Friday, May 09, 2008

 

Iraq snapshot

Friday, May 9, 2008.  Chaos and violence continue, the assault on Sadr City continues, Barack loses a campaign staffer who was in talks with an organization the US has labeled a terrorist group (no, not Ayers & Dohrn) and more. 
 
Starting with war resistance.  Who is Ehren Watada?  The answer is fairly obvious, the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq.  But facts is hard for little local weeklies.  Nina Shapiro (Seattle Weekly) takes time out from attacking Hillary but it's too bad she and her editor couldn't take the time to be factual.  "Not Every Deserter Gets the Watada Treatement" is the headline and she matches that choice with her own writing.  She writes, "When it comes to the military's handling of deserters, there is little consistency.  Some, like outspoken war opponent Lt. Ehren Watada, face courts-marial and potentail jail sentences, while . . ."  Where to begin.  They do not generally face "courts"-martial.  Watada may if double-jeopardy is thrown out.  The face "court-martials."  The "court" is singular.  "Outspoken war opponent"?  He can't just be a "war opponent," to Nina, he has to be "outspoken."  That's curious considering he's given one interview since the failed Feb. 2007 court-martial.  That was over a year ago.  And prior to the court-martial, he'd already shut the press down.  But there's Nina, trumping up the charges, just like she does with Hillary.  Let's go slow for Nina: "Report to the nearest Army post with your Army ID or other picture ID and any documents or records in your possession which pertain to your Army service.  On the installation, go to the Military Police station and turn yourself in to the MPs."  What's that from?  Fort Knox Law Enforcement Command's "US Army Deserter Information Point."  Ehren Watada did not desert.  He wasn't charged with desertion for that reason.  Watada did not desert.  It's a shame that Nina has to (again) put her name to lies because 'facts is hard.' But she's not interested in war resistance, she's interested in pushing lies.  There's no war resistance in the story (which isn't about Watada, she just wanted to slime him and see if she get away with acting stupid in public).   When trash likes this gets shoved off on the public, everyone loses.  The serial liar was pushing conflict between today's veterans and earlier ones.  That was a laughable article ("Camaraderie is in short supply").  So is this one.  Is no one capable of a basic fact check at Seattle Weekly or do they just not care?
 
In Canada, war resisters are hoping the Parliament will take action on a motion waiting to be debated.   Currently, you can utilize the following e-mails to show your support: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration.  In addition Jack Layton, NDP leader, has a contact form and they would like to hear from people as well. A few more addresses can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.         

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.

Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
 
Turning to Iraq and starting with the press.  In February of this year, (PDF format warning) Reporters Without Borders released "Freedom Of The Press Worldwide in 2008."  which noted 57 journalists killed in 2007.  If you're in Iraq and trying to report, just FYI, you're a journalist.  You're not "a media worker" (RWB uses that phrase). "More than half the recorded physical attacks on the media were in Baghdad despite the huge presence there of Iraqi forces and US troops. . . . On top of the violence, Iraqi journalists face new restrictions imposed by the authorities, including a ban in May 2007 on filming the sites of bomb attacks and another in November on going to the Kandil mounatins, near the Iraqi-Turkish border, to talk to Kurdish PKK rebels."  Earlier this week, The Committee to Protect Journalists posed Joel Campangna's report on the Kurdish region of Iraq which included the story of Nasseh Abdel Raheem Rashid whose reporting "railed against the political in Iraqi Kurdistan and the actions of uncscrupulous political officials."  Campangna continues:

As he strolled through the central market on his hometown of Halabja in eastern Iraqi Kurdistan last October, four armed men wearing military uniforms forced him into a waiting Nissan pickup, bound his hands and legs, and covered his head with a sack.  "I didn't know where I was going.  They drove around for a few hours and then went over what seemed like an unpaved road," Rashid told the Committee to Protect Journalists during an interview in Sulaymania shortly after the incident.  Rashid said he was pulled from the truck, punched and kicked, and threatened at gunpoint to stop working or be killed.  The assailants sped off, leaving Rashid bruised and shaken.
 
That is only one story in Campagna's report.  Click here for audio of him talking about report.
177 is the number of journalists who have been killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war.  CPJ divides up "media support workers" and "journalists" as well, we don't.  Support workers in a war zone are doing a number of jobs they are journalists and, if they are targeted for who they are working for, the "I am just a media support worker!" is not a magic shield that protects them.  On a related note, we have consistently avoided highlighting the work of US reporters who 'report' on Iraq from the US but attach themselves to the work done by local population.  That's led to a number of mainstream stories being 'missed' but it's not missed because there is something pathetic and dishonest about it.  Mentioning it today because among the links pulled from this site (The Common Ills) was a 'news' site where, article after article, an American journalist in the US feels the needs to attach his name to a reporter in Iraq's writing.  When said journalist was supposed to go back to Iraq (he lost focus and ended up in Lebanon in the summer of 2006 instead), the Iraqi journalist was more than able to write his own reports for the web outlet.  He had no problems with English (though if he had, no one would have been concerned because his voice is of value).  He did a great job.  But "I WANT ATTENTION!" can't make it back to Iraq and feels the need to put his name to first hand reports from Iraq.  We're not highlighting that crap.  It's insulting and offensive.  And, hate to break it to the 'left,' it's the height of colonialism.  So bye-bye. The community won't miss you.  It is grossly offensive for an American in the US to feel the need to add his name to these first-hand reports of an Iraqi journalist in Iraq risking his life.  We won't applaud that crap and shame on anyone who does.  It has gone on now for over a year and it is offensive and people in the press are starting to talk about it.  We draw a line.  We also draw a line with 'respectable' source Pig -- twice busted for sexual predator activities online.  Matthew Rothschild interviews Pig this week.  Didn't listen, didn't need to.  He's been delinked.  The Progressive will be delinked from all sites.  The Real Press kicked Pig to the curb because of his arrests.  Panhandle Media wants to pretend like he's a 'respectable' source.  He's not.  If a young girl is raped or assaulted by Pig, it's on Panhandle Media's hands because they can't stop promoting him. 
 
Back to the threats journalists in Iraq operate under.  Selcan Hacaoglu (AP) reports that the BBC's Baghdad bureau was "damaged" by a rocket attack on the Green Zone and quotes Patrick Howse explaining, "It caused structural damage but no one was injured."  Deborah Haynes (Times of London) notes, "It was one of a number of rockets fired towards the heavily fortified Green Zone by Shit insurgents taking advantage of a sudden sandstorm, which gave them cover from counter-attack by US aircraft."   Meanwhile a McClatchy Newspapers Iraqi journalist blogs at Inside Iraq that "6 days after the occasion of World Press Freedom, Iraqi media witnessed a new violation against freedom of speech.  Yesterday Iraqi forces closed Al Ahad Radio Station an excuse of adopting provocative political speech.  I have many friends who listen to this radio as I do; I asked my friends if they notice any instagative tones in the programs or newscast of this radio . . . the answers were negative -- as always."  Nouri al-Maliki, puppet of the occupation, made it clear in the summer of 2006 that he had no respect for a free press and he's only continued that pattern.
 
Somethings get little or no coverage, somethings get massive coverage.  Like yesterday's big news (which was rightly ignored in yesterday's snapshot) that THE leader of al Qaeda in Iraq leader was captured!  In today's paper (so filed hours and hours before sunrise), Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) noted the capture with qualifiers and, as a result, has no egg on her face -- unlike all of those 'reporting' it had happened!  It never happened.  Damien McElroy (Telegraph of London) traces back over the lie and US Maj (press flack division) Peggy Kageleiry stating, "This guy has a similar name."   BBC leads with: "The United States military in Iraq says a man detained in the northern city of Mosul is not in fact the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq." As Tina Susman notes (LA Times' blog Babylon & Beyond), "For a few hours late Thursday and early today, it seemed the Al Qaeda in Iraq chief might actually be in custody."  Yesterday afternoon, Tina Susman noted that the US military backed off from their usual declarations of charges against Iran and she writes:
A plan to show some alleged Iranian-supplied explosives to journalists last week in Karbala and then destroy them was canceled after the United States realized none of them was from Iran. . . . Iran, meanwhile, continues to seethe after an Iraqi delegation went to Tehran last week to confront it with the accusations. It has denied the accusations, and it says as long as U.S. forces continue to take part in military action in Iraq's Shiite strongholds, it won't consider holding further talks with Washington on how to stabilize Iraq."
 
