBC -- that you didn't mean a word you were saying about "combat troops out in 16 months" which you lie in your speeches and reduce to "We want to end the war now!" That's the extent you offer on Iraq -- a bumper sticker. Now you spoke for nearly 5,000 words last week. Yes, you appear to have cribbed my points and words (and, no, you did not have permission) but it was a bad, bad speech. And the reality is, you haven't even tried to speak like that about Iraq. So don't blame the fact that your pastor of 20 years, in the church you made your home, damned the United States for the fact that you won't address the Iraq War. The president of the United States is expected to defend the US. But when Wright damned the US, you didn't leave the church. You still haven't called him out on it or distanced yourself from his remarks damning the US. You want to be the leader of the US and America's not even sure you can be counted onto verbally defend the US because Wright damned the country and you did nothing.

As Craig Unger (Vanity Fair) points out, should Barack get the Democratic Party nomination (he means presidential, but apply it to the v.p. slot as well), the "Wright scandal" is not going away and "you can bet that it will be an issue in the general election". Yesterday, Hillary Clinton was asked about the issue in an newspaper editorial meeting and again at a press conference. CNN reports:Speaking to reporters Tuesday, Clinton referenced a speech she gave nearly a year ago after talk-radio host Don Imus' controversial remarks about the Rutgers women's basketball team. "I said it was time for standing up for what is right, for saying enough is enough, for urging that we turn a culture of degradation into a culture of empowerment, for saying that while we of course must protect our right of free expression, it should not be used as a license or an excuse to demean or humiliate our fellow citizens. Sen. Obama spoke eloquently at that time as well," she said. "Everyone will have to decide these matters for themselves. They were obviously very personal matters," Clinton added. "But I was asked what I would do if he was my pastor and I said I think the choice would be clear for me."

No she would not have stayed and no one running for president should have stayed with that church. This isn't minor. This has nothing to do with race. It has to do with the character required to be president. Barack Obama can agree with many of Wright's points regarding racism (I happen to) but when it comes to the issue of damning the United States and doing so from the front of the church, a pastor using all his presumed power/pull with God to damn the United States, there are serious problems and serious questions and last week's speech was the distraction from that issue. But the issue is not going away. USA Today cites Obama flack Bill Burton declaring that Hillary -- responding to direct questions -- is offering a "transparent attempt to distract attention." No, Burton, she was answering a question. The transparent attempt to distract was sending Barack off to the Virgin Islands to lay low and hope the outrage died down. As the cancelled appearances for Wright suggest, it has not died down. Now Barack's showing up in North Carolina to claim that anyone raising the issue is preventing talk about Iraq. No, that's not preventing talk about Iraq and Mr. Pretty Words offered nothing but bumper stickers for months and months when no one was talking about Iraq. He may think Americans are that stupid but that's not the case. The only stupidity is a campaign that's refused to address an issue that won't die down. And, again, shouldn't. The people of the United States have a right to expect that someone running for president will defend the country. Barack Obama has yet to prove that defending the US is a concern for him.

While Barack pretends that he could address Iraq if only pesky Americans would stop focusing on questions his own actions raise, Senator Hillary Clinton underscored the differences between herself and Senator John McCain on Iraq:

While there is much to praise in Senator McCain's speech, he and I continue to have a fundamental disagreement on Iraq. Like President Bush, Senator McCain continues to oppose a swift and responsible withdrawal from Iraq. Like President Bush, Senator McCain discounts the warnings of our senior military leadership of the consequences of the Iraq war on the readiness of our armed forces, and on the need to focus on the forgotten front line in Afghanistan. Like President Bush, Senator McCain wants to keep us tied to another country's civil war, and said "it would be fine with me" if U.S. troops were in Iraq for 50 or even 100 years. That in a nutshell is the Bush/McCain Iraq policy.

Just Embellished Words: Senator Obama's Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements
Once again, the Obama campaign is getting caught saying one thing while doing another. They are personally attacking Hillary even though Sen. Obama has been found mispeaking and embellishing facts about himself more than ten times in recent months. Senator Obama’s campaign is based on words –not a record of deeds – and if those words aren’t backed up by facts, there’s not much else left.
"Senator Obama has called himself a constitutional professor, claimed credit for passing legislation that never left committee, and apparently inflated his role as a community organizer among other issues. When it comes to his record, just words won't do. Senator Obama will have to use facts as well," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said.
Sen. Obama consistently and falsely claims that he was a law professor. The Sun-Times reported that, "Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." In academia, there's a significant difference: professors have tenure while lecturers do not. [Hotline Blog, 4/9/07; Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/04]
Obama claimed credit for nuclear leak legislation that never passed. "Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was 'the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.' 'I just did that last year,' he said, to murmurs of approval. A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks. Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama’s comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate." [New York Times, 2/2/08]
Obama misspoke about his being conceived because of Selma. "Mr. Obama relayed a story of how his Kenyan father and his Kansan mother fell in love because of the tumult of Selma, but he was born in 1961, four years before the confrontation at Selma took place. When asked later, Mr. Obama clarified himself, saying: 'I meant the whole civil rights movement.'" [New York Times, 3/5/07]
LA Times: Fellow organizers say Sen. Obama took too much credit for his community organizing efforts. "As the 24-year-old mentor to public housing residents, Obama says he initiated and led efforts that thrust Altgeld's asbestos problem into the headlines, pushing city officials to call hearings and a reluctant housing authority to start a cleanup. But others tell the story much differently. They say Obama did not play the singular role in the asbestos episode that he portrays in the best-selling memoir 'Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.' Credit for pushing officials to deal with the cancer-causing substance, according to interviews and news accounts from that period, also goes to a well-known preexisting group at Altgeld Gardens and to a local newspaper called the Chicago Reporter. Obama does not mention either one in his book." [Los Angeles Times, 2/19/07]
Chicago Tribune: Obama's assertion that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing 'strains credulity.' "…Obama has been too self-exculpatory. His assertion in network TV interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity: Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004 -- more than a year before the adjacent home and property purchases by the Obamas and the Rezkos." [Chicago Tribune editorial, 1/27/08]
Obama was forced to revise his assertion that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House.' "White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was forced to revise a critical stump line of his on Saturday -- a flat declaration that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House' after it turned out his own written plan says they could, with some restrictions… After being challenged on the accuracy of what he has been saying -- in contrast to his written pledge -- at a news conference Saturday in Waterloo, Obama immediately softened what had been his hard line in his next stump speech." [Chicago Sun-Times, 12/16/07]
FactCheck.org: 'Selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers pump up Obama's health plan.' "Obama's ad touting his health care plan quotes phrases from newspaper articles and an editorial, but makes them sound more laudatory and authoritative than they actually are. It attributes to The Washington Post a line saying Obama's plan would save families about $2,500. But the Post was citing the estimate of the Obama campaign and didn't analyze the purported savings independently. It claims that "experts" say Obama's plan is "the best." "Experts" turn out to be editorial writers at the Iowa City Press-Citizen – who, for all their talents, aren't actual experts in the field. It quotes yet another newspaper saying Obama's plan "guarantees coverage for all Americans," neglecting to mention that, as the article makes clear, it's only Clinton's and Edwards' plans that would require coverage for everyone, while Obama's would allow individuals to buy in if they wanted to.” [FactCheck.org, 1/3/08]
Sen. Obama said 'I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage,' but Obama health care legislation merely set up a task force. "As a state senator, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to pass legislation insuring 20,000 more children. And 65,000 more adults received health care…And I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage." The State Journal-Register reported in 2004 that "The [Illinois State] Senate squeaked out a controversial bill along party lines Wednesday to create a task force to study health-care reform in Illinois. […] In its original form, the bill required the state to offer universal health care by 2007. That put a 'cloud' over the legislation, said Sen. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon. Under the latest version, the 29-member task force would hold at least five public hearings next year." [Obama Health Care speech, 5/29/07; State Journal-Register, 5/20/04]
ABC News: 'Obama…seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he made' on ethics reform. "ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: During Monday's Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he has made on disclosure of "bundlers," those individuals who aggregate their influence with the candidate they support by collecting $2,300 checks from a wide network of wealthy friends and associates. When former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel alleged that Obama had 134 bundlers, Obama responded by telling Gravel that the reason he knows how many bundlers he has raising money for him is "because I helped push through a law this past session to disclose that." Earlier this year, Obama sponsored an amendment [sic] in the Senate requiring lobbyists to disclose the candidates for whom they bundle. Obama's amendment would not, however, require candidates to release the names of their bundlers. What's more, although Obama's amendment was agreed to in the Senate by unanimous consent, the measure never became law as Obama seemed to suggest. Gravel and the rest of the public know how many bundlers Obama has not because of a 'law' that the Illinois Democrat has 'pushed through' but because Obama voluntarily discloses that information." [ABC News, a=href"http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/obama-exaggerat.html">7/23/07]
Obama drastically overstated Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance. "When Sen. Barack Obama exaggerated the death toll of the tornado in Greensburg, Kan, during his visit to Richmond yesterday, The Associated Press headline rapidly evolved from 'Obama visits former Confederate capital for fundraiser’ to ‘Obama rips Bush on Iraq war at Richmond fundraiser' to 'Weary Obama criticizes Bush on Iraq, drastically overstates Kansas tornado death toll' to 'Obama drastically overstates Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance.' Drudge made it a banner, ensuring no reporter would miss it." [politico.com, 5/9/07]

so that's hillary and politics and now for my talking entry.

you know people don't have time to deal with all the nonsense.

i was talking to martha and asking her about the junk c.i. receives and she pointed out all these failed candidates from the last election wanting this or that highlighted and how c.i. ignores them but they don't away.

(these aren't greens. if they were greens, they'd be highlighted if only because greens get so little attention.)

then you've got these various groups that have never been highlighted but always want to be.
so they junk up the public account.

you've got the loud republicans who want to argue that the illegal was is a rainbow and a ray of sunshine.

martha's 1 of the many working the public account of the common ills. she's been doing that forever and has seen it all.

but even she was shocked on monday when an e-mail came in.

most of us got it. (elaine smartly blocked the idiot last week.)

why would you send c.i. a 19k e-mail? better question, why would you send the same e-mail to the rest of us?

do you just not get it?

winter soldier is something we all covered. there was 1 panel we did not like.

