Politics Attitude

sexual beings

Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:39:26 GMT

sexual beings

Promoting the Sexual Health of Youth

Today marks the 20th anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the most comprehensive treaty on children's rights. The convention has been ratified by nearly every country in the world, except for the United States. The convention would fill current gaps in U.S. laws, and provide all children in America with the same robust protections that children in 193 countries are already entitled to.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child provides a framework for thinking about how we can best educate and care for our youth. It calls upon us to provide young people with the information and skills they need to lead healthy, productive, and peaceful lives. These are core principles and goals we should all be able to rally behind. Yet, we have failed for so long to secure a world built on these ideals.

An important piece of realizing such a world includes ensuring young people's health, including their sexual health, and how we prepare them to be healthy adults. For too long, our government has financed and pushed an abstinence-only-until-marriage approach to scare young people into not having sex and to push a social agenda that promotes discrimination against LGBT communities and women. This push has been in full-swing, both domestically and internationally, for more than a decade. We have been disseminating misinformation about birth control, condoms, and the role of sexuality in our lives. And we've been exporting a failed and unjust social policy that leaves young people bereft of the tools and skills they need to avoid unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infection and to build supportive relationships and intimate human connections.

that's from the aclu's blog of rights. i saw it and thought, 'this needs to be shared.'

for the record, i don't think abstinence works. it didn't work when i was kid and it doesn't work today.

what works is information shared.

knowledge combats ignorance, knowledge teaches us how to avoid certian situations an how to deal with other ones.

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

Friday, November 20, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US Defense Dept announces a death in Iraq, the 'intended' January elections remain murky, a War Hawk is denied a title, another War Hawk refuses to meet with the parent of a child kidnapped in Iraq, Congress explores the wounded, and more.

Today the Defense Department issued a release noting "the death of a sailor who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. Petty Officer 2nd Class Brian M. Patton, 37, of Freeport, Ill., died Nov. 19 in Kuwait in a non-combat accident." M-NF missed announcing the death (DoD is only supposed to identify the fallen) and the announcement brings to
4363 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war.

"According to the Defense Manpower Data Center, at the Department of Defense, approximately 35,000 service members have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan," explained US House Rep Stephanie Herseth Sandlin yesterday afternoon. She was opening the House Veterans Affairs' Subcommittee on Economic Development's hearing entitled Adaptive Housing Grants. What are Adaptive Housing Grants? The VA explains: "Veterans or servicemembers who have specific service-connected disabilities may be entitled to a grant from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for the purpose of constructing an adapted home or modifying an existing home to meet their adaptive needs. The goals of the Specially Adapted Housing (SAH) Grant Program is to provide a barrier-free living environment that affords the veterans or servicemembers a level of independent living he or she may not normally enjoy."

The first panel was composed of Disabled American Veterans' John L. Wilson, Paralyzed Veterans of America's Richard Daley, Blinded Veterans Association's Thomas Zampieri and Homes For Our Troops' John S. Gonsalves. From Daley's opening statement, we'll note this section:

The $63,700 currently available using the Specially Adapted Housing grant is a significant help for a veteran to make the needed modifications to their existing home or newly purchased previously owned home. Since it is difficult to find an existing home that can be made totally accessible, some veterans choose to design a new house incorporating accessibility into the plans. Often financial considerations or a convenient living location near family members may preclude designing a new home. In those situations the often monumental task of making the existing structure accessible must be considered. Guidance and information to make modifications for accessibility can be found in the VA's newly issued VA pamphlet 26-13, Handbook for Design: Specially Adapted Housing for Wheelchair Users, which was also reviewed by PVA's Architecture Department before its publication.
Many existing homes can be modified to improve access for a wheelchair user and enhance the function of the home. Some basic alterations would include creating an accessible entrance to the home including an accessible route to the entrance door, a level platform that is large enough for maneuvering during door operation, and enlarging entrance doorways. One bathroom would need complete renovation including plumbing arrangements if an accessible roll-in shower is required. The movement of an existing wall may be necessary for a person in a wheelchair to use each fixture of the bathroom, allow room for door operation and general circulation in the bathroom. Similar construction alterations would be required for the kitchen to be accessible and usable, and perhaps alterations to the master bedroom. The current grant amount of $63,700 in many situations would not pay for the entire project of making a home accessible for a wheelchair user. Since the house must be made accessible for the veteran, they would have no other option than to pay for remaining construction costs from personal savings, arrange a loan from a bank, or borrow needed funds from family members. We have been told that more often, than not, this is the situation the veteran faces.

That provides a general overview of some needs shared by many disabled veterans. We'll now zero in on an example of one person's needs in particular.

Thomas Zampieri: I had an OIF blinded service member that sent me an e-mail about the special housing grant program which I included in my [prepared] testimony because it sort of explains some of the frustration. While he was happy that he got the $10,000 grant in 2007, I actually had to spend $27,000 to do the adapted housing changes that he needed to provide room and space for his computer, the monitors, the scanners, the printers and the magnifiers in order for him to complete his college degree. All of this was great VA adaptive technology that was provided to him as a blind veteran but you have to have a place in order to store it and a way for that equipment to be connected. A lot of the blind veterans have unique, uh, requirements in regards to lighting and electrical work and the current amounts don't cover that.

Today Kerry Feltner (The New Hampshire) reports on Nathan Webster's campus lecture "Can't Give This War Away: Three Iraqi Summers of Change and Conflict." Webster is a photo journalist. Feltner spoke with people who attended the lecture. Gretchen Forbes declared, "It's really unusual to get a first-hand report of the war. You'd think by now it would be our duty to have major news organizations over there to write about the war . . . that really surprises me. I feel like it's the media's responsibility." Betty Nordgren declared, "I'm always interested in hearing about the war and the images were great to see, but I think that the news organizations are in trouble if they don't start covering this war more thoroughly." Both women are correct and it's also true that the least covered in any war are the ones with visible wounds. It's apparently too tempting to look away. That's true of the challenged and disabled population in general but especially true of those members of that population whose wounds derive from a war or military conflict. We'll note the following exchange from the hearing.

Chair Stephanie Herseth Sandlin: One of the concerns, I know that, Dr. Zampieri, you have in terms of the updated version -- Well, maybe not a concern. But maybe you could elaborate for us. With the updated version of the handbook, is that helpful for visually impaired veterans. What further provisions would your organizations like to see in-in the handbook?

Thomas Zampieri: Yeah, the handbook is helpful. A lot of the modifications in regards to lighting and additional electrical outlets and all those things. And then the --

Chair Stephanie Herseth Sandlin: You had mentioned that in your oral statement. That you would like to see those types of adaptions added.

Thomas Zampieri: Right.

Chair Stephanie Herseth Sandlin: So maybe a comprehensive list of what would be available --

Thomas Zampieri: Okay.

Chair Stephanie Herseth Sandlin: Is that?

Thomas Zampieri: Right. And the voice activated types of devices are also, you know, he [John Gonsalves] had mentioned. Especially for blind veterans who now days live alone. All those things add to safety and other things.

Chair Stephanie Herseth Sandlin: And then, Mr. Gonsalves, you had expressed concerns that I think that in terms of some requirements in the grants -- that there are injuries that require some sort of adaptions or its sort of mandatory but to have some additional flexibility in the grants would be helpful.

John Gonsalves: Right.

Chair Stephanie Herseth Sandlin: Is that correct?

John Gonsalves: Yes, and I think some of that may have been taken I hadn't seen the new VA pamphlet. I-I hadn't seen it before the testimony but one of the things that Homes For Our Troops does now -- and you can kind of tell from one of the pictures that we have here -- we have a soldier who actually, before his house is being built -- this is under the Fully Functioning Kitchens For Mobility. We qualify what kind of adaptations are going to happen in a house based on injury. And I guess it would sort of work the way VA rates disability percentage. We -- At the time a service member gets qualified for SAH, we have enough information at that time. And what Homes For Our Troops has done is we have an adaptation check list. We only have five sets of home plans that we build. And the home, the footprint is always the same. The windows are always the same. The floor plan is always the same. But there's an adaptation check list based on what the soldier needs and that's why I provided some photos in here. It really gives you an idea. Obviously a quadriplegic would need a lifting care system where somebody that has the mobility of their upper arms probably doesn't need it. And I think at the time of being qualified for SAH, basically all of the technology is there. We've built for, I think, every type of injury out there from amputees who are blind to different levels of spinal cord injuries. So we know what's available to put in a home and it would be really great to be out in the front once they qualify. A whole checklist be put together.

Chair Stephanie Herseth Sandlin: I think that that's very helpful and you have some ideas and recommendations that would be helpful and would like you to share those with us, with the VA. I think that with addition to what they've done to update their pamphlet, to have someone who's undertaken the mission that you've undertaken doing this work on the ground would be beneficial in creating those types of checklists. I would also think that it would be somewhat beneficial based on the work that you've done in having these checklists for the different types of injuries that the veteran may have suffered from and how to construct a home suitable to his or her needs as it relates to the overall cost of that. And I know that you agree in addition to TRA that the specially adapted housing grant be increased and again that's sort of the historical analysis that you're providing specific in Exhibit One for that grant. What do you -- do you have a ballpark figure? I mean, knowing again that if we adjust ed it to inflation, it would be up to $170,000. But based on the work you've done and the relative cost of doing that, do you have a ballpark figure?

John Gonsalves: Yes. On average, uhm, we've averaged $343,00 for the cost of building a new home.

Chair Stephanie Herseth Sandlin: Okay. So that's even greater than the average new home price.

John Gonsalves: Right. But these are 100% fully adapted homes --

Chair Stephanie Herseth Sandlin: Yes.

John Gonsalves: -- which they do cost a little more to build. You need a little extra square footage compared to what the average home that the census bureau uses.

[. . .]

Chair Stephanie Herseth Sandlin: One last question. Mr -- Dr. Zampiri. Can you explain the difference in changing the Specially Adaptive Housing Grant from 5 - 200 to 20 - 200 with regard to visual impairment?

Thoomas Zampieri: Yes. In fact, thank you very much. I was afraid someone didn't notice that. And also I appreciate that Congressman [John] Boozman [Ranking Member] just coincidentally showed up at the right time [laughter from Zampieri and Boozman]. I'm legally blind. I can't drive. A lot of jobs I can't do. My vision is worse than 20/200. And I don't qualify for anything under this program because the requirement is 5/200 which is really just you can't tell if there's a light on. There's no light/dark perception for lack of a better way to describe it. If somebody has 5/200 and they waive their hand in front of your face and you don't see it, you're quote-quote, 'meet this requirement, "totally blind." Our concern is -- and this is growing thing -- a lot of the Traumatic Brain Injured service members who have significant functional impairments, who need extra lighting and all these other things get zip. When I was in Houston and I was first service-connected for my blindness, for example, because of the 20/200 vision, they said no. So I went and I ended up spending not a whole lot but almost $7,000 to do the modifications to my house in Houston because, you know. And so the total number of service members coming back that would be 5/200 is fairly low. In fact, the Navy says there's less than 20 in the last 8 years out at Bethesda. But there are 140 that are enrolled in the VA with this 20/200 and are told "nope" and -- So it's a frustrating thing. And I realize of course that the magic problem is that if you change this section and you open it up to 20/200 as the definition of blindness then of course, you know, the automatic reaction is "Uh-oh. You're going to expand the costs of the program." And-and, I'm always suspicious of that. It's sort of like a few years ago, a couple of years ago when you did the TRA legislation. I'm sure people initially reacted by saying this is going to cost millions and millions and you're going to have all sorts of veterans applying for this. And the experience that I have is it usually isn't that way. People don't apply automatically. But I think Mr. Boozman may have some thoughts about this problem of the vision complications.

Ranking Member John Boozman: I appreciate you bringing that up and you make such an important comment -- that probably the VA's the only entity in the world that uses that standard versus the 20/200 standard. As an optometrist, I helped start -- in fact I started the School For The Blind's low vision program in Little Rock. And I would say probably about 90% of the kids in there did not -- would not meet the -- did you say 5/200 was the standard? Yeah, I mean, that's the standard I'm familiar with because nobody uses it. But I would say that if you looked at all the kids in blind schools or schools for the impaired, the vast majority, the vast-vast majority, there's no way that they would meet a 5/200. Most people, and lay people don't understand this but, most people that-that are blind have a lot of usable vision that can be worked with. And it truly does, you know, going in and setting up a kitchen or setting up a house so that a person can easily pour a cup of coffee -- you know, do things, that we just take for granted. Somebody might really struggle with that that did not meet this definition of vision which is so stringent in the VA so I think you make a great point.

Thursday's snapshot noted the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia which Kat covered Thursday night. Wednesday's snapshot covered the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing and Kat covered that Wednesday night.

Remember the two women in New Hampshire noting the lack of Iraq coverage in the media? On NPR today, The Diane Rehm Show didn't have time for Iraq but it did have time for Nadia Bilbassy to laugh condescendingly at an e-mailer (Tom from Jacksonville, Florida) caller and presumably all Americans before she went on to declare what American tax payer money should be spent on. Nadia scored a double: She managed to (a) be insulting and (b) also pimp opinion passed off as fact. It was not attractive. And it was cute the way she worked every answer back to her own community and issues -- a fact not revealed on the broadcast. I wonder if the Basques in Spain will next be brought on to lobby for an hour without NPR revealing who they are? Her remarks did not approach journalism. But, hey, she got to be rude and insulting and isn't that what NPR is all about? Strangely, Diane's show last week (with a guest host) told people the vote was on track in Iraq. That's now up in the air so you'd think they would have felt the need to do an update. But possibly when one guest keeps talking about 'her people' (but forgetting to inform the listeners of that) there's very little time for anything else.

Let's turn to the issue of the elections. Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) reported this afternoon that "the country's top election official said that even if lawmakers resolved all their differences, it would be impossible to hold elections in January" and quoted Independent High Electoral Commission's Faraj al-Haydari stating, "We have already stopped all our work." Arraf reminds that both the "IHEC and the United Nations officials have said they need at least 60 days to prepare a credible election."

This morning, the New York Times editorialized on the election issues noting:

The Constitution requires the election by the end of January. Election officials had said that the law needed to be done by Oct. 15 to allow enough time to prepare for the voting. Even though Iraq's Parliament overshot that deadline when it approved compromise legislation, the election was expected to take place between Jan. 18 and Jan. 23.
But the Presidency Council (composed of the president, a Kurd, and two vice presidents, a Sunni and a Shiite) has the final say. And Mr. Hashimi chose to exercise his veto power and put in doubt Iraq's second national election, a critical test of whether democracy can endure as the United States withdraws its troops.

The editorial board thinks the Constitution matters . . . sometimes. Sometimes Iraq's Constitution doesn't matter. It appears the editorial board is concerned with the Constitution only when what they want doesn't happen. Refuse to conduct a national census? The editorial board's okay with that. Refuse to resolve the Kirkuk issue (as the Constitution mandated be done by 2007)? The editorial board's okay with that. It's a funny sort of semi-devotion to the Constitution but then the New York Times is a funny sort of news outlet. Sami Moubayed covers the developments in Iraq at Asia Times notes the argument that the Iraqi refugees will be underrepresented in the Parliament (true even if there wasn't an effort to expand the number of seats and to hand the bulk to Shi'ites). Mouybayad explains, "Frantically [Nouri al-] Maliki responded. On Thursday evening, the Constitutional Court (over which Maliki has plenty of influence) overruled Hashemi's veto, calling it 'unconstitutional'." Let's jump to what's happening and then come back to the 'unconstitutional' assertion. Waleed Ibrahim, Suadad al-Salhy, Aseel Kami, David Alexander, Deepa Babington, Samia Nakhoul and Todd Eastham (Reuters) report, "Instead of addressing Hashemi's demand that the law give more seats to Iraqi refugees and minorities, lawmakers squabbled over whether the veto was legal. They scheduled a session Saturday in which they would vote on whether to reject Hashemi's veto and send the law back for approval by the three-person presidency council without changes, said the speaker of parliament, Ayad al-Samarai." Now back to the "unconstitutional" claim. The reporters go on to address the claims Baha al-Araji was making (see yesterday's snapshot) about the veto being "unconstitutional" and how this is "political wrangling" and MP Saleh al-Mutlaq states, "To my knowledge, the federal court did not say the veto is not constitutional. They are trying to create a real political crisis."

Turning to the daily violence. First, a correction. McClatchy was included in yesterday's daily violence and that was Wednesday's daily violence. Not Thursdays. It will not be counted in the weekly total at Third. McClatchy didn't do a violence report on Thursday or, thus far, on Friday. Apparently, there were other things to do. Reuters noted the following violence today a Mosul roadside bombing today which injured a police officer, a Mosul stabbing of "an Egyptian" last night and another civilian shot dead in Mosul last night as well as a Thursday Baghdad bombing which left nine people injured.

Moving to Europe where noted War Hawk Tony Blair was delivered some, for him, bad news. As Middle East Online reports, "Former British premier Tony Blair took a blow after being rejected as EU president, mainly due to his stained repuation after supporting and taking part in the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003." There is no joy in the killing fields tonight, Poodle Tony has struck out. Blair is the former British prime minister. His roll dog Gordon Brown is the current one. Leicester Mercury reports Brown is refusing to meet with the father of Peter Moore who was kidnapped along with 4 other British citizens in Iraq back in May 2007. The other four are all dead or thought by the government to be dead. Only Peter Moore is assumed to be alive at this point. But Brown has refused to meet with him and the reason given is that the "designated next of kin" is not Graeme Moore. Though some are shocked by Brown's decision, it should be remembered that Gordon is himself a War Hawk and, as such, may not be able to fake compassion very well and just attempting to do so may wear Gordon Brown out. In which case, he needs to limit the occassions on which he fakes sympathy in public.

Yesterday (or last night, for those not on the West Coast), KPFA's Flashpoints Radio spoke with Stephen Funk, Eddie Falcon, Clare Baird and Courage to Resist's Sarah Lazar. Nora Barrows-Freidman was speaking with them about the efforts of Iraq and Afghanistan war resisters to work with Israeli refuseniks. Stephen Funk wrote about this project earlier this month. Stephen is the first known Iraq War resister who self-checked out starting on February 9, 2003 and went public April 1st announcing that he would not deploy. We've noted Stephen Funk here before and will again, but he went public before this site started so we'll note his story in the following excerpt.

Nora Barrows-Freidman: We are now joined on the phone by Stephen Funk. He was one of the earliest who refused to serve in the occupation of Iraq. And, Stephen, thank you so much for being with us again on Flashpoints.

Stephen Funk: Thanks for having me.

Nora Barrows-Freidman: Tell us a little bit about your own history of refusing military service and then what can you say about this international push to dismantle militarism and the specific relationship between the United States and its expanding policies of entrenched occupations in the Middle East and Israel's ongoing and long suffering project of occupation and colonialism? What are the similarities that-that you're seeing there on the ground in Palestine, Israel? And what about the solidarity and the meetings you've been having with Israeli refuseniks?

Stephen Funk: I guess, with my own story, I joined the military after 9-11. I voluntarily enlisted in the Marine Corps. I came from a background of activism. I grew up in Seattle, organized for the WTO and I moved to LA and protested against the Democratic National Committee in 2000 and I also spent two months in the Philippines when their president was being impeached -- that was at the same time George W. Bush was being inaugurated for the first time and I was hoping that the same kind of thing could happen in the United States that was happening in the Philipines. But despite that background, I enlisted. I feel -- maybe as an activist, I thought I could be a more reasonable person in Afghanistan and not be like a racist, hot head which is what I thought a lot of people joining at the time -- there was a lot of a fear going on and lot of people joining at the time were very reactionary about 9-11 and, you know that was -- that was where I was coming from. But when I went to the Marine Corps, I went to the violent training and I had to shout "Kill! Kill! Kill!" all the time and, you know, I also had to deal with being queer in the military. And I realize that I didn't want to be violent and I did not want to participate in any war -- especially the Iraq War for political reasons. But then, that I couldn't aim a gun at anybody and pull the trigger and that, ultimately, that is what I would be doing if I stayed in the marines. I had the option -- because I was gay, I had the option to get out under Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And everybody knew I was gay, everybody thought I was gay. It wouldn't have been difficult. But my issue wasn't that I was being oppressed it was that I was being asked to oppress others. And I felt that it would be more honest to get out under conscientious objection. So I started work on that. I went back to San Francisco and participated in the shut down before the war began and kept on protesting and was speaking out anonymously. But then there wasn't very -- despite all of the rallies that were happening every weekend, despite, you know, all of the worldwide mobilizations and all of the people that were in the streets, the media wasn't paying attention to anybody. And I believe the difference between 2003 and the war began, it was as if everybody in the United States agreed with it -- despite the fact that I was living in San Francisco and clearly people were not happy that the war was happening. So I guess I just talked to people and I decided that I would become a public war resister. And I was the first person to do it. And, you know, the next several months, traveling the country -- I was based in New Orleans -- and I traveled the country. I was eventually sent to jail. That was the long story.
Eddie Falcon is a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War and he writes about the current project that he and others are working on here.

TV notes, NOW on PBS debuts its latest episode Friday on most PBS stations and this one examines:

The Pentagon estimates that as many as one in five American soldiers are
coming home from war zones with traumatic brain injuries, many of which
require round-the-clock attention. But lost in the reports of these
returning soldiers are the stories of family members who often sacrifice
everything to care for them. On Friday, November 20 at 8:30 pm (check
local listings), NOW reveals how little has been done to help these
family caregivers, and reports on dedicated efforts to support them.

Washington Week also begins airing on many PBS stations tonight (and throughout the weekend, check local listings) and joining Gwen around the roundtable are John Dickerson (CBS News, Slate), Doyle McManus (Los Angeles Times), David Sanger (New York Times) and Karen Tumulty (Time magazine). Meanwhile Bonnie Erbe will sit down with Avis Jones-Deweever, Page Gardner, and Tara Setmayer to discuss the week's events on PBS' To The Contrary. Check local listings, on many stations, it begins airing tonight. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers:

The Cost of Dying
Many Americans spend their last days in an intensive care unit, subjected to uncomfortable machines or surgeries to prolong their lives at enormous cost. Steve Kroft reports. Watch Video

Witness
Recently freed after four months of interrogation and torture at the hands of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Newsweek reporter Maziar Bahari tells his story to Bob Simon and writes about his ordeal in the next issue of Newsweek.

Cameron's Avatar
Morley Safer gets the first broadcast look at how "Titanic" director James Cameron created his $400 million 3D fantasy "Avatar." Watch Video

60 Minutes, Sunday, Nov. 22, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

iraq
the christian science monitor
jane arraf
the new york times
the asia times
sami moubayed
waleed ibrahim
suadad al-salhy
aseel kami
david alexander
deepa babington
sami nakhoul
todd eastham
reuters
60 minutes
cbs news
pbs
now on pbs
to the contrary
bonnie erbe
npr
the diane rehm show
washington week
nora barrows friedman
flashpoints

katty van-van gets smacked

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:04:16 GMT

katty van-van gets smacked

Don't let the anti-choice Stupak amendment become law.
Sign the petition -->
Latest News and Updates
Activists across the country are standing up for women's health care. You can, too!
Sign the petition to President Obama, Majority Leader Reid, and Speaker Pelosi. It's the first step to stopping the Stupak ban and protecting women's access to abortion coverage.
Join us in DC on December 2 for a National Lobby Day, when Planned Parenthood and allies will be taking our message straight to Congress.
Read the Issue Brief: Impact of Stupak Amendment on Access to Abortion Coverage and Care
Stupak ban in the media

that's from planned parenthood. trina passed it over. trina's an honest katrina. then there's the dumb bunny katrina vanden heuvel of the nation magazine. stephen lednman (the people's voice) traces katty van-van's non-stop lying and spinning:

Pro or con, major media spin distorts, exaggerates, and lies to avoid key truths on this critically important issue. After the House passed HR 3962: Affordable Health Care for America Act, a November 11 Nation magazine editorial (likely by editor, publisher, and part-owner Katrina vanden Heuvel) admitted the bill's faults, yet praised it saying:
-- "something remarkable happened on November 7 when the House voted 220-215 for legislation that the Congressional Budget Office says will extend insurance coverage to 36 million uncovered Americans....in the House bill there is certainly something to work with, and something to fight for."
Earlier on MSNBC's Morning Joe, she hailed the moment as "a historic day....a victory in Congress....this is the most important piece of legislation we've seen in decades." In a September 9 article titled, "Obama Shows His Progressive Spine," vanden Heuval praised his "plain-spoken, at times tough, and masterful address to a joint session of congress....about the importance of healthcare reform as a test of our nation's character."
Never mind how HR 3962's 1,990 pages ration care to enrich the insurance, drug and large hospital chain cartels that love it but want more. Insurers especially are lobbying furiously for its no public-option dream bill to give them an open field for millions more customers returning billions more profits.

here's reality for you, until the 'independent' voices stop whoring, don't ever expect the u.s. to have a honest conversation.

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

Thursday, November 19, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the 'intended' elections remain up in the air, the US State Dept ignores warnings on refugees, another Iraqi is sentenced to execution, and more.

Starting with the 'intended' January elections in Iraq which are in question as a result of the veto by Iraq's Sunni vice president Tariq al-Hashemi. Waleed Ibrahim, Suadad al-Salhy, Aseel Kami and Deepa Babington (Reuters) reports that the MPs are stating presently they intend to ignore his objection and just revote on the same draft law -- while exploring whether or not he has the 'power' to veto. This will reportedly take place on Saturday. Abu Dhabi's the National condems al-Hashemi's action in an editorial, "Mr al Hashemi has claimed that his veto was in defence of the constitution, but that is seriously in doubt. Even his right to a veto is dubious as the constitutional provisions regulating the presidency council state that all its decisions must be unanimous. This was not the case here. If anything, it appeared to be motivated by blind sectarian interest, which is all the more shameful considering the effort it took to overcome those same interests and pass the law in the first place." But the paper's Phil Sands and Nizar Latif report that Iraqi exiles are ecstatic over al Hashemi's move and quotes Jalil Abu Arshad stating (from Syria), "I fully support the need to give more seats to exiles. The .parliament agreed to have one MP representing each 100,000 Iraqis and nobody can believe that the seven or so seats that would be chose by refugees is enough. There are millions of Iraqis with no choice but to live outside the country and they have the right to a say in choosing the next government. This is a matter of democratic principles, it has nothing to do with Sunni, Shia or Kurd."

On Democracy Now! today pampered Raed Jarrar joined Amy Goodman for a segment of non-stop spinning. Baby Raed treated Iraqi refugees as an afterthought, a footnote. But then Baby Raed's never wanted for a damn thing his entire life. And the spoiled candy ass sure does spin so very well. Here's Raed revealing that his tiny, limp brain doesn't allow him to read:

Now, unfortunately, the Obama administration -- in the beginning, it was good in being vocal and clear about the withdrawal being time-based, not conditions-based, which is the main difference between the Obama plan and the Bush plan. Bush talked for six years about how the US will leave when conditions permit. But Obama talked about a timetable for withdrawal that is not conditions-based, and that's why his plan had a lot of support in the US and Iraq.
Poor, stupid Raed, apparently play-acting tires him out. Reality, Barack always talked conditions based. Raed was too busy self-stroking to posters of Barry O to deal with reality but those of us who aren't WHORES knew reality some time ago. Let's drop back to the January 15th snapshot -- before Barack was even sworn in:

Today Elisabeth Bumiller and Thom Shanker (New York Times) report on the US military commanders contingency plan for Iraq. Last month Bumiller and Shanker reported on the military commanders presenting a partial drawdown of US troops in Iraq on a slower scale than Barack's 'pledge' of 16 month withdrawal (of "combat" troops only). No objections were raised over the timeframe by the president-elect but, in case objections are registered in the immediate future, they've come up with an alternate plan they could implement. This calls for a high of 8,000 a month (more likely four to six thousand) to be pulled. Using the high figure, 48,000 US service members could be out of Iraq (with at least 30,000 of that number redeployed to Afghanistan) in six months. That would still leave close to 100,000 US troops in Iraq. And there is no full withdrawal planned by Barack. That is why he refused to promise that, if elected, all US troops would be out of Iraq by the end of his first term (2012). Of course, Barack also rushed to assure the Times (2007) that he would easily halt any drawdown and rush more troops back into Iraq (and no words to declare this a temporary measure) when he sat down with Michael Gordon and Jeff Zeleny (see this Iraq snapshot and Third's article and the actual transcript of the interview -- a transcript Tom Hayden should have read before humiliating himself in public, then again Tom-Tom seems to enjoy public humiliation). So the article tells you that the military's preparing for all possibilities . . . except the possibility the American people want (and some foolishly believe Barack ever promised) full withdrawal of Iraq. That is not an option the military even considers.
"In the beginning," Raed? Before Baby Jarar Jarar grabs his crayola to do another one of those laughable e-mails, let's note that the "this Iraq snapshot" links back to November 2, 2007. Yes, before Barack was even the Democratic Party nominee, he was explaining any subtracting of troops (not a full withdrawal -- he never promised that outside of campaign slogans) would be conditions based. From the November 2, 2007 snapshot:

So let's be clear that the 'anti-war' Obama told the paper he would send troops back into Iraq. Furthermore, when asked if he would be willing to do that unilaterally, he attempts to beg off with, "We're talking too speculatively right now for me to answer." But this is his heavily pimped September (non)plan, dusted off again, with a shiny new binder. The story is that Barack Obama will NOT bring all US troops home. Even if the illegal war ended, Obama would still keep troops stationed in Iraq (although he'd really, really love it US forces could be stationed in Kuwait exclusively), he would still use them to train (the police0 and still use them to protect the US fortress/embassy and still use them to conduct counter-terrorism actions.

Facts is hard for Baby Raed. Someone change his diaper, he's looking cranky.

Raed does what Amy loves her guests to do: Channel spirits from the Land of Fantasy. Having no facts, Raed starts offering fantasies of why the vice president vetoed the election law. Naturally, since Raed wants the election law, the vice president must be evil and full of malice to do something Raed doesn't approve of. Amy laps that s**t up because, after all, this is the Crazy who, in Decmeber 2003, was broadcasting across the air waves -- with fellow lunatic John Nichols -- that Hillary would take over the 2004 DNC convention in an attempt to grab that year's presidential nomination. It takes a lot of crazy to live in Amy Goodman's world and Raed's crazy enough to qualify as a next-door neighbor.

Raed's real tight with CODESTINK -- which we all know isn't a peace group (by their actions, they revealed themselves) -- so he spins for Barry and states that the US military withdrew from all Iraqi cities at the end of June. The bases? Raed doesn't want to think about them, that would require work and the only work most could picture him doing is deciding which photo of Barry to place on his pillow while he humps the bed to climax each night. Hey, anyone remember when Raed was 'informing' that the 'surge' was really going to be used to attack Shi'ite militias? Oh, that fact-free, wacky child. Kisses, Raed, kisses.

Also making an ass out of himself is Baha al-Araji who has given multiple statements to the press today (they may or may not print them tomorrow). The Shi'ite who serves on Iraq's Constitutional Court states/rules (depending upon which outlet he's speaking to) that Tariq al-Hashmi doesn't have the power to veto the election law. Now that would toss the issue up in the air and require examination but chatty al-Araji goes on to weaken his own case by blathering on about how his own (al-Araji) deciding was based on what al-Hashmi objected to. That would undercut al-Araji's alleged conclusion. Either the presidential council has the power to veto or they don't -- it doesn't matter what their reasoning is. They possess the power or they don't. At every other point, the council's possessed this power. Most outlets will probably ignore the ravings of al-Araji because the Parliament's taking up the issue on Saturday. Today at the Pentagon, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates spoke on the subject of the veto and where things stand currently, "And we hope that the concerns that have been expressed can be resolved quickly and a -- and new legislation passed to that the election can take place within the constitutional framework, meaning before the end of January."

Al Jazeera interviewed (link is video) Tariq al-Hashemi.

Tariq al-Hashemi: What I have done in fact is based on my Constitutional obligation. When I discovered there was a major loophole, it's our duty -- according to the Constitution -- to try to make some sort of remedy on a legal basis and that is what I have done today.

Kamahl Santamaria: Okay, so you've done it according to the Constitution. You've done what you say is legal. My question to you though is the repercussions of this. If this election can't happen as it is supposed to happen by January the 31st, then what happens? It is a huge opportunity lost for Iraq.
Well I don't think that this sort of amendment is going to defer the timetable of the commission. I made a thorough discussion with the commission staff the day before yesterday. I very much assured that all logistic had been already covered, action had been taken, so just to make this amendment is going to take one or two days, is not going to make any major shift to the timetable that has been agreed upon.

Kamahl Santamaria: But what's interesting is I spoke to a member of the electoral commission only an hour ago. He said everything's off, they're not pressing on with anything, of course it's been thrown into doubt.

Tariq al-Hashemi: I'm not -- I'm not agree. I think this announcement is not based on any -- on any acceptable ground because, as I told you in fact, I-I-I had a lengthy discussion the day before yesterday. I checked everything and the chairman of the commission told me specifically that all action being taken, all what we need in fact to press the button on the form which will be according to number of seats and this could be sorted out within hours.
Kamahl Santamaria: Why is five-percent, the sticking point of five-percent for Iraqis in exile, Iraqis abroad, why is five-percent not enough?

