"Pennsylvanians don't need a president who looks down on them, they need a president who stands up for them, who fights for them, who works hard for your futures, your jobs, your families."

tell 'em, hillary. as if his 20-year and counting relationship with jeremiah wright and michelle obama claiming this year was the 1st time she was ever proud of her country wasn't bad enough for barack obama, he's now gone and insulted small town america. he truly is a moron.

for the supposed sure-thing, he sure does make a lot of mistakes.

we'll turn to a conservative columnist for how bambi's 'winning' campaign is playing out, steve huntley (chicago sun-times):

The best indicator of Republican John McCain's surprisingly strong presidential prospects in what should be a slam-dunk Democratic year is not his solid general-election poll numbers but rather the increasingly shrill attacks from Democrats.
The latest was a grotesque slam from Barack Obama supporter Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia. In a newspaper interview in his home state, Rockefeller let loose this stinker: "McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit. What happened when they get to the ground? He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues."
Never mind that laser-guided missiles hadn't been invented during the Vietnam war. Bombing is a part of warfare, and McCain was serving his country as have legions of other bomber airmen. Rockefeller smeared them all. One further point: McCain was a prisoner of war in Hanoi when U.S. planes bombed the city, on the orders of McCain's admiral father.
So wrong was this that Rockefeller not only quickly apologized, but his office also later made a point of saying that McCain had accepted his apology.
For his part, Obama said nothing, but his campaign issued a statement that he "does not agree" with Rockefeller's remarks.
It wasn't the first time Obama let his campaign do the talking when one of his supporters crossed the line. Last week, liberal radio talk show host Ed Schultz, speaking at a political event before Obama, called McCain a "warmonger." It was another shameful slur on a war hero. Inconveniently for Schultz, the New York Times carried a story a few days ago that McCain's Marine Corps son had just served a tour of duty in Iraq.
The day after this ugly character assassination, Obama twice declined to repudiate Schultz's statement, according to the Los Angeles Times. His campaign finally had a spokesman say, "John McCain is not a warmonger and should not be described as such."

that's a newspaper and i'm relunctant to link but i think we all need to take a look at how bambi really plays out to the right. they're eager to take him on because they know john mccain stands a good chance of beating him. bambi-mania was manufactured by panhandle media and it's already wearing thin. the column i'm quoting above was written before bambi stuck his nose in the air about small town america.

it's just 1 mistake after another from the candidate who is supposedly a sure-thing. it's just 1 nightmare after another from him.

he's not a sure-thing. a sure-thing wouldn't need to sick his surrogates on hillary. a sure-thing wouldn't be running neck-and-neck with her. with a bunch of soft media and no record, bambi's managed to tie her and that's it. if dems think they've seen ugly, they don't know from ugly. if bambi faces mccain, that's when it gets ugly.

hillary clinton is the only choice for democrats if they want to get in the white house in janurary. otherwise kiss it good-bye.

bambi groupies keep dismissing everything. no matter what it is, they say it doesn't matter.

but it does and, at this point, you've got enough negatives on bambi that it won't be hard for the g.o.p. to slaughter him in the general election.

here's what lame bambi said about small town america:

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

tie it in with michelle obama's appalling comment about never being proud of this country until this year and jeremiah wright and you've got a candidate that many people will suggest needs to run for office in another country.

kcrg reports:

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright will probably never go away and Sen. Barack Obama knows it.
While the nomination fight between Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton has largely given their individual controversies a short life span, the start of the general election will leave one of them all alone against the Republican machine. "I think there is no doubt that we will see Rev. Wright comments re-circulating during a general election," Obama told local Indiana television stations Thursday.
"I think there is no way of preventing that."

no way to prevent it? well since you knew your pastor was a problem at the start of 2007 when you suddenly pulled him from a speaking engagement, you could have broken with him then. you knew he was a problem. instead, you did nothing.

bambi did nothing and allowed that to perculate. long before good morning america aired the clips last month, the right wing was already having a field day with jeremiah wright's remarks. and the bambi campaign knew what good morning america aired long before gma stumbled upon it. that's why they pulled wright.

if he wanted to prevent it, he could have addressed it in 2007. instead, he waited. and made it obvious that his pastor could stand up in front of a church and call on god to damn the country and he wouldn't do a damn thing. he wouldn't defend the country by confronting wright and he wouldn't leave the church silently.

it's not going away and it's no 1's fault but obama's. he's acting like some 1 planted something on him. no, his bad judgement led to this.

and with tony rezko - who is responsible for at least $250,000 of donations to obama's campaigns in the last 13 years - under federal indictment, it makes america wonder what bomb drops next?

bambi played it like he barely knew rezko. he knew him very well. when he couldn't afford the mansion he wanted, he took tony to see it and tony agreed to buy (at list price) the tiny sliver of land next to the mansion. when tony agreed to do that, the owner agreed to take bambi's lower offer. the f.b.i. witness says bambi was visiting rezko daily.

bambi's problems are his own and chief among them is lack of judgement.

he is already destroying the democratic party and imagine how much more destruction will take place if he gets the nomination. he is untested and unvetted. he should have been knocked out of the race long, long ago. but, except for hillary, no 1 was willing to call him out. she remains in the race because she did what the others refused to do.

barack obama is a public relations nightmare and dems better grasp that. in a general election all of this comes together to create this sink hole sucking whatever popularity he might have left away.

the mania peaked. all that's left is a spoiled prince who thinks he's owed the nomination because he speaks pretty (when it's scripted ahead of time).

you do not insult small town america 7 months before the election. that just goes to how unready for the white house he is. he is a nighmare and, trust me, this stuff that has come out that keeps getting dismissed is sticking to him. the small town america insult goes beyond 'rookie mistake'. it's so grossly offensive to so many americans. and it's really too late in the game for him to even be making rookie mistakes.

i'm sure panhandle media will offer 1 million and 1 excuses for him. who the hell cares? they aren't representative of america. they're a bunch of tired and faux radicals who couldn't get real jobs so they went to work in 'independent' media where they demonstrate that journalistic standards are something you apply to others.

he is pathetic. this isn't a winner we're seeing. this is a loser candidate. come november, if he's on the ticket, democratic party officials better not be whining. he has loser stamped on him right now and it's only going to get worse.

that's just from his own mouth. (and we thought michelle obama was the insulting 1.) in terms of outside events, if anything happens to fan the flames of patriotism more (such as an attack on america), what would the democratic party do?

he's viewed as an america hater by an increasing number of people. c.i. cites (in the snapshot at the end of my post) the poll that demonstrates jeremiah wright still is an issue and that it's an issue that has turned people off him.

there's only 1 candidate for the democratic party that can pull off a win, hillary clinton. this is howard wolfson's 'HUBdate: Safe and Secure Communities' (hillaryclinton.com):

Previewing Today: Hillary delivers a “Solutions for Safe and Secure Communities Now” speech in West Philadelphia with Mayor Michael Nutter and outlines her $4 billion a year crime-fighting plan…the plan cuts murders in half, and “put[s] 100,000 more cops on the streets, create[s] a $1 billion grant program to fight recidivism, and provide[s] more funds to combat gangs and drugs.” Read more and more.
Recapping Yesterday: Hillary responded to President Bush’s address on Iraq: “The President refuses to face the reality that we are confronted with in Iraq”…“Mrs. Clinton also dismissed Mr. McCain’s housing market proposals as ‘warmed-over’ and ‘half-hearted’ versions of her own plans.” Read more.
Basking in Support: At last night’s Allegheny County Democratic Dinner, Hillary “bask[ed] in support”… and “invoking her mother, her daughter and the other women in her family, Pittsburgh's first female mayor [Sophie Masloff] endorsed a candidate battling to be the first woman to preside in the Oval Office.” Read more.
Three In 36 Hours: Hillary received the support of three new automatic delegates over the past 36 hours…the campaign also announced that Hillary has now received the endorsement of over 270 elected officials in Pennsylvania. Read more and more.
Renewing the American Dream: Yesterday, Hillary attended the Beaver County Democratic Dinner in Hopewell Township, where “she promised a boisterous Democratic audience that she’d renew the American dream and repeatedly said she could fix mistakes made by President Bush on the economy and the war in Iraq.” Read more.
On Tap in Indiana: Hillary will host “Solutions for the American Economy” events in Indianapolis, Mishawaka, and Valparaiso on Saturday. Sen. Bayh previewed the trip on a call with reporters. Read more.
Standing Strong: Other elected officials, including Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) are joining Hillary in her calls for President Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics because of the recent human rights violations committed by the Chinese government against Tibetan protestors. Read more.
In Case You Missed It: Sen. Obama has lost the 10-point lead nationally over Sen. John McCain he had a month ago, while Hillary leads McCain 48% to 45% in the same poll. View here.

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

Friday, April 11, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, The Petraeus & Crocker Variety Hour week concludes, Najaf under curfer, and more.

Starting with war resistance. "As the Vietnam War fades into the past, the struggle for reinterpretation continues. One area that has received insufficient attention is war resistance. The script offered in public circles often reads like this: the war has ended for resisters; isolated numbers of people resisted military service, most of them 'draft dodgers'; all of the legal issues surrounding military resisters were resolved -- they eventually 'got off' and people only refuse military service when they face a draft. These myths, like most others about the war, are designed to influence future generations of potential warriors," reminds Harold Jordan (AFSC) in an essay reviewing the realities now fogged and ignored. Reality does make a difference and reality has been torn apart by those who continue to falsely insist that war resisters who went to Canada during Vietnam were just those avoiding the draft. Some had already been inducted into the service, some had deployed to Vietnam. There was never a procedure in Canada, during this period, where you had to state, "I left the service but I was drafted in!" It did not matter. In fact, it was assumed those going to Canada after serving in Vietnam were not only taking a courageous stand but were also bearing witness. Those who repeat the lies that it was just draft evaders have made the current climate in Canada more difficult as everyone latches on to the pot-hazed memories (of people who did not resist) as proof that the Vietnam era war resisters were only granted safe haven because there was a draft. The draft was not the issue, the illegal war was. As it is today.

James Burmeister is a class of 2007 war resister -- tranlation, Panhandle Media ignored him. While serving in Iraq, he saw the Bait and Kill teams -- US materials being planted (not just weapons, as the MSM reported when they picked up on the story in the fall of 2007) so that Iraqis could be shot when they touched US property. Burmeister returned to the US last winter, turned himself in at Fort Knox waiting to hear what happens next. Courage to Resist posts an interview (audio) with him and his father Erich Burmeister. Asked whether or not Canada had placed "pressure on you to leave," James Burmeister explained, " Of course. You know, they kind of drag out the decision on whether or not they will let us stay. They make it hard for us to get jobs or financial assistance. We're kind of in the middle up here and that's how they pressure us, they don't really give us the status. They make it hard to live up here." Erich Burmeister spoke of the help Ann Wright and Anita Anderson Dennis (Darrell Anderson's mother) have provided. He also noted the kill teams.

Erich Burmeister: It was more what he was involved in there. Particularly what really bothered him was the bait and kill thing which now is a pretty infamous subject which has come up in some of the trials of some of the soldiers that have been put on trial for murder. This sniper, you know, putting out pieces of equipment and waiting for someone to touch it and they shoot him. And that really, really bothered him. Plus the fact that when they would go through these neighborhoods and, you know, kick in people's doors and raid their houses and just loot their houses, and the terror that he saw on people's faces. He told me these things had really bothered him. And the devestation he saw around him. It was -- it was really hard for him to deal with that. He told me times that he would see people digging through garbage, women digging through garbage, and he couldn't believe the conditions that the Iraqis were forced to live under and he felt like he was somewhat responsible for this.

While Burmeister waits to find out what the military will do, war resisters in Canada wait to find out whether they will be granted safe harbor. The Canadian Parliament will debate a measure this month on that issue. 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).

The week's biggest story is the death of 19 soldiers this week. Should have been but few seem aware of it (and, in fact, one news program yesterday evening said there were 16 deaths for the month so far, no, there have been 20 for the month thus far). ICCC has had problems (hacking their server) and possibly that's left some outlets confused. But yesterday's deaths resulted in 19. There are 20 for the month. The only death prior to this week was Travis L. Griffin who died in Baghdad from hostile fire on April 3rd. Clicking here will show you the 20 and the days they died. Starting Sunday (April 6th -- when 8 died), there have been 19 deaths. The deaths, little noticed and incorrectly counted when noted, came as The Petraeus & Crocker Variety Hour got some attention. But what would the reaction have been to the dog and pony show this week had most Americans read on the front page of their newspapers or heard at the start of their news broadcasts that 19 US service members were killed in Iraq this week thus far? Due to the media snoozing on the job, we can only guess.

On today's second hour of NPR's The Diane Rehm Show, Rehm spoke with Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers), Demetri Sevastopulo (Finacial Times of London) and Michael Hirsh (Newsweek) about the week's events in the US and Iraq.

Diane Rehm: And this week, Moqtada al-Sadr threatened to call of the cease-fire. What is weighing, Nancy? And what does it mean for the security situation in Iraq?

Nancy A. Youssef: Well it's critical to the current, current political situation, because even the US conceeds that that cease-fire has been a key reason behind the recent drop in violence. This week Nouri al-Maliki threatened that anyone with any sort of militia behind them would not be able to participate in the elections and I think that's one reason Sadr is considering his actions this week. If he lifts it, it would substantially change the security situation and I think it would also raise questions about the directions he's headed in. When he declared the cease-fire, many interpreted Sadr as trying to rebrand himself as a Shia nationalist. He spent a lot of time in Iran building up his religious credentials if you will and if he lifts the cease-fire, I think that will put all of that into question. It would also say that he's pretty confident that he can control those forces which I think many people question right now whether he can.

Diane Rehm: The other question that arises, Demetri, is to what extent did the diminishment in violence that occurred in Iraq come about because of the surge or because Moqtada al-Sadr declared a cease-fire?

Demetri Sevastopulo: Well I think depending on when you asked the US military and the commanders this question, the answer had been different. For example, when President Bush went to Al Anbar Province last fall, as we were traveling out there, some officials said that the decline in violence there, the so-called Sunni "Awakening" where the shieks who had previously been fighting the Americans, allied themselves with Americans to take on al Qaeda. And we were told that that was in some ways serendipity and that surge was now going to have to build on that. Other officials said no, it wasn't serendipity, the surge created the situation or the platform for that to happen. I think it's very difficult to say. What you see at the moment is that the cease-fire is in danger of unraveling. Formally it's still in place. But the violence in Basra, the violence in Basra that has also spread to Baghdad is showing that it's very volatile. So I think, really, it's too early to tell and we're just going to have to wait and see. And General Petraeus yesterday warned that he was concerned the cease-fire could break.

Diane Rehm: So how did that upsurge in violence effect General Petraeus' comments, Ambassador Ryan Crocker's outlook?

Demetri Sevastopulo: It's been a difficult one for them to address because when it started in Basra, when Nouri al-Maliki launched his offensive, President Bush said this was a defining moment -- the Iraqi Prime Minister was showing the Iraqi people that the Iraqi troops were standing up on their own two feet, they were fighting for their country. On the other hand, Genereal Petraeus, he welcomed that, but he also pointed out that the operation was poorly planned that Mr. Maliki did not take his military advice and I've been told by some of my sources that Mr. Maliki also rejected offers of support from British forces who've been in Basra albiet pulled back at the airport.

[. . .]

Diane Rehm: Here's an e-mail from Josh in Athens, Ohio, Nancy, he says "What happened to the benchmarks that President Bush shared last year? Has anyone forgotten what he said about marked progress? How will we end this war?" Nancy?

Nancy A. Youssef: You know, it's funny, the benchmark question came up during testimony on Capitol Hill this week from some legislators asking that very thing. The administration says that the Iraqis have met three of the eighteen benchmarks. But Ryan Crocker, the Ambassador, was quick to point out that if the Iraqis meet the benchmarks that doesn't necessarily mean that the security situation will improve or that it will lead to political reconciliation -- which was very interesting. And he, essentially, in saying that, really questioned what the benchmarks were for? Was it for the Iraqis? Or was it for the US to say here's tangiable proof that the Iraqi government is working on something?

Diane Rehm: So how much of what we're seeing in this upsurge is political and how much of it is military, Michael?

Michael Hirsh: You mean in terms of the politics here?

Diane Rehm: Yes, exactly. Politics here and the politics there as well.

Michael Hirsh: I think it's equal parts both. Clearly Petreaus is very serious about pursuing the surge and believes that Iraq would fail, come apart, if US troops were not there in current strength. But at the same time Bush came out yesterday, essentially embraced Petraeus' recommendations, said there had been a strategic shift in Iraq and that we now had the initiative -- is how he put it -- and that's obviously a political message for the fall campaign for those who might be or might not be voting for McCain. John McCain's candidacy, and the Republican ascendancy, and, I think, Bush's legacy as he sees it is very much wrapped up in McCain being seen and Iraq being seen in a positive light as McCain goes into November.

Meanwhile Petreaus spoke with Katie Couric (CBS Evening News -- link has audio and text) for Thursday's broadcast and among the questions Couric put to him, "In our latest poll, 54 percent of Americans think the war is going badly. More than half obviously. How can you sustain this effort without more popular support here at home?" He replied with a denial statement insisting there was progress while acknowledging that "you have to leave that to the American people, who have to be the judge ultimately, who have to weigh all the different consequences along with of course our leaders." At the end of that segment, Couric notes, "General Petraeus also revealed for the first time that he's been engaged in secret diplomatic efforts. In recent months, he's quietly visited several Middle Eastern countries, including Jordan, Kuwait and Turkey, hoping to convince those governments to stop the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq." And of course Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, US Ambassador to Iraq, plan to visit Saudi Arabia to discuss Iraq. Which leads one to wonder exactly what is the US Secretary of State doing? As US Senator Chuck Hagel noted Tuesday during the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting Condi Rice doesn't appear to be doing anything "Kissinger-esque". The Senate Foreign Relations Committee Thursday hearing was reported on by Paul Richter (Los Angeles Times), "Committee Chairman Sen. Joseph Biden Jr. (D-Del) noted that at least two of the presidential candidates disagreed with President Bush on overall Iraq policy. He warned David Satterfield, the State Department's top Iraq advisor, that 'if the president persists in this course, the Congress will insist on a role in approving or disapproving' the agreements. 'This is folly!' Biden said." The agreements sought by the White House are the Status of Forces Agreement and what's seen as a strategic framework agreement.


Bully Boy's bad speech yesterday dominated the bulk of the press. It was nothing new. As US Senator Joe Biden noted of it, "The President confirmed what I've been saying for some time -- he has no plan to end this war. His plan is to muddle through and then to hand the problem off to his successor. So the result of the surge is that we're right back where we started before it began 15 months ago: with 140,000 troops in Iraq, spending $3 billion every week, losing 30 to 40 American lives every month -- and still no end in sight." After week long wave of Operation Happy Talk from the administration and its surrogates, what really happened? Peter Schmitz (Der Spiegel) observes, "Bush, in short, is changing nothing -- unless one counts the reduction in a tour of duty from 15 months to 12 months." And that change doesn't kick in until August 1st of this year. Anyone sent over prior to that date will be sent over on a 15 month term. Ann McFeatters (Scripps Howard News Service) pointed to the happiness of some, "[US Senator John] McCain exulted that progress has been made, even though Petraeus stressed it is 'fragile' and reversible.' . . . [McCain] and his buddy, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, are among few optimists left in Washington." While those two got happy in the Land of Denial, Frank James (Baltimore Sun) notes John McCain's former National Security Assistant Anthony Cordsman declared this week, "The Congress, our military, and the American people deserve more than inarticulate Presidential bluster that seems to thinly camoflage a leadership vacuum."

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

Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad rocket attack on the Palestine Hotel that claimed 3 lives and left seven wounded, a rocket attack on the Green Zone, 2 Baghdad roadside bombings that resulted in 4 deaths and three people being injured, a Baghdad mortar attack that claimed 2 lives and left five people wounded, a Ramadi car bombing claimed the lives of 4 members of the "Awakening" Council members and left three people wounded, a Salahuddin Province car bombing that claimed the life of 1 "Awakening" Council member, 2 Diyala Province roadside bombings that claimed the lives of 1 child and 2 Iraqi soldiers and left six family members of the child injured. Reuters notes a Mosul mortar attack that left eleven people injured.