'Negative Critisicm of Winter Soldiers Investigatio...' was the article we all wrote for 3rd not last weekend but the 1 before.

now you didn't see that heavily promoted. it's nothing that on the following monday we all went out of our way to highlight. but it was our opinion of that bad panel - our opinion that we held our tongues on.

it was a bad panel. 1 speaker likened sexual attraction to sexual assault.

now right there even an idiot should grasp you have a problem.

an adult woman going into a nightclub where drinks are served and getting the tingles from a 'big strong guy' she doesn't even speak to at the club, she doesn't leave with, she never does anything but see him, is not a sexual assault.

i'm really sorry that some people are too stupid to grasp that.

we wrote the article only after c.i.'s cell started running with complaints about that panel. in a 'am i the only 1 bothered by that?' way. c.i. had said 'no' to the article before the calls but after agreed.

so we wrote that 1 article. out of all the panels of winter soldier, we only disliked 1.

we all covered winter soldier. at all community sites. and we intended to continue to cover it.

but last week (i think tuesday) a lobbying effort by an idiot went on.

she started e-mailing individual sites to change minds.

she said 'wet panty response' (or 'damp panty response,' i'd have to go back and read it - and i have a life unlike the idiot) wasn't 'feminist.'

yeah, it was.

and it was funny.

and tough on you if you didn't like it. it perfectly captured that 1 speaker.

we didn't like the panel. you'd think it would be an 'oh well' on the part of this 1 person but instead she decides to do a lobbying effort.

the effect was that nearly all sites, offended by her tactics, stopped covering winter soldier last week.

c.i. continued to cover it (and covers it again in today's snapshot). but the bulk of the rest of us took the attitude of 'i'm not wasting my time.'

something like 40 pieces were written community ride covering winter soldier and this 1 person can't stand it that 1 was critical.

here's who wrote the article she's so displeased with:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
and Marcia SICKOFITRDLZ.


we addressed this sunday at 3rd in 'Roundtable.' we're very clear that we're done with the idiot. we're very clear that she soured us with her underhanded efforts and that we've all moved on to other things.

in the same edition, c.i. and ava's 'TV: Broadcasting False Narratives' worked in winter soldier.

and, again, c.i. has continued to cover it (although i believe today was the last day of coverage). long after every 1 moved on, c.i. continued to ignore the idiot and just focus on winter soldier.

but now she's back again with a 19k e-mail that every 1's getting. and at what point does she buy a clue?

winter soldier was about exposing abuses. whether it was contractors, healthcare or things on the ground in iraq and afghanistan, it was about exposing abuses.

saturday morning's panel told you that it was no problem to be gay in the military (for the only gay speaker) and it told you about 'bad' drivers in the '3rd world' and i'm really not sure what that had to do with homophobia or sexaul assaults.

but i do know that barack obama is not a veteran of either war and i do know it wasn't supposed to be a partisan action. but damp panties praised bambi (and did it saturday night in more coded language). and, of course, damp panties compared her being turned on by a man she never even spoke to (or did anything else with) to sexual assault.

and damp panties wanted you to know that when 2 people in the military sleep together and break regulations, the whole company suffers! considering that any time 2 men or 2 women are sleeping together, it's breaking military regulations, i'm not sure that any 1 cares that some were 'scandalized' by an affair - an apparently consensual affair.

we were never going to agree that sexual assault was the same as sexual attraction and the reason is that we are feminists. that's all of us. not just the women but it certainly was 'kind' of the idiot to show up questioning our feminist credentials.

i'm not really sure what the idiot wants at this point. i'm not reading a 19k e-mail and no 1 else is either.

but she just won't let it go.

we're not covering it. except for c.i., we've all moved on to other things. (and the idiot is the reason for that.) i was actually thinking about writing about the panel c.i. covered yesterday and today in the snapshots because i didn't know it wasn't broadcast. a friend of c.i.'s gave us copies of that and i do have a copy and enjoyed that panel. but then the idiot shows back up with a 19k e-mail.

and the attitude is really, 'just go away.'

we don't work for you.

we covered winter soldier, we're done.

instead of writing us a 19k e-mail that you send out repeatedly, how about you use your keyboard activity to write about the panel yourself? if you do, we're not linking to it.

tough.

that's the way it is. and that's true of even the kindest of us all, c.i.

c.i.'s career is based on the gut. if something doesn't feel right going in, c.i. wouldn't do it. c.i. never signed anything until the last possible minute because (this is more or a less a quote) 'the damage that's done lasts forever. i'm not afraid of the unknown but i won't go into a situation that i know is going to be bad.'

that wasn't 1 month or 1 year. that's how c.i. agreed to all job offers. (c.i. hasn't worked since the illegal war started. it's been all about speaking out against the war.) if it feels bad, get away from it.

when i went out to california and did entertainment p.r., c.i. would tell me over and over, 'rebecca, drop __.' i wouldn't listen in the early days. partly because i was afraid of not getting work. (another c.i. 'law' - 'the power of no is sometimes all the power you have. never be afraid to utilize it. they always want what they can't have.') and i learned very quickly (and i had done corporation p.r., big business, for years before moving into entertainment) that it really does take forever to get over a bad experience. every 1 knows you worked on whatever, it's your credit, just to be polite, they'll bring it up and it's like reliving it all over again.

and that's a good approach to take. (and when i started using 'no,' i learned quickly that it doesn't end job offers and it actually makes you more in demand.) it's what c.i. does at 3rd all the time. if it's something c.i. can't go along with, c.i. won't. there's no budging on that. (ask jim, he'll tell you.) it doesn't have to be 'i love it!' but it has to at least be 'i can live with it.'

thanks to idiot, we all have a sense of doom and forboding. we're not ever getting on board for the idiot. the doors have been closed, like at the end of the godfather.

it's over.

there are too many bad vibes from it. there has been too much underhandedness about it. it broke existing protocol (we've never been lobbied individually for a piece at 3rd before).

and there's the point elaine and c.i. would be making (elaine has to make it alone because c.i.'s not talking about this) which is 'bad manners are not rewarded.'

if the woman wanted to have any impact, the 1st thing she should have done was, in some way, noted the fact that things were written about winter soldier. instead she wants to focus on 1 piece and convince us we were wrong and convince us to rewrite it to her satisfaction.

it's not happening.

we don't work for her.

i'm blogging tonight (and this is a blog, 3rd is an online mag) after i've nursed the baby, gotten the baby down and am very tired.

why the hell would you think i would want to write up something you tell me to write, the way you want it written, when it's nothing i enjoyed?

i don't work for you. you don't pay my bills. i have no idea where you get off thinking you can force people to change their minds. or ask to speak to ivaw members that complained about the panel - that especially pissed off c.i.

and c.i.'s pissed too. c.i.'s not saying anything publicly but we go back years and years and years. i know c.i. so when c.i. calls (as happened today) and asks, 'may i scream?' and i say, 'go for it!' and c.i. does, i know exactly what has set c.i. on edge.

c.i. had promised to cover winter soldier in every snapshot through monday. not knowing the idiot was going to show up again, thinking she was finally gone, c.i. noted yesterday that there was 1 more speaker that needed to be mentioned. c.i. covered it today. and i really think c.i. would honestly continue through the week with winter soldier in every snapshot.

but this idiot who won't go away has pissed off all of us.

we are not ivaw. we have never presented ourselves as ivaw.

if we write about something, we're required to be honest or what's the point?

we did not like 1 panel, only 1. it is not the end of the world.

but i know c.i. and if the idiot keeps e-mailing, c.i.'s going to reach the breaking point and offer up a blistering critique of that panel.

believe me, if the idiot thinks she's offended now, she doesn't know the half of it.

you don't want to piss off c.i. because when you piss off c.i., whatever's being avoided suddenly comes into focus and no 1 can analyze better than c.i. (remember, c.i.'s g.r.e. scores were off the chart in analytical, the top in the country, which is why the c.i.a. tried to recruit c.i. in college.) (if you're late to the party, c.i. didn't say 'no,' c.i. said 'hell no.') all the criticism you think offended you is nothing compared to what you will get if you keep pestering c.i.

you do not want c.i. going back and listening to that panel. c.i. won't just absorb the words, c.i. will absorb what's not being said, where the halt is, why the halt is there.

c.i. will pick up on every thing.

i can tell this story because elaine's told it before and i don't know any names so i'm not breaking any rules. but a guy at a teen facility was some 1 elaine knew well, they'd gone to college together and he was having a big problem. the state was coming in over this problem.

because this was a scheduled day (as we have today since we don't live in the same state), elaine had to either blow it off or take us along. we said, 'don't worry about, it'll be an adventure.'

so elaine's talking to the clinical director and agrees to speak to the patient.

we're waiting in the clinical director's office while elaine's doing an assessment.

the guy shows c.i. some drawings some patients have done. and then says, 'what do you think about this 1?'

c.i. looks at it and makes a generic comment about the drawing and starts to hand it back and then stops.

c.i. starts analyzing the drawing.

this is by a guy, c.i. explains, he feels he has pushed himself into a corner, notice the roof, he feels he can't be honest, he's accused some 1 of something, it didn't happen. whatever it was didn't happen. it was done to cover up ... it was sex. he had sex with another guy and he's claiming rape because he can't admit it. but ... he's had sex with other guys before. he's gay and he can't come out of the closet. this isn't the 1st time he's been institutionalized. at the last institution, he had sex with a guy ...

and while c.i.'s going through all of this, the clinical director is just ashen.

after, it would turn out that the drawing was by the guy elaine was assessing.

she came in and said she needed another session with him.

the clincial director starts telling her about c.i.'s interpretation of the drawing (which c.i.'s dismissing and saying 'i could be wrong') and elaine goes back in with the patient and the kid confesses that he wasn't raped and that it was consensual sex and many other things. (and that was told by the clincal director after the fact. elaine is very strict about what she tells and that is nothing unless she's asked to.)

the kid had sex with a guy and then freaked that others were going to find out, insisted it was rape and the state was coming in to launch an investigation and it was a very big deal.

he had a clincial director, he has his own psych team at the place. all it took was c.i. staring at the drawing for a few seconds, starting to hand it off and then just interpreting the whole thing.

point. if anyone shaded or wasn't fully forthcoming on that panel, you don't want c.i. listening to it again. you don't want c.i. going back to that to analyze it.

i've observed c.i., many, many times, very tired and just not in the mood for some 1 who hems and haws around the problem for over an hour. when c.i.'s bored beyond belief, it will be 'you were molested' or 'you did __' or whatever. and the person will just be stunned. and i'd heard the entire conversation and never caught on. (often, it's been people i know and i've actually heard the stories - over and over - before c.i. and still didn't know.) it's not just the words that are used, it's what's not used. it's where there's a stop, where the voice goes down or up, where there's a stumble. where the obvious follow up is dropped.

i used to kid c.i., back in college, about being psychic. it's not psychic. it's being a natural listener and grasping the importance of what's said and what isn't. you do not want c.i. turning that keen insight onto that panel, trust me.


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

March 25, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, the cease-fire/true appears off, spying on journalists and NGOs and more.

Starting with war resisters and returning to something from last week, James Burmeister.
Courage to Resist reported that "Burmeister recently returned from Canada and turned himself in to the Army at Fort Knox, Kentucky on March 4. In May 2007, James refused redeployment to Iraq. He lived in Canada for the last ten months with the help of the War Resisters Support Campaign. James' father Erich Burmeister of Eugene, Oregon believes that the Army is getting ready to prosecute James. He is asking people to call the Fort Knox Public Affairs office at 502-624-7451 and let them know you are concerned about PFC James Burmeister." Burmeister returned to the United States, many still remain in Canada.

For those in Canada, the nation's Parliament remains the best hope for safe harbor war resisters have, you can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. That is the sort of thing that should receive attention but instead it's ignored. We will note war resisters in Canada tomorrow. There is not time today, my apologies.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum. Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

Turning to Iraq. In August, Moqtada al-Sadr declared a cease-fire truce with the US and the puppet government of Baghdad which is widely credited as part of the 'success' of the escalation. In February, he extended the cease-fire/true. Leila Fadel and Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) reports, "A cease-fire critical to the improved security situation in Iraq appeared to unravel Monday when a militia loyal to radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al Sadr began shutting down neighborhoods in west Baghdad and issuing demands of the central government. Simultaneously, in the strategic southern port city of Basra, where Sadr's Mahdi militia is in control, the Iraqi government launched a crackdown in the face of warnings by Sadr's followers that they'll fight government forces if any Sadrists are detained. By 1 a.m. Arab satellite news channels reported clashes between the Mahdi Army and police in Basra." Ned Parker and Saif Hameed (Los Angeles Times) add these details: "The capital witnessed its own friction between Shiite factions Monday as the Sadr movement organized protests in west Baghdad. Leaders from Sadr's movement vowed to mount daily protests until the Shiite-run Iraqi government stops targeting its members in raids, releases detainees and apologizes for the conduct of security force members. They accused the government of trying to weaken Sadr's organization ahead of provincial elections scheduled for October." Those descriptions were of yesterday. Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) reports,
"Fighting broke out Tuesday on the streets of Sadr City . . . and the Mahdi Army militia announced it had taken over Iraqi army checkpoints in an escalation of tension with Iraqi government security forces. The sound of gunfire could be heard in Sadr City throughout the morning and Mahdi Army members walked down the streets carrying rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers and other weapons in what appeared to be a show of force, accodring to two witnesses." AFP reports that fighting was ongoing in Baghdad, Basra, Kut and Hilla with the clash between Sadr's forces and the US in Baghdad being "the first time since last October". Atul Aneja (The Hindu) explains, "The Iraqi government's decision to establish its hold over the oil city of Basra dominated by Shia armed militias has sparked heavy fighting there" and that "field commanders of the Mahdi army in Najaf ordered to the militia 'to strike the occupiers' and their Iraqi allies." Robin Stringer (Bloomberg News) notes 18 dead and forty wounded from the Basra fighting alone and threats that the actions will go "nationwide."