Tariq al-Hashemi: Well five-percent, in fact, if you just -- if you just reflect it to a number of seats -- we are talking a number not exceeding, in no way, seven seats. Seven seats according to Article 49 of the Constitution doesn't mean anything. According to the text of this article, we have to ensure that each 100,000 Iraqis, whether they are living inside or out -- or outside Iraq, they should be entertained by one seat. So seven seats doesn't entertain the least figure which ministry of migration has maintained time being. The number of Iraqis outside of-of Iraq which has been recorded as per Ministry of Migration is one-million-five hundred. If you're talking NGOs, international human rights, this figure could reach to 4.5 million. So if we are allocating only seven seats, this means that we are entertaining 700,000 Iraqis and ignored 800,000.

If you paid attention, not only did Amy Goodman not book anyone to present the side above, it was never addressed. Just nutty conspiracy theories from Raed. Amy calls it "public affairs" -- no one knowledgable would use that term.

Monday's snapshot noted the assassinations of the Sahwa members in Sadan village and that the assassins were said to be wearing Iraqi forces uniforms. Aswat al-Iraq reports Tariq al-Hashemi declared at a Wednesday news conference, "What happened in Abu-Ghraib two days ago is that groups in army uniform arrested 17 people from their houses, then killed them with cold blood in a nearby ceremony." Staying with the topic of Sahwa, we're dropping back to the March 30th snapshot:

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) explained Saturday, "16 people were injured (seven Sahwa members, four Iraqi soldiers and four civilians) after clashes broke out between the Iraqi army and Sahwa members in Fadhil neighborhood in downtown Baghdad around 2 p.m. The clashes broke out during an operation of the Iraqi army to arrest the leader of Fadhil Sahwa and one of his deputies. Five Iraqi soldiers were kidnapped in the incident." McClatchy's Leila Fadel added Adel Mashhadani was the arrest target and that the arrest of him (as well as an assistant) "heightened fears among Sunnis that the Iraqi government plans to divide and disband the movements now that its taken control of all but a few thousands of the 94,000 members across the country."

Adel Mashhadani is in today's news cycle. The Telegraph of London reports that he has been "condemned to death" for an alleged kidnapping and murder. John Leland (New York Times) adds that he has his defenders and detractors and that rumors swirl including: "Many Fadhil residents said that Mr. Mashhadani was not in police custody but was in Turkey, and that the courts announced the sentence to incite Sunni violence and justify a government crackdown. Some said the plan was led by Iranians in the government." Larry Johnson (Seattle PostGlobal) reports, "Iraq is planning to excute up to 126 women by the end of the year. At least 9 may be hanged with the next two weeks. Human rights goupt say the only crime committed by many of these women was to serve in the government of Saddan Hussein. Others, according to human rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, were convicted of common crimes based on confessions that were the result of torture." Last September, Amnesty International released a report [PDF format warning] entitled "A Thousand People Face The Death Penalty In Iraq" which noted that the country "now has one of the highest rates of executed in the world" and:

Defendants commonly complain that "confessions" were extracted from them under torture during pre-trial interrogation, often when they were held incommunicado in police stations or detention facilities controlled by the Ministry of Interiror. These "confessions" are then often used as evidence against them at their trials, and are accepted by the courts without taking any or adequate steps to investigate defendants' allegations of torture. Defendants also complain that they are not able to choose their own defence lawyers; those tried before the CCCI [Central Criminal Court of Iraq] on capital charges have defence lawyers appointed by the court if they are unable to pay for defence counsel, but the quality of such representation is low. Some lawyers refuse to represent defendants accused of "terrorism", mostly Sunni Muslims, fearing reprisals by armed milita groups linked to Shi'a political parties represented in the Iraqi Council of Representatives (parliament).

Back in November of 2006, Brian Bennett (Time magazine) reported on the "glitches and logistical snafus" in the executions including a man hanged September 6th -- the rope broke and he fell fifteen feet and declared "Allah saved me! Allah saved me!" while a debate took place among officials for forty minutes over whether it was divine intervention or not. In October of 2008, Robert Fisk (Independent of London) reported on the executions and quoted an unnamed British official who explained a hanging recently observed, "They made him stand on the bench, put the rope round his neck and pushed him off. But he jumped on to the floor. He could stand up. So they shortened the length of the rope and got him back on teh bench and pushed him off again. It didn't work. They started digging into the floor beneath the bench so that the guy would drop far enough to snap his neck. They dug up the tiles and the cement underneath. But that didn't work. He could still stand up when they pushed him off the bench. So they just took him to a corner of the cell and shot him in the head."

"The reports already out," declared Michael H. Posner this afternoon to US House Rep Jim Costa. "Those designations will happen in the next few months. The human rights -- the broader human rights report is just a factual summary." Posner, the Assistant Secretary for Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor at the US State Dept, was appearing before the US House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia. The report he was refering to was the State Dept's International Religious Freedom Report which was released October 26, 2009.

On Iraq, the State Dept's publication notes:

At the end of the reporting period, national identity cards continued to note the holder's religion, which has been used as a basis for discrimination; however, passports did not note religion.
Law No. 105 of 1970 prohibits the Baha'i Faith, and a 2001 resolution prohibits the Wahhabi branch of Islam. Although provisions on freedom of religion in the new Constitution may supersede these laws, no court challenges have been brought to have them invalidated, and no legislation has been proposed to repeal them.
In April 2007 the Ministry of Interior's Nationality and Passport Section canceled Regulation 358 of 1975, which prohibited the issuance of a nationality identity card to those claiming the Bahai' Faith. In May 2007 a small number of Baha'is were issued identity cards. The Nationality and Passport Section's legal advisor stopped issuance of the cards thereafter, claiming Baha'is had been registered as Muslims since 1975 and citing a government regulation preventing the conversion of "Muslims" to another faith. Without this official citizenship card, Baha'is experience difficulty registering their children for school and applying for passports. Despite the cancellation of the regulation, Baha'is whose identy records were changed to "Muslim" after Regulation 358 was instituted in 1975 still could not change their identity cards to indicate their Baha'i faith, and their children were not recognized as Baha'is.
A March 2006 citizenship law specifically precludes Jews from regaining citizenship if it is ever withdrawn.
[. . .]
There were allegations that the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) engaged in discriminatory behavior against religious minorities. Christians and Yezidis living north of Mosul claimed that the KRG confiscated their property without compensation and that it began building settlements on their land. Assyrian Christians alleged that the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP)-dominated judiciary in Ninewa routinely discriminated against non-Muslims and failed to enforce judgments in their favor. There were reports that Yezidis faced restrictions when entering the KRG and had to obtain KRG approval to find jobs in areas within Ninewa Province administred by the KRG or under the security protection of the Peshmerga.
There were also allegations that the KRG exhibited favoritism toward the Christian religious establishment, and it was alleged that on February 17, 2008, KRG authorities arrested and held incommunicado for four days an Assyrian blogger, Johnny Khoshaba Al-Rikany, based on articles he had posted attacking corruption in the church.
Yezidi and Shabak political leaders alleged that Kurdish Peshmerge forces regularly committed abuses against and harassed their communities in Ninewa Province. Districts that are within the security control of the Peshmerga include Sinjar, Sheikhan, Ba'asheq (sub-district of Mosul), and Bartalla (sub-district of Hamdaniya). Minority leaders alleged that Kurdish forces were intimidating minority communities to identify themselves as Kurds and support their inclusion in the KRG. Yezidi political representatives also reported that because of their religious affiliation, they were not allowed to pass through security checkpoints in areas controlled by Kurdish Peshmerga as they traveled from Baghdad to their communities in northern Iraq.
The KRG denied allegations that it was behind violent incidents directed at Christians and other minorities. Moreover, despite such allegations, many non-Muslims reside in northern Iraq and the KRG area, and there were reports that some sought refuge there from other parts of the country where pressures to conform publicly to narrow interpretations of Islamic tenets were greater. In February 2009, the IOM estimated that there were 19,100 internally displaced families in the Ninewa Plain and that 43,595 internally displaced families were located in the Kurdistan region.

In reply to a question from US House Rep Bob Inglis today, Posner said there were three things the US government could do to support religious communities being targeted around the world:

1) Be very viligant when religious communities are targeted and in trouble.

2) The US government can help amplify their voices.

3) The US government can provide direct, material, financial support.

With regards to the US government speaking out against targeting of religious communities, Posner declared that "governments take notice of that" and that "it is always valuable for us to speak out."

Religious minorities are among Iraq's refugee population. The genocide and ethnic cleansing of Iraq led to millions of refugees -- some internal, some external. Julien Barnes-Dacey (Christian Science Monitor) reports that "up to 2 million" of the external refugees "remain stranged in neighboring countries" while the United Nations faces shortfalls in funding. As Barnes-Dacey reports, that has not prevented Iraqi refugees from continuing to leave Iraq. One example of that is Abu Ali who entered Syria in August and states, "I had to leave: they say there's security, but on the ground it's a different story. They still kill you because of your ID papers." As a backdrop to the crisis, the US State Dept's Eric Schwartz wrapped up a multi-day bad will tour today. Over the weekend, Schwartz made the usual ass of himself including when AP interviewed him and, despite the fact that various humanitarian organizations have issued studies this year pointing out how little the Baghdad government or 'government' has done for refugees, he declared 'strides have been made'. And the 'answer' is for Iraqi refugees to return to Iraq -- despite the fact that the Red Cross and the United Nations both have stated that that Iraq is not 'safe' enough for refugees to begin returning nor is that country able to handle a mass return. Wednesday he was in Syria which estimates they currently house 1.2 million Iraqi refugees. Khaled Yacoub Oweis (Reuters) reports that Schwartz declared the influx of Iraqi refugees to the US this current fiscal year would be "substantial." And Schwartz declares it will be "at least 17,000." That's substantial? By whose measurement? Or have we forgotten Schwartz promised 20,000 would be settled in FY '09 -- a little over 18,000 were re-settled in the US for that fiscal year. So 'substantial' is now even less than his predications for the last fiscal year? Phil Sands (The National) reports:

Abdul Rahman Attar, the president of the Syrian Arab Red Crescent, criticised the international community and the Iraqi government, saying both were failing in their duty to care for displaced Iraqis. And he cautioned there were dangerous implications in four million people continuing to live as refugees, many of them struggling to cope with increasing levels of poverty.
"Perhaps the world is underestimating the significance of the Iraqi refugees issue," he said. "It is not a short-term matter. We are talking about medium- and long-term impacts. It has already been six years or more for some refugees and they need greater support. "The international community should not allow its attention to drift easily away from the refugees. This issue is a bomb that can still explode at any time."

It would certainly seem that Eric Schwartz is underestimating the significance. But the State Dept has always done that with Iraq -- especially with regards to Iraq's LGBT community and the continued assault on the community. Tuesday, Kelvin Lynch (Dallas Examiner) was reporting that Iraqi LGBT was estimating the number of LGBT men and women murdered in Iraq since the start of the illegal war is 720 and Lynch observes, "But the big question continues to be, why hasn't the U.S. government done anything to help?" Taylor Luck (Jordan Times) reports on the Sabian Mandaeans who left Iraq due to the violence and are currently in Jordan:

Fatwas were issued declaring Mandaens kuffar, or infidels. Mandaens, known for their gold and jewellery craftsmanship, became frequent targets of kidnappings, with ransoms set as high as $100,000.
Since the US-led invasion, the Mandaean Human Rights Group has recorded around 180 killings, 275 kidnappings and 298 assualts and forced conversions within Iraq.

As Jake Armstrong (Pasadena Weekly) notes, it's day 2420 of the Iraq War. And as the war continues, so does the violence.

Bombings?

Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad sticky bombing which injured one "governmental employee". Deutsche Presse-Agentur reports a Mosul roadside bombing which claimed the lives of 3 police officers (five more injured).

Shootings?

Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Mohammed Aziz Al Shamari was injured in a Baghdad assassination attempt on his life (he is "an advisor for the Iraqi government"). Deutsche Presse-Agentur reports 1 man shot dead in Mosul with another left wounded.

Please note, Reuters has filed no story on violence today. That is why you do not use ICCC for an Iraqi body count -- ICCC only goes by Reuters, 'their' count is a tally of Reuters.

Meanwhile in the United States, Gidget Funetes (Navy Times) reports that Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy, "rejected a clemency request from a Marine infantry squad leader convicted of killing an Iraqi man in 2006, a case that drew two jury convictions and five guilty please from seven other members of his squad." This is the case where US service members ("the Penleton 8") plotted to kill an Iraqi and went to his home April 26, 2006 only to find him not at home and instead grabbed another Iraqi whom they bound, dragged and shot dead. Jeanette Steele (San Diego Union-Tribune) reports Mabus was asked to review the case in terms of Lawrence Hutchins conviction and eleven year sentence and that Mabus denied Hutchins clemency and "also ordered that four of the other seven defendants in the case be discharged from the military." Mark Nero (LA Examiner) identifies the four, "Marine Lance Cpls. Tyler Jackson, Jerry Shumate and John Jodka III, and Navy Corpsman Melson Bacos were the servicemembers ordered removed. They had been originally been allowed to stay on active duty after serving short jail terms for lesser offenses."

Finally, NOW on PBS debuts its latest episode Friday on most PBS stations and this one examines:

The Pentagon estimates that as many as one in five American soldiers arecoming home from war zones with traumatic brain injuries, many of whichrequire round-the-clock attention. But lost in the reports of thesereturning soldiers are the stories of family members who often sacrificeeverything to care for them. On Friday, November 20 at 8:30 pm (checklocal listings), NOW reveals how little has been done to help thesefamily caregivers, and reports on dedicated efforts to support them.

iraq
reuters waleed ibrahim suadad al-salhy aseel kami deepa babington
laith hammoudi mcclatchy newspapers
leila fadel
the new york times john leland
the seattle postglobe larry johnson
kelvin lynch the telegraph of london
time magazine brian bennett the independent of london robert fisk
gidget fuentes jeanette steele san diego union-tribune mark nero
pbs now on pbs

it is an issue

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:31:50 GMT

it is an issue

a blue dog democrat from the dlc's new group e-mails to tell me that a) i'm just talking about abortion, b) not every 1 cares about abortion and c) some democrats are even opposed to abortion.

hey, new democrat, stf up. like i give a damn what you say?

do you want to me make fun of your hair?

that usually sends you chicken s**ts whining to c.i., tattling to c.i. on me in an e-mail.

i thought you'd all gone away.

apparently you're success in installing 1 of your own into the white house convinced you that you must have some pull.

you have none.

i cover abortion because it's an important issue.

if any 1 doesn't like it, they can find somewhere else to go.

bite me.

this is from bonnie erbe's 'House Healthcare Abortion Ban Would be Widespread' (u.s. news & world reports):

Now the George Washington University's School of Public Health has released an analysis of the amendment, which says in part:
In view of how the health benefit services industry operates and how insurance product design responds to broad regulatory intervention aimed at reshaping product content, we conclude that the treatment exclusions required under the Stupak/Pitts Amendment will have an industry-wide effect, eliminating coverage of medically indicated abortions over time for all women, not only those whose coverage is derived through a health insurance exchange.
Who's going to be hit hardest? Poor women, that's who. These are the women who are least able to provide for the children they will have to bear and raise due to their lack of coverage for abortion.
If only the burden could be shifted to the people who limit access to abortion, the debate would be over. Let the uber-religious folks (who want to impose their view of "life" on the rest of us) pay for these children including all food, clothing, medical care, education, rent and so on from birth through the age of 18, and they'd stop being so-called pro-life in a skinny minute.
Instead we all have to pay--all taxpayers�in the form of huge taxes for social services. It's a crazy world we inhabit and this is one of the craziest aspects as far as I am concerned.

and that's why we need to be vocal and loud. let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Wednesday, November 18, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the Army's suicide rate for 2009 is already higher than last year, the US Senate explores veterans employment, the Iraq election law has met a veto, Anderson Cooper 360 began their 4-part series on the murder of 4 Iraqis last night, and more.

"These are difficult times for many Americans," declared US Senator Daniel Akaka today, "with an unemployment number higher than it has been for 20 years. When the number of those who have given up looking for work because they believe none is available is combined with those who are only able to find part-time employment, the extent of our challenge is staggering. For our nation's veterans, especially those who have recently separated from active duty, the search for a job can be particularly difficult. Skills honed on the battlefield are not easily translated to a resume for the civilian job market. Add to that the need for a readjustment to civilian life and the problem is compounded."

Akaka was chairing the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee's hearing entitled Easing The Burdens Through Employment. To underscore the problems with employment, Senator Patty Murray explained that the citizen-soldiers of the 81st Brigade Combat Team of the Washington Army National Guard "just returned this summer after serving their country honorably in Iraq," that there were approximately 2300 in the brigade "about 1/2 of them tried to get direct job placement or job training" but "only 20% have been able to get a job so far."

The first panel was the Assistant Secretary for Veterans Employment and Training from the US Dept of Labor, Raymond Jefferson who noted that this was his 100th day on the job in his current position andh touted the Dept of Labor's Veterans Employment and Training Service (VETS) in his opening remarks. He also noted that the veterans population included under-served populations such as (from prepared remarks, except for a nod to Senator Jon Tester, more or less the same as what he stated to the committee) "Native American Veterans, especially those on tribal lands, are one such population. [Labor] Secretary [Hilda] Solis hosted a Summit of Tribal Leaders at the Department of Labor earlier this month that VETS participated in. We discussed the challenges facing Native American Veterans and potential solutions. This event began the process of better serving this community. VETS will also be participating in a number of major Native American outreach events in 2010. Furthermore, we are conducting a study on the employment needs of Native American Veterans living on tribal lands to identify best practices for serving this population." Another population he noted was "wounded, ill or injured" veterans which the VETS program is mainly addressing via REALifelines and America's Heroes At Work. We'll note one exchange from this panel for two reason. (A) I don't think we've noted Senator Mark Begich in any hearing before. (B) Because the exchange resulted in some laughter.

Senator Mark Begich: Let me, if I can add, expand a little bit on, Senator Tester commentary. Being from Alaska, you know we also have a very strong rural component of our state but also of Indian country can you -- I was listening carefully to what you were describing to Senator Tester. What it sounds like, and I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I -- and I want this to be viewed as positive -- that there has not been an aggressive approach in reaching out to rural communities, especially American Indian country. Is that a fair statement?

Raymond Jefferson: Senator, when I took office 100 years ago, and I've assessed it -- [Laughs] 100 days ago,

Senator Mark Begich: 100 days ago.

Senator Jon Tester: I like the way he looks for 100 years.

Raymond Jefferson: It's been a lot of midnights.

Senator Mark Begich: It feels like 100 years, I know.

Raymond Jefferson: But, senator, I'm just not satisified.

Senator Mark Begich: Okay.

Raymond Jefferson: I realize that with the resources we have, we have to work. Working harder isn't going to cut it, I think we have to work more innovatively. And there's two key components. The first is the dialogue we're having with the Native American veterans and the tribal leaders and also, as Senator Tester alluded to, broadening that to the representatives of the rural community to find out from them what will best serve them. And then what I'm looking at is parternships, partnerships with other agencies and specifically non-profits and some of these new veteran volunteer initiatives can be helpful there.

Panel two was composed of America Works's Peter Wikul (US Navy Capt, retired), Vietnam veteran Dexter Daniel (with Marriott), National Organization On Disability's Helen Tymes, Iraq War veteran Joshua Lawton-Belous (with Oracle) and Lutz Ziob (Microsoft). We'll provide a sample exchange from the second panel.

Chair Daniel Akaka: It seems that one of the themes running through all of your testimonies this morning is mentoring, coaching and hands-on approach to providing assistance. Let me ask each of you to rate this aspect of any program that might be developed in terms of its value and as a factor for success.

Helen Tymes: I'll make a statement on that.

Chair Daniel Akaka: Ms. Thymes.

Helen Tymes: Yes, sir. As far as the effectiveness of our program, it is right now 90% as far as the veterans that we serve and the opportunities that we have assisted to get. We -- we give individualized services to veterans. As far as the transition from being in the military has been stated later and to the civilian sector, many of those skill sets, the individual, the veteran, is not aware of what they are. Because of our education and history and knowledge of the military, we are able to get those skill sets out and come up with resumes that are working resumes, not just a show resume, but something that actually has substance to make that veteran competent for employment and to also help with any other application process there is for education. Our veterans today are facing a lot of mental problems -- PTSD, TBI, a combination of both. This makes the veterans upset, they get angry, have a very low temper tolerance and, because of our services -- because of our personalized services, we're able to assist the veteran with what needs to get accomplished.

Dexter Daniel: I concur with --

Chair Daniel Akaka: Mr. Daniels.

Dexter Daniel: -- Miss Helen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. What I personally experienced was I was so ashamed when I came home, I just couldn't, you know, really face the reality of wanting to talk to people about my problems and I just didn't reach out. And, you know, the shame that I felt caused me to react in a lot of the ways that I did. Again, I always thank God for MAC VETS (Maryland Center for Veteran's Education and Training 1-410-642-1693) because they reached out in a way that no one else ever had. You know, I was literally in prison and they had a represenative that came around, I was in the cell and, at that time, I knew I was facing a lot. Then an individual came around and found out first and foremost, he's a veteran, number two, this is an availability of a program that we have. Longterm, two year availability to be able to do it, that to me is personalized. Once I got there, the counselors welcomed me with open arms and I still had a lot on my plate at that time. I still had obligations and commitments to the division of parole and probation to come out. They went the extra mile to even talk to my probation agent and the judge, to solidify this one final -- and that's how I felt, one final -- opportunity that I'd have in this life to do good. They gave me my shot and, you know, we've just had a wonderful partnership ever since then. That's the effect that it's had on me.
Chair Daniel Akaka: Mr. Belous?

Joshua Lawton-Belous: Mr. Chairman, as a representative of Oracle corporation, we've found that there are many reasons we don't actually need to ask for money from the federal government to run our wounded warrior program. Mainly because each wounded warrior we take in is a value added proposition for Oracle corporation. They add something to it. And it's a dual mentorship. It's a two-way street on the mentorship role. One is that those who are in the industry need to mentor wounded warriors, soldiers, marines, veterans coming out of the military to explain to them the career path. It's a completely different world when you go inside and understanding it will take some time. There's always that uptick no matter what job you go to where there's a learning curve. But secondly, it behooves veterans to mentor those who are mentoring them to show them 'This is exactly what I learned in the military, this is what I'm capable of doing.' Because, as we find now, only 1/2 of 1% of the population is actually serving in the wars that we are fighting today which means that over time -- and it has already occured where those who are hiring do not understand the valued added proposition that service members can bring to an organization. That, I believe, is the greatest effect of the mentorship program. That way programs that we have today to help veterans transition out of the military will be more successful when the vast majority of senior to mid-level managers are no longer military veterans.

Chair Daniel Akaka: Captain?

Peter Wikul: Chairman Akaka when America Works is racked and stacked against organizations that do similar types of work in the New York area, we consistently rank number one in terms of getting people jobs. People come in the door, we give them mentoring, we give them mentoring. We give them interview skills so that when we get them an interview, they give the right answers to the right questions so they can get them the jobs. We don't get them the jobs, we get them the interviews. They have to get the job and we coach them in that process. If you're a veteran and you need a suit, we get 'em a suit. There's a program to get them a suit. And I have to tell you just recently with in the last two weeks, I went to two veterans homeless shelters in New York City to give a motivational speech and some of these guys are really whipped down and they're broken. And you start talking to them and I try to motivate them and I try to tell them, "Look when we help you get a job, you will get back your self-respect and dignity and-and it will put you on the road to getting an even better job." And so we go there, we go right into the shelters, we talk to them, we give them a speech, and around town, we have a card and it says: "Do you need a job? America Works. If you're a New York City resident and are having difficulty finding a job, call this number and go here. No fee." And we are right in the trenches, we get these people, we bring them in the door . What's amazing is when I first hooked up with this company, which I really find amazing, is you walk in the door at the beginning of the day and it's loaded with people. It's just, you have to fight your way in to get to the offices. And I came back, we went on some sales calls, and I came back about five hours later and I said, "Where are all the people?" And they said, "Out on interviews getting jobs." And so this is what this company does. Against similar companies, we're ranked number one. We get people jobs. We're right on the streets. We're in the trenches. We go to homeless veterans shelters, we talk to the people, we mentor them, we bring them out of their shells, we give them the interview skills and a suit if necessary and we help them restore their dignity and their self-respect so that they can become whole and good American citizens.

Lutz Ziob: To answer your question, Chairman Akka, I believe internships are very important. Occupational success is typically the combination of subject matter expertise. You have to be a good nurse, system manager, but also know how to navigate the world of work, the changing world of work. It's your - your - what you know about your job. The mentorship people that are in the trenches can provide that guidance. The difficulty is they have a day job as well so we need to free up their time and find the opportunity to connect them -- mentor and mentee -- in an effective way.

This was more of a fact finding hearing and Senators Tester and Begich set up time next month with Raymond Jefferson to address concerns for rural veterans and Senator Murray sounded out Lutz Ziob specifically on potential legislation (a bill) she's attempting to draft and plans to bring to the Senate floor next year.

This morning Anthony Shadid (Washington Post) reported that Tariq al-Hashimi, Iraq's Sunni vice president (they have two vice presidents, one Shia -- Adel Abdul Mehdi, one Sunni) vetoed the election law: "The veto by Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi was the latest wrinkle in growing criticism over the law by the country's biggest minorities, Sunni Arabs and Kurds. Both groups are effectively demanding the allocation of more seats to their blocs in the next parliament, which is almost assured of having a Shiite Muslim majority." In yesterday's snapshot, we noted that the food rations cards being used for the registry was a joke and included a number of reasons why. All Shadid can do is tell you that the food rations cards are overseen by the Trade Ministry. The name we used yesterday -- the one Shadid fails to attach to this story -- is Abdel Falah al-Sudani -- a Nouri appointee, to Minister of Trade, a member of Nouri's own political party and someone who was forced to resign in May of this year over corruption issues. It is not a minor issue when your voter roll was overseen by a minister who has had to resign in disgrace. In real time, Bloomberg News noted that al-Sudani "acknowledged cases of corruption and said the system needed to be revised" in May of this year and that "Iraq's Commission on Public Integrity earlier this month charged nine trade ministry officials with financial and administrative corruption related to the country's food import program." "Financial and administrative corruption related to" what is now being hailed as a legitimate voter roll. CNN added this morning that Tariq al-Hashimi "refused to sing the law without an amendment that would increase the number of seats allocated to refugees, many of whom are Sunnis, from five percent to 15 percent. The Constitution stipulates that every 100,000 Iraqis should have one representative in the country's parliament but al-Hashemi said that refugee numbers are not included in how seats have been calculated." Martin Chulov (Guardian) observes, "However, Hashimi's move has set the scene for a showdown between MPs and the Sunni minority, which increasingly feared it was likely to lose even more political ground. The last election, almost five years ago, was boycotted en masse by Sunnis." Liz Sly and Raheem Salman (Los Angeles Times) provide this context: "Iraq's constitution stipulates that elections must be held by the end of January, and failure to meet that deadline could plunge the country into a constitutional crisis. The vote was originally slated for Jan. 16, but the commission had already said that would be impossible. Hussaini estimated that the latest date on which it can feasibly be held is Jan. 21. It will be impossible to hold the election in the last 10 days of January, Hussaini said, because of the Shiite Ashura holiday, when millions of pilgrims converge on foot on the holy city of Karbala from all over the country and the world. The roads will be clogged, and many Shiites will be away from their home constituencies and unable to vote." Anne Barker (Australia's ABC) reminds that the current Parliament is set to expire by the end of January. So where are things right now? Anthony Shadid and Daniel Dombey (at the Financial Times of London) flip through the memory books to pull this now-forgotten reality back out, "The election deal was only reached after sustained lobbying by Joe Biden, US vice-president, and had been portrayed by the Obama administration as a rare piece of good news from the Middle East and 'critically important' for Iraq's prospects". On today's All Things Considered (NPR), Corey Flintoff examined the latest news.

Corey Flintoff: When President Obama hailed the passage of the law on November 8th, he cited the link between elections and the US withdrawal.

US President Barack Obama (November 8th): This agreement advances the political process that can bring lasting peace and unity to Iraq and allow for the orderly and responsible transition of American combat troops out of Iraq by next September.

Corey Flintoff: US officials have said that if the security situation in Iraq is stable they can begin withdrawing troops 60 days after the election. Iraq's Constitution calls for a new Parliament to be elected by the end of January when the current government's mandate expires.
Flintoff notes that Constitutional crisis could take place but that some MPs state that the Parliament has the authority to extend the term by one month. At the US State Dept today, in the daily press briefing, spokesperson Ian Kelly declared:

We're disappointed at these developments related to the elections law. We urge the Iraqi leaders and Parliament to take quick action to resolve any of the outstanding concerns that have been expressed. And this is so elections can go forward. And these elections, of course are mandated by the Iraqi Constitution. We believe that it's the responsibility of all Iraqi partiest to ensure that the Iraqi people are able to exercsie their democratic right to vote and this election law represent the best way forward for the Iraqi government to be able to consolidate the democratic and political achievements.

The proper response to Kelly's statement was: "Oh, explain that law to us." Naturally, no one embarrassed Kelly with a difficult question -- one his laughable remarks begged for.
Ahmed Rasheed and Deepa Babington (Reuters) quote the Independent High Electoral Commission's chief commissioner Hamdiya al-Hussaini stating, "As a result of the veto, we have decided to stop all our activities and work as we await a final law with a presidential decree that determines the exact date of the election." BBC News quotes Tariq al-Hashemi stating, "I sent a letter to parliament asking for the law to be amended. Parliament said I could veto the contested first article, which is what I have done today. The proposed amendment affords justice to all Iraqis abroad, in all countries, and not just those residing in, or forcefully displaced to, neighbouring countries. Furthermore, the amendment would consecrate the concept of political pluralism and would preclude the monopolisation of the political scene by the strong electoral lists that win the elections." Rod Nordland (New York Times) adds, "Gen. Ray Odierno, the commanding general of U.S. forces, said he Wednesday was still hopeful elections would be held on time, but he added that the military could adapt if there were a delay." Ben Lando (Wall St. Journal) explains, "The election law now appears headed back to parliament, which only approved it after months of sectarian squabbling and heavy U.S. lobbying. The key sticking point in the final weeks of debate was how to carry out the vote in the contested Kirkuk province, claimed by Kurds, Arabs and Turkmen." Li Xianzhi (Xinhua) notes noted gum flapper Nouri al-Maliki whined today that "the veto is a serious threat to the political process." Richard Spencer (Telegraph of London) quotes Nouri whining, "The high national interests were not taken into consideration."

Violence continued today . . .

Bombings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad sticky bombing which wounded "a governmental employee". Reuters notes a Garma roadside bombing which left two police officers wounded and, dropping back to last night, a Falluja bicycle bombing which injured one police officer.

Shootings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad assassination attempt on Mohammed Aziz Al Shamari ("advisor for the Iraqi government") which left him wounded. Reuters notes a Baquba home invasion which claime dthe life of a Sahwa "leader and his cousin".

Turning to the US, Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy's Kansas City Star) reports, "Suicides in teh Army are expected to reach a new high this year, with 140 suspected cases among active-duty soldiers so far, Army officials said Tuesday. This will be the fifth year in a row that grim stastic rose despite an aggressive military campaign to tackle the mental health stigman in the Army." Ann Scott Tyson (Washington Post) also reports on Army Vice Chief of Staff General Peter Chiarelli's press conference: "Substance abuse, which can be related to mental health problems and suicide, is on the rise in the Army, Chiarelli said, and he added that the force is short about 300 substance abuse counselors." Luis Martinez (ABC News) offers a video report here.

Last night Anderson Cooper 360 (CNN) began the first part in Abbie Boudreau's four-part investigative series on the killing by US forces of four Iraqis. Click here for transcript, here for video. "It's the story," explained Anderson, "about three decorated Army sergeants who killed four Iraqis execution-style on the battlefield. They were convicted of premeditated murder. And they're all serving long sentences at Fort Leavenworth. But, as you're going to see tonight, in war, nothing is cut and dry." Here's an excerpt and note that Joshua Hartson was not charged or tried for any actions related to the murders.

Abbie Boudreau: The Army has a strict policy on detainees. At the time, the rules called for soldiers to drop off detainees at the detainee housing area, of the DHA. Bu tthat didn't happen.

Joshua Hartson: My 1st Sgt comes up to me and pulls me away from everybody. Then he asks me, if -- if we take them to the detainee facility, the DHA, that they're goign to be right back on the streets doing the same thing in a matter of weeks. He asked if I had a problem if we take care of them. And I told him "no."

Abbie Boudreau: And what do you think he meant by that?

Joshua Hartson: To kill them.

Abbie Boudreau: How could you be okay with that?

Joshua Hartson: They were bad guys. If we would have let them go or take them in, we risked the chance of them getting out and killing us, killing other people.