Shootings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports the Najaf assassination of Seyid Riyadh al-Noori ("brother in law to Seyid Muqtada al-Sadr") "as he was returning from Friday prayers." CBS and AP note that Najaf is now under curfew. Reuters notes a police officer was shot dead outside Baiji and "three of his children" were wounded in the attack while, elsewhere in Mosul, 1 more person was shot dead.

Corpses?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad and 1 corpse (police officer) in Kirkuk.

Turning to US presidential politics. "I believe that impeachment was taken off the table because it's far easier to distance one's self from the American people than it is to distance one's self from the corridors of power," Cynthia McKinney declares to Cindy Piester (video only). McKinney is running for the presidential nomination from the Green Party. In a wide ranging interview, Piester takes you through McKinney's long years of public service, in Georgia's state legisture, in the US Congress and the social justice issues that matter to her campaign. Kevin Zeese (Dissident Voice) writes of McKinney, "McKinney served 12 years in the U.S. House of Representatives where she urged an end to the Iraq occupation, advocated for impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, sought release of 9/11 Commission's underlying data, advocated on behalf of Katrina victims and sought to cut the bloated military budget. Twice she was defeated in the primary by a Democratic Party leadership approved candidate who worked with Republican cross-over voters for her defeat. She registered Green in September and became a candidate in a 'Power to the People' campaign in October. She is the putative nominee of the Green Party and will be on the ballot in almost all states." Stephanie M. Lee (The Daily Californian) reports on Wednesday's political forum at UC Berkeley and notes: "Larry Shoup, a local activist backing Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney, said preserving minority viewpoints is crucial in a democracy. 'Once (Clinton or Obama) are elected, in our view they're going to move to the center,' Shoup said. 'The only way we can keep them honest and moving toward good positions is if we have an independent movement." How might Obama respond to that? "And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations"? Susan UnPC (No Quarter) notes that statement of Obama's that's raising eyebrows. Hillary Clinton's response is: "I saw in the media it's being reported that my opponent said that the people of Pennsylvania who faced hard times are bitter. Well, that's not my experience. As I travel around Pennsylvania, I meet people who are resilient, who are optimistic, who are positive, who are rolling up their sleeves. They are working hard everyday for a better future, for themselves and their children. Pennsylvanians don't need a president who looks down on them, they need a president who stands up for them, who fights for them, who works hard for your futures, your jobs, your families."

Meanwhile Judi Panasik (The Weekly Reader) points out, "Obama, like the last two Bush campaigns, is playing off of the fears and concerns of voters with no real merit behind what he is saying. . . . And correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it Bush that convinced us the country was divided and that he would be the one to bring us all together?" From Obama to a candidate who actually stands for something . . . Ralph Nader is running for president. He has selected Matt Gonzalez as his running mate. Angelica Dongallo (The Daily Californian) reports that Gonzalez spoke about Obama's voting record:

"I'm picking on Senator Obama ... because your professor told me this is a pretty strong Obama crowd," Gonzalez said. "It says something about a candidate that can stand in front of you and repeatedly say, 'I can change the culture of Washington, (D.C.)' ... without giving you an accounting of what is going on here. What are these votes about?"

Earlier this week, Foon Rhee was 'covering' (not covering) Senator Hillary Clinton's proposals for breast cancer research. Rhee (Boston Globe) is back to gloat that Nader's campaign "is off to a slow start filling its campaign coffers" having pulled in $321,700 through February. Though not the millions the 2008 Democratic and GOP races that began in 2007 has gotten many to accustomed to, that's an impressive amount for a third party candidate. Rhee seems unaware when Nader declared he was running for president -- February 23rd. Again, that is an impressive amount to have pulled in. Ralph Nader writes: "

April 15 is around the corner.
Could the corporate executives of this country please stand up and show a little appreciation?
To the taxpayers who subsidize them? And bail them out?
How about the $30 billion bailout of reckless Bear Stearns as the most recent and egregious example?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that April 15th of each year be designated Taxpayer Appreciation Day, a day when corporations receiving taxpayer subsidies, bailouts, handouts and other forms of corporate welfare can express their thanks to the citizens who provide them.

US Senator Hillary Clinton is running for the Democratic presidential nomination. Nichola Gutgold (WMC) compares and contrasts the way Clinton and Obama are speaking to voters in Pennsylvania and determines Hillary's is more effective and cites this example of Hillary connecting with voters:

I met with a group of truck drivers in Harrisburg yesterday. They are pretty fed up with high fuel prices and they were making their opinions known. Who is listening? I'm listening, but it doesn't seem like the White House is listening. The president is too busy holding hands with the Saudis to care about American truck drivers who can't afford to fill up their tank any longer. I meet workers all over Pennsylvania and elsewhere who lost their pensions; they have seen companies go into bankruptcy and discharge their obligations. We have a vice president, who, when he was CEO of Halliburton--which now gets all these no bid contracts, don't they, from the government?--workers lost $25 billion in pensions. But Dick Cheney got to strap on a golden parachute worth $20 million. You get tax breaks to people who don't need them while our children get stuck with the bill.

Also at WMC, Peggy Simpson interviews pioneer and political scientist Jo Freeman about the 2008 race. One point not made in the must-read-article is that, should Clinton win the nomination, November would find two women on the ballot for president -- Clinton and McKinney. Meanwhile Delilah Boyd (A Scriverner's Lament) weighs in on the insulting way Obama's been speaking to women lately. Nancy Reyes (Blogger News Network) notes a poll by Lifetime TV. The poll had an interesting finding that some reports are mentioning but no one is highlighting. This finding directly contradicts everything the MSM has repeatedly told news consumers. From Ellen Wulfhorst (Reuters):

As to Obama, 23 percent said they liked him more now than in January, citing his personal characteristics, while 22 percent said they liked him less. Of those, the most common reason was the Illinois senator's controversial relationship with the outspoken Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

That would be the 'non-issue' Wright who damned the United States from the front of his church in the midst of a sermon. One who did get it was Stuart Taylor Jr. and click here for his piece Monday for National Journal (that was noted in Tuesday's snapshot but the link didn't make it into the snapshot).

Tonight (in most markets) NOW on PBS explores poverty. Bill Moyers Journal (also PBS and also tonight in most markets) looks at hunger in America. On the issue of economic realities David Bacon examines day laborers as he continues to report on immigrants and, in September, his latest book is released on this topic: Illegal Workers -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press). You can also see his work here at Political Affairs magazine. Sunday on WBAI (11:00 a.m. EST), The Next Hour is hosted by Andrew Andrew and, on Monday, Cat Radio Cafe (2:00 p.m. EST):Adam Mansbach talks about his new novel, "The End of the Jews"; Stephen Frailey, head of the Department of Photography at the School of Visual Arts discusses "The 2008 Mentors Exhibition"; and painter Simon Dinnerstein discusses his collaboration with his daughter, virtuoso pianist Simone Dinnerstein and radio star Robin Quivers on "A Night of Music & Art with the Dinnersteins," a fundraiser for Healing Bridges, an organization creating jobs for women in Africa.

so i'm reading about babmi purging california delegates at mydd (he's reinstated them after the huge uproar) and i'm thinking about the kid that created the myspace page only to have it stolen from him by the bambi campaign. and i'm thinking about the guy bambi sicked the secret service on because the guy was selling unofficial obama campaign buttons. and i'm thinking about michelle obama's appearance this week, where aisan-americans and others were forced off the stage as the campaign cried 'we need more white people!' and i'm getting just how tightly controlled this allegedly bottom up campaign is.

t participated in the roundtable tonight so be sure to read the gina & krista round-robin tomorrow. i'll give you a teaser of her comments. why did bambi throw grandma under the bus in his speech and then refer to her later as 'a typical white person'? to scare white people. to show them that he'd call his own grandmother a racist and wouldn't hestitate to call them that as well. support me, he's saying, or you are a racist, or you are just 'a typical white person.' it was an interesting point and she elaborate more on it, much more, but that's your teaser.

this is from mark caserta (the herald-dispatch):

Sen. Obama, to this day, expects the American people to believe that in more than 20 years of having a personal and pastoral relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright; a man that in Obama's own words, "is like an old uncle;" he was unaware of the reverend's deeply embedded contempt for our government.
The Rev. Wright doesn't strike me as a man who could easily hide a fire burning so fiercely inside him for 20 years, from anyone.

wright's not going away and the bambi groupies are stupidly deluding themselves that he will. they are telling themselves, 'john mccain won't use it!' mccain will use whatever he has to but others will bring it up regardless. like dick cheney did today:

ABC News' Jon Garcia reports: Vice President Dick Cheney made a quick appearance on Sean Hannity's radio show, where he used some very strong words to condemn the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barak Obama's former pastor.
"I thought some of the things he said were absolutely appalling," Cheney told the conservative talk show host. "And, you know, I haven't gotten into the business of trying to judge how Sen. Obama dealt with it, or didn't deal with it, but I really -- I think, like most Americans, I was stunned at what the reverend was preaching in his church and then putting up on his Web site."

ariel garfinkle's back to smear gloria steinem again and show how stupid she is. give it ariel, every 1 knows daddy pays the bills. get a job, grow the hell up. and learn that feminists don't avoid the issue of abortion and don't vote 'present' when they're forced to vote on it. of course the huffington post rushes to post her. she's trash, arianna's trash, they're the perfect fit.

i've made it clear here before that i don't care for arianna-dig-into-the-clinton's-marriage-huffington. she had plenty of time to do that while she was married to a gay guy. hey, arianna, my 1st husband was gay too. i didn't spend years with him. i also haven't placed barriers on what he can talk about.

arianna huffington is a fake and phony. that's all she ever was and all she'll ever be. i don't usually say it so boldly because c.i. likes arianna. or liked. the issue of the 'jokes' about children with mental disabilities is not minor. i knew it was going to come up again (it does in today's snapshot). c.i. has spent years working on charities for children. you can do anything in the world and c.i. doesn't really care. but if you go after children, especially disabled or diseased children, you are just asking for it. and the response is always the same. silence. and you may think it is over but it's not. c.i. is stewing (the only thing i know c.i. to rage over) and it will come out.

arianna is trash for letting that crap get posted. it wasn't funny. and she pissed off the wrong person. if c.i.'s weighing in today you can be sure c.i.'s weighed in with a lot of people already. (in a, 'am i wrong to be upset?' which is asked sincerely. c.i. will ask for input and ask for input. during that stage.)

i'm going to share a story. i think most of you know (if you've been around for awhile) that jaqueline susann's valley of the dolls is 1 of my favorite books. it's a pop culture classic. i love it today, i loved it the 1st time i read it. it was the only book i took to college. when i was feeling low, i'd dig it out and read about jennifer, for example.

anyway, 1 weekend c.i. said, 'you love that book. do you want to meet the author?' did i! so we go out to eat with her and end up in the ladies' room with her crying. she had a son (i was forbidden to repeat this to any 1 at the time) who had autism. that just all started coming out during lunch (as these things tend to around c.i. - people always unload). so anyway, i was watching the door (to stop any 1 from intruding) and c.i. was just talking with her about it and this was a heavy conversation. afterwards, j.s. fixed her make up and we went back to the table.
it was a nice lunch. when we left (after seeing j.s. off), c.i. said, 'becky, don't ever repeat that.' (it's okay to now. i believe it's known about her son and she died years ago.) i think i made a joke. a joke or a wisecrack. i never saw c.i. so angry. (that's still the angriest i've ever made c.i. to this day.) (for the record, my joke or wisecrack was not about her son, guy, or his disease/condition.) but somethings are just off limits. that's why ava and c.i. do not discuss child actors in their t.v. reviews. a few years ago, every show was ending. and 1 of them was malcolm in the middle. they really wanted to review it's ending. but they couldn't because, good comments or bad, they don't rate child actors' acting.

this is howard wolfson's 'HUBdate: Commander-in-Chief on Day One:'

Ready to be Commander-in-Chief: Yesterday, Hillary hosted a "Solutions for a Strong Military" town hall in Aliquippa, PA...Standing alongside retired Generals and Admirals, and local PA vets, Hillary discussed her "agenda to improve veterans services." Read more.
Calling on President Bush: At yesterday's event, Clinton also "demanded that President Bush disclose his 'endgame' in Iraq…She also asked Bush to pledge in a speech today on Iraqi policy that he would allow Congress to 'review and vote on' any long-term security pact the administration negotiates with the Iraqi government." Read more and more.
Setting the Record Straight: In a new 60-second radio ad, the Clinton campaign aims to set the record straight on Sen. Obama's energy record. A misleading television ad claims Sen. Obama doesn’t take money from oil companies when in fact “Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses." Read the fact check. Listen here.
New Endorsement: Former Pittsburgh Mayor and superdelegate, Sophie Masloff, endorsed Hillary today in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Read more.
Strong in Puerto Rico: A new Puerto Rico poll conducted by Research & Research shows Hillary with a 13-point lead over Sen. Obama. Results here.
Partner in Democracy: Yesterday, as "part of a whirlwind tour of eastern Pennsylvania…[former Secretary of State Madeleine] Albright told a group of about 75 people gathered in a classroom... 'We had a partnership. [Hillary] was able to deliver a tough message to leaders and then go out to the countryside and meet with women's groups and show her human side." Read more.
Smart, Tough, and Committed: In a Philadelphia Inquirer op-ed, a supporter says of Hillary: "She still believes that ideas matter. She is intellectually brainy and emotionally brawny. She has the kind of remarkable endurance that makes it possible for her to press on, despite the klieg lights of controversy and criticism almost always trained in her direction. These are critical attributes for a world leader, and a U.S. president." Read more.
Rocket Man Lends Star Power: Sir Elton John performed at a Hillary event at Radio City Music Hall in New York, raising more that $2.5 million for her campaign. Read more.
Today in PA: Hillary attends the Beaver County Democratic Dinner in Hopewell Township, and gives remarks at the Allegheny County Jefferson Jackson Dinner in Pittsburgh.
On Tap: Hillary will campaign in the Philadelphia area on Friday and in Indiana on Saturday.
In Case You Missed It: The McCain campaign is renewing criticisms of Sen. Barack Obama for "deriding the public financing system for presidential campaigns...call[ing] it the latest signal that the Democratic candidate may abandon a promise to participate in the system, should he become the Democratic nominee." Read more.


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

Thursday, April 10, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces more deaths, what happens in Iraq come December 31st, Senate hearings, and more.

Starting with war resistance. War resistance includes resisting moves to put the draft back in place in the US so consider The Huffington Post no friend to war resisters since they insist upon running the crazy scribbles of a Bambi groupie named Frank Schaeffer who argues "progressives" (I guess that's to include the Closet Political Types and not just liberals) must support the draft and that the lack of a draft is why the illegal war drags on and that's due to an elevation of the military. What? Joe Lieberman tossed the 2000 election on NBC's Meet the Press when he waived all voting rules and regulations for those serving in the military who voted in Florida. That had nothing to do with the Iraq War. There is a glorification of the military (though not of individuals actually serving in the ranks who are ignored repeatedly in the press), there always has been. It helps sell wars. It's how corporations work. Maybe Right Wing Daddy hit Frankie too hard one day but the last thing the US needs is a draft. Wouldn't that argument, though, come from someone safely out of the age of a draft? Yeah, it would.

The lack of a draft isn't why the illegal war has dragged on. Were there a draft in place and able to immediately implement a draft lottery on March 1, 2003, it still wouldn't have made a difference in the illegal war going on currently. The Bully Boy believes in outsourcing. He believes in corporate welfare. The mercenaries (such as Blackwater) in Iraq currently would still be there even if there was a draft because the whole point -- something many generals objected to in real time (but Frankie forgets that) -- was to do the war on the cheap and to put as few boots on the ground as possible. So a draft is nonsense, it wouldn't have made a difference. Bully Boy wouldn't have activated it. I'm really sick of all the closeted types hiding behind the label "progressive" but the reality is there is nothing in it for the left in calling for a draft. That is so offensive and it would have to come from an idiot raised by a right-wing radical. There are no standards at The Huffington Post. We've seen that over and over. We've seen mentally disabled children MADE FUN of by those posting articles (not comments, articles) at The Huffington Post. There are NO standards. Crazy Frankie loves Bambi Obama and that's good enough for Arianna. We're not linking to that crap site. When they thought it was okay to make fun of mentally disabled children, they crossed a serious line. We're done with them. And we're obviously not missing anything since Fundamentalist Frankie is a featured writer there. (You'll note, Frankie's not a Democrat. If they had to depend upon actual Democrats to voice support for Barack, you'd hear nothing but crickets chirping.) The US doesn't need a draft and the left needs to loudly call that nonsense out.


They also need to pay attention to Canada. War resisters in Canada are attempting to be granted safe harbor. The Canadian Parliament will debate a measure this month on that issue. 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).

Hearings went on today regarding Iraq and we'll note them after the reported violence in Iraq but first we'll note that, yesterday, the US Senate's Committee on Foreign Relations held a meeting presided over by Senator Bill Nelson. Among those testifying was Mary Beth Kineston who noted at the start:

I hold a commercial truck driver's license and my husband John and I joined KBR on January 19, 2004 in order to go to Iraq and work for KBR at Camp Anaconda in what appeared to be an exciting and well paying truck driving job. I would earn compensation at the rate of about $84,000.00 per year tax free when employed at KBR. When I was hired I expected that KBR would protect my physical safety while working as far as it was able and I did not expect any special treatment merely because I was a female. I am a hard worker and a loyal employee and can deal with my share of hardships as evidenced by the fact I voluntarily agreed to work for KBR at a forward combat basein a war zone in Iraq as a condition of my employment. It is undisputed I was qualified for KBR employment as a truck driver at all times relevant. However, that being said, I was not expecting to trade my self respect or right to be free from sexual assault as a condition of continued KBR employment and I did not view myself as selling my human dignity as a female employee when I accepted KBR paychecks. I also expected that when I made a complaint about such activity, it would be thoroughly investigated in good faith, that is, with an intent to resolve the problem immediately, and that I would be protected from the perpetrator in the mean time. I also expected that if the laws were broken by KBR relative to gender discrimination or if I were a victim of a crime I would have an adequate legal remedy for the offense. I expected that given KBR had a sexual harassment policy and given KBR was obligated to abide by federal civil rights laws regarding gender discrimination it would protect me in the event I was a target of any sexual misconduct by co-workers. I can assure this Committee that none of my expectations about KBR were fulfilled.

Along with illegal sexual harassment, being denied access to restrooms, food and water, Kineston was raped and sexually assaulted after. She noted, "The perpetrators in my case have not spent a day in jail although they committed crimes on what amounts to in effect U.S. soil and committed acts that in this country would enver be tolerated."

"The bottom line," Senator Nelson stated, "is that American women working in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to be assaulted while their assailants continue to go free. Either the U.S. government has the authority to prosecute contractors for sexual assault and is failing to do so, or it doesn't have the authority or resources it needs and hasn't come to Congress. Either way, it is a travesty." Lesley Clark (Miami Herald) reports: "An attorney with the Defense Department told Nelson the Pentagon is ramping up efforts to stamp out sexual harassment among government contractors." That would be Assoc Dept General Counsel for Military Justice and Personnel Policy at the Dept of Defense Robert Reed who declared, "The Department of Defense has engaged in a concerted effort to combat sexual assaults within our stateside and overseas military communities. Beginning in early 2005, over a dozen policy memorandums were issued that addressed sexual assault issues and care for victims of sexual assalt. The Department established a Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office to further these policy issues and, by June 2006, issued a DoD directive and DoD Instruction on the Sexual Assault and Prevention and Response Program. The Program includes a netowrk of Sexual Assault and Response Coordinators and Sexual Assalut Victim Advocates who assist victims of sexual assault." That's blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Memos? They issued memos? Well that certainly is cover-your-own-ass-we've-got-documentation. But it's not addressing the situation and they have refused to address the situation. The programs are underfunded. The victims are discouraged from them. The 'justice' is non-existant. Kim Wendel (WKYC) notes that Dawn Leamon testified of how "she was sodomized and forced to have oral sex with a soldier and a co-worker after she drank a cocktail that made her feel strange." Maddy Sauer (ABC News) reports that when Leamon reported the sexual assaults, she was encouraged not to report it ("You know what will happen if you do") by KBR, she was "then assigned full-time security guards to her which gave her no privacy to talk about the incident, and her movements around camp were restricted, yet her attackers' movements were unrestricted." If it sounds familiar, you may be thinking back to December when Brian Ross, Maddy Sauer and Justin Rood were reporting on 22-year-old Jamie Leigh Jones who went to Iraq to work but ended up getting gang-raped by employees for Halliburton/KBR. The rape was folloed by KBR holding Jones in a pod and denying her food, water and contact with the outside world. A sympathetic co-worker passed her a cell phone allowing her to phone her father, "I said, 'Dad, I've been raped. I don't know what to do. I'm in this container, and I'm not able to leave." As US Senator Hillary Clinton [PDF format warning] noted then:

As I hope you are all aware, recent news accounts indicate that Ms. Jones, a Halliburton/KBR employee in Baghdad, alleges she was gang-raped by her fellow employees and then held under guard against her will in a shipping container in order to prevent her from reporting the horrific crime. She states that she was denied food and water during her detention and told that she would be fired if she left Iraq to seek medical attention. More than two years later, news reports state that no U.S. government agency or department has undertaken a proper investigation of the incident. These claims must be taken seriously and the U.S. government must act immediately to investigate Ms. Jones' claims. These allegations implicate all three of your departments. If one of your departments has already launched a private investigation, I urge you to disclose your findings without delay. If no investigation has been started, I urge you to decide the proper course for an inquiry into these claims and to commence your investigation with the utmost urgency.