 
In Iraq the assault on Sadr City continues.  Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports, "Casualties in Sadr city for the last 24 hours stand at 14 men and 1 woman killed and 112 wounded many of whom are women, children and elderly people according to medical sources inside Sadr city."  Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) notes the Thursday order by the Iraqi military for "residents to evacuate" and that "Sadr City has been a battleground since late March, enduring U.S. airstrikes, militia snipers and gunbattles between U.S. and Iraqi forces and the Mahdi Army, the militia loyal to Sadr.  Already some 8,500 people have been displaced from the sprawling slums of some 2.5 million people, according to the Iraqi Red Crescent."  Said Rifai (LA Times' Baghdad & Beyond) reports that one of the stadiums set up for Sadr City refugees (Shaab Stadium) is currently empty, that 25 tents are empty and other tents are nearby unassembled and: "Only Sadr City residents are allowed at this camp, which has made for some awkward moments.  Seveeral families from other areas arrived Thursday but were turned away. . . . Sadr City residents have to get accreditation from one of their local police stations to qualify to stay in the stadium."  And when someone calls it an Iraqi operation, note Eric Owls (NYT's Baghdad Bureau) statement yesterday: "The American military is fighting daily battles for the control of Baghdad's Shiite neighborhood of Sadr City."  al-Maliki started it but don't think for a moment it's al-Maliki 'on the line.'  That trip down to Basra was purely for show.  AFP reports, "An aide to radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr lashed out on Firday at Iraq's most revered Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, for keeping silent over clashes that have killed hundreds in Baghdad" and quotes him (Sheikh Sattar Battat)stating, "We are surprised by the silence Najaf where the highest Shiite religious authority is based. . . . For 50 days Sadr City is being bombed. . . Children, women and old people are being killed by all kinds of US weaspons, and Najaf remains silent."  Howard LaFranchi (Christian Science Monitor) notes, "Residents of this city's embattled Sadr City district are growing increasingly anxious that an escalation in fighting is imminent."  Chris Floyd (Baltimore Chronicle) rightly notes, "George W. Bush and David Petraeus are preparing to make a new Fallujah in Sadr City, home to two million Shiites in Baghdad.  Thousands of people are already fleeing the area before the full-scale slaughter and destruction begin.  As in Fallujah, the multitudes who cannot escape will be trapped in a 'free fire zone' subjected to ruthless bombardment and ground assualt.  Thousands -- perhaps tens of thousands -- of innocent civilians stand in the shadow of imminent death."  But Panhandle Media largely stayed silent during the slaughter of Falluja and they're even more silent during the slaughter of Sadr City. 
 
In other reported violence . . .
 
Bombings?
 
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad rocket attack that wounded three people, US air strikes in Baghdad left eight people wounded and 2 Baghdad mortar attacks claimed 2 lives and left eleven wounded.  AFP reports, "A rocket attack on a coalition military base in Basra killed two civilian contractors Friday . . . . The two civilian contractors died when rockets slammed into the US-led coalition's base near Basra's international airport, wounding eight others, including four coalition soldiers, the military said."   That was reported late yesterday in the US (by five p.m. EST, it's already midnight in Iraq).  Reuters notes four members of the Iraqi military were injured in a Kirkuk roadside bombing.
 
Shootings?
 
Reuters notes 3 "Awakening" Council members shot dead in Baiji and three police officers and five people were wounded in an attack outside Balad utilizing "rifles and rocket propelled grenades."
 
Corpses?
 
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad.
 
Yesterday's snapshot noted: "Murray wasn't just noting a hearing the day before (see here and here for that hearing), she was also noting the very real frustration with the Veterans Affairs Department on the part of the Congress which includes begging off and blowing off the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee."  That's here and here.  Links weren't included. Yesterday's snapshot detailed the Senate Veeterans Affairs Committee Wednesday hearing on benefits.  Today Paul Kane (Washington Post) reports that "Blue Dog Democrats" are in opposition to a House measure specifically because of "the creation of a program that would guarantee veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan a year of in-state college tuition for each year served in the war zones."  Now let's get this straight, the "Blue Dogs" are okay with funding the illegal war and argue that not to do so would be sending a message to the troops in Iraq; however, they're okay with sending the message that your tours of duty aren't even worth in-state tuition if you're fortunate enough to survive?  That's some message.  Meanwhile Julian E. Barnes (Los Angeles Times) reports that the Pentagon is stating that stop-loss/back-door draft numbers have "risen sharply" and that the "number steadily declined through May 2007, when it hit 8,540. But since then, the number of soldiers subjected to stop-loss orders began to increase again, reaching 12,235 in March 2008."  Drop back to the February 26th snapshot where the Senate Armed Services Committee heard testimony from the Sec of the Army and Gen George W. Casey:
 
In regards to the issue of the months involved in a tour, the committee chair, Carl Levin, had to be rather specific repeatedly finally asking "shorthand, you have to drawdown to what level?" Levin also had to pin Casey and Geren down regarding stop-loss. Beaming, Geren declared that the Army will get the number of stop-lossed soldiers down to "a little less than 8,000 today" and insisted -- at length -- that the Army wanted to "move away from" using stop-loss. Stop-loss is the backdoor draft. It's when you're service contract is ending and you're told, "Forget what your contract says, you're staying." Pressed by Levin about the decrease in the number of soldiers stop-lossed that Geren was so optimistic about, the Secretary of the Army swallowed and stated, "It might get to 7,000." Wow. It might drop to 7,000. To hear him spin and spin before Levin pinned him down you would have thought the figure was going to be significantly below 5,000. Geren insisted, "We're growing this Army faster than we planned."
 
Translation, they lied to Congress.
 
His name wasn't even on the ballot!  Oh how the losers have cried that -- including an elderly woman with a shaky voice who really needs to be told "Step away from the microphone" -- about Barack Obama and Michigan.  Michigan's Secretary of State on October 9, 2007: "Four Democratic presidential candidates -- U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, U.S. Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) and former U.S. Sen. John Edwards -- filed affidavits with the Michigan Department of State requesting that their names be removed from Michigan's Jan. 15 Democratic Party Primary ballot.  This means four Democratic candiates are still on the Michigan ballot: U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn), U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich and U.S. Sen. Mike Gravel (D- Ala)."
 
Hillary won Michigan.  She received 328,209 votes.  594,398 votes were cast in the Democratic presidential primary.  "Uncommitted" received 238,168 votes.  As Jerlyn (TalkLeft) points out, Barack's attempting to claim those 238,168 votes and more: "It not only gives Obama all of the uncommitted delegates, a number that includes those who voted for uncommitted for Edwards, it includes those who voted for Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel and gives him some that voted for Hillary."  It takes a lot of nerve to remove yourself from the field and then claim you earned a trophy.  But hasn't that been the Obama campaign from day one?
 
Way back when, Peter Slevin (Washington Post) explained it all: "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is the only top-tier Democrat on the Jan. 15 Michigan primary ballot, but followers of her chief rivals are hoping to wound her all the same. . . .  The campaigns of Sen. Barack Obama and former Senator John Edwards are urging their supporters to cast ballots for 'uncommitted,' according to stae Democratic party chairman Mrak Brewer." "Uncommitted" should be divided between the four.  If any "giving" is to be done, that's done on the floor of the national convention.  But it's not enough that he try to steal what he didn't earn, he also wants to steal from Hillary Clinton.  Now as I understand spots from my children participating when they were younger, you forfeit a game, you're the loser.  When the championship's being awarded to another team you can't run up and say, "B-b-but, we forfeited and we should get credit for that!"  Barack wants credit for a race he chose not to take part in.  Talk about a sense of entitlement.  It's not even the rules.  (The rules were X number of delegates -- non-pleged -- would be sent to the convention.) 
 
I thought the media said he was 'winning,' that he had the nomination all 'sewn up'.  If so, why be such a little thief?  Because he's not winning.  Because he's not closed the deal.  Because Hillary is expected to beat him in several upcoming primaries.  Because he is probably unelectable in a general election nation wide.  Nation wide is 50 states, not 48.  A general election isn't a primary.  If he gets the nomination, he'll be dragged through the mud and this is, after all, the fussiest candidate since the current occupant of the Oval Office.  "I must have down time in the Virgin Islands!"  "I need two days off from campaigning!" 
 
The latter was last week.  That was cute.  He took Wednesday off by staying home when his weak ass should have been in the Senate for the Veterans Affairs Committee -- which he sits on -- hearing on Veterans Benefits.  But he wasn't there.  Again.  He managed yesterday to hobble through the House but he wasn't elected to the House and he's unable to do the Senate's business.  But somehow, he wants America to believe, he'll be able to do their business.  Susan UnPC (No Quarter) has posted the RNC's first video roll out against Bambi -- it's not pretty and this is the GOP taking baby-steps.  (About the Louis. election, the elected Dem is a conservative and he started out with a double digit lead and barely squeaked by on election day after only a few weeks of the ads by the Republicans attacking him for his 'link' to Barack.  Repeating, Barack at the top of the ticket risks Democratic control of Congress.)   What group doesn't he have a lock on?  I know that's a tough questions because there are so many; however, I'm referring to seniors and he's taken to knocking John McCain because of his age, doing the typical crap Barack does because Barack has no issues to run and no record to run on.  John McCain's campaign (PDF format warning and link goes to USA Today) responds: "First, let us be clear about the nature of Senator Obama's attack today.  He used the words 'losing his bearings' intentionally, a not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age as an issue.  This is typical of the Obama campagning.  We have all become familiar with Senator Obama's new brand of politics.  First, you demand civility from your opponent, then you attack him, distort his record and send out surrogates to question his integrity.  It is called hypocrisy, and it is the oldest kind of politics there is.  It is important to focus on what Senator Obama is attempting to do here: He is trying desperately to delegitimize the discussion of issues that raise legitimate questions about his judgement and preparedness to be President of the United States.  Through their actions and words, Senator Obama and his supporters have made clear that ANY criticism on ANY issue -- from his desire to raise taxes on millions of small investors to his radical plans to sit down face-to-face with Iranian President Ahmadinejad -- constitute negative, personal attacks. Senator Obama is hopeful that the media will continue to form a protective barrier around him, declaring serious limits to the questions, discussion and debate in this race.  Senator Obama has good reason to think this plan will succeed, as serious journalists have written off the need for 'de-tox' to cure 'swooing' over Senator Obama, and others have admitted to losing their objectivity while with him on the campaign trail."  You need to pay attention closely to that memo.  Had John Edwards, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson or Chris Dodd done anything like that, they'd still be in the race.
 