Abbie Boudreau: So, in a convoy of three vehicles, 13 soldiers holding 4 Iraqi detainees headed down this dusty road leading to the canal. 1st Sgt John Hatley was in charge. At the end of this canal, the soldiers lined up the men in their custody. The three leaders, Sgts Hatley, [Joseph] Mayo and [Michael] Leahy, put their .9-millimeter pistols at the back of the detainees' heads, shot and killed them. They left their bodies in the canal. A year later, divers could not find the bodies. For nine months, the soldiers kept the murders a secret. But, in time, the truth came out. Earlier this year, 1st Sgt Hatley, Sgt 1st Class Mayo and Sgt Leahy would be convicted of premeditated murder and conspiracy to commit premeditated murder. All three are in prison at Fort Leavenworth.

The four-part series continues through Friday night. Anderson Cooper 360 airs on CNN at 10:00 pm EST and tonight's report includes an interview with Jamie Leahy who is married to Sgt Michael Leahy.

In non Iraq news, Ben Smith (Politico) tackles an issue today which I've avoided because (a) it belongs at Third and (b) the 'outside' help Newsweek has so often relied on. Ben Smith notes that women's groups seem dumbfounded on Palin's assertion that Newsweek has treated her in a sexist manner. The idiot Marie Wilson of the laughable White House Project (let's see, they couldn't save a TV show and they let women go down in flames in 2008 -- maybe they should just pack it in) says of the Newsweek cover, "It's much more complicated than sexism." What a piece of trash. She continues that, "What the [Republican] Party was selling, and people were buying -- and what the candidate colluded [in] -- is what shows up in that Newsweek picture. She winked at people, right?" Marie's never winked at people. With her lopsided and semi-disfigured face, a wink would be incredibly frightening.

Marie wants to blame a woman for sexist treatment. In Marie's world, any woman who doesn't follow Marie's rules gets what they deserve. No, it's not feminism. But Marie's not a feminist. Just another unattractive woman who couldn't cut it in the real world and tried to build herself a niche. Terri O'Neill has just made her first IGNORANT move as the head of NOW and she damn well better be aware that after Kim Gandy's misleadership of NOW, we're not in the mood. She better get her s**t together and get it together real damn quick. Her job is not to be a Barack cheerleader, her job is to defend women. She states of the Newsweek cover that it "didn't strike me as horribly offensive" but also claims it is part of a the "basically sexist" world we live in. Terri, what you're willing to live with, other women aren't. And you are no longer an individual, you are the president of NOW so start acting like it.

The photo is offensive since Newsweek previously allowed the wives of employees to screen Barack's cover shot. Or have we all forgotten that? Trophy wives, even smelly ones, don't feel the need to defend women, however, which is how the Newsweek cover began. The cover plays on "How Do You Solve A Problem Like Maria?" which Terri O'Neill tries to pass off as a "proto-feminist anthem." Terri needs to get out more. Many a (male) lounge singer has performed that song for decades now and it's about as feminist as Paul Anka's "You're Having My Baby." The cover tag line was snide, the photo choice was snide. That's before you open the magazine. Newsweek's not supposed to be doing opinion journalism in what they present as news (they have columnists who write columns). The cover exists to ridicule and mock Palin and to mock all women. It's no different than when Vanity Fair decided to run a cheesecake photo of Sherry Lansing (a photo from several decades prior). What did that have to do with her job of running a studio (Paramount)? Not a damn thing but teh-hee, look at her body. It was sexism. It's sexism for Newsweek to run the photo of Palin. There's nothing wrong with the photo for Runner's World -- which is the publication Palin posed for. Newsweek ran it to ridicule her and to mock her. And any woman who can't grasp that isn't a feminist.

Flip through the magazine where they will find a 'doll' of Sarah Palin dressed as though she is Britney Spears filming the ". . . Baby One More Time" video. You'll find 'noted' woman hater Christopher Hitchens has contributed an article on Palin. You'll find a sexualized photo -- the same sort that the New York Times used against Hillary's campaign in 2008 -- of Palin speaking in public that strips away her identity and her view to render her a sex object. It's disgusting and Newsweek did it intentionally. I'd thought that could wait until Sunday. Marie's usual idiocy wasn't surprising but Terri's non-response is highly distressing.

Women's groups are not supposed to be in service of the Democrat Party, they're supposed to exist to fight for women's rights. Ben Smith has another report which will seem familiar to you -- maybe you'll grasp Maxy Blumenthal and Thomas Frank just 'wrote' columns with all the same talking points? Despite the lies, the crowds are turning out for Palin. As Cedric and Wally pointed out last night, polls are showing Palins' more popular than Barack. No woman has to silence her disagreement with Sarah Palin's politics (if she has them -- I do) but she has no business tearing Palin apart and ignoring that the attacks on Palin are attacks on all women. Palin's being attacked in such a scorched earth manner that it damn well effects all women. I honestly don't know why so many women are willing to whore themselves out. Sarah Palin's not yet said there were 57 states in the United States so these cries of her being an "idiot" seem little more than yet another attempt to attack a woman in order to protect Barack -- Barack who, for the record, declared that he had visited that many states. Barack makes idiotic remarks like that and the press (and Saturday Night Live) all play "Lovely robes, Emperor!" Palin does it and she's ripped apart. When Max Blumenthal's father was (wrongly) accused of beating his wife, we were offended (on the left). These days, Sidney's son is one of the people hurling lies non-stop at Sarah Palin. It's ugly and it needs to stop and women damn well need to call it out. Too many of us were silent when it was Hillary, were silent when it became Sarah, were silent when Cynthia McKinney was rendered invisible. It's no longer acceptable to dismiss it as, "That's her problem." If your a woman, it is your problem, it is our problem and we better start calling it out and stop contributing to it.

iraq
the washington post anthony shadid the new york times rod nordland cnn
npr all things considered reuters ahmed rasheed deepa babington martin chulov
the guardian
the los angeles times liz sly
raheem salman
mcclatchy newspapers mohammed al dulaimy
the wall street journal
ann scott tyson abc news luis martinez
cnn anderson cooper 360 abbie boudreau

don't become 'the battered woman of the house'

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 04:32:39 GMT

don't become 'the battered woman of the house'

Are you angry yet? You should be. As you�ve probably heard by now, on November 7, the House passed its health care reform bill. The problem? It also passed an onerous amendment sponsored by Reps. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) that prohibits anyone who participates in the health insurance Exchange and receives federal subsidies from purchasing a plan that covers abortion except in the case of rape or incest or to save the woman�s life. Anyone receiving a federal subsidy who wants abortion coverage would have to purchase a separate abortion rider covering only abortion.
Of course, how many people plan for an unplanned pregnancy and therefore purchase supplemental insurance?
Oh, and in the states that already prohibit insurance companies from covering abortion except through a separate rider, many insurance companies don�t offer said rider. Of course, insurance companies could offer plans that cover abortion for individuals who pay their premiums fully out of their own pockets, provided that the companies also offer identical plans that do not cover abortion. Given the costs associated with offering two identical plans and the limited pool of people eligible to enroll in one of the plans, we don�t know how many insurance companies will elect to take this route.

that's from allie bohm's 'Tell the Senate to Protect Abortion Care' (aclu blog of rights). are you angry yet? you should be. it doesn't matter if you're for the 'reform' to health care or not. this is an attack on women's rights. to make a deal, like so many of the women who came before us, we're being tossed on the flames, we're being sacrficed.

it's time to say no damn way. and 1 group that's saying no-way-no-how is now:

NOW to Rally in Pitts' Pennsylvania District to Denounce Stupak-Pitts Amendment
November 17, 2009
"Once again, women's reproductive rights are under attack in this country," said NOW President Terry O'Neill. "Anti-choice legislators are using health care reform as an opportunity to further restrict women's access to abortion. One such plunderer is Pennsylvania Representative Joseph Pitts, who co-authored an amendment to deny millions of women abortion coverage, and then when the Stupak-Pitts Amendment passed, Pitts voted against the main bill anyway."
O'Neill continued: "Thanks in large part to Pitts' efforts, the House's version of health care reform now stands as the greatest threat to women's fundamental right to abortion in decades. That's why NOW and our allies will protest on Representative Pitts' home turf this Saturday."
Event:
Press Conference/Rally to Denounce Stupak-Pitts Amendment to House Health Care Bill
Organizers:
National Organization for WomenPennsylvania NOWPlanned Parenthood Southeastern Pennsylvania
Speakers:
Terry O'Neill, NOW presidentJoanne Tosti-Vasey, PA NOW presidentLois Herr, candidate for Congress in Pennsylvania's 16th DistrictLouise Williams, Lancaster City Council presidentOthers to be announced
Date/Time:
Saturday, Nov. 21, 10:30 am - 11:30 am
Location:
Chester County Courthouse, 2 North High St., West Chester, Pa., 19380
"NOW is working overtime to ensure that an amendment similar to Stupak-Pitts is not included in the Senate's version of health care reform or the final bill," said O'Neill. "But it's also critical that we send a message to those who initiated this attack: We will not go back and we will remember."
###For Immediate ReleaseContact: Mai Shiozaki, 202-628-8669, ext. 116; cell 202-641-1906
Sign up to receive press releases by email by RSS

this is not a minor issue, it is not a subissue. it is about our rights and until we're ready to stand up and say, 'you can't take away our rights,' get used to always being the 1 to be robbed of them. when you're nothing but a punching bag, every 1 takes a shot.

i do not intend to become 'the battered woman of the house.' (i believe nancy pelosi already holds that title.) and you shouldn't either.

yesterday i mentioned i couldn't get into my e-mail and there was something on sunsara taylor i wanted to highlight. this is it:

The Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago has acted unethically and now a man is facing criminal charges stemming directly from their attempts to cover up and justify their actions. Come to Skokie, Wednesday, Nov 18, at 1:30 pm to demand criminal charges be dropped against the videographer arrested while recording Sunsara Taylor's statement on Nov 1 at the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago.

When: Wednesday, November 18, 1:30 pm

Where: Skokie Courthouse, Room 104

5600 Old Orchard Road, Skokie, IL

The "Ethical" "Humanist" Society of Chicago (EHSC) is shamefully pressing charges against the videographer who was arrested and brutalized while documenting Sunsara Taylor's statement to the EHSC on November 1, before the start of their scheduled program. Read news flash here newsflash

Sunsara Taylor had gone to EHSC to make a statement explaining why it was wrong for them to have disinvited her from her long-scheduled talk on "Morality Without Gods" because some disagreed with her analysis and perspective. She pointed to the broader chill in society to which this act contributed when a group such as this suppressed rather than debated controversial opinions. She planned to leave EHSC to give her talk "in exile" at the nearby home of an EHSC member and invite all who wanted to hear it to join her. Sunsara announced her intention to do this the day before at a well-attended workshop she gave at EHSC on "The Liberation of Women and the Emancipation of Humanity." [See her statement here:. youtube This same videographer taped that workshop, without incident and working with members of the Society to do so.

In a move that defies any logic other than the continued cover-up and unethical suppression of Sunsara's views, EHSC had the police arrest the videographer, whose only action was recording her words in a "Michael Moore moment." If EHSC felt Sunsara was causing some harm through her 2-minute statement before the start of their program, why did they not ask her to stop? Why did they instead arrest the videographer?

That the EHSC is willing to trample on the future, health and freedom of a man simply to justify and cover-up their dis-invitation of Sunsara Taylor is itself even more profoundly immoral and unethical -- and it must be stopped.

As Sunsara put it in her Nov. 6 statement, "Today, progressive and radical thinkers across the country are routinely dis-invited, their speech is routinely suppressed, they are pressured to self-censor, they are fired or denied tenure, and the discourse of this society is routinely kept within 'safe' limits that do not challenge a bloody status quo. To go along with this, and contribute to this, is to do great harm. Indeed, the ideas that are allowed to circulate in society and the ideas that are suppressed, have everything to do with whether the crimes of this world will be allowed to continue or whether these will be called out, resisted and stopped. I ask that each of you reading this now add your voice against this act of suppression.... Write and call the EHSC and Skokie police department to demand that charges be dropped against my videographer."

Come to the Skokie courthouse Wed. Nov. 18 to show your support and demand all charges against the videographer be dropped. Write to EHSC at office@ethicalhuman.org to demand they drop the charges. Please send copies to sunsaratour@yahoo.com (your statement will not be used without your consent).

Please contribute whatever you can to the costs of his legal defense by sending a check, earmarked "videographer defense," to Frankel and Cohen, 77 W. Washington, Suite 1720, Chicago, IL 60602 address.

For more information see "Sunsara Taylor on the 'Ethical' Humanist Society of Chicago, or...Why I was Dis-Invited, Why I Did Not Just Shut Up And Go Away, and Why It Still Matters" and eyewitness statements at sunsara-blogspot

that's tomorrow.

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

Tuesday, October 17, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the 'intended' elections get more iffy, the US Justice Dept files charges against a contractor, CNN begins airing a four-part investigation into US abuse of Iraqi prisoners, and more.

Starting with the 'intended' elections in January. There was already objection to the law [yesterday's snapshot: " Waleed Ibrahim, Michael Christie and Micheal Roddy (Reuters) reports Iraq's Sunni vice president, Tariq al-Hashimi, has stated the law needs to be changed to allow external Iraqi refugees to participate and to be represented. If the law is not changed (by Tuesday afternoon), he states he will veto it. (The Presidency Council is made up of Iraq's President and two vice presidents. After Parliament passes a law, it goes to the council which decides whether to implement it or not.)"]. Today that's even more the case. RTT News reports that the KRG has "decided . . . to boycott the country's January national elections, protesting disparity in allocation fo parliamentary seats for the provinces." Jomana Karadsheh and Yousif Bassil (CNN) report that this is a threat at present, but one which is "casting further shadows over a vote" and note that the issue has to do with the perecentage of seats in the Parliament allocated currently for Kurds. Tariq al-Hashimi is also concerned with the allocation and the two reporters note, "He said the country's constitution stipulates that there should be one seat in the parliamentary Council of Representatives for every 100,000 Iraqis, but, he said, this does not take refugees -- or minorities including Christians into account." Equally true is that this 'development' is neither new nor unrelated.

Have we all forgotten November 2004? The lead up to the 2005 vote? What were some of the last minute objections? In that case, they were resolved in time for the vote. That may or may not be the case here. But this issue of the number of seats and representation popped up in 2004. That was when exiles, refugees and other groupings (such as "expatriates") suddenly became an issue and the US and the United Nations had to change their positions. The UN and the US had stated that no one not in Iraq would be voting. They had to change their stance (begrudingly) and the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq set up polling places in Jordan, Syria, Turkey, the UK, the US, etc. Whty did that take place then?

The easiest reason is that the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani called for it to. The reality was that, at that time, the bulk of Iraqis outside of Iraq were considered to be Shi'ites so it was thought that allowing voting to take place outside of Iraq's borders would benefit Shi'ites. (al-Sistani is a Shi'ite.) Little has ever been done, since the vote, on the press' part to determine whether that hypothesis was accurate or not.

After Shi'ites, the group then expected to benefit the most was the Kurds. So today's issues are not really all that 'new' but traceable back to 2004. The real changes are (a) that the persecuted who became refugees since 2004 have been Sunnis and (b) the number of seats. (Thank you to three Western correspondents in Iraq for walking me through the seats issue over the phone.) To dilute non-Shi'ite populations, the Shi'ite dominated Parliament is attempting to expand the number of seats in Parliament from 275 to 323. The press hasn't really gone into that and you have to wonder why not until you grasp that the US Embassy is air brushing in their statements to the press. The additional seats will go across Iraq; however, the Shi'ite majority provinces are the ones getting the most seats. That flies in the face of all logic and there's no way that anyone studing just the internal migration within Iraq -- forget the external -- would buy the percentage growth that the 'government' in Baghdad is attempting to claim. For example, northern Iraq is where a large number of Iraq's internal refugees have fled. And yet this northern region, the Kurdistan Regional Government, is seeing only 3 additional seats (3 out of the 48 that would be added)? That makes no sense at all to anyone who's followed the migration patterns within Iraq.

The allocation of the new seats becomes even more problematic when reviewing the press release the Kurdistan Regional Government issued today:

Dr Fuad Hussein, the Kurdistan Region Presidency's Chief of Staff, said that President Masoud Barzani has been closely following the mechanism recently put in place to allocate parliamentary seats to each Iraqi governorate for elections. He said that President Barzani believes that it is not possible to accept such a seat-allocation based on the food-rationing registry of the Iraqi Trade Ministry, because the mechanism is illogical, contradicts the reality on the ground and is a distortion of facts. Dr Hussein stated that the Kurdistan Region Presidency views this as an attempt to reduce the number of Kurdistan Region representatives in the next Iraqi parliament and diminish their achievements. He added that President Barzani is absolutely clear, that unless this seat allocation formula is reconsidered in a just manner, the people of Kurdistan Region will be compelled to boycott the election. As this is an historic moment in the history of Iraq, he also called on all political parties to shoulder their responsibility to promote democracy. He urges them to refrain from supporting a deceptive mechanism that obviously targets the Kurdistan Region, and which undermines the democratic achievements made so far.

The food-rationing registry? At this point, if you listen closely, you'll hear laughter.

The food-rations was a program (a needed one then and now) under Saddam Hussein that provided staples to Iraqis. The Kurdish north has never utilized it to the degree other areas of Iraq have. Why is that? Well, for starters, it was always a wealthier region than most parts of Iraq. Since the invasion, under US 'assistance,' the rations have been cut repeatedly to the point that they're nearly 60% less than they were under Saddam.

Now in 2004, the food registry was used (the cuts to the program hadn't been started yet -- despite efforts by Paul Bremer). And it was used with apology and, goodness, oh how, oh how will we ever do a census in time for an election, we have to use this!

The 2005 Constitution mandated a census. It has still not been done. So in 2009, it's pretty pathetic and a sign of how little 'progress' has been made in Iraq that they still haven't done a census.

Now the ration cards are impossible for refugees (for reasons we've outlined many times) and, for many, they're still listed in their old neighborhoods -- the ones they left. Which means a number of areas are being "padded." Not only that, what's not being told is that the registery got padded itself in the lead up to the 2009 provincial elections in 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces. This is an important point and since the press did such a lousy job in January covering those elections -- many news consumers WRONGLY believe that was elections across the country, it wasn't -- they'll probably continue to get it wrong. But [PDF format warning] you can review this United Nations document and you will see that the 'database' for the 14 provinces got padded. How? "Approximately 2.9 million Iraqis turned out for the voter registration update." This is, no doubt, part of that claim of population surge. But nothing equivalent took part in the four other provinces -- the ones not voting in January. Those were Kirkuk and the three provinces making up the Kurdistan Regional Government.

There is no national census. There is an effort by the Shi'ite dominated government to further increase their gains by expanding the number of seats in the Parliament and to do so by using the regsitry that was already laughable before the 2009 elections but that is completely unfair to the northern region which didn't do an 'update' to it. Before any vote takes place, the issue of the additonal seats should be resolved and the smartest thing to do would be to eliminate that, to add no new seats. But if they're going to try to push that through, they better be prepared to back up this alleged population growth. Without a national census, no respectable news outlet should accept any claims but do we have any respectable news outlets working in Iraq? (I'm referring to Western media.) If we did, maybe they'd be attempting to explain what's actually taking place instead of allowing spin from the US Embassy and their own desire to 'close the chapter' on Iraq to drive their 'reporting.' They might also note that a minister over the food ration program was among the ministers to have corruption charges filed against them. And this is the voter roll? Really? (That was Abdel Falah al-Sudani -- who resigned in disgrace in May of 2009. He was and remains a member of al-Maliki's Dawa Party.) Those who remember the problems with the 14 provinces voting in January may also remember the complaints that people had to go to one polling station only to be told go here, go there. This does not in any way indicate that the ration rolls are accurate.

In addition, the new seats and where they are going need to factored into Nouri's continued assault on minority rights. Not only has he and his spokesperson repeatedly stated that guaranteeing minority representation was bad for the government in recent months, the January 2009 elections saw minorities awarded less representation due to a law change that 'no one' had 'noticed' until it was too late. This is not a minor issue and it's really telling that the expansion of the Parliament didn't raise concerns from election watchers. One group that has voiced objection to the election law (and been ignored) is Iraq's Communist Party:

"The Parliament, in the first article of the law, cut down the number of compensatory seats, originally allocated to the lists that do not meet the electoral threshold at the provincial level but achieve it at the national level, from 45 in the original law to about 15 seats! And when we know that part of these seats will be allocated to quotas for some of the ethnic and religious minorities (8 seats), and for the deputies who would be elected by Iraqis living abroad who constitute more than 10 percent of Iraq's population, we can see how this reduction is arbitrary and irresponsible. The seven or eight remaining seats will not be enough to cover even the votes abroad." "On the other hand, this reduction (of the number of compensatory seats) effectively usurps the right of the lists that achieve the national electoral threshold to gain representation in Parliament. This reveals the selfishness of most of the dominant blocs and their disregard of plurality and diversity in the Parliament, their quest to extend full control over Parliament and the whole of political power, monopolizing and carving it up among themselves, in contravention of democratic norms." "In Article 3 of the law, the big parliamentary blocs went much further in violating democracy and displaying blatant disregard for the voters. They have imposed, once again, giving the vacant seats to the top winning lists, rather than putting them - as obligated by democracy, logic and justice - at the disposal of the lists that attain the highest remaining votes. They have thus opened the door again to a repetition of the infamous experience in the provincial elections earlier this year, when the big blocs stole the votes of more than two and a quarter million people who had given their votes to other lists. This was used by those big blocs to grab additional seats in the provincial councils."

Today BBC News reports the UN Special Envoy to Iraq, Ad Melkert, is dubbing efforts to ensure a free and fair election which will stand up to world scrutiny a "Herculean task." He stated that to the United Nations' Security Council where he put his concerns for emphasis on the time issue. Xinhua quotes him stating, "Success is far from guaranteed as inside and outside forces continue their efforts to impose an agenda of division and destruction."

Meanwhile Iraq plans to hold another oil bidding next month; however, they still haven't finalized the contracts from last month. Hassan Hafidh (Dow Jones) reports that the "two major oil deals" were not approved today due to the fact that 11 ministers did not attend today's cabinet meeting due to being out of town. October 13rh, Italian oil company Eni bragged of being "awarded the license for the development of the Zubair giant field in Iraq, following a successful first round bid." Suadad al-Salhy, Ahmed Rasheed, Michael Christie and Keiron Henderson (Reuters) remind the approval of the Eni deal and a deal with a conglomerate including Exxon and Sehll were supposed to have been approved last Tuesday but that was kicked back to this Tuesday and it's still not happening.

One thing that never gets postponed is the daily violence . . .

Bombings?

Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad stationary store bombing which wounded four people, a Kirkuk sticky bombing which wounded two police officers. Reuters notes a Falluja roadside bombing which left one police officer injured, a Falluja home bombing which left three members of a family injured and a Kirkuk liquor store bombing which injured two people.

Shootings?

Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an attempted assassination of Judge Abdul Kareem Mohamed in Nineveh Province today in which his driver was wounded. Reuters notes a Mosul attack in which a 1 man in a car was shot dead and his son was left injured.

Corpses?

Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Kirkuk. AFP reports 1 corpse was discovered yesterday in Baghdad. The corpse was that of a child who'd been kidnapped and killed by Baghdad Police Lt Haidar Atlas.

Over a million Iraqis have died since the start of the illegal war. One is Baha Mosua whose 'crime' was going to work. The 26-year-old was arrested in a dragnet at the hotel -- arrested by British forces and he went on to die in their custody. As Adrian Shaw (Daily Mirror) reminds, Baha died of 93 injuries -- all while in British custody. The ongoing inquiry into Baha Mosua's death is taking place in England. Yesterday's testimony by War Criminal Donald Payne got some press attention. Press TV notes that Payne "accused his superiors of routinely abusing and threatening civilian detainees in Iraq." Thomas Harding (Telegraph of London) adds:He also alleged that a platoon commander, Lt Craig Rodgers placed a petrol can in front of a young prisoner's hooded face then poured water over him and lit a match simulating a threat to his life.Minutes before he arrived to give evidence before the inquiry in London into the death of Baha Mousa, an Iraqi who died in British custody in Basra in 2003, Payne issued a short statement in which he accepted the disclosures would "harm the reputation of the both my former regiment and the British Army".Changing the evidence he had given to previous investigations, Payne said he saw every member of a unit commanded by Lt Rodgers "forcefully kick or punch" the group of Iraqi prisoners that included Mr Mousa.Payne claims that he previously covered up the extent of the abuse of Iraqis by British soldiers out of "misguided loyalty". Yes, he did make that claim in his prepared statement as well as in his testimony. He also made another claim. As noted in yesterday's snapshot:Gerald Elias: Can you help about this, Mr Payne: why were you lying about orders that you had received?Donald Payne: Self-preservation.
Elaine covered one aspect of the hearing last night:

During the hearing, a video was shown. Payne was in the video. He was abusing and cursing the Iraqi detainees. His verbal abuse included racist remarks. He was asked about prior experience in the military and whether he used racist language when dealing with people or prisoners in those countries? Payne replied that it was only in Iraq. Was he telling the truth? He might have been telling the truth. I have no idea. He has repeatedly lied to investigators. He admitted as much in his testimony today -- which was basically, 'I lied every other time but, this time, I'm telling the truth!' Along with claiming that he didn't use racist remarks anywhere else he was stationed, he also claimed not to know the video was being filmed. Gerald Elias pointed out that the video was clearly taken by a video camera and not by a cell phone. Payne replied that he didn't notice it. Elias then noted the spot in the video where Payne is clearly looking at the camera. He continued to deny that he knew the filming was taking place or had taken place immediately after and that he had no idea who was doing the filming.
Sidebar, last Wednesday's snapshot covered the US Senate's Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee's Housing, Transportation and Community Development's Subcommitte on homeless veterans. Kat covered that Wednesday night and I haven't had time to note that until now. Back to the inquiry, Simon Basketter (UK Socialist Worker) reports:

His revelations expose a widespread pattern of abuse that extends well beyond Baha.
Payne said that his former commanding officer (CO) held a gun to a prisoner's head and threatened "to blow his face off".
The inquiry also heard that prisoners were scalded with boiling water, urinated on, kicked, punched, hooded, sleep deprived and made to stand in stress positions.
Payne said the soldiers in his unit enjoyed an "open season" of punching and kicking Baha and other prisoners.
He described how he was travelling in a patrol with his CO Colonel Mendonca when someone shot a flare into the air.
An Iraqi was arrested and Mendonca interrogated him.
Payne said, "The CO then cocked his pistol and said he was going to blow his face off. He was holding the pistol above the man's mouth. . . we left him there on the floor and drove off."

Robert Verkaik (Independent of London) observes, "The new allegations raise concerns about widespread abuse of dozens of Iraqi detainees and come days after the Ministry of Defence said it was investigating 33 other separate cases of torture carried out by British soldiers in Iraq and revealed in The Independent on Saturday." 33 cases? Last night, Stan noted, "UPI reports today that there's talk this could be "a second Abu Ghraib" -- the infamous prison the US ran in Iraq in which Iraqi prisoners were repeatedly tortured and abused. So keep your eyes peeled for developments on that." The allegations emerged late Friday night. BBC News reported that Phil Shiner, an attorney for some Iraqis, is calling for an inquiry into abuse allegations which include British soldiers raping "a 16-year-old boy". Robert Verkaik (Independent of London) explained, "Claims that British soldiers recreated the torture conditions of Abu Ghraib to commit the sexual and physical abuse of Iraqi civilians are being investigated by the Ministry of Defence. The fresh allegations raise important questions about collusion between Britain and America over the ill-treatment of Iraqi prisoners during the insurgency." BBC News (link has text and video) noted that the UK Armed Forces Minister Bill Rammell is insisting that there's no need for a public inquiry and claiming that any investigation can be handled (privately) by the Ministry of Defence. (Mike and Kat noted the story Friday night.)Meanwhile, in the US, CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 begins a four-part series (Anderson's show airs at 10:00 pm EST) into the way Iraqis were treated in US custody:

U.S. soldiers interrogated by the Army in the 2007 murders of four Iraqi detainees blamed a military policy they said made it too hard to detain suspected insurgents, a CNN investigation has found.
Soldiers questioned in the killings said the sergeant in command of their detachment ordered the suspected insurgents killed because Army rules made it too difficult to hold them.
"They're gonna be right back on the streets," one soldier put it.
CNN obtained an extraordinary 23� hours of Army interrogation videotapes that detail the March 2007 executions of the prisoners by three sergeants who were attached to Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment.
The tapes, to be shown on CNN's "AC360," show one of the sergeants confessing to the crime, as well as agents from the Army's Criminal Investigations Division telling soldiers involved in the crime that the military's reputation was at stake.
On one tape, an Army interrogator compares the potential fallout from the slayings to the scandal over the treatment of inmates at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, telling a soldier, "This is gonna be ugly, 'cause it is."

In other news, yesterday the US Justice Dept issued this press release:

The United States has joined a whistleblower suit against Public Warehousing Company (PWC), The Sultan Center Food Products Company (TSC), and PWC's chief executive officer, Tarek Abbul Aziz Sultan Al-Essa, the Justice Department announced today. The lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleges that since 2003, defendants have violated the False Claims Act by presenting or causing others to present false claims for payment under PWC's multi-billion contracts with the Defense Logistics Agency to supply food for U.S. service members serving in Kuwait, Iraq and Jordan. The complaint alleges that defendants knowingly overcharged the United States for locally available fresh fruits and vegetables that PWC purchased through TSC. The complaint also alleges that PWC failed to disclose and pass through rebates and discounts it obtained from its U.S.-based suppliers, as required by its contracts. The case was initially filed under seal by Kamal Mustafa Al-Sultan, the owner of a Kuwaiti company that originally partnered with PWC to submit a proposal on the food supply contracts. The case remained under seal to permit the United States to investigate the allegations and determine whether it would join the lawsuit. Under the False Claims Act, the United States may recover three times the amount of its losses, plus civil penalties. "We will not tolerate fraudulent practices from those tasked with providing the highest quality support to the men and women who serve in our armed forces," said Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division. "Those who do business with the government must act fairly and in accordance with the law. As this case illustrates, the Department of Justice will investigate and pursue allegations of fraud against contractors and subcontractors, whether they are foreign or domestic." "The decision to join in this civil lawsuit follows a multi-year probe into abuses in Middle East subsistence prime vendor contracts," said Acting U.S. Attorney F. Gentry Shelnutt. "This Office and the Department of Justice will spare no effort in investigating those persons and companies, regardless of location, who seek to defraud the United States." The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia also announced today that a grand jury returned a six-count indictment against Public Warehousing Company, also known as Agility, in connection with its prime vendor contracts. Assistant Attorney General West and Acting U.S. Attorney Shelnutt thanked the joint investigation team, which includes Special Agents with Defense Criminal Investigative Service; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (Army CID), auditors from the Defense Contract Audit Agency, and the Department of Defense, Office of the Inspector General, for the investigation of this defense procurement fraud matter.

Walter Pincus (Washington Post) explains, "Under the False Claims Act, the government may recover three times the amount of its losses plus civil penalties, according to the Justice Department announcement." Finally, NOW on PBS debuts its latest episode Friday on most PBS stations and this one iexamines:

The Pentagon estimates that as many as one in five American soldiers arecoming home from war zones with traumatic brain injuries, many of whichrequire round-the-clock attention. But lost in the reports of thesereturning soldiers are the stories of family members who often sacrificeeverything to care for them. On Friday, November 20 at 8:30 pm (checklocal listings), NOW reveals how little has been done to help thesefamily caregivers, and reports on dedicated efforts to support them.

iraq
cnn
jomana karadsheh
mcclatchy newspapers mohammed al dulaimy
xinhua
the telegraph of london thomas harding adrian shaw the daily mirror the independent of london robert verkaik
bbc news
the socialist worker
the washington post walter pincus
pbs now on pbs

nancy pelosi's a moron

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 04:44:12 GMT

nancy pelosi's a moron.

that's c.i.'s Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Gesture" and i love it. nancy pelosi was also a choice he was toying around with. after reading glenn thursh (politico) tonight, i hope nancy pops up soon. here's silly & harmful pelosi:

The first woman speaker of the House hit back at critics who say she never should allowed the amendment to be considered -- arguing that Republicans planned to introduce it as a substitute "motion to recommit." Allowing the GOP to control the abortion debate would have been "very destructive," she said, likely resulting in the defeat of the entire reform package.

When Gergen asked if pro-abortion rights advocates were "right in saying [the Stupak Amendment] will actually diminish" access to abortions?" Pelosi shot back with "Yes, they are."

nancy pelosi needs to take some responsibility for what she's done to american women and our reproductive rights. this is from the center for reproductive rights:

Center Launches First Abortion Ad in Anticipation of Historic Senate Health Care Reform Vote

Millions of Women Could Lose Abortion Coverage; New TV Ad Starts Running Tuesday

News types:
Press Releases

11.16.09 - (PRESS RELEASE) The Center for Reproductive Rights released a new television and online advertisement today calling on pro-choice constituents to contact their senators and demand they not ban abortion coverage that millions of American women already have.