The southern port of Basra was shut down, Leila Fadel and Ali al Basri (McClatchy Newspapers) report, while citizens of the area "cowered in their homes as Mahdi Army militiamen and Iraqi security forces battled" and a college student on the outskirts of the city saw the corpses of two members of Mahdi Army and one child. PBS' NewsHour quotes Um Hussein who was caught by suprise by the outbreak and she states, "It is a difficult situation. Not many shops or grocery stores are open since the curfew and since the fighting began. We have not stored households items at all." Sam Dagher (Christian Science Monitor) adds "US air power" to the battle. Alex Kingsbury (US News and World Reports) sees the current clashes as an indication of a power struggle for control of more than Basra -- control of Iraq -- and offers, "There are indications that the United States is, to some extent, choosing sides in the inter-Shiite power struggle. When Vice President Dick Cheney made a visit to Baghdad earlier this month, his one foray outside the heavily fortified Green Zone was to visit Hakim's office in Baghdad. Hakim also traveled to the White House and met with President Bush in December 2006." Hakim is Abdul Aziz al-Hakim whose political party (Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council) is the largest. Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) points out, "Sadr loyalists accuse his Shiite rivals in the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and Maliki's Islamic Dawa party of using the Iraqi army and police to round up the cleric's followers ahead of the Oct. 1 elections." This believe is noted by Reuters as well, "Sadrists say the truce has been abused by US and Iraqi forces to make indiscriminate arrests ahead of provincial elecitons due in October, but the US military says it only targets 'rogue' members who have ignored the ceasefire." Paul Wood (BBC) maintains that it is Iraqi military and US military against Sadrists because the British are sitting it out, "saying the Iraqi army is demonstrating it is capable of acting on its own" and also states "Moqtada Sadr believes his hundreds of thousands of followers, many of them armed, will eventually deliver power into his hands." CNN puts the Basra dead at "at least 50 . . . and 150 others were wounded, an official with Basra's Provincial Council said" and notes Sadrists are credited with taking "down part of a bridge in nothern Basra" via bombings today. Leila Fadel and Ali al Basri (McClatchy Newspapers) report al-Sadr has "ordered his followers to remain calm and said they should give copies of the Quran and olive branches to the police."
In some of today's other reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and left eight people wounded, a mortar attack on the Green Zone, a mortar or rocket attack on the Green Zone and a Baghdad mortar attack that wounded two police officer, a Najaf rocket attack on "the technical institute that the American forces". Reuters notes that "[a]t least three people were wounded" from the Green Zone attacks

Shootings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports "the director of forensic medicine in Mosul" was shot dead and three Iraqi soldiers were wounded in a shooting attack on "the house of Babil province governor in Hilla". Reuters notes a Mosul morgue worker was shot dead in front of his Mosul home.

Kidnappings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 6 police officers were kidnapped in Baghdad. Reuters notes, "Gunmen abducted the son of an official of the journalists' union, Ghanim Ismail, outside his house in eastern Mosul".

Corpses?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 5 corpses discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 6 corpses discovered in Mosul.

Meanwhile today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division -- Big Baghdad Soldier was killed by a hostile fire attack at approximately 5 p.m. March 25 while conducting combat operations." The death brings the current total of US service members killed in Iraq during the illegal war to 4001. Karen DeYoung and Michael Abramowitz (Washington Post) note Bully Boy declared at the US State Department yesterday that his illegal war of choice "will merit the sacrifice" of others. The Post's Richard Cohen observed of the 4,000 mark, "This week we reached the mark of 4,000 American dead in Iraq. It is a sad milestone in a grinding war that can never be won and is already lost in so many ways."

Returning to Iraq Veterans Against the War's Winter Soldier for the panel Saturday night entitled The Cost of the War at Home. Unlike what John Stauber has rightly called the "corporatist peace movement," the various costs were addressed on the panel. Yesterday's snapshot noted Military Families Speak Out's Nancy Lessin (and Charley Richardson) noted the costs to families both while their loved ones were serving and upon return which included emotional costs, time lost and much, much more including the cost of care not being provided by the VA and a veteran making the decision to end his or her life; Brooks Sunket addresing the costs of Iraqis attempting to unionize in the allegedly 'free' Iraq; Fernando Suarez del Solar and Carolos Arredonod spoke movingly and passionately about losing their sons -- Jesus Alberto Suarez del Solar Navarro and Alexander Arredondo [his name was wrongly mixed up yesterday, my apologies] -- and how the loss is not a day or a month but an ongoing pain; and Catherine Lutz who addressed where the money goes (military spending). Veteran Adrienne Kinne also served on the panel and her testimony (like her testimony the day before) should have been amplified, should have been heard across the nation. Kinne spoke of serving before 9-11 and after in Military Intelligence.

Adrienne Kinne: I think that one of the costs of war at home is the cost to our freedom and our Constitution. In Military Intelligence there are specific guidelines and one of those specific guidelines is supposed to cover how we conduct ourselves is a guideline called USSID 18 which stands for United States Signals Instructive 18 -- which says that in an effort to uphold Americans Constitutional rights, Military Intelligence cannot collect on Americans. And to show the seriousness with which we took this directive in 1997 or thereabouts I intercepted a radio transmission of a Middle Eastern military entity which referenced the name of an American diplomat that was visiting the Middle East. Because an American's name was referenced we decided to delete every single record that that cut was ever collected It wasn't even directly collecting on American but just the reference And maybe that was something that we didn't necessarily have to do but we took our oath to not collect on Americans very seriously. And so we erased every single record that that cut ever took place. After 9-11 when I was again activated, I was again stationed at the same field site for the NSA in the States and I was assigned not to collect radio transmission of Middle Eastern military entities but Inmarsat satellite phone calls from Iraq, Afghanistan and a huge swath of that region And initially all the cuts -- this is a brand new system Why they put 20 reservists in charge of it, I will never know. With virtually no oversight whats over, which was another problem. But, in the beginning, we were getting all of these cuts which were unidentified -- it was a brand new system, it was just, we had a front end out there that was collecting all these satellite phone conversations, sending it back to the United States and we would go through and just listen, randomly, through all of these identified cuts just kind of like fishing for whatever we could find. And as time passed, I saw in this computer system, you could -- once you identified the telephone number, who it belongs to -- you can actually program the computer to come up with a name of whatever group belongs to it and the priority for whatever priority the cut is. So for instance "priority one" would have been a terrorist affiliated organization. As time passed, I saw our que not fill up so much with anything that had to do with terrorism but, um, humanitarian aid organizations, NGOs and even to include journalists. And this was not by any means the majority of the cuts we collected but even after we knew that it was the International Red Cross/Red Crescent rather than block their phone number, which we could have done, we continued to collect. And these are the two reasons we were given that allowed us to collect on these organizations. One was that these people were eyes on the ground and as they were going through Iraq they might happen upon weapons of mass destruction and give their location. So we could monitor them in case they ever referenced the location of WMDs. The other reason was that they could potentially, the organization could potentially lose their phone and it could be picked up by a terrorist and they would start using it. So we had to make sure that no terrorist ever secured the phone of another organization and then started using it and we had to maintain coverage on those phone numbers just in case. And this kind of came to a head for me in probably sometime in the beginning to middle of 2002 when I was listening to a conversation between a British aid worker and an American aid worker in the area And they weren't talking about anything of particular relevance. They were talking about whatever was going on in their office. It was so irrelevant that I can't really remember what the conversation was about. But what I do remember is that the British aid worker said to the American, "You know you really should be careful what you say on the phone because the Americans are listening." And the American, rightly thinking that he was protected from being monitored by our government said, "No they can't collect against me because I am an American citizen and I'm protected by USSID 18." And when he referenced USSID 18 I don't know why but that just kind of because that's Military Intelligence lingo, I thought that that might be of some relevance. Either the person was prior military which is probably very likely and was familiar with what was going on or come to find out most aid workers working outside of our country know about USSID 18 because they know their USSID 18 rights are being violated all the time by our government. I drew that cut to the attention of my officer in charge and he relayed it to the watch office and everybody actually got into a mini-uproar because this American referenced USSID 18 to a non-American. And they acted as if this American had just enacted some form of treason by referencing USSID 18 to a British -- an ally, supposedly, person. So shortly after that there was all this hubbub about whether or not we can collect on Americans, whether or not USSID 18 is even relevant anymore, whether or not we should be monitoring these NGOs. And they consulted -- whoever "they" is, I don't know. I was in my little spot where I was told I was a collector and I wasn't allowed to ask questions about anything. I couldn't analyze, I couldn't ask questions, my job was to collect and pass the information on. And it was shortly thereafter that we were told we were given a waiver that we could collect on Americans in the Middle East. And this included conversations that took place with people in the Middle East calling their family members in the United States. And we could hear both sides of the conversation but we were told that in order to protect the Americans in the United States we would just not report on their half of the conversation -- even though we were collecting it, even though we were listening to it, we would just not add that to the report. Why it matters where an American is in this world as to whether or not their rights are protected by our Constitution I do not know. But apparently, I've been kind of somewhat reviewing all the changes that are happening to Military Intelligence and FISA law, all of this is no longer just a matter of a verbal waiver, it's all legal. And that our government is using these occupations to destroy our Constitutional rights as Americans is, personally, I think, impeachable but in any reference criminal. I could kind of go through the different instances where I feel that information was collected which we could have very well known it was misinformation, we would pass it on anyway. But I think more importantly I just want to speak to the fact that it is not only our soldiers, marines, National Guard reservists, Air men and women, fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan that are supporting these wars. It is every single member of the military whether or not you are State side, whether or not you are abroad, whether or not you are intercepting transmissions in country. By serving in the military we are all supporting the occupations. And I really just think that's incredibly important for all of us to recognize because people always want to look and put so much on the shoulders of our veterans who have witnessed so much in Iraq and Afghanistan and act as if they're the only ones that have to bear the burden of ending these occupations. But I for one having served many years before 9-11and before Afghanistan and before Iraq am so sorry that through my service I in any way shape or form supported the initiation of wars which put you all in such horrible, horrible positions. And I just wanted to say one last thing that I think in many ways it's ironic -- and I may be using that word inappropriately or incorrectly -- that I served in the military for ten years and it's only been since joining Iraq Veterans Against the War that I feel like I've done anything good.

"Adrienne Kinne" is the spelling and an earlier snapshot may have another spelling ("Adrienne Kinee"). Though that panel isn't part of the archives, if you missed other Winter Soldier panels you can stream online at Iraq Veterans Against the War, at War Comes Home, at KPFK, at the Pacifica Radio homepage and at KPFA, here for Friday, here for Saturday, here for Sunday for other panels. Aimee Allison (co-host of the station's The Morning Show and co-author with David Solnit of Army Of None) and Aaron Glantz were the anchors for Pacifica's live coverage. We're going to stay with Kinne for her testimony on Friday March 14th at the panel on veterans healthcare. Kinne spoke of after leaving the military and pursuing her education further. She did some college internships at VA hospitals and then was an assistant on a research study. The study was on PTSD and TBI -- Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury. The group devised a way to screen for TBI, hammered down the details and were ready to proceed.