The reality is no one likes a brown noser, no one likes a teacher's pet or a little prince given everything.  Hillary's a fighter and the fact that she is has turned the Democratic primary into a deadheat.  John McCain appears to grasp what will work and what won't with Barack.  Grinning like an idiot on stage next to Barack?  Chuckeling?  Playing his groveling little buddy to the point that you like a scared puppy exposing your belly?  Getting punked and taking it with no challenge?  Didn't work and all the men found that out, now didn't they?  The only one who has held their own is Hillary and she's done that because -- though the pundit class hates strength -- the American people love it.  Mark Salter, with that memo, goes from writer of McCain speeches to campaign operative to watch and you better believe Newsweek's gearing up their glossy profile.  In terms of Barack's attacks on McCain's age, it's dumb, it's stupid and it will hurt him with seniors.  If Barack's given the nomination, he's just given them the ammo to become "Democrats for McCain."  Tom Baldwin (Times of London) reports that Robert Malley has left the Obama campaign after bragging to the paper that "he had regularly been in contact with Hamas, which controls Gaza but is listed by the US State Department as a terrorist organisation."  By the strictest reading of the Patriot Act, I believe Team Obama could be locked away. Good thing Barack voted against the Patriot Act!  Oh, wait, he voted to reauthorize it.   And, yes, it does go to judgement, it does go to leadership and, yes, once again Obama has failed.
 
Perry Bacon Jr. (Washington Post) reports Hillary was in Portland today speaking about healthcare, "The plan I have proposed would cover everyone, children and adults.  An artificial distinction between children and adults is unworkable, you have to have [a] seamless health care system that covers every single American.  My plan does, my opponent's doesn't."  AP quotes her saying, "If you don't start in favor of universal health care, you'll never get there. How can you run for the Democratic nomination and not have a universal health care plan?"  David Chalian (ABC News) notes that the Clinton campaign's Geoff Garin and Howard Wolfson "offered a power point presentation looking at 20 competitive House districts currently held by freshmen Democrats that also went for President George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election.  Of those 20 districts, Clinton has defeated Obama in 16 of them during the course of the nomination battle and Obama has been victorious in four of them.  Eleven of those 20 members have yet to endorse in the Democratic presidential race. Five have endorsed Clinton - including two this week - and four have endorsed Obama."  The argument is correct.  It was obvious in January to anyone studying the results (Obama has a larger portion of voters who only vote for him and in no other race -- indicating they are Republicans who will cross over only for him or that they're entire 2008 vote is for Obama only).  With him being handed the nomination, the risk is that you drives away the base.  That puts Congress at risk.  But as Donna Brazile indicated in an e-mail Wednesday, it doesn't matter.  Or, as she put it, "Message to the base: stay home."  Message to Donna, stay away from buffets.  You're going to have heart failure with all the pounds you're packing. Brian Goldsmith (CBS News) interviewed West Virginia governor Joe Manchin and asked about Tuesday's primary and whether the race should continue to which the governor responded: "Oh, absolutely.  I truly believe so.  And it's an exciting time to be a Democrat in the United States of America.  And we have so many of them here.  They're all excited about our primary.  Myself, I'm up in the primary election.  So we're all geared up for this.  And having both of the candidates come to West Virginia adds that much more excitement to it." 
 
Matt Tepper has a photo essay at HillaryClinton.com and writes: "Hillary Clinton proudly became the first Democratic Presidential candidate to visit the Mount Rushmore State on Thursday afternoon.  Nearly 2000 South Dakotans packed the Landmark Aviation Hangar in Sioux Falls to hear Hillary speak about her Solutions for America.  Hillary clearly demonstrated that she is ready to lead this nation starting on day one and she is best prepared to beat John McCain in November.  When Hillary is president, the voices of South Dakota families will finally be heard.  On June 3rd South Dakotans will get their opportunity to vote in this historic primary!"
 
In other news, Cynthia McKinney's campaign has not refuted Ted Glick's statements (that they linked to last week) so she's not a real candidate for president.  This will be an editorial at Third.  We are done with her in the primary coverage and it's doubtful she'll be mentioned too often in the general election.  We're covering candidates running to win the office, not to run a tiny percentage.  Team Nader announces Ralph needs "$50,000 to get Nader-Gonzales on the ballot in Illinois.  Land of Lincoln.  Where Ralph Nader was bumped off the ballot in 2004 by the state's Democratic machine.  Where already in 2008, state Democratic machine operatives are making threats about keeping us off again."  Oh come on, Ralph, the Dems would never do that, they believe in count ever vote.  Oh, wait.  Florida and Michigan.  That's right, they don't believe in count every vote.  They believe in count every vote that they want counted which is far less than universal suffrage.
 
 







Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

 
 

Other Items

Iraqi security forces, after more than of 40 days of intense fighting, on Thursday told residents to evacuate their homes in the northeast Shiite slum of Sadr City and to move to temporary shelters on two soccer fields.
The military's call indicated the possibility of stepped-up military operations and came as Iraqi security forces raided a radio station run by backers of Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr. In the southern port city of Basra, militants launched rockets that struck a coalition base, killing two contractors and injuring four civilians and four coalition soldiers.
Sadr City has been a battleground since late March, enduring U.S. airstrikes, militia snipers and gunbattles between U.S. and Iraqi forces and the Mahdi Army, the militia loyal to Sadr.
Already some 8,500 people have been displaced from the sprawling slum of some 2.5 million people, according to the Iraqi Red Crescent. For weeks, food, water and medical shortages have affected about 150,000 people, aid agencies said.
Two soccer fields in east and northeast Baghdad are expected to receive some 16,000 evacuees from the southeast portion of the city where the fighting has been most intense.


The above is from Leila Fadel's "Iraqi military orders Sadr City residents to evacuate" (McClatchy Newspapers)and probably the big question with the continued assault on Sadr City is does Panhandle Media intend to cover it, intend to editorialize on it? Or did they tire themselves out in November 2004 with their pathetic Falluja 'coverage'? Such 'strong' coverage, that they couldn't even Dexy Filkins out for the story that took how long to clear with the military brass before appearing in the paper? Couldn't call him out, wouldn't call him out. Then they started citing him in their bad -- VERY, VERY BAD -- books. In love with the ultimate embed, the sob-sister, while trying to call out Judith Miller. Repeating, if Miller (and her crowd) got the US into the illegal war, it is the people like Dexter Filkins with his rah-rah 'reporting' that kept the illegal war going. But adding to that, so has a Panhandle Media that can't focus on the illegal war in their ADD drunken stupor.


Anna Badkhen is doing dispatches for Salon from Iraq. This is from her "Guns and water coolers in Iraq:"

Guns at the ready (well, mostly, anyway), soldiers of the Iraqi army Muthana Brigade knocked on the door of a two-story house. "Iraqi army!" they shouted, in Arabic. A few moments later, a woman in a full-length dress and a tan scarf on her head opened the door, and the soldiers, on a routine patrol of the southwestern Baghdad neighborhood of Saidiyah, poured in and began searching the house.
Two of the soldiers walked up the tiled stairs to the second floor. Another asked the woman if she kept any weapons in the house. Another asked if he could have a drink of water. One soldier walked into the empty living room where the TV was on, slumped down on the couch, and stared at the screen, his mouth slightly open.
"They're clueless," spits out U.S. Army 1st Sgt. James Braet, who trained Iraqi troops in Baghdad during his previous deployment, in 2005, and who interacts with them during joint patrols here now almost daily. "They are worse than the ones we trained. They don't hold their weapons right, they don't have the discipline."
For three years, the White House has been repeating like a mantra that the ability of the American troops to cut their presence in Iraq depends on the readiness of the Iraqi forces to handle the Sunni and Shiite militias. As the Iraqi army stands up, American commanders and officials like to say, American forces will be able to stand down.