Watch the ad here >

"The promise of healthcare reform is expanded coverage and affordability, eliminating denials of coverage for pre-existing conditions, and a new basic package of essential benefits," said Center for Reproductive Rights President Nancy Northup. "Yet some in Congress are attempting to use the reform bill as a vehicle for banning insurance coverage for abortion services, coverage that millions of women have today. But healthcare reform is not an abortion bill. This attempt to roll back the clock on women's health and rights cannot be tolerated."

D.J. Feldman, a federal employee denied insurance coverage after a termination of a anencephalic fetus, said the denial of coverage surprised and shocked her: "That's when I learned just how punishing, invasive, and painful federal policy is when it comes to women's lives. A decision that should have been left between me and my doctor was made instead by politicians."

On November 7, the House of Representatives voted 240 -to-194 to approve an amendment offered by Rep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mich.) and other representatives to the healthcare reform package. The amendment was sold as a measure that merely maintains current law prohibiting the use of federal funds to pay for abortion. But the Stupak ban reaches beyond those restrictions and would in effect prohibit millions of women from using their own money to buy private health insurance that covers abortion.

Currently, a majority of private insurers offer abortion coverage. Under the Stupak-Pitts abortion ban, women would not be covered for abortions in the new health insurance market despite spending their own money on premiums. And women who opt into the more affordable public option would be banned from getting coverage for abortion services, even if their own money is used to buy their insurance coverage. With Stupak-Pitts, it would be far harder � and highly unlikely given market incentives � for private insurance companies to offer abortion coverage for plans in the health reform marketplace.

The ad will run on cable networks in the Washington, DC, market and on prominent Internet news sites starting Tuesday. The ad was also launched online as part of the Center's campaign at www.NoAbortionBan.org, which also includes a repository of legal and research information on the impact of healthcare reform on abortion services overage.

The script and documentation of "No Joke" are as follows:

i'm trying to note sunsara taylor but i just can't get into my e-mail. i was reading an e-mail that noted her earlier today and planned to include it. i'll do it tomorrow night. i can log in right now but when i hit 'inbox,' i end up waiting and waiting for a page that keeps trying to load but never does.

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

Monday, November 16, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, a War Criminal testifies in England giving contradictory answers as to why he abused Iraqis, new problems with the 'intended' elections in January, Warren P. Strobel and Sahar Issa don't seem to grasp that McClatchy signs their checks, and more.

Today the US military announced: "Contingency Operating Base Speicher, Iraq -- A Soldier, assigned to Multi-National Division -- North, died Nov. 16 from injuries sustained in a vehicle accident. Members of the Soldier's patrol immediately performed medical treatment and evacuated the Soldier to a nearby U.S. medical facility where the Soldier died of injuries. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. The names of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. The names of service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense official website [. . .]. The announcements are made on the Web site no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. The incident is under investigation." The announcement brings the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the war to 4363.

AFP reports that 13 Sahwa members have been assassinated in Sadan village today. Sahwa is also known as "Awakening Council" members and "Sons Of Iraq" and were placed on the US payroll by the US military in an attempt to -- according to US Gen David Petraeus and then-US Ambassador Ryan Crocker in testimony to Congress in 2008 -- to get these Sunnis to stop killing and wounding US military service members and to get them to stop destroying US military equipment. Nouri al-Maliki was supposed to have taken over payment for the Sahwa near the close of 2008. He was also supposed to have integrated them into the Iraqi forces. Neither's happened. Despite non-stop media hype in November and at the start of this year and again in April, Nouri had still not taken up payment and the bulk were not integrated into Iraqi forces. (Nouri repeatedly stated -- as late as mid-2008 -- that he had no intention of bring Sahwa into the Iraqi forces.) Last week, Richard Sale (Washington Times) reported, "A [US] congressional staffer who spoke on condition that he not be named because he was discussing sensitive intelligence said that after the U.S. stopped paying Sunni forces directly in June, it wasn't long before payments to the tribes 'simply stopped. You got paid if you were a power in the government, and the tribal leaders were last on [Prime Minister Nouri al-] Maliki's list,' the staffer said." AFP reports that the 13 were killed "execution-style" by assailants wearing "Iraqi army uniforms". Among those murdered was Sahwa leader Attala Ouda al-Shuker and his three sons. Xinhua has a text and audio report here. The attack is being blamed (by Iraqi officials) on, you know this is coming, al Qaeda in Iraq. What was, according to Petraeus, a very small group and, according to the now top US commander in Iraq Gen Ray Odierno, a group that had suffered severe push back must be the most well connected group in the world if they're doing everything they're accused of. And the way they manage to get all these Iraqi military and police uniforms. Simply amazing. (Alternative explanation: It's predictable and unbelievable to blame every incident of violence on al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.) An unnamed US "intelligence official" tells Warren P. Strobel and Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) that the assassinations raise concerns about Sunni vulnerability in the near future and also the "regrouping" of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Regrouping? To listen to Nouri al-Maliki, they organization is huge and thriving and always has been.

We'll come back to Strobel and Issa in a moment (and it won't be pretty). For now let's move over to the other reported violence today -- reported. Because violence goes on constantly in Iraq and the bulk of it is never reported (which is how those mass graves still pop up every few months).

Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing which claimed the lives of 2 Iraqi service members and left six civilians injured, a Mahmoudiyah bombing which claimed the lives of 6 Iraqi service members and left six more injured, a Falluja double bombing of two homes which reulsted in six people being injured, a Falluja triple bombing of homes which left eight people wounded and a Kirkuk car bombing which claimed 6 lives and left eight people injured.

Shootings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 person was shot dead in Kirkuk and two more were injured.

Hey, for 'funs' let's see how many of the above incidents were reported on by Reuters today in their 'factbox'? Okay? Five bombings and 1 shooting -- all today -- according to McClatchy. Reuters reports only 2 bombings today and no shooting in Kirkuk. Wow. I guess if you were only going to go by one outlet for your information, it wouldn't be smart to depend on Reuters to discover how many Iraqis die each day, huh?

But two do just that. And now we're back to them. Warren P. Strobel and Sahar Issa sag the jeans, flip the caps around and toss some signs while asking:

Wanna copy me and do exactly like I did -- yeah! yeah!
Try 'cid and get f**ked up worse than my life is -- huh?
My brain's dead weight
I'm tryin' to get my head straight

That's the only excuse for their writing the following: "So far, November has been the least violent month in Iraq in recent memory. According to the Web site icasualties.org, political violence has killed one U.S. soldier and, before Monday, 12 members of the Iraqi security forces and 29 civilians. The site says that the civilian casualty figures are incomplete, however, and the true numbers are undoubtedly much higher." That's two wrongs. Let's break them up.

1) ICCC says "political violence has killed one U.S. soldier" -- is that what reality is? What a stupid, idiotic thing to write. Shameful. We've already noted one death announcement from the US military released today. It has one thing in common with every other announcement this month? Do you know what that was? Strobel and Issa were too busy free stylin' to notice. Here's the key phrase in every death announcement from the US military (Iraq only) this month:

* US military announced: "The incident is currently under investigation."

*US military announced: "The incident is under investigation."

* US military announced: "The incident is under investigation."

* US military announced: "The incident is under investigation."

*US military announced: "The incident is under investigation."

Get the picture? "The incident is under investigation." So you really don't know how the person died. That includes, please note, the helicopter crash last week.

2) ICCC says X number of Iraqis have died? Who the hell cares what they say?

It is offensive for anyone to use the ICCC 'count' but especially for McClatchy. In October, I warned we would rip apart the next IDIOT who used it. ICCC is not doing a count. It is noting Reuters. They don't even include -- pay attent Strobel and Issa -- McClatchy in their 'count.' As Warren should know and Sahar damn well knows (as does Laith and Jenan and everyone else who does their daily roundup of violence), McClatchy covers a lot more violence on any given day than does Reuters. In fact, we just proved that earlier in the snapshot.

ICCC's count is 41 dead so far for the month? Well let's check. Okay?

From Third November 8th: "Sunday saw 25 Iraqis reported deaths and 97 injured. Monday saw 4 reported dead and 3 reported wounded. Tuesday saw 3 reported dead and 10 reported injured. Wednesday saw 7 reported dead and 25 reported wounded. Thursday saw 5 person reported dead and 15 reported injured. Friday saw 4 people reported dead and six people reported injured. Saturday saw 3 reported dead and 3 reported injured. Totals: 51 reported dead, 159 reported wounded -- and many more people were killed and wounded than were reported." From Third November 15th: "Sunday were reported 8 dead and 6 were reported wounded, Monday it was 2 dead and 15 wounded, Tuesday it was 4 dead and 2 wounded, Wednesday found 3 dead and 5 wounded, Thursday it was 6 dead and 10 wounded, Friday there were reported 3 dead and on Saturday the number killed was 3 and the number injured was 6. [Saturday's number may be 4 -- we are going with 3, use links and you'll see why.] For a total of 29 reported dead and 44 reported injured." Now that leaves aside yesterday and the death total is 80 and the wounded is 203.

ICCC does nothing but count Reuters (click on their links). They ignore McClatchy, they ignore Los Angeles Times and everyone else. They do a "Reuters" "count." Reuters which can -- and has -- gone a whole day without publishing anything from Iraq. Reuters?

You don't use ICCC for the Iraqi death toll. ICCC does such a BAD job on the death toll of Iraqis that even the Ministries in Iraq have a higher death toll at the end of each month. It's a joke and you make yourself a joke when you use it.

If you are McClatchy Newspapers, you're an ASS for using ICCC's count of Iraqis killed. Why? Because ICCC doesn't even register you. And I happen to know what the economics at McClatchy are right now and I damn well know that promoting a count that doesn't even acknowledge McClatchy's reporting is going to be seriously frowned upon by the ownership. So get your act together. And grasp that when the bad news comes down after the holidays, you're really not going to want to be looking around and wondering, "How responsible am I for it?" Translation, you shouldn't be promoting Reuters or anyone else's count. You do a daily roundup of violence, you should be keeping track of that and have your own monthly count. It's not difficult. When Nancy A. Youssef was in charge of Baghdad, she was able to see that McClatchy kept their own count. When McClatchy has the capability right now to do their own count, they really shouldn't be promoting some other outlet's count. That's bad business. And no one can afford it in this economy.

In England there is an ongoing inquiry into Baha Mosua's death -- Baha is an Iraqi who died while in British custody. The November 9th snpashot noted that day's developments: British soldiers Gareth Aspinall and Garry Reader testified that Baha was abused repeatedly while in British custody, that he was beaten to death and that they were ordered to keep quiet about what took place. This morning, Robert Verkaik (Independent of London) reported that Donald Payne, already convicted for his role in Baha's death (and kicked out of the military) will testify today. Verkaik notes that Reader and Cooper identified Payne and Aaron Cooper as being responsible for the death of Baha -- to clarify that, they did not see him killed. They saw Payne and Cooper enter the room, they heard the cries and shreiks of Baha while the two were in the room and they saw Baha died after the two men left the room. The Daily Mail reports that Payne has testified today that he saw "every member of the unit commanded by Lt [Craig] Rogers, known by the call sign G10A, 'forcefully kick and/or punch' the group of Iraqi prisoners that included Mr Mousa." Payne also asserted that abuses covered up by him were done due to "misguided loyalty."

Under questioning from Gerald Elias, Payne stated that the purpose of the hooding was to "disorient" the prisoner. Elias then went through various documents before picking back up on this thread.

Gerald Elias: You were told, you say, about the shock of capture. What do you remember being said about the shock of capture?

Donald Payne: Keep it going.

Gerald Elias: Were you told why?

Donald Payne: No.

Gerald Elias: Your statement goes on: ". . . lack of sleep and to keep prisoners confused as much as we could."

Donald Payne: Yes.

Gerald Elias: Was anything said as to what the purpose of that was: shock of capture, lack of sleep?

Donald Payne: It was to aid the tactical questioner, or the interrogator.

Gerald Elias: How did you understand it aided the interrogator to maintain the shock of capture, lack of sleep and keep them confused?

Donald Payne: So that they were disoriented when they was questioned.

Gerald Elias: That was your understanding, was it?

Donald Payne: Yes.

Gerald Elias: You go on in this statement to say: "We were to keep this up until tactical questioning was completed."

Donald Payne: Yes.

Gerald Elias: Was that what you were told?

Donald Payne: Yes.

Gerald Elias: What did you understand then would happen when tactical questioning was completed?

Donald Payne: They could go to sleep.

Payne referred to receiving orders from a superior doing a handover but he stated he could not remember who it was or what he looked like. This was when, according to Payne, they were informed to keep the prisoners hooded and in stress positions until questioning ended. Not noted in the exchange but worth noting here is that questioning was not a few hours. For example, Baha's questioning went on Sunday, Monday and Tuesday and might have continued was he not murdered Tuesday. While he was alive and in British custody, his questioning never ended. The Chair of the inquiry, the Right Honourable William Gage, asked for a clarification regarding when the stress positioning and other things ended and Payne established that it ended not when they were done questioning the prisoner but when they were done questioning everyone brought in with that prisoner.

Gerald Elias: Did you find this instruction from the TQer contrary to what you believed to be your orders for humane treatment of detainees?

Donald Payne: Yes.

Gerald Elias: Did you raise that question with anybody?

Donald Payne: No.

Gerald Elias: Why not?

Donald Payne: Never did.

Gerald Elias: Why not?

Donald Payne: Just didn't.

The "misquided loyalty" was a prepared statement he submitted to the inquiry today before questioning began. Gerald Elias asked him about that and about his admission that, despite what he stated previously (including in his court-martial), he did use "greater" force with each visit to the prisoners brought in with Baha.

Gerald Elias: Did your conduct in fact include kicking and punching --

Donald Payne: Yes.

Gerald Elias: -- routinely to detainees?

Donald Payne: Yes.

Gerald Elias: And in relation to these detainees, what I have called the Baha Mousa detainees, why did you involve yourself in kicking and punching them?

Donald Payne: No reason.

Did others do that as well? Yes, Payne stated, the whole multitude. Everyone but, under questioning, the drivers, he declared. But he could not give specifics, he stated he just knew that everyone was involved at one time or another because he saw them.

As Elias brought in Payne's past statements -- now agreed to by Elias and Payne to have been lies -- Payne yet again did a turn around. From the "misguided loyalty" excuse for his silence in the prepared statement he submitted to . . .

Gerald Elias: Can you help about this, Mr Payne: why were you lying about orders that you had received?

Donald Payne: Self-preservation.

Payne took issue with Gerald Elias suggestion that the prisoners were given "a regular beating" by the Payne and those serving with him, "I wouldn't say a regular beating, no. [. . .] They were given a beating, yes, but not constant." Under questioning from Elias, it was established that Baha and those in his group were being beaten for 48 straight hours. It might have continued after that, Payne didn't know. He stated that he left after Baha died.

Gerald Elias: From that time of assaulting the detainees on the Sunday evening through until the death of Baha Mousa, should the Inquiry understand -- tell me this is wrong if it is -- from your evidence that more or less whenever you went back to the TDF you would involve yourself in more violence of this kind?

Donald Payne: Yes.

We'll stop there. I don't believe Payne's account of his last treatment of Baha and don't see how anyone reading the transcript could believe it. It was all the more embarrassing when you grasped that Payne had already been convicted -- meaning there was no reason to continue lying, especially when he kept insisting that 'this time' he was 'finally' going to tell the truth. Stephen Bates (Guardian) observes, "Other members of the unit told the inquiry they covered up a violent assault by Payne on Mousa shortly before he died. Former private Aaron Cooper told the inquiry in a statement: 'He seemed to completely lose his self-control. He started to lash out wildly, punching and kicking Baha Mousa's ribs. Corporal Payne also certainly kicked Baha Mousa's head, which rebounded off the wall'." Michael Evans (Times of London) reports, "Colonel Daoud Musa, Mr Musa's father, who attended the hearing today, emerged tearful from the morning session."

Meanwhile news out of Iraq is the possible blocking of the election law Parliament passed last Sunday. Waleed Ibrahim, Michael Christie and Micheal Roddy (Reuters) reports Iraq's Sunni vice president, Tariq al-Hashimi, has stated the law needs to be changed to allow external Iraqi refugees to participate and to be represented. If the law is not changed (by Tuesday afternoon), he states he will veto it. (The Presidency Council is made up of Iraq's President and two vice presidents. After Parliament passes a law, it goes to the council which decides whether to implement it or not.)

On the latest Inside Iraq (Al Jazeera) which began airing Friday, host Jasim Azzawi was joined by Orhan Kettene (Turkman Front), Mundher Adhami (King's College) and Firyad Rawadnouzi (Kurdish MP) addressed the 'intended' elections.

Jasim Azzawi: So finally the Iraqi Parliament has passed this long delayed law. Many people, they called it a great achievement. Firyad Rawandouzi, this law stipulates we are going to use the open list in comparison with the closed list that was used in 2005. It is going to separate religion from politics by removing the religious symbols. So is it really a good law in comparison with the old law that belongs to the old regime?

Firyad Rawandouzi: Actually the demand of the Great Ayatollah Sistani was there. Therefore the most political blocs in the Parliament go for open list. And I think that this open list will create a little bit of change in the political map of Iraqi Parliament in the next election. But it not going to be a great change.

Jasim Azzawi: But all yardsticks, Orhan Kettene, Iraq is far from democracy. The fact that elections are day in, day out that does not make Iraq a democracy, far from it. There is, has to be, a culture before that. But since you are an activist representing the Turkmen and their interests and perhaps, people say, their plight, how do you look at this election in light of the fact that some Turkmen, they accuse the Kurdish authorities in Kirkuk, they have resettled by force hundreds and thousands of Kurdish Iraqis either from the north or even from other parts of Iraq -- from Salahuddin, for instance.

Orhan Kettene: Well we don't see it as a democracy with full meaning of the word because in 2003, when the invasion removed the old regime, the Turkmens had very high hopes that the justice, democracy, equality, equal participation will show itself finally and they will have a voice finally in Iraqi politics after being deprived from that right for over nine years. But the fact is they were surprised with a flood of Kurdish people from other parts of Iraq, especially from the north. And they filled the city. There is no space left in the city. And it was claimed that they were refugees from Kirkuk. And we know in Kirkuk where -- which areas were demolished, which people were removed. So the people were surprised by this influx. And now we are faced with doubling the number of constituents. Kirkuk used to be 369,000 in 2004 and now it's 800,000 and Turkmens regard Kirkuk as the cultural center of Turkmens in Iraq. And the whole Iraqi people know Kirkuk as a Turkmen city. But over the years, by the Ba'ahtists' racist pressure lots of Arab people were forced to be --

Jasim Azzawi: Orhan, let me give a chance to Firyad to answer that before I go to Mundher. Make it very short, Firyad.

Firyad Rawandouzi: I don't think that this accusation is right because since 2003, we hearing from various people in Kirkuk and other areas that Kurdish people fled to Kirkuk and occupied the city. And the fact is that many thousands of Kurdish people were displaced by Saddam Hussein's regime since 1997 to 2003. And those people now have opportunity to return back to this city, to their home, and get their property too. Therefore, we, everytime hearing this accusation but --

Jasim Azzawi: Except for the fact, Firyad Rawandouzi, and that is the United Nations, the envoy, has cast a great doubt about the numbers that currently live in the city, trying to find out their origin. More importantly, in 2003, in May, in the Attaakhi newspaper which is a Kurdish newspaper, mentioned in an article published at the time that the number of people expelled out of Kirkuk by Saddam Hussein exceeded 16,000 while the extra influx Orhan Kettene referred to now --

Firyad Rawandouzi: No.

Jasim Azzawi: -- runs in the

Firyad Rawandouzi: No.

Jasim Azzawi: -- hundreds of thousands. We'll come to that in just a few moments. Mundher Adhami, in 2005 a great segment of Iraqi socieity opted willingly not to vote in that controversial election and now, in 2009, most probably, all of them, they will be voting. Will they be voting willingly or will they be voting for other considerations?

Mundher Adhami: There is two level in this. One related to the political groups in the Green Zone and outside the Green Zone -- the so-called Red Zone. And the other one is in the public, in the streets. In the political groups, the United States is making huge efforts in order to cajole and invite everybody including the people who were part of the resistance or insurgency or anything to participate. And they're trying to give them guarantees. But there is a great doubt about these guarantees because a lot of the guarantees which were given before about the Constitution, about other things in the political process did not materialize. But on the street this is complication that there are people who actually participated in the 2004, 2005 and the local elections and they are very disappointed. There is an improvement gradually in the provincial elections but even then they were not happy with the -- with the manuevering of the electoral commission. On the other hand, the areas which did not vote a great deal in 2005 and not vote at all in 2004, they are thinking that they have been marginalized by not voting and they are willing to give it a go regardless because they have nothing to lose. They have been marginalized --

Jasim Azzawi: So there is a fear that they might receive the short end of the stick by not participating in the political process and, consequently, they might have a lot to lose. Orhan Kettene, why would you be worried, especially that this political deal that was struck between the various political parties that stipulates that if the results of the election in January -- especially for Kirkuk -- is exceeded by 15% than the last election there might be going back to the drawing board and finding some sort of a compromise.

Orhan Kettene: Well we don't have great faith in reviewing election results because, back in 2005, we had lots of complaints and we gave it to the High Commission. They said they reviewed it and nothing happened. And all these violations, these frauds, these horrible acts done against this people, no results came out. And now they are talking about postponing this problem without solving it -- let's do the elections and, after that, we'll form a commission and then we'll review all the issues. The experience tells us that once things are done deal in Iraq, there is no way to go back. So if we have these elections --

Jasim Azzawi: So you're extremely cynical and you don't have faith, in the words of the Iraqi politicians? How about that, Firyad Rawandouzi? And before you answer, let us just take a recent example. For instance, in the provincial elections that happened just a few months ago, when in Mosul the elections actually reversed the results of the 2005 and it gave the Arabs the majority in the governorate as well as in other parts of the city. And yet, to this day, they cannot exercise their political powers. So why should Turkmens and the Arabs in Kirkuk trust in this deal knowing full well there is no honor among the Iraqi politicians to adhere to this, the outcome?

Firyad Rawandouzi: I don't know. You might ask them. But in my point of view, they should go forward with the election because it is a good chance to exercise their rights. And I think that Kirkuk is a little bit different from other provinces and Arab, Turkmen, Kurds and Christians should exist in Kirkuk and make a compromise even in running the country. But in the general election something is different because the general election and the result of these elections will not left an impact on the future -- political future in Kirkuk. For example, we are now in the Parliament five member. We have five member representing Kirkuk and others have four. But this -- we exercise the majority but that does [not] mean that we impose any kind of a solution.

Orhan Kettaneh: Let me ask who is rulling the street? Who is holding the security? Who's touring the streets and letting the people do what they want? It's the Kurdish Asayish which is security force, it's the Kurdish militia, armed militia, called Peshmerga. They are in every street, every corner. They are the ones who command the city. So during elections, we had hundreds of examples that they took away the boxes, the ballot boxes, and they changed it. And next day, all we can see is these completely Turkmen quarters, the votes come completely in the favor of the Kurdish parties.

Firyad Rawandouzi: No, that is not right because -- this is not right because Turkmen divided among themselves and they could get -- couldn't get seats in the Parliament so they put the accusation on the others. I think that the law this time and even the voter registers are completely different and they should go forward with the election not put accusations on the other. I think it is very important for Turkemn to cooperate with Arab with other persons to make everything succeed, this election in Kirkuk. As I said this election and the results --

Orhan Kettaneh: Well it is, sorry, excuse me, the Turkmens are not divided. The Turkmens are united but they don't have chance, they don't have chance --

Firyad Rawandouzi: This is not right.

Orhan Kettaneh: No, they don't have

Firyad Rawandouzi: This is not right. There is a huge, there is a huge difference between East Turkmens and even East Turkmens and those linked to Turkey and those linked to Iran and those to others. You're saying something is not -- you can't find it on the ground

Orhan Kettaneh: No, that's not true. I find the Shi'ite Turkmens and the Sunni Turkmens are one people and they don't see any difference betwen the other. What you say about Shi'ites --

Firyad Rawandouzi: I don't say that they are the same people but they are different political parties, they --

Jasim Azzawi: Let me bring Mundher Adhami who has [loud cross-talk] Let me bring Mundher Adhami who has the following

Munher Adhami: Could I say? Could I just say?

Jasim Azzawi: Munher Adhami, hold on just a second. Let me ask you something. Somehow you cannot help but be sympathetic to the people who were bitten once and they don't want to be bitten twice. What happened in Mosul and what happens to the Constitution if you remember very well. Article 141 states that before 2007 is out, Iraqi Parliament will convene again and will review the entire Constitution and amend it according to political deal. So as we speak right now, politically and Constitutionally, Iraq is run without a Constitution, isn't it?

Munher Adhami: Yes. That's right. That's exactly right. I mean the whole process if faulty on various steps. This election is being run on a Constitution which should not be there because it should have been revised. So that's the first fault. The whole Constitution and the whole election laws so far has been done according to [former US Adminstrator of Iraq L. Paul] Bremer's laws which came after illegal occupation. So that whole process is illegal. But the problems is that Iraqis are practical people and they have to feed their children and these roadblocks which the Americans are putting in their ways, they have to go through them. They are impelled to go through them and they do the best they can. They -- I think it is to the credit of Iraqis, rather in Kirkuk oand Mosul so far, that they have refused the enticement to fight each other on ethnic grounds. I think this is to the credit of some wise people.

iraq
the independent of london robert verkaik the daily mail reporter
mcclatchy newspapers sahar issa
warren p. strobel
al jazeera
inside iraq
jasim al-azzawi
the times of london
michael evans
the washington times richard sale afp xinhua

new action from now

Sun, 15 Nov 2009 03:42:19 GMT

new action from now

from now:

If you are having trouble viewing this email, please read it online.



Support NOW's Work \|	November 13, 2009	\| Tell a Friend

Background

All NOW Actions

Take action!

TAKE ACTION: Tell Your Senators to Vote Against 'Hyde on Steroids'

The Senate may be voting on a "Hyde on steroids" amendment similar to Stupak-Pitts that would prevent millions of women from obtaining insurance coverage for abortion under health care reform. Floor debate begins next week, and senators are being pressured to accept this outrageous evisceration of Roe v. Wade in order to get reform legislation passed. It is not acceptable to achieve health care reform by pushing women back to the back alleys. The Senate must not adopt this House-passed amendment that would expand the Hyde Amendment (which prohibits federal funding of abortion, except in cases of rape, incest and threat to a woman's life). Please tell your senators Stupak-Pitts is not status quo and it is not okay.

Please Take Action NOW!

After taking action, please support our work!

Background:

The Senate will soon begin floor debate on the most important health care legislation (S. 1796) in decades. Women have much to gain from both Senate and House bills, which end insurance industry abuses and extend coverage to millions currently uninsured, but we are not willing to pay for this with an accompanying rollback of women's fundamental and constitutional rights. Several senators who oppose abortion rights are said to be planning to offer an amendment like the sweeping abortion prohibition offered by Reps. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Joseph Pitts (R-Penn.) and adopted by the House on Nov. 7.

Reportedly, Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Bob Casey (R-Penn.) may offer a version of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment to be attached to the Senate bill. That means, in all likelihood, if the Senate adopts this harmful amendment, it will remain in the final Senate-House conference bill and become law. Alternatively, a modified variation of Stupak-Pitts could be incorporated into the bill. Either way, millions of women lose -- big time.

Please Take Action NOW!

The Stupak-Pitts amendment explained:

The ban on abortion coverage in insurance would apply to both the proposed public option and to private health insurance plans sold in the new regional health insurance exchanges. It is estimated that some 36 million uninsured persons would be purchasing insurance policies through new exchanges and would be eligible for federal affordability subsidies.
Health insurers may not sell plans that cover abortion to customers who are paying without a subsidy, if even just one person who is receiving the federal affordability credits (the subsidy) were to purchase a plan. In other words, even if you are paying 100 percent of your insurance costs, abortion coverage would not be available in your plan if anyone with affordability credits joins the same plan.
Women may purchase a separate abortion "rider" for coverage, though many doubt that these riders would be offered by the insurance companies.
Small companies (fewer than 100 employees) would also likely purchase health insurance through the exchange, but if any of their employees received affordability credits no abortion coverage could be included.
Eighty-seven percent of employer-based insurance plans now cover abortion services, but if employers withdraw coverage and send their employees to the health insurance exchanges, those employees would likely lose abortion coverage under these new prohibitions.

There may be a modified version of this harmful amendment that is included in the Senate health care reform bill that will be debated next week. We want to make sure that Stupak-Pitts language is not used and that no variation of this harmful amendment is passed. Please send a message to your senators that you oppose any restrictions on insurance coverage of abortion. Thank you for all the work you do for women's rights.

Please share this action alert with friends and family.

and then

SUPPORT NOW:
Support NOW's Work for Equal Rights | Join NOW | Monthly Giving | Catalog | Shop Amazon

TAKE ACTION:
Get Involved | Find Your Nearest Chapter | Tell a Friend | Learn More

i'm going to repeat, if you gave me money to bet with and told me i could bet on any group to stand tall against the dems caving on reproductive rights, i would bet on now.

naral?

don't make me laugh.

those chicky-baby-boom-booms made fools of themselves, made asses of themselves.

naral needs to give it up.

and i always laugh when i watch the video that c.i. and the gang shot on their cell phones in d.c. i forget if it was the alito confirmation or the roberts 1 but there's naral's original idiot katie mich. and she's sobbing and crying and making a spectacle of herself.

that always makes me laugh and it always underscores how pathetic naral is.

they'd rather cry in the halls of congress than fight the democratic party.

they'd rather play the victim than show any self-respect.

that's the reality.

i'm not saying i'll win by betting on now, but i'm saying that's the best shot i have. they will not cave and cower. the new leader means business and i'd advise you to watch and see how they fight. again, we may not win. but now's ready to fight, they're not going to roll over and smile pretty while women are stabbed in the back and used for political gain.

thank you to c.i. who insisted upon watching my daughter tonight so we could go out with every 1 that was going to the concert (matthew sweet and susanna hoffs).

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

Friday, November 13, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, a war cheerleader need to profit from the war gets even messier, McClatchy becomes the first US outlet to speak out in support of the Guardian and press freedom, more lawsuits are filed against KBR and more.

This afternoon, Jenan Hussein and Warren P. Strobel (McClatchy Newspapers) report a satire by Warid Badr Salim in al Mada has led over 150 members of Parliament sign on to suing the newspaper. The reporters note, "The chilling atmosphere for the news media was underscored this week when an Iraqi court fined the London-based Guardian newspaper nearly $87,000, finding that it had defamed Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki. An article in the paper in April quoted unnamed Iraqi intelligence officials describing what they said was Maliki's increasingly authoritarian rule. [. . .] Free expression is one of the few benefits that Iraqi count from the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion. Basic services such as electricity and sewage are still in disrepair, and sectarian violence, while much reduced, is still a daily occurence. The backlash against journalists and curbs on book, cartoons and plays, often for religious reasons, raise questions about what kind of society the United States will leave behind when American troops withdraw from Iraq at the end of 2011." The article in question is Ghaith Abdul-Ahad's "Six years after Saddam Hussein, Nouri al-Maliki tightens his grip on Iraq" (April 30, 2009). Tuesday the court or 'court' rendered their or 'their' verdict.

As Elaine observed Wednesday, "The above topic should have been the front page of every daily paper this morning. Instead everyone turned their heads, averted their eyes and, in doing so, endorsed the assault on the press. If Nouri al-Maliki saw that the entire world would jeer him over these nonsense law suits, you better believe he'd think twice about doing it again. As it is, he's been allowed to attack the press. Let me add: Yet again." And let me add, because I've been waiting to see if this would be the case, that's All Things Media Big and Small. ALL. Get the picture? Thursday the Guardian editorialized, "But the case against the Guardian in Iraq is notable alarming. Despite repeated hearings over several months, the paper was not asked to present written evidence or provide statements from the editor or the reporter invovled. Compensation was apparently awarded for damage to the Iraqi prime minister, even though he was not a party to the legal action. The Iraqi people were promised freedom after the fall of Saddam. They deserve a free press and fair courts, robust enough to stand up to government."

Exactly. And yet where has the media been on this story?

I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.

See how they run like pigs from a gun, see how they fly.

I'm crying.

-- "I Am The Walrus" (recorded by the Beatles, written by John Lennon, credited to Lennon & McCartney)

Thursday we noted that the Guardian is out there pretty much all alone. No outlet has stepped forward to stand with them. That's disgraceful. And when Nouri's other cases (both pending ones and ones yet to be filed) against news outlets come forward, some of these same outlets are going to want others to stand up for them and stand with them. Why should anyone bother? When none of them can stand up for the press right now, why should anyone later stand up for the cowards?

Thursday night, it turned out I might have been a bit harsh. That's when Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, took a brave stand and stated:

This rulling has to send a shiver up the spin of anyone who hopes for a genuinely democratic Iraq. What the court calls libel is, in most countries, called journalism. Indeed, if a respected journalist like Ghaith Abdul-Ahad can be punished for reporting on concerns about a trend toward authoritarian government, the verdict would seem to lend credence to those very concerns.