Adrienne Kinne: And then they went to go to the next step, to actually make this happen. And I was actually on a conference call when someone said, "Wait a second. We can't start this screening process. Do you know that if we start screening for TBI there will be tens of thousands of soldiers who will screen positive and we do not have the resources available that would allow us to take care of these people so we cannot do the screening." And their rationale was that medically, medical ethics say if you know someone has a problem, you have to treat them. So since they didn't have the resources to treat them, they didn't want to know about the problem.

That is an important revelation and one that should have been carried throughout the media but the last half of the sentence really describes the 'healthcare' offered and how the government gets away with it: "they didn't want to know about the problem." That explains the Walter Reed Army Medical Center scandals as well as all the others. Last week Minnesota's The Free Press reported on Ryan Marti and two other members of the Minnesota National Guard who had deployed to Iraq met with US House Rep Tim Walz to discuss "the delays in the payments owed to them, about the uncertainty about when the next deployment might come and about the complexity and communication problems rampant in the Veterans Affairs system." As Minnesota's Austin Daily Herald notes, Waltz will be holding a forum for veterans at the Austin American Legion Post No. 91 this Friday starting at one in the afternoon.

As Ava and I noted, last week -- the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War, most 'news' and 'public affairs' programs either ignored Iraq or thought the way to address an ongoing, illegal war just completing it's fifth year was to again bore us all by going back to 2003 as if nothing happened since. One notable exception was last Friday, on PBS, Bill Moyers Journal explored the journey of Iraq veteran Tomas Young with Ellen Spiro and Phil Donahue who have made the documentary Body of War about his experiences. In a clip of their movie Young explains:

I called my recruiter on around September 13, 2001 when if you all can remember the president stood on the ruble with the bullhorn and said we were going to get the evildoers that did this. And, oh man, hold on a second . . . But I, and he led the rah rah around the country and got everybody really excited and I was excited. And I wanted to go to Afghanistan and get the people that did this to us. But, after I joined the Army it became clearer and clearer to me that we weren't going to go to Afghanistan. That we were going to go to Iraq. And more and more began to feel with statements like George Bush saying that he sought the approval of a higher father than his own and things like that, it really concerned me that President Bush was trying to use Jesus Christ as an advocate for the war.

Bill Moyers explained of Young, "And five days after arriving there [Iraq], he was shot in the chest and severely wounded. He was 24 years old at the time and will spend the rest of his life in a wheel chair." Tomas Young produced the soundtrack for Body of War and offers some thoughts on it at the Moyers blog. Remember Bill Moyers Journal is accessible to all with computer access -- you can read transcripts, stream audio or stream video and audio.


iraq
iraq veterans against the war
aimeee allisondavid solnit
aaron glantz
kpfa
leila fadel
mcclatchy newspapers
nancy a. youssef
the los angeles times
ned parker
alexandra zavis
gina chon
the washington post
richard cohen
karen deyoung
michael abramowitz

counterpunch is gone here and i'm glad. you will see no more of it this year. elaine made the decision to delink. she loved that newsletter, she even visited the website. she finally had her fill of all it's anti-woman crap. they really got that way when hillary declared and they have gotten worse and worse every day. elaine reached her saturation point when not only did little jeffy saint crap (who? yeah, no 1 knows who he is) spout paranoid fantasies passed off as fact (because the voices were speaking to him, 1 would guess) but he also praised the biggest pig in america. i'm not even going to mention that stooge's name. but i will note that he's not only sexist, he's racist. but, hey, what can you expect from the 'left' outlet that allows alexy burned-cock to explain that global warming is a lie, that it's all a big conspiracy put forth by the oil industry. he's nuts.

i don't generally highlight the new republic here. in fact, this may be a 1st. but they are correct. this is david greenberg's 'double negatives:'

The most compelling reason to stop the demonization of Clinton is a philosophical one. For the claim that Clinton's attacks are somehow beyond the pale rests on and revives a distressing view of liberalism, politics, and power that, only recently, liberals seemed quite united in overcoming.
With its emphasis on fairness, openness, and playing by the rules, liberalism has always fostered an ambivalence about the exercise of power. A well-placed concern not to let ends justify means has often led to a misplaced sacrifice of ends to means. Fears of power's abuse have often constrained its use. In the 1950s, when Adlai Stevenson carried the Democrats' standard, party chairman Stephen Mitchell argued that liberals had to respond to the underhanded tactics of men like Nixon in kind. In the opinion journals, he was rebutted. If won on such terms, asked William Lee Miller in The Reporter, "then whose is the victory?" In contrast, Miller argued, "if we stick by what we believe, we may not win as often, but when we do we shall know what the victory means." That's how Stevenson ran--and lost. Since the 1980s, Democrats have explained away defeats by arguing that Republicans won only by playing dirty--a rationalization that is both inaccurate and self-deluding.
Yet, in contrast to this "doughface" liberalism, as Arthur Schlesinger famously termed it, another liberal tradition also exists. Under Franklin Roosevelt, wrote Schlesinger, "American liberalism ... had a positive and confident ring. It has stood for responsibility and for achievement." FDR and the New Deal's lieutenants respected fair play and fair procedures, but they put results first. They understood that politics is, inherently, a field of combat, not for the faint-hearted.
John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Robert Kennedy--than whom no one was called "ruthless" more often--grasped the importance of confidently using power for progressive ends. They knew that vanquishing adversaries is essential to winning elections, implementing policies, and improving people's lives. No liberal should excuse the occasions when these men crossed inviolable lines, but none should forget either that the raft of legislation that Washington produced in the 1960s was not a product of chummy bipartisan committees and painless consensus-building.
One of the few bright spots of the Bush presidency was the rediscovery of this liberal tradition. The Florida recount fight, the post-September 11 patriotism politics, the rush to war in Iraq, and the swift-boating of John Kerry--all united liberals in disdain for the spinelessness of so many of their leaders. A hundred score op-eds demanded more Democratic mettle. The netroots gathered force not from any well-formed policy agenda but from a desire to fire up the base. E.J. Dionne Jr.'s 2004 book Stand Up, Fight Back: Republican Toughs, Democratic Wimps, and the Politics of Revenge was just the most pointedly titled of a shelf-load of tracts arguing for a liberalism that didn't regard an appetite for battle and a compassionate spirit as antithetical.
Recently, though, the Bush administration's implosion and the Democrats' capture of Congress eased the demand for a fighter. The launch of Obama's campaign, with its Stevensonian appeals to our better natures, dovetailed with a new--and complacent--optimism that the Democrats would regain the White House in 2008 all but inevitably. It's as if the angry populism from which Bush and the right have long drawn strength has vanished from the scene. And, while Obama has shown his own ability to fight fiercely, he has all along retained the posture of the reluctant warrior. Accordingly, he wins plaudits from an elite that clings to--or has reverted to--an ideal of bloodless political warfare. In contrast, when, last December, Clinton, after being pummeled for a month, announced, "Now the fun part starts"--heralding her plans to strike back--she was trashed for taking pleasure in the fisticuffs. The climate brooks no place for a happy warrior.

c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot' friday and third's 'There's only one fighter in the Democratic race' argued similar points.

meanwhile the we-will-have-unity-or-we-will-kill-you obama campaign is in the news. from cnn:

Sen. Hillary Clinton's aides blasted Sen. Barack Obama's campaign Monday after a major Obama supporter referenced the blue dress at the heart of former President Bill Clinton's impeachment scandal.
Gordon Fischer, a former chair of the Iowa Democratic Party and part of Obama's Iowa support team, also compared Bill Clinton unfavorably to Joe McCarthy.
McCarthy was a senator who was known for leveling accusations that people were Communists or spying for the Russians in the 1950s.
"When Joe McCarthy questioned others' patriotism, McCarthy (1) actually believed, at least aparently (sic), the questions were genuine, and (2) he did so in order to build up, not tear down, his own party, the GOP," Fischer, wrote on his blog.
"Bill Clinton cannot possibly seriously believe Obama is not a patriot, and cannot possibly be said to be helping -- instead he is hurting -- his own party. B. [Bill] Clinton should never be forgiven. Period. This is a stain on his legacy, much worse, much deeper, than the one on Monica's blue dress."

bill clinton wasn't even talking about obama. what bill clinton thinks, i have no idea. what do i think? obama's not patriotic. his pastor, his friend of 20 years, damns the united states in a church sermon and when the american people learn of that and are outraged, obama shows up last tuesday with a speech about race.

my offense then and now was over the damning of the u.s. i could care less that wright's stealing old critiques from better writers. i am troubled that he used his sermons to state aids is a disease created by the government to do away with a segment of the people (african-americans) because i don't support junk science. but barack gave his tuesday speech and made it all about race. he avoided stating what wright did, stating he did not agree, apologizing to america for going to a church where a pastor would damn it - for belonging to such a church.

cnn misses the point to, when they recap they leave that out.

so, no, i don't think obama is patriotic. he had nearly 5,000 words to toss out last tuesday and refused to address the issue. that indicates to me he either agrees or will stay silent - as he did for 20 years - and, no, i don't believe he's patriotic. it goes to michelle obama's ridiculous claim a month back that for the 1st time in her life she's proud of her country (and then only because her husband was running for president). put it together. wright was their pastor for over 20 years. neither obama is patriotic.

as for the mccarthyism nonsense, the campaign's just angry because the super delegates have caught on that some of their loudest supporters in writing are closeted communists. c.i. addressed it last night. too bad. tell the hack writers to stop attacking hillary. tell them to focus on their 'psuedo events' and that if they want to endorse bambi, don't pretend to be democrats.
the communists in 'independent' media are not democrats (not every 1 in 'independent' media is a communist, most aren't) but they've posed as democrats and super delegates have caught on and are appalled that outsiders are posing as democrats to create this 'rally round bambi' cry.

too damn bad. the obama campaign should have told those types to lie low or come out of the closet. of course, the obama campaign wouldn't want them writing their endorsements if the country knew the people were communists.

but it's no secret to any 1 who's politically active that the bulk of his loudest defenders in print & online are closeted communists.

those are the breaks, get over it.

the cnn article tells you bambi's 'vactioning' in the virgin island. maybe he'll go wind surfing while there?

the damning of america is a bambi created issue. it is not swift boating but notice how he and the campaign have denied how serious is and notice that, like john kerry when his campaign was falling apart, bambi's off vacationing!

he's in the virgin islands for reason only, to keep the press away. it's basic p.r., during a controversy, remove the participant so that questions can't keep the issue alive. but i ran a p.r. firm and i can tell you this isn't something that fades. he's offended a lot of americans and it's not going away.

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

Monday, March 24, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the 4,000 mark has been reached, what's al-Sadr and his movement up to, and more.

War resisters in Canada were dealt a setback in November the Canadian Supreme Court refused to hear the appeals of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Though Panhandle Media can't be bothered with that story Ben Ehrenreich (the New York Times' Sunday Magazine) reported:

Next month, the Canadian House of Commons is slated to debate a resolution that would allow conscientious objectors "who have refused or left military service related to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations" to apply for residency in Canada. The phrasing is vague but the intent is not. The war in question is the Iraq war, and the resolution represents the culmination of a four-year debate about what to do with the small but steady stream of American soldiers who have fled across our northern border to avoid fighting in Iraq. It all began in Jan. 2004, when a young American with a long, serious face walked into the Toronto law office of Jeffry House to ask for help with what was at the time a highly unusual immigration case. The American turned out to be a soldier named Jeremy Hinzman, an infantryman in the Army's 82nd Airborne Division. He told House that his petition for conscientious-objector status was denied while he was stationed in Afghanistan. He crossed the border into Canada just days before his unit was to be deployed to Iraq. Of the more than 25,000 American soldiers who, according to the United States Department of Defense, have deserted since 2003, the Toronto-based War Resisters Support Campaign estimates that 225 have fled to Canada. (The D.O.D defines a deserter as anyone who has been AWOL for 30 consecutive days or who seeks asylum in a foreign country; desertion carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment.) The majority of the deserters in Canada have chosen not to make the authorities aware of their presence. Like any other illegal immigrants, they have settled for invisibility. A few dozen, though, followed Hinzman's lead. Most found their way to Jeffry House. One young Army medic named Justin Colby read an AOL news posting about Hinzman's case while stationed in Iraq. He telephoned House from Ramadi and showed up in his office a few months later. House would eventually represent between 30 and 35 American deserters. Most of them, like Colby, say they joined the military in part out of patriotism. "I thought Iraq had something to do with 9/11," Colby says, "that they were the bad guys that attacked our country."