She'll be added to the links on the left if she's not up already when this goes up. (I've done links in the entries and saved to draft, everything else is dictated around the links.) And, yes, we are thinning the links. That will continue. We'll probably end up with about 20 to 30 links. War resisters and feminists will remain. Others? Call them The Big Question Mark. (Mainstream links will remain. Good or bad, they're in Iraq and covering it to some degree -- putting them far, far ahead of Panhandle Media.)

What's Panhandle Media up to today? On the phone, I'm told husband of Katrina decries the candidates for not focusing on . . . Moscow. Let it rip, Steve, let it rip! While Pig Spawn Of Feminist grabs the chance to attack Hillary again. Pig Spawn is one of those males feminists wrongly praised (due to his mother) and the failure of the feminist movement to call him out over his now lengthy record of sexism allows him to continue to get away with it. (He should have been called out loudly for the little smear/hit job he did on Janeane Garofalo.) Katrina is making a big fool of herself with "Young Voters Hold The Key." The key was the money, Katrina, and you dispatched it nefariously but wisely. Someday the story of you and Facebook, the Roosevelt Institute and so much more will be told. It won't be pretty. But for a laugh, check out The Nation's current postings. They are hilarious. Sadly, they aren't intended to and that includes a trying to be 'hip' writer referring to Paris Hilton's constant presence. What world is she living in? Oh, that's right, an out of touch one. Poor thing.


Isaiah notes Salman Abed cartoons in a post at Inside Iraq (McClatchy Newspapers).

Here's Howard Wolfson's "HUBdate: Strongest at the Top of the Ticket" (HillaryClinton.com):

Strongest at the Top of the Ticket: Several members of Congress released a letter today to other Democrats touting their support for Hillary, saying she is the strongest candidate to have at the top of the ticket in the fall: "[W]e are convinced that Hillary Clinton has the vision, skills and commitment to make the changes our country needs. As Democrats who have run and won in competitive Congressional districts and battleground states, we believe that Hillary is best positioned to successfully lead the Democratic ticket in districts and states like ours around the country." Read the letter.

Automatic Delegate Watch: Hillary received the endorsement of automatic delegate and Congressman Chris Carney (D-PA). Read more.

Honoring the Votes of Millions of People: In a letter written to Sen. Obama yesterday, Hillary urges him to "honor the votes of the millions of people who went to the polls in Florida and Michigan...One of the foremost principles of our party is that citizens be allowed to vote and that those votes be counted." Read the letter.

Previewing Today: "Hillary Clinton catches up with former Make-A-Wish winner Oregonian, still a big fan, now works for the former first lady's campaign." Read more.

WV Endorsement Watch: "Former West Virginia Governor Hulett Smith announced his endorsement of Hillary ...citing the Senator’s commitment to fiscal responsibility, veterans, and the economy." Read more.

"Hillary Clinton Would be the Stronger Candidate" The Charleston Daily Mail endorsed Hillary yesterday, saying: "She is by far the more experienced of the Democratic candidates, and the one who has had to learn the most about West Virginia." Read more.

West Virginia is a Test: At a rally in Charleston, WV yesterday, Hillary said: "I'm running to be president of all 50 states...I think we ought to keep this going so the people of West Virginia's voices are heard...West Virginia is a test...It's a test for me and a test for Sen. Obama." Read more.

South Dakota "Appearance Thrills Supporters" One South Dakota supporter at Hillary's Sioux Falls rally yesterday said: "'It feels good to be this close to hopefully the next president." Read more.

Support for the Farm Bill: Hillary released the following statement today: "Unfortunately, the Bush Administration is signaling that the President will veto the [farm] bill. Saying no to the farm bill would be saying no to rural America. I call on President Bush to get out of the way. When Congress sends President Bush the farm bill, he needs to sign it so we can start taking care of rural America." Read more.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.






 
 

There's a Congress? (Don't tell Panhandle Media)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday postponed consideration of a bill that would continue funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as a bloc of conservative Democrats balked at the high cost of including several of Pelosi's favored domestic spending programs.
Pelosi (D-Calif.), who also faces Republican stalling tactics in protest of unusual parliamentary procedures, predicted that the complaints of "Blue Dog" Democrats would be addressed and that the bill eventually would receive unanimous support from Democrats.
[. . .]
The Blue Dogs have objected to the creation of a program that would guarantee veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan a year of in-state college tuition for each year served in the war zones. The Blue Dogs said the House had not found any additional money, through spending cuts or tax increases, to pay for the program, a violation of pay-as-you-go rules imposed by House Democrats in early 2007.


The above, noted by Brady, is from Paul Kane's "'Blue Dog' Democrats Join GOP in Opposing War Bill" (Washington Post). Wait, wait! What education proposal for veterans! You'd have to have a fully functioning media to know about that. And where were our 'lovelies' of 'independent' media? Did they cover the bill? No. They gas bagged and they gas bagged again. They lied a little and then they lied some more. They don't care about Iraq -- not the Iraqis there or the foreign fighters serving there. They need 'fun' topics. They've applied the same 'standards' that they do to those 'fun' topics. Remember when Katrina vanden Heuvel -- editor and publisher of The Nation, an alleged political journal -- had that proud week where she was blogging about both American Idol and her daughter's impending sweet sixteen birthday? Poor dear was so tired from the effort she had to take several days off -- as she announced in a blog post. Never forget Panhandle Media always think they are the story. Or maybe Amy Goodman can book some more friends to come on and discuss their entertainment film "FOR THE HOUR!" If you're late to the party, cake's almost gone, but I'm not insulting Kane or the Post. I'm commenting on the fact that Panhandle Media -- always begging for 'donations' (vagrants don't use "donate," why is Panhandle Media allowed to?) -- doesn't educate, doesn't enlighten and doesn't inform. I'm saying that media critics in Panhandle Media ought to have been calling out their own a long, long time ago. I'm saying that their gas baggery serves no one and doesn't serve the country or the world. They dumb down the country as much as any other outlet but, then, they need their audience to be dumb. Otherwise they might rise up and rebel during the next 'pledge drive.'


This is an excerpt from Julian E. Barnes' "U.S. Army's 'stop-loss' orders up dramatically over last year" (Los Angeles Times) -- read the excerpt or read the article in full, catch what's missing:

The number of soldiers forced to remain in the Army involuntarily under the military's controversial "stop-loss" program has risen sharply since the Pentagon extended combat tours last year, officials said Thursday.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates was briefed about the program by Army officials who said that thousands of new stop-loss orders were issued to keep soldiers from leaving the service after Gates ordered combat tours extended from 12 to 15 months last spring.
The Army has resorted to involuntary extensions of soldiers' enlistment terms to prevent them from leaving immediately before a combat tour or in the middle of a deployment.

Did you catch what was missing? If not, note this by Barnes: "That number steadily declined through May 2007, when it hit 8,540. But since then, the number of soldiers subjected to stop-loss orders began to increase again, reaching 12,235 in March 2008." Now did you catch it?

If you didn't and you don't work for a paper, give yourself a break. If you work for a paper or other news outlet, maybe someone needs to work at connecting dots.


The stop-loss number is on the rise and it was 12,235 in the last revealed month -- March. March? Drop back a month. As noted in the February 26th "Iraq snapshot," the Senate's Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on the Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2009 and the Future Years Defense Program. Anybody in the press remember that?

Anyone remember who offered side-by-side testimony? Pete Geren, Secretary of the Army, and Gen. George W. Casey, Chief of Staff Army. And what did they tell the committee? From that snapshot:

In regards to the issue of the months involved in a tour, the committee chair, Carl Levin, had to be rather specific repeatedly finally asking "shorthand, you have to drawdown to what level?" Levin also had to pin Casey and Geren down regarding stop-loss. Beaming, Geren declared that the Army will get the number of stop-lossed soldiers down to "a little less than 8,000 today" and insisted -- at length -- that the Army wanted to "move away from" using stop-loss. Stop-loss is the backdoor draft. It's when you're service contract is ending and you're told, "Forget what your contract says, you're staying." Pressed by Levin about the decrease in the number of soldiers stop-lossed that Geren was so optimistic about, the Secretary of the Army swallowed and stated, "It might get to 7,000." Wow. It might drop to 7,000. To hear him spin and spin before Levin pinned him down you would have thought the figure was going to be significantly below 5,000. Geren insisted, "We're growing this Army faster than we planned."

The numbers released today conflict with the testimony Geren gave -- with Casey at his side. They lie and then they lie some more. If they're ever in need of employment, they'd should check out Panhandle Media which they are clearly qualified for.

In the New York Times this morning, Alissa J. Rubin covers a topic we're not going to. We're not interested because it would require using statements that most likely were obtained through torture. If the torture at Guantanamo turned someone into a blood thirsty criminal, that's really not surprising. "If" is the key word to all the factors of the story including "if" the US military brass is telling the truth, "if" the statements released are factual, etc. Rubin does a very strong job navigating the "ifs" and avoids the sweeping generalities and judgements too many others began making yesterday. For that reason it gets a link and a mention. It will not be noted in the snapshot. I'm not interested in the release of selective bits (by the US government) which may or may not be correct. At some point (probably years from now), the file on the deceased's time in Guantanamo may be available and it may be analyzed in full. That's not happening and we're not noting that story here. Rubin took a lot of care with the writing of the story not to jump conclusions and to note the 'if' factor of it so it's gets noted. She should also get noted -- same article -- for not falling into the "al Qaeda leader arrest!" trap that too many of her peers did and have egg on their faces this morning. (The story imploded -- by the US military's own admission.)