In Iraq, Sam Dagher (Christian Science Monitor) reports, "Since March 25, when clashes with the Mahdi Army started in Basra, Baghdad, and other parts of southern Iraq, at least 142 people have been killed and 800 wounded in Sadr City alone, according to Qassim al-Suwaidi, the hospital's director [Iman Ali Hospital]. Nearly one-third of the victims have been women and children, he says. On Thursday, US air strikes continued to hit buildings in Sadr City and at least 15 people were killed in the district, the Mahdi Army's main Baghdad stronghold. The US military says it is targeting 'criminals'." Targeting 'criminals'? You heard the same excuse from the puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki during the assault on Basra. A McClatchy Newspapers Iraqi correspondent visits the area and writes (at Inside Iraq):

When I passed the small bridge towards the new bus station, I noticed that I couldn't hear the shouting of the drivers. I kept walking for about five minutes and I reached the area I couldn't find the buses. I asked a young man and he told me that they were ordered by the American and the Iraqi forces not to stop in the place and more. I saw few American military vehicles. The street was empty. The Youngman told me "if you plan to walk, go through the bystreets because the American snipers may shoot you."

[. . .]

I know there is an ongoing fight between the American and the Iraqi forces from one side and the gunmen from Sadr City on the other side but I also know very well that there are thousands of families sponsors need to leave Sadr City to work in other places. Their life and their families needs depend on their daily wages they get. No daily wages may mean no lunch or no dinner for these families. People in Sadr City now suffer from the lack of food substances. Everybody knows that empty stomachs are always angry and dangerous. I believe that the military commanders who decided to impose the blockade on Sadr City know very well that women, old men, infants and children of Sadr City don't fight them. What is going on now in Sadr City is seems like mass punishment. It's not fair to punish the innocent and treat them as insurgents because they are not.

Anwar Ali (NYT's Baghdad Bureau) wrote Tuesday, "At the beginning we thought that maybe things would settle down within a few days, and we would again be busy following other usual problems like mortar shells, car boms, suicide bombers and I.E.D.s. In fact most of the people in most of the Shiite neighborhoods like ours are Sadrist, if not Mahdi Army, and they are very many. So we thought that the government would not do anything serious here because the Sadrists are the majority, and we can find them even within the army and the police. . . . In fact I realized that we still want to believe that the security situation is imporving and that those clashes are an illusion, and that the concrete proof of this is that we are still alive no matter what is going on around us." Kim Sengupta (Independent of London) reports, "The Iraqi capital remains under curfew after another round of bloodshed in which mortar rounds landed in Sadr City, killing seven people, including two children, and injuring 24 others. Further gunfights in the sprawling Shia slum led to six more dying and 15 others being wounded. The area is a centre of support for the radical Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, and came after days of clashes between his militia, the Mehdi Army, and Iraqi government forces in which 55 people have been killed and more than 200 injured. The Shia fighters vowed last night that retribution would be taken for the 'unprovoked attack' in Sadr City which they claimed was the responsibility of the US forces." As Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) noted earlier this week, US Ambassador Ryan Crocker was telling the US Congress this week that the passage of a bill calling for provincial elections was progress (those elections may or may not take place) but "[m]any Sadr loyalists viewed the offensive" currently going on in Iraq "as an attempt by Maliki's Dawa party and the Shiite rivals of the Sadr movement to undercut the much more popular Shiite movement prior to elections in October." Of planned elections, Mariam Karouny (Reuters) explains that, "Major players -- such as the movement of populist Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and Sunni Arab tribal groups -- will be competing for the first time and are expected to make gains at the expense of those now in power. . . . The results will provide early clues on how parties will far in parliamentary elections scheduled for 2009 -- polls that will determine if Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki retains power or another leader takes his place." Citing "an Iraqi Interior Ministry official," UPI reveals that 6 civilians have died in "the past 24 hours from two U.S. air strikes in Sadr City area in Baghdad". Presna Latina reports, "The US warplanes continue targeting civilian areas, claiming that those opposed to the Iraqi government and the foreign occupation, as the Mahdi Army militants loyal to Shia Muslim clergyman Moqtada al Sadr, are hidden there." Iran's Press TV speaks to Salman al-Fraiji who "noted that three million inhabitants of Sadr City are presently under siege. They are prevented from leaving and from reaching food supplies" and quotes him stating, "We will obey the orders of Moqtada al-Sadr but if the violence against the Iraqis continues, if the blood of Iraqis continues to be spilled, the ceasefire will definitely be lifted." AFP cites, "An AFP reporter who toured Sadr City in the afternoon said streets were shaken sporadically by the sound of automatic gunfire while loud explosions were heard from time to time. The main streets were deserted. Residents said the roadways are primed with bombs placed by Shiite militiamen fighting US forces. US Apache helicopters were seen flying high overhead while the sound of warplanes could be heard."

In some of the other reported violence today . . .

Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 Baghdad roadside bombings that left eight people wounded, an attempted assassination via bombing in Salahuddin Province on the "Head of the Muncipal Council of Dor" that he survived, a Mosul mortar attack that left eleven people wounded and 2 car bombings in Mosul that claimed 4 lives (three police officers, one civilian) and left twenty-five people injured.

Shootings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a PUK member was shot dead in Nineveh province today, two children were shot dead in Kirkuk today and 1 representative of the Ministry of Interior was shot dead in Salahudding Province along "with one of his relatives". Reuters notes that the Kirkuk shooting that killed the two boys also wounded their parents.

Corpses?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 33 corpses were discovered in Mahmudiyah.

Today the US military announced: "A Coalition force Soldier was killed when an improvised explosive device struck his vehicle during convoy operations in central Baghdad April 9." ICCC's total is 4032 US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war with 19 of those announced beginning on Sunday.

In Iraqi legal news, Free Bilal. As Reporters Without Borders notes AP photographer, Pulitzer Prize winner, Bilal Hussein has been found not guilty of charges in the Iraqi courts -- trumped up charges the US has hidden behind to imprison him since April 12, 2006. Robert H. Reid (AP) reports that the court found Bilal "should be 'immediately' released" and yet the US military has not released him. Noah Barkin (Reuters) reports the US military is tating that they will 'review' his status.

Meanwhile, Damien McElroy (Telegraph of London) reports: "A secret draft agreement is being drawn up to allow United States forces to remain in Iraq indefinitely, it has been reported. The document, which was written a month ago and is and marked 'secret' and 'sensitive,' is intended to replace the United Nations mandate for coalition troops, including British forces, to remain in Iraq, which expires at the end of the year. The draft authorisation would allow for the US to 'conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security'." That sets the stage for this morning's hearing by the US Senate's Committee on Foreign Relations. Senator Joe Biden is the chair of that committee and it has been addressing Iraq this week and last. McElroy was reporting on the treaty the White House wants to sign with puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki, the one they're calling a Status of Forces Agreement. As the hearing wound down, Biden informed David Satterfield (US State Department) and Mary Beth Long (US Defense Dept), "I respectfully suggest that you don't have a Constitutional leg to stand on."

But that was the conclusion. The hearing started with Biden noting the Declaration of Principles that Bully Boy and al-Maliki put their names to in November which sent up "many red flags with me and other Americans. We've pledged we're not only going to consult when there is an outside threat, but also when there is an inside threat. We've just witnessed when Mr. Maliki engaged in the use of force against another Shia group in the south, is this an inside threat?

Senator Joe Biden: We will hear today about the two agreements that the Administration is negotiating with Iraq which were anticipated in the November Declaration. On Tuesday, Ambassador Crocker told us that these agreements would set forth the "vision" -- his phrase -- of our bilateral relationship with Iraq. One agreement is a "strategic framework agreement" that will include the economic, political and security issues outlined in the Declaration of Principles. The document might be better titled "What the United States will do for Iraq," because it consists mostly of a series of promises that flow in one direction -- promises by the United States to a sectarian government that has thus far failed to reach the political compromises necessary to have a stable country. We're told that the reason why we're not continuing under the UN umbrella is because the Iraqis say they have a sovereign country. But they don't want a Status of Forces Agreement because that flows two ways. The Administration tells us it's not binding, but the Iraqi parliament is going to think it is. The second agreement is what Administration officials call a "standard" Status of Forces Agreement, which will govern the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, including their entry into the country and the immunities to be granted to them under Iraqi law. Unlike most SOFAs, however, it would permit U.S. forces -- for the purposes of Iraqi law -- to engage in combat operations and detain insurgents. In other words, to detain people that we think are bad guys. I don't know any of the other nearly 90 Status of Forces Agreements that would allow a U.S. commander to arrest anyone he believes is a bad guy.

Biden spoke of how US Ambassador Ryan Crocker told the committee on Tuesday that this was about setting "forth a vision, to use his words, of our relationship with Iraq" but "one of the problems . . . is the visition this administrations shares for Iraq is not shared by two of the thee" current candidates for president in the Democratic and Republican Parties -- referring to Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Biden noted that those appearing before Congress keep stating that the agreements "aren't binding to us but, in Iraq, they think we mean it . . . because otherwise we wouldn't be having this kind of discussion." Biden noted the "internal threat" aspect being proposed and how these requires the US "to support the Iraqi government in its battle with all 'outlaw groups' -- that's a pretty expansive commitment." He noted that it requires the US "to take sides in Iraq's civil war" and that "there is no Iraqi government that we know of that will be in place a year from now -- half the government has walked out."

"Just understand my frustration," Biden explained. "We want to normalize a government that really doesn't exist." Senator Russ Feingold wanted to know if there were "any conditions that the Iraq government must meet?" No, that thought never occurred to the White House. "Given the fact that the Maliki government doesn't represent a true colation," Feingold asked, "won't this agreement [make it appear] we are taking sides in the civil war especially when most Iraqi Parliamentarians have called for the withdrawal of troops?" The two witnesses didn't appear to have heard that fact before. Feingold repeated and asked, "Are you not concerned at all that the majority of the Iraqi Parliament has called for withdrawal" Satterfield feels the US and the agreement "will enjoy broad popular support" in Iraq. Satterfield kept saying the agreement wasn't binding. And Feingold pointed out, "The agreement will not bind the Congress either, if the Congress were to" pass a law overriding it which seemed to confuse Satterfield requiring that Feingold again point that out and ask him if "Congress passed a clear law overriding the agreement, would the law override the agreement." Satterfield felt the White House "would have to look carefully at it at the time" because "it would propose difficult questions for us."

"I would suggest," Feingold responded, "your difficulties are with the nature of our Constitution. If we pass a law overiding it . . . that's the law." The treaty and the efforts to bypass the Senate's advise & consent role was something that bothered senators on both sides of the aisle. Senators Norm Coleman and Johnny Isakson also addressed it. Republican Isaskson wanted to know if the agreement being pushed could be cancelled "by either at any time". "Yes, sir," Satterfield responded. Isakson noted the "pending elections" and couldn't remember a time when anything like that had happened before, where you'd put forth an agreement like this so close to the end of term. Mary Beth Long wasn't aware of a precedent either. Sentor Coleman was also concerned with the timing.

Senator Robert Menendez pointed out that renewing the UN authorization would mean there was no need for an agreement. "Many of us on both sides of the aisle," Menendez stated, "believe that such an agreement needs to come before Congress." Menendez also felt that things were being offered without any bargaining being made, that "a tremendous leverage opportunity" was being wasted and, in doing so, "undermining a critical opportunity to make the Iraqi government make the hard choices." Senator Jim Webb built upon the legal issues. "In your view," he asked Satterfield, "the international authority after December 31st would come from what document?" Satterfield attempted to bob and weave to duck the issue but Webb pursued the topic forcing Satterfield to finally answer that it would be the executive agreement that would be "binding."

"What you're maintaining," Webb pointed out, "is that an executive agreement can bind us -- let me use a better word -- can authorize a continue military presence in Iraq?" Satterfield hemmed and hawwed but finally agreed leading Webb to stress that if "it's an essential document . . . I would argue it's a document that needs Senate consent."

Webb: What is a premanent base?

Satterfield: Senator the administration has made clear that we're not seeking permanent bases in Iraq.

Webb continued to explore the meaning of "permanent base" and asked Long, "Are there permanent bases in Japan?" Webb explained, "It's sort of a dead word, it doesn't really mean anything" noting the whole concept of 'permanence' and that "to say that these won't be permanent bases really doesn't go to what they will be. What we're saying won't be -- it's a dead word." He then noted that the Status of Forces Agreement the White House wants is said to "reflect all the major parties of Iraq but at this point it does not reflect all the major parties in the US."

As the hearing wound down, Biden pointed out, "Truth is, when this UN authorization expires in January, no other foreign forces are allowed to be in Iraq unless the Iraqi government" enters into contracts "with those countries" because they "can't piggyback on the agreement" the White House wants to make. He then took up the issue of the 2002 resolution and noted that if the US is creating an agreement "with a government in Iraq, it's not longer a threat ."

"That's an awful hard case to explain to the American people," Biden stressed, pointing to the death toll, the number wounded and how "if that ain't enough then guess what? If the Iraqi Parliament votes for us to go home, guess what? I predict 89% of Republicans, 95% of the Democrats [and --% of the independnets) will say, 'Hey, man, they don't want us? We're out of there."

This afternoon (and it's still going on as I dictate this), the US Senate Armed Services Committee heard from Sec of Defense Robert Gates and chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen. Senator Carl Levin is the chair of the committee. As Gates and Mullen completed their opening statements, Levin pointed out to Gates, "There's no way you can paper over the difference between" his view and that of Gen Petraeus over the brief pause in withdrawing the troops added in Iraq for the escalation/surge. Gates agreed that "there certainly is a difference in the way we described it" but felt it was just a misunderstanding and offered the most convulated justification (that included "I talked to the press at the time, I continue to believe . . . while we use different words") tried to say they were on the same page and that "I believe," come September, Petraeus will be on the same page with Gates but Petraeus needs to time to think. He's such a rebel, that Davy Petraeus. In fact, Gates was making like Darlene Love and singing, "He's a Rebel" to Congress. Levin wasn't buying it, "General Petraeus' testimony is very different from what you're saying hearing." Still sounding like a sap (or speaking for the girl groups of the 60s), Gates insisted it wasn't any different, he and Davy were just alike but "one of the benefits" to being Gates "is I'm allowed to hope more than" he does. "I hope that you're doing more than hoping," Levin deadpanned noting that Gates' job was to give a clear assessment to the president.

Senator Bill Nelson stressed the issue of reimbursment and wanted to know about that. He pressed Gates to figure out what "could be reimbursable by the Iraqis so that they don't come at the expense of the American taxpayers borrowing on future generations." Gates noted that "the subject of them reimbursing us . . . has not been broached yet." Nor apparently even considered due to "this focus on reconstruction and military equipment but" cheerily Gates added "based on this hearing, I'm more than happy to take this back to the administration."

As part of the latest wave of Operation Happy Talk, today Bully Boy gave a speech. Instead of recounting his nonsense, we'll note Senator Hillary Clinton's response:

Today, President Bush delivered yet another address on Iraq -- but we've heard enough speeches that are long on promises, short on facts.
And the fact is, there will probably be more troops in Iraq after the surge than before the surge. Iraq has barely moved toward political reconciliation, meeting only a few of the benchmarks set out by the Bush Administration at the start of the surge. And violence has once again spiked in Baghdad and Basra.
On Tuesday, I asked General Petraeus when he came before the Senate Armed Services Committee what conditions would mean we should change course, given that the surge has failed to achieve political reconciliation. He did not answer.
Yesterday I called on President Bush to answer the question General Petraeus did not. But the President refuses to face reality.
I want to commend President Bush for agreeing to cut the length of deployments from 15 to 12 months. But it is deeply unfortunate that the President only made this change when the strain he placed on our forces required it.
Now, once again President Bush is asking Americans for time and patience -- but the American people are saying he's had enough of both.
Our troops have done all that's been asked of them and more. It's time for the President to answer the question being asked of him: in the wake of the failed surge, what is the endgame in Iraq?
As President, I will do what this president has failed to do: recognize reality and end the war responsibly.

4031 u.s. service members killed in iraq since the illegal war started, 19 this month so far. and petraeus and crocker think they can do a song & dance before congress and pretend like the news isn't so bad.

i heard a lot today that impressed me in the hearings - from members of congress. i thought gary ackerman (of new york) was among the best and this evening i've looked at some of the coverage including from an ackerman, spencer. he's the new republic refugee, the 1 who cheerleaded the illegal war and then turned against it. the 1 who slams hillary. yesterday he pretended like he wanted to cover hillary's questioning but cspan went out on him. that was a cute trick. today he proves how 'closely' he's NOT following the hearings because he missed the point about 'we're there because we're there.' that wasn't gary ackerman's invented phrase, it was a w.w.i.i. song and ackerman explained that when he was using the phrase. but spencer ackerman must have been away from his computer or running through porn sites at the time because he missed that.

other than ackerman, i thought susan davis and sheila jackson lee came off best. but i missed lynne woolsey unless she didn't speak. the baby woke up when they were getting near her and i did have to do mom stuff.

barbara lee went last and i see why c.i. didn't include lee because she was talking about iran and it was the 'irag snapshot' (also, petreaus wouldn't answer her question in the open hearing, he told her he'd tell her later, one on one, that it was classified.)

i thought many congress members did a good job but the best, to me, were gary ackerman, susan davis and sheila jackson lee. i'd probably put robert wexler on my list as well.

in the second hearing, petraeus and crocker were asked to condense their prepared opening remarks. spencer ackerman loved that but missed the point. petraeus was showing up with a 3 page stategment, crocker with a 15 page prepared statement. no 1 had the time to listen to that nonsense.

barack obama is so trashy. he's now questioning people who endorsed hillary. this is from wane tv in indiana about even bayh (1 of the u.s. senators for the state):


As for whether Bayh will be the nation's Vice President:
"I know she's someone who trusts my opinion and my judgment and advice, but what official role, if any, that will be up to her, and ultimately up to the people," said Senator Bayh.
Barack Obama, meanwhile, thinks Bayh may have made a mistake.
"I think that Senator Bayh, frankly, stepped out a little too soon in terms of endorsements, back at a time when Senator Clinton was up 20 points in the national polls and was the presumptive favorite," said Obama.
Newschannel 15 asked how Bayh responds to that. "Well, I like Barack Obama. I think he's a good person, and I did decide to support Senator Clinton early, but it was because I've known her for 20 years. That kind of familiarity gave me a great confidence that she had what it took to make the kind of tough decisions and changes that we need," said Bayh.

poor bambi. people aren't 'smart' enough to vote for him and now the 1s endorsing hillary aren't 'smart' either. do you grasp how pathetic he is? it's every 1 else's problem - in his head - and not his problem. keep kidding yourself, bambi obama.

here's 'HUBdate: Commander-in-Chief on Day One:'

Commander-in-Chief: Hillary hosts a town hall with senior retired military officers and Keystone State veterans in Aliquippa, PA.
Strong on Iraq: At yesterday's Senate hearings with General David Petraeus and Ambassador David Crocker, Hillary said, "The administration and supporters of the administration’s policy often talk about the cost of leaving Iraq, yet ignore the greater costs of continuing the same failed policy." TIME's Jay Carney on Clinton: "In tone, demeanor and command of the facts, she was - I thought - very impressive." Watch here.
On Air: Hillary launches five new ads in Pennsylvania. Watch Get it Done, Spectacular, Scranton, Falling Through, and Nuestra Amiga. Read more.
Hoosiers for Hillary: Yesterday, Hillary released her 'Blueprint for Indiana's Economic Future,' her plan to put the American Dream back within the reach of middle class Indianans. Volunteers at phone banks in six cities across the state spread the word. Read her plan.
Offices in Indiana: The campaign opened offices yesterday in Kokomo, Marion, and Lafayette bringing the total number to 21. Read more.
NCAskMe.com: Volunteers across the state today will gather to answer more than 6,000 questions that have been submitted since the launch of NCAskMe.com last Friday. Said one voter, "Hillary is not only prepared to listen; she is prepared to offer real solutions to the real problems experienced by real people." Read more.
Real Differences in Oregon: Hillary has supported the rights of local communities to locate liquefied natural gas facilities. Senator Obama supported the Bush-Cheney energy policy that removed that right. Read more.
On Tap: Tomorrow, Hillary delivers the keynote address at the Allegheny County Democratic Committee’s Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Pittsburgh, PA.
Unifying Force?: "Senator Barack Obama has asked voters to see him as a unifying force…Unfortunately, Obama has failed in his first test to unify his own party. His campaign has failed to recognize the results of the Florida primary -- and Michigan -- for political gain…a decision that could disgruntle Democratic voters in Florida in November and years beyond." Read more.