Canada's Parliament remains the best hope for safe harbor war resisters have, you can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. That is the sort of thing that should receive attention but instead it's ignored. We will note war resisters in Canada tomorrow. There is not time today, my apologies.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum. Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

Sunday night MNF announced, "Four Multi-National Division – Baghdad Soldiers were killed at approximately 10 p.m. March 23 after terrorists attacked them with an improvised-explosive device in southern Baghdad while conducting a mounted vehicular patrol. One additional Soldier was injured from this attack." With that announcement, the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war reached the 4,000 mark. Hannah Allem and Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) note it is "a new milestone to mark the start of the sixth year since the U.S. invasion in 2003." Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) explains, "At least 426 of the Americans killed in the war were from California, more than any other state". Deborah Haynes for the Times of London adds, "The morbid milestone will likely strengthen calls for US forces to be withdrawn from the country; a contentious topic in this year's Presidential elections. A US military spokesman played down the significance of the 4,000th death, which followed a day of bombings and rocket fire across the country that killed at least 60 Iraqis and left many more wounded". Chair of the US House of Representatives' Armed Services Committee Ike Skelton issued this statement, "My heart is broken 4,000 times over. When the history of the Middle East is written, I hope it will have been worth it. My thoughts and prayers go out to all of our service members and military families, whose daily sacrifices must never be taken for granted." US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a statement as well: "Today we mourn American's fallen heroes; the deaths of 4,000 American soldiers is a grim reminder of the enormous costs of war in Iraq: the human costs. We honor those soldiers, America's best and bravest who have paid the ultimate price, and pray for their families and loved ones. With 4,000 American lives lost and thousands injured, many of them permanently, Americans are asking how much longer must our troops continue to sacrifice for the sake of an Iraqi government that is unwilling or unable to secure its own future." US Senator and Democratic presidential nominee contender Hillary Clinton declared:

Five years after the start of the war in Iraq, there have now been 4,000 U.S. military deaths in Iraq. On this solemn day, we remember the sacrifice of our brave men and women in uniform. We honor the tens of thousands more who have suffered wounds both visible and invisible, wounds that scare bodies and minds, and hearts as well. We honor the sacrifices of their families, a price paid in empty places at the dinner table, in the struggle to raise children alone, in the wrenching reversal of parents burying children. In the last five years, our soldiers have done everything we asked of them and more. They were asked to remove Saddam Hussein from power and bring him to justice and they did. They were asked to give the Iraqi people the opportunity for free and fair elections and they did. They were asked to give the Iraqi government the space and time for political reconciliation, and they did. So for every American soldier who has made the ultimate sacrifice for this mission, we should imagine carved in stone: 'They gave their life for the greatest gift one can give to a fellow human being, the gift of freedom.' I recall the great honor of meeting many of our brave men and women who have served our country. In meeting them, I am always struck by how, no matter how great their suffering, no matter how grave their own injuries, they always say the same thing to me: 'Promise that you'll take care of my buddies. They're still over there. Promise you'll keep them safe.' I have looked those men and women in the eye. I have made that promise. And I intend to honor it by bringing a responsible end to this war, and bringing our troops home safely.

Zavis also notes that "more than 60 Iraqis were killed and dozens injured in attacks in Baghdad and north of the capital" on Sunday while Allem and Fadel describe "the heavily fortified Green Zone, where the U.S. and Iraqi governments are headquartered, smoking from a barrage of rockets and mortars" on Sunday. Let's turn to some of today's violence . . .

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 Baghdad bombings that wounded four police officers, 1 person killed in Salahuddin province in a mortar attack and a Diyala Province bombing that claimed the lives of 3 police officers and left two people wounded.


Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 corpses discovered in Baghdad.

al-Sadr, or 'his' movement, is back in the news and let's drop back to the February 22nd snapshot when the cease-fire/truce was being renewed for the following:

Alexandra Zavis and Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) note, "But in recent days, Sadr's followers, including loyalists in the national Parliament, have complained that their foes have used the cease-fire to try to crush his movement politically and militarily. Until the last minute, they had held out the possibility that Sadr might order his militia back into action." So the real issue isn't al-Sadr now. Having agreed to an extension, he is now out of the picture. He is also out of Baghdad and whether or not the Mahdi Army will continue to listen to him from out of town, while he labors away as a hotel clerk and busies himself with studies, is the real issue at this point. The anger and resentment that has been breeding in the Sadr City section of Baghdad has been doing so without al-Sadr's oversight. How much pull he will have, how much control, is in doubt. Residents of Sadr City have complained of mistreatment and abuses (including raids) throughout the truce/cease-fire and many noises were made by "aides" and "loyalists" throughout (made publicly to the press) that there was no way al-Sadr would renew the truce/cease-fire. He has now done that and how much weight he will have now as someone not living in Sadr City is up in the air. Deborah Haynes (Times of London) reports that his supporters are in the "thousands" and can al-Sadr control "thousands" via communiques he has delivered to mosques? Is he the remote-control leader? Haynes quotes Abu Zahra'a al-Saadi complaining of the cease-fire, "We decided on peace and they decided to put us in jail." "They" refers to "US and Iraqi forces". Despite the reports of al-Sadr being in Najaf (and working a hotel there), AFP notes, "Sadr did not appear publicly at Friday prayers" in Sadr City "and it is not clear where he is now based. Some reports have suggested that he has crossed the border into Iraq's neighbour Iran, but his group would not confirm this." AFP further notes that his announcement "was not universally welcomed by Sadr's supporters" and that goes to the issue that they're living in Sadr City and he isn't. Is he really going to be able to control the area from outside of it? Will a new leader emerge? Will it faction off instead with some following his latest decree and others ignoring it? Those are valid options under any study of resistance or rebellion. Mark Kukis (Time magazine) offers another, "Sadr could just as easily be simply biding his time until surge troops leave in July."

Today, Alalam News reports that Hazim al-Araji, "Sadr office spokesman," has informed them that "that the US troops along with some of the Iraqi forces have detained members of the Sadr Movement in several Iraqi provinces. He put the number of the detainees at more than 1500." Ahmed Rasheed and Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) report that al-Sadr has instituted a "civil disobedience campaign" in which stores "in some Baghdad neighborhoods" were closed today and quote a Sadr spokesperson, Sheikh Mahmoud al-Sabihawi, declaring, "U.S. forces mistakenly thought that the extension of the truce was a sign of weakness on the Mehdi Army. That is not true, they are still strong, but we are obeying the orders of Moqtada al-Sadr."

Turning to the US. "Why would people not want to believe these [Winter Soldier] stories. Which are so -- they're so many of them that say so much of the same thing which have so much evidence for them. And I think there are four reasons and the first three are money, money, and money. Meaning there are massive amounts of money and human labor that go into the project every single day of convincing the American public that these stories are not true. From 2003 to 2005, a GAO report found that the Department of Defense spent 1.1 billion dollars on contracts with advertising, public relations and media firms. $1.1 billion in just those couple of years a number on sharp upswing since trouble with public sentiment on the occupations. That money is meant to convince us of what we would otherwise not believe for a second." Who said that? Catherine Lutz.

We're back on Iraq Veterans Against the War's Winter Soldier which took place over four days. We're focusing on the last panel on Saturday: The Cost of the War at Home. When it was noted that we'd include Military Families Speak Out's Nancy Lessin's remarks in this, e-mails came in from visitors stating Nancy Lessin didn't speak at Winter Soldier. She did. This panel wasn't broadcast on KPFA and apparently isn't part of The War Comes Homes. Among those appearing on the panel were MSFO's Charley Richardson who noted "the biggest myth of all, that funding the war is somehow funding for the troops -- when what we as military families know is funding the war is killing our troops and the people of Iraq." From there we'll move in to a large excerpt from Lessin.

Nancy Lessin: In fall 2002 when MSFO was founded the drum beats for war were getting deafening, we noticed that all those who were saying "We got to go to war" weren't going anywhere nor were their loved ones. It was our loved ones who would be sent off as cannon fodder to kill and die in an illegal, unjustifiable invasion. And people said to us, "But you're loved ones volunteered." We told them about contracts which is something Charley and I know something about, our days jobs are in the labor movement. We both are adjunct faculty right here at the National Labor College. All in the military signed a contract to defend the Constitution. But contracts have two sides. The implied vow of the United States government is that you will never be sent into harm's way for no good reason for wars based on lies and that's the side of the contract that's been broken. We tried to prevent the invasion. We even brought a lawsuit against George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. Plantiffs included three service members, fifteen parents of soldiers and marines and twelve members of Congress. We sought a restraining order to prevent an invasion of Iraq absent a real Congressional declaration of war. The lawsuit went two rounds in the First Circuit Court of Appeals and ultimately failed on March 18, 2003. The bombs dropped on March 19th. We wanted to prevent the invasion for so many reasons. Among them was a deadly equation we learned from the history of this country from the Vietnam war: Racism + dehumanization = horror. From early on the invasion, we got e-mails like this, "My son will be leaving for Iraq in a month and in his last phone call he said he was ready to go over there and kill any Muslim in sight. He even said he'd kill women and children and anyone whose skin is brown. Ironically, he's Asian, his skin is very brown. He was calling the Iraqis "ragheads." How does a mother respond to that kind of anti-human ranting? He was calling the Iraqi people sub-human. Probably a common tactic for hyping up soldiers but I don't understand who this person is becoming." Our loved ones began telling us about fellow troops putting laxatives in detainees food without comprehending that there was something terribly wrong with this. We heard cadences that you march to about killing grandmothers and children. We heard about, pardon me, bitch in a box -- an interrogation technique where Iraqis are put in the trunks of black cars and driven around in 120 degree heat. On November 14, 2003 we asked one of our members with long military experience if he could write something for our loved ones and all service members about not losing their humanity -- that's how we put it. The next day Stan Goff had written an open letter to GI's "Hold Onto Your Humanity," it's out there on the table and it ends this way -- "You are never under any obligation to hate Iraqis, you are never under any obligation to give yourself over to racism and nihilsim and the thirst to kill for the sake of killing, and you are never under any obligation to let them drive out the last vestiges of your capacity to see and tell the truth to yourself and to the world. You do not owe them your souls. Come home safe, and come sane. The people who love you and who have loved you all your lives are waiting here, and we want you to come back and be able to look us in the face. Don't leave your souls in the dust there like another corpse. Hold on to your humanity." We tried to find ways to ask this of our loved ones. MSFO member Rick Hanson wrote about saying good-bye to his son at the airport, "I was a father talking to a son with total absence of reference. I had no wisdom to offer. Instead I asked more of him. I asked him to stay focused, I asked him not to let his guard down ever. I asked him to do what he was trained to do. I asked him to do what he needed to do survive and yet maintain his moral compass in the middle of it all. I asked my 19-year-old son to do all of that and then I apologized as a father for being so asleep, for being so cynical and complacent that I let this country send him to this war. In what might have been my next last hug of Eric I left my tears on his right shoulder as he left his tears on my right shoulder. We held our breaths for seven, twelve, fifteen, eighteen month deployments, back-to-back deployments, third, fourth fifth deployments, the stop-loss deployments, the ringing of the phone, a knock on our door carried new sinister meaning. We held our loved ones close in our hearts until we could once again hold you close in our arms." Today Military Families Speak Out includes almost 4,000 military families from across the US and on bases around the world, many with loved ones now in Iraq. MSFO also includes families of war resisters. A growing number of MSFO members are spouses living on bases and in base towns and there are over 130 Gold Star Families, members of our national chapter, Gold Star Families Speak Out. Their loved ones died as a result of this invasion and occupation. For those of us lucky enough to have our loved ones come home, all is not well. Every day we get e-mails like this, "I need your help. My son's body showed up at the house for Christmas but his mom and I did not know the person who claimed to be our son. He was severely drunk every day, belligerent. He has nightmares every night of the murdered innocent children and Iraqi civilians and the army abandoned him. As far as giving him help, they will go out of their way to help him re-enlist however." Or this one, from MSFO member Stacy Bannerman, "I got my husband back whole physically and I think his heart is here too but I'm not so sure about his mind. He still checks to see where his weapon is every time we get in a vehicle. Although his body is back, there is a war that remains between us. I am left to deal with the lost years of time, the lost love of my life. I want to talk with my husband about what he's going through but I don't have the words. Hell, I don't even have the questions. What's the conversational opener to this, 'So you inadvertantly killed Iraqi children, how's that going for you? How are you living with that now? How am I supposed to? How are we?'" You heard yesterday from MSFO family members Joyce and Kevin Lucey about their son [Jeffrey] taking his own life because of what he saw and did in an invasion and occupation that should never have been and because of the failures of the VA system. Also here with MSFO is April Somdahl whose brother Sgt. Brian Rand was declared psychologically undeployable after his second deployment to the Middle East. The army yet again deployed him to Iraq. Some months after returning from that deployment, he took a gun and killed himself. With suicide rates in the military sky rocketing the army's top psychiatrist, Elspeth Richie, blames failed personal relationships, legal and financial problems. And then, this January she explained it this way, "Families are getting tired therefore sometimes they are more irritable. Sometimes they don't take care of each other the way they should, are not as nurturing as they should be." Shame on Col. Richie for these lies. Economist Stiglitz and Bilmes' new book puts the cost of the Iraq invasion and occupation at three trillion dollars. The title of the article about the book read "Cost of Iraq War Now Beyond Human Comprehension." For military families, the cost -- the human cost -- has always been beyond our comprehension -- before day one and now on its one thousand and eight hundred and twenty-first day. There's a line in a poem about the first Gulf War that bears repeating here. It goes, "If I'm sad, how do you think that Iraqi mother feels?"