Keelan notes Deirdre Murphy has a photo essay up at HillaryClinton.com of Hillary and Chelsea in West Virginia.

On Hillary, a few visitors e-mailing saw last night's "I Hate The War" as "nice race run, Hillary, thanks" and in a farewell manner. Nothing of the sort was intended on my part. This community is firmly and overwhelmingly for Hillary. Those not for her are for Nader and still wish her the best in the primary. As noted in today's gina & krista round-robin, should Hillary not get the Democratic nomination, 97% of the community votes for Ralph Nader ("barring Cynthia McKinney declaring that she will run a real race") with three percent undecided.

If there was a farewell tone, you may have been sensing my long kiss-off to Panhandle Media. But, on my part, Hillary was not being bid farewell. The race isn't over and as long she's in, the community's behind her. The community would never be behind Barack and Elaine (reading the round-robin) phoned to joke, "Blame me." She didn't know the liar would run for president. He swore, after getting elected to the Senate, he would serve his full term. Elaine wrote for the round-robin long before she started her own site. She wrote about peace. And Barack is not about peace. She wrote about the fundraiser (and where it took place -- how pissed off do Elaine or I have to get to out that and post photos? Probably just a little more pissed, keep it up Panhandle Media and we''ll take your Christ-child all the way down) at length and how we walked when Barack told us the US had to stay in Iraq. She wrote about the townhall after he was senator which she attended and how he was booed and hissed for showing his War Hawk bonifides. She wrote about friends of ours and what they thought and said about him. Barack's not new to the community. The community would never support him. Again, Elaine didn't think he'd run for president (nor did I, as I've noted) in 2008. He swore he wouldn't -- just another lie from Mr. Pretty Words. So to those Panhandle Media writers who continue to LIE in e-mails and try to get their pro-Barack pieces linked to here, peddle it somewhere else. We know the candidate, we know the people around him. We knows he is not now or ever about ending the illegal war and we know the garbage that would come out in a general election that would expose the Christ-child as just another imposter.

Again, the community wants Hillary as the Democratic nominee. We're not walking away from her. And the battle's not over. What you saw yesterday was Bully Boy assembling his cabinet. Remember that? In 2000? While the recounts were going on Bully Boy had his 'cabinet' come to Crawford. To give the appearance that it was all wrapped up, to make people join in calls for Al Gore to give up. Barack plays from the same handbook and that's only surprising if your first encounter with him was at the 2004 DNC convention or after.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.








 

Thursday, May 08, 2008

 

I Hate The War

Let's faceit, Obama's biggest problem is he has a problem connecting to stupid people and poor people. Sorry but "uneducated voter" is just a nice way of saying moron who cant think critically and has to work at a steelmill because he's too stupid to get a real job and blames all his problems on affirmative action and immigrants.

That's Josh N. posting his offensive, but telling comments, in a Los Angeles Times thread that should have been moderated for language but apparently the same paper that went wack-job online not all that long ago still has no controls. That would explain the swearing, the b-words and so much more. There is no decency at the LA Times online. It's just a sewer and that's not pleasing out of state ownership.

Anonymous White Man supports Bambi with this 'unifying' statement:

Yes, white Americans are supporting Hillary but if you dig deeper into this statistic you find that it is low educated whites that support Hillary while Obama is getting the support of younger and more educated whites - like myself and all my friends - many of whom voted republican in the last election. My take is that many of the lower educated whites have some racial biases or are unable to see through the BS of Hillary - or perhaps a little of both.

The 'delightful' zadamaja shares:

Obama cant get midwestern white votes he will never get them they are racist pr**k down there.

I edited "pr**k" because, unlike the Los Angeles Times, we do have standards here.

The 'sophisticate" jrldev expresses:

Now Hillary brings back memories of Adolf Hitler.


Martin tries stand up and fails with:

It's unfair to say that Hillary is trying somehow to cast herself as the White candidate when it's clear that her strategy has been to focus on the Uneducated Moron vote and she is glad to find any Uneducated Moron who will vote for her. So give her credit where it's due, she's not seeking only white votes she's seeking to find people dumb enough not to see through her continual lying.

Silly Sylvia refuses to partake of the B-word, she goes for something different:

She has become the C word, and I don't mean Clinton.

Of course the post they're commenting on was written by Hillary Hater (and non-journalist, please, he's been the laugh of the paper for years) Donny Frederick. Little Donny. Little, tiny, small Donny.

Let's do some truth telling. Not about the soap opera that is the Los Angeles Times -- please, we can't work blue, we have a work safe policy.

Let's tell the uncomfortable truths. First of all, the above comments from the thread are brought to you by Panhandle Media. Bob Somerby's wasted this election cycle.


He's wasted eight years recounting Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore and rarely seemed to grasp what fueled the Gore hatred. It was Panhandle Media, Bob. That's where it feeds, that's where it breeds. It's where Hillary hatred bubbled.

He's so keen to go after Maureen Dowd and he can't even do that right. He's finally stopped using the hula hoop "framing" and gone with the journalistic term "narrative." Does Maureen Dowd drop facts to shape a narrative?

He dealt with a column of her's recently and she was dropping facts left and right to fit her narrative. She made a glaring mistake (especially for the one-time Premiere writer) and it sailed right over Bobby.

Maureen wanted to play 'cute' and her narrative was "screwball." Hillary was in Philadelphia speaking. Maureen wanted to include that. So she grafted on The Philadelphia Story and LIED and said it was a "screwball comedy." It is not a screwball comedy but Bobby didn't catch that, did he?

Maureen Dowd damn well knows The Philadelphia Story isn't a screwball comedy. Hepburn and Grant did make a screwball comedy: Bringing Up Baby. They made one that some try to include but it's not (Holiday).

There it was, the howler, the proof that she was shaping her narratives (again, Dowd does know that the film is not a screwball comedy, it may have sailed over her editor's head but she knew she was 'fudging'). And Somerby couldn't even find it despite devoting considerable attention to her column. Dowd knows films. You may or may not think she knows anything else, but she does know movies.

The Philadelphia Story not only is too late for the screwball film genre, it was also a successful Broadway play (with Hepburn in the lead) and, no, it wasn't considered screwball on stage either. It wasn't "a satirical comedy" (that season, 1938-1939, it would have been Clare Booth Luce's Kiss the Boys Good-bye). It wasn't an English school comedy (that would be Bachelor Born). It wasn't the unintentional joke (that would be the right-wing One for the Money). It was just a comedy. No "romance" or "screwball" prior to "comedy." ("Delightful" sometimes preceeded "comedy.")

But Dowd had built her column around the narrative that the Democratic presidential primary was a screwball affair and Hillary was speaking in Philadelphia so she attempted to graft The Philadelpia Story onto her column. It stuck out. It was glaring. And Somerby missed the best proof that Dowd chose her narrative and then assembled her 'facts.'

He writes from his strengths (and plays and movies aren't among them) as most writers do; however, he's unable to see too far beyond his own world. Dowd knows the film is not a screwball comedy. She knew it when she wrote the column, she knows it now. She had a column to turn out and she had a narrative she thought was priceless, so facts be damned.

Now the hatred on the thread at the Los Angeles Times didn't just appear. It was fueled and fed by months and months of Panhandle Media. If you wanted to pick just one person fueling it in various outlets, go with Lie Face Melissa Harris-Lacewell. She's done it all. She's threatened a brown-out (as far back as March on PBS). She's attacked Tavis Smiley online and then referenced the attacks on Smiley a month later on PBS without including, "Oh, I attacked him to. In fact, I got the ball rolling with 'Who Died and Made Tavis King?'" Her friend Amy Goodman first brought her on as an 'objective' professor -- months after she had began actively campaigning for (not just supporting) Barack Obama. So naturally, she and Goody thought it was 'fun' to pull one over on the audience and not disclose that fact -- even after the no-endorsement-of-a-candidate Melissa mentioned (at length) being 'wowed' by a speech of Barack's she happened to catch. Then there was LIAR Betsy Reed using her as a 'respected' source last week. Who played the race card? Mellissa said Bill Clinton. But of course, Melissa had already repeatedly played the race card long before -- most infamously in the set-up she and Goody staged on Gloria Steinem.

Bob Somerby deals with things in the mainstream and never tells you where they bubbled up or how they got started. The Nation can take credit for every hateful statement on the LA Times thread. It's no different than what Robert Scheer was saying on The Nation Cruise. It's no different than the race card Scheer and Robert Parry have repeatedly played.