What a brave editorial statement from Bill Keller and thank goodness he was not afraid to put that in print in his paper because . . .

Oh, wait.

That didn't appear in the New York Times.

Bill Keller was quoted in Julian Borger's article for the Guardian that posted Thursday ngiht and appeared in Friday's paper. You know what, Bill, I think Guardian readers have some idea about the case. It's readers of the New York Times that might be helped by hearing your comments. But the New York Times has been so very busy on so many other things. Certainly, they're some panty sniffing they're prepared to splash on the front page any day now and pass it off as journalism, right?

There's not a damn thing wrong with Bill Keller's statements. And I'll applaud them . . . when they appear in the New York Times. Instead, it's as though Nouri attacked Guardian at school and Billy stood by and didn't nothing but later that day Billy ran over to Guardian's house and said, "Oh man, that was so wrong. I'm so mad. Man, I could just kick Nouri's ass." Brave statements become less brave when they're not made where it matters.

What the press tried to ignore, groups we spoke to about Iraq after the Tuesday verdict got. They got it instantly. They got that it was about press freedom. They got that it was about Iraq. They understood that a messages were being sent globally. They grasped that one message was that Nouri could get away with what ever he wanted and that he would be emboldened as a result. They also grasped that a message was sent to the Iraqi people to let them know that they were once again on their own and that the world press would look the other way as they did so often under Saddam. Those pulling a blank on what I'm referring to can jog their memories by reading Eason's now infamous NYT column where he whined for forgiveness for CNN's efforts at covering for Saddam in order to have continued access to Iraq.

This is not a minor issue but outside of the Committee to Protect Journalists, Chris Floyd and one or two others, find anyone commenting on it outside of the Guardian. Imagine what it must be like to be the average Iraqi right now. Following the start of the illegal war, you might have had some internet access and some access to satellite TV and you could see the press get lively (too lively for Paul Bremer who launched an attack on Falluja largely because he didn't like a cartoon -- no, it wasn't of his butt, the newspaper wasn't a broadsheet). And now you've seen the US install exile puppet Nouri al-Maliki. And you've seen him crack down on the internet and satellite channels. You've seen him run Al Jazeera out of the country. Now you're seeing him go after a Western outlet (the Guardian) and trash the work of Iraqi journalist Ghaith Abdul-Ahad. And you look around to see that world press you hear so much of. That brave, strong, independent, call out the tyranny where ever it is press. And you see silence. From the East to the West, you see silence.

And slowly it sinks in that today's thug is going to get away with the same things the previous one did because your life isn't very important on the world stage. And let's get real damn honest, that's why Iraqis suffered in silence all those years. They suffered in silence because they were less important -- to the world press -- than their leader. They suffered because the press wanted to curry favor with Saddam. And now the same world press is sending the message -- with few exceptions (count McClatchy now as one exception) -- that they will cover for Nouri because freedoms and the people of Iraq are unimportant.

That is the message being sent and you better believe that is the message being received.

Amy Goodman couldn't give us that today or yesterday or the day before. In fact, Goody missed Iraq a lot this week but Ava and I will tackle that at Third on Sunday. Mad Maddy Rothschild likes to pretend he gives a damn about the free press (in 2008, he liked to pretend he was a Democrat, this year he finally outed himself publicly as a Socialist so maybe in 2010 he'll reveal that he really doesn't give a damn about the press?). But for all of his bluster, Mad Maddy didn't have time to defend the Guardian. And then there's The Nation. Did John Nichols losing his daily paper mean that he lost interest in the press? Apparently because he's tossing more sop out about Sarah Palin. But then John Nichols HATES women. Is there any woman he hasn't attacked this decade? This is the man, please remember, who attacked Barbra Streisand, BARBRA STREISAND, for the Iraq War. That was Barbra's fault. Now not in the mind of any sane person, but as you read his attack on Barbra, you knew you weren't dealing with a sane person. (The basic 'logic' of his argument was that Barbra donated her money -- HER money -- as she saw fit to Democratic politicians and not as John Nichols felt she should donate HER money. Therefore, Barbra was responsible for the Iraq War.) At some point, Panhandle Media's going to have to have to start offering group therapy for all these misogynists but in the meantime, we all suffer because they can't address what really matters. Another swipe at Palin or advocating a free press? Nichols goes with another slam at Palin.

The topic wasn't discussed on the second hour of NPR's The Diane Rehm Show today, but guest host Susan Page and panelists Karen DeYoung (Washington Post), Roy Gutman (McClatchy Newspapers) and David E. Sanger (New York Times) did discuss other Iraq issues.

Susan Page: Roy Gutman, I know that you were reporting from Iraq last month. This week we hear that Iraq's Parliament finally has approved a law for its election in January. There had been a kind of stalemate before that.

Roy Gutman: Well there had been and it was a very damaging stalemate. If they hadn't approved the law by this point then you begin to have to predict the country going downhill rather quickly. Uhm, had they approved it a month ago, you could have said Iraq is almost heading towards a normalcy despite all of the violence. This kind of muddled middle that took a long time to decide actually is nevertheless huge progress. This election, uh, is in a way is going to create a new Parliament. There will be what they call open lists -- every parliamentarian or every person running for a seat uh will be named before the elections so it's possible for people to find out who they are and rather they have dual citizenship. You know I heard while I was there that as many as 70% of the Iraqi -- of the current Iraqi Parliament has dual citizenship. Many of them Iranian-Iraqi dual citizenship. So that-that part will end and it looks like -- they have an independent election commission, they run elections that I think, in comparison with Afghanistan, certainly in comparison with Iran, are going to look good, very clean. It's possible that this election could make a real big difference.

Susan Page: Karen, this week we found out that top executives at Blackwater, the private military company, okayed bribes for Iraqi officials. Why were they going to bribe them?

Karen DeYoung: This was in connection to the late 2007 attacks in Baghdad for which I believe five Blackwater employees who were working for the State Department have been charged. 17 Iraqis were killed. At a time when it was not clear which way the Iraq government was going to go in terms of prosecuting them, preventing them from leaving the country. This was reportedly Blackwater's attempt to influence those decisions and also the decision whether Blackwater whose-whose income is derived from -- has been derived from -- huge contracts in Iraq would be continued to allow -- be allowed to work there.

Susan Page: Alright. Yes, Roy?

Roy Gutman: One of the -- one of the most incredible things about the American war in Iraq is that we relied on outside contractors to the extent that we did. I heard the figure while I was there of -- from American military -- that there was as many as 170,000 contractors, maybe even more than that, to 140,000 troops. I think that -- obviously it drove up the cost -- but it was the idea of outsourcing the war obviously to people like Blackwater to do all the functions that would normally be carried out by the military. It's a hell of a way to run a war. It's -- maybe it's the modern way of war but I think that the Bush administration in a way into thinking that it was only 140,000, only 160,000, in fact the numbers were far, far higher.

Karen DeYoung: I-I think that's true and the bulk of the contractors certainly work for the Defense Department. [Clears throat.] Excuse me. The bulk of the controversy has been over-over personal security contractors working for the State Department and that's what -- that's what Blackwater was doing. This is a problem as policy becomes a sort of civil-military hybrid where we're trying to do reconstruction in a war zone, we're trying to boost the civilian components of our efforts in places like-like Iraq and in Afghanistan. And now the question is always: Who is going to protect these people? Is this the proper role for the military, is this something that we want soldiers to do? The State Department doesn't want soldiers to do it and so you're going to have this problem increasingly going on.

Susan Page: Do private military contractors continue to play as big a role during the Obama administration as they did during the Bush administration, David?

David E. Sanger: Well certainly as the war has moved to Afghanistan and as our attention is focused to Afghanistan -- we still have more troops in Iraq today than we have in Afghanistan -- something you could lose sight of --

Karen DeYoung: Twice as many.

David E. Sanger: -- picking up -- picking up the newspaper. Yeah. That may not be true six months from now but it certainly is true now. Uh, I don't believe that there are as many contractors at work in the Afghan theater. But it's a very different kind of situation. The exception to this, again, is the personal security forces including around the embassies.

Roy Gutman: But you know when you enter the American Embassy in Baghdad, you get first questioned by Peruvians who are contractors. I-I think the traditional role of the marines as being the guard for embassies is actually a good one. And I think the idea of contracting that out, however necessary it was during the war because there simply weren't enough troops of any force to do it -- is a real question. I don't see -- and the State Department didn't master having these private contractors. They-they lost control of them again and again and again. There not able to manage them, frankly. And, uh, the whole embassy. You go to this embassy, it's an immense thing really. It was built kind of for a pro-counsel's role. And you have to ask: 'Why did we do this in the middle of the war?'

Susan Page: Roy, Roy, I don't understand. So this security at the US Embassy in Baghdad is Peruvian?

Roy Gutman: The first line.

Karen DeYoung: The outer parameter.

Roy Gutman: The outer parameter.

Susan Page: And who's employing the Peruvians to provide the security?

Roy Gutman: Uh, I don't know. Maybe it's Triple Canopy. I forget the name of the contractor.

Susan Page: But it's a contractor working for the US government?

Roy Gutman: Oh yeah.

Susan Page: Huh. Alright. That surprises me.

Roy Gutman: In fact, going into -- into what is now the International Zone, the former Green Zone, you get queried by Ugandans, Uruguayans, Peruvians are there. It's-it's like a small United Nations. Most of them being ill paid. And go to any of the bases, the American bases, the first lines and the second lines of-of checkpoints are all run by non-Americans.

Afghanistan is not our focus ("Iraq snapshot") but since it was mentioned above, we'll note that the Democratic Policy Committee (Democratic members of the Senate and Senator Byron Dorgan chairs the committee) has released a new report on Afghanistan "Our Best Chance for Success in Afghanistan: Getting the Strategy Right First."

Meanwhile James Bone (Times of London) reports on the problems for an adivsor to the KRG: "A prominent former United Nations official was forced to defend himself yesterday against accusations that he used his influence in Iraq to enrich himself. Peter Galbraith, 58, a former US ambassador who recently quit as deputy head of the UN mission in Kabul, struck a potentially lucrative oil deal in Iraqi Kurdistan which could reportedly earn him $100 million (�60 million). He helped the Kurds to negotiate provisions in the 2005 Iraqi Constitution that gave them control over new oil finds on their territory." Peter Galbraith is denying any wrong doing. He repeated his denials in Melissa Block's interview which aired on yesterday's All Things Considered:

Melissa Block: Ambassador Galbraith, you've been on our program many times before, you've published many op-eds, you've written books. Why not disclose your business ties before this? Put this out in the open if it is so-so benign as you say.

Peter Galbraith: It's obviously quite common for people to be in government, to be in private business. And it is the nature of private business that the precise arrangements are often confidential. And, indeed, some of my arrangements were subject to confidentiality agreements. But I did disclose that I was in business and that I had corporate clients in Iraq. So I think that people did know that I had these interests.

Melissa Block: Ambassador Galbraith, do you see how this business connection, your connection with the oil company, would fuel the anger that US interests in Iraq are purely about oil and about profit?

Peter Galbraith: I -- uh, well I can understand that there will be politicians that will want to use that as part of their debate with the Kurds but, uh, frankly, I was a private citizen at the time, I had no role in the US -- with the US government. The US government did not, in any way, facilitate any of my visits to Iraq. Uh, so, I was like many other former government officials who have become private citizens and who, uh, in -- generally the practice do not disclose what clients they may have in their business activities.

While he was happy to share his notions of discosure to Melissa Block yesterday, others attempted to address his lack of disclosure. Noting that he's written columns on the Kurdistan issues for the New York Times since 2004 (when his relationship with DNO began), an "Editor's Note" in today's paper (published online yesterday) concludes:

Like other writers for the Op-Ed page, Mr. Galbraith signed a contract that obligated him to disclose his financial interests in the subjects of his articles. Had editors been aware of Mr. Galbraith's financial stake, the Op-Ed page would have insisted on disclosure or not published his articles.

The New York Times is stating Peter Galbraith didn't disclose to them and that, had they known about the deal, they would have either not published his columns on Iraq or required that he disclose those interests -- those financial interests. Please note that Melissa Block conducted a lengthy interview with him (over four minutes) and those are only excerpts above. Peter Galbraith continues to maintain he has done nothing illegal, wrong or unethical. Chris Floyd (Empire Burlesque) weighs in:

The New York Times is shocked -- shocked! -- to find personal enrichment of American elites at the heart of the rape and gutting of Iraq. Who could possibly have ever foreseen such a scenario as the Times revealed on Thursday, describing how "influential American adviser" Peter Galbraith helped "ram through" highly controversial provisions in the constitution that the occupying force and its collaborators imposed -- provisions that could put more than $100 million in Galbraith's pocket.

Of course, Galbraith's war-profiteering machinations are hardly unique; the roll call of "advisers" and officials and other insiders feasting on Iraqi corpseflesh is longer than the Mississippi, and considerably more muddy. Just this week, the Financial Times noted that another gaggle of occupation geese, "including Zalmay Khalilzad, former US ambassador to Baghdad, and Jay Garner," the first appointed satrap of the conquered land, are now cashing in on their blood-soaked connections in Iraq.

Chris Garofolo (Brattleboro Reformer) notes that Galbraith was speaking at an event at the Brattleboro Centre Congregational Church last night when the issue was raised and he said of the New York Times article (by James Glanz and Walter Gibbs ), "I actually find the article quite, well, it is full of innuendo. If you read the facts [with the implications and innuendo], I find [it] offensive. [. . .] The article argues, or suggests, that somehow I had a conflict, hmm, it doesn't say it, but there's innuendo there. That there's a conflict of interest because I advised the Kurds on the constitution at the same time I had business interests, including a contract with a Norewegian oil company DNO, in which I assisted them to make investments in the oil industry." Garofolo also notes that Peter Gailbraith supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

From greed to the violence it led to . . .

Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad sticky bombing (no one wounded or killed apparently)

Shootings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 13-year-old Iraqi Christian male shot dead in Mosul. AFP notes the shooting but says the male was 16-years-old and was Rami Katchik who "had been hosing down the entrance to his family home when the shooting occurred." Iran's Press TV drops back to yesterday to note "a man working for a weaving factory in Mosul" shot dead yesterday."

Corpses?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse (20-year-old man) discovered in Mosul.

Turning to the United States, Jake Armstrong (Pasadena Weekly) notes "lawsuits in 32 states have been filed against Halliburton, KBR and other military contractors over so-called 'burn pits' the companies allegedly used in Iraq to burn everything from human body parts to tires, the Associated Press reported Tuesday." Ed Treleven (Wisconsin State Journal) reports Iraq War veteran Michael Foth and Afghanistan War veteran Brett Mazzara have filed against KBR: "The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Madison, brings to 34 the number of similar lawsuits pending across the United States, said Susan Burke, a Washington, D.C., lawyer representing the soldiers, including Mazzara and Foth. A first wave of lawsuits filed earlier this year have been merged for pretrial proceedings in Greenbelt, MD., she said." Lisa Guerriero (MetroWest Daily News) reports on Iraq War veteran Jeffery Cox (we've noted his lawsuit against KBR already this week). O fthe KBR burn pit he was exposed to, Cox notes, "This is not your little leaf fire. This is 10 acres or greater." On the health issues relating from exposure to the burn pits, Cox observes, "It's widespread. A lot of people have some type pulmonary issue. It's the Agent Orange of the Iraq war." Meanwhile the Houston Chronicle offers the editorial "Invisible wounds: Returning soldiers with mental health problems are ill-served by their country" which includes this: "It's also ironic that the same legislators who sign off on billions to wage wars -- conservatively estimated at almost $700 billion to date for Iraq and Afghanistan -- are often loath to invest even modest sums for the care of the soldiers wounded in those wars."

Meanwhile, KBR and others can profit off the war but telling the truth? Apparently not allowed in the United States. Valerie Plame is a former CIA agent. Former not by choice. She was outed by the Bully Boy Bush administration in an attempt to get back at and attack her husband, former diplomat Joe Wilson. The CIA sent Wilson on a fact-finding mission to Niger ahead of the Iraq War to determine whether or not Saddam Hussein was seeking or had sought yellow cake uranium (which would allow him to make deadly, nuclear bombs). Wilson's investigation determined no attempt had been made. Despite that, the administration (including Bully Boy Bush) began publicly making statements to the contrary. Wilson originally corrected the issue with some members of the press. When he came out publicly in the New York Times with "What I Didn't Find In Africa" (July 6, 2003), the administration began working to attack him and using adminstration friends in the press. These friends would include Matt Cooper who keeps trying to crawl out from under his rock despite the fact that he's never, NEVER, gotten honest about his part in this or his covering for so many in the administration and for Karl Rove. Robert Novak (now dead) was the one who finally outed her. (As John R. MacArthur has noted, there's nothing wrong with outing CIA agents -- with the press doing it. It is, however, a different story for the government to out you. Valerie Plame worked for the United States government as an undercover agent and her cover was blown by the Executive Branch of the federal government. That is wrong, that is a problem.) David Kravets (Wired) reports that here efforts to go public with details (non national security details) such as the time of her employment are being withheld (despite them already being part of the Congressional record) and other petty measures are taking place. Why? A judge decided but never forget that a judge decided (wrongly, my opinion) only due to the fact that the Barack Obama administration decided to fight Plame on this. Yes, Barack is yet again proving to be Bush III. So two administrations have now disgraced themselves in the manner in which they've treated Valerie Plame.

TV notes. NOW on PBS begins broadcasting on many PBS stations tonight (check local listings) and this week's show

What exactly is going on with the economy? Stocks are up and big bonuses are back, but while they're throwing parties on Wall Street, there's pain on Main Street. One out of every six workers is unemployed or underemployed, according to government statistics - the highest figure since the Great Depression.
This week NOW gets answers and insight from Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren, who's been heading up the congressional panel overseeing how the bailout money is being spent. NOW Senior Correspondent Maria Hinojosa talks with Warren about how we got to this point, and where we go from here.
What will it take to put both bankers and American businesses on the same road to recovery?

Washington Week also begins airing tonight (and throughout the weekend) on many PBS stations. Joining Gwen around the table this week are Peter Baker (New York Times), Naftali Bendavid (Wall St. Journal), John Dickerson (CBS News and Slate) and Ton Gjelten (NPR). Meanwhile Bonnie Erbe will sit down with Bernadine Healy, Melinda Henneberger, Star Parker and Patricia Sosa to discuss the week's events on PBS' To The Contrary. Check local listings, on many stations, it begins airing tonight. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers:

The Deadliest Weapon
Byron Pitts and 60 Minutes cameras spend two days on the road with a bomb-hunting unit in Afghanistan as they encounter one deadly bomb after another. | Watch Video

B. Rex
Lesley Stahl meets the inspiration for the lead character in the classic film "Jurassic Park" and reports on how famed dinosaur hunter Jack Horner is shaking up the paleontology world. | Watch Video

Resurrecting Eden In Southern Iraq, where many biblical scholars place the Garden of Eden, Scott Pelley finds a water world where the "Marsh Arabs" are making a comeback after Saddam nearly destroyed the "cradle of civilization." | Watch Video

60 Minutes, Sunday, Nov. 15, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

iraq

mcclatchy newspapers

jenan hussein
warren p. strobel

the guardian
julian borger
mark tran

the diane rehms show
susan page
npr

roy gutman

karen deyoung
the washington post

the new york times

david e. sanger

all things considered
melissa block
the new york times

the houston chronicle
the pasadena weekly
jake armstrong
ed treleven
lisa guerriero

sahar issa

60 minutes
cbs news
pbs
to the contrary
bonnie erbe
washington week

some stand strong, some don't

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 04:51:28 GMT

some stand strong, some don't

Anti-Choice Law a Non-Starter for Schakowsky

WASHINGTON, DC (November 10, 2009) � Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-IL, released the following statement committing herself to vote against health care reform that erodes a woman�s right to choose. As a co-chair of the Congressional Women�s Caucus and member of the Pro-Choice Caucus, Rep. Schakowsky has fought to expand women�s rights and improve health care for all women. Rep. Schakowsky has added her name to letters that are being sent to the President and the Speaker, plainly establishing her position.

�In the critical fight to reform our health care system and expand access, we cannot marginalize women by forcing them to pay more for their care or limiting their access to a legal medical procedure. If left as is the health care reform bill would be the largest repeal of anti-choice laws in nearly four decades. It is not a continuation of current law as the proponents claim. The pro-choice caucus worked night and day to find an acceptable compromise that all parties could support including prohibiting one penny of federal dollars for abortions. I will continue to work with the Senate and the Conference Committee to make the bill acceptable, but cannot and will not support health care reform that blatantly discriminates against women.�

the above is from u.s. house rep. jan scharkowsky's office. now is alerting people to protests taking place:

Last weekend feminist activists watched in distress as, one by one, 240 members of Congress, many of whom were Democrats, voted to pass the Stupak Amendment, which severely interferes with a woman's right to choose. If the Stupak Amendment is included in the final version of the health care reform bill, it will: prevent women receiving tax subsidies from using their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion; prevent women participating in the public health insurance exchange from using 100 percent of their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion; and make it next to impossible for low-income women to obtain an abortion.

The Democratic leadership might have decided to compromise women's rights in order to push through the health care bill, but women whose lives are directly affected by Stupak's draconian measures will not stay silent.

Just this Monday, activists from NOW and the Feminist Majority gathered to express their discontent by staging a rally in front of the Russell Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. I was there and am happy to report that the rally was a smashing success. There were about 30 of us altogether -- an impressive number considering we only had 24 hours to organize the event. We proudly marched around the block, letting our voices be heard, so that our representatives would know how ardently we disapprove of their actions. All of the activists present had great energy, and everyone around us was definitely paying attention.

As we walked, other women stopped to cheer us on and state their displeasure with the Stupak Amendment. Quite a few of them asked for our NOW stickers, so we gladly passed them out.

Our rally also attracted a couple of anti-choice protestors. One of them followed us around, shouting at us from a megaphone. His intent was clear: he was trying to intimidate us, to make us go away. However, his megaphone proved to be no match for the combined power of our voices, and we easily drowned him out.

NOW encourages you to join us and other activists Monday, Nov. 16 and 23, from 12:00 noon to 1:00 pm in front of the Russell Senate Office Building. This is a great opportunity to network with your fellow women's rights activists and get some fresh air while you're at it.

Women are 51 percent of the population, yet we are continuously subjected to discriminatory laws. It is time we let our politicians know that their disregard for reproductive health care is unacceptable and that we will not idly stand by and watch as our rights are being taken away.

as i said earlier this week, if you're going to bet on any organization to stand up and see this through, bet on now.

at women's media center, gloria feldt writes:

Headlines blaring, �Abortion an Obstacle to Health-Care Bill,� got it backward. And the biggest obstacle was President Obama�s approach, which meshed all too well with Speaker Pelosi�s: they are both so averse to feather-ruffling that one wonders why they entered the rough and tumble of politics in the first place. No amount of Rahm Emmanuel�s mean-guy interference could have kept this chicken�s eggs from breaking, let alone its feathers in place.

Smart as he is, why didn�t Obama know that when you start from a position of compromise, you'll end up with a fragment of what you wanted, if that? The public option is too weak to exercise serious cost-cutting control. And now women have been sacrificed, like so much detritus, even though we are 51 percent of the population and (in case they haven't noticed) 60 percent of Democratic voters. In response, I�m seeing the most intense wave of anger building among women voters of all ages since the Senate�s 1991 trashing of Anita Hill culminated in the 1992 �Year of the Woman�.

I am not convinced by after-the-fact reassurances that the final bill will reflect the already unjust status quo via the Capps amendment �compromise� that codifies existing restrictions. That�s because the table for expanding prohibitions on abortion was set by the Democrats themselves.

smart as he is?

based on what?

based on his grades?

we don't know his grades.

based on his being the 1st bi-racial president of the harvard law review?

uh, we all now know he was installed in that position because an african-american with real opinions and ideas scared the committee. to prevent that man from getting the presidency, the law review backed barack.

i don't know why we need to offer this garbage that barry o's smart.

a man who supports stripping women of their basic rights?

doesn't sound real smart to me, gloria feldt.

But let�s not stop there. President Obama said during the elections that the Freedom of Choice Act, which would guarantee women's civil right to make our own childbearing decisions and give us at last the right to our own lives, would be among his top priorities. He subsequently took it off the priority list, but we must hold him to his promise by the fire of our political engagement.

gloria feldt, you're a strong woman. next time you tackle the issue, how about you be sure and distribute the same amount of blame and the same amount of rage to barry and nancy? i honestly believe barry's more responsible. he's consistently sent the message that women don't matter.

gloria, that's what the basketball games and the golfing matches have been all about - hence, the exclusion of women.

so before you next step up to defend us, how about you grasp that letting barry o hide behind nancy pelosi's skirts doesn't strike me as feminist at all?

how about you grasp that barry o has more pull with blue dogs than does nancy?

i don't care for nancy pelosi. i never have.

check my archives.

but i find it very distressing that she's the 1 being blasted and barry o gets a paragraph calling him out.

it was his 'plan'. hold him accountable.

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

Thursday, November 12, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, calls for investigations into Blackwater's reported efforts at bribery take place in Baghdad and DC, the PKK doesn't feel a new level of understanding has been reached, oil and money drive the news cycle, and more.

Each Sunday, Cindy Sheehan does her weekly radio show Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox. This week's guests were Debbie DeNello and Adam Kokesh. We'll note the following section of the broadcast.

Adam Kokesh: I think for the soldiers on the ground who see what Obama is doing, you know, they see troops are being taken out only to be replaced with a greater number of contractors and then for those troops to be put into a surge in Afghanistan and nothing to really change about the kind of abuse? You know, I think that's still a huge, major factor: lack of confidence in the mission. I mean, nobody really believes, no matter what Obama says, that these are wars of necessity --

Cindy Sheehan: Right.

Adam Kokesh: -- or that Afghanistan is the good war. In fact, Obama actually by coming out and saying that Afghanistan is not a war of choice, implying that Iraq is, you know what does that say to the over 100,000 troops that we had in Iraq at that time? 'Hey, you guys don't really have to be there but you're going to keep going out and being shot at and getting killed anyways'? And then to the contractors? I mean the same factor goes with them but at least they're doing it as private citizens with a little more free will -- the impact is not as much. For a soldier who's being told "You're going to go back to this war zone that doesn't have to exist." You can imagine the effect on that. Especially for the

fifth, sixth seventh deployment.

Cindy Sheehan: Well, Adam, you know that I have been, since my son [Casey Sheehan] was killed, actively just calling for troops out now. But when Obama, of course, says that Afghanistan is a war of necessity, he called Iraq "a dumb war" and, like you said, people are still dying in this "dumb war" --

Adam Kokesh: Yeah.

Cindy Sheehan: -- that he has proclaimed "dumb." Well you know, all wars are dumb. Let's tie this, what happened to you in Iraq, what you know, you have the exper -- experiential opinions on this. But tie it in with your Congressional campaign. What is your platform? What will you do in Congress?

Adam Kokesh: Well I'm a Constitutionalist. I'm a non-interventionalist. I'm still a proud member of Iraq Veterans Against the War and I support the mission of Iraq Veterans Against the War. I'm also a proud member of Veterans for Peace and I think that the mission of the organization Veterans for Peace is even more applicable now when we see the kind of hypocrisy of the Democrats. It's almost worse than what we had when the neocons were in charge. The neocons were easy to hate, they were brazen and upfront about it and had this swaggering machismo whereas what we see under Obama now is this really disgusting deceitfulness that has some people with really intense mixed feelings. But one of the things that we're counting on here is that by November 2010 when my election is held and I'm going to be running against -- well I am running against an incumbent Democrat who has said that he is calling for an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, an immediate request for an exit strategy and yet votes to -- votes for all the funding for Iraq and Afghanistan and all of that and has toed the Democratic Party line and I think people are really going to be fed up with that. And, you know, it's definitely not the Republican Party that has all the answers but there are people within the Republican Party like myself that are trying to make it the party of Big Tent smaller government again and ensure that that includes a very strong committment to this policy of non-interventionism. Not isolationism, but non-interventionism which means free trade and commerce and friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none. And unfortunately in the world we live in, having a strong national defense is appropriate at this time. But there's a reason it's in the Constitution that Congress has the power to declare war and when they declare war they're supposed to do it with a specific enemy and a declaration and there's an objective. And then they give the military the mission and then they get out of the way. And this is the way it's supposed to be when it's legitimate self-defense. You go to war, you win, you come home. And when we have these open-ended committments, when we have these world policing opportunities where they are run by Congress, they are run by a political machine, and not by a military with a specific objective, you get this kind of open-ended nation building process that puts so much money into the military industrical complex, concentrates so much more power in the hands of the federal government -- into the executive especially. And that hasn't changed under Obama. You know, we want to see a return to the Constitution because of those principles behind it and make sure we don't engage in these wars because when you engage in war when there's not a declaration you know that the premise is faulty, you know that it is not honorable, you know that it is not righteous in the case of self-defense. And we know that neither Iraq or Afghanistan, in terms of what we're doing there today, qualify for any sort of just war theory. And getting back to that and making sure that that message has -- has an oppotunity to be heard in the 2010 elections is a really important part of this campaign for me. It's not easy, you know? It's really not easy. Talking to the progressive base is a lot easier than talking to the conservative base but it's a really important challenge to make sure that they live up to those values and understand why the Constitution was written the way it was.

Cindy Sheehan: Well, Adam, sometimes I think talking to progressives is harder because of what you said. They want to put all their hope eggs into the basket of Obama and the Democrats and clearly, clearly, they're not the peace party. The Democrats and Republicans, institutional parties, are all the same. They're the War Party and we have to put a big chunk of what's happening now on the shoulders of a Congress in 2001 that gave George -- that abrogated their Constitutional duty and gave George Bush the authority to do what is happening right now.

Adam Kokesh: Well the grass -- well the thing that I've learned is the grassroots of both the Republican and the Democratic parties are totally different from the national leadership --

Cindy Sheehan: Absolutely.

Adam Kokesh: -- and it just so happens that when the Democratic Party's in charge, they're better able to sway their base into being pro-war and supporting big government and supporting interventionism, supporting theft and violence as we see our-our, you know, just so essential to what our federal government is doing these days. But really the base of the Republican Party -- and even here in New Mexico there's a distinct difference between the leadership of the Republican Party and the base -- the grassroots activists and the rank and file members. They're totally receptive to this message. They understand that it's not economically feasible to send so much manpower and material into this nation-building -- these nation-building exercises and not have it hurt people here at home. And when they're forced to consider it like that, you know they realize that what we're doing there isn't worth it. And being able to get them to take that step at this point, it's really satisfying to bring this message to people who haven't heard it because when the Republican Party was in charge for the last eight years, they were getting that propaganda. Now that the War Propaganda is coming from the Democratic machine, they're much more ready to question it --

Cindy Sheehan: Yep.

Adam Kokesh: -- and start speaking out against it.

Cindy Sheehan: Well, Adam, unfortunately we're running out of time. Tell my listeners how they can get ahold of you.

Adam Kokesh: Oh great! This is my opportunity for the shameless plug! Thank you so much.

Cindy Sheehan: Yep, yep.

Adam Kokesh: Kokesh for Congress is the website, K-O-K-E-S-H F-O-R Congress.com, check us out there. You can e-mail me at adam@kokeshforcongress.com. You can follow me on Twitter at Adam Kokesh. And our phone number here at campaign headquarters is (505) 470-1917.

Cindy Sheehan: And I encourage my listeners to -- I know they all know about your anti-war work but I encourage them to go to your website and don't have a knee-jerk reaction just because you have a "R" after your name, right?

Adam Kokesh: Exactly. Well you know there's a lot of issues that cross party lines and it's been great to know that there are people like you who are also seeing that the Federal Reserve is such an integral issue economically which makes all these wars possible and all the other crimes of our government --

Cindy Sheehan: Yep

Adam Kokesh: -- and our corporations happen because of the Federal Reserve.

Staying with those who make war Big Business, yesterday's snapshot, Mark Mazzetti and James Risen (New York Times) interviewed four former Blackwater execs who stated that, in December 2007, approximately one-million dollars was used to bribe officials in Iraq in order to get them to look the other way in the face of Blackwater's continued assaults. Iraq's Minister of the Interior Jawad al-Bolani spoke to CNN (link has video as well as text) and stated that his ministry had launched an investigation into the assertion that Iraqi officials took bribes.

Jawad al-Bolani (via translator): Blackwater has no new positions to operate in Iraq. Blackwater has a problem and a lawsuit. Some of its employees committed a crime against innocent Iraqi civilians in Nussor Square and this case is an ongoing trial in American courts. Blackwater is a company that caused a major national tragedy. The Nussor incidient was a very difficult one and no Iraqi can ever forget it. But the Iraqi government was committed and acted responsibly for the sake of the Iraqi people and the reputation of Iraq.