US Labor Against the War's Brooks Sunket also spoke and he noted "this illegal and unjust war needs to come to an end, it needs to come to an end immediately" and then presented This war has cost us many things. Most of all the lies of our precious children. It has cost us the lives of Iraqi children, thousands and thousands."

Brooks Sunket: We pay for this war in many ways. We pay for this war in lost jobs and services that billions of dollars of our money could have created. The funds that went to war were no longer available to meet our needs at home. Instead of serving the common good, as government should, the Bush administration, with the support of Congress, took our country to an illegal war. They did so over the objections of the world community. They did so in violation of international law and our treaty obligations. In 2007, the decision to go to war cost us $137 billion.

He concluded noting Iraqi union members Iraq unionism goes back to the 1920s when the labor movement formed the working class based on the struggle of British authority. The Iraqi Trade Union Labor Organization was abolished in 1987. It is after '87 [Saddam] Hussein made it illegal to have trade unions in Iraq. When US invaded Iraq it still remained illegal to have trade unions there. As much as they talk about democracy, democracy's really not exended when they have the opportunity. I'm told I've only got a few seconds left so I just want to make one other point: That even though labor unions are illegal in Iraq, people have risked their lives, they have been kidnapped, there have been bombings of their work place, they have been shot, they have been targeted for assassinations, tortured and yet they still maintain that they will have a union. Thank you very much."

Also on the panel was Fernando Suarez del Solar whose son Jesus died March 27, 2003 in Iraq. After some technical problems with the sound to a video, Fernando explained what was being shown.

Fernando Suarez del Solar: The video is when I visited Iraq in December 2003 with a family delegation . . . because we need to find the same place where my son died. And I need to show the Iraqi families the ordinary Americans no support the invasion, no support the war and like Iraqi people lost the member of the family, American people lost the member in the war. I have an opportunity to meet with the families in Iraq [who] lost 2, 3, 4, 5 members in the same time. And these people opened the door and opened the heart and give me a beautiful welcome. When my son died . . . I got very crazy. Carlos [Arredondo] . . . Entering the fire . . . I have the other reaction. I have a grandson. Jesus have a baby. Only 16 months old. Everybody cry in the house and my baby watched everybody and no understand what happened and cried. And I gathered my grandson and going to the park and played with him for he is mine. I no have opportunity to cry for my son. I no have opportunity because the government told me 'Your son died with a shot on the head. It's impossible you see the body. We no pay the funeral for you because you chose the civil cementary. It's impossilbe you see the body because the face is destroyed and is no good for the family." Morally, I understand, the military system of the government lied me. My son not die when received shot on the head when he stepped on illegal American cluster bomb and waiting two hours for medical assistance and died. He no have opportunity. I miss my son. . . . I cry every single day for Jesus. In five years, the next 27 is five years my son die in Iraq. But when I come in here today with Iraq Veterans Against the War and I see Camilo and I see Juan and I see [Geoff?], I see Jesus. This my new family. This my boys. My sons and my daughters are here in Iraq Veterans Against the War.

He spoke of the importance of speaking out and a lack of understanding in his family over that. How many more stories you need?" He noted Carlos Arredondo who was also on the panel and whose son, Alexander Arredondo was killed in Iraq while on his second deployment there. CNN reported, "After being infomred that his 20-year-old son was killed while serving in Iraq, a Florida man doused a U.S. government van with gasoline and set it on fire while sitting inside." That was August 25, 2004.

Carlos Arredondo: I born in Costa Rico. I come here as an illegal alien. I tried to do the best I can to take care my family because it's the most beautiful thing that happened in my life and I call my sons my American Dreams. And I thank God every minute that I have experience with them because they are my greatest teachers. This is Alexander. [Slide of Alexander del Solar graduating.] Many, many of you go through this moment in life. That pretty much was the moment recruiters go to his high school and seduce him with $20,000 cash to sign up is so many thousand dollars for him to go into the military at age of 17. They only require one parent to sign up for him to join the military and the other parent is left behind. That's what happened to me. I am not a sperm donor. This is my son I love so very much and they didn't have the respect to bother to even ask me if it is okay for him to go? They just expect that they can come and grab our sons and daughters from anywhere they wanted to, no matter if you're English, you're Spanish. They're seducing our sons in many ways with fake promises. My son never have the opportunity to enjoy the cash or the school that's not even enough to go to college because you're going to a community college, the liars, they didn't tell him. My son was one more victim like many of us of this immoral, illegal war that is happening right now. It is effecting the whole world.


And we're back to Brown University anthropologist Catherine Lutz (Homefront: A Military City and the American 20th Century) addressed "some more invisible costs" $700 billion is being spent on the US military in 2008, a doubling since 2001.

Catherine Lutz: We now spend more than 60% of our discretionary dollars on the military including the war in Iraq and other spending so three in five of all dollars that the Congress votes on each year are allocated to the military. . . . This money is being spent on the war not because it's being lavished on soldier pay or on veterans but because the main benificiary of that military spending is American military coporations. That is the majority of the military budget goes to weapons system and operations. That is to say to the military corporations, to the oil companies that put the fuel in jets and battleships. These are where those dollars go. How does this spending effect our society? And I think many of us don't realize how that military spending shapes our communities. Many people have been convinced over many decades of the Cold War and a long propaganda campaign that that money waters American communities, that war is good for the economy, that funding flows into the community in the way of military salaries, contracts, worker salaries in those military industries. But the military spending, obviously, that money goes somewhere, but it is a massive redistribution mechanism. It comes first out of those same communities in the form of taxes and then it goes back not into those communities but mainly into the pockets of the very wealthy CEOs of these corporations, to the Halliburtons, to the Raetheons, to all those corporations and only trickles then into the pockets of the E1s, the E4s, the workers who make minimum wage when they get subcontracted jobs from those corporations. That the military budget redistributes funds in ways that are highly unequal and increases inequality in our communities. They make the rich richer and the poor poorer every day. When I first went to Fayetteville, NC, I thought -- I was looking at Fort Bragg and its impact on the community -- and I first thought, "Well, Fort Bragg happens to be located in a very poor community." Well what I came to realize was that, in fact, Fayetteville was poor because Fort Bragg was there. And it was poor because the main jobs created by a military base economy are minimum wage retail jobs. There are no manufacturing jobs to speak of in Fayetteville compared to the other comparable sized cities in North Carolina. There are jobs at Target, there are jobs at Home Depot, there are minimum wage jobs and that's . . . The working poor in Fayetteville are legion -- there are great numbers of them for that reason.

There's actually one more testimony from that panel that we should note. We'll try to do so later this week, hopefully tomorrow. If you missed Winter Soldier you can stream online at Iraq Veterans Against the War, at War Comes Home, at KPFK, at the Pacifica Radio homepage and at KPFA, here for Friday, here for Saturday, here for Sunday for other panels. Aimee Allison (co-host of the station's The Morning Show and co-author with David Solnit of Army Of None) and Aaron Glantz were the anchors for Pacifica's live coverage.

the number has reached 4,000. 4,000 u.s. service members have now died in the illegal war. 4,000 dead and countless family members and loved 1s who have to deal with the loss.

the illegal war drags on because the 'peace' movement distracts itself pimping bambi as an 'anti-war' candidate when he has demonstrated he's not and, in fact, he's too the right of hillary. but they hate hillary, boo, hiss. so they'll pimp bambi and kid themselves that he'll address the 'israeli situation.' they'll kid themselves over and over that he cares about their other causes and they'll turn around and lie to your face that he's going to end the illegal war.

self-loathing lesbian laura flanders and kicked to the curb tom hayden will tell you that you need to hold barack and hillary both accountable but you'll notice that they only hold hillary accountable. they make 1 excuse after another for barack. he uses homophobia? we'll ignore it! he gets caught in a lie? we'll ignore it.

they'll ignore iraq as well, as they've demonstrated. don't be a loser. don't ignore the 4,000 mark.

by the way, interesting take on bambi's bad speech in the los angeles times:

"I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother," he said. But the comparison obscures the fundamental difference in the relationships. Forget the casual moral equivalence he makes between a pastor's provocative public rants and his grandmother's private utterances; what's more important is that grandmothers are inherited while pastors are chosen.
At least one way to explain that choice is that by allying himself with Wright (who presided over his wedding and baptized his daughters), Obama sought to anchor and legitimize himself in Chicago's black community, which might not have otherwise welcomed an Ivy Leaguer raised in Hawaii by his white mother and grandparents. Without challenging Obama's claim that Wright "helped introduce [him] to his Christian faith," his choice was also invariably a political one, and a very bad one at that.

it's by gregory rodriguez and zach e-mailed it to me.

oh my. i went to consortium news to see if robert parry had woken up. he hasn't. he's apparently going to nurse the wounds for being kicked to curb by the mainstream media for the rest of his life.

now that's hillary's fault as well! it's all a cabal! a conspiracy to dethrone robert parry.

no it's the fact that you sound like a nut. a sexist, demented nut.

i thought the offensive statements by crackpot and hate speech promoter jeremiah wright might have been enough to bring robert parry back to the living. but, no, he's sticking with his barack. he loves him so barack. he really has no ethics or values, he's christopher hitchens, seeing cabals everywhere.

how pathetic, how sad.

i see he wrote about winter soldier.

after it was over.

how pathetic, how sad.

imagine if all these bambi lovers had quit jerking off for just 1 day to write about winter soldier and get the word out? they couldn't. they have to pull the pud over bambi repeatedly each day.
it's really becoming a sexual perversion the way they refuse to see the truth about bambi, as if they have a fantasy that electing bambi means the return of slavery only this time it's white people and bambi will be the lord and master who violates them.