USA Today printed an interview and the days when journalists were able to capture speech are long gone. These days, they're 'trained' and dialogue isn't one of the things they are trained in. Anyone familiar with a film script or the text of a play will grasp what Hillary said.

". . . Senator Obama's support among working" pause "hard-working Americans" grasp that someone in the Obama campaign is going to play the race card (probably Melissa or Mister I'm So Vain I Had Surgery To Lose 50 Pounds Jesse Jackson Jr.) "white Americans . . ."

But the writers portray it with commas when it's double dashes. There was no insult intended and Little Donny knows that but hates Hillary so he turns it into a question. (He's not always so reluctant to peer into her soul -- "peer into her soul" is probably a Somerby trademark to give credit where it's due.)

The Roberts repeatedly sneered at a 'victim competition' while creating one.

Without the race card (played by surrogates and Obama himself), he wouldn't have been able to challenge Hillary. The new tactic is to attack her White women supporters and make them fear they'll be labeled racists.

It only goes to the fact that sexism is so widespread. Betsy Reed thinks it is perfectly understandable for an African-American to support bi-racial Barack but that feminists shouldn't support a strong woman. So does the ridiculous Mark Karlin. Neither are feminists and both write with an appendage, Betsy's is a strap-on.

What they would be smart to do is live in fear. Bob Somerby's failed to document what really has gone done in this campaign season but someone will and it won't be pretty.

Mark Karlin is the man above racist remarks today but think back to how Rev. Jesse Jackson was repeatedly smeared throughout the Terry Schiavo incident. (Jesse Jackson firmly believed in his position. He did not sell out, he was not bought off or any other lie BuzzFlash offered in their non-stop attacks on him.) He's the man who felt the need, when Hillary won New Hampshire, to have a 'talk' with the 'little ladies' via an editorial. As if any woman needed a lecture from the Pig.

As if we were never supposed to notice that it was all glad handing and back slaps at Buzz for man after man but a woman had to break news or write 100 times better than a man to get a link from Lotta Links. As if we were never supposed to notice how women who did get links got them for every other column as opposed to every column. As if we're supposed to forget that women were regularly excluded. As if we're supposed to forget his insulting remarks that killed his chances to be an early Air America Radio star when he went down in flames on The Majority Report and had the blog chewing him out and calling him names.

Bob Somerby says he's a truth teller but he really hasn't told the truth this election. He's told it sometimes and if that hurts his feelings, I really didn't need his friend sending me one threatening e-mail after another every time I criticized Hillary. (For the record, they didn't bother me but I'm not the only working the public account. They bothered everyone but Ava and myself who laughed at them until it became a problem for everyone else working the e-mails.)

To his friend's credit, he saw many things early on that I honestly didn't see. And maybe if Bob had explored those topics, he could have salvaged the Democratic primary. I've often considered writing his friend and saying, "You were right about ___ and you were right about ___ and you were right about ___." However, after those e-mails and the way they upset so many reading the public account, I didn't want the hassle if he popped back up. But I'll state it here. Though rude and vile, he was right about a great deal and I was dead wrong.

If he could have found a way to make his points without threatening me, it wouldn't have been any different because I wasn't ready to hear some of the points he was making. However, he was correct on a number of things. And I'll gladly note it here because I make a million mistakes and am never afraid to own up to them.

The biggest mistake I made was taking people at their word. This thing, as Elaine has pointed out many times, did play out in Panhandle Media before. I was a sucker then as well. But I truly did buy into the lie that they had ethics. They didn't.

An e-mail came in (they do at least once a day) wanting to say, "Hillary's not perfect." I've never claimed she was. No one at any community site has. We were more than willing to explore her imperfections. As we were any Democratic candidate. But that's when we were under the illusion that a standard applied to Hillary would be applied to all. That never happened.

Panhandle Media revealed itself to be without ethics. It did so by stacking the deck against Hillary in roundtables where you wouldn't find a Hillary supporter but you'd find a whole crew of Barack supporters. Of course, you wouldn't be informed that they were Barack supporters or that they had publicly endorsed him. You'd just be lied to. Over and over.

Amy Goodman will hop on her high horse again as sure as the sun will rise. But her act's a little tired and her tricks are exposed now. She is no different than Judith Miller. She criticized Miller for being one-sided, for only getting one side of the story, for offering propaganda as news. Goody did all the same things this campaign season. She has no ethics and that's why she can't work in Real Media. Why she will never be able to work in Real Media.

I loathe Michael Gordon but even he has earned the right to laugh at Goody.

Bringing on a man who pens pieces like "Hillary's hearing voices" and presenting him as just a journalist and objective to comment on Nevada? That's as one-sided as Miller using only White House spin.

Amy Goodman's a pathetic liar. That's all she'll ever be. She trashed her own reputation. The press doesn't create (the real press), they go with what they're fed. Panhandle Media fed the attacks on Hillary non-stop, they continue to do so. They discarded John Edwards long before Real Media did. They got on board with Bambi because they just know he's a radical (he's a craven politician) and they sold and sold him. Over and over.

Patricia J. Williams had a snit-fit on KPFA when a caller had the nerve to correct Williams and point out to listeners that, no, Barack did not vote against the Iraq War resolution.

I guess it beats inventing eleven-year-old boys in a Paris suburb who know all about John Kerry for her ludicrous 2004 column.

If the Democrats go with Barack Obama as the nominee they lose. They lose in November or they lose when impeachment efforts are launched (Rezko would be the chief target) by Republicans or when he has one term and becomes another Jimmy Carter that the Dems have to work hard to shake free from.

These are comments that Bob's friends could have (but didn't) make in his e-mail. He also wrongly confused this election cycle with 1968. It's 1972. We passed the 1968 mark long ago. Panhandle Media wasn't able to motivate people to get into the streets but they were able to poison the well. They consider Barack their crowning achievement. As Winona says in Reality Bites, "That's not real much."

You've got the "anti-war" Barack who was against withdrawal when running for the Senate, when elected to the Senate, when giving his first town hall after being in the Senate, all the way through last summer. He's the one who's backed by the people who put together the Army's counter-insurgency manual. The ones who want war with Africa (sh, don't say AfricCom too loudly, it will shock the groupies).

They lie. They lie and then they take a breath and lie some more.

Bob's friend was correct that they would destroy the Democratic Party (they being the radical types -- 'in Panhandle Media' added by me). He was wrong about the year and how they'd do it. To have one standard for Hillary and none for Barack.

They repeat their lies about how feminists would be for Barack as if feminism suddenly decided homophobia was okay and that Barack's use of it in South Carolina was no big deal. That's a story The Nation and Goody never told you about. They couldn't, they were too busy selling.
But isn't it cute how they trot out homophobia against McCain. (I detest McCain and will never vote for McCain. But calling the man who attended Mark Bingham's funeral a homophobe is stretching the truth unless they have proof and, of course, Panhandle Media never offers proof, they just repeat charges.)

If he was writing me today, I think Bob's friend would probably point out those things and many more. And, being Bob's friend, it's hard to imagine that he wouldn't also point them out to him. A few times in writing about Al Gore over the years, Bob would start to tell the story of The Nation but then back off. He should have told that story. The Nation is nothing but Hillary Hatred. And today they hide behind "Women run it!" Uh, no. Queen Bees ruin it. That's how you get 491 men published in 2007 and only 149 women. And, if we're being honest, call out the feminists who stayed silent while that happened.

It was very well known but they wouldn't tackle The Nation. It was a 'friend.' They loved that we tackled it community wide, called out the systamtic sexism. But they wouldn't. Maybe, like I do now, they can admit they were wrong?

Hillary's a Democrat and in an exchange with a Green (non-community member) today, it became obvious that ___ just doesn't get it. By a Green standard, neither Barack or Hillary will live up to the ideal. That's fine. That's a good reason for someone to be Green. I started a reply tonight but ended up saving up because I don't have the time and also because pointing out basics seemed like it would be read as "You should vote for Hillary!" No one should vote for Hillary that doesn't believe in her.

But no one should hold a Democrat to a radical standard while refusing to do the same with another Democrat.

Yesterday, I-Need-Attention Benjamin showed up at a Hillary function to scream her pointy head off. It's as tired as her organization (one Bob's friend rightly called out, to give him credit). You'll note that she never called out Barack. You may also wonder what political party she's supposed to be a part of. It's all so confusing. Privately, she's one thing. For public consumption, she's a Green and she belongs to a political action group whose stated purpose is to get Greens to vote for Democrats. Who is she really?

Someone bound and determined to lie. I guess it beats whining -- while Iraqis and US service members die in Iraq -- that someone threw a pie at your pouty face. Yes, that was the great tragedy of our times: a pie-ing.

I have no problem with a radical critique, as long as it's applied to all. I have no problem with people being whatever political persuasion they desire, as long as they don't publicly pretend to be what they're not.

Panhandle Media lies because if it told the truth not only would the grants dry up but so would it's ability to influence. It's pathetic. During Vietnam, they could get people in the streets. Today they settle for creating the apperance of a 'movement.' They're such liars.