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

Wednesday, April 9, 2008. Chaos and violence continues, the US military announces more deaths, The Petraeus & Crocker Variety Hour continues, and more.

Starting with war resistance. The Guardian of London notes Joshua Key's The Deserter's Tale. Key is an Iraq War veteran who returned to the US on leave, spoke with his wife Brandi and they decided to go underground rather than for Joshua to continue fighting an illegal war. Eventually, they and their children moved to Canada. Key suffers PTSD and is haunted by his time in Iraq. From his book (written with Lawrence Hill), pp. 98-99:

Not long into our second tour of duty in Ramadi, I was working at a traffic control point, pulling over vehicles. The standard practice was to order everybody out of the car and to have the driver open the hood and the trunk. A black, four-door Mercedes-Benz pulled up carrying a driver and three male adult passengers. Glancing inside the car, I spotted four grenades tucked between the two front seats.
The driver was a young man, and he didn't say or do anything to provoke me. However, the mere presence of those grenades set me off. I hauled him from the car and began kicking and punching him. An older man in the car began screaming at me in Arabic. I could not understand a word he said, and he would not shut up, so I beat him badly too. By the time I finished with them, both men were bleeding profusely. With the help of my squad mates, I zipcuffed the men, threw one of them in the trunk, and stuffed the other three in the backseat.
Sergeant Fadinetz got into the passenger seat, I jumped into the front, and we drove ten minutes through Ramadi to the police station, where we turned over the men for arrest. I have no idea what became of them, but I do know what happened to their car: I stole it for the use of my squad. We had no keys, so I hot-wired it and attached a switch to make it easy for my squad mates to start. We kept the Mercedes and used it on our house raids, preferring to arrive in an unmarked vehicle to disguise our approach.
When I beat up the two me, I justified it to myself on the grounds that they had grenades in the car. But the truth was that, strange as it may seem to someone just outside the war, grenades were everyday items in Iraq, just like the rifles we routinely left behind on our house raids. Although we always confiscated grenades, I had no good reason to attack the men. My own moral judgement was disintegrating under the pressure of being a soldier, feeling vulnerable, and having no clear enemy to kill in Iraq. We were encouraged to beat up on the enemy; given the absence of any clearly understood enemy, we picked our fights with civilians who were powerless to resist. We knew that we would not have to account for our actions. Because we were fearful, sleep-deprived, and jacked up on caffeine, adrenaline, and testosterone, and because our officers constantly reminded us that all Iraqis were our enemies, civilians included, it was tempting to steal, no big deal to punch, and easy to kill. We were Americans in Iraq and we could do anything we wanted to do.

War resisters in Canada are attempting to be granted safe harbor. The Canadian Parliament will debate a measure this month on that issue. 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).

Today The Petraeus & Crocker Variety Hour continued its Congressional tour. Performances were held for the US House Armed Services Committee in the morning and the US House Committee On Foreign Affairs. Gen David Petraeus and US Ambassador Ryan Crocker stuck to the same scripts; however, Crocker tried to spice up today's matinee performances by introducing a character tic (no doubt borrowed from US Senator Barack Obama's performance yesterday) by repeated usage of the words of "Uh" and "Uhm." In additition to allowing him to add a layer of stumbling buffoon to his performance, it also proved a time eater (think of it as Word Helper from Betty Crocker). Since the five minute rule was enforced in both hearings, it allowed Crocker to avoid answering many things.

Ike Skelton chairs the House Armed Services Committee and he opened the hearings this morning noting, among other things, "We should not begin this hearing without recalling how we got here. Iraq was invaded on incorrect information. The turbulent aftermath following the initial military victory was not considered, despite warnings of the aftermath, including two such warnings from me. Now we are in our sixth year of attempting to quell this horrendous aftermath. Preparing for this hearing, I went back and read my opening statement from our last hearing with you in September. I think I could have delivered the same statement today as I did then, which means either I repeat myself, or things haven't changed that much in Iraq."

After Petraeus and Crocker made the same prepared opening statements. To comments that the US could 'stand down' when Iraq 'stood up,' Skelton would point out "we've been at this for years" (Iraq War) so "how do you do that? How do you take the training wheels off?" Gen David Petraeus didn't get a laugh from this yesterday but seems sure there's a laugh in somewhere, so he repeated that al-Maliki's puppet government 'stood up' in Basra ("That's exactly what Prime Minister Maliki" did "as commander in chief in Iraq!"). He stuck to the script of the puppet of the occupation deciding to assault Basra all by himself, "That was not something that we pushed him to do, candidly. ... That's something they wanted to do" and insisting that this was not a case of "us twisting their hand." Basra, for al-Maliki, was a failure. Petraeus might try mugging in a Norman Fell manner the next time he delivers this line.

US House Rep Solomon Ortiz noted the human costs and that the alleged "security gains are arguable" as well as the crisis in readiness for the military. House Rep Silvestre Reyes would probe the issue of withdrawal and the buzz words of this tour "conditions-based" (which really needs a big production number). By the testimony being offered by Petraeus, Reyes felt that if violence flared up in one area, Petraeus would be arguing to "reinstate the sruge" and Petraeus felt that wasn't likely and stated anything like that was something that the puppet government could take care of.

US House Rep Ellen Tauscher noted the opposition to the Iraq War, that more people are saying (in polls) that the Iraq war was "not worth it) and how "my constituents repeatedly tell me that we can't sustain" the costs (human and monetary). Tauscher noted that a new president would be elected in November and sworn in at the start of 2009. "If you report to a commander-in-chief . . . that wants a plan" for withdrawal "what would you advise?" Petraeus stated, "My response would be dialogue again on what the risk would be." He then tried to take the curtness off his response by noting the US military is under civilian control: "we are not self-employed, we take orders and we obey." Tauscher moved on, "Mr. Crocker, considering that we will have a new president on January 20 . . . what would you advise the president on what would be available and how we could" withdraw? Crocker's response was hilarious.

"That's looking fairly far into the future uh and I've uh learned to keep my timelines short when it uh comes to do with things in Iraq."

He can't see that 'far' into the future? Eight months from now? It's like bad Woody Allen parody. Manhattan, Diane Keaton plays Mary, Allen's Isaac. Mary's decided to leave Isaac for Yale who is married.

Isaac: I give the whole thing . . . four weeks.

Mary: I can't plan that far in advance.

Isaac: You can't plan four weeks in advance?

Mary: No.

Isaac: What kind of foresight is that?

The US Ambassador to Iraq can not ponder how he would advise the next president (elections are less than seven months away) on how to go about withdrawal if that was his or her determination. He can't think that far ahead.

US House Rep Robert Andrews attempted to pin Petraeus and Crocker on the lack of political/diplomatic process in Iraq. Crocker used a lot of words (and "uh"s and "uhm"s) to say nothing. At one point, he declared, "The most important power they [Iraqis] have is access to resources" which led Andrews to point out, "At this point and time the most important resource in Iraq is oil" and there's been no sharing agreement passed. ("No, it hasn't," Crocker admitted.) Crocker had tried to pitch the de-de-Baathification law but Andrews pointed out that this non-implemented legislation bans "former members of the Baath Party" from the military and defense occupations. He noted that it's now five years with no progress and "why should the American people wait five more minutes for that to happen?"

US House Rep J. Randy Forbes expressed his worries about "housewives" and "premature withdrawal." He appeared to be confused at what hearing he was attending and what topics were being discussed.

US House Rep Susan Davis noted Senator Hillary Clinton's questions to Petraeus and Crocker yesterday in the Senate Armed Services Committee about the treaty the White House wants which they call a Status of Force Agreement. Yesterday Clinton had noted that "it seems odd to Americans" that "the Iraqi Parliament may have a chance to consider this agreement" while "the United States Congress does not." Davis referenced that and noted, "That strikes people in our districts as strange. I wonder if you could talk on that" and how such an agreement might or might not "be used as leverage?"

Crocker attempted to eat up time via "Some uh uh 80 other agreements with different countries uh uh each other country has different aspects us uh . . . uh uh this one will have uh uh . . . " Davis wanted to know if the Status of Force Agreement was "a vehicle for leverage that would actually bring about a result that would not occur without the agreement?" Crocker responded with, "I'm sorry, could you repeat that?" Again, he was eating up time. Davis restated again (this was really the third time she'd done so), "I'm interested in knowing how we use the State of Force Agreements for leverage?"

Crocker went back to his same nonsense, "I think that like other agreements, this is a geustion of mutal agreements uh uh we both have interests in uh uh . . . it's not a question of uh uh having something to give to them uh uh . . ." Davis noted, "The public believes that there is some role that we [Congress] should be playing to be a larger part of that aggreement" but "going back to the Awakening Councils . . . I think others are concerned that the 80,000 or so of indivduals that are not going to be included in the army or police that that, perhaps, marriage of convenience is going to shift back" to violence and "is that a concern to you?" Crocker replied, "Actually Congresswoman, we've had that discussion with the Prime Minister" who "is commited to ensuring that the remainder receive employment in the civilian sector," that they receive "job training and employment opportunites." These are the 91,000 thugs that are costing the US $16 million a month (as Wolf Blitzer noted on CNN -- and he was referenced in the hearing for noting that the bought loyalties could easily turn). Petreaus and Crocker repeated their points from yesterday about how, by paying them, US vehicles aren't damaged. Again, it's the strategy of fork over your lunch money to avoid getting beat on the playground -- a strategy that must make everyone proud.

Howard Berman chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee and he noted at the start of the afternoon hearing, "Our witnesses are in the home stretch of a congressional testimony marathon; to some, this hearing may even seem like the fourth time around an endless loop. That's why we are asking both Ambarassador Ryan Crocker and General David Petraeus more or less to summarize the main points of their testimony, at their discretion, a report to Congress that has been heard once in the House and twice in the Senate already. This way, we'll move along more quickly to the questions posed by members of the committee." He also noted that "the surge was intended to quell the violence primarily in order to create political space for Iraqis to move on toward national reconcilliation" but that hasn't happened.

US House Rep Gary Ackerman observed that "we seem to have gotten ourselves into a fix and we don't really know how to get ourselves out of it or unfix it." He noted the many "reasons we've gotten into this mess" including non-existant WMDs, 'democracy,' "getting rid of Saddam." After all of those various reasons, "it seems that we've achieved all of our golas and every time we do, a new goal comes up." Ethnic violence appears to be the new excuse. While Crocker and Petraeus have their jobs, Congress does as well and "our job is just the opposite, our job is to question. Our job is to raise those points". He compared the circular nonsense going on today with a WWII military song: "We're heare because we're here." "Why are the troops there? Because we went there. So we're there because we're there and we're there because we're there." Which raises the question of "How do you fix it?" Ackerman compared it to Sisyphus struggle in Greek mythology (every day he attempts to roll a rock up a mountain and has to start from the beginning each day). So "when you can stop pushing it? . . . When does this end? When do you stop pushing that big stone up the hill? And the answer is you really can't see beyond that big stone . . . You can't see around it." He noted that while the escalation/surge provides a "re-do," those who have died do not get a re-do. What is winning? Ackerman pointed out, "How do you know we've won because at the end of this thing, unless we decide it's an end, nobody's going to hand you a revolver, nobody's going to hand you a sword. Nobody seems to know the answer to that question."

Certainly Crocker and Petraeus didn't know the answer to that question.

US House Rep Brad Sherman provided a summary of points raised such as, "As the chair pointed out, in our war with Saddam, it's possible the winner has been Iran." He declared ("as Mr. Ackerman pointed out") that, "We're there because we're there." And moved to the Status of Force of Agreement wanting to know, "Will there be anything in this agreement that ties the new president's hand?"

Ryan Crocker: Congressman, uh uh, in a word, uh, no.

He asked Petraeus, "Will you begin on November 5th . . . to prepare plans to execute the policies of the incoming president or alternatively, will the incoming president . . . find a dilemma where if they order immediate withdrawal it will be an unplanned withdrawal" which would lead to more of the same currently going on (stuck in a quagmire).

Petraeus: Congressman, I can only serve one boss at a time.

"As a transition approaches," he continued, "obviously there is going to be back and forth to facilitate and not me, this will be the Secretary of Defense, the chair of the Joint Chiefs and, at some point, there will be contingency plans directed."

Brad Sherman asked, "So you would expect to get contingency plans?" And David Petraeus replied, "I'm very uncomfortable candidly describing" this. He spooks so easy.
He wanted Crocker to explain, considering the price of oil per barrel, "Why are we paying everything that we're paying" in Iraq? But he was out of time. US House Rep Dana Orbacher followed up on Sherman's questions and cautioned that "any Status of Force Agreement with Iraq" should "include a provision that the Iraqi government pay for any security that we're providing them with." Crocker replied, "Uh, Congressman, in the last few days, uh, uhm, had that message emphasized loud and clear. . . . That's uh something" to be discussed. Orbarcher responded that the correct answer was "yes" and "If not there's going to be trouble on the Republican side as well as the Democratic side" when the next war funding bill comes through.

"General, we often hear President Bush and [Senator John] McCain say we must win in Iraq," US House Rep Robert Wexler noted. "What is the definition of 'winning'?"

Wexler explained that he had sought out input from his constituents as to what question they would be asking if they were on the committee. Stuart Wolfer, 36-years-old, died in Iraq on Sunday. He was a major on his second tour of Iraq and "his family was relieved that he was in the Green Zone because they hoped he would be safe there." He was killed in an attack on the Green Zone. He leaves behind a wife Lee Anne Wolfer and three daughters. His parents, Esther and Len Wolfer, live in Boca Raton. Len Wolfer wanted Wexler to ask, "For what?" Wexler explained, "For what had he lost his son? What has all this been for and please, respectfully, don't tell us as you told Senator [John] Warner [yesterday] to remove a brutal dictator. What did Stuart Wolfer and the . . . others die for?"

David Petreaus: National interests.

Petreaus defined 'winning' as Iraq being "a country that is at peace with itself and its neighbors." Gee, when does the US make that a goal for itself?

US House Rep Eliot Engel noted the Status of Force Agreement proposal and how when Seantor Clinton noted it yesterday, she was told that "it was unclear whether they [al-Maliki] would bring it to a vote or simply read it to the Iraqi Parliament"; however, the Iraqi Constitution require it to be brought to the Parliament. So, Engel wanted to know, "If the Maliki governemtn bypasses the Iraqi Parliament and approves this agreement unilaterally, will the Bush administration . . . reject any agreement?" Time ran out and no answer was provided.

US House Rep Sheila Jackson opened with, "May I ask a simple question? How do we get out of this mess?" She showed photos of a recent trip to Iraq (noting that the photos weren't classified) and how she saw quality of life needs throughout her visit (trash, lack of potable water, etc.). She noted the Iraqis she spoke with and how Nouri al-Maliki is seen not as a leader of Iraq but as a sectarian leader. The 2002 Iraq resolution required UN approval, she pointed out, which never took place. "Now Saddam is gone, there's been a democratic election," she noted, so why is the US still in Iraq? Petraeus tried to avoid her questions including the most basic ones about whether al Qaeda exists outside of Iraq. "Certainly," he replied after dodging. "Let me say that I frankly believe we are operating without authority, the 2002 authorization has been completed . . . We should now bring our troops home."

Underscoring Sheila Jackson Lee's point, the US military announced today: "A Multi-National Division -- Baghdad Soldier died from non-combat related injuries at approximately 6:30 a.m. April 9." And they announced: "A Multi-National Division -- Baghdad Soldier died from non-combat related injuries at approximately 5:30 a.m. April 9." And they announced: "A Multi-National Division -- North Soldier was killed in an improvised explosive device attack in Salah ad Din Province, April 9." And they announced: "A Multi-National Division -- Baghdad Soldier was killed by an improvised explosive device attack at approximately 2 p.m. in northeastern Baghdad." And they announced: "A Multi-National Division -- Center Soldier was killed in an improvised explosive device attack while conducting operations east of Baghdad in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom April 8." Sunday saw at least 5 deaths announced, Monday saw 4, yesterday saw 2 and today sees 5. ICCC lists 19 for the month thus far and only one of those was before Sunday. So that's 18 announced dead so far this week. ICCC's current total for the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war is 4031.

Today, the fifth anniversary of the staged photo-op of the US military taking down a statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad to the cheering of . . . a few Iraqi exiles shipped in that weekend, was supposed to see a massive demonstration by Moqtada al-Sadr; however, he called off the action. Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that while Petraeus and Crocker were hitting the war drums for war on Iran yesterday:
As they spoke, firebrand Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr threatened to unleash his Mahdi Army militia against U.S. and Iraqi forces. Once again, it was Iran that stepped into the political vacuum and urged a halt to militia attacks into the heavily fortified Green Zone, where U.S. and Iraqi officials, including Petraeus and Crocker, have their offices. The Iranian foreign ministry called for "restraint and prudence of various Iraqi groups," an implicit rebuke of Sadr, who is living and studying in Iran.


In some of today's other reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 mortar attacks on the Green Zone today. Reuters notes 2 Mosul car bombings that claimed the lives of 3 police officers and 1 civilian and left twenty people wounded. CBS and AP report 7 dead in a Sadr City mortar attack (three were children) on a home.

Shootings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an armed clash in the Sadr City section of Baghdad that left three people wounded. Reuters notes a Sadr City armed clash that resulted in 23 deaths and eighty-three people being injured, 1 police officer shot dead and 1 civilian in Tuz Khurmato, and 1 person shot dead in Tal al-Hadeed.

Corpses?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad and 2 discovered in Kirkuk.

Turning to US presidential primary news, "I don't actually think it's a bad idea to have an open convention, where we actually got to hash out what the differences [between the candidates] were and how important they are." That's Elizabeth Edwards speaking on ABC's Good Morning America today (link has text and video). Edwards endorsed no one and her husband (John Edwards) hasn't either. She did endorse Senator Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan, declaring, "You need that universality in order to get the cost savings. . . . I just have more confidence in Senator Clinton's policy than Senator Obama's on this particular issue." On her own health, she stated, "I'm doing great. I still have cancer in my bone. I get tested periodically. But it's under control. It doesn't seem to be growing, knock on wood. And i'm continuing taking some sort of treatment for the rest of my life, and hope that medicine catches up with my disease." Edwards was interviewed by GMA's Robin Roberts who had surgery last year for cancer. It is not a minor issue, and we'll again note "Clinton Unveils Plan To Find Cure For Breast Cancer On The Ellen DeGeneres Show: Plan Includes $300 Million in Increased Funding For Research Annually And Increased Access To Treatment And Screening Services." Somehow, the news outlets couldn't give attention to that, couldn't acknowledge it. Though it effects many women, it just wasn't important apparently. Or it wasn't important to them. How nice it must be to be them.