James Risen (apparently due to the Times' fear of a Nouri-related lawsuit) rushes to print this morning to proclaim, "The Times article reported that former Blackwater executives who learned of the plans said they did not know whether the money was, in fact, delivered to Iraqi officials." Daniel Barlow (Times Argus) reports US House Rep Peter Welch formally called yesterday for an investigation into the allegations of bribery on Blackwater's part writing the Chair of the House Oversight Committee, "Early reports indicate that Blackwater may have violated the Foreign Corrupts Practices Act and potentially interfered with a grand jury inquiry by issuing these bribes. The United States government simply cannot turn a blind eye to such actions." Oliver August (Times of London) quotes a "relative of a Blackwater shooting victim," Aquil Akram stating, "Everything about them is bad. The victims's families were paid at most a few thousand dollars in compensation but the company is giving a million dollars to some government officials."

Meanwhile Iran's Press TV reports that Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari has passed on 'details' to the UN Secretary-General's assistant Oscar Fernandez-Taranco on the August 19th and October 25th bombings: "We provided him with all the information which was not published in the media. We have not accused any country, but evidence asserts that former Baathists and al-Qaeda were involved in the attacks." Which would mean that they infilatrated the Iraqi police and the Iraqi military and, to steal from Annie Hall, "the FBI, and the CIA, and J. Edgar Hoover and oil companies and the Pentagon and the men's room attendant at the White House." The trucks loaded with bombs went through multiple checkpoints.

In other news, Reuters reports a prison break in Basra with three escaping last night. The violence continues in Iraq with Marwan Ibrahim (Telegraph of London) reporting kidnapping of children is increasing in Kirkuk and goes over some of the known kidnappings including that of Sheikh Othman Abdel Karim Agha's son Moahmmed who says, "They chained me and beat me, and I was in the dark because they blindfoled me. I am still in shock from the constant fear of death."

Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing which wounded three people and a Mosul grenade attack which left two police officers injured. Reuters reports a Baghdad car bombing injuring four people.

Shootings?

Zhang Xiang (Xinhua) reports 2 Sahwa members were shot dead today in Jurf al-Sakhr. Sahwa are also known as "Awakenings" and "Sons Of Iraq" (there is also a "Daughters Of Iraq"). Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) explains it was Sahwa commander Othman Mohammed was shot dead in Diyala Province as was an aid accompanying him and reports 1 "headmistress of al Ma'ali School for girls" was shot dead in Baghdad and 2 people shot dead in two different osul shootings. Reuters reports a Balad shooting yesterday which claimed the life of 1 police officer (three more injured) and a Kirkuk shooting yesterday which injured a police officer.

Sahwa are also known as "Awakenings" and "Sons Of Iraq" (there is also a "Daughters Of Iraq"). The US government paid them to stop attacking the US military and its equipment. Richard Sale (Washington Times) reports today:

A congressional staffer who spoke on condition that he not be named because he was discussing sensitive intelligence said that after the U.S. stopped paying Sunni forces directly in June, it wasn't long before payments to the tribes "simply stopped. You got paid if you were a power in the government, and the tribal leaders were last on [Prime Minister Nouri al-] Maliki's list," the staffer said.
The Iraqi Embassy in Washington declined to comment.

The PKK is a group of Kurds who fight for a Kurdish homeland. Labeled terrorists by many countries, including Turkey, they long ago set up a camp in the northern mountains of Iraq (which borders Turkey). Reporters have visited the camp -- Deborah Haynes of the Times of London, for example. Recent developments have included some PKK turning themselves over to the Turkish government which has then released them. Reuters reports a second wave of PKK has turned themselves into the Turkish government today (eight members). The PKK issue is not seen as a 'big' one in Iraq currently. For example, the top US commander in Iraq, Gen Ray Odierno, sees the tensions between the KRG and Baghdad as the greatest source of conflict. But the PKK issue has never gone away no matter how many times the current or the previous administration might want it to. The government of Turkey has received repeated promises from the US government (current and previous administrations) that the PKK issue would be 'dealt with' and 'handled' and all that has ever happened has been postponing it until it flares again, at which point the US government is suddenly concerned all over again. For over two years now, Turkey has been conducting air raid bombings over northern Iraq. Asso Ahmed (Los Angeles Times) visits the main camp of the PKK to speak with the leader Murat Karayilan about where things stand currently:

Q: How do you view the policy of the United States on the Kurdish issue? The U.S. has asked Turkey to resolve the issue peacefully.

A: I am doubtful of this policy by America. When [President] Obama visited Turkey he met with Ahmet Turk, the Kurdish parliamentary bloc representative in the Turkish parliament. The meeting had implications, but America does not want to resolve our cause for their own interests in the region. They want to put pressure on us to make more compromises.

Q: How do you manage to stay in Iraq? Do you get any assistance from the Kurdish Regional Government?

A: We have no relations with the KRG, we are not in need of their assistance, we rely on our own finances from our people in Turkey and our supporters abroad. The Kurdish people in Kurdistan sympathize with us and support us morally, but not materially. At the same time, we believe the current situation of the Kurds and their role in the political equation in the region is becoming weaker day after day.

James Glanz and Walter Gibbs (New York Times) contributed a bad article this morning. Peter Galbraith (long called out at this website -- search the archives) finally gets the write up for his help or 'help' which was accompanied by efforts to enrich himself. As October wound down, Al Jazeera's Inside Iraq addressed this issue.

Jasim al-Azzawi: When Norway's most respected financial newspaper, Dagens Noeringsliv, covered the activities of a small, Norwegian oil company called DNO operating in northern Iraq, no one expected subsequent investigations to implicate the former US politician Peter Galbraith. Ambassador Galbraith is now suing DNO for a quarter of a billion dollars because the Kurdistan Regional Government has squeezed him out of his 5% stake in the company. What is more devastating for Iraq is the role Mr. Galbraith played as a political consultant to the KRG writing Iraq's Constitution in a way that can only be described as a potential ticking time bomb. This story has all the marks of dual loyalty, betrayal and international intrigue. [. . .] I am now joined from Oslo by Terje Erikstad, a financial news editor at Dagens Naeringsliv and from London by Sabah al-Mukhtar, president of Arab Layers Association in London. And we were also supposed to be joined by Mohammad Ihsan, Minister for Extra-Regional Affairs of the KRG but unfortunately we were informed at the last minute that he fell sick and cannot join the program.

Transcript of a partial excerpt of the broadcast can be found in the October 26th snapshot. Today NPR's Melissa Block (All Things Considered) interviewed Peter Galbraith about his oil dealings.

Oil is the issue Ameen Izzadeen raises in his latest column for Sri Lanka's Daily Mirror:

Notwithstanding questions over the credibility of US President Barack Obama's anti-Iraq war rhetoric, he has artfully taken the world attention away from Iraq, which his predecessor George W. Bush invaded.

Obama is seen to be fighting his war in the Af-Pak region against Taliban and al-Qaeda militants. Obviously, it is the daily terror incidents and military operations in Pakistan and Afghanistan that fill the front pages of US newspapers. Incidents in Iraq either make no news these days or are relegated to inside pages.

This does not mean that the United States has shelved Iraq. Far from it, Iraq is very much on its agenda. The shifting of the focus from Iraq to Afghanistan is seen by many observers as deliberate and sneaky. The US apparently does not want much media attention when it is reaping the fruit of the invasion. Like a couple who want to be intimate send their children to play, the US has sent the media to Afghanistan while it digs deeper into Iraq's national wealth. Can we call this Obama's weapon of mass deception?

Last Thursday, Exxon-Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell won the development rights of a massive oil field -- West Qurna near Basra in Iraq's south. The two oil giants hope to boost daily production from the current 300,000 barrels to 2.3 million barrels a day at West Qurna, which the ousted and hanged Iraqi President Saddam Hussein wanted to give to a Russian oil company.

Last month, British Petroleum (BP) and the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) won a contract to develop another oil field. The invitation to China to join the plunder of Iraq is probably a payoff by the US so that this Asian economic powerhouse and rising military power would not rock the pirates' boat.

James Cogan (WSWS) offers, "Having drowned the Iraqi people in blood, the American financial and corporate oligarchy now believes that day has finally arrived. While US corporations are not the sole beneficiaries of the contracts, there is no question who has the final say over Iraq's oil. With huge military bases in the country and a Baghdad regime tied to Washington, the US is positioned to dictate terms to its European and Asian rivals and, amid rising great powers tensions, to wield the threat of cutting off oil suppliers -- a longstanding tenent of American strategic policy." Meanwhile Rod Nordland (New York Times) reports, "Iraq's Baghdad Trade Fair ended Tuesday, six years and a trillion dollars after the American invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein, and one country was conspicuously absent" -- the United States. US House Rep John Murtha spoke with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (link has text and video) over the weekend and predicted that the costs of the wars in Iraq and Aghanistan will lead to inflation in "seven or eight years". Last Friday, US House Rep Dennis Kucinich issued the following statement:

Why is it we have finite resources for health care but unlimited money for war? The inequities in our economy are piling up: trillions for war, trillions for Wall Street and tens of billions for the insurance companies. Banks and other corporations are sitting on piles of cash of taxpayer's money while firing workers, cutting pay and denying small businsses money to survive. People are losing their homes, their jobs, their health, their investments, their retirement security; yet there is unlimited money for war, Wall Street and insurance companies, but very little money for jobs on Main Street. Unlimited money to blow up things in Iraq and Afghanistan, and relatively little money to build things in the US. The Administration may soon bring to Congress a request for an additional $50 billion for war. I can tell you that a Democratic version of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is no more acceptable than a Republican version of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Trillions for war and Wall Street, billions for insurance companies . . . When we were promised change, we weren't thinking that we give a dollar and get back two cents.

Tuesday's snapshot noted Human Rights Watch's new report entitled [PDF format warning] "On Vulnerable Ground: Violence against Minority Communities in Nineveh Province's Disputed Territories." The Kurdistan Regional Government has issued a response to the report and we'll note this section of the response:

The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) has a long standing and productive relationship with Human Rights Watch (HRW). We appreciate what HRW has done in the past. As an oppressed community ourselves, we fully understand the value of ensuring justice for all members and factions of society. In addition, the KRG appreciates the interest in the condition of the minority communities in Ninevah Province's disputed territories. We regard the well-being of all communities in these areas to be of paramount concern.
The KRG is ready and willing to look into each and every allegation, and we are ready to work on these issues under the legal framework of both the Kurdistan Region and the Republic of Iraq, with the help of HRW and other reputable human rights organisations. The KRG will investigate each specific claim outlined in the report carefully and thoroughly. There may be instances of maltreatment and neglect; the KRG does not claim to be flawless.
But the report reveals a systematic misperception of the circumstances in Ninevah and a worrying ignorance of Iraqi history. HRW therefore produces an inaccurate portrayal of the situation. Furthermore, due to the methodology employed to produce this report, it cannot be the basis for legitimate judgements or assertions.
The main thrust of this report could be grossly misleading and the KRG affirms its strong disagreement in this regard. The KRG has done more for the protection of minorities than any other entity in Iraq, and continues to insist on tolerance and peaceful coexistence in the Region and throughout Iraq.

We don't have time for the KRG's full statement in this and, equally true, the HRW report was not given a ringing endorsement here on Tuesday. (Repeating, I believe the two activists who detailed their abuse while in Kurdish custody.) We opened with IVAW and we'll close with it. Yesterday was Veterans Day in the US and, at Fort Hood, there was a candle light vigil. Shelton Green (KVUE -- link has text and video) reported on it.

Shelton Green: Well Tyler, they call themselves, Iraq Veterans Against the War. Tonight, they not only honored their fallen comrades, they also brought attention to the growing mental health needs of returning soldiers. There's another vigil Wednesday night to honor the slain and injured and last Thursday's shooting at Fort Hood. But the fire burning within these soldiers and their supporters has a less popular fuel source.

Michael Kern: I approached the army when I got back from Iraq and I was like hey I need to talk to someone, I need some help. And they said come back in two months.

Shelton Green: Michael Kern who is presently in the army met President Barack Obama Tuesday when he was at Fort Hood for a memorial service for the thirteen killed in Iraq last week. Kern slipped the president a list of changes he'd like to see made for troops returning home from battle.

Michael Kerns: He came over to me to shake my hand, put out his hand to shake my hand and very respectfully I pulled out the letter in my pocket, tried handing it to him and I was like, "Sir, IVAW has some issues they would like you to address." And at that point, he put his hand down and moved to the next soldier. Secret Service then took the letter from me and that was the last of it.

Shelton Green: Iraq Veterans Against the War want to see a withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. They also believe both countries should get reperations from the US. And they want to see better mental health care for returning soldiers.

Chance Mills: There should be a more compassionate attitude towards soldiers who are dealing with a lot of stress. And that's where it has to start. No program, no poster on the wall is going to fix that.

Shelton Green: Now Iraq Veterans Against the War claims its membership of 2,000 is growing. The group is also organizing a petition for better mental health services for returning troops. We're live at Fort Hood, Shelton Green, KVUE News.

iraq

cindy sheehan

the new york times
james risen

the times of london
oliver august

mcclatchy newspapers
sahar issa

npr
all things considered

the los angeles times

asso ahmed

the washington times
richard sale

shelton green
iraq veterans against the war
kvue

they finally cancelled it

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 05:12:42 GMT

they finally cancelled it

nellie andreeva (hollywood reporter) informs that fox has cancelled the always low-rated dollhouse.

thank you.

joss whedon is hugely overrated. he had 1 real hit show (buffy) and he ruined that when he took it to upn. by then, he'd already fallen in love with the hideous angel - a crappy show that was never a hit and was finally and thankfully cancelled.

he kept it on the air (on the wb) for years by leveraging buffy against the suits.

so angel wasn't a hit and nothing else he ever did was a hit.

and now it's the thankfully cancelled dollhouse.

early on, ava and c.i. warned you how awful the show was:

Who hires the Dolls? A man whose daughter was kidnapped hired them one week. Eliza was hired Friday by a man who wanted to have a 'fun' weekend. Long before his idea of 'fun' turned out to include his attempting to kill her, she'd been implanted with a personality that knew how to please him -- including with her tongue sexually as would be revealed after their post sex scene. Yes, he paid a pretty penny to have a whore for the weekend.
Whore may not be a pretty word but it's the only word for it.
Please note, if Eliza's character was interested in a man and sleeping with him, we'd applaud it. That's not what happened. Her character didn't sleep with him, the fantasy woman he described to her manager/pimp -- the woman who liked rock climbing and fishing and using her tongue in his ass -- was created and then implanted. He paid money and he got to pick the program for the whore he picked out because, well before he got around to what he wanted in the woman, he'd already chosen Echo (Eliza's character).
We're failing to see how Eliza can claim -- as she has -- that this is a wonderful show for teenage girls. "Mommy, I hope someday I'm made a toy for a man, brainwashed to do as he wants and I bring in some big bucks for whoring too!"
We think most women will grasp that the idea that most men wanting to sleep with Eliza is laughable but young girls tend to think "pretty" is whatever the camera seizes upon.

that was back in february and things only got worse. they weren't even hiding the whoring in the last episodes aired. every time i'd go into my friend t's beauty salon, i'd hear, 'did you see that dollhouse? they have that girl turning tricks!'

joss is not a feminist. it's always been a joke when some have insisted he is.

let me break it down for you.

buffy?

supposed to be a joke.

audiences fell for her.

if they hadn't, she would have remained a joke.

she was created to be a joke. joss can claim the movie 'distorted' his screenplay (especially to those who never read it) but he named the character 'buffy.' it was always supposed to be a joke. when tweeners decided buffy was about empowerment and made the show a hit, joss began to beef up buffy.

so horay, a man's attempt at whoring a woman in prime time was rejected. life feels a little bit easier tonight.

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

Wednesday, November 11, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, thug Nouri's attack on the press finds unlikely allies (the press), issues effecting veterans get significant play for at least one news cycle, and more.

Today is Veterans Day in the United States. Yesterday the US Senate held a hearing on homeless veterans. The hearing was held by the Housing, Transportation and Community Development Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. Senator Robert Menendez chaired the subcommittee hearing which heard from the VA on the first panel and from the National Alliance to End Homelessness' Steve Berg, Coalition for Homeless Veterans' Melanie Lilliston, GI Go Fund's Jack Fanous, Iraq War veteran Lila Guy and Vietnam veteran William Wise. We'll note the personal remarks on homelessness from the hearing.

Lila Guy: As you've already said, I spent a year in Iraq, from 2005 to 2006 and during that time I was in Kirkuk, Iraq. But I had four children at home and a husband. But when I came back home, about a month after we got home, they informed us that we would be redeploying in less than a year, you know, after we had come back and my husband was not happy. He was not in the military but he decided that, you know, it was just not something that he wanted to do and so he just left. And so at the time I had three children. Me and the children were at Fort Campbell and we were doing field training and things like that. I didn't have anybody to watch the kids for me or whatever while I went to the field for thirty days. And I had to ask my mom to come and stay with me for -- so I could do two weeks of training. And after all of that, I just could not, I couldn't do it anymore. It was I was having issues just trying to readjust to being back home and taking care of kids and all of that kind of stuff. So I ended up getting out of the military on a hardship discharge. So when I got out, I had nothing because it was such an abrupt discharge. I didn't have anything, no where to go. And I drove home. All I had was my car and my kids So I drove home to my parents' house and I stayed there for awhile. And I ended up having another baby and my father said, "You know, you can't, we don't have enough room so you going to have to find something." But at that time I had still not found a job. I had four kids now in one room in a two bedroom house with my parents. And so I sent an e-mail to Congressman [Joe] Sestak and he asked and I informed him of my situation. I was in school, I was a full time student but I just didn't have the money. I had no place to go and I asked him could he help me and they sent me to the VA and they just started a pilot program for the HUD-VASH [Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing] -- I mean not a pilot, but it had just started and I was like one of nine of the people to be the first on the program. And it took about a year before I actually got into a house and during that time it was -- it was really stressful because I'm watching as you know all of the people who are in charge -- it was only person. They finally brought in another person and by the time he came, they had about 150 applicants and they were supposed to be having meetings with us coming to our house and all of that kind of stuff but they couldn't do it because they didn't have enough people so -- But anyway I got a house through the HUD VASH program. It's a four bedroom house and it's a beautiful -- it's a nice house just to transition but I thank the HUD VASH program for being there for me when I needed them because I really didn't have any other -- any other choice or whatever. With the HUD VASH program, I really believe in it because I'm -- my situation could have been a lot worse and I see a lot of people that are when we go to the meetings a lot of other people that are in the HUD VASH program that are literally, you know, living on the street and who have mental illness. As I was listening to his [Jack Fanous] statement and it was true to me because I see so many -- not just veterans but soldiers as soon as they come back with so many mental issues and like he said the transition is hard. And they teach you to go and train and fight and do all those things but they don't teach you how to live a normal life when you come back. You know, they don't teach you how to take care of your kids or pay all your bills or whatever. A lot of that stuff is all clumped into together. But once you're out in the real world those things are not there for you. There's nobody to say, "Well this is what you need to do, this is next step" or whatever. A lot of those people are lost. There are a lot of veteran programs but most veterans don't know what things -- what options are out there for them. So it just so happened that I was able to reach out to somebody that could help me but a lot of those people don't know, they don't have those resources. So I just thank, I thank the HUD-VASH program for -- for all that they done for me because it's given me an opportunity to move on with my life. I'm still a full time student and I'm doing the vocational rehabilitation program. And so all of those programs are all different but every time you have to reach out to somebody, you're reaching out here, you're reaching out there, it's frustrating. And a lot of those people don't have the patience to deal with those kind of things so if there was some way that those things could be pushed together -- not necessarily pushed together but given them the opportunity to be able to say, "Well these are the options that you have. These are the things that are out there for you." It would help a lot of these soldiers out a lot because they don't have anybody as their liaison to say, "Look you can do this, that and the other." So I just thank you for allowing me to be here. Thank you.

[. . .]

William Wise: I'm pretty much here to endorse the long term residential programs like the one I'm in in Winslow. Having been in short term programs, in and out of psych wards and programs and then thrown back out in the private sector the long term residential program has provided me with the time to really address -- asses and address the issues of a veteran and to use our military skill, our military training experience and training and turn that into a skill set to learn how to transition out. It's a very good program. And I think the time -- the time that you're there is so important. Short term is not going to work, the 120 day program, at least not for me. Had I know about the VA program earlier, it had probably been like 4th down and 99 before I even tried to call the 1-800 number, you know what I'm saying. I come from a generation where it's nothing but a scratch, I can handle it. And so it was a long time coming before I got to the point where I sought someone to get a new play to run and I still probably would have run my own play. I don't know what else to say about that except I really, really enjoyed that program. It saved my life. I've created a balance where I can see something instead of trying to assimilate, I can take my own self and go on and that's all I have, thank you.

Chair Robert Menendez: Mr. Wise what program were you talking about.

William Wise: Veterans Haven. Veterans Haven in Winslow. It's a two-year vocational and residential -- I mean vocational and transitional arrangement. You know, two years and after completion, with a certain income, you can go to get housing assistance as long as you stay in the state of New Jersey. I leave in March and that's where I plan to stay, in Jersey.

Lisa Chen (ABC News) reports that a third of the homeless population currently is made up of veterans: "Assistant Secretary of Housing Mercedes Marquez says that since February, HUD has funded over 136 programs that specifically target programs, and a partner program between HUD and the VA started in FY08, called the HUD-VASH [Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program] is funded at $75 million annually and serves over 20,000 homeless vets, including many who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan." Susan Campbell (Hartford Courant) also covers the issue noting the estimated 131,000 homeless veterans around the country with approximately 5,000 in Connecticut alone and that the strain those assisting veterans already is expected to increase as more veterans are created by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"They gave me a gun" he said
"They gave me a mission
For the power and the glory --
Propaganda -- piss on 'em
There's a war zone inside me --
I can feel things exploding --
I can't even hear the f**king music playing
For the beat of -- the beat of black wings."
[. . .]
"They want you -- they need you --
They train you to kill --
To be a pin on some map --
Some vicarious thrill --
The old hate the young
That's the whole heartless thing
The old pick the wars
We die in 'em
To the beat of -- the beat of black wings" -- "The Beat of Black Wings," words and music by Joni Mitchell, first appears on her Chalk Mark In A Rainstorm.

As is too often the case, turnout for the hearing yesterday was sparse; however, I'm referring to senators. The visitor section was actually fairly well packed. We'll note the following exchanges from the second panel.

Chair Robert Menendez: Mr. Berg, you said about the VA needs to take leadership at a local level. Can you expound on -- what exactly do you mean by that, 'they need to take leadership at the local level'?

Steve Berg: I think that there's two things -- two things I mean by that. One is within a community, in every community in this country, there's people working on the issue of homelessness. There's HUD funded programs, there's HHS programs, there's VA programs. A lot of the times those programs don't necessarily work together around veterans, around the simple things if you're really going to be serious about reducing and ending veterans homelessness in the community, you have to find the veterans who are homeless, find the veterans who are about to be homeless, make sure that somebody is doing that and then find the housing resources that are going to be available and the other kinds of resources that are going to be available, going to be needed for those veterans. So it's a matter of reaching out to different people in the community, to leaders in the community, to federally funded programs, to private programs, bringing them together around this task of in this community we're going to identify veterans who are homeless and we're going to get them into housing until and chip away at the number until we reduce the number to zero.

[. . .]

Chair Robert Menendez: Mr. Fanous, you talked about fragmentation, so if you had a magic wand and could make what you think is the best coordinated effort to take place, what would it be?

Jack Fanous: Well, honestly, Senator, I believe that the most important thing would be to have all the stakeholders who are providing care for veterans, they should be localized and put into one location. When a veteran has to travel from the VA in one part of the state and has to go to the Social Security administration in another part of the state and then he has to go to Social Security -- to Salvation Army or the GI Go Fund and he has to drive all over the state, many times they don't have enough money to put gas in their car. It just gets that simple that the facilities all have to be together in one centralized location which is something that we are hoping to work on the city of Newark which is to create a mall of services, just a one-stop, a legitimate one-stop mall of services where one office would be Social Security administration and one office would be the VA and one office would be various non-profits that can support veterans. If a veteran can just walk into one spot which is kind of what the VA's War Related Illness Injury Center has at the VA where they try to handle all medical issues at one point. If you can try to handle all issues completely -- veterans issues -- from the Department of Labor, every single one of those departments, is the best chance you're going to have to help the veterans. Otherwise, it's going to stay fragmented because if a veteran goes to the VA and he talks to one person, he might not know that he has to go to the Social Security administration, he might not be getting the right information. Which is what happens every day, I see it every single day in my office.

And do you ever see a female veteran? It's really appalling for an organization to send a speaker who repeatedly refers to veterans as "he." Even more so when you grasp that Fanous is the executive director. In the real world, Susan Kaplan (WOMENSENEWS) reports, "Despite growing numbers of homeless female veterans, Jackie K's House is one of only two transitional housing programs for female veterans in the country, says Jack Downing, director of Soldier On, the nonprofit group that founded Jackie K's House in 2005. Meanwhile, the number of women enlisted in the U.S. military and reserves today continue to grow." And it is really appalling how little Congress does to show that they care about the issue. They can show they care about it by inviting people who can speak to the issue. They rarely bother and it is insulting (and a female veteran stopped me after the hearing yesterday to ask that I include that it was insulting in the snapshot -- sorry to her that it's a day after the hearing) when not only are the voices of those working on female veterans issues shut out of the conversation, but the men who are invited repeatedly use language that portray "veterans" as a term only for men. Vietnam Veterans of America's Marsha Four is one of the few women who has been invited by Congress this year to testify on a panel about veterans issues -- that's veterans issues in general. There are people, such as US House Rep John Hall, who have chaired female veterans hearings and they deserve praise for that; however, why is that every time the hearing is on veterans in general, women veterans are either treated as an after thought or just ignored?

Appearing before the House Veterans Committee on June 3rd, Four explained, "There certainly is a question of course on the actual number of homeless veterans -- it's been fluctuating dramatically in the last few years. When it was reported at 250,000 level, two percent were considered females. This was roughly about 5,000. Today, even if we use the very low number VA is supplying us with -- 131,000 -- the number, the percentage, of women in that population has risen up to four to five percent, and in some areas, it's larger. So that even a conservative method of determining this has left the number as high as [6,550]. And the VA actually is reporting that they are seeing that this is as high as eleven percent for the new homeless women veterans. This is a very vulnerable population, high incidents of past sexual trauma, rape and domestic violence. They have been used, abused and raped. They trust no one. Some of these women have sold themselves for money, been sold for sex as children, they have given away their own children. And they are encased in this total humiliation and guilt the rest of their lives." The number of homeless veterans is expected to rise as more and more deployed begin returning home. That's for men and women. And equally true is that the number of women veterans who are homeless is expected to rise. When women veterans go homeless, more often that also means that children go homeless. That is less often the case for male veterans (less often -- it still does happen but less so).

For the record, it's not just a matter of putting a woman in a chair. It needs to be a woman qualified to speak on the issues and with few exceptions, Congress repeatedly invites women who know nothing about other female veterans and have nothing to offer. For example, if you're a parent, if you're a single parent and the primary parent for your children, if you're qualified to speak on women's issues you wouldn't waste time saying that it's just like when you're a man. Especially if you were a woman with children who was homeless. You're helping no one with your constant refrain of "What he said" or idiotic statements about leaving the military and "now I'm a female again." Really? The army issued you something in the place of a vagina? They removed it? I can be rude. I can be really rude. I'm biting my tongue.

But let's high road it and say that, yes, sometimes a member of Congress does ask the right questions (for instance, Senator Menendez did yesterday) but there is no one present who can answer the questions and that still falls back on the Congress. That's the reality. And let's put the blame where it also goes: with ourselves. If you're a woman and you're actually invited to testify before Congress, grasp that you are taking part in a very rare moment. Women are rarely invited to testify before Congress, even at this late date. So if you're invited, try having some self-respect. Even if you have to fake it.

Tonight on PBS' The NewsHour, Betty Ann Bowser reports on Iraq War veteran Jeremiah Workman and PTSD (and online currently, there's a NewsHour webextra of Staff Sgt Workman talking about his PTSD). (Yesterday there was a report on Iraqi refugees -- link has text, video and audio options -- which we'll try to highlight later in the week.)

Don't take no tidal wave
Don't take no mass grave
Don't take no smokin' gun
To show how the west was won
But when the curtain falls, I pray for peace
Try to remember peace
In the crowded streets
In the big hotels
In the mosques and the doors of the old museum
I take a holly vow
To never kill again
Try to remember peace
-- "Living With War" written by Neil Young, from his album of the same name

Veterans Day was covered on NPR's The Diane Rehm Show today. The first hour featured VA Assistant Secretary Tammy Duckworth, Washington Post's David Finkel (The Good Soldiers) and Peter van Agtmael (Second Tour Hope I Don't Die). For the second hour, Page is joined by Stars and Stripes Leo Shane, Jericho Project's Tori Lyon, Survivor Corps' Scott Quilty, Yellow Ribbon America's Brad White and Sun Valley Adaptive Sports' Tom Iselin. The Diane Rehm Show archives its broadcasts and you can stream at no charge. Susan Page was today's guest host (Diane's on an NPR cruise with listener supporters).

Susan Page: And you know, I know there are a lot challenges in meeting the needs of veterans. I wonder if the veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, are there challenges for the VA different in some way for these wars than for previous ones?

Tammy Duckworth: Well, yes, there are some key differences. Number one, they are being redeployed multiple times whereas in previous wars they were generally only deployed for their one year as was the case in Vietnam for example. Now there were many Vietnam vets who volunteered for additional deployments but it's actually a matter of course for Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans to have two, three and even four deployments under their belts. We also have for the first time a large percentage of female veterans who are facing combat and we're finding some really interesting results out of that. For example, 50% -- I'm sorry, 45% of all of our female veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan have actually come to the VA to get medical care.

Susan Page: Interesting. And I know that it was almost precisely five years ago today that the helicopter you were in, serving in Iraq, was shot down. You lost your legs in that accident. I wonder thinking about that very personal experience, when it came to the programs that were available, what mattered to you the most? What made the biggest difference for you?

Tammy Duckworth: Well the biggest difference for me was being cared for at a facility where there were other veterans and then also just the amount of amazing rehabiliative care that I received at Walter Reed [Army Medical Center] and at VA. And the transition from Walter Reed, which is DoD [Defense Dept] to VA had to be as smoothly as possible because I was still in recovery and it's so critical for our warriors when they're in that -- their early stages of recovery -- of reintegration and recovery -- to get full support.

Susan Page: And what didn't work so well, did you think, in your own experience?

Tammy Duckworth: Well what didn't work so well -- this is one of the first things I brought up to [VA] Secretary [Eric] Shinseki when he interviewed me -- was the fact that we did not have a seamless transition of our military records from DoD to VA. When I left Walter Reed with my full medical records and I went to my VA hospital for the first time, I had to strip down to prove that I was an amputee. Even though he could see that I was an amputee and he had the medical records from the surgeon who amputated my legs. And we're immediately fixing that. Back in May of this year, [Defense] Secretary [Robert] Gates and Secretary Shinseki agreed to a program where we're going to develop virtual, lifetime, electronic records. So that from the day you raise your hand to enlist in the army to the day that you're laid to rest in one of our national shrines, your records follow you. And this will be a momnumental change in how VA and DoD hand off and care for our veterans.

Susan Page: One of the things that I think has alarmed many Americans is the-the suicide rate among returning veterans which seems very high and I wonder why do you think that is so?

Tammy Duckworth: I'm sorry. Could you say that again? You cut off for just a minute. I'm calling from a cell phone.

Susan Page: Why do you -- you know we've been, we've read a lot about the rate of suicides among returning veterans and it seems such a -- such a tragedy. Why do you think there is this high suicide rate?

Tammy Duckworth: Well there's a couple of things going on and this goes back to what I said earlier about our veterans going on multiple deployments -- two, three, four rotations -- whereas in previous wars they did not go for as long. You also have veterans coming home and surviving far more greivous injuries such as myself who would never have survived [in earlier wars]. And also I think that we're just more vigilant now. In previous wars, a lot of veterans suffered for a very long time without a diagnosis and without people realizing they were suffering and I think we're just doing a better job of diagnosing people. In fact, in 2008, VA diagnosed over 442,000 patients with PTSD. This is something that certainly wasn't done after Vietnam when we called it "combat fatigue" and after WWII and Korea when we called it "shell shock." So I think we're more vigilant, we're finding more of them but also that they're facing multiple, repeated exposure to combat condition.

Susan Page: And do you think that the VA does a good job now screening for PTSD or do you still think there's a ways to go?

Tammy Duckworth: I think that we still have improvements to make It's not just VA, it has to be a VA - DoD partnership. I think we're better than we were five years ago when I first went over to Iraq.