i see a lot of drool around john nichols' mouth at the prospect of that.

they're not writing about reality, they're penning their own sick fantasies.

look, go hire an african-american prostitute who'll beat you, screw you and make you call him master.

get it out of your system.

we're not electing a sexual fantasy here, we're electing a president.

outside of drooling over his cock, bambi's groupies in panhandle media can't find anything in him worthy so they lie and lie. they really are pathetic.

he's got no experience, he lies about iraq (wasn't it cute the way they all avoided the reality of samantha power's bbc interview?) and now we find out his mentor, his preacher of 20 years damns the united states of america and we're all supposed to look the other way because the likes of john nichols and robert parry just know they're about to get their nut.

they're nuts.

they really are pathetic. but a lot of those types were pathetic during vietnam as well.

i remember several guys who wanted to play master and slave. i'm up for fun in bed, i can do it. but they'd want to play black. i'm a blonde, white woman.

how am i going to play black?

and i found it racist the things they wanted me to say because it wasn't black power (which was a good and needed movement and 1 that should really be alive today but the f.b.i. made sure that wouldn't happen). it was make them my slave. not love slave, but their slave. a big fantasy was that i would play angela davis and enslave them. i tried that once and felt it was the most racist thing in the world. he loved it. kissing my foot and calling me 'miss angela.'

but i found it racist (and we never got sex for some reason, just his humiliation which had him shooting but nothing for me). afterwards, i thought about angela davis, who i didn't know but respected, and wondered, 'does she really want some white woman playing out some white guy's racist fantasy?' i couldn't believe she did.

so i said no more and the jerk left. but there were others rushing along. i understand toad was that way as well. he had a really strong desire for humiliation. i never made it with toad. he was ugly & conservative.

but i understood he liked women to pee on him and insult him and if you would wear an angela davis wig, he was in hog heaven.

i didn't wear a wig. at least i can say that. it wasn't planned. it was more like, 'let's have sex.' and i was always 'sure.' then we get into the bedroom and he's wanting all the crap i described. it really turned me off but i said, 'becky, you're being a prude.' but afterwards, i really felt awful and, like i said, started thinking 'what would angela davis think about this?'

i couldn't imagine she'd be delighted that some white guy wanted her to reduce him to slavery in his racist little fantasy.

i remember saying, 'i don't know, this feels racist.' and he started talking about how he supported black power (and he honestly did) and i told myself 'well he does. it's just you, becky.' but when it was over, there was no denying that he was getting off on his racist stereotypes.

and i see a lot of that in these white men's blind lust for bambi.

they're really embarrassing themselves and if you're a woman who went through that scene even once, you're probably picking it up on it and wondering about it as well.

i think there's a mistake being made that all the bambi cheerleaders who are white are in it because bambi makes them feel good about themselves. i think a lot are just masochists who get off on reverse slavery fantasies.

that's really not healthy.

bambi's a bad candidate, inexperienced, surrounds himself with a hate monger, lies about iraq. what's to get excited about?

so i keep coming back to that fantasy. like i said, i went through it once and only once. but there were a number of guys who wanted it. white guys. or white guys who wanted to play like they were black and i was the wife of the plantation owner. talk of that got them kicked out of my bed because that was obviously racist even to dumb old me.

i never took part in that fantasy.

but there were enough man who wanted to play at it that it was fairly common. i wonder how many of them carry it with them today.

read the nation, the progressive, consortium news, common dreams, and it's like reading 'confessions of a masochists.' i hope they get their nut out of it at least because they're destroying any chance of any 1 seeing them as journalists.

now i'll play the nurse, the teacher, the student, whatever. i never had a problem with that kind of role play. so maybe it's my hang up that i didn't want to play like i was someone else?

but it really was a racist kind of thing. the angela davis thing, for instance. i went along with it because he was a supporter of black power. and i thought, 'well angelea's a powerful and sexy woman.' but then he starts adding all these details (only white male liberals would beg to be slaves and still insist upon telling you what to do). and, like i said, it quickly became this racist stereotype.

i don't know, maybe it's the myth that african-american males have bigger penises?

whatever it is, the left middle aged boys have gone loony over barack obama.

there may be a subliminal desire for his penis.

but i don't think it's a gay fantasy because, for example, jim brown was a sexy man. bambi generally looks like he's wearing lip gloss and eye liner. if michael jackson hadn't accustomed all of us to that 'look,' i think it would be noted more. there's that photo of him with wright and if just looks like bambi's piled on lip gloss.

i don't get it.

i just realized jim brown's probably too old a reference to a lot of my readers. lawrence fishburn's another example of a sexy man. it has to do with his walk and the way he carries himself. (it has nothing to do with the tina turner movie. i can't stand him in that movie. he's a very good actor because we're not supposed to like him and i look at him in that and think 'ike turner.' great performance but not a turn on. nor was it meant to be.)

i'm thinking back to that time period and i don't remember any african-american male who wanted to play like he was white or pretend that i wasn't. maybe that's different today? if it is (i doubt it is) i would assume that went to the destruction of the black panthers by the government.

but there was a lot of envy on the part of white males. i'd guess, looking back, it came from the fact that the big struggles then were by african-americans, women of all races and the gay rights movement. white male lefties probably felt left out.

that's probably why another popular fantasy was bonnie & clyde. that's not 1 i ever did. i'd say, 'what? next.' in real life clyde was either gay or couldn't get it up. regardless, that's not a sexual fantasy i wanted to play out - and that's before we get to the fact that they both get shot to death. but i guess it was a way for white males to play outlaws at a time when they were already become narrow asses and hung up.

so hillary's shooting up in the polls and the nation, et al are trying to make it about racism when it's about the fact that bambi's pastor damned the united states. the reaction would be the same if it was a white preacher. i don't think they get how offensive that is from some 1 who wants to be a president.

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

Thursday, March 20, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, which outlets are covering Winter Soldier and more.

Starting with war resistance. Aaron Glantz (OneWorld) reports on a CO testifying at Winter Soldier:

"The problem that we face in Iraq is that policy makers in leadership have set a precedent of lawlessness where we don't abide by the rule of law, we don't respect internationl treaties," argued U.S. Army Sgt. Logan Laituri, who served a tour in Iraq from 2004 to 2005 before being discharged as a conscientious objector. "So when that atmosphere exists, it lends itself to criminal activity." Laituri told OneWorld that precedent of lawlessness makes itself felt in the rules of engagement handed down by commanders to soldiers on the front lines. For example, when he was stationed in Samarra, he said, one of his fellow soldiers shot an unarmed man while he walkded down the street.
The problem is that that soldier was not committing a crime as you might call it, because the rules of engagement were very clear that no one was supposed to be walking down the street," Laituri said. "But I have a problem with that. You can't tell a family to leave everything they know so you can bomb the [expletive] out of their house or their city. So while he definitely has protection under the law, I don't think that legitimates that type of violence."

We'll come back to Winter Soldier in a moment but it concluded on Sunday and also over the weekend, protests against the war took place in Canada. Jenny Yuen (Toronto Sun) reports that among those taking part was war resister Linjamin Mull who was among at least 500 protesting in Toronto.

War resisters in Canada were dealt a setback in November the Canadian Supreme Court refused to hear the appeals of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Today, Canada's Parliament remaining the best hope for safe harbor war resisters have, you can make your voice heard by the Canadian parliament which has the ability to pass legislation to grant war resisters the right to remain in Canada. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (http://us.f366.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (http://us.f366.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (http://us.f366.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. That is the sort of thing that should receive attention but instead it's ignored. We will note war resisters in Canada tomorrow. There is not time today, my apologies.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum. Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).


FAIR asks why Iraq Veterans Against the War Winter Soldier Investigation isn't news in the US and it's a question worth asking but that requires more honesty and facts than FAIR is providing. They give two shout-outs to Democracy Now! which is about one too many. Fact check FAIR in this statement: "While the tetimony of soldiers who had served multiple tours of duty was broadcast on Pacifica Radio's Democracy Now!, Free Speech TV and the Real News network, the major broadcast networks and PBS instead . . . " Free Speech TV and Real News Network broadcast the hearings in real time. Democracy Now! did not. Where in that sentence -- or anywhere else in their action alert -- is there any acknowledgement that KPFA broadcast the hearings live, that the stream was available at Pacifica's homepage, at The War Comes Home, at KPFK? Where in that action alert do Aaron Glantz and Aimee Allison receive any credit for anchoring the live coverage?

We've noted that Christopher Hayes did two blog posts at The Nation -- the first noting that the hearings were streaming live and the second noting Camilo Mejia. That's not included. More importantly the wasteland that is Panhandle Media gets a walk. The Progressive did nothing on them (it's finally published it's written ahead of time story today and we're not linking to that crap -- community wide, we're not linking to that crap), Mother Jones couldn't be found either. In These Times' article that ran AFTER we linked to but it needs to be noted they were among the ones contacted AHEAD of time to ask if they'd be covering Winter Soldier and, of course, they had something else to do. As did Mother Jones and assorted others in Panhandle Media who elected to blow off Winter Soldier.

Before we go futher, if you missed Winter Soldier you can stream online at Iraq Veterans Against the War, at War Comes Home, at KPFK, at the Pacifica Radio homepage and at KPFA, here for Friday, here for Saturday, here for Sunday. Aimee Allison (co-host of the station's The Morning Show and co-author with David Solnit of Army Of None) and Aaron Glantz were the anchors for Pacifica's live coverage. That's credit FAIR forgot to give. Anthony Swofford (Slate) attended the hearings and his article was published Monday. He quotes Jose Vasquez, who oversaw the verification process for witnesses taking part in the panels, stating, "We were willing at least to take testimony from anybody, whether or not they were a member. They didn't even have to agree with our points of unity. If you had a story to tell about Iraq and you were able to prove your service, then we would give you a venue to spread that word." He focuses on the the first Rules of Engagement panel on Friday and notes Jon Turner provided video clips during his testimony:

He then played a few videos he'd made while in Iraq. The first video he played was of his executive officer, after having called in a 500-pound bomb, saying, "I think I just killed half the population of northern Ramadi. F**k the red tape."
Then he played video of a missile attack on a Ministry of Health building. He spoke about the standard procedure of a "weapon drop": When mistakes are made, you drop a weapon on the innocent dead man so it appears he was a combatant. He showed photos of a man's brain. "This wasn't my kill, it was my friend's," he stated.
When the next image of a corpse appeared on the big screens in the hall, he continued, "On April 18, 2006, I had my first confirmed kill. Ahh. This man was innocent. I don't know his name. I call him the Fat Man. He was walking back to his house, and I shot him in front of his friend and father. The first round didn't kill him after I hit him up here in his neck area. So I looked at my friend who I was on post with and said, 'Well, can't let that happen.' So I took another shot and took him out." It took seven members of the Fat Man's family to move his body.