At 11:30 a.m. EST tomorrow, the Bully Boy will prance in front of America to claim the illegal war is 'winnable' and more fairy tales. Hillary has released a statement on the Iraq War today:

"Yesterday in the Senate Armed Services Committee, I asked General Petraeus for the conditions under which he would actually support a change of course in Iraq, and to begin a drawdown of our troops, given that the surge has failed to achieve its stated goal of political reconciliation among the Iraqis. Well, he didn't really answer me.
"I also asked Ambassador Crocker if the United States Congress would have the same opportunity as the Iraqi Parliament will have to review any agreement or long-term security pact that President Bush is negotiating with the Iraqis. Ambassador Crocker said that the Congress, your representatives, would not have that chance.
"I have two requests of President Bush for his speech on Thursday. First, I call on the President to answer the question that General Petraeus did not. What is our end game in Iraq given the failure of surge to achieve the objective that the president outlined for it? Second, I call on President Bush to pledge to the American people, who have sacrificed greatly for this effort that the United States Congress will have the chance to review and vote on any long-term security agreement he has negotiated with the Iraqis.
"President Bush must not saddle the next president with an agreement that extends our involvement in Iraq beyond his presidency. We have lost more than 4,000 of our best sons and daughters. They have given their lives in service to our country in honor and for the objective of giving the Iraqi people the greatest gift another human being can bestow - the gift of freedom. Tens of thousands of our young men and women have suffered - wounds both visible and invisible - to their bodies, their minds and their hearts.
"This war has cost more than $1 trillion if you factor in the lifetime of care and support that is due to our returning veterans, and of course, we must. Our ongoing military involvement in Iraq has also undermined our efforts in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said last week that our continued involvement in Iraq has meant we cannot deploy the forces we need to that country.
"There has been a harsh and daily toll on our men and women in uniform, many of whom are on their second, third, and even fourth tours of duty. Among combat troops sent to Iraq for the third or fourth time, more than one in four show signs of anxiety, depression or acute stress, according to an official Army survey of our soldiers' mental health. And we cannot forget the toll on military families. When fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, husbands and wives sign up to serve our country, their families sign up, too.
"So it is vital for our national security -- and for the health and safety of our men and women in uniform -- that we begin to end the war in Iraq and rebuild our military. A great Pennsylvanian, Benjamin Franklin once said, 'Well done is better than well-said.'"

let's start off with news of a real candidate via howard wolfson's 'HUBdate: ‘True Tale’:'

'True Tale:' Despite claims to the contrary, the aunt of a young woman who died after being turned away from one hospital for lack of $100 says Hillary "has been telling the story accurately." Read more.
Global Leadership: Yesterday, Hillary called on President Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies of the Olympics this summer in China. She said the Bush White House "has been wrong to downplay human rights in its policy with China." Read more.
Previewing Today: Hillary delivers remarks to the Communications Workers of America. Later this morning, Hillary questions General David Patraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker during a Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing.
If You Watch One Thing Today: In Indiana's first statewide television ad, Sen. Evan Bayh highlights Hillary’s innovative plan to strengthen the economy and emphasizes her proven record of delivering for hardworking Hoosiers and all Americans. Watch here. Meanwhile, groups say that Sen. Obama’s oil ad is "a little too slick." Read more.
Hoosiers for Hillary: The IndyStar reports Hillary "understand[s] the...challenges facing average Hoosiers" after speaking with her yesterday. Read Hillary’s full Q&A.
Native American Issues: After the Montana Democratic Party’s state dinner last Saturday, one leader said Hillary is "strong on native American issues" and another said Hillary was her "choice from the beginning." Read more.
Portland, OR: Rep. Darlene Hooley joined Beaver State supporters for the grand opening of the campaign’s headquarters in Portland. "Echoing one of the staffer's given reasons for supporting Hillary -- 'to change the world' -- [Rep.] Hooley celebrated the opportunity that Clinton supporters have in Oregon... 'Her breadth of knowledge, her depth of knowledge and understanding is incredible.'" Read more.
Energy in Oregon: BlueOregon says the Cheney-Bush Energy Bill "is responsible for no fewer than three LNG facilities threatening Oregon coastline, rivers, [and] forests." Sen. Obama supported the bill; Hillary is fighting to restore Oregon’s stewardship of the environment. Read more and more.
Arkansas Support: Hillary picked up another superdelegate in Arkansas "Land Commissioner Mark Wilcox, who was selected last month as the Arkansas Democratic Party’s last remaining superdelegate to the national convention." Read more.
In Case You Missed It: The Huffington Post reports: "Last night at a fundraiser in San Francisco, Barack Obama took a question on what he's looking for in a running mate. 'I would like somebody who knows about a bunch of stuff that I'm not as expert on...foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Sen. Clinton or Sen. McCain.'" Read more.

now for some humor, here's Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Message From a Heavy Weight"



i'm sure every 1's laughing. except for donna brazile. poor donna, a clinton hater of many years. a carville hater in fact. she hates carville because he knows how to run a campaign while her candidates lose. they are losers like donna. she really was fired (by susan what's her name who is a fox blonde commentator now) for running to the press to say poppy bush was having an affair. that was 1988. that's donna brazile for you, always ahead in the smear tactics.

she does the same thing now but for bambi. you could blame a lot of the ugly in the 2008 campaigns on donna but i guess that's obvious, right? you saw isaiah's comic above so it's obvious. and for more humor, see wally's 'THIS JUST IN! BAMBI EXPLAINS HIS 'EXPERIENCE'!' and cedric's 'But he's toothy!' - they're taking on bambi's foreign experience.

did you catch the hearings today?

hillary was a pro. she came prepared. she had her prep work done and utilized that and she also utilized statements that crocker & petraeus made in the hearing. bambi, by contrast, was the kid who showed up and screamed, 'what test today!'

'uh ... uh ... uh ...' how many times did we hear that? he was completely unprepared. he basically ripped off john kerry's questions and gave no credit unlike the other senators who made a point to say things like 'as senator hagel pointed out.'

if you ever wondered if bambi was qualified to be president you saw this afternoon that he wasn't. 'uh... uh... uh...' he was trying to think of what to say and what to ask.

that's why he went over time. he was completely unprepared. and then he asks for another minute and grabs 7 of them. while still going 'uh... uh... uh...' inexperienced. wet behind the ears. not ready to be president.

you saw everything you needed to see today: hillary did the work and bambi thought just showing up was work. couldn't even wait his turn. he was pressed for time, he insisted. and then went over his time. and then, when he knew he hadn't said anything of value, asked for even more time. he got 7 extra minutes. prince bambi.

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

Tuesday, April 8, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Crocker and Petraeus put on a show, Prince Bambi demands to go early and demands more time and does nothing with it, al-Sadr calls off tomorrow's march, the US military announces more deaths, and more.

Staring with war resistance. Friday's snapshot noted: "War veteran Chad Hetman writes The Daily Targum to explain, 'People should be asking if ROTC instructors are teaching cadets that it is their legal duty under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to refuse and challenge unlawful orders. Since the illegal war began, only one soldier has had the sense and courage to do his duty, Lieutenant Ehren Watada. The military is supposed to be politically neutral, but not legally neutral and almost all troops never read or understand the Constitution that they blindly swear to 'Support and Defend Against ALL Enemies both Foreign And DOMESTIC'.' Watada is the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq (June 2006). In February 2007, Watada was court-martialed. [. . .] Chad Hetman is not a war veteran. He is a US Army veteran. He does not claim to be a war veteran. The Daily Targum billed him as that (and still does today) but he did not claim that because he is not that. It's not a minor issue and he's attempting to get the paper to correct it. At this site, it was also noted in "Other Items" on Friday and I've added this to that entry "[CORRECTION ADDED APRIL 7TH: Chad Hetman is not a war veteran and does not present himself as such. The paper made a mistake. Hetman is a US Army Veteran and the paper's headline should have noted that and not that he is a "War vet." Again, Hetman does not claim and has never claimed to be a war veteran. The paper made a mistake. He is attempting to get the paper to correct the error. This correction will be noted in the April 8th snapshot.]" Hopefully, the paper made an honest mistake and will soon correct it but we'll correct Friday's snapshot in this one, he is a US Army veteran, not a war veteran. He never claimed to be a war veteran. Back to war resistance . . .

War resisters in Canada are attempting to be granted safe harbor. The Canadian Parliament will debate a measure this month on that issue. 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).


Today The Petraeus & Crocker Variety Hour took their act on the road. First stop, the Senate Armed Services Committee. Gen David Petraeus and US Ambassador Ryan Crocker are supposed to be providing a status report on the Iraq War. They didn't. In fact, Petraeus made clear that the status report would come . . . next September. When the results are this bad, you stall -- which is exactly what Petraeus did.

The most dramatic moment came as committee chair Carl Levin was questioning Petraeus and a man in the gallery began exclaiming "Bring them home!" repeatedly. (He did so at least 16 times before he was escored out). The most hilarious moment was hearing Petraeus explain that it's tough in the school yard and America needs to fork over their lunch money in Iraq to avoid getting beat up. In his opening remarks, Petraues explained of the "Awakening" Council (aka "Sons of Iraq," et al) that it was a good thing "there are now over 91,000 Sons of Iraq -- Shia as well as Sunni -- under contract to help Coalition and Iraqi Forces protect their neighborhoods and secure infrastructure and roads. These volunteers have contributed significantly in various areas, and the savings in vehicles not lost because of reduced violence -- not to mention the priceless lives saved -- have far outweighed the cost of their monthly contracts." Again, the US must fork over their lunch money, apparently, to avoid being beat up.

How much lunch money is the US forking over? Members of the "Awakening" Council are paid, by the US, a minimum of $300 a month (US dollars). By Petraeus' figures that mean the US is paying $27,300,000 a month. $27 million a month is going to the "Awakening" Councils who, Petraeus brags, have led to "savings in vehicles not lost". Again, in this morning's hearings, the top commander in Iraq explained that the US strategy is forking over the lunch money to school yard bullies. What a pride moment for the country.

Crocker's entire testimony can be boiled down to a statement he made in his opening statements, "What has been achieved is substantial, but it is also reversible." Which would translate in the real world as nothing has really changed. During questioning from Senator Jack Reed, Crocker would rush to shore up the "Awakening" Council members as well. He would say there were about 90,000 of them and, pay attention, the transitioning of them is delayed due to "illliteracy and physical disabilities."

Levin wanted to know about Basra. "Is that correct," he asked that the US didn't know about the planned assault on Basra until right before the action started? Petraeus replied, "It is, Senator. We had a Friday night heads up" and in a Saturday meeting about how to use the resources, they discussed it futher. Levin then asked, "It was not something that you recommended?" Petraeus replied, "No." Two points were raised in that and Senator Hillary Clinton caught them.

"In response to a question by Senator Levin," Clinton pointed out, "regarding when you knew of Prime Minister Maliki's plans to go into Basra, and I was struck by it so I wrote it down, you said you learned of it in a meeting of planning" to utilize our resources in southern Iraq. Senator Clinton pointed out that the US is not known for its presence in Iraq, that until the British pulled out, that had been the region the UK was responsible for. So "what did you mean by the resources you were planning to deploy and over what length of time?"

Petraeus responded that "A plan was being developed" for Basra but this US plan would have been "a fairly deliberate process" and instead al-Maliki was "moving up the time table and compressing . . . the resources" that the US was planning to use over time. So there was a US plan to assault Basra and, at best, al-Maliki merely jumped the gun on it.

Basra was a constant reference throughout the hearing. Senator Susan Collins wonder "why should American combat troops continue to take the lead" after all the money and years spent to train Iraqi forces? Petraues response was that the "US didn't take the lead in Basra." Which proves Collins point, though Petraeus seemed not to grasp that. Collins was pointing to all the years and money spent training the security forces and how it appears to have been wasted and Petraeus' response was to offer that Basra was where Iraqis led. And the whole world saw how that went but maybe Petraeus is unaware of that?

Senator Bill Nelson pointed out that last year's escalation was sold by the White House with that prediction "that the military surge would stabilize the situation" and allow for political progress and national reconciliation in Iraq. "Has political reconciliation happened?" It was a question Petraeus hemmed and hawwed around. He noted the passage of laws (none have been implemented) and then tossed to Crocker for help. Crocker could provide none. He spoke of "cross-bloc horse trading" in the Iraqi Parliament which was supposed to explain or excuse why nothing had taken place throughout the escalation.

Nelson noted the testimonies the Senate Foreign Relations Committee heard last Wednesday (he cited retired Gen William Odom in particular) and, along with Senator Clinton, was one of the few who appeared to be building on something other than the testimony they were being fed.

Senator Joe Lieberman was probably a suck up in school. Not just with the principal or the teachers but even with the substitute teachers. Lieberaman used his time to guest ("incredible service in the course of freedom") and earned the Eddie Haskell Award. Senator John Cornyn flashed his ignorance (he loves to do that) by conflating the Taliban and al Qaeda and rewriting history. Senator Roger Wicker embarrassed himself as well. He wanted to talk about the recruited. He proposed that most US combat troops in Iraq were made up of 20-year-olds and wanted Petraeus to go along with that which Petraeus did somewhat sheepishly. (Because Petraeus doesn't have know the average age -- neither did Wicker but that didn't stop him.) Wicker delcared that these people "made their decision to participate in this war in 2006." They decided to participate? So Wicker is arguing that service members make a decision which must mean he would at the very least agree that war resisters have a right to make the decision not to participate? Wicker felt that "history would view this Congress as very foolish" if they attempted to end the illegal war. He must have learned his history from John Cornyn.

But the most embarrassing performance by a Senator would have to be Lindsey Graham. "If you had to pick one example of success," Graham offered up, what would it be? Petraeus gave two (of which Anbar Province was one). Graham asked for an example. He was given two. It wasn't what Graham wanted to hear. "Would it be . . ." Graham, he answered your question. Sell the illegal war on what you're given instead of attempting to coax the witness.

In her time, Senator Clinton opened by noting the smears "that it is irresponsible or demonstrates a lack of leadership" to advocate for withdrawal. "I fundamentally disagree," she explained and added that it would be irresponsible to continue with the same failed policies. "We rarely talk abou the opportunity cost, the opportunity lost, because of this continued strategy." She explored the costs including noting that "the cost to our men and women in uniform is growing" referencing a New York Times article [Thom Shanker's "Army Is Worried By Rising Stress Of Returns Tours"] which found of those who had been repeatedly deployed, one in four exhibits anxiety, depression or acute stress. These costs and other cots are ignored to pursue "continuing the same failed policy."

"For the past five years," Senator Clinton pointed out, "we have continuously heard from the administration that things are getting better, that we're about to turn a corner." Still nothing. It's time "to begin an orderly withdrawal." With Petraeus, Clinton referenced the Washington Post [Cameron W. Barr's "Petraeus: Iraqi Leaders Not Making 'Sufficient Progress'"] and how the general had told them last month that "'no one feels there has been sufficient progress.' Those are exactly the concerns that my colleagues and I raised when you testified before us in September." At that time, Clinton pointed out, Petraeus responded that "if we reached that point in a year you'd have to think very hard about it. We're there now. . . . What conditions would have to exist for you to recommend to the President that the current strategy is not working?"

A fairly straight forward question, so naturally Petraeus ignored it. "What I said," he said in unmasked irriation, "was no one was satisified with the progress that was made, either Iraqi or American." Yes, Petraeus, everyone who read the Washington Post article or heard Clinton's summary got that point. Before you made it in the hearing. In the afternoon, Senator Chuck Hagel would also bring up the Post and Petraeus' remarks.

With Crocker, she brought up the treaty the White House wants to make with the puppet of the occupation, Nouri al-Maliki, "With respect to our long term challenge, Ambassador Crocker, the administration" is planning to make an agreement with Iraq and "will it be submitted to the Iraqi Parliament for ratification?" Crocker replied that it had been "indicated that" it would be brought "to the council of representatives." Well then, Clinton wanted to know, "does the administration plan to submit the agreement to our Congress?" No, Crocker replied, "at this point . . . we don't" because they don't believe it "would require the advice and consent" of the Congress. That "seems odd to Americans," Clinton noted, that "the Iraqi Parliament may have a chance to consider this aggreement" while "the United States Congress does not." She noted the legislation she introduced (December 6, 2007) calling for the Bully Boy "to seek Congressional approval for any agreement that would extend the US military commitment to Iraq." And it is very odd that the White House thinks they can make a treaty without the consent of Congress and that the Iraqi Parliament will be weighing in (their Constitution guarantees them that right -- the US Constitution guarantees that Congress also has that right).

Other points from the hearing would include (as Lara Logan's legwork for the US military brass Sunday conveyed) the White House wants war with Iran. Ironically, though happy to touch on that and any other country during their testimony, when Senator Evan Bayh made the point that many say the US presence in Iraq is making the US less safe and wondered about the fact that Pakistan is seen as a base for terrorism, Petraeus began insisting that he couldn't comment on any of that, his territory was Iraq. Again, he was happy to weigh in (as was Crocker) on Iran and other countries . . . until a question he didn't like came up. Petraeus was very nasty with Bayh and did not even want to acknowledge that people who favor a withdrawal are not unpatriotic or some pejorative (Bayh: "As I acknowledge your honor and patriotism, I hope you would acknowledge the honor and patriotism of those who look at this very complex set of facts and simply have a very different point of view."). Pressed repeatedly, Petraeus snapped (sounding like Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men), "Senator, we fight for the right of people to have other opinions." Where is that? Outside the US? "Your mission is limited to Iraq. Congress and the President have a broader responsibility," US Senator Joe Biden would point out in the next hearing. Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) reports the other big news from the morning hearing which is Petraeus' statement "that the U.S. will need a 45-day assessment period starting in July, after some 20,000 troops withdraw, to determine whether more soldiers can leave." During the morning's hearing, Petraeus wanted to debate with Levin what US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had meant by a pause in withdrawal this summer. Petraeus likes to play word games.

This afternoon, they took The Petraeus & Crocker Variety Hour to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Apparently, they had no post-show notes from the first performance because they pretty much repeated the same tired act. That included Petraeus again bragging that paying off bullies ("Awakening" Council members) allowed US vehicles not to be damaged. Fork over the lunch money, Petraeus, fork it over. With Senator Chris Dodd, Petraeus took offense to the idea that they were "arming" the "Awakening" Council members. Apparently, they provide their own guns. So the US just supplies the bullets?

Biden, chair of the committee, used his opening remarks to set out the basics, "The purpose of the surge was to bring violence down so that Iraq's leaders could come together politically. Violence has come down, but the Iraqis have not come together. Our military played an important role in the violence. So did three other developments. First, the Sunni Awakening, which preceded the surge. Second, the Sadr cease-fire. Third, sectarian cleansing that left much of Baghdad segregated, with fewer targets to shoot or bomb. These tactical gains are relative. Violence is now where it was in 2005 and spiking up again. Iraq is still incredibly dangerous and, despite what the President says, very far from normal. And these gains are fragile. Awakening members frustrated at the government's refusal to integrate them into the national security forces could turn their guns back on us. Sadr could end his cease-fire at a moment's notice. Sectarian chaos could resume with the next bomb. Most important, the strategic purpose of the surge has not been realized: genuine political power sharing that gives Iraq's factions to pursue their interests peacefully."

If only those serving under the chair could have maintained the same focus. Senator Chuck Hagel was probably the best in the first hour. He noted it appeared that Iraq was "holding our policy hostage" by day-to-day events. He wanted to know, "What are we doing" in terms of all this talk of a diplomatic surge he keeps hearing talk of but doesn't see any going on? He noted that he's not seeing US Secretary of State Condi Rice doing anything "Kissinger-esque" so "what are you talking about?" Crocker acknowledged that more could be done. When it will is anyone's guess because Crocker didn't seem to have a clue (and we know the administration doesn't). As Hagel said, quoting Petraeus' own words back to him, "there is no military solution" in Iraq. In the second hour of the afternoon hearing, Senator Barbara Boxer was clearly the strongest voice.

She wanted to know about the training, all the training, that had gone on and then on again. "We've done a lot for the Iraqis just in terms of the numbers themselves," Boxer declared. "I'll tell you what concerns me and most of my constituents, you said -- many times -- the gains in Iraq are fragile and reversable. . . . So my constituents and I believe that" after all the deaths, all the money, "you have to wonder why the best that you can say is that the gains are fragile and reversable." Noting the lack of military success and Hagel's points, Boxer pointed out that nothing was being done diplomatically "and I listened carefully to Senator Hagel and Ambassador Crocker -- from the answer you gave him, I don't get the" feeling that the White House has given anything, it's still "the status quo. She then turned to the issue of monies and the militias, "You are asking us for millions more to pay off the militias and, by the way, I have an article here that says Maliki recently told a London paper that he was concerned about half of them" and wouldn't put them into the forces because he doubts their loyalty. She noted that $182 million a year was being paid, $18 million a month, to these "Awakening" Council members and "why don't you ask the Iraqis to pay the entire cost of that progam" because as Senator Lugar pointed out, "It could be an opportunity" for the Iraqi government "to turn it into something more long term." This is a point, she declared, that she intends to bring up when it's time to vote on the next spending supplamental. Crocker tried to split hairs.