I was a dupe, I was an idiot. It's happened before and it will happen many, many times again. In this instance, I really thought they wanted to end the illegal war. But you'll notice The Nation moved on by 2005 (we called them out at Third), CODESTINK headed off to Lebanon the first chance they got and never returned Iraq to the forefront, Amy Goodman stopped interviewing war resisters around the time The Nation awarded the $500,000 grant, go down the list.

Today, Marla sent Bob's latest column. He's right and he's wrong. He's arguing that there's no money to be made, no place to go, for mainstream left and 'left' pundits that tell the truth so they play the game. Actually, there is money to be made. But you have to play the game, the one that landed Rachel Maddow her MSNBC contract (which Bob has called out though he's missed how in keeping that game has been with Maddow from the start). He's also ridiculously offering a defense (reposting it) of Arianna. Arianna as truth teller?

Maybe he was trying to make us all laugh?

Better laughs can be found in Tracy Ullman's parody of Arianna.

The original plan was to provide links to everything above but why bother? Panhandle Media's gotten away with it so far. Because they've not been challenged. Goody has to deal with NPR and that's why she's suddenly rushing to now say, "We contacted the Clinton campaign" and to put on Hillary supporters for her dissection along with Obama supporters. NPR doesn't look kindly on the stunts she pulled and, were she an NPR employee, she would have been fired. She's violated nearly every rule in their guidelines for broadcasters.

She set out to poison the well and she has done that. She doesn't care about the Iraq War as anything except a way to maybe get some mainstream attention. She loves to talk about things on MSNBC that she never covers on her show -- and loves to do those mass e-mailings to her groupies telling them to write MSNBC so she'll be invited back on. Makes you wonder about the pressure put on Sally Jesse which, in her first book, she plays off as spontaneous but probably was orchestrated by her.

Hers is the show that has brought you such 'logic' as Barack doesn't have to take big money from corporate donors but he does because he fears they'd come after him if he didn't. That's the sort of 'logic' never offered for Hillary. But she's the one who couldn't stop gushing -- during WBAI's pledge drive -- about Samantha Power being the next Secretary of State.

She doesn't like the Clintons and it goes to the fact that she almost got put into real journalism. The Pacifica fight. All the lies of Save Pacifica. Reality is Pacifica's done such an unbalanced job in the last two years that few will rush to save it now. And it will be under attack in the near future.

They've exposed themselves in Panhandle Media and they're just waiting for the vice squad to make an arrest. When it happens, it won't be pretty but consider the cast.

They couldn't end the war (and can't) because that's not their goal. They make that very clear with each passing day. They're settling old scores. And, just as we stopped trying to play it fair when they did, we may settle some old scores as well. None of the bodies are buried that deeply and, for a crowd that loves to regularly trot out what the New York Times did decades ago, they're all strangely silent on their own pasts. They're silent for a reason.

They've created an environement that allows the commentators on the Los Angeles Times thread to fill informed. All they've done is fuel hatred in the country. That's really all they're capable of. Ending the illegal war was never the goal. Poising the well was and they've certainly 'accomplished' that. Betsy Reed attacks 'mainstream feminists' and repeats baseless charges about racism. It's not about a political dialogue or political change, it's about enraging an electorate. It's not about logic, it's about distortions.

If you haven't noticed, we've gotten very selective about what we highlight and what we don't. Some aren't 'banned' but we're not highlighting their nonsense. Nonsense like leaving out details while 'reporting' on a crime.

One thing Bob Somerby has always been right about is that the charge of racism is used to quickly in this society and that it's very damaging. If you ever doubt it, read the thread at the Los Angeles Times -- but not at work where you may get written up. Barack is bi-racial and there were serious questions about his committment to helping African-Americans (resulting from his own speeches as well as his avoidance of the African-American community). Best way to shore up that was to scream racism over and over. The campaign did that.

Now radical Betsy is leading the charge on White women. How dare White women support Hillary. The next line of 'logic' if Barack gets the nomination is to lie to women and tell them that if they don't fall in line behind Barack, Roe v. Wade will be no more.

That threat's been used once too often. Barack has not supported abortion rights. He voted present and despite the LIAR trying to provide cover for him, it was not the local chapter of Planned Parenthood's recommendation or request. The LIAR was not a part of Planned Parenthood while he was voting "present." Barack is not a friend for abortion rights.

But, honestly, I think we're all tired of hearing that threat. They didn't block Alito or Roberts (they being the Senate). They do what they want and then cry, "Keep voting for our nominee or you'll lose abortion rights!" Abortions are not going away -- legal or not. And you can only threaten women so long before they get tired of it. They better think up a new strategy because that one's not going to work.

Donna Brazile told the base to get lost today. It's going to be really hard to recover from that for Barack should he be the nominee. It's going to be really hard to recover from the non-stop attacks quoted above which take place every day. Panhandle Media's latest attacks on women only further marginalize Panhandle Media. When it comes time for them to trot out the abortion card, women are going to remember that they trot it out every election cycle, that they failed to call out sexism, that they contributed to the sexism and they're really not going to give a damn that Katha Pollitt's writing her every-four-year column again on how the Supreme Court hangs in the balance. I actually think The Nation over-reached in 2004 when they dubbed it the torture election in one overheated cover story. They've amped it up and amped it up. They're so far from reality at this point that they really can't rally anyone come November. (They is Panhandle Media.) They should all be ashamed of themselves. Their hatred of the Clintons is no excuse for their non-stop lies that the Clintons have played the race card. Or for the attacks on Chelsea. Or for repeating right-wing spin long since disproven at The Nation's too-many blogs. None of which is on Iraq, but no one's supposed to notice. They can't cover what Congress is doing but watch them suddenly pretend to be interested in Iraq when the spending bill comes up.

We covered two hearings this week in the snapshots and that's probably all we'll do. But that's two more than The Nation did, isn't it? They'll want you to turn out for the spending, to be outraged. But a really effective media would be informing you of what Congress was doing before they gear up to vote. The Nation lost interest in covering what Congress did around the time Victor Navasky took over. That's when The Nation became The International. Today they have how many blogs covering elections? And not a one following the hearings. Many of which are broadcast on CSpan. They wouldn't even have to go to DC. But it would be work and it's so much easier to churn out their non-stop crap on the Clintons. Recycle from Moon's Washington Times. Or to play 'informed' by telling you what the papers are reporting. Katrina loves to do that. She's a reviewer wishing she were a reporter.

By the time the election cycle is over -- regardless of whom the nominees are as well as the eventual winner -- it's going to be obvious that Panhandle Media does not do journalism anymore than they try to end the illegal war. Veterans suicides were addressed this week. Who bothered to cover it? When 'independent' media can't even claim they did, there's your failure. There's your fraud.

But they 'care' about ending the illegal war.

It's over, I'm done writing songs about love
There's a war going on
So I'm holding my gun with a strap and a glove
And I'm writing a song about war
And it goesNa na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Oh oh oh oh
-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!)

Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4065. Tonight? 4073. Just Foreign Policy lists 1,206,950 up from 1,205,025 as the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the Iraq War.

And realizing that some Late to the Party will show up tomorrow with e-mails demaning proof, you can refer to the following for documentation (I'm just doing Third links because I can easily copy and paste those -- and the links in it without any extra work):

Radio: Panhandle Media
Dear Betsy Reed
TV: Democracy Sometimes?
TV: Charlie Rose by any other name would still be as bad
"Stop the madness!" cry the Goodmans, "You first," reply Ava and C.I.

And to be clear, they're not damaging feminism. Their actions are only fueling the next wave of feminism. (Real feminism, not the push-up bra set propping up Betsy Reed for letting them blog this year.) They're backlash practioners and the response to that nonsense is always a stronger feminist movement.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.





 
 

Iraq snapshot

Thursday, May 8, 2008.  Chaos and violence continue, a city passes on a resolution, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee battles the VA, and more.
 
Starting with war resistance.  The Olympian reports, "A resolution that would have made Olympia a sanctuary for undocumented immigrants and war resisters died in a city council meeting.  No one moved to consider it at Tuesday's meeting."  Matt Batcheldor (The Olympian) reported last week  that "several councile members say they won't consider the resolution, one day after the May Day rally became violent on the streets of Olympia, when some participants broke windows on two downtown banks and six people were arrested."  Batcheldor quoted Joshua Simpson stating, "I'm not accountable for, like, what a few individuals decide to do."  Simpson was among those working to see the council pass the resolution.  It's now on hold.  Possibly waiting, possibly tabled.  Did the May Day breaking of "windows on two downtown banks" kill the resolution?  Probably not.  It's an easy out.  Another one, the one people would be clucking right now if there had been no violence on May Day, is, "It was pushed too soon!  People weren't ready!"  A council that refuses to consider a motion because some people in the city of Olympia (six were arrested) broke some windows is looking for any reason to avoid addressing it.  Good for Simpson, File Bohmer, Katie Olejnik and all the others working on the issue and getting it before the council to begin with.  (I personally support both points of the proposal but we're focusing on war resistance.)  They got the issue in front of the city, whatever else happens, they did that.  And they did so at a time when others ignore the issue.  Some, like The Nation magazine, have ignored it for years while others, like Amy Goodman, clamped down on the topic right before Ivan Brobeck went public (November 2006).  Organizations?  The ones not worth noting all seem to have lost interest with Ehren Watada.   You can read the faux activists put on their mock rage about whatever Congress does next, but the reality is that they always have something to do instead of talking about, writing about or taking action for war resisters.  Always.  So congratulations to the citizens of Olympia who worked to get the resolution this far.  Hopefully, it will go further in the coming weeks.  Regardless, they took the issue and turned it into news.
 