A friend with the program (Diane's show) tells me Corey Flintoff had a report on the 'judicial' decision in Iraq yesterday. It's a real shame NPR doesn't have it up so that people can actually hear it. From yesterday's snapshot: "Today in a huge blow to freedom of the press and a boost to thug Nouri al-Maliki, a Baghdad court declared the thug a winner. Martin Chulov and Julian Borger (Guardian) report: 'An Iraqi court has ordered the Guardian to pay Nouri al-Maliki damages of 100m dinar (�52,000) after supporting a complaint by the Iraqi prime minister's intelligence service that he had been defamed by a Guardian story in April describing him as increasingly autocratic. The ruling ignored testimony by three expert witnesses from the Iraqi journalists' union summoned by the court, who all said that the article was neither defamatory nor insulting and argued that no damages were warranted'." Chris Floyd (Empire Burlesque) explains, "What exactly did the Guardian do to merit this judgment -- which, perhaps not incidentally, directs them to put more than $100,000 in Nouri al-Maliki's pocket? Something which, admittedly, is quite shocking in our day: reporting." Floyd also notes, "After a number of expert witnesses demolished the case on legal grounds, a new five-member panel of government toadies weighed in to argue that 'Iraqi publishing law did not allow foreigners to publish articles critical of the prime minister or president, or to interfere in Iraqi national affairs'." This afternoon the Committee to Protect Journalists issued a statement:

The Committee to Protect Journalists denounces a Baghdad court's ruling that the London-based Guardian newspaper defamed Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, left, in an April 2009 article depicting increasing authoritarianism in his government. CPJ calls on an appeals court to overturn the decision.
On Tuesday, the court fined the Guardian 100 million Iraqi dinars (US$86,000) in connection with the article, which quoted unnamed members of the intelligence service as saying that al-Maliki was conducting affairs of state in a more autocratic fashion.
Guardian Editor Alan Rusbridger described the verdict as "a dismaying development," Agence France-Presse reported. "Prime Minister Maliki is trying to construct a new, free Iraq . Freedom means little without free speech -- and means even less if a head of state tries to use the law of libel to punish criticism or dissent," he said. The newspaper said that it will appeal the verdict.
"We are very disappointed to see the politicization of the Iraqi judiciary in this way," said CPJ Middle East and North Africa Program Coordinator Mohamed Abdel Dayem . "That the courts would devote their time to this type of irresponsible suit is outrageous considering that scores of journalist murders remain unpunished. It is vital that this decision be reversed in the appeals process."
Of the 140 journalists killed in Iraq since 2003, at least 89 were targeted for murder, CPJ research shows. Iraqi authorities have not brought a single perpetrator to justice in any of those killings.
"This heavy-handed decision sends a chilling message to all journalists who have risked their lives to report from Iraq , and it resonates particularly now in the run-up to the general election scheduled for January," said Abdel Dayem. "The article accused the prime minister's government of being increasingly autocratic. This court case proved the point."
As the security situation has improved, many journalists have told CPJ that government harassment, physical assaults, and frivolous legal proceedings have replaced insurgent attacks as the greatest professional risk they face. Al-Maliki has appeared to lead the legal assault against Iraqi journalists: At least two other defamation complaints have been filed by his representatives in connection with articles critical of the prime minister, CPJ research shows. Those complaints were dropped after they came under heavy criticism.
In June, CPJ and the Iraq-based press freedom group Journalistic Freedoms Observatory sent a letter to al-Maliki expressing concerns about increasing official harassment. In the first six months of the year, the two organizations documented more than 70 cases of harassment and assault against journalists in Iraq .

That's their statement -- in full because it's such an important issue and it is shocking and saddening how many are avoiding this issue. Thomas E. Ricks can whine every damn day about Iran and the press but this man who was supposedly going to be covering Iraq -- don't they say anything when they're selling their wares -- can't He has plenty of time to fondle Spencer Ackerman's balls (or maybe he's just checking for pubic lice) and, of course, to call out Iran, to play 'I love Barack but . . .' and 'I love Barack still' but he has no time to do what should be a journalist's job: Defend freedom of the press.

Oh but he called out Iran! Big whopping deal. As brave stands go, that's right up there with coming out against child labor. Everyone knows the only way to have taken on Nouri and that laughable 'court' verdict would have been for as many outlets as possible to have flooded the zone. Instead pretty much everyone played meek and dumb. Yeah, that'll advance freedom of speech. It's as though J-schools have morphed into sleep away camps -- which, come to think of it, would explain the majority of the product the press puts out these days. No wonder so many papers are closing.

Prior to Sunday when the Parliament finally passed an election law, a number of Iraqis were publicly stating their disinterest in the elections. Warren P. Strobel and Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) report that feeling remains for some and they quote school teacher Bayda Hussein explaining, "We still have a bad security situation and bad services. I am afraid that the situation would be even worse after the coming elections. Those who come to power care only about filling their pockets with money and (then) leave the country." Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) reports that Ad Melkert, the UN's special representative to Iraq, held a press conference today in which he noted that the 'plan' is to hold elections with "less than 10 weeks available to organize these elections." Arraf reports: "Mr Melkert said officials were considering holding the poll on Jan. 18 to ensure it took place before the start of 40 days of mourning observed by Shiite Muslims to commemorate the killing of Imam Hussein, the grandson of the Prophet Mohammad. Advance voting for Iraqi security forces, who will be out in full force on election day, is expected to be held on Jan. 15."

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

Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Kirkuk sticky bombing which claimed 1 life and left two more people injured. Reuters notes a Mosul roadside bombing which injured a police officer and, dropping back to yesterday, a Kirkuk sticky bombing which wounded two people.

Shootings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 Kurdish service member shot dead last night in Erbil. Reuters notes Iraqi police in Samarra killed 1 'suspect' and arrested seven.

Turning to the topic of Blackwater. Mark Mazzetti and James Risen (New York Times) interview four former Blackwater execs who state that, in December 2007, approximately one-million dollars was used to bribe officials in Iraq in order to get them to look the other way in the face of Blackwater's continued assaults. Yesterday's snapshot noted an article by Donna Goodison (Boston Herald) and she's written another one on the topic (of the two Massachusetts veterans who are suing KBR: Jeffrey Cox and James Garland). In her new report, she quotes Cox stating, "The pits are at least 10 acres in some places -- as big as the Boston Common, if not larger. You would get this deep smoke that would come downwind to the area that I was living at, and I would breathe this in on a nightly basis." Chris Cassidy (Salem News) reports on the law suit and quotes Cox stating, "I was downwind from the burning. You'd sit in there and breathe that in all day. . . . The smoke was so thick some days that it went right into where I was sleeping. It was like a heavy fog of smoke." Andrew Wolfson (Louisville Courier-Journal) reports that Iraq War veterans Sean Alexander Stough and Charles Hick are among those suing with Stough being exposed while at Camp Bucca (now has "asthma, sleep apnea, neurological and pulmonary problems") and Hicks at Balad (now suffers from "pulmonary problems, headaches and diabetes"). Jeanie Powell (WAFF) reports Jeanie Powell (WAFF) reportson L. Russell Kieth who testified last week about his exposure and how he feels that his development of Parkinson's Disease:He said he worked no more than half a mile from the open burning in Balad. Keith claimed smoke, sometimes black, green, or yellow, would cover the base on a regular basis."As soon as they started burning the green stuff, all of our clinic patients started going up," he said. "It increased 30 to 40 percent, just in my guess."WAFF 48 News asked him to explain the symptoms patients came in with."It was everything from respiratory to sinus to outright coughing blood and stuff," he said.

L. Russell Keith testified (most recently) on Friday when KBR's burn pits were the subject, see Friday's snapshot, of a Democratic Policy Committee hearing chaired by Senator Byron Dorgan. Video is posted at the Democratic Policy Committee website.

The heartbeat went out of our house
The rhythm went out of our romance
But in life that happens and you just
Have to remember to breathe
And it then will return, if you just remember to breathe
After all I've been through, I'll wait it on through
If I can just remember to breathe
It will be coming around once more, you will see
-- "Coming Around Again," written by Carly Simon, from her latest album Never Been Gone

Tonight Carly appears on NBC's Latenight with Jimmy Fallon. She's scheduled to perform and sometimes in this world, music is the only thing you can count on. Latenight with Jimmy Fallon begins airing after The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien (which follows the local nightly news).

iraq
joni mitchell
pbs the newshour
the diane rehms show susan page npr
the boston herald donna goodison kbr
the new york times mark mazzetti james risen the salem news chris cassidy andrew wolfson jeannie powell
neil young
abc news lisa chen
susan campbell
the christian science monitor jane arraf
carly simon

bet on now

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:11:48 GMT

bet on now

this is from now:

NOW Opposes Health Care Bill That Strips Millions of Women of Abortion Access
Says Bill Obliterates Women's Fundamental Right to Choose

Statement of NOW President Terry O'Neill

November 8, 2009

NOW's officers pose with activists at the protest held November 9, 2009 in Washington, D.C. over the Stupak Amendment. For more on how you can help or contribute to the cause, click here

The House of Representatives has dealt the worst blow to women's fundamental right to self-determination in order to buy a few votes for reform of the profit-driven health insurance industry. We must protect the rights we fought for in Roe v. Wade. We cannot and will not support a health care bill that strips millions of women of their existing access to abortion.

Birth control and abortion are integral aspects of women's health care needs. Health care reform should not be a vehicle to obliterate a woman's fundamental right to choose.

The Stupak Amendment goes far beyond the abusive Hyde Amendment, which has denied federal funding of abortion since 1976. The Stupak Amendment, if incorporated into the final version of health insurance reform legislation, will:

Prevent women receiving tax subsidies from using their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;
Prevent women participating in the public health insurance exchange, administered by private insurance companies, from using 100 percent of their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;
Prevent low-income women from accessing abortion entirely, in many cases.

NOW calls on the Senate to pass a health care bill that respects women's constitutionally protected right to abortion and calls on President Obama to refuse to sign any health care bill that restricts women's access to affordable, quality reproductive health care.

###

For Immediate Release
Contact: Mai Shiozaki, 202-628-8669, ext. 116; cell 202-641-1906

we're hearing a lot of 'oh, we aren't going to take it!' talk. from naral and others. the only 1 i have any hope for is now. the rest of them?

i don't trust them.

they always cave.

they're worthless.

but i do think if any 1 is going to really stand up to the vast discrimination and hatred in the house proposal, it will be now.

and it is hatred.

never doubt that if women weren't hated on some level in this country - deeply hated and feared - that this obsession with controlling women's bodies wouldn't be so intense in the u.s. congress.

i'm not telling any 1: 'send now money!' you do what you want.

but let's see what happens. i think now will stand strong.

i doubt many others will.

and part of the reason i think now will stand strong? the new president terry. she's not going to let women get sold out.

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

November 10, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Nouri continues his assault on a free press, KBR gets more lawsuits, Human Rights Watch releases a report on minorities in Iraq, and more.

Today in a huge blow to freedom of the press and a boost to thug Nouri al-Maliki, a Baghdad court declared the thug a winner. Martin Chulov and Julian Borger (Guardian) report: "An Iraqi court has ordered the Guardian to pay Nouri al-Maliki damages of 100m dinar (�52,000) after supporting a complaint by the Iraqi prime minister's intelligence service that he had been defamed by a Guardian story in April describing him as increasingly autocratic. The ruling ignored testimony by three expert witnesses from the Iraqi journalists' union summoned by the court, who all said that the article was neither defamatory nor insulting and argued that no damages were warranted." Charles Tripp (Guardian) observes Nouri got a cash award despite the fact that he wasn't an injured party and goes on to sketch the rise of Thug Nouri:

Throughout 2008 he used the Iraqi armed forces to reconquer the provinces of Iraq, projecting himself as the leader whose only thought was the unity of the country. This was the image he wanted to convey in the January 2009 provincial elections. So to make sure he got a good press, he promised that thousands of journalists would be awarded grants of land for a nominal price, or for free. He was reviving a form of land patronage long used by his predecessors to cement officers, officials and now journalists to their retinue.

Some welcomed it and others were appalled. But for those who persisted in investigating awkward questions, the government had no hesitation in using the courts. More journalists found themselves fighting charges of libel or of endangering national security -- a charge levelled at foreign news media, particularly from the Arab world.

There is a pattern here, in which the wires of the "shadow state" are again being assembled, leading to the hands of one man: intelligence services run from the prime minister's office, staffed mainly by "awlad al-Hindiyya" ["the lads from Hindiyya", Maliki's home region]; dismissals, promotions and transfers in the ministries of interior and defence that insert his loyalists at the expense of others; the introduction of censorship of imported books and control of the internet; the recent closure of Mustansiriya University and its reopening under the watchful eye of the Baghdad operations command, controlled by his office.

Nouri has a long history of attacking the press. In the summer of 2006, he had a 'plan' for security -- a four-plank 'plan' -- but the press reduced it to three in much of their coverage, bypassing the third plank which dealt with journalims (aaah, Thuggy's first effort at attacking freedom of the press). It has been non-stop attacks ever since with Nouri most recently -- in an attempt to stop live transmissions -- has demanded outlets get a government license. (This is done to keep them from reporting on bombings. Within a few hours, Iraqi forces usually prevent the press from having access -- often prevent via violence -- and the licenses are an attempt to prevent any broadcasting before the forces can secure the area.) Martin Chulov (Guardian) notes the Journalists Freedom Organisation sees this as "part of a wider crackdown against media outlets designed to discourage scrutiny of public officials" (they are correct) and quotes JFO's Jabar Dharad stating, "Legal cases have flooded from all sides into publishers and media outlets throughout Iraq. This is a very effective tactic to silence dissent. A key reason for the diminishing status of private media here is that parliament hasn't passed a law to protect journalists in Iraq. They are deliberately delaying doing so." The truth telling article that so enraged Nouri is Ghaith Abdul-Ahad's "Six years after Saddam Hussein, Nouri al-Maliki tightens his grip on Iraq" (April 30, 2009).

Meanwhile Timothy Williams (New York Times) reports Nouri's flunky Ali al-Alak states they want to force the MEK, Iranian dissidents at Camp Ashraf, out of the country, "A standoff has been in place since the deaths in July, through both Iraqis and members of Camp Ashraf worry about a new round of violence if a solution is not found soon. Among other complaints, members of the camp say that the Iraqi Army intermittently blocks fuled and food from reaching them and prevents them from cmoing and going. Iraq has prohibted news organizations and most humanitarian groups from entering Camp Ashraf since the July raid, but the government allowed a reporter and photographer inside the camp last week to interview its members and their relatives." And yet another political rival of Thug Nouri has been arrested. Caesar Ahmed and Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) report Sahwa leader Mustafa Kamal Shibeeb was arrested "in connection with the deaths of five known members of the group Al Qaeda in Iraq who were killed in 2007 in Baghdad's Dora neighborhood, where Shibeeb commanded paramilitary fighters better known as the Awakening."

All of the deaths in Iraq and for what? To install a new Saddam named Nouri?

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

Bombings?

Deng Shasha (Xinhua) reports a Baquba motorcycle bombing left two people injured.

Shootings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 person was shot dead in Mosul. Deng Shasha (Xinhua) reports 2 police officers were shot dead in Aziz Balad and 1 'suspect' shot dead by Iraqi forces in al-Mu'atasim.

Staying with wounded and deaths, many US service members and contractors are physically ill due to exposure to various chemicals in Iraq. (And many Iraqis will be ill and will have birth defects due to those same hazardous wastes.) E. Thomas Wood (Nashville Post) reports on the lawsuit against KBR (and its various offshoots) brought by attorneys (Burke O'Neil LLC) for soldiers Anthony Ray Johnson and David Michael Rohmfeld. From Wood's article:

The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, describes "burn pits" at U.S. bases in both military theaters that contain "every type of waste imaginable." Reading like a postmodern version of Jonathan Swift's Description of a City Shower, the catalog of rubbish in the pits includes:

"Tires, lithium batteries, Styrofoam, paper, wood, rubber, petroleum-oil-lubricating products, metals, hydraulic fluids, munitions boxes, medical waste, biohazard materials (including human corpses), medical supplies (including those used during smallpox inoculations), paints, solvents, asbestos insulation, items containing pesticides, polyvinyl chloride pipes, animal carcasses, dangerous chemicals, and hundreds of thousands of plastic water bottles."

"Flames shoot hundreds of feet into the sky" as the huge pits are set ablaze, the Nashville lawsuit claims.

Donna Goodison (Boston Herald) reports Iraq War veterans and Massachusetts Army National Guard members Jeffrey Cox and James Garland have also filed suit against KBR over the burn pits and that Cox has developed "a chronic cough and respiratory issues" while Garland "developed respiratory issues and was diagnosed with a rare form of carcinoma". Disclosure, I do know Susan Burke (and think she's a wonderful person and a brilliant attorney). I haven't spoken to her about this issue. In a press release, Burke O'Neill LLC notes there are 16 lawsuits against KBR "filed during the past week in federal courts throughout the nation by Burke O'Neil LLC and co-counsel on behalf of military veterans and private contractors. The suits allege that round-the-clock hazardous emissions from the burn pits caused illnesses such as multiple cancers, respiratory disease, pulmonary complications, chronic coughing, debilitating headaches, and neurological and skin disorders. KBR is accused of allowing thick, noxious smoke, coming off of flames sometimes colored blue or green by burning chemicals, to hang over U.S. bases and camps across Iraq and Afghanistan since 2004. According to the complaints, the burn pits are so large that tractors are used to push waste onto them and the flames shoot hundreds of feet into the sky. KBR allegedly burned waste such as biohazard materials including human corpses, medical supplies, paints, solvents, asbestos, items containing pesticides, animal carcasses, tires, lithium batteries, Styrofoam, wood, rubber, medical waste, large amounts of plastics, and even entire trucks."

KBR's burn pits were the subject of a hearing, see Friday's snapshot, by the Democratic Policy Committee. Senator Byorn Dorgan chaired the hearing. Video is posted at the Democratic Policy Committee website. And Kat's "Democratic Policy Committee" went up Friday. Sunday, at Third, we noted some of the testimony the committee heard but that Staff Sgt. Steven Gregory Ochs and Staff Sgt. Matt Bumpus did not testify at Friday's hearing. They couldn't because both men are dead. October 8th, Ochs' sister Stacy Pennington testified to the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee on behalf of her brother and her family and on behalf of Bumpus and his family.

Stacy Pennington: Both of these brave soldiers you see before you dodged bullets, mortar attacks, roadside bombs and suicide bombers. Eventually their tours of duty would take their lives. The ultimate sacrifice for a soldier, for his country, is death. However, their deaths did not show up in the manner you may assume. In Balad is the site of the infamous enormous burn pit that has been called by Lt Col Darrin L. Curtis, USAF and Bio-environmental Engineering Flight Commander, as "the worst environmental site" he had ever visited. Staff Sgt Ochs and Staf Sgt Bumpus were both stationed in Balad and war, as strategic as it is, followed them home. Death lay dormant in their blood and waited for them to return safely home and into the arms of their loved ones. Like every silent ticking bomb, it eventually exploded. On September 28, 2007, just months after Steve's return home from his third tour, he was diagnosed with Acute Myeloid Leukemia, also known as AML. He spent the next ten months as a patient -- more like a resident -- at Duke University Hospital. Doctors at Duke said his aggressive form of AML was definitely chemically induced and, like Steve, both agreed it was due to the exposures he experienced while in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, the doctors refused to go on record citing as the reason that they could not prove it. The aggressive AML that Steve endured was similar to bullets ricocheting in the body causing torturous pain. The graphic images embedded in my mind are of Steve's last screams for air as he was rushed into ICU. Steve waved goodbye to my husband. Steve, with very little strength, said, "I love you, sis" and my mom kissed his forehead and said, "We will see you when you get comfortable." Five minutes later, while in the ICU waiting room, the nurse came in to tell us Steve went into cardiac arrest and they were working on him now. My mom ran into ICU -- fell to her knees as she realized her son was dying. Screams filled the air as we begged God to keep Steve here with us. We know Steve heard us as tears were in Steve's eyes. Doctors and nurses pumped on Steve's chest trying to revive him. But I knew immediately he was gone. His spirit that surrounded my dear, sweet brother was gone. We were left alone with Steve's body for hours as we were all in pure shock. My mom looked upon my brother's face and wiped away the tears puddled in his eyes. And at that very moment, our lives were changed forever. Steve died on July 12, 2008. Two weeks later, on the opposite of the coast, Staff Sgt Bumpus would succumb to the same fate. For Staff Sgt Matt Bumpus, the ticking time bomb exploded with a vengeance on July 31, 2006. Matt was rushed to the hospital by ambulance with acute appendicitis. In Matt's own words, I quote, "The next thing I remember is hearing that I had been diagnosed with AML." Doctors declared that there was chromosome damage due to exposures he must have come in contact with while in Iraq. Matt ended his prestigious service to the Army one short year before the war zone chemical warfare showed signs of its presence. As if this was not enough suffering, Staff Sgt Bumpus' family was met by the VA with harsh claims of denial to benefits. This battle continues to this day as Lisa, Staff Sgt Bumpus' wife, is left alone with two small children to raise with no VA or military benefits for her family. The aggressive assault of the AML in Matt's body was taking claim. Jo, Matt's mother, recalls the haunted look in Matt's eyes as he revealed to her that the AML invasion was back. Matt's mother will never forget the discouragement and sadness that overwhelmed Matt as the realization that promises he made to his wife and children to provide for his family, to love and protect them, and that his sacred word would be broken. He knew now that the battle was over and he would be leaving his family behind. Tuesday, July 29, 2008, Matt once again entered the hospital with fever and septic infection that discharged throughout his body. Doctors notified the family that it would just be days before his demise. Matt was heavily sedated as the pain and incubation was unbearable. Nate, Matt's ten-year-old son, bravely entered his father's hospital room to lay on his daddy's chest as he said his final goodbye. Nate curled up by his dad and cried and cried. Despite Matt's heavy sedation, Matt too was crying. Matt, being a devoted Christian, appropriately passed away on a Sunday morning, surrounded by his wife, mother, father and sister as they expressed to Matt their everlasting love. They, too, were in shock and stayed with Matt's body as the realization overwhelmed them that Matt would not be going home. Matt died on August 3, 2008.

Today Human Rights Watch released a new report entitled [PDF format warning] "On Vulnerable Ground: Violence against Minority Communities in Nineveh Province's Disputed Territories" which explores issues for minorities caught in the territories disputed by the KRG and the Baghdad based 'government'. To write the report, HRW took part in "a three-week fact-finding mission" visitng Arbil, Bashiqa, Bartalah, Qaraqosh, al-Qosh, Sulaymaniyah and Tal Usquf and speaking with 57 members "of the Chaldo-Assyrian, Yazidi, and Shabak communities." The report gets lost -- for a large section -- on year-old rumors that detract from valid complaints of abuse. The report would have benefitted from a little more pre-publication scrutiny. One example of where more care should have been taken? An August bombing which they have the wrong date for in their report. The report is strongest when detailing actual claims of abuse. It's at its weakest when offering that people have received many threats but never bothering to tell readers what those threats are.

The report notes the historical issues including the Arabization of the region by "previous Iraqi governments" which forced Kurds and other ethnic groupings out of the region. "After more than three decades," HRW states, "of forced expulsions, and in the aftermath of the overthrow of the government of Saddam Hussein, an emboldened KRG leadership insists it is entitled to claim this land as part of the territory that Kurds have historically lived in, which stretches from the western villages of Sinjar near the Syrian borader all the way to Khanaqin near the Iranian border in the east." Noting the ethnic diversity that has historically been part of the region -- including populations of Assyrian and Chaldean Christians, Shabaks, Turkmens and Yazidis, HRW's watch argues for a way for Kurds to find "redress for the crimes committed against them" which does not confuse the "rederss for past wrongs" with "the current struggle for political control over the dispuated territories". It goes on to argue, "The six-year US-led occupation of Iraq failed to resolve the tensions over the disputed territories in northern Iraq, or to provide redress for the victims of the arabization policies. The US-led coalition paid scant attention to the tensions there, and a drawn-out UN mediation effort has done little to bridge the gap between Arabs and Kurds." The report then refers to "a constitutionally-mandated referendum on the future of the disputed territories". Historically the report also notes, "Iraq made a declaration, on gaining independence and joining the League of Nations in 1932, that it would protect the rights of minorities -- the first non-European state to so declare." It also notes that the 2005 Constitution also includes "various provisions guaranteeing the rights of minority groups."

The report zooms in on Nineveh Province where "[m]any of these minorities -- weary after generations of subjugation at the hands of Arabs -- now fear being subjugated by the Kurds, who ironically share a common history of oppression by previous Iraqi government." From the report:

To consolidate their grip on Nineveh and to facilitate its incorporation into the Kurdistan Region, Kurdish authorities have embarked on a two-pronged strategy: they have offered minorities inducements while simulaneously wielding repression in order to keep them in tow. The goal of these tactics is to push Shabak and Yazidi communities to identify as ethnice Kurds, and for Christians to abide by the Kurdish government's plan of securing a Kurdish victory in any referendum concering the future of the disputed territories. Kurdish authorities have tried to win favor with the minority communities by spending millions of Iraqi dinars to build a pro-Kurdish system of patronage in minority communities, financing alternative civil society organizations to compete with, undermine, and challenge the authoritiy of established groups, many of which oppose Kurdish rule. The KRG also funds private militias created ostensibly to protect minority communities from outside violence, but which in reality serve to entrench Kurdish influence. Finally, the Kurdish leadership has enriched the coffers of some minority religious leaders, and paid for expensive new places of worship in order to win over minority religious establishments.

The report goes on to note minority self-reports of being threatened and KRG denials of making threats. What are the threats? That would make for a stronger report. This gets skipped and the report instead immeidately moves into assertions by "some minority representatives and Arab officials" of Kurds being involved in violence such as the assaulst on the Christian community in the second half of 2008 and bombings. That's a problem, for the report that's a problem.

The Kurds may have been involved -- may have led -- the assault on the Christians. If so, there is no proof of it. Over a year later, there is no proof of it. Why bring that into the report to begin with? It's now dismissed (fairly or unfairly) as paranoia. By bringing it in after referring to self-reported threats, HRW weakens the self-reported threats. And by not even offering an example of one of these threats (threats of your home being burned to the ground, threats of being killed, threats of what), it weakens the self-report. Again, the KRG may have directed and led the assaults on the Christian community in the second-half of 2008. There were some Chrisitans who publicly stated in October and November 2008 that they believed the Kurds were behind the assault and doing it to create a need for a strong-figure to protect Christians -- meaning that the Kurds created the violence so that they could be the hero who saved the day. That was a charge and it was widely made. If that charge was correct, it was never proven. And a year later it's seen (rightly or wrongly) as a baseless charge and one resulting from the paranoia of a persecuted people.

Even though it was never proven, it could be used in the report as an example of underlying tensions. For example, "Beliefs that the Kurds may have been behind the 2008 assault has led to many tensions . . ." But to put it with what are presumably real threats?

Further into the report (page 25) its noted that the finanical offers from the KRG are viewed with suspicion and an unnamed priest is quoted stating, "Before 2005, no one cared about our communities or churches and then overnight we started to receive funding. The Kurds have a hidden agenda and are using money to co-opt Christians -- it's not because they want to help our people . . . I beleive that anyone who disagrees with their agenda puts their life at risk." Other unnamed persons complain that financial assistance comes only when someone signs what is basically a loyalty oath. The KRG's Minister for Extra-Regional Affairs, Muhammad Ihsan, tells HRW, "We are not angels, we are politicians, and this is politics. Join with me and I will give you this and that." Some may see that statement as practical, some may see it as mercenary.

Some may see the fact that, as late as page 34, the rumor of Kurds carrying out the 2008 assualt are still being yammered on:

As evidence of Kurdish involvement, proponents of this theory point to the fact that the attacks happened in the part of Mosul relatively free from insurgent activity and controlled by the Iraqi army, which was dominated by a high percentage of Kurdish officers in that area. Some of the killigns happened in areas secured by Iraqi army checkpoints and, in some cases, in close proximity to them, leading some to believe that Kurdish officers or their proxies had a hand in the attacks. Kurdish authorities have rejected these assertions and accused Sunni Arab groups of having carried out the attacks to sow intercommunal tensions. In a rare disavowal, the Islamic State of Iraq, an umbrella organization comprising a number of insurgent groups including al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, has denied responsibility for the killings. More recently, Kurdish MP Mahmoud Othman blamed militias loyal to Prime Minister al-Maliki for being behind the violence. None of these allegations has been backed up by clear and convincing evidence.

What is clear, however, is that the attacks were systematic and widespread. Human Rights Watch interviewed family members of seven Christian victims murdered between late August and early October 2008. While other Christians have since returned to Mosul, these families remained in Christian villages in the Nineveh Plains, too fearful to return to their homes in the city. Some witnessed the murders themselves; others spoke to witnesses who saw the perpetrators killed their loved ones. Their accounts suggest an orchestrated and targeted campaign of violence intended to have maximum impact in devastating the community.

Based on these interviews, Human Rights Watch found no evidence suggesting that Kurds were directly invovled in that campaing of violence against Christains. According to the witnesses, the gunmen spoke fluent Iraqi Arabic, which appeared to be their mother tongue (in contrast to Kurds, whose native languages is Kurdish, but speak Arabic as a second language). The assailants had an Arab appearance and dress, and made it clear that they were attacking Christians on religious grounds. For example, one of the victims, mechanic Afnan Daoud Saeb al-Hadad, answered his door at 10:30 a.m. on September 28 in Mosul. A masked man demenaded that al-Hadad show him his identification. When al-Hadad asked who the person was, the masked man responded in Arabic, with a Mosul accent, "Don't be afraid, Ummu [uncle], I am with the secret police." After checking his identification, the masked man asked al-Hadad whether he was a Christian, to which al-Hadad said yes. The perpreator then fired several shots from an Iraqi-made 9mm Tariq pistol into al-Hadad's lower body, killing him. His family remained in Mosul for a week, until the funeral, and then fled to Qaraqosh.

Did you catch that? No evidence. A lot of pages for something with no evidence. Lot of referring to rumors for something with no evidence. Shabacks pop up on page 37. The group is estimated to be 200,000 to 500,000 people who predominately reside in Nineveh. Though they're Shia, they aren't seen as 'pure' Shia by some such as al Qadea in Mesopotamia which posted flyers in 2007 stating 'good' Shia were obliged to kill Shabacks. The report notes:

In one of the worst attacks in the Nineveh Plains since 2003, on August 11, 2009, two large trucks packed with bombs exploded simultaneously at around 5 a.m. in the Shaback village of al-Khazna, which is under the control of Kurdish peshmerga forces. The force of the blast destroyed the town, leaving 65 houses in heaps of rubble mixed with bed frames, mattresses, furniture, and bloodstained pillows. Most villagers were asleep at the time, many of them on their rooftops to escape the summer heat. The final casualty toll was at least 35 killed and almost 200 wounded.

The report notes that the attacks were then used for political football by both the Baghdad based government or 'government' and the KRG. And, for the record, that bombing took place August 10th. Yazidis Khalil Rashu Alias and Wageed Mendo Hamoo report they were tortured by Kurds during a six month imprisonment:

According to Hamoo, on May 1, 2007 at 4:30 a.m., Kurdish intelligence officers broke down the door to his home in Sinjar and stormed in. They told him that the intelligence unit's central command had ordered his detention without further explanation. The officers arrested Hamoo, an active member of the Yazidi Movement for Progress and Reform (YMRP) who had been arrested twice before for political activies, and placed his wife and children in the corner of a room while they searched his house. The officers then proceeded to the house of Alias, head of the YMPR's centeral committee, and arrested him as well.

At a military camp in Sinjar, the intelligence officers interrogated the two separately. During these interrogation sessions their captors gave Alias and Hamoo two options: accept that they were Kurds and denounce the YMPR, or confess that they were "terrorists." The pair described how their guards bound them hand and foot and hooded them, and took turns interrogating and beating them separately with fists, shoes, shovels, and cables for a period of about five hours. As a result of the ordeal, for more than a month Alias was unable to stand unassisted. He said his arms turned black from the bruising he sustained. Alias also said his captors initally refused to allow any treatment for his diabetic condition.

Four days after detaining the, Kurdish officials transferred the pair to a military camp, Kesik, between Mosul and SInjar. After 17 days, Kurdish officials separately interrogated the two again with their hands tied and eyes blindfolded. His Kurdish interrogator asked Hamoo, "What is your language?" When Hamoo replied, "Yazidi," the interrogation officer responded, "No, Yazidis have no language! Yazidis speak Kurdish." Hamoo said he replied, "Even if you kill me a hundred times I won't say that I'm Kurdish." The Kurdish officer told the guards to take him out to "teach him some manners." Outside the guards placed what felt like a piece of metal, maybe a knife, at the back of his neck. They ordered him to say a phrase prohibited by the Yazidi religion. If he failed to comply, he was told, "We're going to behead you just like the terrorist do with your people." When he refused, numerous guards severely beat him, he said. They took him back to his cell and told him, "If you want to live you have to confess to either being Kurdish or a terrorist." When he refused both, the beatings resumed; Hamoo said he lost count of how many officers beat and kicked him, breaking one of his ribs. At 4 a.m. the beating stopped and he was thrown back into his cell.