Boxer: I asked you why they couldn't pay for it. . . . I don't want to argue a point. . . I'm just asking you why we would object to asking them to pay for that entire program giving all that we are giving them in blood and everything else?

Crocker declared that he'd take that point back to Iraq when he returned. She then focused on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad noting, "The Bush administration told the American people more than five years ago that we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq and supporters of the war said that they would be dancing in the street with American flags." That didn't happen and not only did that not happen but when Ahmadinejad goes to Iraq, he's greeted warmly while Bully Boy has to sneak "in, in the dead of the night." She wondered, "Do you agree that after all we have done, after all the sacrifices, and God bless all of our troops . . ., that Iran is stronger and more influential than ever before?"

Crocker wanted to debate that reality. He stated it was just militias. Boxer pulled out reports that demonstrated it wasn't, where Ahmadinejad was greeted warmly even by children who gave him flowers, kissed him on both cheeks. "I'm saying that after all we have done," Boxer declared, "the Iraqi government kissing the Iranian leader and our president has to sneak into the country -- I don't understand it." Crocker still wanted to argue leading Boxer to respond, "I give up. It is what it is. They kissed him on the cheek. . . . He had a red carpet treatment and we are losing our sons and duaghters every day for the Iraqi people to be free. . . . It is disturbing."

Those were the strong performances. Bill Nelson was methodical but strong in the afternoon hearing (which is still going on as I dictate this.) As for the others? In the afternoon, the most embarrassing performance was given by John Kerry who gushed and fawned over Petraeus for over two minutes. Then he moved slowly and offered little but, when Barack Obama went, you grasped why. Kerry was Bambi's hand-holder. Bambi tried hard to make Kerry's points his own by repeating . . . them . . . oh . . . so . . . slowly. Someday he may provide leadership. Thus far, he just plays follow the leader and spoiled brat. Bill Nelson asked permission to wave the cry baby ahead because Obama was pressed for time. Biden allowed it. If Obama was pressed for time maybe he should have stuck to the alloted time? Or, as he would word it, maybe . . . he should have . . . stuck to . . . the alloted . . . time. (Did he study voice with William Shatner?) He didn't stick to the time limit and whined that he needed more, "I know I'm out of time, if I could have the indulgence of the committe for one minute." One minute? Try seven minutes. Couldn't wait his turn and then got his allotted time plus seven minutes more. And offered nothing in all that time. Babara Boxer could have done something with an extra seven minutes (she did a great deal with her allotted time). But Bambi wasn't prepared. He repeated all of John Kerry's points (they're friends, so it's not theft -- ask David Axlerod). ". . . that are . . . doing harm to . . . uh, . . ." Is he unable to speak if the lines aren't written ahead of time? If so, can Bully Boy slide the ear piece over to him because he obviously can't speak on his own. Seven minutes. Obama went seven minutes over -- after he'd used his allotted time. After he'd claimed he'd only take one more minute. The Whiny Boy Prince gets his way . . . and does nothing with it.

In Iraq, Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that Moqtada al-Sadr "announced a postponement of a march planned for Wednesday in Baghdad to protest the U.S. occupation of Iraq" and quotes him declaring in the statement, "I call those beloved Iraqi people who wish to demonstrate against the occupation to postpone their march, out of my fear for them and my concern to spare their blood. I fear that Iraqi hands will be lifted against you, although I would be honored if the Americans were to lift their hands against you." Fadel notes the cease-fire/truce as do CBS and AP, al-Sadr is floating the threat that he will end the cease-fire. The same statement declared that, "I call on the Iraqi government, if it exists, to work for the protection of the Iraqi people, stop the bloodshed and the abuse of its honor. . . . Let the Iraqi government be informed that the Imam Mahdi Army will stand hand-in-hand with the Iraqi people to ensure that the people have everything they need. If it is required to lift the freeze in order to carry out our goals, objectives, doctrines and religious principles and patriotism, we will do that later and in a separate statement."

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

Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing that wounded nine people, a Baghdad mortar attack that claimed 2 lives with five other people left injured, a Baghdad bombing that wounded two people, a Kirkuk motorcycle bombing that left fourteen people wounded, a Diyala Province roadside bombing that claimed 6 lives and left five people wounded, a Nineveh bombing at a motorcycle repair shop that claimed 1 life and left two more people injured and a Salahuddin Province mortar attack that claimed the life of 1 woman and left three members of her family injured. Reuters notes that the US again launched an air attack on the Sadr City section of Baghdad today firing "four US Hellfire missiles" resulting in 12 deaths according to the US military

Shootings?

Reuters notes an armed clash in the Sadr City section of Baghdad claimed 13 lives with one-hundred and forty people injured.

Corpses?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses were discovered in Baghdad.

Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division -- Baghdad Soldier was killed as the result of an improvised explosive device attack at approximately 12:30 p.m. in northeast Baghdad April 8." And they announced: "A Multi-Division -- Baghdad Soldier was killed from wounds sustained when an improvised explosive device struck his vehicle at approximately 9:30 p.m. April 7." Like Tina Susman's "Fighting intensifies in Iraq's capital" (Los Angeles Times), in the snapshot yesterday 3 deaths are noted but, as CNN points out, there were four deaths on Monday. There were at least five announced Sunday. With at least two announced today, that's 11 announced deahts since Sunday.


Turning to US presidential politics, Elaine's "AOL Poll 67% doubt Barack's patriotism" noted an AOL poll. The question was: "Do you have any doubts about Barack Obama's patriotism?" Last night when Elaine wrote, there were 145,327 votes. 48,158 (33%) said "none at all." 78,697 (54%) said "Yes, a lot" with 18,472 (13%) saying, "Yes, a little." Leading to a total of 67% saying they doubted Barack's patriotism. After she wrote, voting continued and over 100,000 more votes were cast for a total of 249,089 which led to 137,552 (55%) saying "Yes, a lot," 31,676 (13%) saying "Yes, a little" and 79,861 (32%) saying "None at all." As Elaine noted, "The Democratic Party better get serious and grasp that these doubts are HUGE and that they come after a non-stop media blitz where Barack's speech was universally praised. If that's the best he can do now, what happens if he gets the nomination and faces McCain? Forget McCain's promise not to question Bambi's patriotism. When elections are close, promises get forgoteen by the best and I doubt anyone visiting this site would assume McCain qualified as 'one of the best.' Regardless of what McCain does or does not do, independent groups will raise the issue repeatedly. And you'll see that 67% climb even higher. I would argue that anything over 7% was too high. This will be a close election, regardless of whom the Democratic nominee is and Dems don't need to destroy their chance to take the White House." B-b-but, the Wright issue is over, right? Wrong. Thomas Sowell (Creators.com) notes, "The same people who have gone ballistic when some prominet figure is found to belong to some all-male social club are full of excuses for why Barack Obama remained a member of a racist and anti-American church for 20 years." Richard Cohen (Washington Post) raises the Wright issue today. Michigan's Niles Daily Star editorializes on the Wright issue noting, "The controversy involving his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, was more about anti-Americanism than about race. His wife Michelle's unfortunate comment that the success of his campaign made her proud of America 'for the first time' in her adult life, coupled with an Islamic-sounding name and decisions not to wear a flag lapel pin like all the other politicians are being used to fan below-the-radar doubts about whether he is 'American' enough." Then there's Stuart Taylor Jr. (National Journal) who explores his own reaction to the Wright issue (he damned America from the front of the church, as a pastor, called on the Lord to damn America), notes "Obama's shifting explanations," and he notes how some Democrats dismiss the issue which seems the sort of willful denial evident as John Kerry's campaign began its non-stop tanking following the DNC convention but Dem and Panhandle Media kept insisting it wasn't happening, things were great, things were groovy. Nancy Kruh (Dallas Morning News) covers the patriotism issue today and notes the recent columns by Joe Klein and Fred Barnes on the issue. Meanwhile, an issue Ava and I have repeatedly raised in our TV commentaries (most recently here) is in the news: Barack's successful maternal grandmother. Yes, the woman was successful, yes, she did break the glass ceiling, yes, she did make money. It's not the poverty picture Bambi's played it as being. Dan Nakaso (USA Today) notes that Madelyn Dunham "blazed a feminist trail in Hawaii banking circles in the late 1960s and early 1970s and rose to become one of the Bank of Hawaii's first female vice presidents." He notes "Obama's campaign declined to make Dunham available for interviews" and that those who know her question his Philadelphia speech claims about her -- Dennis Ching, "I never heard her say anything like that" and Sam Slom, "I never heard Madelyn say anything disparaging about people of African ancestry."

University of Kentucky student Kyle Mills shares why he's supporting Hillary Clinton's bid for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, "As a college student and first time presidential election voter, it didn't take long to see that there was massive enthusiasm surrounding Senator Hillary Clinton and her run for the presidency. After doing research on her policies, I finally understood the energy behind her campaign and saw that she was best suited to lead our nation. Perhaps the most impressive thing to me was the depth and ingenuity of her plans. From the ending the war in Iraq to providing health care to every American, the differences between Hillary Clinton and the other candidates were easy to see. Many college students now know that Hillary stands for the only truly universal health care plan. Many students also know that Hillary knows how to get us out of Iraq in a safe, prompt manner. Most don't realize, however, that Hillary has a very aggressive plan to help students attend and afford college. Her college access plan calls for a $3,500 college tax credit, an increase in the Pell Grant, and the creation of a graduation fund to help increase the amount of students actually graduating. These points only scratch the surface of her plan to assist college students such as myself.

starting with howard wolfson's 'HUBdate: A Cure Within Our Lifetime' (hillaryclinton.com):

A Cure Within Our Lifetime: Hillary unveils her plan to find a cure for breast cancer within our lifetime on The Ellen DeGeneres Show today. Hillary's plan would provide $300 million a year in increased funding for breast cancer research at the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute, and the Department of Defense Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program. Read more.
Tar Heels for Hillary: Hillary opened her Winston-Salem headquarters Sunday. Said one supporter, "I'm going to do everything I can to ensure her election...this is an exciting time." Read more.
All Voices Count in PA: "Five women, including a senior campaign adviser and a congresswoman, traveled to Penn State" as part of the "All Voices Count" Women's Tour... Heather Tom, an Emmy award-winning actress "said she wants a president with a plan, who can work in a bipartisan way, and that when Clinton sat down with her, she took the time to listen." Read more.
Missoula, MT: Hillary "brought a crowd of 1,500-some supporters to their feet time and again" at a town hall yesterday where she announced her plan to promote green energy in Montana. One Montana professor had this to say: "(Clinton) knows policy and can hold her own." Read more and more.
In Case You Missed It: Republican Senator Lindsey Graham on Sunday's This Week with George Stephanopoulos: "I worked with Senator Clinton to provide military health care to every guard and reserve member." Watch here.
On the Map: During her time as First Lady, Hillary visited over 80 countries. See more.
On Tap: Tomorrow morning, Hillary delivers remarks to the Communication Workers of America.

that, my friends, is a real politician proposing real solutions. but let's turn to senator-wet-behind-the-ears, barack obama. mike's 'Kristen Breitweiser, Isaiah, Third' makes a very good point: bambi has now insulted all the people who lost loved 1s on 9-11. but i'd expand on that and argue that he's insulted every american. kristen breitweiser's piece is here and this is from it:

How could Obama have such a poor understanding of the 9/11 attacks and their subsequent impact on the US intelligence community? Has Obama even read the 9/11 Commission's Final Report that (even in its whitewash form) calls Rice to task for her "misleading" statement about the predictability of 9/11-style attacks? Or sets forth recommendations for intelligence community reforms?

i'll follow mike's lead and not use a word stronger than 'moron.' but what a moron. barack obama wants to be president of the united states and he doesn't even know the basics, the most heavily reported details about the worst attack on american soil in his lifetime. that is an insult to us all. this man thinks he's ready for the white house and he doesn't even know the basics about 9-11?

bambi's always disrespected 9/11. this is from his man crush keith olberman's 'barack obama: 9/11 fever has broken' (october 21, 2006 - no link to trash, you can google the title):

OBAMA: Well, first of all, I think it's important for us to directly engage the issue of national security. You know, after 9/11, it was understandable that everybody rallied around the president. And I think that Democrats were hesitant to challenge the president on his national security agenda.
I think this election, you're seeing the fever break, and people step back and say the consequences of a series of decisions by this administration have resulted in a fiasco in Iraq, a climate in which terrorists are actually growing in numbers around the world. We haven't done much about homeland security, and we've got two hostile nations, Iran and North Korea, rapidly developing or already having developed nuclear weapons.

who the hell is he to lecture about 9-11 when he's saying that the attacks couldn't have been predicted? remember when condi was trying to get away with those lies?

remember how she got punked by the 9-11 commission. (i believe it was bob kerrey who punked her on live tv.) barack obama is just utter trash. he's never bothered to learn what every other american knows about 9-11. it's not in dispute. it's even in the 9-11 commission's report. what a dumb ass he is and how insulting that he thinks he is fit to be president. he's not even fit to serve in the senate.

here's more words of 'wisdom' re: 9/11 from barack via a 2007 ap article:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says he doesn't wear an American flag lapel pin because it has become a substitute for "true patriotism" since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Asked about it Wednesday in an interview with KCRG-TV in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the Illinois senator said he stopped wearing the pin shortly after the attacks and instead hoped to show his patriotism by explaining his ideas to citizens.
"The truth is that right after 9/11 I had a pin," Obama said. "Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security."

true patriotism would be a sitting u.s. senator knowing the public findings of the 9-11 commission. he's awfuly fond of giving speeches, he just doesn't know s**t. how embarrassing. how shameful. and he thinks he's ready to be president.

loser lee hamilton didn't just on the 9-11 comission, he also endorsed bambi last week. and, if you think about it, you'll remember that lee hamilton's biggest nemesis for years has been robert parry. i think parry's become such a crackpot these days but at some point he'll get off his bambi kool-aid high and when he does i do wonder how he attempts to accept the fact that he and lee hamilton endorsed the same candidate?

this is so insulting. if you don't know the basics of 9-11, the heavily reported basics, you aren't fit to run for president. what a moron. what an idiot. what an insult to america. we're not talking about 40 years ago. we're talking about recent history. how disgusting.

read elaine's 'AOL Poll 67% doubt Barack's patriotism' and if you wonder why people doubt barack's patriotism add in the fact that he's a sitting u.s. senator who doesn't know the basics reported by the 9-11 commission - and reported by all the media. how can you not know that? what is he a pet rock? what a stupid, stupid, stupid moron. that really ticks me off. i find that so insulting.

and guess what, if you don't know the basic's on 9-11 then you ARE NOT ready for a 3:00 a.m. phone call or a 3:00 p.m. phone call. it's really that simple.

i thought i saw another story about barack at bbc. it's about a polygamist sect being raided. but then i remembered barack's father was dead. his grandfather too. see the men in the family take multiple wives. in fact, barack's father already had a wife before he came to the united states to go to college and hooked up with barack's mother. remember when that was a big deal about mitt romney (he's mormon, he only has 1 wife and doesn't belong to a mormon sect that believes in multiple wives; however, earlier members of his family did believe in it.) but nothing's ever a big deal with bambi. the press just lets him slide.

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

Monday, April 7, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces more deaths, the snow-job begins tomorrow as the administration prepares to cry 'progress!', Hillary Clinton speaks out on major funding for breast cancer research, and more.

Starting with war resistance. "I guess the hardest thing for people to understand is the reason you join the military is not the reason you leave it," writes war resister Kimberly Rivera (Rivera Family). Rivera is a US war resister in Canada. Like war resisters Josh Randall and Brandon Hughey, Rivera is from Texas. February 18, 2007, she, her husband Mario Rivera entered Canada. Rivera is the first known female US war resister to apply for refugee status in Canada. (Skylar James arrived after Rivera.) Rivera writes:

Your basic role as a soldier being invalidated, finding out your job has no meaning. No reason. Higher command just let bad people past you demanding they do not get the same treatment as others who come in the base every day. This Is the same as jeopardizing every men and women on the front line. That was the most angering moment for me. From this point on I had no pride in my work, No reason for being in Iraq. It was obvious to me that security was not the top priority for the troops and as one person not allowed to do my job efficiently and to the highest ability was the final straw. Finding that out is the hardest. It was my last reason for staying. For giving my life. You believe you are doing the right thing.

At the end of last year, Courage to Resist spoke with Rivera about her deployment to Iraq:

While in Iraq losing soldiers and civilians was part of daily life. I was a gate guard. This was looked down on by infantry soldiers who go out in the streets, but gate guards are the highest security of the Foward Operation Base. We searched vehicles, civilian personnel, and military convoys that left and came back every hour. I had a huge awakening seeing the war as it truly is: people losing their lives for greed of a nation and the effects on the soldiers who come back with new problems such as nightmares, anxieties, depression, anger alcohol abuse, missing limbs and scars from burns. Some don't come back at all. On December 21, 2006 I was going to my room and something in my heart told me to go call my husband. And when I did 24 rounds of mortars hit the FOB in a matter of minutes after I got on the phone . . . the mortars were 10-15 feet from where I was. I found a hole from the shrapnel in my room in the plywood window. That night I found the shrapnel on my bed in the same place where my head would have been if I hadn't changed my plans and gone to the phone.

War resisters in Canada are attempting to be granted safe harbor. The Canadian Parliament will debate a measure this month on that issue. 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).

On Saturday, US Senator Joe Biden delivered the Democratic Radio Address (link has text and audio):

In January 2007, President Bush announced the surge of an additional 30,000 American forces into Iraq. Next week, the President is expected to tell the American people what comes next. It's an important moment for America's future. "The purpose of the surge was to bring violence in Iraq down so that its leaders could come together politically. Violence has come down, but the Iraqis have not come together. The country remains terribly divided among Sunni, Shi'a and Kurds. There is little evidence the Iraqis will settle their differences peacefully any time soon. "Our military has done a heroic job in bringing violence down since last summer. But even these gains are relative. Violence is just getting back to levels we saw in 2005 -- when 846 Americans lost their lives and 5,945 were wounded. Iraq is still an incredibly dangerous place -- and very far from normal. "Despite this reality, the President is expected to announce that when the surge ends, we will not be in a position of drawing down American forces. There could be no clearer acknowledgment from the President himself that the surge has not succeeded in achieving its stated purpose--namely, moving Iraq toward the day it can govern itself, defend itself and sustain itself in peace. "So, where are we after the surge? Back to where we were before it started. With 140,000 troops in Iraq -- and no end in sight. The best that can be said is we've gone from drowning in Iraq to treading water. That's better, but we can't keep doing it without exhausting ourselves. "Every extra day we stay in Iraq with 140,000 troops, that's exactly what we're doing. And the price we're paying keeps getting steeper: The continued loss of the lives and limbs of our soldiers -- every day; The emotional and economic strain on our military families due to repeated, extended tours -- lasting up to 15 months; The drain on our Treasury -- $12 billion every month that we could be spending on housing, education or healthcare here at home; The impact on the readiness of our armed forces -- tying down so many troops that we don't have any leftover to deal with a new emergency; The inability to send enough troops to the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan -- the real central front in the war on terror; And finally: the damage done to America's standing in the world;"I believe the President has no strategy for success in Iraq. His plan is to muddle through -- and hand the problem off to his successor. Our troops and their families deserve better than that. We owe them a strategy worthy of their sacrifice. "We Democrats understand that this war must end so that America can regain the credibility to lead around the world and the flexibility to meet our challenges here at home. That's what the American people want -- and it's what America's security needs. Thank you for listening."

Biden's radio address continued the Congressional plan to set out criteria ahead of the Congressional testimonies of US Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Gen David Petraeus (they begin testifying Tuesday). Wednesday and Thursday, Congress utilized the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings and a press conference to lay down. On Wednesday, Biden noted (at the opening of the afternoon hearings), "We are told that we must continue to support a strong central government, when that government does not enjoy the trust of many Iraqis, and has little capacity to deliver security and services." Last fall, Congress was basically unprepared (or unwilling) for the wave of Operation Happy Talk the White House launched. As Biden noted Wednesday morning, the escalation ('surge') was announced by the White House at the start of 2007, "The following September, when Ambassaodr Ryan Crocker and General David Petraeus testified before Congress, they told us that the surge would start to wind down this spring, at which point they would give the President and Congress their recommendations for what should come next. That's the context for the two weeks of hearings we start today in the Foreign Relations -- and for the basic questions we'll be asking: One, has the surge accomplished its stated goals? We're interested not just in tactical military progress, but also the strategic objective of buying time for political reconciliation. And two, where do we go from here, both in terms of U.S. force levels and U.S. policy for succeeding in Iraq?"