In Canada, war resisters are hoping the Parliament will take action on a motion waiting to be debated.   Currently, you can utilize the following e-mails to show your support: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration.  In addition Jack Layton, NDP leader, has a contact form and they would like to hear from people as well. A few more addresses can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.         

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.

Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
 
Yesterday in the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs they examined benefits.  During the hearing US Senator Patty Murray
 
I think there's a lot of important bills in front of us today but before I talk about them, I do want to bring up the topic of great concern to everybody here and that is the tragic incidents of veterans' suicides and the VA's attempts to conceal the true numbers from Congress.  Mr. Chairman, we all know that there are sincere health care professionals across the VA who are doing their very best to find and help veterans who might be considering suicide.  Those health care professionals face tremendous challenges -- enough challenges with winning the trust of veterans today who aren't convinced that the VA is in their corner.  But their jobs are really made a lot more difficult when they are fighting the perception that the VA is more concerned with p.r. than in getting the veterans help with the services that they need. Now yesterday the VA had the chance to tell the public about what happened.  Secretary Peake and Dr. Katz testified in front of the House Veterans Affairs Committee about the cover up and based on their testimony yesterday, I have to say, Mr. Chairman, I am greatly concerned  about the transperancy and truthfulness of the Department.  We all know Congress has to have accurate information if we are going to provide the VA with the resources it needs and make informed policy decisions.  And we've got to get this right so that the veterans benefits programs we're talking about improving today have a maximum impact.  So Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate my concern about that to you.  Now we do have a number of bills before us, I look foward to the hearing them.  I do want to say that I want to commend Senator Webb for his tremendous work on the GI Bill.  I'm very proud now to be a co-sponsor of that bill.  I know that the Department of Defense and VA are currently opposing it but I think that he has really worked to make this bill work for today's world and I really want to commend him for the tremendous amount of work and this great presentation that he put in front of us.  I think recognizing the needs of today's forces is absolutely critical for retention and I believe his bill does that. 
 
Murray wasn't just noting a hearing the day before (see here and here for that hearing), she was also noting the very real frustration with the Veterans Affairs Department on the part of the Congress which includes begging off and blowing off the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.  This was a consensus that went beyond party lines.  Republican Richard Burr would vocalize the frustration for the committee in the hearing. 
 
At the opening of the hearing, Senator and committee chair Daniel Akaka noted the various bills under discussion:           
 
First, S. 2617, the "Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2008" would increase the rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans, among other benefits, effective December 1st of this year.  
 
Many of the more than three million recipients of these benefits depend upon the tax-free payments not only to provide for their own basic needs, but for the needs of their families as well.  Without an annual COLA increase, these veterans and their families would see the value of their hard-earned benefits slowly diminish.  We, as a Congress, would also be in dereliction of our duty to ensure that those who sacrificed so much for this country receive the benefits and services to which they are entitled.           
 
S.2309, the proposed "Compensation for Combat Veterans Act," would ease the evidentiary requirements facing veterans who file claims for disabilities incurred while serving in a combat zone.  During oversight visits to regional offices, Committee staff has identified a number of cases where service medical records of veterans serving in combat areas are missing.   Discussions with physicians who have served in those areas confirm that records are not always made or maintained.  As a result, combat veterans have had claims denied or unduly delayed.  This bill would result in faster and more accurate decisions.          
 
The "Veterans' Rating Schedule Review Act", S. 2737, addresses the authority of Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.  This legislation would give veterans a legal recourse to challenge portions of the rating schedule that fail to conform to the law.    
 
S. 2825, the "Veterans' Compensation Equity Act" would provide a minimum disability rating for veterans receiving medical treatment for a service-connected disability.  In the course of its oversight work, Committee staff has found a great deal of inconsistency in the ratings assigned to veterans with minor, but chronic conditions.  This bill would ensure that any veteran requiring continuous medication or the ongoing use of an adaptive device, such as a hearing aid, would receive at least a 10 percent rating for that disability, entitling them to a minimum level of compensation.       
 
In the area of readjustment benefits, I have introduced two bills that would help servicemembers and veterans return to their civilian lives.  S. 2471, the "USERRA Enforcement Improvement Act of 2007", which I co-authored with Senator Kennedy, would strengthen the employment and reemployment rights of returning servicemembers by imposing compliance deadlines on federal agencies.  It would also implement measures to reduce inefficiencies and improve the information collected by the government on USERRA compliance.           
 
S. 2864, the "Training and Rehabilitation for Disabled Veterans Enhancement Act of 2008", would improve VA's Independent Living program, which serves veterans whose disabilities render them unable to work.  The bill would eliminate the annual cap on the number of enrollees in the program and shift the program from a discretionary pilot initiative to a mandatory program.  It would also make improvement in quality of life -- an explicit objective of training and rehabilitation services of the Independent Living program.          
 
Finally, I have introduced two complimentary bills that would improve the opportunities available to veterans for home ownership.  The first bill, S. 2768, would temporarily increase the maximum loan amount for certain VA-guaranteed home loans.  The second bill, S. 2961, would raise the maximum guaranty limit on refinance loans and decrease the equity requirement for those who want to refinance to a VA-backed loan.             
 
As is the case every Session, the biggest hurdle for implementation of these bills into law is cost.  I am working to find appropriate offsets within the Committee's jurisdiction.  
 
Finally, I am pleased to see S. 22 back on the agenda this morning.  I have worked hard with Senator Webb to develop this proposal, and I believe that the measure as we have it before us this morning is a good one.  I am certain that it would not only be a vastly improved readjustment benefit for our newest generation of veterans but it also gives the armed forces a valuable recruitment and retention tool.  As one of the 8 million veterans who attended school on the original GI Bill after World War II, I am committed to seeing that this legislation go forward.
 
Those were the items up for discussion. The VA wasn't prepared to discuss many of them.
 
 
Senator Richard Burr:  Thank you to the VA for being here and if I could take the opportunity to reiterate what the Chairman said: I guess our choice, when testimony doesn't come on time, is just not to have people testify. That may be what the Veterans Administration is attempting to do -- is not come up here and have to do it.  Maybe sort of egging us on to just ignore you.  I've committed to the Chairman before and I will stay committed.  Something's going to change.  The testimony has to come.  And I realize -- and have been lobbyied not to say this -- because there was additions to the hearing today from the standpoint of legislation it we don't get delays.  We don't get the opportunity to say I'm just not going to be ready tomorrow so we'll just put if off or we'll delay when it happens nor does any agency of the federal government.  I'm sorry that the three of you have to sit there and take this because I know with every ounce of knowledge that I have that it's not your fault.  And all I can do is ask you to be an effective communicator back through the chain to say this can't happen anymore.  It must stop. 
 
A big debate during the hearing was between Senators Jim Webb and Lindsey Graham.  Graham wanted "tranferability" for veterans meaning that a veteran could transfer benefits to his or her spouse or family member.  Graham appeared to be attempting to derail Webb's bill with his comments and Webb noted it was a false issue on the part of the Defense Department.   They have the power, under the law, to implement a pilot program to explore that and have for many years.  Only the Army, in 2006, attempted to do so.  Out of 17,000 service members, only 300 elected to transfer the benefits.  Webb did not see this as a pressing issue and stressed that if the DoD did or does, they already have the power to implement pilot programs.  He spoke of all the years his father spent in night school -- graduating college when Jim Webb was a high school senior -- and how transferability might have been a concern to him were it available but something to keep in mind is that the government needs to be very careful when you take a benefit away.  Webb noted that no one in the government is skilled to look into family dynamics.  Which might be (or might not be), him making the point that a service member might, for instance, transfer their education benefits to a spouse and marriages can break up.  What happens then?  And (this is me) carrying this even further, if education benefits could be transferred, what's to prevent them from being dubbed community property in any divorce settlement? 
 
The VA is for it and may be for it simply because if the benefit is transferred to a spouse or child then the service member loses it.  This could effect retention because some might transfer their benefit in good faith and full knowledge only to have circumstances change five to ten years later, want to leave the US military but, having given away their education benefits, decide that they would stay put.   There's really no reason to be bringing up the issue (as Graham and the VA were) other than to stall Webb's bill (or kill it).  Webb's bill is not dependent upon that issue being resolved and does not mention that issue. 
 
 
For a government agency that's opposed to a