Alias told Human Rights Watch that in another cell four Kurdish officers beat and interrogated him, accusing him of being a "terrorist" responsible for attacks against police as well as Iraqi and US forces. The interrogating officer told him that if he quit the Yazidi reform movement and denounced its principles and agenda, he would be released. After he refused, he said, they laid him on the floor and beathim relentlessly on the soles of his feet and his stomach, shoulders, and chest.

On May 18, Kurdish authorities transferred the two back to the military camp in Sinjar, from where they were moved again the next day to the Lefoog al-Bogag prison. After an Iraqi judge reviewed the case, he ordered them released, but the two remained in various prisons until October 28, 2007. There has been no investigation of their alleged torture.

Which is pages 45 and 46. So the question is, when two people self-disclose torture, why toss that at the back of the report? This should have been moved to the front.

In July, US citizens Shane Bauer, Joshua Fattal and Sarah Shourd were visiting northern Iraq. They allegedly crossed over into Iran while allegedly hiking. The Chicago Tribune notes this morning that the three are now charged with espionage by the government of Iran. Iran's Press TV notes that Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State, has stated the three should be released and dismissed the charges stating, "We believe strongly that there is no evidence to support any charge whatsoever. And we would renew our request on behalf of these three young people and their families that the Iranian government exercise compassion and release them so they can return home. And we will continue to make that case through our Swiss protecting power, who represents the United States in Tehran." The family of the three Americans have set up a website Free The Hikers which is down currently. Chris Carrassi (The Daily Californian) reports, "At a press conference held Monday during an overseas trip to Turkey, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the hikers face a potentially harsh sentence, and will have to prove their innocence in court."

Yesterday we noted Nathanel Bodon being discharged from the army for the 'crime' of being gay. Pelin Sidki (CNN -- link has text and video) reports on another veteran who was discharged for the 'crime' of sexuality:

Darren Manzella: I'm Darren Manzella. I was in the United States Army from 2002 until 2008. My division deployed to Iraq and I served a year in the streets of Baghdad doing combat patrols. After returning from my first deployment in Iraq, after seeing death and violence, losing friends and comrades, really made me look over my life. I looked over some issues I had always had trouble with. You know, I had always debated, 'Am I gay?' Growing up, I never had that conflict because I didn't know anybody that was gay. I had my two brothers and I did everything they did. We worked on the farm together, we played football. But after returning from Iraq, I decided to come out to myself. Having a boyfriend -- it makes it very hard when you're at work, you can't talk about your significant other if it's the same sex. But I started, soon after I began this relationship, getting these e-mails and these phone calls from different people who were saying I was being investigated for being gay. So I told my supervisor about the phone calls, about the e-mails and what had happened was he went to the legal department and turned me in for breaking Don't Ask, Don't Tell. So after a month of the investigation, my commander called me in and said the investigation was closed and, despite my admission, they were told that they found no proof of homosexuality. In 2006, we deployed back to Iraq again and I was able to serve that entire deployment -- nearly 15 months -- openly. But it's something that nearly 65,000 men and women serving in the military that are gay, lesbian or bi-sexual, they couldn't do.

timothy williams
the new york times

mcclatchy newspapers
laith hammoudi

xinhua

the nashville post
e. thomas wood

human rights watch

the chicago tribune
press tv
chris carrassi
the daily californian

cnn
pelin sidki

barack's big mess

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:00:08 GMT

barack's big mess

that's Isaiah's latest The World Today Just Nuts "That Barack" and it's wonderful.

okay, america got screwed by the house on saturday. women even more so because our health matters even less to the house of represenatives. so i'm not in a good mood and maybe i'm misunderstanding the story i'm about to highlight.

but we know it's going to be mandated - every 1 must purchase insurance. on top of that, they're going to pump up the rates?

this is from anna wilde mathews (wall st. journal):

In the House bill, the ratio can only be as much as 2 to 1, meaning older people could pay no more than twice what the youngest customers are charged. Senate Democrats, who haven't yet unveiled the bill that will go to the floor there, will have to decide whether to echo the House's ratio or use a different one. Lobbyists say one possibility might be 3 to 1, the average of two earlier Senate bills. Currently, the range isn't capped in most states and older people may pay five or six times as much.
It's tough to project the exact impact of the new age ratio because the bills contain other provisions affecting premiums.

well let me offer a prediction. if you tell the insurance companies that they can charge older people only twice what the younger people pay, they're going to raise the amount that they charge young people.

what?

you say they wouldn't do that because young people would say, 'forget you, i'm not buying insurance' then?

you forget, barack's mandating it. meaning every 1 has to buy it and those who don't get fined.

that's it for me, i'm really ticked off about the house. i didn't support (and don't) obama's gift to the insurance companies but how telling that to 'shore up' support, women had to yet again be tossed overboard.

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

Monday, November 9, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces multiple deaths, two British soldiers testify about an Iraqi being beat to death in British custody, the election law passes, a US soldier is kicked out of the military for the 'crime' of his sexuality, and more.

Today the US military announced: "Contingency Operating Base Speicher, Iraq � Two U.S. Army pilots were killed when a helicopter experienced a hard landing in Salah ad Din Province, Nov.8. The names of the deceased are being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. The names of service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense official website [. . .]The announcements are made on the Web site no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. The incident is under investigation." And they announced: "AL ANBAR PROVINCE, Iraq � A Marine attached to Multi National Force � West died as the result of a non-combat related incident here Nov. 8. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. [. . .] The incident is under investigation." The announcements bring the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4362.

In other reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad sticky bombing which left one person wounded, a Mosul explosion ("thermal charge") which left ten people injured, and a Falluja roadside bombing which wounded four people.

Shootings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 person shot dead in Mosul today and Hadi Laiybi ("Sadrist leader") was shot dead "on his doorstep" in Mosul last night.

Back in July, Robert Fisk (Independent of London) wrote, "I first heard about Baha Mousa from his family. He was working as a hotel receptionist in Basra when British troops surrounded the building and arrested seven men. They were taken to a British barracks, hooded and beaten. Two days later, as his weeping father recalled for me, Mousa was dead. His family was given $3,000 in compensation and rejected a further $5,000. What they wanted was justice. His father had been appointed a police officer by the British authorities themselves. He was wearing two pistols on his hips. He was 'our man', and we killed his son." There is an ongoing inquiry into Baha's death taking place in England. We last noted it in the October 6th snapshot.

The Right Honorable Sir William Gage brought today's proceedings to order, Today we are going to start the second half of the evidence in Module 2, which as I think I said before we broke off two weeks ago, we very much hoped would be complete by the time we come to our break at Christmas, the last day of which I think is 18 December. Just one other matter I want to mention. Today we have two witnesses giving evidence, the second of which is Mr. Reader. He will give evidence by videolink from Manchsester as I think you now all know." It seemed rather business as usual; however, later testimony made it a dramatic day for the inquiry. That was especially true of the second witness, Garry Reader. But not just him.

Gerald Elias: Mr Aspinall, I am not going to dwell on this at any stage, although I will come back to it very briefly, but it is right to say, isn't it, that in the months and years that followed the events that this Inquiry is concerned with, you were not at all times as helpful as you might have been.

Gareth Aspinall: Can you please elaborate more on that?

Gerald Elias: Well from time to time you told lies, didn't you, in the past, when asked questions about these events?

Gareth Aspinall: No, I have told no lies whatsoever. If there's anything that have been missed out on my statements it's purely because I have not been able to remember.

Gerald Elias: Is that true?

Gareth Aspinall: Yes, that's true.

Uh, actually it wasn't. As Aspinall would admit later, he gave false statements early on. He was worried, he said, what might happen to them. Punishment for Baha's deaht? No, future promotions, that sort of thing. "At that point," he declared, "I wasn't worried and I don't think any of the other lads was worried about being blamed. We had nothing to be worried about on that bit. What we was worried about was our own positions, as I have just said, and our futures within the army of telling the truth on what happened. [. . .] We talked about it. We was worried. We was worried what would happen if we told the truth. As I've said, that's why we stalled." He would cite Cpl Donald Payne -- being intimidated by him -- as one reason they did not supply the facts at the start of the investigation into Baha's death. Dropping back to the September 19, 2006 snapshot:

From the Bully Boy to another war war criminal -- in England, Corporal Donald Payne pleaded guilty "to inhumanely treating civilians detained in Iraq between Sept 13 and Sept 16 2003 in Basra, Iraq" (Telegraph of London). The Guardian notes that Payne ("one of seven British troops who went on trial today facing charges linked to the death of an Iraqi civilian") was pleading guilty to chrages that "relate to the death of Baha Musa, 26, an Iraqi civilian in Basra". Jeremey Lovell (Reuters) reports that Musa is said to have had "93 injuries on his body, including a broken nose and ribs" and that "another detainee was so badly beaten that he nearly died of kidney failure."

The first witness, Gareth Aspinall, described seeing Payne abusing the prisoners.

Gareth Aspinall: When I walked in there [interrogation], I remember seeing a number of detainees stood up and receiving punches off Mr Payne to the lower back area.

Gerald Elias: The number of detainees, were they hooded?

Gareth Aspinall: I can't remember.

Gerald Elias: Were they plasticuffed?

Gareth Aspinall: I can't 100 per cent say for certain, but I believe they would have been. But I can't remember if they was.

Gerald Elias: If you said, as you did in your statement of 10 October, that they were hooded, that would have been the position, would it?

Gareth Aspinall: Sorry, what? What do you mean?

Gerald Elias: If you said it on 10 October in your statement --

Gareth Aspinall: Yes.

Gerald Elias: -- that when you went into the TDF all the detainees were hooded, that would have been true?

Gareth Aspinall: Yes, if that's what I said in my statement at the time.

This continues with more descriptions of the beating.

Gerald Elias: Did there appear to be any reason for Mr Payne to be doing this?

Gareth Aspinall: No. He just seemed very angry.

Gerald Elias: He seemed angry? What gave you the impression he was angry?

Gareth Aspinall: I don't know. His posture, his -- you can tell when someone looks angry.

Gerald Elias: Was he shouting?

Gareth Aspinall: I think he was, yes.

Gerald Elias: And the punches that he was throwing, describe those to us?

Gareth Aspinall: There was -- they looked like full-on punches where he was bringing his arm back and, basically like a boxer, hitting them in the lower back area.

Gerald Elias: Full-on punches.

Gareth Aspinall: Well, they were quite -- they looked quite hard. I wouldn't like to have received one, put it that way.

He said the victims being beaten "yelled out in pain. Held their side." And he and the others didn't object. He offered an explanation of why.

Gareth Aspinall: Maybe because we felt, you know, what do we do here? What do we do in this situation? You know, was we to turn around, run out of the room and go straight to the ops room and report it to the commanding officer?

Gerald Elias: Well, why not?

Gareth Aspinall: Because we didn't know whether this is what happened in war. We was very young.

He testified that abuse was not limited to Sunday and continued on Monday when they were put in stress position and the punches continued.

Gerald Elias: On this Monday, you did see, didn't you, what I think came to be known as the choir, or the chorus?

Gareth Aspinall: Yes, I did.

Gerald Elias: Tell us what it was.

Gareth Aspinall: It's where the detainees were made to stand up, and Mr Payne, he would go about each individual detainee and he would poke them --

Gerald Elias: You are just dropping your voice a little bit.

Gareth Aspinall: Sorry. He would -- all the detainees would be stood up and he would move about the room poking them, just basically with his finger, and they would -- each and every one of them would scream out in pain. And he'd take turns in doing it to different ones, and he thought -- he developed this and he thought it was funny. The first time I saw it, I'll openly admit I did chuckle, but then as the day progressed and it started to wear me down and I really felt for the detainees. I felt it was a bit out of order that -- it was difficult to watch.

Gerald Elias: You say that Mr Payne would poke with a finger?

Gareth Aspinall: Yes.

Gerald Elias: Which part of the body?

Gareth Aspinall: Round the lower back area.

Gerald Elias: The same area to which he had been punching?

Gareth Aspinall: Yes. Yes.

Gerald Elias: What response would that produce from the detainee?

Gareth Aspinall: They'd scream in pain.

Monday night, he testified, he heard screaming and assumed Payne was doing his usual abuse. Suddenly a stretcher was called for an he saw Baha carried out on it. Payne quickly came outside and instructed, "If anyone asks, he banged his head." The second witness, Garry Reader, also spoke of 'instructions' given. Payne and Rogers told him that "s**t rolls downhill" and that if the truth got it, those under Payne and Rogers would be held responsible.

Gerald Elias: Now, the events of Monday evening, and what we know to be the incident that involved the detainee Baha Mousa, what was the first thing that you knew of something happening in relation to Baha Mousa?

Garry Reader: I entered the TDF via the right room door and seen Mr Baha Mousa standing there with his plasticuffs -- with his sandbag removed. I immediately shouted out, Private Cooper reacted --

Gerald Elias: Private Cooper was already in the room, was he?

Garry Reader: I think he was, yes.

Gerald Elias: Mm-hmm.

Garry Reader: I can't be 100 per cent certain, but immediately following was Corporal Payne. He come from the left doorway. They both grabbed hold of Mr Baha. There was a struggle and they were trying to get him into the central room where I seen both Private Cooper and Private -- Corporal Payne use physical force to get Mr Baha Mousa into the room. Outside of vision, I heard screaming, Baha Mousa, shouting of Corporal Payne and Private Cooper to words of, "Get on the f**king floor, get down, get down". At this point I went outside. I think I spoke to Private Graham --

Gerald Elias: Pausing there for a moment. Before you go outside, one or two aspects of what you described. After you saw Baha Mousa, you say, without plasticuffs and with a hood off his head, you --

Garry Reader: I don't think -- I can't remember if his plasticuffs were on or not, but I know his sandbag was removed from his head.

Gerald Elias: I understand, all right. You shouted, Cooper goes to -- to him, is that right, first?

Garry Reader: Yes.

Gerald Elias: Where did Mr Payne come from?

Garry Reader: Come from the left door.

Gerald Elias: Along the passageway?

Garry Reader: Yes.

Gerald Elias: The two of them, you said, I think, forceflly then put Baha Mousa into the middle room?

Garry Reader: That's correct.

Gerald Elias: What do you mean by "forcefully"?

Garry Reader: Dragging him, kicking him and punchin ghim.

Gerald Elias: Which was doing what?

Garry Reader: Both were kicking, punching and dragging.

Gerald Elias: Were you able to see where the kicks or the punches from both landed?

Garry Reader: Various regions of his body, his legs, arms, generally all round his body, really. They weren't specific areas that they were aiming for.

Gerald Elias: He was taken out of your sight, as I understand it, into the middle room?

Garry Reader: That's correct.

Gerald Elias: Had you seen him in the middle room earlier in the day?

Garry Reader: Not that I can recall, no.

Gerald Elias: Once he had gone out of your sight, you heard the shouting that you talked about?

Garry Reader: Yes.

Gerald Elias: Then I gather you went outside.

Garry Reader: Yes.

Gerald Elias: Why did you go outside at that point.

Garry Reader: Didn't want to be there.

Gerald Elias: Because?

Garry Reader: It was wrong.

Gerald Elias: What did you think was wrong?

Garry Reader: The way they was treated.

Gerald Elias: I'm sorry? The way . . .?

Garry Reader: He was treated.

Approximately ten minutes later, he went back inside the building.

Gerald Elias: What happened when you went back in?

Garry Reader: (inaudible) talked to Baha Mousa. I shouted at him, got no response.

Gerald Elias: So you went into the middle room, did you?

Garry Reader: Yes.

Gerald Elias: Where was Baha Mousa when you went into the middle room, in what position?

Garry Reader: Slumped up against the wall with his head down. Sandbag was on his head and his plasticuffs behind his -- his hands were plasticuffed behind his back.

Gerald Elias: Forgive me, it is a little difficult to hear you. Did you say you shouted at him or to him?

Garry Reader: To him.

Gerald Elias: Why did you go in and shout to him?

Garry Reader: To make sure he was all right.

Gerald Elias: Why did you think he might not be all right?

Garry Reader: He had just had a good kicking.

Gerald Elias: You say you got no response?

Garry Reader: No.

Gerald Elias: So what did you do then.

Garry Reader: I noticed he wasn't moving. Took his sandbag off his head and his eyes were rolled back into the back of his head. Immediately lay him down, shouted someone to get me a knife because I couldn't lie him down properly because his hands were behind his back, and started first aid, CPR.

Gerald Elias: Did someone get you a knife?

Garry Reader: Yes, someone got me a knife to cut his plasticuffs.

Gerald Elias: And you cut them, did you?

Garry Reader: Yes.

Gerald Elias: Did you then put him down on the ground?

Garry Reader: Yes.

Gerald Elias: On his back, on his side, or what?

Garry Reader: On his back.

Gerald Elias: What did you do then?

Garry Reader: Immediately started CPR.

Gerald Elias: Were you able to resuscitate him?

Garry Reader: No.

Gerald Elias: I think we know that a medic or medics did come, did they?

Garry Reader: Evenutally a medic come. He took over the repetitions and I took over -- I just continued with the breaths for a while until the stretcher came.

Gerald Elias: Then he was taken away on a stretcher, was he?

Garry Reader: Yes.

Gerald Elias: But in the time that you were working with Baha Mousa, you got no sign, did you, of resuscitation or life?

Garry Reader: No.

Two witnesses testifying today as to how the 26-year-old Baha ended up dead while in British custody.

Sunday the Iraqi Parliament finally passed an election law. In the US, the White House issued this statement from Vice President Joe Biden who's been taxed with being the adminstration's lead on Iraq: "I congratulate Iraqi political leaders on today's passage of amendments to the Iraq elections law. Today's vote by the members of the Council of Representatives will allow for parliamentary elections in January 2010, as mandated under the Iraqi constitution. I commend the Council of Representatives for coming to agreement on the various difficult issues of considerable importance to Iraqis. I also extend my appreciation to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq for its important role in providing technical advice. These elections will be a critical step forward in advancing national unity and forming an inclusive government. Our committment and friendship to Iraq remain strong." For those who don't grasp why Joe Biden got placed in charge, look at some of the remarks made by President Barack Obama and US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill which take the vote and turn it into "USA! USA! USA!" (Example, Los Angeles Times' Liz Sly quotes Hill declaring of the 'significance' of the law passed, "We can achieve the January time frame and the responsible draw-down as expected.") Kori Schake (Foreign Policy) takes issues with some of Obama and Hill's public statements and observes, "This denigrates the importance of Iraq's achievement for Iraqis."

Schake doesn't include Gen Ray Odierno in that list and that's too bad. Not because Odierno deserves to be included -- thus far he doesn't. But because it's rather telling when, for example, an ambassador (allegedly trained in diplomacy) is outshined by a military general on the issue of diplomacy. (Click here for the 'joint'-statement from Hill and Odierno that Odierno's people wrote. If Hill let Odierno write all his remarks, he might not taste shoe leather so often.) Adrian Blomfield (Telegraph of London) observes, "Yet it is doubtful that Iraq's notoriously fractious parliament would have stepped back from disaster unless it had not been bludgeoned into submission by direct pressure from the United States." Again, not the image for a diplomat. Neither is hair askew, yelling in the halls. But let's get to that. Alsumaria wonders, "Did Hill pressure Iraq MPs on election law?" Mohammed Jamjoon and Jomana Karadsheh (CNN) report MP Mahmoud Othman has accused US embassy employees of being "counterproductive" lead Hill to whine, "I wasn't trying to impose any solution. I wasn't wagging my finger and lecturing people about anything. I was trying to be helpful."

"GO UPSTAIRS AND VOTE!"

Helpful?

Timothy Williams and Sa'ad Izzi (New York Times) report: "'Go upstairs and vote!' he [Hill] shouted at a pair of slow-moving lawmakers as they climbed a set of stairs to the chamber before the session." The National charts Hill's behaivor Sunday as he "pleaded, intimidated and herdered the MPS into casting their vote." What a little bully and, typical Chris Hill move, so late after the deadline.

**Thursday, Sammy Ketz (AFP) quoted election commission head Faraj al-Haidari stating, "We can no longer organise elections on January 16 -- that would have been difficult even if we had received the law today. Whether they retain the old electoral law, amend it or adopt an entirely new one is a matter for members of parliament but we are the ones who will have to implement their decisions according to the timetable. We hope that MPs will resolve their dilemma but we are not going to sacrifice international norms and criteria -- we're obliged to respect the rules so that these elections are transparent." And you might think that would lead some of the reporters/saps to be less gullible (isn't skepticism supposed to be a hallmark of reporting?) but it didn't.

The Associated Press, at least, began to have fun with their headlines and may have been the only US outlet to voice skepticism of anything passing last week.

90 days.

Today, when the cry is (yet again) that the Parliament will pass something, is November 8th. The election commission says they need 90 days to prepare for the elections -- that's printing ballots, staffing polls, security planning, etc. [AFP reported that Faraj al-Haidari, head of the country's Independent High Electoral Commission, declared on Al-Sharquiay TV Tuesday, "The electoral commission held talks with the United Nations on Tuesday to discuss the timetable. We must receive the law in the next two days, otherwise we will be unable to hold the election on the scheduled date of January 16. There is material relating to the election, and international companies need time to print it. Fifteen thousand polling stations have to be made ready for the election, as do 50,000 personnel."] So what's the earliest that national elections, if the law is passed today, could take place?

November has 30 days and today's the 8th. That leaves 22. December has 31 days. 31 + 22 + 53.

90 - 53?

37.

Sadly, January only has 31 days.

Which means for the elections to be considered legitimate (the UN and the elections committee have both voiced that rushing the process would de-legitimize the results), the earliest elections could be held would be February 6th.** All of the above between the "**" is from what we wrote for Third yesterday before the vote. "We" would be Dallas, "The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, and Ava, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz), Trina of Trina's Kitchen, Ruth of Ruth's Report, Wally of The Daily Jot,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts, Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ, Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub." The thing comes too late for elections to be held in January and seen as legitimate. They can be held and rushed but they won't be seen as legitimate.

It's a fact that the American media repeatedly and intentionally overlooked yesterday and today because when the White House wants to sell a talking point, like good little Dan Rathers, the press says, "You just tell me where, sir." So damn pathetic. While they played dumb (all their life), Juan Cole (Indybay IMC) points out that, "Nevertheless, al-Zaman reports that the Iraqi High Commission says that this law was enacted too late to hold the election on time. He is requesting a 3-month delay, to April 16. This delay would affect Americans, since the US military is being kept in Iraq at this point primarily so that it can lock down the country for 3 days to allow voters to go to the polls without being blown up." This morning, AP's reported the electoral commission is stating the election will be held January 21st.

Sunday Jake Tapper (ABC News) and Carol E. Lee (Politico -- text and audio) reported on the vote. Today Mu Xuequan (Xinhua) reports the law requires voters be presented with an open list (listing names of candidates as opposed to a 'closed' list which would have only listed political party), that Iraq's "18 provinces will be considered a single electorate" and that the 2009 voter registration roll would be used in Kirkuk . . . but for a full year, the vote can be thrown into question as a result of a committee being placed over complaints-- which appears to be true of all 18 provinces: "If the committee finds irregularities of five percent in any province, then the voting will be abolished and will be held again later." Of the law, Ranj Alaaldin (Guardian) observes:

President Obama may hail the new law and the elections as an important "milestone" but it is important to maintain perspective, and history should teach him to use the word warily. The Iraqi parliament still remains incapable of solving the main issues despite the countless milestones we have had in the past, and even in this instance it took pressure from external forces including the Americans, British and Turks before the election law was passed. America's scheduled withdrawal is therefore by no means a certainty.
Furthermore, it is difficult to dismiss the problems the "special review" mechanism might bring about in a place as sensitive and hotly disputed as Kirkuk, which could have its future status influenced to some degree by the outcome of the elections. The Kirkuk issue continues to be recklessly kicked down the road only for it to later explode into a violent and irreparable conflict.

The last point is picked up by Ryan Lucas (AP) who quotes Gulf Research Center's Mustafa Alani stating, "Because there was pressure to pass the law and have the election, they are just pushing this issue under the carpet. I don't see a clear solution to this problem."

Staying with the topic of elections, the most recent installment of Inside Iraq (Al Jazeera) began broadcasting Friday. Joining host Jasim Azzawi for this week's episode were Ghassan Atiyyah (Iraqi Foundation for Development and Democracy) and Fareed Sabri (Iraqi Islamic Party) and the topics included the new Iraqi National Movement -- a political bloc led by Ayad Allawi and Saleh al-Mutlaq.

Jasim Azzawi: Fareed Sabri, this new alliance was supposed to include several other blocs and several other parties instead it's limited to just two politicians. Was it the differences in politics as well as in orientation that prevented the others from joining this new movement.

Fareed Sabri: Well I think there is a kind of differences between the two main blocs headed by Ayad Allawi and Saleh al-Mutlaq. They wanted really to get the-the main share of the new Iraq -- of the new Iraqi politics after the elections. They wanted really to exclude Tariq al-Hashimi [Iraq's Sunni vice president], to exclude Raffie al-Issawi [also Sunni and currently the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq] from the new bloc. And I think I've heard from some sources, they're saying that neighboring Iraqi countries have stressed on Saleh al-Mutlaq not to include other forces within this new alliances. I think the -- I mean, talking about the alliance between Saleh al-Mutlaq and Ayad Allawi, it really represents the-the old Ba'athist regime in New Iraq.

Jasim Azzawi: Is it the old Ba'athist regime, Ghassan Atiyyah, or are they trying to appeal to Iraqi nationalism and in particular to the seculars and to the liberals?

Ghassan Atiyyah: The fact that they call themselves "National," or whatever it is, actually now the mantle of sectarianism or religion is being taken off and they are wearing, in general, anew the mantle of nationalism. Even the Shia Islamic Council now they call them "National," even al-Maliki is "National," everyone is calling "National." But this is a response to the discontent of the Iraqi people who are really disgusted with the sectarian movement because they didn't get any much of this. Now to your question, al-Mutlaq and Allawi, actually, they are the odd couples -- the odd couples. They are different in every aspect. Don't tell me they are in this. Each one of them things in their own way. And now I will tell you the position. There was a hectic movement among secular, liberal Iraqis -- I was part of this effort -- to bring all these forces together mainly because Iraqis seen the way it is, highly paralyzed between Shia sectarianism, Sunni sectarianism and the Kurds. What is needed is a fourth force, a force which could play a role of balancing act between this. Without this force, we will be actually repeating the 2005 scene -- namely, Sunni, Shia Kurd.

Jasim Azzawi: Yes.

Ghassan Atiyyah: But there was an attempt to create this but actually Allawi and Mutlaq pre-empted this effort by declaring this position and refusing to cooperate with others --

Jasim Azzawi: Yes

Ghassan Atiyyah: -- on an equal basis. And this is the sad sad of the story.

Jasim Azzawi: They kept the door open, Sabri, for others to join them. You mentioned the Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, the former deputy prime minister Raffie al-Issawi and they're also thinking perhaps Adnan al-Dulaimi, the Accord Front, might join them [. . .] That might not happen simply because some of the coalitions, they have one person running on that ticket -- for instance, the Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for the State of Law. As for the Iraqi National Coalition headed by Ammar al-Hakim Adil Abdul-Mahdi [Shi'ite vice president of Iraq]. With this new alliance, the one we are talking about, Ayad Allawi as well as Saleh al-Mutlaq, they don't have a single fore runner for them, not at this moment at least. Is that the difference between the two men? Both of them, they want to be leaders?

Fareed Sabri: Exactly. That's what happened. See we talked with Ayad Allawi and we tried to join forces with him and with Saleh al-Mutlaq. But I think the main statement -- the main objection of Allawi is he wants to take all credit and he wants to be a prime minister. I mean the jostling of position -- I mean between Ayad Allawi and Saleh al-Mutlaq is who wants -- who will be the next prime minister. This is a problem. I think when you talk about being patriot, being patriot is not just a slogan you carry. It's what you did. Like for example, Ayad Allawi and Saleh al-Mutlaq, the past three years, they never attended Parliament. You never saw them in Parliament. You never saw them defending the Iraqi people. We've just seen them on the TV stations and see them on the press conferences. I quite agree with Dr. Atiyyah when he said that there is a move towards national unity or national parties based on secular and national sentiments. But the problem is it's only skin deep and it's only happening within the Sunni community. I mean the Shia and the Kurds are still sectarian and theu will -- the constituents will -- select their represenatives on sectarian bases while the Sunnis will be divided and I think this will backfire on the Sunni community after the elections because they will elect lists where there's Sunni and Shia -- like Ayad Allawi and Saleh al-Mutlaq -- while the Shia and the Kurds will elect only Shia and Kurdish representatives in the next Parliament

Jasim Azzawi: Yes, Ghassan Atiyyah, for thirty-five years, Iraq was headed by a strong man called Saddam Hussein. Everybody knew him and everybody said, 'You know this guy loves the limelight. He's a prima donna.' Looking at the Iraqi politicians, there isn't much difference between them and Saddam Hussein, is there?

Ghassan Atiyyah: Well at the time, there was only one Saddam Hussein but now we have tens of Saddam Husseins though in minature Saddam Hussein. Unfortunately, most of these parties -- with an exception or two parties -- they are a one man show.

Jasim Azzawi: You mean they don't have a grassroots support?

No, no. They might have some support here and there but for all the party is one person. And with the exception of maybe the Communist Party and the Islamic Party -- they have conferences, they have this -- and even the Dahwa Party has it -- but once the leadership differs, you see the loser will split rather than accept. Ibrahim al-Jaafari left the party and created his ownwing against al-Maliki. Similarly with Islamic Party, when al-Hashimi failed to win the leadership instead of abiding by the rules of the democratic rule, he split the party, tried to have his own faction. We don't have yet the tradition of the democratic parties and democracy without democrat is nonsense -- it doesn't appear. And today what we had happen really, I'm talking from direct contact with these people, we find that those politicians are really thinking in terms 'Who will be having the upper hand?' They don't accept work as team work. They don't accept collective leadership. This was put on the table with the secular and liberal forces. I tell you a story, I will take a minute. I talked with one of the entities who claimed to be a liberal-secular. I said to him, "Why don't you join forces with others? Then we create a big bloc because without a big bloc of liberals in the Parliament there is no -- there will be no effective change in Iraqi future because you need this bloc." He said, "I have my own party. I am the charasmatic leader, I am the strong one and they are welcome to join me and accept me as their leader. And if this is not enough, I have thiry-millions-dollars to spend. Can they match me."

The plan is to note another excerpt in a snapshot later this week. Last week, The Economist offered their look at some of the political parties in Iraq:

The most obviously sectarian leftover is the biggest Kurdish block. One of its two main components, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, led by Iraq's national president, Jalal Talabani, has split and may even disappear. Even if the Kurds' enviable discipline in parliament holds up, their role as kingmakers may be over. After a rule change, the chamber can now approve the next president with half the votes rather than two-thirds as before, thus weakening the Kurds' bargaining power.

The biggest Sunni block in the outgoing parliament, the Iraqi Accord Front, better known by its Arabic name, Tawafuq, is doing even worse. At provincial elections earlier this year its voters fled in droves. By comparison, the last remaining Shia block, the Iraqi National Alliance, is likely to do quite well at the polls for the simple reason that more than 60% of the voters are Shias. Yet, it has no obvious candidate for prime minister and its members have an array of ideologies. Being a Shia is their only glue. When two of the alliance's parties, the Sadrists (followers of a cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr) and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, recently held their own informal primaries, a first for Iraq, the event was widely seen as a sign of weakness, with bigwigs trying to rally unenthusiastic troops.

On the other hand, the leaders of three non-sectarian alliances are making more of a buzz on the street. The prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, a Shia, hopes to build on the success of his State-of-Law block that did well in the provincial elections. He has fewer Sunni partners than he had hoped. But the incumbent's powers of patronage should give him a good start.

His main rivals are two brand-new alliances. One is led by Iyad Allawi, a keenly secular Shia and former Baathist who was a prime minister after the fall of Saddam Hussein. He has teamed up with Saleh al-Mutlaq, a stalwart Sunni member of parliament, to form the Iraqi National Movement. Tariq al-Hashemi, a Sunni who is the country's joint vice-president, may join them, though he was previously a leading figure in the Accord Front.

The National Movement's main rival is a group called Unity led by Jawad al-Bolani, the interior minister, a secular Shia, along with Ahmed abu Risha, who leads a Sunni movement called the Awakening that helped pacify the province of Anbar, to the west of Baghdad, which was a hotbed of insurgents. Both alliances have strong links with the military and security services. Unity's leaders are close to the police, whereas the National Movement is notably hostile to Iran, which many Iraqis blame for sponsoring insurgents.

In other news, MidHudsonNews is reporting that that Iraq War veteran Nathanel Bodon, currently stationed in Baghdad, will be discharged for the 'crime' of being gay: "The Army found out about Bodon when a fellow soldier found his blog with a picture of him kissing a former boyfriend and tipped off the Army brass." Bodon's quoted stating, "I think it's discriminatory and my personal life as far as my sexuality has no bearing on who I am as a soldier, so it shouldn't even be an issue."

the los angeles times
liz sly

timothy williams
the new york times

ranj alaaldin
the guardian
the telegraph of london
adrian bloomfield

the economist

midhudsonnews