"General David Petraeus, our top man in Iraq, returns to Washington this week to talk about where we go from here," was how Bob Schieffer (CBS' Face The Nation, link has text and video) introduced the topic on yesterday's broadcast. CBS News' Lara Logan appeared to give an overview of recent events and McClatchy Newspapers' Nancy A. Youssef and the Washington Post's Rajiv Chandrasekaran were the panelists for the discussion after Logan finished her report.

Bob Schieffer: Is Iraq any better? Have things calmed down at all over this last year because suddenly many Americans were surprised over the last couple of weeks when you had this new round of violence. What -- what's the situation there now?

Lara Logan: Well the last few weeks have really been brutal for General Petraeus because he really was looking at a year where he managed to be quite successful in reducing violence particularly in Baghdad and some of the surrounding areas. One of the main reasons for that is the agreement with the Sunni tribes and also with some Shi'ite tribes -- the militias that they were forming and working with the Americans but those gains have almost disappeared in the face of the recent violence which spread so quickly from Basra in the south of Iraq. And what that fight -- it's really about two things. It's a fight amongst the Shi'ites for power in Iraq -- what the future of this country is going to look like, how the Shi'ites will divide Iraq among themselves -- but perhaps even more importantly it's a fight between the US, who backs the Iraqi government and Iraqi security forces, and Iran, who backs those militias. And this is really the proxy war that everybody talks about behind closed doors but nobody wants to admit to in public, Bob.

Logan did something very helpful. It wasn't journalism and shouldn't be mistaken for it. There's very little reality in anything she declared. But she has stuck to the talking points that Petraeus and Crocker will. (A) Violence was reduced. (B) That's wonderful! (C) The "Awakening" Councils are a plus. (C) It's all Iran's fault. (D) Let's go to war with Iran. As a journalism, Logan's 'report' fails on every level. As a sneak peak to the arguments Petreaus and Crocker will try to make, it's illuminating. Taking the four points one by one. (A) Reduced violence all these years later is a rather pathetic 'goal.' January 10, 2007 Bully Boy announced the surge. One day after his announcement, the US death toll stood at 3018. The current total is 4023. 1005 US service members have died since then. Bully Boy's laughable speech (containing one kernal of truth: "Where mistakes have been, the responsibility rests with me.") promised to "put down sectarian violence" (didn't happen) "and bring security to the people of Baghdad" (ditto). He stressed that the escalation went "beyond military operations" and that "America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced" (actually pushed by the White House). No benchmarks were reached since September. A de-de-Baathification law kind of got passed, it hasn't been implemented, it's largely inoperable even if the puppet government attempts to implement it. There has been no political progress. (B) Wonderful? That's embarrassing. (C) Actually, the assault on Basra by the puppet government (at the request of the White House) caused large scale violence and would still be ongoing were it not for Iraqi Parliamentarians and Iran working towards a cease-fire. (D) Bully Boy already has ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with the military stretched to the limits so unless he's enlisting the Bush family into a brigade, war with Iran is impossible. (Bully Boy's a big believer in trying the impossible when it risks harming America.)

Bob Schieffer: Now Rajiv, how could the US basically have been blindsided when the prime minister decided to launch this attack on Sadr's militia?

Rajiv Chandrasekaran: I'm not entirely sure that the American command there was entirely blindsided.

Bob Schieffer: Really?

Rajiv Chandrasekaran: The Iraqi military at the most senior levels does coordinate with the United States military. I think it was pitched and described to General Petraeus and his senior commanders as a more narrowly targeted operation. [. . .] And I think the American command wanted to see Maliki step up and take some actions aimed at doing so. But obviously what we saw was an operation that was ill conceived, ill planned and wound up really provoking a much harsher response from Moqtada al-Sadr's militia then I think had been envisaged both by Maliki's government and by the American officials.

Bob Schieffer: Well do you think the United States wanted him to do this, Nancy?

Nancy A. Youssef: I think they were in a precarious position because on one hand there had been a lot of pressure on Nouri al-Maliki to step up and really take a leadership postion and Basra is a big problem. It's a big security problem. It's unstable. It's not controlled by anyone. And it's that last major stronghold that Moqatad al-Sadr, the rebel cleric, has in the south. And the US military officials that I've talked to say that they were working with Nouri al-Maliki to craft a longterm, thoughtful plan. It appears that what the US military didn't want was what happened -- which was a very sudden, ill-planned attack that potentially put the gains of the surge in jeopardy. [. . .] It also showcased Iran's influence on the security and politics in Iraq in a very pronounced way. It exposed not only how much they influence the Badr organization as I think a lot of people had assumed but also Moqtada al-Sadr who had promoted himself as an Iraqi nationalist. And so it put the gains of the surge in question and I think it also raised questions about what would the US role be vis a vis the Iraqi security forces if there was a drawdown. In this case, the US says it wasn't informed about what the plan was and then had to rush and get air combat support in place when the Iraqi security forces couldn't handle the fighting.

Chandrasekarn would go on to note that the Iraqi military began defecting -- which is the term for it, not "desertion." Desertion implies that they left the battle, defecting described what happened -- they switched to the other side. He also noted that the "intra-Shi'ite fighting" proves just how difficult any national reconciliation is (all these years later).

Today at the White House, Tony Fratto, Deputy Press Secretary, attempted to give the appearance that the White House was not coordinating the testimonies of Petraeus and Croker. Helen Thomas corrected that noting, "You acted like the President wouldn't know what Petraeus and Crocker are going to testify. Do you mean he's going to be surprised tomorrow when they say the surge is working and all?" Fratto backed off ("No, I hope I didn't leave that impression.") but Thomas pressed, "But he's the President, isn't he calling the policy? I mean, we don't have President Petraeus, do we?" Fratto agreed that the US didn't and then tried to spin that security was the "mission" leading Thomas to (rightly) dub it the White House's request "to continue the occupation of Iraq". He refused to answer her question of whether the "mission" including "paying off 90,000 Iraqis not to fight?" The "Awakening" Council members are paid $300 in US dollars by the US government.

The latest wave of Operation Happy Talk will include testimonies from US Sec of Defense Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staff chair Michael Mullen. CNN reported yesterday that it would also include a Thursday morning address by the Bully Boy. It will, no doubt, be as fact based as Douglas Feith's 'zany' appearance on 60 Minutes (link has text and video) yesterday where Steve Kroft had to repeatedly correct him. Feith was the Under Secretary of Defense and told Kroft the illegal war was "anticpatory self-defense" and claimed that no one in the administration had floated the threat of WMDs to the public in the leadup to the Iraq War. Kroft responded by quoting Donald Rumsfeld, Bully Boy and Dick Cheney doing just that. Attempting to stay with reality, on Friday, 16 members of Congress -- led by US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- sent a letter to the White House noting that "the strategic purpose of the surge strategy you announced more than a year ago -- creating the conditions for Iraqis to forge a political solution in order to hasten the day our troops can return home -- has not been achieved. In fact, your Administration recently indicated that more U.S. troops will remain deployed in Iraq after the surge has ended than were there when the surge began. This is not what the American people were led to expect when you announced the surge nearly fifteen months ago." Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) quotes US Senator Carl Levin declaring al-Maliki "has shown himself to be a political leader who is excessively sectarian, who is incompetent and who runs a corrupt administration. . . The purpose of the surge clearly has not been achieved."

Meanwhile at least 69 Iraqis and 5 US service members were reported dead over the weekend. Among the many deaths was this one that Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reported on Saturday: the assassination of priest Yousef Adel in Baghdad. The priest deaths follows the February 29th kidnapping of Archbishop Palos Faraj Rahho whose corpse was discovered March 13th. Of latest priest murdered, Iraq's Alsumaria TV reports, "The assassination of Father Youssef Adel was a multilateral message delivered from terrorists to concerned parties. This incident targets at first Iraq's social diversity and strikes national unity and coexistence." Zenit reports that Father Youssef Adel Abudi was assassinated "in his home in Baghdad," "at the entrance." Asia News notes the funeral was at Saints Peter and Paul Church in Baghdad and that mourners included "[v]arious members of the faithful and religious representatives from all the Christian denominations . . . including Athanase Matti Shaba Matoka, the Assyrian Catholic bishop of the capital, the patriarch of the Chaldeans, Cardinal Emmanuel III Delly, the apostolic nuncio in Iraq and Jordan, Archbishope Francis Assisi Chullikatt." Catholic World News notes the funeral was presided over by Syrian Orthodoz Bishop Matti Shaba. Catholic News Agency reports the mourners numbered 300. Leila Fadel and Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reported Sunday that armed clashes were yet again taking place in Baghdad as al-Maliki was sending militias into the Sadr City section of the capital to attack the followers of Moqtada al-Sadr. That would be Shi'ite vs. Shi'ite conflict. Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) reports that "intra-sect struggles, after five years of war, are increasingly defining the nature of conflict in Iraq, as violence lessens between Sunnis and Shiites" and notes the funeral for Mustafa, the sixteen-year-old son of Abu Abdullah, who was shot and killed by an Iraqi soldier and whose father says, "I want to do to them exactly what they did to my son, and even more." As the attacks on Sadr City continue, CNN reports on their interview with Nouri al-Maliki (link has text and video) where he "demanded al-Sadr disband his Mehdi Army and threatened to bar al-Sadr's followers from the political process if the cleric refused." Khaled Farhan (Reuters) notes that Moqtada al-Sadr's response, he "will consult senior religious leaders and disband his Mehdi Army militia if they instruct him to, a senior aide said on Monday. The surprise announcement was the first time Sadr has proposed dissolving the Mehdi Army, one of the principle actors in Iraq's five-year-old conflict and the main opponent of U.S. and Iraqi forces during a recent upsurge in fighting." But a later report by Farhan quotes a spokesperson for Moqtada al-Sadr declaring that "this is an old idea and didn't come in response to Maliki's orders."

In some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two Baghdad roadside bombings that left ten people wounded (five were police officers), another Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded another five police officers, a Baghdad mortar attack on the Green Zone that wounded two people outside the Green zone, a Baghdad mortar attack that claimed 9 lives (thirty-one more wounded), a Basra explosion that claimed 7 lives, a roadside bombing outside Basra that targeted Ministry of Interior spokesperson Abdul Kareem Khalf and resulted in four bodyguards being wounded and a Diyala Province roadside bombing that claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier and left another wounded. Reuters notes a Baghdad missile attack that claimed 9 lives and a US helicopter strike on Sadr City that claimed 4 lives (five more people wounded).

Shootings?

Reuters notes an armed clash in Baghdad that resulted in 5 deaths.

Corpses?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 corpses discovered in Baghdad.

Meanwhile the US military announced today: "Two Multi-National Division -- Baghdad Soldiers were killed in a rocket-propelled grenade attack at approximately 6 p.m. April 7." And they announced: "A Multi-National Division -- Baghdad Soldier was killed as the result of small-arms fire after the vehicle he was traveling in was struck by an improvised explosive device while on patrol in eastern Baghdad April 7." 5 announced dead yesterday, three today for a total of 4023 since the start of the illegal war.

Turning to US presidential race news. Cynthia McKinney is running for the Green Party nomination and, on Saturday, Rhode Island Greens "picked a slate of delegates that favors" her. Mark Reynolds (The Providence Journal) reports McKinney was appointed six delegates to the Green Party's July national convention (in Chicago) and Jesse Johnson was appointed two. As various candidates run for their parties' nomination, one ticket is already know: Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez. The Nader-Gonzalez website continues their media critique -- one all third party and independent candidates should be taking part in as they are not just shut out of the MSM coverage but scorned by so-called 'independent' media. Last week, The Progressive's Matthew Rothschild was rightly critiqued (click here for Third's piece on that) and today Team Nader wonders about "prominent American liberals" (Rothschild, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Medea Benjami, John Nichols, etc.) who "continue to support the corrupt Democratic Party" despite agreeing with the Nader-Gonzalez ticket on issues such as "single-payer, Canadian-style, private delivery, public health insurance system," "cutting the bloated, wasteful military budget, cutting off the corporate welfare kings," "cracking down on corporate crime," "reversing U.S. policy in the Middle East and ending the military and corporate occupation in Iraq." Team Nader announces that last week more than enough signatures have been collected for the Nader-Gonzalez ticket to be on the New Mexico ballot and more than enough to be on Hawaii's ballot while the current focus is on Arizona and Kansas is the next planned state to target.

Turning to the Democratic Party where Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama remain in a dead heat for their party's presidential nomination. Christopher Willis (AP) explains that Barack spent the weekend repeating over and over how he loves the United States which is necessary, as Willis outlines, as a result of an impression left unanswered: no flag lapel pin, not placing his hand over his heart during the "Star Spangeled Banner," Michelle Obama declaration earlier this year that she was "proud of America for the first time" and his pastor of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright, standing in front of the congregation and calling on God to damn the United States. That issue is not going away and it's amazing that some really think these warning signals can be ignored. Barack's given his big speech that was supposed to silence any questions about Wright but he continues to spend time trying to address the problem. Repeating, it is not going away. Meanwhile, Helen Thomas (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) explores the two campaigns and observes, "Obama stresses he was against the invasion of Iraq, but he doesn't say he was not in the Senate when it was initiated. Since becoming a senator, he has twice voted to fund the war. I am still trying to find the key that has made Obama a prime candidate for the presidency, and to understand what he has done for the country beyond his middle-of-the-road political moves to make his name known and to steer clear of hot-button issues." On the issue of the dead-heat the two candidates are in, Sean Wilentz (Salon) notes, "Crucially, Team Obama doesn't want to count the votes of Michigan and Florida. (And let's note that in a winner-take-all system, Clinton would still be leading in delegates, 1,430 to 1,257, even without Michigan and Florida.) Under the existing system, Obama's current lead in the popular vote would nearly vanish if the results from Michigan and Florida were included in the total, and his lead in pledged delegates would melt almost to nothing. The difference in the popular vote would fall to 94,005 out of nearly 27 million cast thus far -- a difference of a mere four-tenths of 1 percentage point -- and the difference in delegates would plummet to about 30, out of the 2,024 needed to win. Add those states' votes to the totals, and take a sober look at Clinton's popular-vote victories in virtually all other large states, and the electoral dynamic changes. She begins to look like the almost certain nominee." Meanwhile Hillary Clinton continues demonstrating leadership. On Friday she proposed a cabinet level position to address and end poverty. Today, she appeared on The Ellen Degeneres Show. Ellen and Hillary bowled and, on charges that Hillary should drop out of the race, Ellen explained, "Just keep going and I think the people should decide. It's wrong for anyone to tell somebody -- whoever you're for, everyone has a right to vote for whoever they want -- but to tell someone to get out -- It's our vote. It's we the people that should choose." On the program, Hillary announced that, as president, there would be a "$300 million a year in increased funding for breast cancer research at the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institure and the Department of Defense Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program." Clinton explained, "I know your mom is a survivor, and we've lost my incredible mother-in-law to breast cancer during Bill's first term and first year in office, and I've just been really committed. I've had so many friends, and we all know people who survived and people who haven't. And I just think we should set a goal of curing breast cancer within the next decade." Marcia will cover more of the Ellen appearance this evening.

iraq
brandon hughey
kimberly rivera
joe biden
mcclatchy newspapersnancy a. youssef
the washington post
rajiv chandrasekaran
lara loganface the nation
helen thomas
leila fadelmohammed al dulaimy
sudarsan raghavan
christopher willis

this is howard wolfson's 'HUBdate: A Tribute To Dr. King' (hillaryclinton.com):

Poverty Czar: Today in her speech at the Mason Temple in Memphis, TN, paying tribute to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in remembrance of the 40th anniversary of his assassination, Hillary announces a cabinet level position that will be solely and fully devoted to ending poverty as we know it in America.
A Tribute To Dr. King: Earlier this week, Hillary released a video inviting supporters to submit testimonials about the impact of Dr. King’s work on their lives. View here.
On The Air: The Clinton campaign released the first 60-second television ad statewide in North Carolina inviting Tar Heel voters to submit questions. "I'm committed to hearing directly from voters across the Tar Heel State, so in this new ad, I'm asking North Carolinians to talk to me." Hillary will answer those questions in follow-up ads in the coming weeks. Watch Here. Submit questions here.
Tonight Show: Hillary appeared on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" despite, Hillary joked, being "pinned down by sniper fire at the Burbank airport." Watch here. Read more.
If You Read One Thing Today: The NYT writes "Senator Barack Obama's support among Democrats nationally has softened over the last month…as voters have taken a slightly less positive view of him than they did after his burst of victories in February, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll." Read more.
By The Numbers: A new poll out from Research 2000 shows Hillary leading in the Hoosier State (49-46). See the results here.
Endorsement Watch: Former Indiana Congressman John Brademas endorsed Hillary because she "has the intelligence, the integrity, and the experience to jump-start our struggling economy, create needed Hoosier jobs and put the country back on the right track." Read more.
More Hoosiers For Hillary: Hillary received the endorsements of 21 additional mayors and four local Democratic Party leaders in Indiana. "These mayors and local leaders see up close every day the impact of our rough economy on families in their communities. They know it's going to take someone who can deliver real solutions to put our economy back on track." Read more.
West Virginia Announcements: The campaign announced its West Virginia State Director and Communications Director. New State Director, Talley Sargent: “West Virginians have patiently waited their turn to head to the ballot box -- and now they will have their opportunity to make their vote count." Read more.
Save the Date: Hillary agreed to an April 27th debate in Raleigh, NC hosted by CBS. Read more.
On Tap In Oregon: Hillary will hold a town hall in Hillsboro and will host a rally in Eugene.
In Case You Missed It: "A key adviser to Sen. Obama's campaign is recommending in a confidential paper that America keep between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office." Read more.

and this is a question: when will the like of pock-marked tom hayden stop defending bambi? when will they quit putting foward the lie that bambi is going to end the illegal war? most importantly, are they going to be held accountable for their non-stop lying in order to get bambi into the white house?

i hope they are held accountable. i hope all the liars are called out loudly. i hope that the next time they try to speak on anything, people remember, 'oh, that's tom hayden. he's the liar who kept saying that if you wanted to end the illegal war, you needed to vote for bambi because he would end the illegal war. that's tom hayden, and he's just a pathetic democrat who got kicked to the curb and thought he could become a player again if he could hop a wave, lie to voters and show the democratic party bosses that he was still a contender.'

tom hayden hasn't been a contender in over a decade. he will never be a contender again.

the only thing he had left was that he could be honest but honesty obviously isn't a concern of his. so he lies and then lies some more.

and expects people to believe him.

tom hayden's far from the only one and it's a long, long list of liars who've exposed just how craven they are, just how willing to lie.

the world will not forget his actions are those of self-loathing lesbian laura flanders, amy goodman, stephen zunes, and on and on it goes.

hacks for obama.

liars for obama.

i read an article about the peace movement being in shambles. it is. if you want to know why, look to the liars for obama. they've never held him accountable. it's like when john kerry GOT the nomination in 2004. only it's started before the nomination.

it's frightening how so many will sell their souls for a political candidate.

it's appalling how willingly they will engage in the most vile sexism. like laura flanders ludicrous claims that hillary only gave a speech about women's rights as 1st lady and never did anything other than that. laura flanders doesn't know her history. or at least not her american history. if she hates here so much, she's more than welcome to return to england. of course, she wouldn't be anybody in that country either.

and look at who england's produced among policital commentators. find the woman these days. you can find robert fisk and assorted men. what happens to women in england?

only in america, apparently, could laura flanders eek out a living and yet she slams american women. she slams robin morgan. maybe laura flanders really needs to go back to england.

then she could comment on a political party she actually belongs to instead of butting into democratic primaries.

of course, england's a smaller country. so once she stepped out of the closet there, she'd be out. here in america, she was able to step out of the closet and then, when the national air america radio came along, hop back into the closet.

t says she knows laura flanders' type and that you can find her at any lesbian club, trying to play 'more butch than thou'. i believe it. i believe she'd go to the masculine because she has no respect for the feminine. why would she in her family? it's all about bullying and bragging in that crazy family.

when t heard about the graffitti being posted all over san francisco, she decided to do her part and boston lesbian hot spots are now seeing 'laura flanders: gay when she wants to be.' and 'she wasn't in the closet when she's going down on me.'

of course, in england, she wouldn't have those opportunities. she'd be a woman in a society which appears to place little value on women. they did, after all, gives us the spice 'girls' (as pru pointed out last week).

so she comes to america and sees herself in a man with dual citizenship, sees herself in a man period. and she'll do anything to get him elected. even when it requires stabbing every woman she can in the back.

she's probably into some role playing in bed, heavy role playing. she probably uses a strap on and makes the woman call her 'daddy.' i could see that because she really is that sick. a woman who rejects other women rejects herself so 'self-loathing lesbian' only captures 1 part of laura flanders, there's also the 'self-loathing woman' aspect.

that's why the peace movement is in shambles, even non-democrats like laura flanders try to pass themselves off as democrats to rally around the man who won't end the illegal war.

and then you get codepink and others still pushing impeacment. they sent out an april fool's day e-mail on that which only made them look foolish.

the e-mail said that john conyers had realized he needed to call for impeachment. when you got to the end, you were told it was april's fools.

the only fools are organizations like codepink that can't grasp impeachment's not happening.

it's an election year. the dems in congress rejected it. they aren't going to waive it through now.

how much focus is there on the elections? they're trying to stop the primaries from taking place. they're trying to force hillary out of the race. even though she's got 1/2 of the voters. and the majority of the voters who are democrats.

but codepink wants to waste every 1's time still harping on impeachment. it's so sad and you honestly have to wonder if, come 2010, they're still going to be sending out e-mails asking people to work for george's impeachment?

it is april. the elections are in november. that's 7 months away. the democrats who sat on their asses in congress and refused to push for impeachment are not suddenly going to do it now.

but that's why the peace movment is in shambles. codepink's jerking off to impeachment while an illegal war drags on.

or you get medea benjamin rushing in to write about st. bhutto.

it's really disgusting. the 'leaders' of the left are the most disorganized in the world. they probably pray obama gets the nomination because it would be their sole accomplishment.