Linda Milazzo (OpEdNews) notes the blackout from big broadcast and observes, "Had Winter Soldier been televised, viewers would have seen the anguish of young Americans who saw and committed acts that torment them every day. The public would have heard stories of returning veterans abandoned by their government and by their V.A. (Veterans' Administration). The public would have seen the agony of parents whose 23 year old son hung himself in their closet due to untreated PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). If Winter soldier had been televised, The People could no longer accpe the deceptions of those who had alterted the facts. The people would have received the knowledge they need to motivate them to act -- to stop the atrocities -- to end the war -- NOW!" OpEdNews, FYI, may have been the only website of its kind (Truthout, BuzzFlash, et al) to actually COVER Winter Soldier. Throughout the hearings, various contributors to OpEdNews were filing stories. By the way, here's a folder The Real News Network has created for its Winter Soldier coverage. Celeste De Vore (Boise State's Arbiter) observes, "Many people may not even know this is happening; the event has been completely ignored by the corporate media. I suppose I can understand why: If America really took hold of the message portrayed by these brave veterans and soldiers (a message of betrayal, brutality, dismay and disillusionment) its citizens couldn't stand in silent ignorance anymore. We would demand an end to the Iraq occupation now." Eric Ruder (Socialist Worker) reports on the hearings and we'll note this section on Bryan Casler:

Bryan Casler was a Marine who, in the course of his four years of action-duty service, was deployed first to Iraq, then to Afghanistan, and then again to Iraq. His testimony captured the indifference of the U.S. military for the well-being of Iraqis, as well as U.S. soldiers.
"During my first deployment, I was deployed to Kuwait in support of the invasion of Iraq," said Casler. "This was in 2003. Our unit was responsible for guarding Gen. Tommy Franks. While stationed in Kuwait, we received alerts for incoming missiles or possible gas attacks.
"As a Marine, being with the general, you feel like you're going to get the most current information, and you're going to be protected because you are going to be up to date and around these other important people.
"It was very disheartening to see the generals running out of their tents, putting on their gas masks, and I look over to our commander and say, 'Shouldn't we put on our gas masks?' He said, 'We'll wait. The siren hasn't been sounded yet.'
"And several minutes later, maybe five or 10 minutes, they would come running back out because they had forgotten to sound the siren for the rest of the base. As Marines, we knew our place. We were at the bottom of the food chain. We are the ones that get forgotten about."
Casler went on to explain that his unit had no clearly defined mission except to keep moving forward. In such circumstances, he said, the first instinct of every Marine is to rely on the tactical training that is drilled into recruits from the start of basic training, which is to use lethal force to repel attacks and destroy the enemy.
"When you mission is not defined, you are going to use . . . those skills that you have to handle hostile people -- not friendly people, not people that are looking for your help or looking for a hand," said Casler. "All you have is hammers, and everything you find is nails. And you are going to crush it. You are going to crush every nail that you find. We are crushing the Iraqi people with the training we're given."

Michael Kramer (Workers World) offers testimony and backround and we'll highlight this section:

While most of the panelists were IVAW members, expert witnesses also testified. Iraqi civilians, including refugees, described their experiences with the occupation through detailed interviews that had been video recorded in Iraq, Jordan and Syria. IVAW Advisory Board member Dr. Dahlia Wasfi raised the occupation of PalestineIVAW is a growing organization with over 800 members. The leadership is diverse: the chair of its Board of Directors was born in Nicaragua and the co-chair is African-American. The treasurer and executive director are women. The group is LGBT-friendly. Most members come from the enlisted ranks and are under 30 years old. They are from both urban and rural areas. Many were on track to be career noncommissioned officers--the foundation of any military organization. Their membership in IVAW is a major defeat for the U.S. imperialist war machine.

Kat wrote about Dahlai Wasfi's testimony on Monday. Tim Wheeler and Joel Wendland (People's Weekly World) provide a cross-section report and we'l lfocus on this section:

Marine Lars Ekstrom said he suffered an emotional breakdown from brutal "hazing" during his tour in Iraq. It included ordering him to do pushups and then to crawl with his face pressed against the ground causing cuts, a bloody nose, and sand filling his eyelids. "I was more afraid of my own unit than I was of the enemy," he said. He finally accepted "administrative separation" from his unit.
Marine Matt Howard said the Marine Corps "bases itself on subjugation and abuse" of lower-ranking enlisted personnel. "I was beaten and then I was kicked out of my platoon for being beaten," he said.
Many of the casualties in Iraq "are from friendly fire," he said.
Howard was the at the front in Kuwait the day the invasion began in March 2003. The first Abrams M-1 tank to cross into Iraq was destroyed by a U.S. helicopter gunship firing rockets armed with depleted uranium, he said. Luckily, the American soldiers escaped. "Why are we using these weapons?" he demanded. "We're poisoning the soldiers. We're poisoning Iraq. We're poisonin the world. Depleted uranium is the Agent Orange of the Iraq war."

Matt Howard's who we're focusing on today. "The Marine Corps bases itself on dehumanization and subjegation and abuse of its lower enlisted in order for it to function," Howard stated early on. He testified on Sunday's The Breakdown of the Military panel and noted being beaten during bootcamp "and ended up being kicked out of my platoon." He noted being on the border between Iraq and Kuwait before the invasion officially started and learning that Captain Banning of Alpha Company a helffire missile was launched into a tank.

Matt Howard: Contained in that Hellfire Missile was depleted uranium. Contained in the armor of the M1A1 tank was depleted uranium. Maximum exposure time for depleted uranium or when you're most susceptible to exposure is directly after impact. You should not be in the vincity of a vehicle that was just hit by friendly fire. I certainly don't have a science background. I won't get into the issue of depleted uranium too much, I expect you to do that and do the research. But I can speak briefly to the fact that this is the Agent Orange of this occupation. This weapon has no purpose in Iraq. Granted this was during the initial invasion so I can maybe understand its deployment but let's be clear here depleted uranium is an anti-armor weapon. The Iraqis do not have armor. They don't have tanks. They don't have bombers. Why are we using this? And, again, I urge you to do the research yourself. I can quickly say that we're using this because it's a way to get rid of atomic waste. We do not know what to do with that. We are posioning our soldiers. We are posioning the people of Iraq. But make no mistake, we are posioning the world. I can test every single person in this room and I can find depleted uranium in your hair. I was tested myself personally. in Australia. I had begged the VA for testing. I received this letter recently: "Dear Mr. Howard, I checked with the provider who has been with the VA and many branches of the services and he does not know of any depleted uranium testing. I have put in a request for your dental visit but it will be most likely only cover an evaluation for mouth-jaw pain due to grinding teeth for PTSD. For routine cleaning, we would need a letter from your command stating you were due for routine dental work prior to leaving the service." The VA has continually denied my requests to be tested for depleted uranium. This letter clearly shows they're saying a test doesn't even exist. And I will say for the record a test does exist. It's the wrong test. It's an urinalysis used to detect exposure, immediate exposure. The problem with depleted uranimum is that these particles dig deep within your body and you will not find them in your urine after a couple of days. You need a very expensive test, one that the VA is certainly not willing to pay for. But I would also like to point out that the VA does recognize the danger of depleted uranium. While they might not want to test for it, or talk about it, or give us any briefings on it beforehand. I specifically remember still holding this round . . . When we were issued tank rounds in Kuwait, most of the tankers had never seen this weapon. They don't use it, at least the Marines don't use it, in training. Probably because they don't just have the money for it compared to the other branches. But we finally got to Kuwait and we're being issued this ammunition, I just so clearly remember these Marines coming up and saying, "Hey, Howard, will you take my picture, will you take my picture?" They wanted the picture of them holding the Black Widow because this is the first time they ever got to actually have their hands on it. And this was a depleted uranium sable round that went in the tank. That round on impact aerosols and vaporizes and these particles go up in the air. And that's why I was saying I can test every single one of you for depleted uranium and find it in your hair. These particles blow up into the atmosphere and they are disseminated all around the entire globe. They have found depleted uranium on the skin of NASA vehicles in space. We are changing the entire genome of our planet -- human beings, cats and dogs, plants. We're changing the genetic makeup of our planet by using these munitions in Iraq and Afhganistan. And as I said, the VA does recognize the danger albeit in a different way. I'm holding here is a depleted uranium questionnaire that I had dowload from the VA. I certainly never saw this in Iraq. And it says: "Did you enter an Abrams battle tank to retrieve sensitive items immediately after it was struck by friendly fire?" Why do they ask that question? Because they know how dangerous a situation that is. And my best friend, Lance Cpl. Greg ____ did exactly that he entered an Abrams battle tank to retrieve sensitive items immediately after it was struck by friendly fire. And those sensitive items did not need to be retrieved. The tank was already destroyed. In fact there were live rounds still on that tank. My command that ordered him to retrieve those sensitive items put his life at risk -- those rounds could have cooked off. And not only that, they weren't that sensitive to begin with. Another Hellfire could have been launched into that tank and we could have moved on. Instead he was ordered to stay on that tank for an extended period of time and was exposed to depleted uranium in the process.

Greg's last name given sounds likes Stroll but I'm not sure I transcribed that correctly so there's ____ instead.

Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad rocket attack that left two people wounded, a Baghdad mortar attack wounded two police officers, Nineveh Province car bombing wounded two police officers and a Mosul roadside bombing wounded two police officers.

Shootings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an Iraqi soldier was shot and wounded in Kirkuk today by unknown assailants. Reuters notes 2 police officers shot dead in Mosul.

Kidnappings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Raad Shallal and his driver were kidnapped yesterday and are being held for a $250,000 ransom while today Khalid al-Seyid was kidnapped in Kirkuk as was the owner of a story in Kirkuk.

Corpses?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 5 corpses discovered in Baghdad, 1 corpse discovered in Sulaimaniyah Province.

Meanwhile Marcus Baram (ABC News) reports on Ryan D. Maseth who died January 2nd of this year while serving in Iraq as a result of electrocution in the base shower due to "an improperly grounded electric water pump [which] short-circuited and flowed through the pipes. Since the coiled hose was touching his arm, he was hit with an electrical jolt and went into cardiac arrest and died." He was at least the 12th US service member to die "in Iraq due to accidental electrocution". Guess who had that contract? KBR.

With over four milliion Iraqi refugees (internal and external), the International Rescue Committee issues a report entitled "Five Years Later, A Hidden Crisis." In the (PDF format warning] report, they make four recommendations. 1) Displaced Iraqis need more aid delivered more effectively and efficiently. 2) Calls for the international community to work on the problem. 3) The US must lead on admitting Iraqi refugees. 4) Hold a talk with Ban Ki-moon chairing. It really is that superficial and that disappointing. On step 3, for example, they note that 12,000 is the number of Iraqis the White House has promised to allow into the US in this year (fiscal year). They said it needs to be "more". While that may be true (I wouldn't argue with that) it also needs to be at least 12,000. The US is not on track to admit 12,000 currently and the fiscal year started October 1st -- not January 1st. Last year (last fiscal year), the US government did not meet the total they pledged and this year is already on track to be a repeat. Yes, more would be nice but how about we point out the reality that even the number the White House has promised to admit isn't happening?

In a community-wide correction, Barack Obama's maternal grandmother -- the one he chose to shame in his speech Tuesday -- is alive and our apologies. With wife number two or three of his father is paraded around on TV as his paternal grandmother (his father and his paternal grandfather had multiple wives), one would assume his maternal grandmother must be dead. But that's not the case. Taylor Marsh (TaylorMarsh.com) reports Bambi can't stop shaming the woman and that he's now called her "a typical white person". This is the grandmother he painted as a racist in his speech (though that 'creative tale' doesn't go with what he wrote in his book if anyone in the press wants to check that out).

For those worrying about a US war with Iran, William M. Arkin (Washington Post) offers a score card:When it comes to making sense on Iran, Hillary Clinton wins hands down over Barack Obama, John McCain and George Bush. In his zeal to describe the mess created by the war in Iraq, Obama falls into the trap of lumping Iran in with our "enemies." McCain is even more offensive, borrowing from the president's always-change-the-justification playbook to argue that the Iraq war is ultimately about Iran. And President Bush is more confused than ever, fretting about emboldening Iran if we leave Iraq, but oblivious to how invading and occupying Iraq may have had the same effect. [. . .] We throw the word "enemy" around way too much these days. Is that what Obama thinks Iran is? The same country he has pledged to negotiate with? In his five-year anniversary speech about Iraq yesterday, Obama said Iran "poses the greatest challenge to American interests in the Middle East in a generation, continuing its nuclear program and threatening our ally, Israel." It is time to present Iran "with a clear choice," Obama said, to abandon its nuclear program, its support for terrorism and its threats to Israel. "Make no mistake," Obama bellowed about Iran, "if and when we ever have to use military force against any country, we must exert the power of American diplomacy first." Gee, I'm no Republican and have no confidence in the Bush administration. But that sounds like current White House policy.