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

Friday, April 4, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the Iraqi refugee crisis continues, al-Maliki's evaluations less than glowing, Barack Obama says one thing on Iraq in public and apparently another thing in private, and more.

Starting with war resistance. War veteran Chad Hetman writes The Daily Targum to explain, "People should be asking if ROTC instructors are teaching cadets that it is their legal duty under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to refuse and challenge unlawful orders. Since the illegal war began, only one soldier has had the sense and courage to do his duty, Lieutenant Ehren Watada. The military is supposed to be politically neutral, but not legally neutral and almost all troops never read or understand the Constitution that they blindly swear to 'Support and Defend Against ALL Enemies both Foreign And DOMESTIC'." Watada is the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq (June 2006). In February 2007, Watada was court-martialed. Judge Toilet (aka John Head) halted the court-martial in order to give the prosecution a do-over and he halted the court-martial over defense objection. Double-jeopardy should prevent Watada from being prosecuted/persecuted again; however, the US military holds out hopes of convincing a judge that the Constitution -- though members of military swear to uphold it -- does not actually apply to the military.

Weeks before the court-martial took place, Ave Diaz and Lance Holter (Haleakala Times) spoke with Watada who shared these expectations:

I certainly expect the army to make an example out of my stand and what I'm speaking against. Certainly they want to set the example and I think it's very dangerous because the example or message they are trying to send is that when you join the military you do what you are told -- it doesn't matter what your beliefs are, you do what you are told and that is a very dangerous message to send because who wants to join the military if you are going to be forced to do (something) -- regardless of whatever you believe in your own conscience -- and I think that will lead to a mass exodus of soldiers leaving the military because of that and also it will prevent a lot of potential recruits from joining the military.

And that apparently remains the goal of the US military which refuses to discharge Watada (whose service contract ended December 2006) and holds out hopes of subverting the Constitution by court-martialing him again. Since his contract expired, Watada has reported for duty each day. He continues to do so. Thank You Lt. Watada is calling for: "No New Court Martial! Dismiss All Charges! Release Lt. Watada with an Honorable Discharge!"

Some war resisters are attempting to be granted safe harbor in Canada. The Canadian Parliament will debate a measure this month on that issue. 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).

Next Tuesday, Gen David Petraeus and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker begin their attempts to sell Congress -- and therefore the American people -- on the notion that "progress" exists and thrives in Iraq. In anticipation of the expected snow job, Congress has attempted to lay down some guidance this week. Most successful was Wendesday's hearing by the US Senate's Foreign Relations Committee where retired Gen William Odom explained the escalation ("surge") didn't work, was never going to work, explained the problems with paying off thugs who are 'loyal' for coin, and much more. Thursday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee continued to explore Iraq and US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi held a press conference on Iraq that was supposed to outline the message but instead she got sidetracked (with her travels, her candidate of choice, etc.) -- US House Rep Rahm Emanuel managed to salvage the conference.

If the snow job is blinded by realities this time, credit will go to those like Marilou Johanek (Toledo Blade) who've shown what a working press is:

SO MUCH for Iraq's "defining moment." That's what the "Decider" called last week's Iraqi offensive against Shiite militants in Basra. It was a defining moment all right, one that underscored how worthless Iraqi's army and "unity" government are five years into the war. Interesting how muted Washington has been about the whole affair lately. Initially, the Bush Administration scrambled to put a positive spin on Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's ill-advised and ill-prepared government crackdown in the country's second largest city. Only after Iraqi security forces got a "thumpin" -- to put it in George W. Bush's vernacular -- and the prime minister, who had vowed to remain in Basra for a "decisive and final battle" against the militias, backed down after Iran brokered a cease-fire, did the administration start to disown the debacle.

And include The Villager whose editorial, "Dems must find their spine on Iraq," spelled it out clearly: "The so-called surge is not "working" and it has nothing to do with the heightened violence last week. Even with the reduced level of violence against Americans in the last few months, we were still losing about a soldier a day. Many more troops are being severely wounded with crippling physical and mental injuries. Iraqi civilians continue to be killed in far greater numbers. The surge's intent was to prompt the Iraqis into making political compromises in order to govern themselves. Even the Bush administration admits there has been little progress on that front. How will the Iraqis ever be able to police themselves if Bush and John McCain continue to suggest we are willing to stay indefinitely -- a century, if necessary?" The assault on Basra was a War Crime. It was also a moment that revealed to the entire world that the US installed puppet Nouri al-Maliki was incompentent and unsupported by the Iraqi people.

He made ultimatums and then had to back down because he lacks the support to carry those out. This week he showed up attempting to save face after Moqtada al-Sadr's call for a stand-down (via talks between members of Iraq's parliament and Iran) brought the peace al-Maliki can never provide. He also begged for resistance fighters to return at least 50 government vehicles they had seized during the fighting -- but he calls it a 'win.' And he and his White House handlers learn nothing from the experience. AFP reports that Thursday he was boasting of more assaults on al-Sadr's followers and repeating his talk of "outlaws" and how he doesn't make deals with him. Having yet again talked big, he got sleep and -- maybe he had scary nightmares -- showed up today with a different tune. Reuters reported this morning that he was now saying turn in weapons and everyone can get along! He'll even "grant amnesty from prosectuion"! Retuers observed, "The statement appeared to soften Maliki's position from Thursday, when at a news conference he threatened a crackdown on Sadr's strongholds in Baghdad." Meanwhile Matt Schofield (Kansas City Star) wonders, "So, we're almost five years from the day Baghdad fell, and it's time to ask: Who is in control of Iraq?"
Turning to the topic of Iraqi refugees. Tuesday the UNHCR's Jennifer Pagonis broke down the latest figures on the internally displaced noting that "it is estimated that over 2.77 million people are currently displaced inside the country. Of these, 1.2 million were displaced before 2006 and more than 1.5 million were displaced in 2006 and 2007." Of these, "over 1 million cannot access regular income. Around 300,000 individuals have no access to clean water and are in need of legal aid to enable them to access other basic services." On external refugees, Trudy Rubin (Philadelphia Inquirer) observes, "More than two million Iraqi refugees are struggling to survive outside Iraq, the bulk of them in neighboring Jordan and Syria. . . . Jordan and Syria can't afford to keep them, but they can't go home and are running out of money. Yet the desperate plight of Iraq's refugees isn't one the president wants to highlight -- because it underlines how tenuous the situation remains in Iraq." That's putting it mildly. Relief Web notes this from the Christian Reformed Church in North America, "Early last year the U.S. government agreed to resettle 7,000 refugees by February 2008, giving preference to those at greatest risk of violence. Today, only 2,000 Iraq refugees have entered the United States, with nearly 12,000 more awaiting approval." That should read: "still waiting approval." Dropping back to the Feb. 21st snapshot:

The total number of Iraqi refugees accepted by the US in 2007 was 1,608. In the February 5th snapshot, the US State Department's laughable press confrence was noted. It featured Homeland Security's Senior Advisor to the Secretary on Iraqi Refugee Issues Lori Scialabba, The State Dept's Deputy Assistant for Consular Affairs Tony Edson, and the Senior Coordinator on Iraqi Refugee Issues Ambassador James Folely with a lot of excuses. CNN Elise Labott and Bloomberg News' Janice Zacharia had questions (and numbers) the State Department wasn't expecting which led to such claims by Foley as the State Dept had never said it would have 7,000 settled by the 2007 fiscal year. Finally, he offered "I came on board in September" (the end of the 2007 fiscal year) and that apparently means that he can't be updated on what's come before.

The crisis is not 'new,' it's not something unexpected. It remains something the US refuses to address. Simone Campbell (The Mountain Mail) notes, "Traveling throughout Lebanon and Syria recently with several religious sisters and staff members from Catholic Relief Services, I witnessed lives of desperation and quiet stories of hope. Our visits with Iraqi families, Christian and Muslim, humanize numbing statistics staggering in scope." She notes are:

Among them is Dovid, a gentle Christian man so traumatized by torture at the hands of a militia in Iraq that his body constantly shakes. He struggled to hold steady for a picture we took with his wife and 10 children who live crowded into one room in a poor Beirut neighborhood. There is Leila, a Shiite Muslim who had a successful career in nuclear medicine in Iraq until she and her father were threatened because they worked with a U.S. company on hospital construction. Her father sent her to safety in Lebanon; a few months later, he was executed as he walked home from his job. She is haunted by rumors her father's enemies are searching for her.

Sheryl Kornman (Tuscon Citizen) speaks with the US State Dept's Barbara Day who attempts to stamp a happy face on things like refugees "remain near their countries in refugee camps or in cities hoping to one day return to their homes." The State Dept wants them to return. It looks better for the administration if that happens. But the United Nations and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent have noted that it is not safe for them to return. Homeland Security's Barbara Strack also spins for Kornman explaining that those who have "provided any money or goods to terrorists" may get exemptions -- since the US is defining a family who pays the ransom for a family member kidnapped as having "provided any money or goods to terrorists." In the current issue of Harper's Magazine (April 2008), Deborah Campbell debunks that nonsense and other policies and attitudes preventing the Iraqi refugees from getting assistance in "Exodus: Where will Iraq go next?" (pp. 50 -56; link may only work for subscribers to the magazine). Campbell describes the crisis:The result of this societal collapse has been the largest exodus in the Middle East since the Palestinian refugee crisis of 1948. One fifth of the population have fled their homes. In addition to the 2.5 million people known to be displaced within Iraq, a further 2.5 million have left the country. Several hundred thousand have made it to Egypt, the Gulf States, Iran, Turkey or Yemen, and Jordan hosts another half million. But it is Syria that has taken on the largest burden.

She shares the stories of many Iraqi refugees in Syria such as Aisha who provides English clases for free to other Iraqis each weekend and left Iraq after being kidnapped and the ransom being $50,000 and leave Iraq immediately There's Saif who was an intelligence officer but was among the many to lose their jobs when Paul Bremer (with White House approval) disbanded the Iraqi military. A rocket attack on his home left his wife paralyzed and his days in Syria are mainly spent "feeding and bathing his wife". A daughter was killed in the attack. Another daughter badly burned with no money for reconstructive surgey and a son was kidnapped "and tortured with electric cables to the head -- now he babbled incoherently and was violent unless drugged." In Lebanaon, she meets Iraqi refugees win jail such as the man trying to get his family "to Europe on passports he had pruchased" and was now told he would only be released if he agreed to go back to Baghdad. These are among the many stories she shares and she also charts the routes of Iraq. She notes falsehoods of The Myth of the Great Return (including that the bussed and bought featured one family that was kidnapped immediately upon arriving in Baghdad) and explains that "the plight of former U.S. employees, particularly translators, remains the sum total of the discussion of the crisis within American media and political circles. The result is that, although more than 30,000 Iraqis were resettled in the United States after the 1991 Gulf War, only 3,775 Iraqis were granted entry between the beginning of the 2003 invasion and the end of January 2008."

As the US government ignores the crisis they created, criticism also goes to the United Kingdom. Jamie Doward (The Observer) reports that 50 Iraqi refugees were forcibly taken back to Iraq, to a 'safe' area (Irbil): "The British government claims the region is safe, but human rights campaigners warn it is becoming increasingly dangerous. It has emerged that one failed asylum seeker, Solyman Rashid, who was returned from Britain after his appeal was rejected, was killed by a car bomb in Kirkuk, northern Iraq, last September." Speaking in Amman, Jordan today, John Holmes, United Nation's Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, explained the crisis for all Iraqis and, of internally displaced ones, that that "have little or no access to proper health care, food assistance, sanitation and other services" which is why the UN has issued a call for $265 million in donations and currently is $60 million short of that figure.

UPI reports a movement in Germany's religious communities to lobby "for sancturay in the country for Iraqi Christians" and asking for "long-term asylum for 25,000 to 30,000 Christians". In the United States, David Zucchino (Los Angeles Times) reports, attorney Robert Dekelaita is attempting to do the same thing:

Over the last decade, DeKelaita has obtained asylum for hundreds of Iraqi Christians threatened with deportation. He travels the U.S. to counsel distraught, uprooted men and women who have fled religious persecution in Iraq.But each new grant of asylum leaves DeKelaita feeling conflicted; his efforts inadvertently contribute to the slow dissolution of the once-vibrant Christian community in Iraq."My heart is really wedded to the idea that they should be safe and secure in their own homeland in Iraq," DeKelaita, 45, said inside his law office in Skokie, Ill., near Chicago. "What I'm doing is temporary. That's how I justify it to myself -- that they will one day all go back home safely to their homeland."Repressed under Saddam Hussein, Iraq's Christian population has been decimated since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. Muslim extremists have murdered priests and burned churches and Christian-owned shops and homes. Priests in Iraq estimate that fewer than 500,000 Christians remain, about a third of the number as before 2003.

Turning to some of the violence that's created the refugee crisis . . .

Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports mortar attacks on the Green Zone, a Diyala Province bombing at a funeral that claimed 16 lives and left 29 wounded. CBS and AP report: "The attacker detonated an explosive vest in the midst of the mourners attending the funeral for a Sunni policeman who had been shot dead on Thursday night, said and officer who declined to be identified because he was not authorized to speak." Reuters reports a Mussayab roadside bombing claimed the lives of 3 police officers (two more wounded). Reuters also notes a US helicopter attack in Basra that had multiple "casualties" according to eyewitnesses.

Shootings?

Reuters reports a member of the "Awakening" Council was shot dead outside Samarra.

Corpses?

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


Meanwhile Kevin Naff (Washington Blade) reports on keeping someone in the closet even in death. Major Alan Rogers died in Iraq on Januray 27th and was buried March 14th.

But the mainstream media accounts of his death omitted any reference to his sexual orientation. These were not benign omissions. The Washington Post, in particular, worked overtime to excise any mention of Rogers' sexual orientation. It did not even report his work for AVER. Several of Rogers' gay friends told the Blade that they were interviewed by a Post reporter at the funeral, but their memories were not included in the paper's coverage.

As offensive, possibly more, is the report Steve Inskeep (Morning Edition) which offered such gems such as this "Rogers had no wife or child to take away the flag that draped his coffin, so soldiers folded the flag and gave it to his cousin." Rogers had no wife? Why was that? NPR worked overtime to avoid telling the truth and was selective in what they aired. Not only did the media attempt to deny who Rogers was, Chris Johnson (Washington Blade) reports someone at the Pentagon recently attempted to remove references to Rogers' sexuality from the Wikipeida entry on him.

On the topic of veterans, US Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign announces the creation of Veterans for Hillary Leadership Committee which has "21 distinguished veterans from the Keystone State" and "will spearhead the campaign's efforts to reach out to Pennsylvania's veterans and inform them about Hillary's record of fighting for the men and women who have worn our nation's uniform. Congressmen John Murtha and Joe Sestak will co-chair the committee." Serving on the committee:

Larry Babitts, Boiling Springs, US Army
Ron Byrd, Tobyhanna, US Army**
Russell Canevari, Jessup, US Army
Ed Cemic, Sr., Johnstown, US Army
Kathy Cullinane, Scranton, USAF
Hal Donahue, Scranton, USAF
Thomas Dougherty, Dunmore, US Army
General Mike Dunn, Davidsville, US Army
Glen Embree, Mt. Pleasant Township, Navy
Greg Erosenko, Monroeville, US Army
Wy Gowell, Clark Summit, USAF
John Hugya, Hollsopple, USMC
Christin Joltes, Johnstown, USAF
Jim Kull, Uniondale, US Army
Joe Long, Bethlehem, USAF
William McCool, Levittown, Navy
Mike Miskell, Scranton, Navy
Phyllis Reinhardt, Scranton, US Army
General Gerald Sajer, East Berlin, US Army
Joseph Tully, Scranton, Navy
Jeffrey Voice, Philadelphia, US Army
**"Ron" is my guess. The first half of the name is left off the list. If that guess is incorrect on my part, my apologies and we'll correct it if it's pointed out.

At ZNet, Phyllis Bennis attempts to interject a little honesty into the discussions of Barack Obama: He Pees Peace and Rainbows. Naturally, Tom-Tom Hayden is having none of it. Bennis notes that Obama does not need to "'clarify' his own position on counter-insurgency or troop withdrawal, but to CHANGE his position." Those are fighting words to Bambi Groupies, Phyllis. And Tom-Tom shows up singing "Songs to Aging Children come, Aging children, I am one." Trying aging fool -- and for the record, Tom-Tom, I didn't need to poll behind your back to make that call. Tom-Tom's humping Bambi like his found another cash cow, chattering on about the 2002 anti-war speech (that no one heard in real time and could be 'expanded' today -- the same way recordings of it were 'recreated'), "his 16 month combat troop withdrawal plan, his refusal to support Bush on Iran's Revolutionary Guard" blah, blah, blah. Reality check. Bambi didn't refuse to support Bully Boy on that measure. He didn't show up for the vote. Patricia J. Williams has tried that LIE as well. Let's stick to the real world, Tom-Tom. In addition, as William M. Arkin (Washington Post) observed at the end of March, Obama's anti-Iran talk now "sounds like current White House policy."

The 16-month is the most hilarious. Showing the same dedication to denial that got him kicked out of the commune in California, Tom-Tom wants to pretend Samantha Power never happened. Power told the BBC -- while still Bambi's chief foreign policy advisor -- that the 16-month pledge . . . really wasn't a pledge. If Barack made it into the White House, he'd decide what to do about Iraq then. Of all days to look like a sap, Tom-Tom picked the wrong-wrong one. Eli Lake (New York Sun) reports:

A key adviser to Senator Obama's campaign is recommending in a cofidential paper that America keep between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.
The paper, obtained by The New York Sun, was written by Colin Kahl for the center-left Center for a New American Security. In "Stay on Success: A Policy of Conditional Engagement," Mr. Kahl writes that through negotiations with the Iraqi government "the U.S. should aim to transition to a sustainable over-watch posture (of perhaps 60,000--80,000 forces) by the end of 2010 (although the specific timelines should be the byproduct of negotiations and conditions on the ground)."
Mr. Kahl is the day-to-day coordinator of the Obama campaign's working group on Iraq. A shorter and less detailed version of this paper appeared on the center's Web site as a policy brief.

No fool like an old fool, Tom-Tom. Sarah Sewall is the 'brain' behind the US counter-insurgency strategy in Iraq. She advises which campaign? Barack Obama's. At some point the PATHETIC are going to have to stop lying -- they are a danger to themselves and others. As Doug Henwood (ZNet) observes -- no fan of either Hillary or Barack, "And despite the grand claims of enthusiasts, he doesn't really have a movement behind him -- he's got a fan club. How does a fan club hold a candidate accountable?" As Tom-Tom demonstrates repeatedly, they don't.

'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.